2021-08-04 46 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 4 August 2021

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

 

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Monday 18 October 2021, at 10.30 am, as the time for the next meeting of the Federation Chamber, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1 Report 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I present report No. 35 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business for Monday 9 August 2021. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 3 August 2021. 2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 3 August 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 9 August 2021, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR C. KELLY: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, and for related purposes. (Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2021) (Notice given 24 June 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 2 MR CHRISTENSEN: To present a Bill for an Act to protect children born alive (including as a result of terminations), and for related purposes. (Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021) (Notice given 15 June 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 3 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2021) (Notice given 15 June 2021.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 4 MR YOUNG: To move—That this House: (1) notes that the Government's Job-ready Graduates Package is getting more Australians into the degrees that will get them the skills and qualifications to get a job; (2) further notes that the latest data shows there are more Australians studying at university than ever before; (3) recognises that the largest increases in new enrolments are for courses made cheaper by the Job ready Graduates Package; and (4) notes that the Government is providing a record $20 billion investment in the higher education sector in 2021. (Notice given 23 June 2021.) Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Young—5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 5 MR T. R. WILSON: To move—That this House: (1) notes that the 2021-22 budget continues to support significant reforms in Australia's onshore waste and recycling industries, including: (a) $67 million to support new food and garden organic waste initiatives that assist Australian households to better understand what can be recycled, divert the amount of waste going to landfill and produce top quality compost; (b) an additional $5.9 million to expand the existing National Product Stewardship Investment Fund to invest in innovative industry-led solutions to improve the way products are designed, reused, repaired and recycled; and (c) $5 million to help small businesses to adopt the Australasian Recycling Label to help make recycling easier and to boost recycling rates; (2) further notes that the $190 million Recycling Modernisation Fund is leveraging more than $600 million of investment in state-of-the-art recycling infrastructure to sort, process and remanufacture waste materials onshore; and (3) congratulates the Government for its leadership in driving a once in a generation $1 billion transformation of our waste and recycling industries that will reduce Australia's waste footprint by 10 million tonnes, protect our environment and create more than 10,000 jobs over the next decade. (Notice given 23 June 2021.) Time allotted —30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr T. R. Wilson —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 6 MR BANDT: To move—That this House: (1) notes the recent statement by the International Energy Agency that new coal, oil and gas projects must cease by 2021 to be able to reach net-zero by 2050; and (2) calls on all Members of Parliament to act urgently on the International Energy Agency's warning. (Notice given 3 August 2021.) Time allotted —20 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Bandt —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 7 MS SWANSON: To move—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) many Australian workers are being employed by labour hire companies on low wages and without access to entitlements such as annual leave, sick leave and parental leave; (b) these workers are often working alongside other workers doing the same job, with the same roster who are employed on higher wages and with access to leave entitlements; (c) the use of labour hire to avoid paying fair wages and conditions by Australian companies is growing, particularly in Australia's mining industry; (d) the Federal Court of Australia in the Workpac v Rossato case determined that a worker who was defined as a casual employee by labour hire company Workpac was in fact a full time employee working a full time roster and therefore entitled to leave entitlements; and (e) Workpac have appealed this decision in the High Court of Australia and the Government has intervened in the case to support the submission of Workpac that Mr Rossato is a casual employee and should not receive leave entitlements; (2) recognises that the increasing use of labour hire companies by employers to avoid paying fair wages and conditions is reducing the incomes of workers and families, and is having a detrimental impact on their livelihoods, particularly in regional Australia; and (3) calls on the Government to support Labor's policy and legislation in the Parliament that will ensure workers who do the same job receive the same pay. (Notice given 3 August 2021.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits — Ms Swanson —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 4 August 2021 BILLS 3 BILLS Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021 3

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:32 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill will give Australia's export credit agency, Export Finance Australia, a new equity investment power and the ability to provide standalone overseas infrastructure guarantees. These initiatives will support infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific and export-linked projects in Australia, as well as provide enhanced support for the financing activities of the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. The amendments will bolster Export Finance Australia's ability to support Australia's national interests and priorities. They will complement its existing suite of financing powers comprised of loans, guarantees, bonds and insurance. This bill enables Export Finance Australia to support the development of export-linked sectors of economic significance in Australia when other financing tools, both public and private, are either unavailable or inadequate in the circumstances. This could include the development of critical minerals projects with an export focus. The ability to consider equity investments in critical minerals projects would better position Export Finance Australia to offer financially appropriate support. This will help position the government to better support the development of this crucial sector. This bill gives Export Finance Australia more flexibility to support important infrastructure investments, as well, in the Indo-Pacific. As outlined in the government's 2017 Foreign policy white paper, Australia is committed to working with regional partners to build an Indo-Pacific that is safe, secure, and prosperous. This bill enhances Export Finance Australia's ability to finance regional infrastructure. In 2019, the government provided Export Finance Australia with the power to support overseas infrastructure projects in our region that benefit Australia or Australians. In broadening its financing powers to include equity, Export Finance Australia will be able to make investments in a greater range of infrastructure projects, and at an earlier stage of development. Importantly, the equity power will also be made available to the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, further supporting Australia's Pacific Step-up. Export Finance Australia will only make equity investments in certain circumstances. When projects have strong commercial prospects, they should be funded commercially. Equity investments will be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Following the passage of this bill, the government will instruct Export Finance Australia to ensure equity investments are only considered for significant transactions that support Australia's national interests. This will ensure Export Finance Australia is not crowding out private market finance but instead filling a gap in the market. Debt solutions like loans, guarantees and bonds will continue to be the mainstay of Export Finance Australia's support to Australian exporters and for infrastructure development in the region. This bill aligns Export Finance Australia with its international and domestic peers. The ability to make equity investments will bring Export Finance Australia's capabilities in line with those of export credit agencies in other major economies, including the United States, China, Japan, Canada and South Korea. These countries are already making equity investments in our region to support their development and commercial objectives. In addition, other Australian government financing agencies, like the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and Clean Energy Finance Corporation, are already able, in their instances, to make equity investments. This bill enables Export Finance Australia to provide standalone guarantees. The ability to provide a guarantee to an overseas infrastructure project without also needing to provide a loan to that project will better support the lending activities of both Export Finance Australia and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific. It will allow greater efficiency and flexibility to support overseas infrastructure development, particularly in the Pacific, where transactions in local currencies delivered by local lenders—and guaranteed by Export Finance Australia—may be most appropriate. Importantly, the bill maintains Export Finance Australia's risk controls and commercially appropriate risk appetite. Export Finance Australia will continue to conduct rigorous due diligence for equity investments in the same manner as other transactions. This includes robust environmental and social risk assessments. Export Finance Australia has strong governance arrangements and financial management capabilities, as well as a proven track record of successfully implementing new mandates and functions. Export Finance Australia will establish new mechanisms and internal guidelines to ensure its new equity investment power is effectively implemented. Export Finance Australia has an excellent track record of providing finance and sound commercial judgement, as evidenced by its historical write-off rate on its commercial account of less than one per cent. In 2019-20 Export Finance Australia supported 136 Australian businesses with $1.1 billion in support, enabling $2.45 billion of export contracts which supported just under 10,000 jobs in Australia. Conclusion This bill will boost Export Finance Australia's important role in supporting Australia's economic growth and facilitating stronger links between Australian businesses and the Indo-Pacific region. Debate adjourned. Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021 4

Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:39 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021 removes the lower age eligibility restriction from the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to allow eligible children under 18 years of age, and newly including eligible children under two years of age, to access the Child Dental Benefits Schedule (CDBS). Removing the lower age eligibility restriction of two years is based on the recommendations of the Report on Fourth Review of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 (the review) and follows consultation with stakeholders. The review found that it was important to establish a positive initial dental experience and instil important oral hygiene practices at an early age to curb the negative stigma around dental practitioners and oral hygiene, which is reinforced if the initial dental experience requires serious treatment. If parents promote and practice good oral health hygiene with their children from a young age this will help prevent more serious dental decay as they grow older. This change will increase access to prevention and treatment services for younger children. This amendment will expand the number of children who are eligible for the CDBS by around 300,000 per year and cost $5.4 million over four years. The CDBS has been in operation since 2014 and over that time has provided over $2.3 billion in benefits and delivered more than 38 million services to over three million Australian children. The CDBS plays an important role in promoting the oral health of Australian children by providing access to basic dental services up to a cap of $1,013 in benefits over two calendar years. The CDBS helps children build good oral health and habits through to adulthood. The CDBS is available in both the private and public sectors to allow the broadest range of service provision, choice and access to services in a range of settings and locations. The government will continue to work with private and public providers to improve the delivery of dental services to Australia's children. Debate adjourned. TARIFF PROPOSALS 5 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2021 5 09:42 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move, in the terms printed, which are now being circulated to members: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2021. Today I table Customs Tariff Proposal No. 4 2021. This proposal extends to 30 June 2022 the free rate of customs duty applicable to certain imported medical and hygiene goods that are capable of use in combatting coronavirus that causes COVID-19. The Australian government implemented this customs duty concession in early 2020. The measure provided the Australian community with access to medical and hygiene goods that would be essential for limiting the spread of COVID-19 over the following months. The extension of the measure maintains simplified import processes for importers of prescribed medical and hygiene goods, and ensures concessional treatment is accessible to all importers of these goods. It will continue to provide Australians with access to critical goods, such as face masks, and assist in the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposal that I've tabled inserts concessional item 57(c) into schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, providing a free rate of customs duty for eligible medical and hygiene goods from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. The scope of goods eligible for a free rate of customs duty on import is unchanged. Goods such as face masks, gloves, gowns, soaps, face shields and other protective eyewear, certain disinfectant preparations and certain diagnostic materials will continue to be eligible for concessional treatment. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 5 COMMITTEES Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee 5 Report 5 09:44 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Final report: inquiry into homelessness in Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr WALLACE 265967 by leave—On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I rise today to present the committee's final report of the inquiry into homelessness in Australia. This week is national Homelessness Week, which is a reminder that homelessness is all too common in Australia. Each night, tens of thousands of Australians are without a place to call home. On the night of the last census, in 2016, the number of homeless people in Australia was over 116,000. Many thousands more are at risk of becoming homeless. This could be because of financial insecurity, relationship or family breakdown, or family, domestic and sexual violence. Homelessness can have profound and long-term impacts on a person's safety and security, their physical and mental health, their connection to the community and their ability to thrive in school or the workplace. This inquiry commenced in February last year on a referral from Minister Ruston and was an opportunity for the committee to examine Australian governments' collective response to the problem of homelessness, to understand what is and what is not working and to hear about best practice policies and programs both in Australia and overseas. It's appropriate that this morning the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing is at the table, because in my experience in 53 years of walking this earth I've not seen a housing minister who has been more engaged in dealing with this issue, coming up with programs like HomeBuilder, the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the First Home Super Saver Scheme and, of course, the increases to JobSeeker and youth allowance. All of these things the federal government are stepping up—things like Commonwealth rent assistance—all the while with the acknowledgement that housing and homelessness remain the principal responsibility of the states and territories. Over the course of this inquiry, the committee received over 200 submissions and held public hearings over five days in July and August 2020. The committee presented an interim report in October, which examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on homelessness. Unfortunately, this inquiry was somewhat disjointed because of the impacts of COVID and the committee's need to address the family, domestic and sexual violence issue, which was very significant at the time. We needed to put that one ahead of getting this one out. In this final report, the committee makes 35 recommendations which, taken together, propose a renewed approach to preventing and addressing homelessness in Australia. The committee's report concludes with a significant and overarching recommendation for the establishment of a 10-year national strategy on homelessness. While state and territory governments are primarily responsible for housing and homelessness, a clear and consistent message in evidence given to the committee was that there is a need for a national approach. The committee considers that a national strategy would lead to more cohesive policies, better coordination and more accountability, particularly in relation to the use of Australian government funding by states and territories. A national strategy could also recognise and harness the important roles of local governments, community organisations and the private sector in preventing and addressing homelessness. Most importantly, a national strategy would ensure that all Australian governments have a shared focus on achieving better outcomes for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. In this regard, the committee identified three main areas for reform. First, prevention and early intervention represent the most cost-effective and cost-efficient measures to address homelessness. While acknowledging the work done to date through integrated place based approaches, the committee calls for further work to support, strengthen and integrate prevention and early intervention programs. Second, the principle of housing first should guide all government's responses to homelessness. Put simply, this means that housing should be made available to people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness as an immediate priority and a base from which their other needs can be addressed. The committee particularly recognises the importance of providing flexible, wraparound services as part of the housing first strategy to prevent homelessness and associated problems from becoming entrenched. Third, new approaches are needed to address the shortfall in social and affordable housing. While once again noting that states and territories are responsible for the provision of social housing, the committee has identified ways in which the Australian government can work with state, territory and local governments as well as community housing providers, who fulfil such an important role in this space, and other private sector investors to increase the availability of social and affordable housing for those who need it most. The report includes a range of other observations and recommendations. The committee recognises that certain groups are at greater risk of homelessness than others and that the experience of homelessness can differ from the cities and suburbs to the regional and remote parts of Australia. As such, the committee recommends the design of a new needs based funding model for future funding agreements as well as measures to assist groups such as victims-survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence and Indigenous Australians. Importantly, the report also makes recommendations to improve data collection and reporting to better inform all Australian governments' responses to homelessness. This includes a review of how homelessness is defined and how the homeless population is counted in the census. Whilst the committee has not agreed on all of the recommendations, there are many aspects—in fact, all but one, of the recommendations are bipartisan. That recommendation calls on the Australian government to work with state and territory governments towards implementing consistent national legislation, imposing a three-strikes policy for the eviction of social and affordable housing tenants who repeatedly breach their tenancy obligations. It is true that such a policy shift must be approved by the states and territories. However, a housing first principle does not mean housing no matter what. The vast majority of public and affordable housing tenants are good tenants. Of that, there is no question. But for the very small minority who repeatedly breach obligations, there must be consequences for those breaches. Without such consequences, that very small minority will not only continue to flout their obligations, but they sometimes make the lives of their neighbours and neighbourhood a misery. There must always be consequences for our actions. Public and affordable housing tenants should be no different. The committee recognises that there is no quick fix to end homelessness in Australia. Nevertheless, the recommendations in this report highlight a range of ways in which Australian governments can work together to reduce the number of people experiencing or at risk of homelessness in this country. The committee expresses its appreciation to the many individuals and organisations who shared their views with the committee and informed the committee's inquiry. The committee especially thanks those who shared their lived experience of homelessness with the committee. I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of my fellow committee members on both sides of the aisle. Deputy Chair, whilst we haven't agreed on all of the recommendations, there continues a good spirit of willingness to work together for the benefit of our country, and, for that, I thank all members of the committee. I'd also like to thank members of the secretariat, Shennia Spillane, Ashley Stephens, Alasdair Nicholson, Kathleen Blunden, Syann Williams and Stephen Sherlock, and my own staff, particularly Alaina Megson and Johanna Cleary. I commend the report to the House. 09:54 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle by leave—As deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, I welcome and appreciate this opportunity to speak to the committee's report following our inquiry into homelessness in Australia. At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the work of the chair, the member for Fisher; the secretariat; and, indeed, my parliamentary colleagues on the committee, thanking them for their contributions to this very timely report. It is apt that we should table this report during National Homelessness Week on one to the most critical issues facing this nation today. More importantly, I'd like to acknowledge the voices of those who very courageously came forward to our committee to share their stories of homelessness with us. I wanted to say: we hear you. Your stories were invaluable and remain critical to our fight to ensure that every Australian has a safe place to call home. The committee received some 201 submissions and 25 supplementary submissions, and many of those submissions were comprehensive and detailed and provided very important insights into the lived experiences of people affected by homelessness across Australia. We held public hearings across five days, gathering some 28 hours of oral evidence from a vast range of advocates, frontline organisations and government departments who support Australians affected by homelessness. The evidence, expertise and advocacy brought forward to the committee was invaluable to our understanding of this national crisis in Australia. We know that homelessness is a national crisis. Right now there are more people experiencing homelessness in Australia than ever before. In just one year, rents in Australia have soared by 15.1 per cent. Every day more and more Australians are being locked out of the private rental market. Just last year, 10,000 women and children fleeing violence were turned away from our refuges because there weren't enough beds available. That's more than 27 a night. Just let that sink in. The failure of this government to show leadership and to take responsibility on this serious issue is unforgiveable, given how long the sector and the broader Australian community have been calling for these issues to be addressed. For eight long years, this government has ignored and neglected the urgent need for more affordable and social housing. Regretfully, this report does not include a single recommendation that will see the construction of any new dwellings. That is a terrible missed opportunity, in my opinion. Without a commitment for increasing investment in social housing, this government is leaving thousands of vulnerable Australians behind, especially women and children who are fleeing violence, older women on low incomes, First Nations families and communities, and veterans. A never-ending stream of parliamentary reports and independent inquiries is telling us all the same thing: we need real action, intervention and leadership to solve what is a national housing crisis. However, on this issue, the Morrison government seem devoid of a willingness to show any leadership and is unwilling to take any action. The committee has recommended that the federal government introduce a 10-year national strategy on homelessness, and Labor supports and indeed welcomes this recommendation. But we fear it will be ignored, like countless other recommendations from countless other reports. That's why today I join with the government members on this committee in pleading for the federal government to adopt this recommendation. And it is good that the minister sits in this chamber at this time to hear the importance of a bipartisan recommendation. We're asking you to implement this recommendation for a national strategy. It's a very good start. But you have so much catching up to do; it is not funny. In March this year, Labor committed to developing a national housing and homelessness strategy, and I invite the government to do the same. Labor recognises something that this government simply doesn't, and that is that urgent action is needed to address what is a national crisis. But where the government fails to act, a future Albanese Labor government will. Labor will implement a national strategy to combat homelessness, as this committee has recommended, and we will go one step further with our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. We will build the social and affordable housing that is needed to reduce homelessness across the nation. Sadly, the Morrison government have acted as if this isn't their problem, as if they don't have a responsibility to care for the people of this nation, but, of course, they do. To be sure, one of the greatest tests for this government will be how it responds to this report. Let's hope this report doesn't sit on the shelves, gathering dust, being used as a paper weight on the desk of a minister, as so many others seem to. Australians deserve better than that. Indeed, Australians demand better than that. It's time to step up and show some real leadership, Mr Morrison. 10:01 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur by leave—This report on homelessness in Australia is very much a missed opportunity, in many ways, although I must say that the work of the chair, the member for Fisher, and the deputy chair has been remarkable. They are two of the hardest-working members of this House. I thank them and my parliamentary colleagues for the work that they have put into this quite large report and the enormous amount of effort that's gone into making the recommendations. I also thank the secretariat, particularly Shennia and Ashley, for their very hard work. A lot of intellectual and other energies have gone into putting the report together, and I thank them and their colleagues very, very much. When I say this is a lost opportunity, there are certainly some very important recommendations in the report, primarily around having a national policy on housing and on homelessness. My concern, however, is that they're very likely to fall on deaf ears. What has happened, in the way our society has changed, with the current pandemic has exacerbated some of the inequalities in housing that were already developing over the last decade. We've seen housing prices in our major capital cities—indeed, even in some of our regional centres—grow exponentially over the last few years. This has made it much more difficult for those on low incomes to either buy a house or even rent a house or accommodation in even some quite remote places in our regional areas. It's much more difficult for young people, for disadvantaged people and for those on very low incomes to get housing. That is not a good thing, and these inequalities are getting worse, not better. There has been a lack of response from the federal government in reversing these inequalities in housing and certainly in reversing some of the trends we've seen in homelessness over the last decade. I'm very concerned about young people and I'm very concerned about the lack of attention to young people on the fringes of the housing market and those who come from families who don't have a lot of resources, financial or otherwise. In many ways, the most disadvantaged are becoming even more disadvantaged in the housing system. People on low incomes, people with medical problems, people with mental illness, and people with drug and alcohol problems are becoming more and more marginalised, and this report does very little to address that. I just want to make the point that in terms of health care—which obviously I've worked in for many, many years—one of the primary social determinants of health is housing, and that is very true for children and for young people. It's something that we as a country and as a society should address on an urgent basis. There is urgency of action, because if we don't do what we should be doing to improve access to housing for young people, particularly disadvantaged young people, we will be paying the ongoing price for this for many, many years, in terms of health, in terms of the criminal justice system, in terms of education. There is a need for urgency of action. Finally, I want to very quickly say something about recommendation 34, or the so-called 'three strikes rule'. I am very, very strongly opposed to this being included in our report. In my work as a paediatrician I treated everyone the same. Princes or paupers were treated the same and that's a very important principle of health care that I have stuck to. Unless you understand the multilayers of disadvantage that many people who are homeless are facing, and you continue to espouse theories like the so-called three strikes law, you will never address the major disadvantages that are occurring in housing and homelessness in a country such as Australia. We are a wealthy country. We should never be evicting people who are suffering from mental illness, drug and alcohol dependency, intellectual disability. We should not be placing them in that situation. Yes, I know it is sometimes difficult. I know that and I know that people who are disadvantaged sometimes do bad things. But you must remember that they have families. They have children. They deserve, in a country like Australia, a safe house. The three strike rule goes very much against that and I am totally opposed to it. I think if you think it through you can see what that will do to families who are already severely disadvantaged. I don't want to say anything more. I would have said more but unfortunately the Federation Chamber—for reasons that aren't clear to me—are not meeting again until October. I will leave my comments at that. I do commend the report. Most of the recommendations are very important ones. I hope there is urgent action on these issues. I thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair, my parliamentary colleagues and the secretariat for what is a commendable report, with those exceptions. Thank you. The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the member for Dunkley, who is going to seek leave, for the information of the member for Macarthur and others, the situation with the Federation Chamber was made clear yesterday, both by myself and by the Manager of Opposition Business. It's quite simply the fact that we have half the number of Speaker's panel members here. Most are doing double shifts. There are a huge number of members trying to remote in—in fact more than 50. The capacity to run that simply isn't there. As a member of the Speaker's panel yourself, member for Macarthur, you know that you want to do more that simply sit in the chamber. You want to participate in the debate. I hope that clears up the confusion. 10:08 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley [by video link] by leave—Housing is a human right. We don't always describe it as such in this country because we don't have a national charter of human rights, but it would be the rare person who would put up an argument to say that housing, decent secure shelter, is anything other than a human right, is anything other than necessary to be able to have an engaged, a decent and a happy life. Sadly homelessness can happen to anyone and it's important, as we consider the recommendations of this report, that those of us in this parliament and more widely remember that we're not just talking about one cohort of society. We're not just talking, perhaps, about damaged and difficult people who have spent their lives on the edges. Importantly, that's who we are talking about, and it's our duty to work to make their lives better, but we are also talking about anyone and everyone who can become homeless at any time. Here are two examples from my electorate. Jane, who lives in Frankston and has a son with a disability, this year in May received a notice to vacate her rental property. She can't get any assistance. The state MPs have called all of the caravan parks in my electorate, which are all at capacity and had no availability. A local charity was advising her to stay in her rental unit an order of possession was issued, to try to buy some more time just to find accommodation. Samantha from Seaford in July this year contacted my office because she can't find affordable housing in the area. She said: 'I'm trying my absolute best to create a stable, loving home environment for my daughter, but with the income I receive and the daily cost of living, it's quite simply unmanageable. After I pay our rent and bills, buy food and pay for petrol and child care, I have nothing left.' That's why the work that the committee—which I'm very proud to be on—has done is important. That's why the minister at the table's response to the recommendations in this report are so important. It's for people like Jane and Samantha. It's for the 44,152 Victorian households waiting for social housing. It's for the people in the south-east and the east of Melbourne, where 32 per cent of Victorians are experiencing homelessness. Forty per cent of people on the social housing waiting list live in these regions, one of which is mine. The Victorian state government's Big Build of $5.6 billion will make a big difference, but we need to have the federal government adopt all but one of the recommendations of this report and work collaboratively with states across the country to do the heavy lifting to address homelessness and housing affordability. I proudly stand here endorsing the Youth2 Alliance campaign in my electorate, which is advocating for a youth educational foyer and Frankston and Rosebud crisis accommodation for young people, which fits squarely into the housing first model that the chair of the committee spoke about in his contribution, and which all us on the committee enthusiastically endorse. In my electorate and the Mornington Peninsula, there's been a 50 per cent increase in the rate of young people requesting assistance with housing during COVID—some 390 requests in 2019-2020. That's 390 requests from people aged between 15 and 25 for housing, with no crisis accommodation locally and insufficient coordination of assistance. The Youth2 Alliance asked for $15.5 million over four years, which, in the scheme of the money that's been spent recently by the federal government, is nothing. But to people in my community, to young people in my community experiencing homelessness, it is so much. That is for a youth foyer and for crisis accommodation. As I said, it fits squarely into the recommendations of this report, which I endorse wholeheartedly and ask the minister not just to pay lip service to them but to accept them. On the recommendations of this report, I couldn't put my opposition to recommendation 34 any more eloquently than the member for Macarthur did. We are here to help everyone in their time of need and there are often no people more damaged and more in need than those who are in social housing. I just want to add this plea to the government, to the minister at the table, to the Prime Minister and to the government members of this committee who did endorse that so-called 'three strikes' recommendation: please don't let this recommendation overshadow the positive recommendations in this report. Please do not allow partisan politics to cast Liberal against Labor over our fierce disagreement about this recommendation and to overshadow the positive recommendations in this report. Go out and talk to the media and talk to your communities about why the federal government should adopt a national housing strategy; about why the federal government should invest in social and public and affordable housing; about why young people, like the young people in my electorate of Dunkley, deserve their human right of secure housing now, and to secure their futures so that they can access education and health care and have stability. Talk about those things. Talk about the recommendations and the work put in by all the submitters. Do not turn this report into a partisan wedge attack on one recommendation. Finally, I want to join with all of the other members of the committee who have spoken today, to thank the chair and deputy chair, who are incredibly hardworking and dedicated members of this parliament, for all of the work they put into this enormous and really important inquiry, and to thank the secretariat, without whom none of us could do the work we do and who make everyone look very good every day. 10:16 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the House take note of the report. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 10 10:16 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 10 BILLS Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021 10

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021

Second Reading 10 10:17 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Westpoint, Trio, Opes Prime, CommInsure, Timbercore, Storm Financial, fees for no service, forged signatures on loan documents, breaches of anti-money-laundering laws—the list goes on. Australians have had a gutful of wrongdoing in the financial sector, and yet the Liberals have consistently fought against stronger consumer protections. Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms, which required an annual opt-in to commissions so people couldn't simply have money taken out of their accounts without their knowing, was opposed by the Liberals year after year. Senator Bragg last year finally confessed that the Liberals had done the wrong thing in opposing FOFA. But, as the member for Fraser noted in that debate the two of them had at an AFSA event, the Liberals have for too long been in the pockets of the financial industry. The royal commission was opposed by the Liberals for 18 months. They voted against it 26 times. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, has apologised, but the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has never apologised for delaying a royal commission into the financial sector and for only supporting one after the Australian Banking Association finally called for one. When the report was finally brought down, you had that awkward photo-op between the Treasurer and Kenneth Hayne in which the Treasurer looked for all the world like a naughty kid cosying up to Santa, hoping Santa will smile on him, when he knows deep down he's spent a year being very, very bad. The fact is that the Liberals never wanted FOFA. They never wanted a royal commission. And now, in the House Standing Committee on Economics, of which I'm the deputy chair, they are trying to remove the twice yearly scrutiny of bank CEOs. Right now, bank CEOs turn up for 90 minutes every six months. The Liberals think that's too much scrutiny, and they're aiming to try and reduce it. If you want to know what the Liberals really think about the Hayne royal commission, don't listen to what the Treasurer says; listen to what people like the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, Chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics, says. He said in the House Economics Committee on 29 July: I just find it very frustrating that a lawyer hands down a tablet that's equated to the Sermon on the Mount on the future direction of an industry, and then we can't challenge or contest whether it was actually right or whether the outcomes—if we implemented what it recommended, the lawyer's interpretation—would be in the best interests of the country— That's the member for Goldstein. Then there's the member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski, who goes further, saying: … the Hayne royal commission was deficient. It was deficient in its inquiry; let this chamber be in no doubt. That was him on 26 May. On 29 July, the member for McKellar said in the House Economics Committee: I think it is clear that this committee should recommend to the parliament that many of the remaining Hayne royal commission recommendations will do nothing more than harm and damage to ordinary Australian consumers. So they had that brief moment of wanting to look like they supported the Hayne royal commission. But now they are back to their old tricks, standing up for the financial sector, standing against the interests of consumers. The fact is that this bill will enjoy bipartisan support. The bill reflects changes which have taken place in FASEA, an organisation set up by the Liberals in 2019, which has had three CEOs in two years and is now being disbanded. Labor believes we need more consumer voices. In a House Economics Committee hearing recently we heard from the Consumer Action Law Centre's Gerard Brody and Cat Newton, who spoke eloquently about the importance of the consumer voice in ensuring that we have less wrongdoing from the financial sector. All of this illustrates the problems of transparency, problems which were clearly apparent in the JobKeeper program, which saw some $13 billion being paid to firms with rising earnings, and problems which could well arise with the business payments that have been supported by both sides of the House to deal with the Sydney lockdown. In my view, if we're handing out money to businesses, then we should learn the lessons of JobKeeper and we should have a public register whereby every firm with a turnover above $100 million has their details published. If you're a firm turning over more than $100 million and you're getting government handouts to support you through the COVID pandemic, then the Australian public should know about it. 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 note the Government has: (1) failed to effectively deliver professional standards reform in the financial advice sector; (2) been too slow to implement the findings of the Hayne Royal Commission; (3) established and then shut down the failed Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority; (4) failed to adequately protect consumers; and (5) caused uncertainty and unnecessary costs for thousands of financial advisers across Australia". The SPEAKER 00APG Is the amendment seconded? Ms Catherine King 00AMR I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. 10:20 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam [by video link] In my first few months as a freshly minted MP, I had the very distressing experience of having to meet with hundreds of constituents of mine who had worked their entire life to accumulate a retirement nest egg—most of them through a well-managed industry superannuation fund that had accumulated good returns over the terms of their working life. Tragically, they succumbed to the siren calls of one particular local financial adviser who sold them into a financial product which was being touted by a business—which we subsequently learnt was run by a bunch of fraudsters—known as Trio. They lost their entire life savings, every last cent of it. And they were not alone; there were thousands of people like them around the country. Whether it was Opes Prime, Trio, Storm Financial or many of the other spectacular corporate collapses of the first decade of this century, hardworking Australians lost their life savings, with no compensation, due to unprofessional and downright dodgy financial advice and they had no recourse. It was because of this that Labor established an inquiry into the financial advice system and established an inquiry into what had gone on with Opes Prime, with Trio and with Storm Financial. We commissioned the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services to investigate and make recommendations. The final report, named the Ripoll report, after the then chairman of that committee, made a number of recommendations which were taken up by the Labor government. We established in law a statutory best-interest duty for financial advisers, requiring that they act in the best financial interest of their clients. We established an obligation that fees had to be based on an explicit permission given annually by a client for those fees to be extracted. We enhanced the power of ASIC to ensure that they could police the advisers and ensure that they had more powers to ban advisers who were acting unprofessionally or unscrupulously. We put a prospective ban in place on trailing commissions and we made a recommendation that professional standards be established for the financial advice industry. What's remarkable about all these changes in the first instance is that it took so long for these rather modest changes to be put in place, essentially turning financial advice from what had once been an emanation of a sales force from the large-life officers of this country into a truly independent and professional body—a profession of financial advisers. It was remarkable that it took so long, but, in terms of the federal parliament, what was also remarkable was that the coalition parties opposed the FOFA reforms and vowed to unwind them if they ever achieved government—and they attempted to unwind them. In fact, in the first two years of the Abbott government they put in place a number of measures which wound back those original FOFA reforms. They intended to do much, much more, but events took over. We had, after much resistance from the coalition party, the Hayne royal commission, which was a watershed in the way the public got an insight into the industry and what needed to be done to reform that industry. This bill before the House recommends what is now a nearly three-year-old commitment by the government to implement recommendation 2.10 of the banking royal commission. It does so by expanding the role of ASIC's existing Financial Services and Credit Panel to operate as the single professional and disciplinary body for financial advisers. It also creates new penalties for advisers who breach their professional obligation and introduces a new two-stage registration process for financial advisers. It completes the wind-up of the coalition's failed Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority, removing its power to set professional standards for financial advice. I'll return to this in a moment. It is worth noting that this bill has been examined by the Senate economics committee and has received bipartisan endorsement by that committee; that's a good sign. It means that Labor will be backing the bill. We also support the bipartisan recommendation by coalition chair Senator Brockman and his committee to ensure that there's a proper review of this legislation in two years time. There can be no 'set and forget'. No-one can see any of these changes and what has emanated over the 12 years since the Ripoll report as anything more than a public policy failure and an enormous admission of failure by the coalition government. The government's management of financial standards reform has been a slow and painful trainwreck not just since the banking royal commission but since the 2016 parliamentary report, a bipartisan report by the corporations and financial services committee, that recommended professional standards reform in the financial advice sector. I just want to repeat this point: it's been 12 years since the Ripoll committee said we needed financial standards. It has now been five years since the 2016 bipartisan parliamentary report by the PJC, which recommended professional standards. That's two parliamentary bodies that have said we need professional standards. And it's been two years since the minister, Senator Hume, had to—in a gross admission of failure—introduce a bill into the House to extend the already-generous time lines for implementing the new professional standards and the tests required. So: 12 years since Ripoll, five years since PJC and two years since the government had to, in an embarrassing admission that it had completely stuffed up this whole area, extend the time lines for implementing new professional standards. And now, today, we have the abolition of FASEA, the administrative body that was established in 2019 under the then Treasurer—the current Prime Minister—which stands out as an abject failure in public policy and in administration and a failure amongst failures. They went through three CEOs in their first 18 months. They failed to produce standards in a way that was in any way timely or done in an adequate fashion. Advisers themselves were tormented with changes and complications to the exam process, and they were set standards and tests on things that had, in many instances, absolutely no bearing on the professional work they were performing in their practices. That says all you need to know about this Prime Minister: big announcements but no follow-through—an abject failure in public policy. Labor has always been in favour of reforms that are going to support a professional consumer-focused financial advice industry. But the government's implementation of those reforms has demonstrated nothing other than reckless incompetence. I want to pause to point out that financial advisers are a constituency where, if you took them as a whole, you would say that there are probably more Liberal voters amongst them than Labor voters. This is a constituency the coalition likes to think of as their own, but they have treated them so appallingly, not only in the design and implementation of professional standards but in the ongoing incompetence in the administration of this profession. It is no wonder that members of this profession are standing up and questioning their lifelong commitment to Liberal Party policies or Liberal Party governments. They are asking, 'Why are we backing these guys when, every step of the way, they have sold us down the river and shown monumental incompetence and a lack of understanding of our profession and our industry and what is needed in order to properly regulate it?'—to remove those people from the profession who we all agree do not belong and ensure that financial advisers can do the critical job that is needed to provide Australians with timely, accurate professional advice in the best interests of those clients. Labor will work with industry for solutions to these issues. That's why, in part, even from opposition, we have written to the Treasurer to demand that he review ASIC's industry funding model. It's why we've called for a greater recognition of specialisations and experience in the educational and exam standards for the many callings across the financial advice industry. These are issues that must be dealt with, and Labor is committed to dealing with them. But the question of how to fix the government's failures is only half of the equation. The other half of the equation is what this country needs to ensure that Australians can get the financial advice that they need. There's never been a more important time for Australians to have access to good financial advice. The pandemic has led to the restructuring of business and household finances and it's caused retirees and those planning for retirement to rethink their financial strategies. Thanks to our universal superannuation system, which has come so much under attack from members of the coalition government over the last two years, Australians are now retiring with more money than ever—more money than at any time in our nation's history. It's extraordinary that, over 40 years, we've enabled a system which today has the average Australian male retiring with about $180,000 and the average Australian female retiring with about $118,000 in superannuation savings. The gap is too big, but it is worth pausing for a moment and saying that it is an extraordinary achievement. We are now retiring with more money than at any time in our nation's history. The system is working. Superannuation already contributes significantly more to retirement incomes than the Australian government does through the pension system—about $120 billion in the last financial year, as compared to between $60 billion and $80 billion from the Commonwealth in pension and related payments. Superannuation is already doing its job, and we're retiring with more money, but never has it been more difficult for Australians to get financial advice of the type they need, scaled to and appropriate to their circumstances, so that they can make those critical decisions and make that money work in retirement, work for them and work for all of us to ensure that they are more self-reliant in their retirement. It's why we need to ensure that we fix this problem. We know that the old model is broken—the old model that I alluded to at the beginning of this contribution, which was built essentially on a sales force. Insurance salespeople were selling products dressed up as advice and earning a commission on the basis of that. That model is broken, and we're never going back to that, but that does not mean that Australians don't need access to quality financial advice. They absolutely do. We need to ensure that we design a system which is viable for the advisers, that we have the right financial and professional standards in place and that there is a strong disciplinary body to weed out those who aren't adhering to the rules but let the rest of the industry get on and provide Australians with what they need. The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021 takes a small step—a very small step—in the direction of resolving some of those issues by doing no more than implementing the long-overdue recommendation of the Hayne royal commission and abolishing the government experiment, which has been an abject failure, delivered by the pen of the current Prime Minister when he was Treasurer of Australia and, like so much of what this Prime Minister does, all announcement and no follow-through. I commend the bill and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Fenner to the House. 10:39 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021 in its original form. Rather that than the elite signalling of members of the opposition, who like to move amendments to government legislation so that they can say some things are good or some things are bad, mostly for their own indulgence and their ego, and to demonstrate that they're actually doing something in their jobs as shadow ministers. Of course, we do need to give them credit: sometimes they do need to demonstrate some relevance to the public because at the moment they can't see that—both in terms of the coronavirus pandemic, where they're directly undermining the vaccine rollout, or in the policy debates that inform the future direction of this country generally. When it comes to the financial advice space and the financial services sector, we see the Labor Party at its hubristic worst. They seek to continue to demonise and dominate, and there are their alliances with their friends in the superannuation fund sector, who get bonuses paid up to $35 million paid out without any criticism. In fact, the other day we had an Economics Committee public hearing with the superannuation sector. We had the megafund investor on behalf of the superannuation funds, IFM Investors, appear before the committee. The simple question was asked, as has been asked many times before, of its CEO, 'Do you think that payments of up to $35 million in bonuses to fund managers are excessive?' I have made it quite clear that I believe they are. And, to his credit, the CEO of IFM Investors—eventually, after prodding and having to ask the question in about 10 different ways—also conceded that it was. What was the response of the Labor Party when we asked that question? It was to run interference and to try to shout me, as the chair, down from asking the question. If you want to see the extent of the relationship, where the modern Labor Party wants to run interference and protect the interests of their mates in the superannuation sector at the expense of average Australians, superannuants, retirees and individual investors, just go and watch that clip—and watch the clips all the times when we bring superannuation funds before the House Economics Committee and ask questions of them which might put them in a negative light, or where they might have to admit something that they don't want to disclose to the parliament and, by its nature, to the people of Australia. The response from the deputy chair, the member for Fenner, is to try to silence us and shut us down. In this inquiry, which has run throughout the term, we have seen, literally, super funds who keep saying they were exonerated by the Hayne royal commission—exonerated! They have nothing to hide, they've done nothing wrong, nobody is criticising them and they're fantastic, 'Just look at our returns.' They literally, deliberately and maliciously undermined the superannuation savings of Australian retirees by reactivating low-balance inactive accounts so that they could harvest them for fees and insurance premiums. That was so much so that we in this chamber had to change the law to stop their mismanagement and their behaviour. But they've got nothing to hide; everything is fine! Nobody dares raise any criticism or concern. The reality is that this government shines a bright light into the problems in the financial services sector wherever they exist. Industry super, retail, financial advice—it doesn't matter, because we know that we're on the side of one group of people, and one group of people only: the Australian people. It's consumers, their freedom to choose and their freedom not to be ripped off. If, one day, the opposition wants to join us in that crusade we'll welcome their support and their participation. But all I have seen as chair of the Economics Committee, and in this parliament, is their constant efforts to undermine, interfere and run interference against that core task because they would rather favour the interests of the few and their friends at the expense of the Australian people. That is one of many reasons why they sit on the opposition benches. To hear the arrogance that comes from the member for Whitlam, to dare say that this government is doing anything to undermine Australian superannuants! I have never heard such an absurd and fantastical statement in this chamber—and, trust me, we all hear a few! In the lead-up to the last election it was the member for Whitlam and his other fellow members on the opposition benches who deliberately introduced and proposed a policy that would destroy the retirement savings of millions of Australians through a retiree tax. They would literally have shoved down the financial stairs 80-year-old single women because they had sacrificed and saved to be independent in their retirement. Their solution was to deny them their income and to push their heads below the water of the poverty line. I have never seen a more despicable act than this act by the members opposite, who continue to rationalise it at every step of the way. We held public hearings and exposed Labor's plans directly to the Australian people. Labor continued to say: 'Oh no, those campaigns were misleading, and they deceived people.' How could you say that when the people who were speaking were describing exactly the impact it was going to have on them personally—when those people were talking about how they personally were going to be undermined, and be pushed down the financial stairs, and have their heads held below the water of the poverty line? You're calling them liars when you say that. You're not calling members of the government liars; you're calling those people liars—the Australian people. It's because you wouldn't listen, and you wouldn't learn the lesson, and you wouldn't understand or show any empathy for the impact it was going to have, that you found yourself on the opposition benches. This amendment, and all the positions of the Labor Party in the Economics Committee since, have shown us that Labor have not learned that lesson. They still will not listen, and they pay a huge political price. Many Australians continue to live in fear of what would happen if there were a change of government. Many Australians sit there every day and think: 'If there's a change of government, is Labor going to come after me because they can't manage themselves? They can't manage the government finances. Will they ultimately come for my hip pocket, when they've wasted all their money?' We all know it's true: it doesn't matter what the issue, Labor can't manage money. When they run out of money, they come after yours. The current Leader of the Opposition excels in this space. No Australian believes that he has any economic credibility or any capacity to lead this country. Not even his own Labor members do—to their credit, I might add. The question is why they continue to follow someone who's going to send them off the political cliff. Even tawdry amendments like those made to this bill are a classic demonstration of why. The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021 is trying to fix up many of the problems that have been faced in the financial advice sector to enable financial advisers to go on supporting their clients and customers with confidence, and to make sure that there are proper mechanisms in place, where people who do wrong are held accountable for it. The establishment of a single disciplinary body is an incredibly important step, not just to correct some of the issues just arose out of FASEA and the obligations it put on financial advisers that made it harder for advisers to operate but also to consolidate it so that financial advisers have a body that they trust and understand that they play a critical part in fixing the system. Now, I do have reservations about this bill. Members may know I have ongoing concerns about the operations of ASIC, and we hope that under its new leadership it will fulfil its function properly. But some of the functions of FASEA have gone into ASIC to make sure that it can operate successfully in the best interests of financial advisers. But in doing so ASIC needs to make sure that it's backing financial advisers, not undermining them. Last week the Economics Committee again heard directly from financial adviser representative bodies as well as the financial advisers themselves about the harrowing, increasing costs of ASIC fees and how these are undermining their business. Let's not pretend otherwise—when financial advice fees to ASIC for financial advisers go up, the cost is paid by customers through higher costs over time. Increases in cost hurt the capacity for Australians to access financial advice at the stage of life when they need it. It increases the cost of financial advice in comparison to the capital they have saved. It eats into the capital they have saved to invest for their future. So ASIC should look very clearly at what its conduct is doing to financial advisers and whether it's going to have an impact on the number of operators in the system. We know what the cost is of higher financial costs and higher costs to access financial advice. It means the rich get the advice, and the poor don't. The frugal who want to save and get ahead are denied, while those with trusts and wealth—hereditary or earned—are able to compound their growth and their opportunity. Financial advice is a critical part of making sure that Australians can get ahead, and we need to make sure that financial advice is accessible to them so they can get ahead, because we don't want a system that entrenches the interests of the few and the privileged who can afford high upfront costs. I have previously raised in public my concerns around some of the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission, including, as part of that, the obligation to shift towards an 'upfront fee for service' model, because what happens when you do that is it creates a barrier for younger people, those who are saving and those who want to grow their savings to their being able to access financial advice to grow their wealth. The rich can afford it. The wealthy can afford it. Those on high incomes can afford it; they can take the upfront hit. But those who are frugally saving from their modest salaries and may not come from means are the first to say: 'This is too costly for me.' So it compounds the impact and compounds the wealth conservation and the wealth growth that the rich get, and that's incredibly dangerous. We know that the opposition's first position on the Hayne royal commission was to accept the recommendations without even seeing them, which shows the scant regard they have for the wealth creation opportunities of the next generation of Australians. There have been amendments and I will continue to raise my concerns as other members in this parliament do. I see some outstanding members, like the member for Forde, who has never been afraid to stand up for financial advisers being able to deliver for their clients. He has always been the friend of the consumer and has been prepared to stand up for the wealth-creating opportunities of every Australian. Let's face it: if we actually believe in the wealth creation of every Australian, we would actually talk about why homeownership is the biggest financial decision that Australians can make and superannuation is the second. But, between the collusion of the Labor Party and their mates in the industry super fund sector, they constantly try and put superannuation ahead of homeownership—so much so that they'll literally run interference to keep super funds being able to buy homes at the expense of young Australians. There is no more despicable act that I can think of in terms of public policy than the deliberate effort to socially engineer and to empower big capital and big super to own homes, denying young Australians their chance at their dream, But the members on the other side of this chamber somehow argue that they know best and that they know how to make financial decisions for others better than young Australians are able to make them for themselves. There's a day of reckoning coming for the members on the other side of this chamber because 'home first, super second' is absolutely building a movement. With 'home first, super second', there is an absolute understanding that people are looking at how they can utilise their super to be able to buy their own home, because Australians know, like when they access financial advice, that doing so advantages their creation for wealth. They know that homeownership is not just the best mechanism for people to create wealth—though that is true—but it's also the best foundation to build security for your economic future, your family and the whole of your working life, as well as your retirement. Homeownership is critical to the economic and democratic distribution of wealth in this nation. Homeownership is the foundation on which people build the success of their life for themselves and others—the investment in the status quo and the principal economic institution that leads to the creation of a strong community and strong citizens as the foundation for a strong nation. That's why we back, and will always defend, young Australians being able to buy their own home. That's why our order of priority is always Australians first. That's why we'll continue to support homeownership and we'll also support financial advisers so that people can take control of their own financial future. 10:54 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith [by video link] I can never understand why members of the coalition government are always ridiculing Australia's superannuation system. It's something that we should be proud of. It's one of the best retirement savings systems in the world. The proof of that is in the statistics, with $3.1 trillion in the Australian superannuation system at the beginning of this year. That's the fourth-largest pool of investment savings of any nation in the world, and, when you look at that in the context of the fact that Australia has the 55th-largest population of any nation in the world, the fact that we have the fourth-largest pool of retirement savings generally indicates that we're batting well above our average. This is something that we should be proud of. It's evidence of a system that is working and delivering the retirement savings that Australians need, to avoid being on the age pension. But whenever coalition MPs and senators get the opportunity, they will always try and slag off the Australian superannuation system. I think it comes down to jealousy at the end of the day, really. I think they're jealous of the fact that a Labor government, working with the union movement and employers, set up one of the world's best retirement savings systems and one which is achieving high rates of return and low fees for most members of industry superannuation funds. That's a great shame. It's certainly not a team Australia moment when you're criticising one of the world's leading superannuation systems that was established by a Labor government. Our pool of superannuation funds is growing, and that's a great thing. The average superannuation balance is growing; it's about $180,000 now. The number of self-managed superannuation funds is also growing. There's been about 15 per cent growth in the number of SMSFs over the course of the last five years. All of this means that there is a great need in our community for good-quality financial advice, and this bill goes to, hopefully, ensuring that we implement the recommendations of the royal commission around delivering better quality financial advice here in Australia. The importance of quality advice comes down to a few factors. One is transparency: ensuring that advisers are transparent with their clients about fees, about commissions and, importantly, about any potential conflicts of interest. We're ensuring that the legal requirements for the establishment and the operation of [inaudible]— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN We'll just give the member a few seconds for the video link to come back. If not, we'll go to the member for Forde and then the member for Kingsford Smith can return to his speech when he comes back. Is that okay? Mr Conroy 249127 Yes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. I call the member for Forde. 10:58 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021. As has been outlined, this implements recommendation 2.10 of the royal commission's recommendations. Now, all of us in this place would agree that good-quality professional advice for Australians who need it or seek it is important. Nobody would argue with that proposition. But I do take exception to the comments of those opposite that seek to besmirch the reputation of a great many professional advisers in the advice industry. If you have a look at the recent FSC report into affordable advice, they make the point that some 71 per cent of consumers agreed or strongly agreed that the financial advice they received helped them achieve greater financial confidence. Seventy per cent agreed or strongly agreed that it helped improve their financial situation. I acknowledge, as somebody who came from that industry prior to coming into this place, that there are people in the industry who have done the wrong thing by consumers over the years. That disappoints me greatly and I will never defend that conduct, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the vast majority of advisers are professional advisers whose focus is ensuring they provide advice that is in the best interests of their clients. Those opposite miss the point that it's also in the advisers' best interests to provide quality advice to their clients, because that is how they get to build and maintain their businesses. There are many thousands of advisers across the industry who have been in business for 20 or 30 years or longer. You cannot say that those people are providing poor quality advice. I think it was the member for Fenner who noted in his remarks that consumers want a greater say. I would say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that consumers have a say each and every day that they decide to retain the relationship they have with their adviser. If they are not satisfied with the advice and the service they're receiving, they have the right and the ability, each and every day, to go to another adviser or to take care of their financial circumstances themselves. If that were not the case, why would there be so many advisers—and there are tens of thousands of advisers in this industry—who have successful, profitable businesses that are looking after Australians each and every day? What we're seeking to do with this legislation is to create a more streamlined process to ensure that those who are doing the wrong thing by their clients are held to account and, where necessary, removed from the industry. In addition, we are removing some of the duplication in the regulatory environment for advisers, particularly those who are tax financial advisers, by removing the requirement for them to be registered with the Tax Practitioners Board, which will result in some savings in costs. Ultimately, as we look at the financial planning industry, it is important that it is affordable for clients. A number of other people have touched on that particular issue, and the FSC acknowledge it in their report. The importance of financial advice today is no more obvious or necessary than it has been as a result of the pandemic. Many of the advisers I speak to have been very busy in just sitting down and speaking with their clients about their financial circumstances and how to manage the times that we are going through, and ultimately that is the most important role of a professional adviser. In this place we often hear discussion about product. Many of the things that the member for Whitlam and the member for Fenner outlined in their contributions were product failures. They were not necessarily failures of advice, albeit that they may well have been in circumstances where inappropriate products were recommended to clients. We need to separate out product from advice, because they are two very different things. The most important role of an adviser, in my view, is the strategic advice that the adviser provides to their clients, based on the needs of the client as outlined to the adviser in their initial discussions. In some cases, that may be as simple as wanting an income protection policy. In other cases, it may be much more complicated in terms of wanting retirement planning, estate planning, investment advice, debt reduction advice, a whole range of issues. But the scope of that advice is the product of a discussion between the adviser and their client. It is incumbent on the adviser to properly elicit the scope of advice their potential client is seeking. One of the skills of advisers is to be able to have those discussions and elicit the information necessary to give professional advice. Where a client is recommended to invest in a particular Australian share fund, for example, and negative events impact that share fund on the Australian share market, I would defy anybody in this chamber to be able to get their client's money out of that share fund in the current regulatory environment, let alone for the fund manager to do it. It is practically and physically impossible for an adviser to be able to move their client's money where necessary, in a timely manner, without there being an impact on the client's funds in the current regulatory environment; a regulatory environment, I might add, that has been created in the name of consumer protection. A regulatory environment currently militates against that because of advisers' inability to deal quickly with issues to protect clients' funds. Those on the other side and many others in the community would say that that's a failure of advice and a failure by the adviser. I would say that it is not. It's a failure of our regulatory environment, because it does not recognise the importance of the adviser's role in that event happening. As professional advisers, the most important thing they can do is sit down and speak with their clients about the issues they're facing. Have that informed discussion about what needs to change in the strategy, if anything, to change the direction and result of that adverse event. But our current regulatory environment precludes that, particularly from a cost perspective, because of the paperwork and the duplication that has been built into the system. I'm pleased to say that we are working through these processes in my discussions with Minister Hume's office. From speaking to those in the industry, I know that they recognise that the industry has to change. I will continue to argue the case that the most important part of the relationship between advisers and their clients is the strategic advice that advisers provide. The product is secondary. This legislation is a great step along the way of improving the operation of the system. Is it the end of the journey? No, it's not; there is much work yet to be done. But, in the process, we need to ensure that we protect the viability of the professional financial planning businesses and the professional financial planners that are out there looking after Australian consumers each and every day. As the FSC report quite rightly points out, 70 per cent of those people recognise that it's adding and improving their financial outcomes. We should be very, very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Despite what those opposite say, it is the strategic advice that is provided that is the key to the future of everyday Australians' wealth being grown, whether it be in superannuation, whether it be in investments or whether it's protecting wealth by having the appropriate insurance policies in place, such as income protection or, sadly, life insurance, if somebody passes away. The past 18 months have shown quite clearly the importance of all of those aspects being taken into account, but we need to ensure, in the longer term, that the advisers have, in conjunction with their clients, the ability to provide advice that is commensurate with the scope of advice the client is seeking. If a 25-year-old client comes in and wants only income protection insurance, because he's a self-employed tradie, the adviser should be able to give that to him in a cost-effective manner, not such that it's going to cost $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 because of the current regulatory environment. The adviser should be able to do it for $500, $600 or $700. Over time, that relationship with that client might grow, but it's not going to grow if they've got to charge $3,000 or $4,000 upfront. But the important thing, for that client, as a self-employed tradie, is that they now have income protection insurance so that, if something happens, they know their financial position is protected. I'm pleased to support this bill, because I think it is a great step in the right direction. As I said, we have more to do, but I want to put on the record that there are a great many professional advisers out there who have built businesses over 20, 30 or 40 years, and they will continue to be supported by this side of government and by me, and we'll continue to work with them to make this a better profession for the future so that affordable, appropriate advice can be available to all Australians. I commend this bill in its original form to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. I give the call, by leave, to the member for Kingsford Smith, in continuation. I believe his video link was disconnected. 11:11 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith [by video link] by leave—thank you; I appreciate that. I disagree with the member for Forde in his assessment that many of those collapses that were mentioned by Labor members and by me in our speeches were a failure of product rather than a failure of advice. I think the fact that those collapses occurred was tantamount to the fact there wasn't a requirement under our law for financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. That is what Labor rectified with the Future of Financial Advice reforms, bringing in a legal requirement for financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients—through regular updates, through an opting-in provision and through ensuring that there was a best-interest duty. The opposition at the time, the coalition, opposed those reforms. They sought to oppose a best-interest duty in Australia's financial laws, and then when they came to government they actually sought to unwind those reforms that were put in place through the Future of Financial Advice reforms by removing that catch-all provision and best-interest duty and the requirement to opt in on a regular basis. They actually got those changes through the parliament. The Abbott government watered down those reforms. It was only through having the vote recommitted in the Senate that Labor, working with the cross-benchers, was able to unwind what the government had done and ensure that we still have a best-interest duty in our financial services laws in Australia. That's been really important in the context of the royal commission and of this bill here, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021, because the royal commission inquired into the scandals that were going on in wealth management, in insurance and in financial advice in Australia, after much campaigning and much prodding of the government by the opposition and consumer groups about what was actually going on in wealth management in this country. Earlier I mentioned the growing pool of investment savings. Well, unfortunately, unscrupulous operators were taking advantage of that and acting in a manner that wasn't in their clients' bests interests and in many cases acting illegally. We saw the problems in wealth management in the Commonwealth Bank, which flowed to all of the other big four banks. We saw the CommInsure scandal. We saw many millions of Australians lose savings and financial support because of those scandals. That is why Labor was calling for that royal commission to be implemented. It should never be forgotten that this government voted 26 times to stop that. It was only once the banks agreed, because they saw the reputational damage that was being done, that the government finally implemented those recommendations. These reforms that we're discussing here are as a result of the Hayne royal commission's recommendations. Finally the government acted and finally they implemented many of those recommendations but there are still more to come. Labor comes from the perspective of trying to support those recommendations and get those reforms in place, because an overwhelming number of those recommendations have still yet to be implemented. Nonetheless, we do support these provisions, subject to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Fenner. This bill implements recommendation 2.10 of the Hayne royal commission recommendations around a single disciplinary body to be established for financial advisers. The bill also implements recommendation 7.1 of the Tax Practitioners Board review, which recommended that a new model be adopted for regulating tax and financial advisers in line with recommendation 2.10 of the royal commission. Labor has previously indicated that we will seek to rapidly progress any legislation that appropriately implements findings of the royal commission. This bill, in respect of financial standards and financial advisers, expands the role of ASIC's current Financial Services and Credit Panel to provide a single disciplinary body for financial advisers. It requires financial advisers to be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It allows financial advisers to provide tax and personal financial advice that relates to tax law if they meet prescribed standards. Again, this is about ensuring that those safeguards, and acting in the bests interests of the client, are in place with these reforms. The bill also winds up the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority, FASEA as it has become known, and transfers the power to set professional standards for financial advisers to the responsible minister. We're not opposed to this reform, but we will monitor any changes to professional standards to ensure that they're sensible and that they promote consumer interests, and we will make sure that the minister acts in an appropriate manner in that regard. There has been quite a bit of concern in the industry, from financial advisers and participants, around the new educational standards and the way that FASEA has implemented those standards. I've personally been contacted by financial advisers regarding some concerns about those standards.That's, unfortunately, why I think we've seen that the government's hallmarks and time lines haven't been met for the introduction of those new standards and for ensuring that participants in the industry meet those standards through educational requirements in a timely manner. It's particularly of the case for financial advisers, stockbrokers and the like who have been in the industry for many, many decades. Some of them received their degrees and qualifications in the sixties and seventies and have been working for many, many years without blemish, without any issues, and are now in a position where they have to undertake university degrees once again, in new circumstances—much of it online where they don't have the capacity to do so. They have real questions about the recognition of their prior learning and the importance of that. Many of them have said to me that they completely understand the need for ethics training—ensuring that ethical standards are up to date—and ensuring that they meet all the regulatory requirements, but they feel the there can be better use of the recognition of prior learning aspects of this education system. I think that that's something that the government will need to take into consideration into the future. In terms of stakeholders' views on this bill, consumer advocates, including CHOICE, have raised a number of issues with the bill. They seen it as necessary for consumer representatives to be on the panel. No change would be necessary to the legislation to facilitate this, and to provide for the appointment of a consumer representative to the disciplinary panel, and I support the government appointing a consumer representative with appropriate experience and qualifications. They would also like to be able to consider issues dating back to 2008. That would provide significant retrospectivity on issues in implementing the actions of this particular panel. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity expressed some concerns relating to the conflict-of-interest provisions in the bill, indicating that the system relies entirely on self-disclosure by panel members. It's important to ensure that this particular change works well and is adopted by the industry. Labor support this recommendation. However, we want to see government get on with the job of implementing the remainder of the recommendations of the royal commission. It's almost two years now since that important report was handed down, and a number of those important recommendations are yet to be implemented by this government. Labor stands willing to work with the government and ready to implement those important reforms, but I reiterate what I said at the beginning: without a Labor government we wouldn't have had the best-interest duty for financial advisers, we wouldn't have had the disclosure provisions that have been implemented, we would not have had removal of conflicts of interest and we would not have had ensuring integrity and ethics in our financial advice system. It's a great shame that the coalition, in opposition and in government, sought to undermine those changes. It's time now for the parliament to work together on implementing the rest of the royal commission recommendations. 11:21 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser [by video link] I am pleased to speak today in relation to the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021. As earlier speakers from the opposition have indicated, this is a bill that we will support. But I might add that it's a bill which comes three years after the Hayne royal commission and reflects the drip feed of responses to the Hayne royal commission's important recommendations that we continue to see in this place. The lack of speed, urgency and comprehensiveness in the government's response to that royal commission is a very strong reflection of the fact that that was a royal commission that this government never wanted to happen. This particular bill implements recommendation 2.10. Specifically it expands the role of ASIC's existing Financial Services and Credit Panel to operate as a single professional disciplinary body for financial advisers, incorporates new penalties for advisers who breach professional obligations and introduces a new two-stage registration process for financial advisers. This bill has received bipartisan support from the Senate economics committee, and we support the recommendation of the independent senator on that committee that this bill be reviewed in two years time. We support this bill, but I think it's important to make some observations of a broader nature in relation to some of the ongoing challenges that this bill doesn't address. I want to start by making the overall observation that financial advice is critically important for Australians. As many speakers have observed already in this debate, the amount of financial assets under the control of many Australians is increasing. It is critical that they have access to affordable and independent financial advice. There are many aspects of our lives where financial advice is critical—the types of insurance we obtain in order to protect ourselves and our families from calamity. It is also critical that we obtain financial advice in relation to the very complicated challenge of investing over our life cycle, so that we can use resources we have during our working lives and invest those well so that we can provide ourselves with as much income security and dignity in retirement as possible. Financial advice is one of the most important sources of advice for many Australian families, but there are some longstanding challenges with the quality and costs of that advice. I would say that there is a trade-off in relation to some of the regulation that is appropriate when it comes to that advice. We all agree, I think, in this place that it is important that financial advisors become more professional in the way that they interact with their clients. Some of the aspects of the way in which that professionalisation will be achieved, however, can have trade-offs in relation to the cost and the accessibility of financial advice. That's one of the challenges in setting up appropriate regulation in this sphere. It has been a set of regulatory challenges that has been identified over a long period of time, with the Wallis inquiry, the Ripoll inquiry and all of the consultation that was undertaken in the Rudd-Gillard years in relation to the very important FOFA reforms, which, as many speakers have identified, were unfortunately undermined by this government. There are some fundamental trade-offs involved, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that some of these trade-offs exist in relation to many other professions, like the remuneration of lawyers and the remuneration of real estate agents. There are many other areas of professional advice where there can be challenges in potential conflicts of interest and challenges in relation to whether there should be restrictions on the way in which professional advisors are remunerated, so we shouldn't see this as a unique example. It is not. Many of the challenges that financial advisors face in relation to the way that they are remunerated and regulated are definitely not insurmountable. We should be able to deal with them in this place and we need to deal with them in this place because the receipt of high-quality financial advice is so critical for the Australian people. In light of some of those high-level challenges, I think it's critical to go back to the Hayne royal commission. Its final report on page 119 very usefully sets out some of the context. It says that there are three critically important issues that have emerged in relation to the provision of financial advice. The first is fees for no service, the second is what might be classified as poor-quality advice—or perhaps not acting in the client's best interests is one way of characterising that—and the third is the fragmented and ineffective disciplinary system for financial advisors. Very early on, the Hayne royal commission identified those three core issues. Importantly, it said that each of those issues has its root in the history of the financial services industry, and it's important to understand that history if we are to deal with each of those issues appropriately. Critically, the Hayne royal commission on page 119 of its final report said: Expressed in a single sentence, that history tells the story of an incomplete transformation – from an industry dedicated to the sale of financial products to a profession concerned with the provision of financial advice. That is the nub—the heart—of the issue. It is a profession and an industry that emanated from sales of certain products. It is critical that that industry, and that profession, evolves to a point where, at its core, it is about providing holistic advice to the client. It is already a long way down that path but there is still a journey to go. When it comes to some of the specific challenges that the financial services industry has faced, again, it is useful to go back to the Hayne royal commission. The Hayne royal commission in its interim report identified the fact that, as the market for superannuation and investment products grew in scope within the Australian population, most financial advisors had come from a background of insurance sales in which a sales driven, commission based culture prevailed and comprehensive advice was not commonly sought or given. Again, that goes to the nub of the issue. We need to have a sector which is not driven by commissions and a sales culture, which we saw led to so many issues and so many vulnerable people being abused, but to a culture and an industry where it is comprehensive advice that is provided. When it comes to conflicted advice, this is an issue that has been looked at on multiple occasions. The Wallis inquiry and the Hayne royal commission looked at this, and vertical integration by the banks was a large part of this. Vertical integration can provide efficiency but the Hayne royal commission said that the 'one-stop shop' which had become the model of so many banks can provide efficiencies, but, to quote, it said that it has an incentive to promote the owner's products over others 'even where they may not be ideal for the customer'. That was the problem of conflicted advice which was identified so much. Trying to help the industry evolve towards holistic provision of non-conflicted advice has been an issue for so long. Why I think it is so important to raise all of those issues is that these have been looked at before. They were looked at by Wallace and they were looked at by Ripoll. And, of course, if we go back to FoFA, way back nine years ago, FoFA looked at so many of these issues and provided practical solutions. If we look at the amendments to the Corporations Act which were introduced all those many years ago, we see that at the heart of the FoFA reforms was a prospective ban on conflicted remuneration structures; a duty to act in the best interests of the client; an opt-in obligation that requires advice providers to renew their client's agreement to ongoing fees; an annual fee disclosure statement; and enhanced powers for ASIC. What I think is quite tragic is that all of those elements are reflected in the Hayne royal commission recommendations. So, when we fast forward a decade, what we see is that the 10 recommendations from the Hayne royal commission that relate specifically to financial advice were all there in FoFA. When we go back to the debates around FoFA, we find that this government fought that piece of legislation and reform agenda tooth and nail. There wouldn't be anything in that six-year period of government that the opposition at the time, this Liberal-National party coalition, fought against harder. Perhaps the only thing they voted against more often was anything to do with climate change action. But, other than that, it was FoFA that they fought against with more passion than anything else. Yet what we see now after the Hayne royal commission is that we are revisiting all of those core issues which FoFA rightly put front and centre. But, of course, as soon as the Abbott government was elected, it did everything it could to undermine those critical recommendations. So what we see with this government is that it didn't want the Hayne royal commission and it is reluctantly and belatedly implementing its recommendations. The Hayne royal commission itself reflects on the fact that Australia has lost a decade. If we'd implemented the FoFA recommendations, we could have had a decade where the financial services and financial advice sector had been professionalising and dealing with all of the challenges of implementing a more appropriate regulatory regime. Of course, you never get it right first up, but we could have been fixing all of the elements of the regulatory regime over the intervening years. Instead, we have had to start from scratch. That is a direct result of this government fighting tooth and nail to stop FoFA, then undermining it and then fighting tooth and nail to not have a royal commission—which then ended up recommending all of the key elements of FoFA. This government is putting this bill forward. It is belatedly giving us a bill that reflects one recommendation of the 10. We will support it, as speakers on this side have indicated, but we should not lose sight of the fact that what this government has given us is a decade of inaction, a decade of going backwards. But not only that; in the intervening period not only have we had that lost decade where FoFA was undermined but we've also had FASEA. It was established in 2019 by the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister. This is an organisation that went through three CEOs in its first 18 months, an organisation that failed to provide appropriate standards in a timely and adequate fashion, and an organisation that was constantly changing a complicated examination process. So we support this bill in moving beyond FASEA, but, again, it's part of the context in which we see the complete mess that this government has create, with its decade of inaction in dealing with the fundamental issues that need to be dealt with to professionalise financial advice. But what the government has done has been a complete mess. Even though we now have a recommendation to implement recommendation 2.10, so much is left undone. We still have inquiries coming in relation to commissions, life insurance and mortgage brokers, and there is so much uncertainty. I receive correspondence from advisers concerned about some of the existing mess in relation to FASEA but also in relation to the ongoing uncertainty. It would have been better if advisers had been provided with an overarching framework. If that had been the building block that we used to build a better approach that would have been the launching pad for the profession to evolve to far better position than we find them in today. Those opposite, during their contributions on this bill, claimed that we demonise financial advice, but the irony here of course is that they're the ones who, at every stage, have undermined sensible reform in this area, and, where they have implemented any reform, such as FASEA, it has been a complete disaster for the profession. It's under their watch, of course, that the number of financial advisers is falling. It's under their watch that the profession feels more undermined and more uncertain than ever. I want to go back to the initial point that I made, which is that financial advice is incredibly important. It is one of the most important sources of professional advice for people, particularly given their increasing financial assets, particularly given increasing life expectancy, particularly given the increasing complexity of financial products that people are having to navigate. It is absolutely imperative that people in our community have access to unconflicted, high-quality, 'best interests' financial advice, and it is absolutely critical, of course, that that profession is regulated in an appropriate way. We deserve much better than what this government has put forward. We will support this bill, but this government needs to put forward a holistic framework and a strategy moving forward that is going to provide for the best possible settings for financial advice in the future. That is what financial advisers deserve, and that is what the people of Australia deserve. 11:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt [by video link] The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry tabled their final report in parliament on 4 February 2019. The royal commission was established on 14 December 2017, but only after this Liberal government voted against having that inquiry 26 times. To state the blatantly obvious, it is now August 2021. It's taken 2½ years just to get to recommendation No. 2. This Morrison government's response to the royal commission has been unbelievably weak. They didn't want it, and now they don't want to have anything to do with it either. In taking this long to implement recommendations, this legislation, the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021, is only before us today when it is well and truly overdue. That's not to mention legislation that we dealt with recently that actually directly contradicted other recommendations of the royal commission. Recommendation 2.10 of the financial services royal commission recommended that a single disciplinary body be established for financial advisers. This bill also implements recommendation 7.1 of the Tax Practitioners Board review, which recommended that a new model be developed for regulating tax advisers in line with the recommendation. Labor has committed to rapidly progressing any legislation that appropriately implements the findings of the banking royal commission. These are the result of consultation and expert recommendations and where there's been public acceptance. All of this, though, is two years old, so it's high time that these recommendations were implemented. These recommendations are implemented through this new legislation, which will expand the role of ASIC's current Financial Services and Credit Panel to provide a single disciplinary body for financial advisers. It will require financial advisers to be registered with ASIC, and it will allow financial advisers to provide tax advice if they meet prescribed standards. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee examined this bill, and it earned bipartisan endorsement. That is a good sign. Labor will support the bill. We also support the committee's recommendation that there be a proper review of this legislation in a further two years time. No-one could see these changes as anything less than an enormous admission of failure on the part of this government. From a small-business perspective, it's vital to ensure that financial advisers are appropriately regulated to ensure that individuals, microbusinesses and small businesses are receiving appropriate advice. But, of course, those being regulated through this legislation are also themselves small businesses. Upon responding to this legislation, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman observed: Clarity and simplicity of regulatory frameworks is critical to ensuring time-poor small business owners are able to properly implement regulatory requirements in their businesses. Small businesses are currently exposed to a large number of regulatory changes in the financial advice industry, and the cumulative effect of these changes results in a significant increase in the complexity of compliance. Constant chopping and changing by this government hasn't been helping. The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority was introduced nearly five years ago by the Morrison government, but it's been a monumental failure. It's been bungled from day dot. It bungled the development of a standards test for financial advisers at the very time that the Hayne royal commission was shining a spotlight on the need for an overhaul of a workforce that was struggling to make the transition from being a sales force to being a profession. It literally permitted professional advisers to fail every three months. There's never been a more important time for Australians to get good financial advice, especially in the turbulent economic conditions that our whole nation is facing at this point. Ultimately, anyone providing financial advice to anyone should be providing that advice from a place of professionalism, qualifications and following an industry code of conduct. That is what people will be expecting when they go to seek professional advice. While Labor has always been in favour of reforms that will support a professional, consumer focused financial advice industry, the government's implementation of those reforms has demonstrated reckless incompetence. While it's necessary that this authority is wound up, the power of the organisation will transfer to the responsible minister. Certified Practising Accountants Australia, CPA, has questioned whether Treasury has the skills and expertise to perform the functions of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority once they are transferred over. CPA Australia was also concerned about potential increased costs to the financial advice sector with the formation of the Financial Services and Credit Panel. It cited that in the past two years the fee per financial adviser has increased 160 per cent, while the number of financial advisers had fallen from 25,000 in 2017-18 to just over 19,000. To quote them: While the introduction of a single disciplinary model is welcomed, consideration must be given to the fact that the model will sit within ASIC, which will likely further impact the costs incurred by Australian financial services licensees and their financial advisers under the ASIC industry funding model. They went on to say: The increasing cost burden is a significant challenge for many, noting that 90% of financial advisers are sole traders or part of a small business. The increasing costs will also continue to negatively impact the accessibility of affordable advice by the community, an issue on which ASIC are currently focused. Of course, we can never completely divorce the nature of regulation from the costs to the community, as well as the protection that this regulation should afford the community. The Liberal government cut the budget for ASIC when it came into power. It then had to reverse that decision, but then it cut the budget again. The budget for ASIC has reduced significantly over time, partly because this government continues with its task of applying efficiency dividends, which, ironically, are making ASIC less efficient and less able to do its job. It's softening ASIC, which should be that tough cop on the beat. That's why Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer has written to the Treasurer demanding a review of ASIC's industry funding model. In turn, he's also called for greater recognition of specialisations and experience in education and exam standards for financial advice. So, ultimately, whilst Labor supports the implementation of the Hayne royal commission recommendations and this bill, it's well and truly overdue. Good financial advice doesn't come in the form of documentation; it comes from professionals who are ethical in providing their advice and come with a wealth of knowledge and who can tell clients what they need to hear about their finances, not just what they want to hear. The government has failed in the management of this sector. We do support this bill, but after years of waiting we want to make sure we get it right. We hope this bill goes some way towards building a better, more reliable and ethical financial services industry. Whilst this bill has come way too late, and the government has continued to drag its heels on implementing all of the recommendations from the Hayne royal commission, it is crucially important not only that we support this legislation but that the government gets on with the job of bringing forward the legislation necessary for the other recommendations that came from that royal commission. As I mentioned earlier, we are now in much more turbulent financial times. Only this last week I was talking to members of a local men's shed, who were querying with me where they could get good advice on how to handle their finances in retirement. They identified the problems of conflicts of interest and of being concerned that people weren't giving them information and advice that were in their best interests—and also that that advice be affordable. Fixing the regulation of financial advisers is crucially important to making sure that as people head towards retirement and are in retirement they're able to access the professional, ethical and appropriate advice that they require in an affordable way. This legislation will go towards that, and that's why we support it. But it does also need to be reviewed in two years time, to make sure it's actually delivering on the outcomes that it says it will. It is also crucial that the government gets on with the job of making sure that the rest of the recommendations are brought forward for legislation, instead of the government's approach, as I mentioned before, where it has directly contradicted the Hayne royal commission in other places. These are difficult times for Australians in many ways and in many different areas, and it's important that we provide them with the best confidence that they can have in the financial advice that they will and need to be receiving. So we commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. I call the member for Bruce. 11:46 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021 itself is unobjectionable. It finally implements recommendation 2.10 of the banking royal commission, recommending that a single disciplinary body be established for financial advisers. I say 'finally' because this recommendation is now three years old; it's taken the government that long to get the legislation here, and there's great concern that the government is not actually serious about implementing the royal commission's recommendations. Their heart was never in the royal commission—26 times in this parliament Labor attempted to get the government to back our calls for the royal commission and 26 times the government said no. The now Prime Minister told us that it was a stunt, that it was just going to be hot air and that it would undermine confidence in the financial system. Aha! Apparently, so the Liberal Party thought, it was better to let the rorts, scandals and dodgy schemes that the banks were pushing onto their customers just continue, leaving a winner-takes-all culture humming along—letting Australians continue to be ripped off blind by sales agents, masquerading as advisers and reaping huge commissions, and having their lives wrecked. Eventually, of course, Labor prevailed—a couple in the coalition weakened and forced the Prime Minister's hand—and the royal commission was exactly what the banking sector needed. As the shadow minister has said previously, there's nothing like a royal commission. It's a unique form of inquiry—it's a form of truth-telling unlike anything else. At the heart of Commissioner Hayne's report, underlying nearly every instance of misconduct, lay the pursuit of personal profit or gain rewarded through a system of bonuses and incentives. That was the system the Liberal Party fought so hard, year after year, to protect. So we could excuse Australians and members on this side for being a little sceptical about the government's genuineness in implementing the royal commission's recommendations. Indeed, the government has never actually committed to implement the recommendations. They used tricky words. All they said was, 'We will act on them.' It's not the same thing. This shape-shifting Prime Minister cannot be trusted when he uses tricky words like that, and our concerns have been well founded. Three years on, we've seen ongoing delays in actually bringing legislation here; the rejection of core recommendations; a weakening of parliamentary oversight—the House Economics Committee now being misused and the chair running an interference racket to prevent the bank CEOs accounting for the recommendations and instead wasting the committee's time in pursuing ideological frolics against superannuation funds; and backflips, like on recommendation 1.1, the responsible lending obligations, which this House has debated. I do have hopes for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I won't tell anyone, Deputy Speaker Wallace, but I think the chair is doing a good job—it might wreck his reputation if people heard that! But excuse my scepticism on anything the government serves up. The bill also winds up the Financial Advisor and Ethics Authority, transferring the power to set professional standards for financial advice to the minister. That sounds interesting—it sounds okay, doesn't it? Except it's the most stunning admission of failure. The government actually established this authority only three years ago and since then it was characterised by a litany of stuff ups and mistakes. Three chief executive officers in just 18 months—that's got to be a clue it's not going well, but, still, on it rolled and standards were released for financial advisers just days before they were supposed to take effect, causing chaos in the sector. People were saying, 'I can't continue to operate.' It's difficult to fully judge the bill because there have been no drafts regulations published or provided. It is important to scrutinise the regulations when published to ensure they're sensible and that they protect consumer interests, but the government doesn't use them. There's the minister's new-found power that she's gaining from this bill to further water down consumer protections and go back to the bad old days. It is important also that the government listen to consumer advocate CHOICE and make sure that, on the disciplinary panel, there is a consumer representative appointed. It's not in the legislation, but the government have the power to do the right thing and we would expect they would use it. This bill comes in the context of an appalling failure in financial reforms over eight long years of this government. Under the previous Labor government, your predecessor, Deputy Speaker, as chair of the financial services committee, Bernie Ripoll, identified the need to improve standards in the financial advice industry. I think that's a great example of how a committee like that can use its power to delve into a really big problem, shine light on it and propose groundbreaking reforms. This government, though, have bungled the implementation monumentally. If there were an Olympics for implementation failure—actually, I would have to say that I don't think it would be a medal contender when you rank it against vaccine rollouts, quarantine and things that have literally cost people's lives and tens of billions of dollars, but it would certainly make the final. It took the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government six years to even decide to legislate for this authority and 11 years later closed it down. Between the government's messed up implementation of the future of financial advice reforms and the latest implementation failure—their own failure—they actually can't blame anyone else for this mess but themselves. In the setting and policing of standards, the industry is in turmoil. I will make a few remarks about that as the second reading amendment touches on it. The financial advice sector is in serious crisis. The royal commission shone light on and smashed up the old broken business model, which dressed up sales and commissions as financial advice. Rightly so, it's destroyed that model, given what was revealed: the inherent conflict between trying to act in a customer's best interests while receiving huge secret commissions yourself and not telling them about it. There was harm done from that. We've now moved on from, if you like, a conduct crisis to a supply of financial advisers crisis, and therefore it's an access to advice crisis. We went from a conduct crisis to a supply and advice crisis. Quite simply, this means, as many of the government speakers have acknowledged to their credit, although they somehow tried to make it our fault—they're the government; they often forget that—that everyday Australians increasingly cannot afford financial advice. Financial advice has fast become something that only the wealthy can afford, and people have never had more need for decent financial advice. We're experiencing the first recession for 30 years and it is at serious risk of being a double-dip recession. In this quarter there will be negative growth, which even the Treasurer acknowledges. Small businesses and sole traders are particularly vulnerable, as many of them are struggling to trade through the crisis. For many sole traders in particular, their personal finances are inextricably bound up with their business finances. They need to be able to access decent financial advice in an affordable way. Also, people in this country are now retiring with more money than ever before in the history of our nation, thanks to Labor's superannuation reforms decades ago. Super is of course attacked mercilessly by the government. You have half the backbench waging mad culture wars, ignoring the royal commission's finding which smashed up retail super run by their mates in the banks and found industry super overall has been performing well. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good culture war for the government! Despite this, everyday Australians have greater need for financial advice and it's never been harder to get. There has been the spotlight of the royal commission's report and the consequent reforms, the monumental mishandling of the ethics authority—and we're now dealing with the fallout—the accreditation process, fees jumping by 180 per cent in just two years, and an ageing workforce. All of these things, combined with the government's mismanagement, have driven an exodus of financial advisors from the industry. The government have treated this profession appallingly, as the shadow minister outlined well in his speech earlier today. Through their sheer incompetence, they've ignored and harmed people they've actually always claimed as part of their own Liberal Party constituency. If that's how they treat their friends! More than 4,000 experienced advisers have left the sector in just under three years. About 50 per cent of advisers have gone, many estimates suggest, with projections that more are yet to leave in the near future. That gap means, with a smaller pool of financial advisers and a higher demand for financial advice, everyday Australians are simply being priced out of the market—or left to TikTok influencers, as we heard in a recent public hearing. Even ASIC, the corporate regulator, is now concerned about the rise of social media financial influencers. You can just go and get advice on the internet from people on Facebook and TikTok. The minister doesn't think this is a problem. Sure, it's no different from chatting to someone at the pub or a cab driver—except ASIC pointed out they are concerned because these influencers on social media, it seems, are taking kickback commissions. The bad old days are reappearing on social media. That's where the government is leaving everyday Australians to find their financial advice. It's completely unacceptable. Addressing this crisis is urgent. It needs serious work from the government to engage with industry and the regulators and work out how to close this advice gap, because all Australians, not just the wealthy, should be able to access quality financial advice about their retirement, their investment strategies and their insurance. That point about insurance is important. I'll just make a couple of brief remarks on that. One of the consequences of the decimation of the financial advice sector appears to be the looming problem in the life insurance industry. Financial advisers are a key distribution channel, of course, for life insurance companies, helping clients to access not just life and death insurance but also TPD insurance and income protection insurance. Often, they provide better policies or point people to more appropriate policies than the default ones run through the superannuation funds, which certainly have their place but aren't based on an assessment of someone's individual circumstances. I know the importance of life insurance firsthand. My dad died when I was four, and, frankly, we were only able to keep the house because Dad had life insurance so Mum could pay off the house. We didn't have much else after that, but it was only because of that foresight, the conservative approach of having life insurance to protect your family, that we kept the house. I stress that we have greater coverage now because of superannuation, but, without the role of financial advisers pointing people towards appropriate products, we may see further problems emerge. I note the royal commission recommended a conservative approach—not to decouple commissions from the sale of life insurance but to undertake a further review, which I think the government has just kicked off. I think the royal commission was right to be cautious, and I hope the process will be robust and will carefully test the claim that commissions should be retained in this area. The default question for the sector should be why they shouldn't be abolished, but I do acknowledge that there are perhaps different arguments in the cases of life insurance and financial insurance. That needs to be tested carefully through the process and a conclusion reached. I see the Government Whip shaking his head. I'm not expressing a view. I'm acknowledging the point, just to be clear there. Not all the solutions to the crisis of advice may be found in the private sector. If we're thinking about how people can access financial advice, particularly people with very low incomes, there needs to be a role for government or not-for-profits, at least in providing financial literacy programs, as has happened in other countries. In some places, that's the best way to access financial advice for people who can't afford to pay but do need that basic information to make informed and sensible choices about their savings and finances. The point remains that impartial and affordable retirement income advice should be available to all Australians, including low- and middle-income earners with modest savings. In doing that, making whatever changes are necessary, we can't go back to the bad old days. Sales have to remain decoupled from the provision of advice. That inherent conflict is gone, but serious reflection and changes are needed. The bulk of the answer lies in the private sector—the professional advisory sector. We need to think of how to rebuild this sector and support it to adapt. Labor has raised some sensible suggestions. We've called for the reform of the ASIC funding model and we've called for greater recognition of specialisations in the education and examination standards for financial advice—practical things. As the shadow minister also said, hundred-page statements are not always the best consumer protection. They create a whole lot of red tape, which I think everyone acknowledges. Red tape is very different from guardrails and basic consumer protections. These are issues which the government needs to look at, and indeed perhaps the parliament, as in years past, could play a useful role in that. Certainly, under your chairmanship, Deputy Speaker Wallace, so far we seem to have moved away from ideological frolics on litigation funding and superannuation, so the early signs bode well. Perhaps we could use that committee to look at these more serious issues in a bipartisan way. So, I'm hopeful that the government will act—although, if history is any guide, I'm not optimistic that the government will rise to the challenge, because for eight long years they've failed this sector, and ordinary Australians are now living with the consequences. The wealthy are doing fine; it's everyday Australians who now can't get advice. The government mucked around for years and did nothing. They fought against the royal commission and are now implementing its recommendations in a half-hearted way. The authority that we're now abolishing they built three years ago from the ground up, giving it the wrong direction and the wrong leadership. And now they admit their failure in this bill, which abolishes their own creation. Time will tell whether they can learn from their mistakes and deal with the crisis in the financial advice sector. But, despite the criticisms, I hope you've heard from many of the opposition speakers a genuine acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and a desire to try to work with and support the government where they come up with good suggestions to reform the sector. 12:00 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I would like to start by thanking those members who have contributed to this debate on the Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021. The government is committed to implementing its response to the financial services royal commission and is delivering one of its commitments through this legislation. This bill implements recommendation 2.10, which recommends the establishment of a single disciplinary body for financial advisers and that all financial advisers who provide personal financial advice to retail clients be registered. The bill expands the role of the Financial Services and Credit Panel within ASIC to take on the role of the single disciplinary body and gives the panel new sanction powers. Consistent with Commissioner Hayne's observations, the establishment of the single disciplinary body will ensure that appropriate disciplinary consequences are imposed and this disciplinary action extends beyond a financial adviser's role within a particular licensee. The bill also seeks to streamline the number of bodies involved in the oversight of financial advisers by transferring the functions that are currently undertaken by the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority to the minister responsible for the Corporations Act 2001 and ASIC. Finally, the bill provides that tax financial advisers will no longer be regulated by the Tax Practitioners Board and will instead be regulated only under the Corporations Act 2001. This is consistent with recommendation 7.1 from the independent review of the Tax Practitioners Board. I commend this 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 Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question before the House is that the amendment be disagreed to.

The House divided. [12:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 43 AYES Allen, K Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Archer, BK Bell, AM Chester, D Christensen, GR Conaghan, PJ Coulton, M Drum, DK (teller) Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Haines, H Hammond, CM Hunt, GA Joyce, BT Laming, A Littleproud, D Liu, G McCormack, MF Morrison, SJ O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pearce, GB Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Price, ML Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Simmonds, J Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tudge, AE van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wilson, TR Wyatt, KG Young, T 35 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Burke, AS Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hayes, CP Hill, JC King, CF Leigh, AK McBain, KL Mitchell, BK Owens, JA Payne, AE Perrett, GD Phillips, FE Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, DPB Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM (teller) Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 27 12:13 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 27

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021

Second Reading 27 12:14 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 and, because the member for Kingston is appearing by video presence, on her behalf, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) most families receive no extra support from the Government's changes to the child care subsidy; (2) the Government's changes do nothing to stop out of control child care fees; (3) the workforce participation rate is projected to decline over the forward estimates; and (4) Australia ranks 37 out of 41 OECD countries for child care affordability". The female labour force participation rate in Australia is higher than the OECD average but so is the share of Australian women working part time. We know very clearly that childcare access is a core driver of women's labour force participation. You see this in studies that look across countries. You see this in individual studies by economists who have looked at particular policy reforms, such as Quebec's $5 a day early childhood or policy changes in Washington DC. It's very clear that, if you want to increase women's labour force participation rates—which isn't just an equity issue; it's also a productivity issue about getting the most out of the productive capacity of the Australian workforce—then you need to tackle early childhood. But the coalition's policy applies only to some families in need. There are, according to Labor's analysis of Parliamentary Budget Office work, 860,000 families—86 per cent of all families with children aged under six in the system—who are better off under Labor's policy compared with the coalition's. Indeed, every single family with one child aged five or under in child care—some 727,000 families—will receive absolutely no lift in their childcare subsidy rate under the Liberals, but, so long as their incomes are below the threshold, they will benefit from Labor's. Labor's policies will do more to boost women's labour force participation—a critical issue for Australia. It is currently the case, according to a UNICEF report entitled Where do rich countries stand on childcare?, that Australia ranks 37th out of 41 countries. UNICEF found that Australia was one of only eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage, which is why the Leader of the Opposition made early childhood a focus of last year's budget reply and why the government, belatedly, had childcare reforms as part of this budget. But, as so often happens with the coalition, whether it's JobKeeper or vaccination, the government seems to have an uncanny ability to take a good idea and muck it up. As the Grattan Institute has said very clearly in comparing the two sets of policies: … Labor's policy is broader, with all families who use child care standing to gain, regardless of the number of children, their age and the family income. The Grattan Institute goes on to say of Labor's policy: … it would also have bigger benefits, sharpening workforce incentives for a much wider group of families. The boost to GDP from higher workforce participation is likely to also be about three times bigger. The institute points out that, in terms of the impact on family budgets, the big difference is that the government's policy affects families with multiple children aged under six in care, whereas Labor's policy extends it to families with one child in care. It points out that making such an investment is important for women's workforce participation and long-term economic security, but it's also critical to Australia's productivity. Labor will continue to stand on the side of improved accessibility to child care. We will support the modest changes in this bill, which reflect those announced on budget night, but we believe the government has to go much further if we are to achieve the kind of egalitarian, high-productivity society that Labor so strongly supports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E09 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Butler 248006 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:19 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Many of us in the House are working parents. We know the challenges that face us when we need to return to work and the juggle of a young family and a career. Whether those challenges are financial or emotional, we know it can be difficult on the family. Therefore, it's a great privilege to be in this House to debate a bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, that will provide much-needed assistance and choice to families right across Australia. I'm proud for all of us here in the chamber, because we all care about not only a productive and efficient economy but also families that are happy and supportive for their children. In this year's budget, the Morrison government committed to making child care more affordable and, by doing so, providing more choices for families. I'm pleased for the women of Australia and for my daughters and those that follow behind us. That's what this bill is basically doing. Research demonstrates that development during early child care sets either a sturdy or a fragile state for what follows. The Morrison government understands this and will continue to provide and expand subsidy for quality child care to the benefits of parents now and children in generations to come. As a previous paediatrician, I understand the value of child care and quality child care for children, for their best start to life. The issue of the gender workforce participation rate is also a pivotal concern to the Morrison government. Female workforce participation is currently 67.6 per cent. The Morrison government's policies have enabled this rate to be at its highest in the last 10 years. But it still lags behind men's participation. We need to keep working to narrow the female workforce participation gap. We know that the three Ps—participation, population and productivity—are the keys to a strong economy. This is important now more than ever in our post-COVID era. We know that an increase in childcare costs is correlated with reduced female employment. In a time when women have been hit so disproportionately hard by the COVID pandemic, the Morrison government recognises the need for more support and will deliver that with this bill. These changes will see 250,000 families pay fewer out-of-pocket costs due to these changes. If not for the removal of the current income cap, there would continue to be a disincentive for a second earner to undertake work by not only paying high childcare fees but receiving fewer childcare subsidies and fewer family tax incentives, and paying more income tax. The Morrison government wants to encourage workforce participation, particularly among women who would otherwise be held back from the workforce without this bill—women who want to make sure that they make an impact on the workforce well beyond the time that they spend with their children, to be able to balance that and know that the government has their back. A 2008 survey saw 127,000 women across Australia cite caring for children as their reason for not looking for work or seeking more hours. This bill provides support for those very people by removing the cap that currently sees parents limited in their access to affordable early learning and care. The majority of additional subsidy will go into the pockets of low- and middle-income earners, with Australia's lowest income earners those that need it most, privy to the highest rate of subsidy. Our government policies are already working. This bill before us will again help increase female participation. Results in June this year show that participation is up and that underemployment is down. There were 115,000 new jobs created, 85 per cent of which were full-time jobs. Most importantly, of those 115,000 new jobs around 60 per cent went to women. These figures show that there are more women in work than ever before, and the numbers should give Australians confidence that the Morrison government's economic plan is working. The Morrison government's investment into child care will target low- and middle-income earners, putting money back in families' pockets. The bill before us targets additional support to all eligible Australian families with more than one child aged under six in child care. This means around 250,000 families will benefit. That translates to an average of $2,260 per year. What a huge difference that will make to a young Australian family. Everyone knows, when you've got young children, the costs are enormous not just for child care but for all sorts of things, and to have that little bit of comfort that childcare costs will be supported will make such a difference to families. But, importantly, with these amendments, it removes the disincentives to work while maintaining the principles of the system. The amendment before us today targets families who need it most. Child care for younger children is more costly, and because of this it can limit choices for parents when considering whether to take on that extra time in the workplace. This is particularly so when families have more than one child aged under six. Any parent knows what a busy time it is for a young family. These families are also more likely to be working less with lower incomes and higher childcare costs compared to families with older children, and that's why we intend on making positive changes for Australian families through this amendment. This amendment is slated to come into effect in July 2022. By July 2022, we will increase the childcare subsidy available to families with more than one child. The level of subsidy will increase by 30 percentage points to a maximum subsidy of 95 per cent of fees paid for their second and subsequent child. Around 50 per cent of families who benefit from the measure will receive the maximum 95 per cent subsidy for their second and subsequent child. This will make a significant difference. Around 95 per cent of families who benefit from the measure will receive a subsidy of at least 80 per cent for their second and subsequent child. Importantly, we will remove the $10,560 annual cap on the childcare subsidy for families earning over $189,000, and that will benefit a further 18,000 families. This will ensure families with multiple children don't exhaust their childcare subsidy cap sooner in the year for younger children. These changes will put more money in the hands of Australian families, particularly those who are already dealing with childcare costs. This is a core principle of our childcare subsidy. The activity test, importantly, does remain in place to ensure families must be undertaking activity, and that's because we want to encourage people to use the childcare subsidy to help them get into work, to help them undertake training or to help them to study so that they can be eligible for the workforce going forward. These measures reduce workforce disincentives for families and encourage parents, especially second income earners who are more often women, to go back to work or to work more, if they choose to, or to get more training so they can be ready for the workforce. Sixty per cent of the additional investment goes to families earning under $180,000. The maximum childcare subsidy rate will increase to 95 per cent for these families and the total subsidy will be important for those who have two children in care. Those who earn the least will receive the most. As I said before, we plan to remove the annual cap, and this is a core component because this actually creates a disincentive for increased workforce participation. In the past, once a family hit the annual cap, they were required to pay 100 per cent of childcare fees. This results in large effective marginal tax rates and the possibility of significant debts, and this shouldn't be underestimated. If they've got this incorrect, this can actually result in large debts, even if it's by a small amount. Not removing the annual cap will maintain and, in some cases, increase workforce disincentives where a family has a combined income over $189,000. This previously would have negated any extra benefit generated by the increased subsidy. I have been asked about why we have to wait for the measure to be implemented with this announcement. The reason for this is these measures require several things to be taken into account. They require the development of business requirements to inform the underpinning IT system changes, they require a complex technical build by Services Australia, and they require complementary changes for the software providers and their systems to support the childcare sector. The implementation lead time takes into consideration time to communicate changes with the childcare sector as well as for software providers to build and test their changes to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. This means that these changes will be ready to be implemented by July 2022. The bill before us today clearly shows the Morrison government is committed to delivering more affordable child care and choice for Australian families. This bill is yet another example that the Morrison government has the back of all families, that we understand how important getting women into the workforce is, but also, more importantly, maintaining them in the workforce. I know, seeing so many of my friends and colleagues moving in and out of the workforce, how having that continuity and support for early child care, and ensuring that it is of good quality and of great accessibility, is important to all women in Australia. 12:30 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston [by video link] I am very pleased to be able to get the opportunity to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 because, as most people would be aware, I'm always very happy to debate early learning and care in the House of Representatives. I am surprised by the urgency that the government is placing on this bill to get it through the parliament considering that the start date for support for families outlined in the bill does not come into effect until 1 July 2022. Yes, that's correct, 2022, after the next budget—probably after an election—is when any assistance will flow. This bill is not responding to immediate financial relief that Australians need right now and Australian families need right now. Australian families are groaning under the burden of the cost of child care. This bill, finally, is some acknowledgement by the Morrison-Joyce government that family budgets are being hammered as a result of childcare costs. But, unfortunately, this bill only tinkers, providing support for just a minority of families using the system, with hundreds of thousands of families receiving no support at all. I note that the member for Fenner has moved a second reading amendment. This is a very important second reading amendment that does really clearly demonstrate that this government is failing when it comes to the support provided in this bill. We've had the government waste a lot of oxygen trying to deny that childcare fees are an issue. We've heard them day after day for the last three years telling Australian families that child care has never been cheaper and that the system that the Prime Minister himself designed is just fine. However, this is just not the experience, the lived experience, of families around Australia. We know that long day care fees went up by four per cent in 2020. This includes four months of free child care and then a period in which fees were frozen by the government. This was at the same time as CPI was just 0.9 per cent. The fees have hiked 9.3 per cent under the Prime Minister's new childcare subsidy in just over 2½ years, according to the most recent published data. And fees are now up 37.2 per cent since the election of the Liberal government. The government doesn't like to talk about this data. In fact, the government regularly wants to talk about a different index. They regularly want to talk about the ABS index, the out-of-pocket costs index, so let's talk about that index. It is true that the index showed a fall in out-of-pocket costs when the new system was introduced in July 2018. But any benefit from this system has now been completely eroded just three years later with the increase in fees eclipsing the index of the subsidy, with the latest ABS figures showing that the average out-of-pocket costs are now higher for families than ever before. Out-of-pocket costs are now at a record high. Any way you cut it—whether you want to look at the increase in fees, whether you want to look at the out-of-pocket costs—fees and out-of-pocket costs are out of control for Australian families. They are eating a bigger and bigger hole into household budgets and putting more financial strain on Australian families. It is holding families back from working. There are almost 100,000 families not working directly as a result of the cost of child care. It is hampering workforce participation. It is holding second income earners, usually women, back from working the hours they want and need. The cost of child care is having a real impact in other ways. Research released in June by The Front Project, based on a survey of 1,700 families, found that 73 per cent of families say the cost of child care is a barrier to them having more children. Fifty-two per cent agreed that once the cost of child care was factored in it was hardly worth working. Labor knows that this system, a system that the Prime Minister designed, is not working for Australian families. That is why we've announced an ambitious plan to make child care cheaper for a million families. After months of belittling Labor's plan and bragging about the current system, the Morrison government has been dragged kicking and screaming to introduce this bill to make modest changes in just under a year's time. Turning to the main features of the bill, schedule 1 removes the annual childcare subsidy cap from the family assistance act. So there will no longer be a limit on the amount of subsidy that families can receive in a year. The annual cap was a terrible policy. It was a serious barrier to the second income earner in a family, usually a woman, working the hours they wanted and needed. It was a terrible idea to include it in the new system and nobody recommended it. The Productivity Commission certainly didn't when in 2015 they were asked by the government to design a new subsidy system. They didn't include in it their system, so who actually came up with the idea of this annual cap, which now everyone seems to be decrying? It was the then Minister for Social Services, the current Prime Minister. Abolishing the Morrison cap is a great idea. It's so great that Labor had already announced that, if elected, we would introduce it as a policy. However, why families must wait until July 2022 for this relief is beyond me. While the government say that other changes in this bill will require significant IT changes, and that is the reason the start date has been delayed, I cannot see why they can't immediately remove the annual cap for families, as that would not require significant IT changes at all. The amendments in schedule 2 will increase the rate of the childcare subsidy by 30 percentage points for second and subsequent children under the age of six, up to a maximum rate of 95 per cent. This measure will be implemented through a two-phase approach to ensure implementation occurs as soon as possible but allowing sufficient time for the necessary system to be built. Also, it is to ensure integrity measures are put into the new system. These changes to the subsidy do provide extra support for some families for a short period of time. Labor will support the bill, because if the government manage to get the IT changes in place they maybe will introduce the changes before 1 July 2022, but it is disappointing that the government has not provided more support. The government's pre-budget announcement promised much, but the bill has failed to deliver. Like everything with the government, they focused more on getting the announcement right than they did on getting the policy right. They even made a childcare centre open on a Sunday to get kids playing in the background so that they could get the announcement up on Sunday night TV. The problem is that this bill will see hundreds of thousands of families not get any extra help. Three-quarters of families in the system will get no extra childcare subsidy. The government has announced a complex and restrictive policy that benefits only families with at least two children below school age in care. Parents will need a mathematics degree to understand how their family interacts with the new government system—which child will attract a lower subsidy, which child will attract a higher subsidy—and when children go to school that all gets re-ordered. It is a pity that the government has not just adopted Labor's proposal, which would have delivered three times the boost to GDP. An analysis of the Labor and Liberal childcare policies—both of which, might I add, have the same start date, 1 July 2022—shows unequivocally that Labor's policy provides more support for more families for longer. Eighty-six per cent of families with school-aged children under six in the system are better off under Labor's proposal. Every single family with one child aged five and under in child care—that's 727,000 families—on a combined family income of less than $530,000 will receive absolutely no lift in their childcare subsidy. But they will, of course, under Labor's plan. The vast majority of families with a combined family income of between $69,806 and $174,806 with two children in care will be better off under Labor. And any extra support that the Liberals do provide in this bill to families with two children will be only temporary, as it will be ripped away when the family's oldest child goes to school. In contrast, Labor's boost in support will be provided to every child for the entire time that they are in child care—and, indeed, in after-school-hours care. We'll also get the ACCC to design a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. The Productivity Commission will also conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families if Labor is elected at the next election. That is real reform. That is not just tinkering around the edges like we are seeing in this bill. Labor's plan, if we're elected at the next election, will be good for families and good for the economy. Labor will support this bill because something is better than nothing. Anything that helps even a small number of families is worth supporting. But Labor has a better alternative. If we are elected, we will introduce a system that provides real support to families. But it is no wonder that the government doesn't want to talk about their childcare policy any more. I have not seen any press conferences or any ministers stand up and proactively want to talk about this policy because they know it pales in comparison with Labor's policy. The government's own budget papers show that workforce participation rates will fall even after these changes. We need to get Australians back working the hours they want and need, as we recover from this pandemic, and early learning and care are such critical parts of that. We believe it, on the Labor side. But of course in the Morrison-Joyce government certainly there are some members who don't. Now, we know that some of those on the government benches still seem to think that early education and care are just glorified expensive babysitting. We know this, because they've said it. When the minister tried to get party room approval for this legislation, we heard what the men of the Morrison government really think about childcare and women going back to work. We heard how one MP in the party room called working women using childcare an outsourcing of parenting. Another said women might be forced back to work if there was increased support for child care. We know that the women of the coalition party room had to remind their male colleagues to respect women who choose to return to work and that child care was about providing equality of opportunity for working families. They also had to remind the men that young families are under a great deal of stress and we shouldn't judge them for their choices. Well, I don't envy the women in the coalition party room, who have to, in this day and age, teach their male colleagues about the basics of gender equality and the basic real lived experience of families and what families are going through. What century are we in? It is 2021, and we have members of the Morrison-Joyce government shaming parents for using childcare and needing a reminder to respect the right of women to choose how they balance their work and family life. This is just completely and utterly archaic and shows just how out of touch members of this government are. Those who have argued that there need to be incentives for women to stay at home—which has happened in the coalition party room—completely ignore the structural workforce disincentives that they have created because of record high childcare fees. Working families struggle every day to balance the demands of home and work. Household budgets are stretched thinner and thinner, with stagnant wages, growing costs of living and soaring out-of-pocket costs. At the same time so many parents, especially mothers, struggle internally with the competing priorities of raising their children and earning enough money to put food on the table. The very last thing that families and women need is the government shaming them and judging them for their choices. I have a message for those in the coalition, those in the Morrison government: women who work are not bad parents—they're not outsourcing their parenting. Nobody can trust this government to deliver a childcare system that truly works for them as we emerge from this pandemic—one that truly gives choice and doesn't embed financial disincentives for actually working extra days. But those on the government benches are still, in their party room today in 2021, debating the merits of investing in child care at all. Only Labor has a plan for reform of the childcare system which works in the best interests of families and delivers real and lasting support. So we will support this bill—a damp squib is better than no squib at all—but we think it should go a lot further. This legislation is not being enacted until 1 July 2022, and no doubt there will be an election before then. There will be a choice on the table: the Australian people have an opportunity to choose whether they will endorse a limp, non-reformist agenda of the childcare system or cheaper child care for Australian families which helps them get back to work, grows the economy and helps businesses to get back on their feet. That will be the choice. Labor stands for better child care; the Liberal Party has tinkered around the edges and has not delivered long-lasting reform with this piece of legislation. 12:47 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I am pleased to speak about the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021. Australian women's labour force participation rates have increased significantly over the last decades. As at March 2021, Australia recorded a high of 61.8 per cent of females aged 15 and over participating in the workforce. In some ways this increase should come as no surprise, as the levels of educational attainment by women have also increased significantly over that time period—so much so that of all women aged between 20 to 24, 92.5 per cent have attained year 12 qualifications or above compared to 87.5 per cent of men in the same age bracket. Of all women aged 25 to 29, 48.3 per cent have achieved a bachelor degree or above compared to 36.1 per cent of similarly aged men. Women represent approximately 58 per cent of domestic students enrolled in universities or other institutions, and this has risen from 57 per cent in 2007. However, underneath these statistics regarding workforce participation rates is the fact that more females are engaged in part-time employment than their male counterparts. Women comprise 47.2 per cent of all employed persons in Australia; 25 per cent of all employed persons are women working full-time and 21 per cent are women working part-time. Women constitute 37.9 per cent of full-time employees and almost 68 per cent of all part-time employees. For parents whose youngest child was under six, three in five employed mothers worked part-time compared to less than one in 10 employed fathers. For parents whose youngest child was aged between six and 14 years, close to half of all the employed mothers worked part-time compared to less than one in 10 employed fathers. Over the last decade there have been numerous studies and reports highlighting that the increasing female workforce participation rate is one of the biggest economic opportunities for governments. Indeed, the recent Intergenerational report highlighted this as an important element in increasing our productivity levels as a country as we face an ageing and smaller population. At the same time, and running alongside the above studies, there are a number of studies and reports which provide economic arguments for supporting and encouraging parents to stay at home. I don't seek to get into the economic debate on this—I acknowledge that there are valid arguments raised from different sides of this discussion and analysis—nor do I seek to get into the cultural debate on whether having one parent at home or having two parents working is a better societal choice than the other. Parents and families have the right and the responsibility to make that decision for themselves. There is no one-size-fits-all model. My key concern with respect to the above statistics on female participation in the labour force is that they are not the result of true choice or true opportunity. The decision to work or not work, or indeed how much to work, is influenced by a number of hurdles and barriers, one of which is the cost and availability of child care. Numerous surveys have shown that, among mothers who have young children and would like to work more hours, child care is a significant, if not the most significant, barrier. A recent survey shows that two-thirds say they are prevented from working more by lack of child care. Half say the main reason is the cost of child care and about 45 per cent of mothers say they would work more hours if child care were more affordable. If working an additional day leads to no or virtually no more take-home pay, this is not real choice and this is not real opportunity. It is, in fact, a disincentive. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, before parliament today, gives effect to the Australian government's commitment to make child care more affordable for the families who need it most and provides additional support to all CCS-eligible Australian families with more than one child aged under six in child care. The two main changes introduced under this bill will see, from July 2022, an increase to the subsidy and the removal of the cap. With respect to the subsidy, families with more than one child in child care will see their level of subsidy increase 30 percentage points to a maximum subsidy of 95 per cent of fees paid for their second and subsequent children. Around 50 per cent of families who benefit from the measure, those earning less than about $130,000 a year, will receive the maximum 95 per cent subsidy for their second and subsequent children. Around 95 per cent of families who benefit from the measure will receive a subsidy of at least 80 per cent for their second and subsequent children. These changes will benefit around 250,000 Australian families and will benefit those who need it most. Those on the lowest incomes will continue to receive the highest rate of subsidy. Also, this bill will remove the $10,560 annual cap on the childcare subsidy for families earning over $189,390, benefitting around 18,000 families. The annual cap can create a disincentive for increased workforce participation. Once a family hits the annual cap, they are required to pay 100 per cent of the childcare fees. This results in a large ineffective marginal tax rate and the possibility of significant debts should they estimate their income incorrectly, even by small amounts. Not removing the annual cap will maintain, and in some cases increase, workforce disincentives where a family has combined income over $189,390. This would negate any extra benefit generated by the increased subsidy. By way of finishing, the highest childcare costs are borne by families with multiple children. This can be a significant barrier preventing parents, particularly second-income earners, who are primarily women, from re-entering the workforce or increasing their participation. A family with more than one child aged under six can double or triple their costs. This could mean that the second income earner is losing most or all of their income, delaying their return to work or ability to take on an increased number of hours until children attend school. Reducing out-of-pocket costs for families with multiple children will support greater choice and greater opportunity for these parents' participation in the workforce. This measure reduces workforce disincentives for families and encourages parents, especially second-income earners, who are more often women, to go back to work or to work more if they choose to do so. 12:54 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith [by video link] The interesting thing about this pandemic if you watch the nightly news is that the majority of people that you see that are working during the pandemic are women. They are the nurses that are doing the swabbing of patients at our COVID testing clinics, our early child educators that are continuing to educate our kids and the teachers that are doing the work ensuring that our kids continue to learn. Indeed, in many cases, women are the ones who are doing most of the work when it comes to the home schooling of our kids. Women really are our COVID heroes and have helped our economy get through this very difficult period. One of those groups of workers where the workforce predominantly is female is in early childhood education and family day care. It is a vitally important service that predominantly women deliver for our community. It is very, very important for the productivity of our nation. Ensuring that we have a workable and accessible childcare industry is the key to ensuring that more family members, particularly women, are able to return to work after they have a child and participate productively in our economy. There have been several Productivity Commission reports that have recommended and seen the benefits of making child care more accessible and affordable for Australian workers. That's something that's been coming through in the consultations that I've been doing in the community that I represent. The cost of living is a huge issue for families not only in my community but also across Australia, and a large contributor to the cost-of-living pressures that families are feeling is the cost of childcare fees. That's why Labor worked with parents, with early child educators and with associations to put together our 'fairer childcare policy', which would see real reductions in the cost of child care and improvements in the accessibility of child care to ensure that more parents, particularly women, get access to the workforce. Labor, of course, supports the reforms that are contained in this bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, which implements the government's changes to the childcare subsidy that were announced in the budget on 2 May. The main feature of this bill is the removal of the annual childcare subsidy cap which limits the amount of childcare subsidy that some families can receive in a year. The bill also increases the childcare subsidy rate for families with multiple children under six years of age. We know that the cost of child care is a massive restraint on our economy and will remain a significant roadblock to the recovery from this pandemic. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data, last month, showed that 138,700 Australians were not working because they simply cannot access affordable child care. Of that, 92 per cent are women, about 127,600. The data also presents further evidence of the expensive nature of Australia's childcare costs that are preventing parents, particularly women, from working the hours that they want to contribute to our economy. It is clear that out-of-pocket child care costs are out of control under the Morrison government. Their half-hearted childcare policy falls abysmally short of what's required to provide genuine relief for families. The government's policy will only provide a small amount of relief for a small minority of families for a short amount of time. The vast majority of families get absolutely no additional childcare subsidy support under this government's plan. In contrast, Labor has listened to the concerns of parents, and our plan will bring down the cost of child care and keep it down for 97 per cent of families. The Morrison government's rhetoric and spin around their childcare announcement has been smashed by the new data. Analysis of the competing policies, of Labor's policy and the government's childcare policy, shows unequivocally that Labor's policy provides more support for families and for a longer period of time. There are 860,000 families—which is 86 per cent of all families with children under six in the system—who would be better off under Labor's policies compared with the Liberals' policies. Every single family with one child aged five or under in child care—that's 727,000 families—and with a combined family income of less than $530,000 will receive absolutely no lift in their childcare subsidy rate under the Liberals' policy, but they will under Labor's policy. Our analysis busts the government's spin that their policy is better at supporting families with two children and better at supporting low- to middle-income families. The vast majority of families with a combined family income of between $69,806 and $174,806 with two children in child care will be better off under Labor. Any extra support the Liberals do provide family with two children will be temporary. It will be ripped away when the family's oldest child goes to school. In contrast, Labor's boost in support will be provided to every child for the entire time that they are in child care. Labor's childcare plan will leave one million families better off than they are now—four times as many as under the government's proposal. Our plan to provide more support to families for longer will also result in a boost to GDP that is three times larger than it would be under the Liberals. With both policies set to start in July 2022, Australian families will go to the ballot box at the next election with a clear choice between competing childcare policies, with Labor's policy clearly superior on any independent analysis. We know that childcare fees are too expensive and are out of control. These fees are a cost burden and a big contributor to pressure on household budgets for most families throughout the country. Under this government Australian families are paying more in out-of-pocket costs for child care than ever before. The cost of child care is now higher than it was under the previous childcare system. That's an important point to make: the cost of child care is now 0.3 per cent higher than it was under the previous system—and the government spruiked that this was a reform that would reduce costs. It's actually had the opposite effect. Parents need a real plan to tackle the skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs associated with child care. The Productivity Commission's 2021 Report on government services has also shown that childcare costs are locking Australian parents out of the workforce. The data reveals that almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force, due to caring for children. That's a 5.9 per cent increase on previous reporting periods. Notably, the number of parents saying that they're not working 'mainly due to the cost of child care' has skyrocketed by 23 per cent, or 91,700 parents. There is now a mountain of evidence and data proving that the coalition's childcare system has failed to keep a lid on the cost of child care for families. The vast majority of families get absolutely no additional childcare subsidy support under the Morrison government's plan. Labor's plan was put together after a continuous and serious consultation with families, with early educators and with advocacy groups. Our plan will bring down the cost of child care and keep it down, for 97 per cent of families. Our plan scraps the $10½ thousand childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women in particular losing additional money for a day's extra work beyond the two-to-three day period. It will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increase the childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. Importantly, the ACCC will design a price-regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees, and to drive them down and keep pressure on them for good. Under our plan the Productivity Commission will also conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent childcare subsidy for all families. Only Labor has a plan to bring down the costs of child care for more families, and only Labor is working to ensure that we respect the role that early childhood educators play in our society as well—particularly, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of having to go to work during a pandemic. When Australians are being asked to stay at home, it's our early childhood educators who continue to go into their workplace and ensure that they're providing the support that families need so that parents can continue to work. I think it's important that we respect the role that early childhood educators play and that we reflect that in valuing the work that they do through things such as work value cases in the Fair Work Commission and ensuring that early childhood educators are paid appropriately. It's a shame that, in the past, the coalition government—the Morrison government—has campaigned against fair wages for early childhood educators. They are the key to ensuring that our kids get a decent start in life and a decent education. 13:06 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee [by video link] It's a pleasure to join you virtually today to speak to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021. This bill builds on the success of the coalition government's childcare package that was implemented in 2018 and continues to deliver for families and children in Australia. The bill targets additional support to all CCS eligible Australian families with more than one child aged six in child care. Around 250,000 families in Australia will benefit by, on average, $2,260 per year, including 870 families in my electorate of Mallee. From July 2022, our government will increase the childcare subsidy available to families with more than one child, benefiting 250,000 families. The amendment will remove the annual cap on the childcare subsidy for families earning over $189,000 a year, benefiting around 18,000 families. This measure is so important because it removes barriers to employment for parents. Some parents have worked out that it would actually cost them more to take on an extra day or two of work because it will take them over the subsidy cap. We are removing this obstruction for thousands of people so they can take up more work for extra days and so earn more money for their family. These changes will put more money into the hands of Australian families, especially those who need it most. Those on the lowest incomes will continue to receive the highest rate of subsidy. In fact, 60 per cent of the additional investment from these changes will go to families earning under $180,000. Half of Australian families will now receive 95 per cent subsidy for their second and subsequent children. A family in Mallee earning $110,000 a year will have the subsidy for their second child increased from 72 per cent to 95 per cent, and they will be $95 per week better off by utilising four days of child care. A family on an income of $80,000 with three children will have the subsidy increased from 82 per cent to 95 per cent for their second and third child and be $108 per week better off for four days of care. And a single parent on $65,500 with two children in four days of long day care who chooses to work a fifth day will be at least $71 a week better off. These changes will make a real difference to the lives of families all around the country and will equate to thousands of dollars of savings for families in Mallee. These changes are yet another element of our government's commitment to sustainable and affordable childcare services across the country. Last month, I was pleased to announce the allocation of $2.6 million to support vital childcare services across Mallee to help meet the needs of local families. Fourteen childcare services across Mallee received funding through the Liberal-National government's Community Child Care Fund, which helps improve access to child care and increase workforce participation in remote, regional and disadvantaged communities. The service providers themselves were ecstatic to receive the support. The funds will provide much-needed support for services in Horsham, Donald, Mildura, St Arnaud, Nhill, Dimboola, Birchip, Murbein and Warracknabeal. Our government is assisting childcare services that are operating in areas of limited supply to improve the viability and sustainability of their service. These investments have a flow-on effect to the local children and their families, and more broadly into the wider community, as workforce participation increases. It means that more families in Mallee can take advantage of the childcare subsidy if they choose to work, learn or volunteer. This support for families is occurring right across the country, with more than 640 childcare services around Australia sharing in more than $100 million through the program. We know that access to child care is a significant barrier to workforce participation, particularly for women. Adequate child care is a critical element of economic prosperity. That's why I'm pleased that our government is implementing positive changes to the childcare subsidy and investing in childcare services to support their sustainability and prosperity. These investments are crucial to maintaining and improving access to child care for families in regional areas. But more needs to be done to deliver childcare services to rural and remote areas, where thin markets prevent the viability of these childcare services. In the Wimmera Southern Mallee region, 11 of 21 townships have no centre-based long daycare available, with a further five townships having limited long daycare programs. The problem is that in 2019 a total of 536 babies were born in the same region. Invariably, some parents will miss out on child care and others will be forced to travel great distances every day, before and after work, to put their children in child care. This is true for Kendra, from Murtoa in my electorate, who is the mother of two young children. There are no childcare services in Murtoa, the closest being 40 kilometres away, in Horsham. This means that each parent, like Kendra, who needs to or wants to work locally must travel an extra two hours a day to drop off and pick up children. This causes a drain on the Murtoa community, because parents are disincentivised to take up employment opportunities in town. Women in the Wimmera Southern Mallee region have more than double the level of postsecondary qualifications compared with men. Providing childcare support for women to participate in the workforce when their children are young would help address the extensive skilled workforce shortages and reduce loss of skills from the region. The story is much the same for townships in Loddon Shire, including Wedderburn and Inglewood. I recently met with Danny Forrest, the principal of Wedderburn P-12 college, along with Kerry Walker, Maddie Postle and Tammy Martin. This group of mothers and educators are campaigning for childcare services in their town. They told me there are currently about 40 children in need of child care. This is affecting countless families, and the group has compiled impact statements from families in Wedderburn, which they shared with me. The question parents were asked is: how is the inability to access child care impacting you? One family responded: 'A lack of child care in Wedderburn caused my family to rely on one sole income. That was an apprentice wage. We basically lived in poverty without being able to afford healthy food. We fell way behind on bills, we couldn't afford medicines and we were so stressed out, and it got to the point where we actually had to move to Melbourne to live with family who could support us until we could get back on our feet and set up life here.' Another mother said: 'The lack of child care in the area has meant I have been unable to find work locally. I have a five-year-old and a two-year-old and I'm currently 37 weeks pregnant. Without local child care, not only have my children not been able to socialise with other children at critical ages but it has financially impacted my family significantly, surviving on one or no income at times. Working out of town and having a child at the local kinder is not manageable. We don't have grandparents or anyone who can look after our kids and we rely on the system, which in Wedderburn has failed us.' Another family, originally from Wedderburn, has often considered moving because of the lack of child care. They said: 'We would love to be part of the Wedderburn community again, raising our children with family, making memories with friends and contributing to the region by living and working locally. However, the inadequate childcare options and limited potential for growth for our business means that moving home is just not an option for us right now.' The problem is also contributing to a skills drain in the region. One mother said: 'Working in child care myself and having two children, I have to drive to Bendigo every day for care and work. I am very tired at the end of my day, with the extra travel I have to do five days a week. It would make our day a lot easier and allow me to spend more quality time with my children. As I am a diploma qualified childcare worker, I would love to work closer to home.' Another mother said: 'I am six months away from completing my university degree, a qualification that will be invaluable to our community. Due to having no child care, I am unable to complete this remaining six months. I'm on waiting lists for child care up to one hour away but still have not secured a place. It has greatly impacted my mental health, and I'm concerned that my child is not receiving the interaction that she needs with other young children.' I've received over 40 of these impact statements, which include many similar stories to these ones. I don't doubt that there are thousands of Australians living in rural and remote areas with similar issues. The delivery of childcare services to these areas is a clear instance of market failure. The market cannot provide the services due to a lack of financial viability. A problem at the moment is that our current funding models are only available to operational childcare services, which need a minimum of 30 places daily to be financially viable in most cases. The shortfall relates to funding opportunities for establishing new services. Jessie Holmes, the CEO of Yarriambiack Shire Council, has done a lot of work in this space and has developed a solution. She has suggested that the childcare safety net, which has four grant streams, including the Community Child Care Fund, be tweaked to address these challenges. She wants to see the CCCF delivered on an annual basis instead of the biennial basis it currently is on. She wants a process to be established for applying for grant funding from the special circumstances stream for opening a new service, and she wants to see the maximum amount of capital support funding increased from $150,000 to $500,000 in recognition of the high cost of establishing and maintaining a new childcare facility. These are commonsense changes that would help to address the shortage of childcare services in townships across my electorate. I've spoken to the new Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education, Senator Bridget McKenzie, whom I know is a champion for rural and regional Australia. I'm pleased to have Senator McKenzie in my corner because she understands these issues better than anyone. I will continue working with the minister to ensure we achieve positive outcomes for families in my electorate. I know that positive outcomes for these thin markets will be possible due to the coalition government's unwavering commitment to sustainable and affordable child care. Whether through funding from the Community Child Care Fund or the changes to the child care subsidy contained in this bill, our government is focused on providing childcare services to parents who need it. 13:18 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, and I'm pleased to follow the member for Mallee and commend her on raising the issues around child care in her community. I was also pleased to see the member for Curtin speaking. I'm pleased because it means that the women in the LNP, the women in this government, who were elected to represent their communities here, are feeling confident about expressing the needs of families in their communities. I join them to put some context around the childcare situation in Australia currently. As everyone in the chamber knows, I'm the member for Lalor. That means I represent the outer western suburbs of Melbourne, specifically the local government area of Wyndham. In my electorate there are 13,380 children under five years of age attending child care. There are 5,810 above five years of age accessing out-of-school-hours care. That's a total of 19,190 children covering 14,350 families. We're a very young electorate. We're an electorate where couples are raising their children. They're attracted to our area by affordable housing. There are 157 childcare services in the electorate and they've all been confronted by a three per cent increase in fees from December 2019 to 2020. Wyndham is home to the most children in child care and to the most families accessing child care in the country, and we're home to the most services. So those here can imagine that this is the pointy end, if you like, of my interests in serving my electorate. I'll mention the member for Mallee and the member for Curtin, because I think that context is really important. We need to understand, as the member for Curtin outlined and the member for Kingston certainly outlined, the potential economic flow-on effects of better child care in this country—of more affordable child care and more accessible child care in this country. We know that at the moment there are barriers in our childcare system that are stopping some parents from working more days. They're stopping some parents from working at all and stopping families from making decisions that would assist to set them up. I want to add to some of that context. When I was first elected, I took a phone call from a member of my community who had just got off a train at the Werribee station. He was in the car. The train had been late and there was some congestion around the station. He was in tears because he knew that he had missed the six o'clock deadline for the pickup at child care. He was in tears, saying to me, 'Something's got to give, Jo—something's got to change.' Our families cannot continue to live under this kind of pressure. I want to talk a little about that, because it is personal, it is social and it is economic—not just for the country but for every family accessing this service. Families in my community are leaving home and commuting, either in their cars or using public transport, often for over an hour each way to access work. If we add to that the drop-offs and pickups at childcare centres and schools for out-of-school-hours care then we have very, very long days. And that all comes together. So I'm standing here today, talking about a piece of legislation that the government is bringing in. Let's face it, all of the women opposite and everyone in this chamber should be stopping by the member for Kingston's office to thank her, because one of the things this piece of legislation does is that it plans to abolish the annual subsidy cap. It is the member for Kingston who has driven that in this place. It is the member for Kingston who determined to take that to a Labor caucus, which has meant that the government has met that same standard—although we're disappointed that they won't be doing that for another 12 months when, potentially, they could do that today and bring some relief to families in electorates like mine and electorates across the country. But I'll go back to that small context: we're talking about families under enormous pressure. Potentially, there are two parents working—perhaps both full-time. Often in my electorate both are working full-time. They're dropping kids off, doing the commute, doing their day's work, coming back, doing the commute and then picking kids up. They're leaving in the dark and getting home in the dark, potentially hitting the household at 6:45 in the evening to prepare the evening meal. On top of that, they're reporting—on top of that, they're constantly assessing. They're reporting: projecting their incomes then reporting on what their actuals were, stressed about whether they'll meet that cap and stressed about what the costs are—stressed by a three per cent rise in my community in childcare costs since 2019. Add to that the pandemic. Add to that what families in my electorate went through when the government was very, very slow to recognise that there was an issue, that when we went into lockdown families weren't using childcare services because they were at home with children but were paying gap fees for a service that they weren't using. They were at risk of going over the number of days that their children could miss child care without losing their place due to illness or another reason. The government was incredibly slow to act. In Victoria, again, they cut our childcare centres off JobKeeper. This is a government that truly needs to get a clear focus in this space, because of its importance to all the families that we all represent here. It's a government that doesn't need to look at one electorate or one region or one area; it needs to look at this system and what it is not delivering to our families. The piece of legislation we're looking at today obviously does some good things. Its biggest flaw, however, is that it's putting off the start day until, potentially, after the next election. We welcome some of what's in this legislation, but other parts of this legislation just seem absolutely crazy. We're going through a whole reform, we're reforming a system, and we're told that it can't happen until 2022 because the government need time to fix the system, to support changes to the IT system. In fact, what they're putting in front of us is more complex than what they're changing. What they're putting in front of us is a tweak around the number of children per family. What Labor's going to take to the next election, what our policy is on the ground now, would service many, many more families and would make child care more affordable for, potentially, 90 per cent of the families in my electorate. Yet we're going to sit here, the government's going to pass this legislation and we're going to implement these changes in 2022 post the next election—and they just don't go far enough in the first place. They don't make it accessible for as many families as needed. They don't make it affordable for families that need it. The government are doing something but they're not doing what the system requires, and they're certainly not doing what families in electorates like mine require. And families in my electorate won't be surprised, because they can put all sorts of things together in this bubble. They put their daily life and transpose it across this government's decisions. The man in the car park running late to pick up his child from child care at six o'clock can also look at the fact that this government hasn't made one significant contribution to car parks at train stations in my electorate, and he might wonder why this government made commitments to car parks at train stations in other electorates in Melbourne at the last election. He may wonder why this government is not bringing into this chamber right now legislation that will change his life—legislation that could be enacted quickly and would mean he wouldn't be worried about reaching the cap. Remember, that person who I spoke to that night is not very likely to have children in child care anymore. He may, however, have children in out-of-school-hours care, which this government hasn't addressed in this legislation at all. It's as if children turn five and go into school, and life stops at 3.30. Many, many families in my electorate access out-of-school-hours care. Most of the school in my electorate operate out-of-school-hours care to support the parents of the children they're educating through the day, to ensure that children aren't left at the gate at 3.30, to make sure that until six o'clock in the evening—when parents finish that long commute back to my electorate—their children are supervised, cared for, watered, fed and stimulated. But this government has nothing in this legislation to support the parents who rely on out-of-school-hours care. To me, we can come into this place and we can all put the figures up about how many parents this part of it's going to help, how many parents this part of it's going to help and what percentage it all comes back to. But, ultimately, this legislation does not go far enough in terms of creating economic opportunity, creating economic stimulation and increasing female workforce participation. This legislation does not do what Australia currently needs. It won't serve many in my community. What will serve people in my community is if, at the next election, they vote for an Albanese Labor government and deliver the member for Kingston's reform package, which will certainly deliver to the families in my electorate—every single one of them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Beirut 38 13:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today, one year ago, Beirut was rocked by a terrible explosion. The images of that explosion quickly made their way right around the world and shocked all who saw them. One year on, its effects are still being felt. People are still trying to make sense of their loss and we have yet to see a proper authoritative investigation into what happened and who was responsible. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I extend my deepest sympathies to the Lebanese community in Australia and to the people of Lebanon on this anniversary of the tragedy. I know that your community remains deeply affected by this. I know that your sadness is made even greater by the pandemic that keeps you from being able to take even the small degree of solace that is offered by being able to grieve together. Labor stands firmly by your side in your fight for justice. We will continue to call on the Australian government to support a transparent, independent and impartial investigation into this tragedy. To the people of Lebanon and Lebanese Australians right across the country, my message is this: we pray with you and we stand with you. Our thoughts are also with Sarah Copland and Craig Oehlers. Driven by their love for Lebanon and by the precious memory of their son Isaac they have been at the forefront of advocacy for justice for the victims. We ask the government to listen carefully to their message. An impartial independent investigation will help them and other victims heal. May justice come— (Time expired) Coming of the Light 38 13:31 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt During the recent winter break, I had the absolute pleasure to attend the 150th anniversary of the Coming of the Light celebrations on Erub Island. Coming of the Light recognises the adaptation of Christianity throughout the Torres Strait during the late 19th century. The day of celebration and joy means so much to the Torres Strait Islander people and this year's event across the region was particularly special. Church services and the re-enactment of 1 July 1871 landing of Reverend Samuel Macfarlane of the London Missionary Society on Erub Island was central to day's activities and events. In fact, in the previous celebration, I had the honour of playing Reverend Samuel Macfarlane during the re-enactment. During the re-enactment, I was met on the beach by Dabad, a warrior clan elder of Erub Island who defied his tribal law and openly welcomed the London Missionary Society clergyman and South Sea islander evangelists and teachers. Torres Strait Islanders' acknowledgement of the missionaries was the acceptance of change that would profoundly affect every aspect of life on the Torres Strait from that time onwards. The events on Erub Island this year were attended by hundreds of people and was a true celebration of culture, faith and togetherness. I want to take the opportunity to thank everybody involved in organising the 150th anniversary and acknowledge their hard work in ensuring this year's Coming of the Light went without a glitch. Beirut 38 13:32 Mr BURKE DYW Watson A year ago today, we were shocked as we saw the images coming out of Beirut. While Isaac Oehlers was in his high chair, we lost a two-year-old Australian. His parents, Craig and Sarah Copland have been at the forefront of arguing for the same thing that members of the Australian Lebanese community have been arguing for: an independent investigation of the circumstances that led to that disaster in Beirut. More than 200 people lost their lives and, while Isaac was the only Australian citizen, he was not the only member of the Australian family. Every village of Lebanon, because of immigration, has people who are members of the Australian family. Before the blast, there was already, in many ways, a political crisis in Lebanon, and a financial crisis as well. COVID had largely at that point spared the villagers, but after the blast COVID found its way into the villages as people moved from Beirut quickly. We join and stand in solidarity with the Lebanese community all around the world and we join them in prayer for those events 12 months ago, which still need to be properly investigated. Williams, Mr Walter George, OAM 39 13:34 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar [by video link] Walter Williams is a World War II veteran and 2021recipient of the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to veterans and their families. At age 17, Mr Williams gained permission to join the permanent Army and was posted to the Royal Military College in Duntroon. After much hard work and training, Mr Williams earned his place in the 8th infantry battalion of the Australian Imperial Force. In December 1941, Mr Williams sailed into Singapore Harbour. Pearl Harbour had just been attacked and Mr Williams was among the reinforcements sent to Malay. Taken as a prisoner of war during the fall of Singapore, Mr Williams was interned at the Changi prison camp before being sent to work on the Burma Railway. Mr Williams would go on to survive a ship sinking and the US air raids of Japan. Over the last few decades, Mr Williams has been an active member of the Pittwater sub-branch of RSL Australia in Mackellar. Mr Williams has served in multiple positions in the branch, including as president from 1992 to 2002. Mr Williams's life of service is truly inspiring. I congratulate him on his well-deserved Queen's Birthday Honour. COVID-19 39 13:35 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga [by video link] It's good to be speaking from Melbourne today, on a day when the hard work of our community has meant that we've have again recorded zero community transmission. This effort takes a toll, and it's an effort that Victorians have been continually shouldering without the support they should have received from this federal government. While the Prime Minister keeps telling us that there's nowhere you'd rather be than Australia, the reality is that, here in Victoria, we've been let down badly by the Morrison government. Here are just some of the people who contacted me during our last lockdown: Molly, who lost half her income but, because she receives AUSTUDY, couldn't get the COVID disaster payment; Grace, a casual worker who lives week to week, was unsure how to she was going to pay her rent, buy food and heat her house; Martin, a sole trader ineligible for any payment but not able to work during lockdown; and Claire, who's done everything possible to keep her dog-grooming business afloat, is so close to having to give up. Local travel agents and events businesses are now into their second year of little to no income and no plan for how their will industry survive. All of them have been ignored by the Morrison government, despite the fact that they are doing their part, their job, to keep our community safe. Until this government fixes its botched vaccines rollout, we know that we're at risk of more lockdowns. On this Donut Day here in Jagajaga, I say, 'We've done our job, Prime Minister, it's time for you to do yours.' COVID-19: Vaccination 39 13:37 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby It was wonderful to have the minister for the NDIS and government services in Boothby last month to join me in visiting Minda Incorporated's COVID-19 vaccination site. Minda Inc is one of the largest disability service providers in South Australia supporting children and adults with disability, and many clients live onsite. Understanding the complex needs of its residents, Minda established its very own vaccination clinic at North Brighton. Managed by Aspen Medical, the vaccination clinic provides residents, their families and staff with access to the COVID-19 vaccine in a safe and welcoming environment. The clinic also provides an inreach service, which visits Minda's accommodation sites in order to vaccinate residents in the comfort of their own home. The minister and I got to meet an inreach client service local resident, Marty. Marty proudly shared his vaccination story with us, having already received both doses of the vaccine. Congratulations, Marty, for leading the way, and keep up your great work at Minda doing deliveries around the site. Minda Inc and Aspen Medical have achieved remarkable success with the clinic and a fantastic response from the entire Minda community. The clinic, so far, has administered 2,137 doses to 1,269 Minda residents, staff, essential carers, and family members of residents. Thank you to Minda Inc's chair of the board, Joanne Denley, and to all Minda staff and the Aspen Medical team for your tremendous efforts in providing the Minda family with access to the COVID vaccine, and for giving myself and the minister the opportunity to visit the clinic. Minister for Industry, Science and Technology 40 13:38 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney [by video link] Grace Tame was selected as Australian of the Year because of her bravery ingiving voice to victims of sexual assault. When Grace Tame speaks, it's important that we listen. Today, Ms Tame asked why the Prime Minister has decided to promote the member for Pearce to become Leader of the House despite the serious allegations made against him. It's a very good question, one the Prime Minister should answer. It's the Leader of the House's job to decide what this parliament debates. Serious allegations were made against the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister has consistently refused an independent inquiry. When he was the Attorney-General, the acting Leader of the House did nothing about a major report on sexual harassment other than allowing it to gather dust on his desk for more than a year. What are victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment supposed to make of the Prime Minister's decision to promote the member for Pearce now? Grace Tame has asked these important questions. It's up to the Prime Minister to answer them. Moore Electorate: Roads 40 13:40 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The grade separation of the extremely busy intersection of the Reid Highway and Erindale Road is essential in order to improve for the residents of my electorate the east-west connectivity to the economic hubs of Balcatta, Malaga, Perth Airport and beyond. Replacing another set of traffic lights with flyover bridges will create free-flowing traffic, shortening travel times for commuters and making freight logistics into our commercial and industrial areas more efficient. Most of the intersections along the Reid Highway leading to the Tonkin Highway and NorthLink are already grade separated by bridges. The Morrison government has provided $2 million in federal funding to develop a business case for the project, while the WA state government has contributed $500,000. Preliminary costings by Main Roads WA indicate that the project will cost upwards of $175 million. The report is due to be released next year, and I'm confident that the business case will establish significant merit for the project to be considered under the Urban Congestion Fund. I look forward to working with the City of Stirling and Councillor Karlo Perkov to secure funding for this project. Taxation 40 13:41 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The Liberals love inequality. For ripping billions of dollars from the public purse and giving it to billionaires and the ultrawealthy, the Prime Minister gets a gold medal for greed. Whether it's tax handouts for the one per cent or subsidies for the wealthy who own 15 properties, the Liberals are trickle-down champions. But sadly there has been another gold medal performance: in gymnastics. With backflips on tax handouts and negative gearing and reverse twists on dental care and cancer treatment, Labor now joins the Liberals as a flat tax party. Someone on a minimum wage will pay the same tax rate as a CEO. You expect this from the Liberals, but it is heartbreaking from Labor. The tax cuts for billionaires package will cost the public $184 billion, but that money will go to the top. The richest one per cent will get as much from these tax cuts as the bottom 60 per cent combined. Women will only get 50c for every dollar that men pocket. These tax cuts will turbocharge inequality, cost women dearly and sell out this generation and the next. We have to get rid of this rotten Liberal government of climate deniers and corporate shills, but now, for the many millions of people who believe in fairness, the Greens are the only hope. By voting Green you can kick the Liberals out and give us the balance of power so we can push the next government to make the tax system fair, including by putting a new tax on billionaires' obscene wealth. To make this happen we only need a few hundred votes to change, and the Greens will fight for your future. National Stroke Week 40 13:43 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin This week is National Stroke Week, and the Stroke Foundation is calling on all of us to raise awareness of the common signs of stroke. Last year there were 27,428 Australians who experienced stroke for the first time in their lives. This equates to an Australian having a stroke every 19 minutes. Stroke is one of the biggest killers of Australians. It kills more women than breast cancer and more men than prostate cancer. On average, 24 people die every day due to a stroke. Anyone, at any age, can have a stroke, and a stroke is always a medical emergency. The longer a stroke remains untreated, the greater the chance of stroke related damage. If we recognise the signs early and get urgent medical help then lives will be saved and permanent damage avoided. Recognising the signs of stroke is covered by the acronym f-a-s-t: FAST. 'F' is for face. Check their face. Has their mouth dropped? 'A' is for arms. Can they lift both arms? 'S' is for speech. Is their speech slurred? Do they understand you? 'T' is for time. Time is critical. If you see any of these signs, call triple 0 straightaway. In the words of the Stroke Foundation, it's important to 'think f-a-s-t' and 'act FAST'. Beirut: Explosion 41 13:44 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler It has been one year since the catastrophic explosion that rocked Beirut. The tragedy affected many in Lebanon and, indeed, Lebanese here in Australia, who are still grieving for family and friends and who are certainly worried about their futures. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion we saw an enormous outpouring of support by the international community to support the Lebanese. One year on, however, it appears that Lebanon and its people have all but disappeared into a distant memory. This explosion was the last straw for Lebanon, adding significantly to the ongoing turmoil: an economy that's on the brink, widespread corruption, homelessness and poverty. All this was in the midst of a global pandemic, certainly testing the Lebanese people like never before—despite their strength and resilience. We owe it to the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones to hold those responsible for this tragedy to account by supporting the call for an international independent investigation into the disaster. My heart goes out to all those who are suffering and grieving. I pray for justice for the victims and their families, and for a future for Lebanon based on peace, safety and prosperity. To our vibrant Lebanese community I say that we have not and will not forget our Lebanese friends. Bowman Electorate: South East Queensland City Deal 41 13:45 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman The Redlands Coast is an iconic place. It offers many of us a convenient escape from the hustle and bustle, and I could argue that there's really no place worldwide which offers that subtropical lifestyle, with island and bay benefits, less than an hour from a major city. So this is about the SEQ City Deal—three levels of government finally working together on something so important. It's based around transport projects, jobs and liveability. Liveability is about quality of life. We talk about it here a lot, but not in these words. The built and natural environments; economic prosperity; social stability and equity; educational opportunity; and cultural, entertainment and recreational possibilities: we can all agree on these, and it's time to move beyond the family feud of development versus environment. What makes it better to live here as locals? I don't want my suggestions to limit this debate today. I'm writing to every elected representative in my area and asking them about recreational assets, active transport, renewable energy and island and water based activities that make living in Redlands genuinely the best place to be in the world. Those benefits that we know well are things that the rest of the world will see in 2032. Let's make sure that we have everything planned so that over the next decade we can achieve being truly the world's greatest and most liveable city. Veterans 41 13:47 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Australia's 20-year commitment to the war in Afghanistan has ended. This period, from 2001 to 2021 was our Defence Force's longest military commitment. But that period of time also included many other warlike and peacekeeping operations. The significant date of September 11 will no doubt evoke a range of emotions for hundreds of thousands of current and former defence members, their families and, indeed, our nation. To commemorate this occasion and to promote a period of reflection and remembrance, a collective of the best veteran bands and musicians will kick off an Australian first national concert tour, called 'Rock for R'n'R'—reflection and remembrance. Like in the ancient Greek auditoriums, Rock for R'n'R will help to process and validate our Australian Defence Force's experiences, and will welcome them home. It will be a cathartic experience and it's very much needed. Furthermore, Rock for R'n'R seeks to quash the myth that all veterans are busted—and what better way to do this than through music and the arts, led by our veterans themselves? I commend veterans Harry Moffitt, Rob Pickersgill and the other Rock for R'n'R organisers, as well as the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum. I encourage the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to support this significant program. Berowra Electorate: 1st Dural Scout Group 41 13:49 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The 1st Dural Scout Group recently had their annual awards presentation, an opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of their scouts throughout the year. This year I had the privilege of presenting the Grey Wolf Award and the Warren Payne Award—the Bear Award. The Grey Wolf Award is the peak award a Cub Scout can earn, and is the culmination of more than three years of activity. To earn this award, the cub needs to demonstrate planning and leadership skills amongst their peers; they need to learn, perform and teach others a range of outdoor competencies; and they must design and complete a number of personal development projects. To complete their award, the Cub Scout must also independently plan a challenging outdoor activity and then lead a team of their peers on this activity. Congratulations to the four recipients of the Grey Wolf Award in the Cubs section: James Waterson, Elijah Dawson, Bridgette Zapletal and Christian Zapletal. This year, I also had the privilege of awarding the very first Warren Payne awards—the Bear awards. Warren Payne is a man who has dedicated almost 25 years to 1st Dural Scouts since he followed his wife and son into the group. He became ill six years ago, and 1st Dural wanted to honour the contribution he has made and continues to make in a way that would ensure perpetual recognition of his worth. The award went to one scout from each of the four sections. Congratulations to this year's awardees, Jack O'Kane in Joeys, Angus Smith in Cubs, Mak Kuntze in Scouts and Tegan Edwards in Venturers. Congratulations to all of the Dural Scouts awardees. Congratulations on the work that you do, on the skills that you learn and on the activities of a great troop. Lalor Electorate: COVID-19 42 13:50 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor To echo the words of the member for Jagajaga, it is a doughnut day in Victoria today. For the fifth time, Victorians have shown their tenacity, their determination and also the way they can work together to crush the virus. Now, twice, we've pushed back delta in Victoria. For my community, which had such rampant COVID numbers last winter, it was really disappointing to see the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today with the headline 'Most vulnerable, least protected—city's west lags in jabs race.' For the record, as someone from Melbourne's west, we're a very young population. Perhaps not me, but the people I represent. They haven't been eligible for vaccinations. I want to encourage everybody at home to make sure that you're doing your bit, contacting your GP and making sure that you're somewhere in that queue for vaccination. But I want to call on the federal government to put more support in place so that we can have more readily accessible vaccines. Not every family in my electorate has a GP. Not every family in my electorate has a connection to a superclinic. They need these jabs to be accessible. They might also need some incentives, Mr Morrison. Prime Minister, it's a good idea; let's get it done. Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games 42 13:51 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Today I want to celebrate the remarkable athletes from Chisholm representing Australia in the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Tim Disken made his Paralympic debut in Rio in 2016. He splashed onto the international paraswimming scene, winning a gold medal and the hearts of the Australian public. Tim is no stranger to adversity. In 2017 he faced a life-threatening medical emergency that left him in a coma. What Tim did next is a testament to his courage, persistence and determination. Just eight months later he won two gold medals at the 2018 Commonwealth Games in freestyle and breaststroke. Tim truly embodies the Olympic fighting spirit, both in and out of the pool. I also want to acknowledge the fantastic achievements of sprinter Hana Basic and basketballer Alanna Smith. Hana raced in the women's 100-metre sprint, and the Opals made the women's basketball quarterfinals. Our athletes have demonstrated enormous resilience to train and qualify during the COVID-19 pandemic. Well done to you all. Bol, Mr Peter 42 13:53 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong It is fair to say that Peter Bol was not high in the public consciousness until this week, but his wonderful journey is now playing out before our eyes in Tokyo, with two Australian records in two days in the Olympic heats and semifinals—incredible achievements, with a strong feeling there's more to come. Tonight he's running in the Olympic final. He has a chance, too. He is on a quest to be Australia's first male individual gold medallist on the track since Ralph Doubell in 1968. Peter Bol's story is a powerful one, starting with his family moving to Australia after being born in Sudan and spending time in Egypt. But this storyline does not define him. In his own profound way, Peter Bol often delves deeper into that narrative, showing that we as Australians all go through struggles no different to his and that we should get to know the person instead of the assumptions. I've been lucky enough to know Peter and his friend and running mate Joe Deng these last three to four years. From our shared coffee shop, Phat Milk, to helping them find stable accommodation in Niddrie and training with Clementine, it's been my family's pleasure to know them. Determination, focus and energy exude from Pete on the track. It's a reflection of his life journey thus far, his family, and the team and values he surrounds himself with. Hours before the final, Peter Bol is on top of his game. He knows it. He has enjoyed and revelled in Olympic Village life. He is calm and focused and not in the least distracted. One more special moment awaits in Tokyo tonight. We're all cheering you on, Peter Bol! COVID-19: Vaccination 43 13:55 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid () (): [by video link] I want to start by thanking everyone in New South Wales for backing each other to save lives and livelihoods during this incredibly difficult time for our state and nation. In particular, I want to thank the good people of Reid who have followed health advice and who have already been vaccinated with a life-saving COVID-19 vaccine. As the Doherty Institute has made clear, whether you take AstraZeneca or Pfizer, you have a 90 per cent plus defence against mortality. It's your best defence and, truly, our only way forward. Every jab gives us hope. Hope to be together again with family and friends, hope to open our schools and sporting clubs, hope for our businesses to be back to normal, and hope to open our churches. At this very challenging time, we don't need misinformation. We don't need playing politics. We don't need encouraging of vaccine hesitancy, and we don't need comments like those by the member for Richmond yesterday when virtue-signalling to anti-vaxxers. Virtue signalling is dangerous. The facts speak for themselves. The Doherty Institute modelling reaffirms the comparable and outstanding protections by both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines against hospitalisation, an ICU admission, and death. There are two safe, effective and free vaccines against COVID available. After speaking with their GPs, people from New South Wales should take the first one they can get. (Time expired) National Integrity Commission 43 13:56 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs It is now 965 days since Australians were promised a national anticorruption commission by the Prime Minister and his former Attorney-General—and it is still nowhere in sight. That's because this Prime Minister is terrified of what an independent inquiry conducted by a powerful and transparent anticorruption commission would reveal about what he and his government have been up to. They are terrified of an independent inquiry into their unlawful diversion of over $100 million into the sports rorts fiasco. They are terrified of an independent inquiry into their car park rorts. They're terrified of an independent inquiry into the payment of $30 million to a Liberal Party donor for airport land worth one-tenth of that. This is a government that lurches from scandal to scandal and survives on secrecy and cover-up. This is a government that lives in fear of accountability. This is a government that lives in terror of what a powerful, independent and transparent anticorruption commission would reveal to the Australian people. Unlike the Morrison government, unlike this Prime Minister, we in Labor know that corruption in government is a serious issue that must be addressed. That's why, unlike the Morrison government, Labor will make it a priority to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. COVID-19: Vaccination 43 13:58 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay [by video link] I want to give a big shout-out to everyone in my community of Lindsay for everything you're doing this time to keep each other safe, to back each other and to keep our community safe. While we're staying apart, it's never been more important to stay connected. We're here in lockdown, and many people with small businesses are doing it tough. That's why I brought our community together to hear from the Prime Minister. So many people across the community—local manufacturers, hairdressers, swing schools—came together last night by telephone, and the majority of the questions and of our discussion with the Prime Minister were about how about we back each other during this time and, particularly, how we get vaccinated. The Prime Minister outlined our plan and our clear vaccination targets. With the dangerous delta strain, we have to get to that 70 to 80 per cent of people vaccinated to protect our community, to protect our loved ones and to protect each other. But, to do this, we have to have that gold medal run until the end of the year. So I encourage my community of Lindsay: check if you're eligible, speak with your GP, and get vaccinated. We have the best community spirit in this whole country. Let's keep backing each other. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 43 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19: Vaccination 43 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The government promised that aged-care workers would be fully vaccinated by Easter. Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the fact that this still hasn't happened? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We do take responsibility for the vaccination program, right across the country, and the challenges that we've had in the vaccination program—and overcoming them as well. I can say that I am greatly relieved that, during the course of this most recent COVID outbreak in New South Wales, the work that has been done to protect the most vulnerable people in our aged-care facilities speaks for itself, in comparison to the absolutely terrible results that were there last year when we were dealing with the outbreaks in Victoria. We continue to make strong progress in relation to the vaccination of aged-care workers. Over 50 per cent of those are now vaccinated. But, in addition to that, over 80 per cent of those who are in aged-care facilities have had two doses of the vaccine—two doses—and that is what is protecting the lives of those aged-care residents right now. Right now in Sydney, sadly, we have seen deaths in New South Wales as a result of this most recent outbreak and the terrible death that was announced today of a young person who fell victim to COVID so quickly. This is a virus that works right across the community, and the Delta variant is a complete game changer. But as we went into this outbreak in New South Wales, we had over 80 per cent of those in aged-care facilities double-dose vaccinated; they've been well protected. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Mr Morrison E3L I have. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. COVID-19 44 14:02 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister please inform the House about the importance of the Morrison government's considered and disciplined approach to governing Australia through the pandemic and through our recovery? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Throughout the course of this pandemic, Australia has been able to save lives and save livelihoods like few countries in the world today, and we have done this by following an approach to Australia's COVID response not just at a federal level but by working together with the state and territory governments that have pursued an approach that has put in place disciplined decision-making—put the safeguards in place and the mechanisms to drive decisions and drive our responses. What's been important through all of this is to make sure that we were well informed when making decisions, that we were getting the best possible advice and that we were consulting widely, not just in the health community but in the business community, directly in the community, listening to the scientific experts, consulting with other nations around the world to inform our decisions, considering the implications and thinking through the responses, so necessary to guide our response to a COVID pandemic the likes of which we had not seen in 100 years. It doesn't come with a rulebook. It doesn't come with a guidebook. But Australia has been able to make an Australian way through this pandemic that has saved lives and livelihoods like few other countries in the world. The National Security Committee COVID group, the national coordinating mechanism led within the Department of Home Affairs, is engaging with industry, with businesses and with governments, particularly at a state level, as we work through outbreaks and lockdowns. The national cabinet will meet for the 50th time this week, consistently meeting together to deal with challenges and work through issues as best as we possibly can. Operation COVID Shield, which now leads the vaccination response under Lieutenant General Frewen, was set up in June. Operation COVID Assist, which was there on the ground in Victoria last year, has been on the ground all the way through and is on the ground now in New South Wales supporting those efforts. The clear principles that have guided our response are proportionate, timely, scalable and aligned with all other responses and existing structures. If those opposite think JobKeeper came late—I know those opposite are now critics and opponents of JobKeeper, the most successful program we have seen take a country through a crisis, and they call it waste. Labor call JobKeeper waste. People will remember that of Labor at the next election— Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L that, when push comes to shove, Labor thinks JobKeeper was a waste. So these are the things that have guided our response, and yesterday was a super Tuesday. There were 213,947 vaccines delivered yesterday. Hitting its marks, we'll reach our target— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister's time has concluded. Member for Dawson 44 14:05 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Prime Minister. According to Department of Health figures, the member for Dawson's electorate has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country. Why has the Prime Minister failed to condemn the member for Dawson's irresponsible undermining of public health measures designed to stop the spread of COVID, including his support of civil disobedience? For example, George Christensen says the COVID mask mandate is an insanity. 14:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer you to the comments I made from the Lodge when I conducted a press conference on these issues the other day. Members of this parliament are accountable for their own actions and their own decisions. They're accountable for their own actions and their own decisions. I note the member for Dawson has made his own decisions about the next election. But, if these are the matters the opposition wish to raise, why have they selected a candidate for the Labor Party in Higgins who talks down AstraZeneca vaccines? If that is the standard they wish to raise, it is them that are setting this standard. If they want to have a candidate in Higgins, unlike the great member for Higgins we have in this chamber—a great medical doctor who has tremendous experience and has been a key source of advice— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Macarthur is seeking the call on a point of order? Dr Freelander 265979 A point of order on relevance: surely, this has nothing to do with the member for Dawson. The SPEAKER 00APG I think, if the member for Macarthur reflects on my earlier rulings and reflects on all of the material in his question, he will find that the Prime Minister is indeed in order. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I would encourage the Leader of the Labor Party to follow the example of the member for Maribyrnong in supporting those AstraZeneca vaccines and going and encouraging— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the House, on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW On the proper conduct of the chamber. If the Prime Minister won't call him into line, I ask that you ask the member for Dawson to wear a mask, like other members of the chamber are doing when they're not participating in debate. The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the member for Dawson of the statement I made yesterday. It couldn't have been clearer. We're asking all members who are not participating in the debate to wear a mask here in the chamber and in other areas in the building. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I don't share the views of the member for Dawson on that matter. And I've been very clear about that. But, I tell you what: in this country people have a right to free speech, and that is not something that the government is seeking to clamp down on. But it is important that people get the right information, and it is important that members of this chamber get the right information to people in their electorates. That is something that I strongly support, and I encourage all members of the government to do exactly that. I would invite the Leader of the Labor Party, given he is inviting me to make these comments, to say the same thing about his Labor candidate for Higgins. He's happy to have one of them talking down AstraZeneca vaccines. The Leader of the Labor Party should take the example of the former Leader of the Labor Party, who's happy to get out there and support the CSL workers who are out there making those AstraZeneca vaccines, which the Leader of the Labor Party seems to be crab walking away from. Regional Australia: Infrastructure 45 14:09 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Mr Speaker, I would not seek to undermine your ruling; I was preparing to get up and ask this question. That is why I removed the mask. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is delivering essential water infrastructure and other infrastructure, creating jobs and opportunities for Australians living in rural and regional communities? 14:09 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I would like to acknowledge the member for Dawson and I would also like to thank him for his long period of preparation for this question, because it does need a lot of attention. We note the member for Dawson's and the member for Capricornia's great work in such things as Rookwood Weir, which is being built as we speak. We note that we wanted to make it bigger, but the Labor Party wanted it make it smaller. We also note the Labor Party and how, out at Callide weir, they're taking the gates off the weir. They don't believe in water infrastructure. In the member for Hinkler's seat, with Paradise Dam, what did the Labor Party do? Made it smaller. They don't believe in water infrastructure. But we do note the $12.65 million further that we have put into Urannah Dam to finalise the geotech work and the environmental impact study, so we can also start building that one next year, just like we're building Rookwood. We note the Sunraysia Modernisation Project in the seat of Mallee and the work we have done there—completed. We note the South West Loddon Rural Water Supply scheme they said we weren't building—completed. We also note the Gippsland Macalister Irrigation District scheme, phase 1B—completed. We note also in the seat of Mallee the Mitiamo and District Reticulated Water Supply scheme; they say we didn't build anything—completed. These things are actually done. They were never done under the Labor Party—oh no, not under the Labor Party. We note the Mareeba-Dimbulah Water Supply Scheme, which right now is getting so close to completion. They say we didn't build it, but we are actually showing them. We're building them, and we've got further to go. I like going to the movies. I always remember Howard Hughes, The Aviator, but the Labor Party have got 'Albo the advocator'—the great advocator, the ideas man, straight from the pool room. But never in this whole period of time has he uttered from between his lips a word about one dam he will build in regional Australia. Not one dam is going to come out of this man. He has never uttered a word about one regional road he is going to build— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. I am forced to bring out the 'om weirdness' stuff—I have no idea what this is, but it's nothing to do with the question. The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. Mr JOYCE E5D The great advocator—there he is. We are never going to get anything constructed by him. But he did have one great idea—we saw it the other day: $300 per jab. I think that was just your idea. In fact, you were helped by the member for Shortland— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister needs to resume his seat. I think we might as well leave it there. Whilst he was asked about alternative policies, they need to be alternatives to the issues laid out in the question. I think we will just leave it there. COVID-19: Economy 46 14:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. How many billions of dollars a week are being lost from the national economy because the Prime Minister failed to do his two jobs—rolling out the vaccine effectively and creating a safe national quarantine system? 14:13 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can tell the member that, as a result of our policies, we're providing important income and business support to the people across the states of New South Wales and Queensland, which are in lockdown. As I've said publicly before, the costs of the lockdown are immense. In the case of New South Wales it's around $180 million a day. In the case of when Victoria was in lockdown, it was around $100 million a day. In the case of South Australia, when they were locked down, it was more like $30 million a day. The reality is that lockdowns cost the economy significantly. They have an impact, obviously, on the labour market; they have an impact on economic activity; and they have an impact on people's wellbeing. That is why we are providing an unprecedented amount of economic support to those people in need. Today, I've joined hundreds of businesses in a series of zoom calls to remind them and to provide them with details of the economic support that is flowing. But people across Australia, particularly those who are in lockdown right now, need to understand that the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong. They need to understand that the Australian economy is resilient and they need to understand that, as we bounce back from the lockdowns that we have seen, the economy comes back very, very strongly. Our economic performance throughout this pandemic has been ahead of other advanced economies around the world. Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L The honourable member knows that, going into these most recent lockdowns that we've seen in New South Wales and elsewhere, the unemployment rate fell to 4.9 per cent, a 10-year low, that 160,000 more people are in work today than before this pandemic began and that our economy is bigger today than before this pandemic began. Programs like JobKeeper have been absolutely essential to the rebound across the Australian economy. So, while those opposite like to talk down the economy, we on this side talk up the economy. We point to its resilience, we point to its strength and, most importantly, we point to the confidence of the Australian people. COVID-19: Vaccination 46 14:15 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. From Victoria to Queensland and to New South Wales large numbers of school students have been infected with COVID, but your vaccination targets do not include children, which means that your 80 per cent target is actually a lower 65 per cent target for the whole population. According to Grattan Institute modelling, such a target could result in many, many thousands of deaths if restrictions are lifted. Prime Minister, given this risk and given the growing prevalence of infection in children, will you extend vaccination coverage to children over 12 and include them in your national vaccination target? 14:16 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Minister for Health may wish to add to my answer. The member would be aware, from the Doherty modelling, that it was the recommendation of Professor McVernon, that came through the Doherty modelling, that including those under 16 in the overall vaccination targets was not recommended. That does not mean to say that there isn't a role for the vaccination of those under 16. But, in terms of the epidemiology, in terms of hitting the vaccination targets as a percentage of those over 16 and the impact that that has on transmission, that is not necessary for that purpose of the vaccination targets. But the vaccination of children is a matter that is being carefully considered right now by the Chief Medical Officer, together with the head of SITAG and with Operation COVID Shield, to understand fully where the priorities would need to be to offer vaccines to those under the age of 16. We are also awaiting the advice from ATAGI on where those priorities may be, because there have been differing practices around the world in terms of the vaccination of children. So it is something the government is taking extremely seriously. The work that is guiding us when it comes to the setting of vaccination targets has been provided by the Doherty Institute. I'm sure the member would agree, as would the member for Melbourne, that the Doherty Institute is one of the finest scientific modelling organisations in the world when it comes to these issues. So we will be guided by their advice. That is an explanation as to why the vaccination targets have been set as they are. The issue of vaccinating children is very important, and we will wait further medical advice on the best way to approach that task to ensure their safety and to give peace of mind, particularly to their parents and their families but also of course to those children, and to ensure that we also are enabled to continue the process of rolling out the national vaccination plan. Professor McVernon made a very important point yesterday, and that was that one of the primary ways that you can prevent this COVID virus getting to children is the vaccination of their parents. That is a key factor that has been taken up in the national vaccination plan as a result of the Doherty process that I commissioned. The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health? 14:19 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Just very briefly, in relation to approvals for children, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has given an approval on the application from Pfizer for that vaccine to be applied to 12- to 15-year-olds. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation has provided its first piece of advice, which the government has accepted, to open that up initially for immuno-compromised children, children in remote communities and children of Indigenous heritage. That will commence as of next week. They will then provide subsequent advice in relation to the general population. If that is to extend it to the general 12- to 15-year-old groups, the government has agreed that we will accept that. Planning is already underway with all states and territories to administer— (Time expired) COVID-19: Economy 47 14:20 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay [by video link] My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government's fiscal discipline and careful approach to policymaking is enabling us to continue providing substantial economic support as our economy meets the ongoing challenges of COVID-19? 14:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Lindsay for her question, and I acknowledge her experience in the not-for-profit sector before coming to this place but also her Olympic connections, because her husband, Stuart, is a two-time Olympian for Australia and was the early coach of Jessica Fox, our wonderful gold medallist. I thank Stuart and note those connections. The member for Lindsay is well aware of the significant economic support that is being provided to the people of New South Wales right now and, indeed, to Queensland and recently to Victoria and to South Australia. Income support: $750 per week for people who've lost 20 hours or more, $450 a week for people who've lost between eight and 19 hours of work and $200 a week for people who've lost more than eight hours of work but are also on income support. This household support, these payments to families and to workers, is on top of the business support that we're providing. In Victoria, we joined with the Victorian government in a 50-50 split on a $400 million business support package. In New South Wales, on a 50-50 split we have reached with the New South Wales government, we are providing for businesses with a turnover between $75,000 and $250 million who have seen their turnover fall by 30 per cent or month between $1,500 and $100,000 a week based on the size of their payroll. This is very significant economic support. We've also been speaking to the banks who've agreed to provide relief to their customers, their small and medium-sized business customers. The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Rankin, on a point of order? Dr Chalmers 37998 Relevance: he's been going for two minutes and hasn't mentioned fiscal discipline once. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin will resume his seat. The Treasurer is in order. The Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I don't know why those opposite think that having millions of people in New South Wales in lockdown is a laughing matter. I don't know why— Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I don't know why the member for Rankin is seeking to block— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will pause. The member for Rankin looks confused. Let's be very clear about this: if you start throwing political accusations around, they're going to bounce back. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I don't know what the member for Lyons is pointing to but he can be outside the chamber if he persists. This is actually not a negotiation. The Treasurer has the call. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL It's not a laughing matter that thousands of businesses across New South Wales right now are doing it tough, and the Morrison government is standing by them, like in the member for Lindsay's own electorate, Karen and Alan of the Nepean Aquatic Centre have said that their receipt of the income support and the business support is going to help get them through and without it they would have a much more uncertain future. That is an employing business in the member for Lindsay's electorate. We continue to provide support and stand by the businesses and the people of New South Wales. COVID-19: Aged Care 48 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. It's reported that a nurse who infected residents at an aged-care centre in Summer Hill in my electorate worked across multiple sites, leading to the hospitalisation of these residents and to lockdowns in aged-care centres across Sydney. Months after aged-care workers and residents were meant to be fully vaccinated and a year after this risk was identified, does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for this failure? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will ask the Minister for Health to add further to the question. The government continues to roll out the national vaccination plan, and I am pleased that when this COVID pandemic outbreak hit New South Wales, in my home city as well as that of the Leader of the Opposition, right across New South Wales, right across Sydney, more than 80 per cent of those in aged-care facilities had double-dose vaccinations. The comparison between what happened this year in Sydney and Victoria last year could not be more stark. The priority of the government was to ensure that the residents of aged-care facilities— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. The question is about aged-care workers working across multiple sites—something that was identified as a problem that occurred in aged care more than a year ago— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. Just before I call the Prime Minister, the question also, from my memory of it and my notes of it, did refer to residents— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on. It did refer to residents as well, so the Prime Minister has been able to refer to that, but the substance of the question was about workers—that's true—and the Prime Minister will need to bring himself to that matter. I think he's already indicated he might ask the Minister for Health. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. As of today, 56.1 per cent of aged-care workers have had their first dose of the vaccination. The declaration of a Commonwealth hotspot activates the supports that go to the state governments to ensure that they have the support and that the aged-care facilities have the support to prevent, wherever possible, those working across sites. They are the rules that have been put in place; they are the financial supports and other mechanisms that go in place when these Commonwealth hotspots are declared. But I make this very important point: the contrast between the outbreak that has occurred in Sydney this year and what occurred in Victoria last year, in terms of the rate of fatality that we saw in aged-care facilities, could not be more stark, and that is because the government ensured that we moved to put the vaccines into aged-care facilities and double-dosed those residents, with more than 80 per cent having double-dose vaccinations in those facilities. Last year, there was not a vaccination and we were able to constrain as much as possible in an unvaccinated population the impact of an extraordinary outbreak across Melbourne. In a way, it was far in advance of what we had seen in other countries that had been subject to those outbreaks when there were no vaccines. This year, with the vaccines in place, over 80 per cent of those in residential aged-care facilities are double-dose vaccinated and that has provided them with very important protection in the midst of this very significant outbreak. The Minister for Health may wish to add. 14:28 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders There are two different facilities. Firstly, in relation to the SummitCare facility, I understand that has now been taken off the list. It has a vaccination rate of approximately 96 per cent amongst residents. The five residents who were vaccinated, who have now largely cleared the virus, are expected to return. The one resident whose family had chosen not to vaccinate is also expected to clear the virus. In relation to the Summer Hill facility, I want to check the details with regard to the worker because I have different advice with regard to the worker. (Time expired) Taxation 49 14:28 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please remind the House why only the Morrison government can be relied upon to cut taxes and to ensure businesses, workers and families keep more of their own hard-earned money? And is the Treasurer aware of any constructive proposals being put forward that would be an alternative to the government's tax policies? 14:29 Mr FRYDENBERG ( FKL Kooyong — ) ( ): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. I acknowledge his experience, starting off as an apprentice baker in the private sector and most recently championing the very successful Olympic bid for Brisbane. Congratulations to the people of Queensland and, indeed, Australia. On this side of the House we don't just talk about lower taxes; we deliver lower taxes. That is our track record. They are our policies. What we have seen pass through the parliament are the most significant income tax cuts in a generation, with the abolition of a whole tax bracket. Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is now warned. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The 37-cents-in-the-dollar tax bracket is now legislated to go, completely, creating one big tax bracket between $45,000 and $200,000, where people pay a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. For small businesses with a turnover of under $50 million, we've cut the tax rate as of 1 July to 25 cents in the dollar. In this year's budget we've put in place a patent box to provide a concessional company tax rate of 17 per cent for businesses in the medical and biotech sector that, through their research and development, develop patented ideas that earn income. If they do so here in Australia they will receive a concessional company tax rate. On immediate expensing: we have passed legislation and implemented policies in successive budgets which provide for businesses to write off acquisitions of machinery and equipment, upgrades to their retail shops or upgrades to their production lines, ensuring they can write all that off in year 1. Whether you're a farmer with a harvester or whether you're a retailer with a shop fitout, you can write off all those acquisitions or upgrades in year 1. And the loss carry-back measure is another important tax reform designed to help get people through. But I'm asked about those opposite, because we know that they have opposed our tax cuts every step of the way. Like the stage 3 tax cuts— The SPEAKER 00APG I will just say to the Treasurer that he's not able to do this on this occasion, because the question asked was whether there are constructive proposals being put forward. If there are constructive proposals, you can outline them; if there are not, you can resume your seat. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The reality is that the stage 3 tax cuts, which we supported and those opposite did not support, have been a constructive proposal designed to lower people's taxes. What do lower taxes lead to? They lead to more jobs. And what do more jobs lead to? They lead to a stronger economy. We on this side of the House have walked and talked and delivered lower taxes for millions of Australians and their businesses in order to create a stronger economy. COVID-19: Vaccination 49 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to this statement from the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, Professor Paul Kelly, in May this year. I quote him: I think we really do need to look for incentives, as many incentives as we can, for people to become vaccinated. Was the Chief Medical Officer correct? 14:33 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I am very familiar with the views of the Chief Medical Officer, because I meet with him regularly—I meet with him very regularly. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has had one meeting that he sought already this year—one meeting with those running the health advice in this country. So I'm pleased to fill him in on the views of the Chief Medical Officer. What the Chief Medical Officer has said and what General Frewen has made very clear— Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L He says 'General Frewen' as if there's some sort of mocking title to that. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Well, if you want to interject with it! The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW It's one thing when people attempt to put words in someone else's mouth in this place, but when they do it with respect to an esteemed member of the Defence Force, it should be beneath this parliament. It should be beneath this parliament. If nothing's beneath you, then that's on you. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Let me just address this matter very clearly. If any member is concerned that their interjection might, in their view, be misrepresented, it's best not to make the interjection in the first place. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L The advice that has come forward, whether from the Chief Medical Officer or General Frewen, is that cash payments for jabs—a cash splash for jabs—is not their advice. It's not their advice. It's not the advice given to us that we should spend $6 billion splashing cash to those who've already received the vaccine. At least at this point, they would be paying out over $2 billion to people who have already had the vaccine. This policy, although being friendless from those who are expert in this area, including from those advising the government, now pretends to be able to time travel—that you can make a payment to someone now and that would somehow have influenced their decision three months ago. This is a policy that has put forward by the Leader of the Opposition which is ill considered, ill informed and ill disciplined. This is a policy that he has not sought to consult on and he has not sought to take proper advice on. He hasn't even had the opportunity to actually sit down with those responsible for delivering the national vaccine plan and be informed of that before he's gone off with this idea. I note that those opposite, to quote them, refer to this as 'Anthony's idea'. That's how they refer to it; I'm only quoting them. The SPEAKER 00APG No, I don't care. The Prime Minister will pause. It doesn't matter what you're quoting; you need to refer to members by their correct titles. Otherwise you will find it bouncing back on you pretty quickly. Mr MORRISON E3L It's the member for Grayndler's idea, Mr Speaker. They are all crab-walking away from this one pretty quickly, because he himself, as Phil Coorey has noted today, accepts pretty much that any cent that is going to be spent here—splashing cash just like they did when they were last in government—is not going to move the dial, because 75 per cent of Australians, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, say they want to go and get it. (Time expired) COVID-19: Australian Defence Force 50 14:37 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the Australian Defence Force is helping to keep Australians safe, particularly in New South Wales, through Operation COVID-19 Assist? 14:37 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Can I thank the member for Robertson for her question and acknowledge her advocacy and passion for defence industry on the Central Coast and also her support for the men and women in the ADF in her electorate. Since March last year, more than 20,000 ADF personnel have deployed nationally to keep our communities safe from COVID-19. More recently, when New South Wales called, we answered, with more than 400 ADF personnel deployed to assist the New South Wales government overcome the current outbreak. The ADF are supporting New South Wales police and NSW Health with home engagement activities and contact tracing. Likewise, when Victoria called, the ADF answered there as well. Since March last year, more than 4,500 ADF personnel have been deployed to assist Victoria in managing COVID-19. Currently in Victoria, there are 400 ADF deployed to assist with activities like contact tracing, home engagement and hotel quarantine compliance. The men and women of our ADF continue to make our nation very proud. No-one will forget the scene of HMAS Choules when it arrived at Mallacoota to evacuate those impacted by the bushfires of 2019. I'm sure it's a memory burnt into the memory of the member for Gippsland. I think it's very clear to everyone in this House and to our nation that no job is too big or too small for our ADF. What we're seeing at the moment is ADF personnel going door to door; assisting returning Australians by getting them into quarantine; carrying suitcases; driving cars and buses; helping to stop the spread of the virus; and supporting industry, like with the help given in Shepparton with the production of masks. As I say, no task is too big or too small. In my own electorate of Durack the Prime Minister and I saw firsthand with the aftermath of Cyclone Seroja the ADF on the ground helping the people of Kalbarri. The ADF presence provided hope at that time life would get back to normal, and that is the role that the ADF is playing now in New South Wales and across the whole nation when it comes to helping with COVID. Our grateful nation says thank you to the men and women of our ADF. COVID-19: Vaccination 51 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is for the Prime Minister, and it follows my question previously where I asked about Professor Kelly and the Prime Minister responded about Lieutenant General Frewen's comments. Is he aware the lieutenant general just said this in response to cash incentives: We will look at all positive alternatives. There is cash, there is the ideas of lotteries, all these things are being discussed. What is resonating with people right now really is being able to get back to the sort of lifestyle we used to enjoy … Is, indeed, Lieutenant General Frewen correct? 14:40 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can assure you that Lieutenant General Frewen is not recommending paying $2.4 billion to people who have already received the vaccine. The incentives that we speak of in the government are those about the liberties people can regain when they have the vaccine. There are the points of presence to ensure that they go and access that vaccine. We have now reached more than 50 per cent of first doses in the ACT and Tasmania. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition, on point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. The question went to the quote from Lieutenant General Frewen who said they're looking at 'positive alternatives', including cash and the idea of lotteries. All these things are discussed. Is that correct? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House, on the point of order? Mr Porter 208884 The question clearly had in it the premise that it had been discussed. Maybe if the Leader of the Opposition had discussed his policy with a few people over there, we wouldn't be in this problem. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I'll just say to the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister has been relevant in responding to that aspect of the question. I think he did so in the first couple of sentences. I'm listening to him now to ensure he remains relevant. Mr MORRISON E3L They have been considered, and they have not been recommended for cash payments. I can assure you under the national plan there is certainly no suggestion of the types of incentives that he refers to in phase A of the plan. In the ACT and Tasmania more than 50 per cent have had their first doses, and they didn't need a cash splash to get there. The ACT health minister, their colleague in the Labor Party, said, 'This is probably not the most cost effective way, to do incentives.' That was from one of their own people in the ACT administration. The people of the ACT haven't needed a cash splash from the Leader of the Opposition. The people of the ACT and Tasmania, where Tasmania leads the leaderboard amongst states of getting people vaccinated in this country, didn't need the vote of no confidence in their ability to get vaccines that the Labor Party leader wants to put out there, because Australians know that, if they get vaccinated, they're less likely to get the virus, they're less likely to pass on the virus, they're less likely to be hospitalised with a serious illness, and they're less likely to die. Australians know that getting vaccinated is in their interests, their family's interests, their community's interests and the national interest. They know that. I have confidence in them. I have confidence in them to turn up, as we're seeing them do at record numbers—over 200,000 again yesterday, and those numbers continue to ramp up. The Leader of the Opposition does not believe that the Australian people will turn out and do what is in their health interests, their family's interests and their community's interests. He has issued a vote of no confidence in the people of Australia, a vote of absolute no confidence. On this side of the House we have great confidence in the Australian people. We have great thanks for the sacrifice that they have gone through. The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Labor Party, might think that Australians need to get the cash to get vaccinated, but I think a lot more highly of the Australian people than he does. COVID-19: Mental Health 51 14:44 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's health response to the COVID-19 pandemic is helping Australians, particularly their mental health? 14:45 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I particularly want to thank the member for Reid for her work as a child psychologist before coming to this place but also in terms of supporting the people of her community at this moment. We know that around the world it has been another day with over 600,000 cases and, agonisingly, 9,800 lives lost. We also know that in Australia the health investment of approximately $30 billion has helped save over 30,000 lives here. Sadly, we haven't saved every life, and we fight to do that every single day. But one of the things that is occurring, beyond the containment measures of borders, testing, tracing and distancing, is the vaccination. As the Prime Minister has said, yesterday was a record day of almost 214,000 Australians, and over 1.2 million in the last seven days. We are now at over 12.8 million vaccinations in Australia. AstraZeneca doses among Australians have just passed seven million doses, of which five million are first doses. And now two-thirds of Australians over the age of 50 have been vaccinated. All this provides a critical and important protection, but at the same time we need to focus on the mental health of Australians. That's one thing that has been fundamental. We know the challenges, whether for children, young adults—people of all ages—and the stresses that they face. On that front, the unity of the House has I believe been very strong. We've come together to put in place structural changes: the creation of telehealth, the creation of a system that has delivered over 68 million consultations around Australia. Amongst those, five million have been specifically for mental health, but many more inevitably will have significantly dealt with mental health. That structural reform will have changed the delivery of Medicare and health services in Australia forever but will have saved many lives during the course of this pandemic. In addition to that, we've been able to support Lifeline, beyondblue, Kids Helpline and so many other groups, as well as doubling the number of services under the Medicare Better Access scheme. This scheme was cut in 2011, from 18 to 10 services. We've now returned it from 10 to 20 services. And then, fundamentally, as we go forward, the transformation of mental health treatment in Australia: 40 adult mental health services—Head to Health—around the country; over 150 headspace services; and, for the first time, 15 government funded kids' Head to Health services. All these things are coming together to support mental health, to save lives and to protect lives. COVID-19: Vaccination 52 14:48 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question's to the Prime Minister. When a Melbourne pub offered free beers for vaccinations, the Prime Minister said to the pub: 'Good on you for getting behind the national effort. Cheers!' Given that it's okay for a pub to offer incentives for vaccination, why not a government? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Mr Speaker: $6 billion of taxpayers money—$6 billion—almost half of which would be paid to people who've already had the vaccine, which the Leader of the Opposition has largely already conceded. We've seen ice-creams last longer in the sunshine than this policy! He already acknowledges, by implication, that more than 75 per cent of people who would go and get this vaccine would have gone and got it otherwise. But he's going to cut a cheque anyway, just like they did last time. What we've seen from the Leader of the Labor Party here is very interesting— An opposition member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I'll take the interjection, because he refers to $13 billion. That was JobKeeper's monthly bill. I know what it was, because we decided to put JobKeeper in place, and we believe it was a wise investment to ensure that, on the other side of when we came out of the first and second waves, our economy came back and a million people got back into jobs. As we got to the end of March, those opposite were warning; they were hoping for the worst for Australians, when we came to the end of March, that people would not find themselves in jobs and Labor could go cock-a-hoop here in this place. But what did they find? Australians back in jobs. Australians around the country were smiling and the Labor Party was frowning. That's because all through this pandemic the Labor Party has hoped for the worst. They've undermined the national effort. There is the constant negativity of the Leader of the Labor Party. He can yap and yap and yap all he likes. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll just say to the Prime Minister: he's now moved beyond the question, which was about incentives. He's moved well beyond it—out of the arena and out of the carpark, all at once. Mr MORRISON E3L Going to the policy incentive put forward by the Leader of the Labor Party which was referred to by the questioner, what we've seen from this is how they would have done things if they were in government—the same sort of ill-disciplined, ill-informed way to approach policy, where they treat taxpayers' money like it's confetti, spraying it around without any rules, paying off money as a bribe to Australians. That's what it is. They think that they need to bribe Australians to get vaccinated—so little do they think of their fellow Australians and the sacrifices they're making. This Leader of the Labor Party has shown his true policy colours—ill-informed, ill-disciplined, unable to make the important decisions— (Time expired) Climate Change 53 14:51 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's 'technology not taxes' approach to reducing emissions is focused on harnessing Australians' innovation and expertise, and is the minister aware of any risks to this approach? 14:52 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Higgins for her question and for her strong commitment to bringing down emissions as we strengthen our economy. We are constantly strengthening our economy. As someone who was a doctor before coming in this place, she knows how effective it is to take a technology led approach to solving hard problems, including bringing down emissions. Of course, she also knows that our approach is working. Emissions are down by over 20 per cent since 2005, which is lower than any year when Labor was in government. We saw seven gigawatts of new renewables capacity in the last year alone, which is more than the full six years of Labor government. And now Australia has the highest level of installed solar PV in the world per capita—the highest in the world. This is happening because we're backing Australian ingenuity and innovation and great organisations that are playing such a great role in this. One of those organisations is ARENA. We are backing ARENA to invest in a broader range of technologies to bring down emissions in the coming years. In particular, in those hard to abate sectors, ARENA has an important role to play in this. It needs to be able to support our five priority technologies in our Technology Investment Roadmap. We've given it an additional $192 million on top of its baseline of over $1. 4 billion a year. That's an additional $192 million to invest in technologies like charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, micro grids, bringing down emissions in heavy industry and heavy transport—that next generation of low emissions technologies. I am asked about risks to this approach. The risk is those opposite. The member for McMahon has been selling the party room over there on the other side a pup. He told them on Monday that in voting against the regulatory change for ARENA that supports these technologies they are only voting against carbon capture. He's teamed up with the Greens and Labor and they're voting against clean hydrogen, energy storage, low carbon aluminium and steel, healthy soils—they're voting against all of those things. They're voting against technologies that the IEA says are crucial to bringing down emissions around the world. They're voting against more jobs and investment in the regions. The member for Hunter got it right when he said, 'This is stupid policy and stupid politics.' That's from the member for Hunter: stupid policy and stupid politics. The truth of the matter is, if it's not to be technology, it is to be taxes. COVID-19: Vaccines 53 14:55 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, medical researchers and scientists started lobbying the government to set up local manufacturing for an mRNA vaccine last August. Australia still does not have one single facility manufacturing mRNA vaccines. When will we finally get one? 14:55 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will ask the minister for industry to add to my answer, and I note that it's the Labor Party's policy that they won't open up the country until an mRNA vaccine production capability is in place. That's 2023. 14:56 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for the question. I think that that date of last August as the commencement of lobbying is about correct. Of course, it was in December of last year that we commenced the process of putting together a business case to inform the policy going forward, so that this facility can be commissioned. When you look at that timing, Member for Chifley, the mRNA vaccines were first approved for human use in Australia on 25 January 2021—that's 25 January of this year. Our government was lobbied in August last year. It commissioned the business case in December of last year, and that was an absolutely necessary premise and starting point for a process that then led to the approach to market which was recently finalised and which we are now analysing the responses to. I think, indeed, in the article that the individuals were quoted from, they also talk about a feasibility study being the starting point. I think that the Research Australia chief executive talked about the need to start with a feasibility study, which is what we did—a business case—so that we could firstly understand exactly what would be a reasonable ask of the taxpayer. This is a scientific endeavour and a commercial endeavour, and those two parts of this quite complicated issue and problem have to be put together. There are, and there will be, frustrations that things don't happen more quickly, but this is a very complicated scientific endeavour and commercial endeavour. It has to be sustainable into the future. It has to produce mRNA vaccines for future pandemics and viruses—potentially, COVID boosters, potentially aligned also to flu vaccines, potentially also for other therapeutic treatments such as for cancer and heart diseases. We are taking a considered, informed approach. There is possibly one way that you could do it quicker, and that is that you could take the same sort of approach to this complicated potentially large expenditure of taxpayers' money that the Labor Party have taken to a $6 billion policy and that is a 'take that sugar hit' approach and just spend $6 billion without even discussing it with your own caucus. Mr Husic 91219 [by video link] Point of order, Speaker. Mr PORTER 208884 So you could take that approach— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. The member for Chifley on a point of order. Mr Husic 91219 [by video link] It's on direct relevance. I've asked the question: when will we get an mRNA facility? We're not asking for this meandering that we're getting now from the minister. The SPEAKER 00APG I uphold the point of order. It was a very specific question. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr PORTER 208884 Let me put it this way. You could take the $2 billion that you would spend to get people vaccinated who've already been vaccinated and pay for this policy two or three times over. Mr Gosling interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Solomon will leave under standing order 94(a). The member for Solomon then left the chamber. Resources Sector 54 14:59 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is positioning Australia as a leading supplier of critical minerals and rare earth elements to meet the growing global demand for the new energy technologies required in a modern economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:59 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I thank the honourable member for Flynn for his question. They make it big in Flynn! They've got big ports, big ships, big trains and big support for his constituents from the member for Flynn. When we look at critical minerals, we have big opportunities for this country. We are supporting the critical minerals sector as it develops, and for very good reason. In the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, part of the current Leader of the House's position, we supported eight critical minerals projects as part of the first round of that $1.3 billion commitment we have made. One of those is Core Lithium. Core Lithium received $6 million. It is up in the Middle Arm industrial precinct, in Darwin Harbour, up in the Northern Territory. Their proposal is for a pilot plan to process ore into battery grade lithium hydroxide. Why is this important? Because the IP for this is held very tightly. We want to develop these opportunities. As the member for Flynn would know, we're very good at putting things onto boats and sending them to other countries to make sure they can keep their lights on. But we're also good at making sure we can manufacture products in this country. There is a big opportunity in critical minerals. Industry has forecast the global lithium ion battery market could reach $400 billion by 2030. We want a big piece of that, but we need to develop that technology and that support—and there is competition, because other people want that piece of the pie too. There are opportunities right across the country, whether that is regional hubs, in places like Gladstone in the member for Flynn's electorate, or whether it's up in Rockhampton, in the member for Capricornia's electorate, or in Mackay, in the member for Dawson's electorate—particularly with the support for gas. I'm asked about alternatives. There are alternatives. There are other positions that those opposite tend to take on occasion. Quite simply, we support this sector. On this side of the House we support the sector, and our support is obvious and clear and strong and public. In fact, when we go to a resources sector mine—I go with the Prime Minister. We showed up in the far north earlier in the year. Admittedly we got stuck in the lift—everybody knew about that!—but we got out of the lift. We are supporting the sector, the workers, the individuals who are driving the economy in this country. In fact, on recent accounts there are 279,000 jobs in the resources sector now—incredibly strong. The opposition, it's reported, have secret visit to mines. We do not make a secret about our support. I will be philosophical, briefly: if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? If the Leader of the Opposition went on a secret visit to a coalmine and no-one knew about it, did he really go? COVID-19: Vaccination 54 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House he was talking about the approval of vaccines when he said 'It's not a race' on multiple occasions, on 11 March, 14 March and 31 March. Given the TGA approved Pfizer in January and AstraZeneca in February, what vaccine approval was he talking about in March? 15:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I was making reference to the cautious approach that the government have taken when we've been taking advice and rolling out the national vaccine program. He rightly refers to those comments being made in March. It is a very different situation that we're in now, and those comments are not comments I have repeated since that time, and there is a reason for that—because have continued to ramp up the response to the national vaccine program. Yesterday we had another record day. I acknowledge, as I have done to the whole country, that we have had challenges in the early parts of this national vaccine program, and I have said sorry to the country, for we were not able to be where we had hoped to be at that point. The Leader of the Opposition may wish to continue to pursue that, but the Australian people know I have been very upfront with them about this. Not only do I take responsibility for the problems that we've had; I take responsibility for fixing them, which is what we have done. Now, as the program rolls out, and as we roll towards reaching those targets, I know I can have great confidence that Australians will be able to reach those targets. The Leader of the Opposition has no confidence in the Australian people. He thinks he needs to splash cash at them to do the right thing by themselves, their families and their country— The SPEAKER 00APG Again, Prime Minister, you weren't asked about that. You've been relevant until now. Mr MORRISON E3L Fair point. I was making a comment about my confidence in the Australian people meeting the targets we've set before us to ensure that we can live with this virus into the future. We have the plan, we've set targets, and we have put General Frewen in charge of getting that vaccination program rolling out at the great pace it is now doing. That is what our government has done to address the challenges we had in the first half of the year. The Leader of the Opposition could help the national vaccination effort by supporting it, not undermining it by engaging in the negativity which he is well known for. Manufacturing Industry 55 15:05 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is working to support Australian businesses, particularly our manufacturers, to create jobs and grow the economy? 15:05 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. Even during COVID, and even with the challenges that have faced the manufacturing sector in Australia, indicators like export prices and profitability demonstrate the real resilience of manufacturing in Australia during these challenging times. Through the first phase of COVID, in the March quarter to 2021, manufacturing profits actually rose—in fact, by 6.8 per cent—and in fact were 16 per cent higher over that very, very challenging year. Even through COVID, export prices for Australian manufacturers increased by about 1½ per cent over the March 2021 quarter, which is a demonstration of the remarkable resilience of the sector. That's why the Morrison government is investing so heavily in this sector with the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, designed to focus on and target six national manufacturing priority areas of comparative advantage and strategic importance. That helps protect and promote jobs during the challenges of COVID, but it also leverages us out of COVID and creates stimulus and job growth during the post-COVID period that we are all looking forward to. I recently announced, as was noted, 17 successful projects. They were valued at $257 million across three of those national priority areas: space, medical products, resources technology and critical minerals processing. Those recipients will share in grants of around $100 million under the initial round of the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. One example of those is a fantastic business in the member for O'Connor's electorate—Lynas Rare Earths. Their project is using $14.8 million in funding to develop a world-first streamlined process to refine rare-earth ore. That is so important, because they're essential components for manufacturing devices like smartphones, computers, rechargeable batteries and electric vehicles. Here is the value add for the great minerals that we produce. Another fantastic example is the Morrison government investing $36 million in innovative medical technologies and manufacturing projects. Of that, $3 million is going to help Avicena Systems, whom I recently visited. They have an amazing product called the Sentinel COVID-19 screening system, and that system, which is absolutely world-class, cutting-edge technology, can be used to rapidly test more than 90,000 people for COVID every day, producing results inside a 24-hour period. As you can imagine, the worldwide demand for a product like that is absolutely immense. Their constraint has been that they've only been able to produce four of them so far. With this grant, they estimate that they will be able to produce 20 of these quite remarkable pieces of equipment per month. That will meet Australian demand and worldwide demand. That's $1.5 billion worth of investment. Minister for Education and Youth 56 15:08 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the minister who administered the car park rorts said that he wasn't aware of the list of top 20 marginals the Audit Office found was used to allocate car park funding to seats targeted by the Liberal Party. If the minister is correct, can the Prime Minister tell the House who put the list together and who used it to allocate rorted funding? Was it the Prime Minister's office? The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the minister, I'm not going to rule the question out of order, because there have been a number of questions on other topics like this. When you're using a turn of phrase it can really leave it open for the question not to be answered. So what I'd prefer for future questions is that, if you're talking about a program that has been the subject of an audit report, you just state what the program is. The member for Grey, on a point of order? Mr Ramsey HWS Yes, a point of order, Mr Speaker: I make the point that, in that question, he didn't actually address it to a minister at all—he didn't name the minister— The SPEAKER 00APG No, he did. His first line was— Mr Ramsey HWS He addressed it to the minister for car park rorts. The SPEAKER 00APG No, he didn't. No, no. His first line was: 'My question is to the Prime Minister,' and the Prime Minister has redirected it to the minister, and the minister has the call. 15:10 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the shadow minister for his question, and I make the point that there is no question that the minister of the day had authority to make decisions in relation to commuter car parks. There is no question of that—and, indeed, the Auditor-General's report makes that very clear. Under the National Land Transport Act, the minister of the day had authority, and the minister of the day exercised that authority consistent with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act. I also make the point that money was committed on the basis of advice from the department to the minister of the day, and indeed that is made very clear in the Auditor-General's report. I also make the point that we saw from the other side of the House commitments under the park-and-ride fund to commuter car parks at Gosford, Woy Woy and Campbelltown, and at St Marys, Riverwood, Panania and Hurstville—all of them from Labor. Apparently there's some problem with committing funding— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will just resume his seat. The member for Scullin is seeking the call on a point of order. Mr Giles 243609 A point of order on relevance: the question was quite narrow, about the list of projects and who was responsible for it. The SPEAKER 00APG I'd just say to the member: that's what I was alluding to with the first part of his question that had some politically charged language. If he'd just asked that, he'd have a point, but the question, at its heart, contains an accusation, and that enables the minister to respond to that accusation. I'm not going to be too precious about the question, for reasons that a couple of people with long memories here will know, but we won't go into that. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER L6B Here's my answer to the ambitious but previously obscure shadow minister, who is desperately trying, without conspicuous success, to capitalise on what he thought was going to be his moment in the sun. He asks: 'Who made the decision?' I'll tell you who made the decision: the minister of the day made the decision. And the minister of the day had authority. This is the key point. The Auditor-General's report does not contest that the minister of the day had authority. Let me read to you from page 38 of the Auditor-General's report: Under the Infrastructure Investment Program arrangements, the Australian Government may commit funding to an investment project at any time for any phase based on information it deems appropriate. The Auditor-General's report does not say, because it could not say, that the minister did not have authority. He did have authority. The Auditor-General's report does not say, because it could not say, that the minister did not act on the advice of his department. In fact, what the Auditor-General's report says, quite precisely, is: for each of these 33 projects, the minister recorded that he had accepted the department's recommendations. There have been no instances where the minister approved funding for a commuter car park that had been recommended for rejection by the department. There is no question. The minister had authority, consistent with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act. COVID-19: Women 57 15:14 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs, representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister advise the House on how Australian women are playing a vital role in our economic comeback as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and how the Morrison government is assisting them? 15:14 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for her question and for the great work that she does in her electorate. It's very, very clear that women are helping the Australian economy to rebuild following what we have gone through over the last 12 to 18 months, and this government is going to make sure that we help women every step of the way. The women's workforce participation rate in June was 61.6 per cent, just a fraction off the record high of 61.8 per cent in March this year, and that's a great outcome and one that we should all be very proud of. We all know that workforce participation is important because economic security goes hand in hand with financial independence. The measures that we have introduced in the Women's Budget Statement provide targeted support to increase women's employment choices and address barriers in the workforce. Together, that helps ensure that women can build a secure future. In total we invested $3.4 billion of new funding through this year's Women's Budget Statement in women's safety, economic security, health and wellbeing. Our childcare investment alone will add up to 300,000 hours of work per week to our economy each year, allowing up to 40,000 people to work an extra day per week, and boost GDP by up to $1.5 billion per year. That is just one of the very practical ways that we are helping Australian women. Our focus is always on making sure that we are putting in place practical outcomes that are going to make a real difference—not thought bubbles, not headlines. We're actually providing women with the support that they need to support their own economic security. We have certainly put significant amounts of money into this. We've committed a further $39.8 million to expand the successful Women's Leadership and Development Program. That program supports a wide range of projects, including Women Building Australia, run by Master Builders Australia, to support more women in construction, the Brave Foundation to support expecting and parenting teams, and projects that support Indigenous women right across Australia to build their businesses. We are doing all that we can to make sure that we are delivering the practical policies that are going to support women and make sure that they can build their own economic security. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 57 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS COVID-19: Vaccines 57 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 I do. The SPEAKER 00APG You may proceed. Mr ALBANESE R36 During question time, the Prime Minister purported to say I had a late date for opening up the Australian economy. This is not true. I have said on hundreds of occasions that the two keys to opening up the economy is rolling out effectively the vaccine and having purpose-built quarantine. Resources Sector 57 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 I do. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr ALBANESE R36 Yesterday, and again today, the junior Minister for Resources and Water purported to say that I visited Moranbah without telling anyone. On Sunday 11 July at 9.04 am, I issued a media alert for an event in Moranbah with the ACTU president, Michele O'Neill, that was taking place at the Moranbah Workers Club with coalminers and the heads of all the mining lodges. And, on 12 July at 7 am, we issued a media alert for a press conference jointly with Murray Watt for 10.30 am that morning in Moranbah. A journalist did attend—the one journalist who travelled. I also did media at the only radio station in Moranbah and we published both the transcript of the media conference and the transcript of the radio interview. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Presentation 58 15:19 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 58 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 58 15:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Speaker, I ask that you write to the Treasurer to seek an explanation as to why questions in writing Nos 512 and 516, which relate to the government's $13 billion mismanagement of the JobKeeper scheme, have not been answered within the required time frame. 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I will do so today. As I have said before, you will find that letter is being drafted immediately. PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS 58 PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 58 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call on the matter of public importance, pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Oxley to be a member of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG There's no danger of you being nominated, member for Moreton! MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 58 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COVID-19: Vaccination 58 15:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The costs and consequences of the government's vaccination rollout failures. 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— 15:21 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin One of the finest people to ever serve in this parliament, and indeed the parliament down the hill, was Kim Beazley. When I used to work for Kim Beazley some 15 years ago one of the sayings that I would hear him say often, which I found quite amusing, was: 'That mob over there couldn't organise a kick in a street fight.' I was thinking about that today when the Treasurer had two opportunities and two Dorothy Dixers. First he was asked a question about fiscal discipline. He had three minutes and didn't mention fiscal discipline once. Then he was asked a question about tax and he couldn't answer it, because the question was so poorly written. I was thinking, at that moment, if these characters over there can't even organise two Dorothy Dixers no wonder they can't organise vaccines or purpose-built quarantine. What a farce it has been watching them try and explain and slither out of this mess that they have made of the two jobs that the Prime Minister had to do this year. I tell you what they can organise, they can put together a decent looking press conference. We saw this spectacle yesterday here in this building. We had the military uniforms. We had the fancy PowerPoint slide. We had the Prime Minister walk out with his puffed-up self-importance, with his little mate from Melbourne looking all solemn as well. All of this cooked up—all of this production, all of this spectacle—just to tell us what everybody else in the country, and certainly everybody on this side of the House already knew, just to fess up and admit what the rest of us have been saying for months: lockdowns are the only way to deal with this virus in the absence of a proper vaccine rollout and those lockdowns are smashing the national economy of Australia. They didn't quite admit that they had been wrong all of this time. It was more that they kind of hoped that we wouldn't notice that they have been wrong all of this time. How much of this economic destruction could have been avoided if they already understood these basic truths? How much of the human cost, how much of the economic cost could have been averted if they understood all along that what really matters here is the vaccine rollout? In the absence of a good one we will have more lockdowns and with lockdowns there will be lots of damage done to workers, small businesses and the national economy. When it comes to lockdowns it's hard to take the Treasurer seriously. The same guy who was there yesterday saying, 'It turns out that lockdowns are really important to protect the economy and protect people from the virus,' is the same joker who stood at that dispatch box, and up in the Canberra press gallery here in the Parliament House building, and ranted and raved about the biggest public policy failure of our lifetime being Daniel Andrews having to lockdown the Victorian economy. This was the same guy who ranted and raved from that dispatch box about lockdowns. This was the same Prime Minister who was congratulating, indeed encouraging, Premier Berejiklian not to lockdown, saying it was the gold standard not to lockdown. And we all know how costly that error has been when we look at the hundreds of cases each day that we see in New South Wales and more specifically in Sydney. When it comes to vaccines, we asked over and over again today about aged-care workers. The Prime Minister finally admitted that they're at least four months late and 44 per cent short, and that's just on the first shot—the promise they made to have workers vaccinated by Easter. This is part of the broader failure when it comes to vaccines. We are well behind where we need to be as a country as a consequence of the failures of those opposite. We asked about the economy as well. We asked them specifically, 'What are the costs and consequences of the Prime Minister's failure to do those two jobs—vaccines and purpose-built quarantine?' Billions of dollars a week are being shed from the national economy, on the government's own figures, because of the mess that they've made of vaccines and quarantine—every single week. This is the price tag on this government's incompetence. This is the price that ordinary Australian working families and local communities are being asked to pay for the Prime Minister's inability to do those two jobs this year. This Prime Minister is the dill that Australia can't afford. These costs and consequences of the Prime Minister's failure are being carried by the ordinary women and men of this country. We have said all along, even at the beginning of the recovery earlier this year when Australia was emerging from the first recession in almost 30 years, the worst one in almost a century, that we welcomed that progress but that the recovery was always hostage to the ability of the government to roll out vaccines effectively and build that quarantine. We said all along that you couldn't have a first-rate recovery with a third-rate vaccine rollout, and that has proven to be the case. We're seeing that right now. Those opposite must be from another planet in talking about how well the economy's going when, at the same time, the Treasurer has repeatedly admitted that the economy is currently shrinking in this quarter and he can't rule out—in his words—'a second recession in the second year'. The Treasurer himself can't rule that out. I don't know where they get the front, frankly, to come in here and tell the Australian people, through the Australian parliament, that their economy is going gangbusters. After everything that Australians have done for each other to limit the spread of the virus—Australians have done their bit—all they ask is that the government does their bit as well. The Prime Minister has taken to using Olympic analogies all of a sudden. He said it wasn't a race, but now, because the focus group report is in, he wants to talk about the Olympics. He knows that Australians are proud of our Olympics team, so he is using Olympic analogies. They are at risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory when it comes to the vaccine rollout. We did make an amazing start as a country in 2020. That's a credit to our people and what they did for each other, and that advantage has been squandered. We were leading on the first lap and now we have stumbled on the second lap as a consequence of his failures. The Australian people are working this Prime Minister out. They know that this farce when it comes to vaccines and quarantine says so much. It's a real window into the soul of this government. It says so much about the character of this government and the man who leads it, and Australians are working that out. They see all of the arrogance that we see here in question time, all of the complacency and all of this sense that any question asked about any of these important issues is some kind of personal affront to the Prime Minister—how dare we ask all of these questions! They see all of these efforts to avoid and evade responsibility when it comes to the job that the Australian people pay him to do. I think the Australian people are working out that the man who sits over there, the Prime Minister of this country, is temperamentally unsuited for the role of leadership. He is psychologically incapable of taking responsibility for these failures which are bleeding the Australian economy at the moment because of all of these lockdowns caused by his failures on vaccines and quarantine. And now he's forced into these humiliating concessions that lockdowns are important. Lockdowns are because of the failure on vaccines. The failure on vaccines is his fault, and that's costing the Australian economy dearly. Over and over again today he was asked about our constructive alternative, to say, 'We have got two issues in this country at the moment—the economy is bleeding and it needs help and the vaccine rollout is bleeding and needs help—and we could deal with both of those things at once. We could provide a shot in the arm for the vaccine rollout and a shot in the arm for workers and small businesses in the economy at the same time.' We could do that. Of course, true to form, despite the fact that General Frewen said only a couple of hours ago in this building that the government themselves are discussing and considering cash incentives for vaccines, the Prime Minister is in a rush to rule that out. And we dealt with that at some level today, and some of the important conclusions we can draw from it. The Prime Minister pretends all of a sudden that $6 billion is a lot of money, in his book, despite the fact that he wasted $13 billion on JobKeeper for companies whose profits were rising and who didn't need help, wasted all that money on the car park rorts, which my colleagues have done so well to uncover, and wasted all that money on sport rorts, dodgy land deals and all the rest of it. The most wasteful government since Federation sits over there at the moment. After all of that, he wants to pretend that $6 billion invested in fixing his vaccine failures and the mess that those opposite have made of the economy is not money well spent. Well, we think it is money well spent. In fact, there could hardly be a more responsible use of taxpayer money than fixing the vaccine rollout, trying to prevent these lockdowns and trying to avert the economic carnage that is a consequence of his failures. So spare us the lectures about economic responsibility from the most wasteful government since Federation! What we're proposing is a fraction of the cost of the damage that his incompetence and ineptitude, and the Treasurer's as well, is doing to the Australian economy. The sooner we fix vaccines and the sooner we fix lockdowns, the sooner we fix the economy as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The assistant minister on a point of order? Mr Buchholz 230531 Mr Deputy Speaker, I wanted to afford the honourable member the opportunity to finish his speech. He can have his opinions about the Prime Minister, but during his speech, early in it, he used an unparliamentary term. An opposition member interjecting— Mr Buchholz 230531 I'm making the call. He used an unparliamentary term, and I ask that it be withdrawn please. Mr Andrews HK5 Did the— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Andrews HK5 Order! I ask the honourable member: did he make an unparliamentary term or expression? Dr Chalmers 37998 I don't believe so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Andrews HK5 I'll leave it at that, thank you. I call the Minister for Regional Health. 15:31 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I totally reject a lot of the premises that the member for Rankin just brought out. The Australian record on managing the COVID pandemic, a one-in-a-hundred-year event, is second to none. I don't know any person in any country who wouldn't prefer to be living here and seeing how we've managed it compared to the devastation that it has wrought around the world. A pandemic is a one-in-a-hundred-year event, and we should be incredibly proud of our vaccine program. Mr Deputy Speaker, two out of every three people over the age of 50 years have now received their first or second vaccine. Eighty per cent of those over 70 have received their first vaccine, and 42 per cent will receive it shortly. There is a lag in these figures because most of the vaccines are AstraZeneca. All of a sudden, when three months ticks over, a lot of these figures will double. That's as opposed to the Pfizer vaccine, which has only a three-week interval. Four out of 10 people over the age of 16 have been vaccinated. As I said, when you look at the devastation overseas and you see what's happened, you realise that how we've managed it here in this country is exceptional. We are having our worst second wave and still we've managed to suppress it to 3,700 total cases. There are many cities around the world that have more than that in their second wave. Unfortunately, we have had 16 deaths this year, 925 in total in the whole pandemic. That is exceptional. Our hospitals and the care people are receiving in Australia are second to none. The mortality rate in ICUs is a fraction of what it has been overseas, because we've managed our health system well. Around regional Australia, which is home to many of my constituents, we have had 2.2 million doses distributed far and wide. If you count the larger cities, that's 3.4 million out of a total 12.7 million. Whether it's Tibooburra in the far west of New South Wales, Eucla in WA or Kangaroo Island, we've had the Royal Flying Doctor Service delivering almost 10,000 vaccines to remote and regional Australia. The rollout is ramping up. We have got 5,000 GPs who've expressed an interest, and in regional and rural Australia we have over 108 Aboriginal community controlled health organisations that are vaccinating, both with AstraZeneca and with Pfizer. The member for Rankin had a go at the economic consequences. We have weathered the economic consequences of this pandemic so much better than other nations. When we got the economy going again, we had more people back in employment than were there before the pandemic started. Other countries and nations have had double-digit reductions in their GDP. Even with this lockdown, we are still way ahead of all those other nations. When all the emotion has gone out of it, there are so many people who realise how well we have done. As Lieutenant General Frewen, who's been running the rollout, said, 'It's convenience that counts.' That's why part of our plan involves getting more GPs involved and more pharmacies involved. We've already got 226 pharmacies delivering vaccines. By the end of this month, there will be over 500. As more vaccine doses become available, they will be rolled out by potentially 3,600 pharmacy outlets. That's on top of the potential full rollout to more and more general practices, not to mention the Commonwealth vaccination centres. On top of that, we have the jurisdictions running their major hubs and outlets. We've brought on board a lot of pharmacies in the breakout areas in Sydney and in south-west Sydney in particular to make it much more convenient. Dr Karen Price from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has just validated our decision, and the decision of ATAGI and the TGA, to approve the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine, which is one of the mRNA vaccines, to immunocompromised young people to enable them to get vaccinated. People with chronic diabetes, people who have had cancer, people on immunosuppressants, people with chronic lung disease, cystic fibrosis—all of those people who really need the vaccine will be able to get it. That will also involve getting those vaccines out and around regional Australia. Professor Jodie McVernon from the Doherty institute has modelled our plan, and we are methodically rolling that plan out. We aim to get to 70 per cent vaccinated by the end of the year, which will allow a reduction in a lot of the restrictions. I expect we will get 80 per cent, because when you have more vaccines available in more outlets, the numbers will increase exponentially. Over the last 24 hours, we've hit 200,000 vaccinations. That's an exceptional rollout. That's 1.4 million vaccines per week. Since the first month, when we were starved of vaccines for a variety of reasons, including that the European Union blocked the delivery to this country of 3.6 million vaccine doses we had secured in a commercial arrangement, we have seen a million doses a week coming into the country, and there will probably be 1.4 million delivered during this current week. That will continue. We have also been supporting the economy. In the states that have been affected by the lockdown, the Commonwealth has been involved in a directed economic rescue package to individuals, with $750 per week if you've lost more than 20 hours work or $450 if you've lost at least 8 or less than 20 hours of work. Then, for people who have lost their part-time job and who are on income support, there's a $200 payment that can go to them to supplement that. In the jurisdictions, we've done a deal, fifty-fifty with New South Wales, to get Service New South Wales to roll out support direct to businesses. In New South Wales, that support alone has reached $1 billion. So we have supported the economy and we have kept the nation safe. We have done so much to make the vaccination rollout and the economic management second to none around the world. We shouldn't listen to this nitpicking, negative response by the members on the other side. You have just got to realise that we're all in this together. We are rolling out the vaccination. We were slow out of the blocks, but everyone can recognise, because they see the numbers themselves every day, that the rollout is ramping up at an amazing rate, and it will ramp up even further. We put money into research into vaccines. We have put extra funds into managing mental health. Isolation is very distressing to the elderly, to young people, to everyone. We've put money in all sorts of digital programs, because what we've learnt from COVID is that a lot of the work gets deliver by digital means. Whether it's telehealth, Lifeline or the headspace rollout, all these things are part of a strategy to support the nation during a one-in-100-year event. There is nothing that we shouldn't be proud of. The whole health workforce has put their shoulder to the wheel, and they will continue to do so. I look forward to seeing many more people getting back to a normal life in the coming months and going forward. There is a way through this pandemic. First of all, there is vaccination at a mass level, which reduces the severity of the illness and protects you and your loved ones, making mortality much less likely, and then also there are all the emerging new treatments, like I said on the ABC the other day. We've had Relenza and Tamiflu. We will also have treatment for this disease. (Time expired) 15:42 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Over 18 months into this pandemic, it feels like we are still living through 2020. Cities are in lockdown, state borders are shut, Australians are stranded overseas, airlines are grounded and a much-reduced parliament is passing emergency financial support bills. And, most tragically, intensive care units are filling up and Australians are again dying from COVID-19—today a 27-year-old. For Australians who gave up so much over the last 18 months, this is one of the greatest frustrations we have with this government. Countless Australians lost their jobs. We homeschooled our kids, we stayed at home and we didn't visit our parents. We all did it to stop the spread of this virus, trusting that, if we did our bit, the government would do theirs. But this government did not do its job, and it has failed. All that good work we did—the head start we built on the rest of the world, the economy we kept running—was squandered because this Prime Minister didn't think the vaccine rollout was a race. How completely stupid can you get? Only 15 per cent of the whole population of Australians are fully vaccinated. The vast majority of Australians are just as vulnerable to COVID today as they were 12 months ago, if not more so, because of the delta strain. Because of that, we are still facing lockdowns. It is because of this government's failure that Sydney and Brisbane are today in lockdown, while millions of other Australians live under restrictions, and we have Victoria and South Australia only just coming out of lockdown, and who knows what's about to happen in the west? The BCA has estimated that the Sydney lockdown alone costs $257 million per day or $1.8 billion a week. Treasury modelling yesterday revealed that harsh lockdowns could cost the national economy up to $3.2 billion per week. That is the price that Australian workers and small businesses are paying for this Prime Minister's incompetence, arrogance and hubris. This week we saw 2½ thousand aviation workers stood down for at least two months, if not more, and left confused by the support offered by this government. Just this morning, we had the Deputy Prime Minister having to clarify to newspapers that Qantas ground handlers could receive support. This is despite him saying, when he announced the scheme on Monday, 'We're talking about pilots and hostesses—not people on the ground.' Memo to the DPM: they're not called 'hostesses' anymore; they're actually called 'cabin crew'. Now it turns out that he's talking about some people on the ground but not others. What on earth is going on with this government? This is chaos when it comes to people understanding what their entitlements might be and whether or not they're going to get support. At the centre of the government's failures is, of course, the vaccine rollout. The government promised four million vaccinations by the end of March, six million vaccinations by 10 May, all aged-care and disability-care workers to be vaccinated by Easter, and every Australian to be fully vaccinated by October. That is what the government promised. Far from being the envy of the world, the Morrison government is now being held up internationally as an example of what not to do and as an example of how countries like ours that got complacent about our early success in keeping the virus out are now struggling because of failed vaccine rollouts and leaders whose hubris led them to believe that it was not a race. We are now an example internationally of what not to do. The health challenges and the economic challenges can only be overcome by vaccination and a decent, fit-for-purpose quarantine system. The economic and social consequences of failing to do so are writ large for all to see. For eight long years, this government has overseen record low wages growth and chronically high underemployment. We've seen them preside over aged-care crises, an energy crisis, a housing crisis and a skills crisis. We've seen them fail to actually deal with this pandemic and fail to actually roll out a decent vaccine program. This is a race; it was always a race. It's a race for our health. It's a race for businesses not to be stranded by the Prime Minister. It's a race for the country's economic and social future. 15:47 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright This is a great opportunity to come to the dispatch box and remind Australians that, whilst we stand here and trade metaphorical blows and political jibes, both sides of this House are united in trying to get out the other side of COVID for the betterment of the Australian public. It's only the contrast in what we believe is the best way to get there that brings us to this box. The first speaker spoke about the government's failure and the second contribution spoke about chaos. I remind the House of the last time those who sit on the other side of this chamber were in government, and we saw what failure and chaos looked like. Let me remind you of nothing other than the pink batts scheme and the school halls program. That was lauded as an education revolution, but, within months of these halls going up all around the country, our academic standards, assessed via PISA internationally, went backwards. The largest contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture, and I will never let my cattle producers forget the chaos and failure caused by those who sit on the other side to live cattle export or the impact on our growers, our aviation, our transport operators, our maritime operators and our feed producers—those who lost their livelihoods as a result of policy settings. That is what failure and chaos look like. It's ironic that today the MPI speaks of the cost and consequence of the rollout, yet the cornerstone of the debate that they bring to the table is an additional $2 billion cost—offering $300 incentives to Australians who have already been vaccinated. Is there a greater irony that this House would have to consider—to bring to the table an MPI that speaks about cost reduction, when the very cornerstone of the debate is increasing the cost? It beggars belief. We had two jobs—we're constantly reminded of that by the other side—and we do have two jobs, and we're getting on with doing them. Job 1: save lives. Our job as an Australian government is to save lives, and I think both sides of the House are united on that. The other job was to save our economy. Aged-care facilities fall within the Commonwealth purview, and all 2,566 Commonwealth aged-care facilities have received first and second doses of the vaccine. Almost 80 per cent of over-70s are protected with their first dose. Over 40 per cent of over-70s have received their second dose. The government is united. We want to make sure that we have 70 per cent vaccinated—and that's agreed by national cabinet. All the states and territories agree. Seventy per cent of people per state vaccinated is the target they have accepted. Then, from a national perspective, it should be 80 per cent. The Doherty report has indicated that getting to 70 per cent population vaccine coverage will support optimal performance of test, trace, isolate and quarantine—TTIQ—capacity. Applying continuous low levels of social restriction will make the requirement for stringent lockdowns unlikely. No-one in this House wants further lockdowns. They cripple our economy and affect the social welfare of the people who we come here to represent. At the moment, in my state of Queensland—the great state of Queensland—no fewer than 11 shires in the south-east corner are locked down, a situation we have not found ourselves in before. It lends greater sympathy for the states of Victoria and New South Wales, which have gone through lockdowns. We have a multiphase approach to get out the other side of this. We have saved lives. Internationally, no fewer than four million lives have been lost. Here in Australia, we are the envy of the world. Our Prime Minister takes responsibility and says he's responsible for the vaccine program and he's responsible for getting it fixed. He's also said that we on this side of the House are fighting COVID and we will let those on the other side of the House come in and fight us. 15:52 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I know that we as a nation will get through this pandemic, but there've been inflection points throughout this long time—now almost 20 months—that have required definitive, strong action. We're now at such a time. Unfortunately we're not having the action that we should. Initially, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Prime Minister was off to the footy, if you all remember. He was off to the footy because he didn't recognise or understand how serious this pandemic was. Thankfully, the health minister was able to get the government to listen to the health advice and do the right thing, including closing the borders. Vaccine procurement has been a major issue, and the Prime Minister has taken a prominent role in this. Unfortunately, he became fixated with the local manufacture of vaccines, initially of the Queensland University vaccine and then the AstraZeneca vaccine, made by CSL in Melbourne. The messaging regarding vaccines and vaccinations has been absolutely diabolical. There's a lack of supply of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which is the only one that is recommended for younger people. The messaging about this and its availability has been opaque and very poorly organised. Many of my medical colleagues are increasingly frustrated by the problems that have been happening with vaccine procurement and the messaging from both state and federal governments. Unfortunately, my electorate is one of the electorates that are paying the price. I will read something I received from one of my medical colleagues who I know very well, who works in an accident and emergency department—not in a hospital in my electorate, but one nearby. This just came to me out of the blue. He said, 'Mike, I hope you're well back in parliament. I've been seeing COVID-sick patients who invariably are all unvaccinated. When I talk to them and their families and other unvaccinated patients coming into emergency, many tell me that they don't see credibility in the government and the health advice. Some feel that they've had their livelihoods taken from them from a government that doesn't care or understand, and they're very angry about the divisive line drawn in Sydney that's splitting the east and the west. Aren't we supposed to be all in this together? Can you help? Can you make our plight known?' That's from someone who works on the front line, and is now seeing many patients in Sydney who have COVID-19, some of whom are going to die, I believe, unnecessarily. The messaging has been diabolical. The messaging we've heard here today from the assistant health minister, the member for Lyne, is that we're all in this together. We're not all in this together. Let me make that quite clear. The people who are suffering in this pandemic are the most disadvantaged and the poorest, and that is quite clear. We see stock markets at record levels, we see housing prices at record levels, and we see people who can work from home doing quite well. But those people who work with their hands, who provide services to us all, who get the economy moving, are the ones who are suffering the most, and will suffer the most, because of the poor management by this government and this Prime Minister. We need a national response. We should have teams going into homes providing home immunisation. We should have at-risk people being vaccinated wherever they want to be vaccinated. We should have vaccine hubs in the most disadvantaged areas. We have no national leadership. The Doherty modelling is just that. It is not peer reviewed; it is just modelling. It's not the Ten Commandments. We should be having open discussion about how we approach this. We should have other opinions about modelling. We should be discussing the health advice without this opaque lack of leadership, these scripted responses from people in the Army with medals and ribbons across their chest. They are not the ones on the front line. We need a national response, and it's not coming. It's a disgrace! (Time expired) 15:57 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge everyone in lockdown today and offer our real concern and thoughts to you. I want to recognise all Australians and thank them for everything they've done throughout this pandemic and everything they are still yet to do. I want to acknowledge frontline workers, health and aged-care workers, GPs, pharmacies, mental health workers, those working in the research and development of vaccines, and our defence forces. I want to thank all Australians for what you're doing individually in this space. I know that you understand just what you need to do at home and that you're doing your very best, which is what the government is doing. It is one thing to have a crisis; it's another thing to be able to make good and sound decisions with the best information you have available for you at that time. That is exactly what this government has done. As the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories, I want to acknowledge the work that's been done in our most remote territories during COVID crisis. I want to thank those emergency management teams in the Indian Ocean Territories, Norfolk Island, and even those working in Jervis Bay territories. Some of these communities are the most isolated communities we have anywhere in Australia. I want to thank and acknowledge the administrators, Mr Eric Hutchinson and Natasha Griggs, for their work and leadership. They're working in very remote circumstances. As the assistant minister for territories, I'd also like to acknowledge and put on record my great appreciation for Regional Development Australia. When COVID first hit, 53 different RDAs linked in with me three times a week to feed direct information about what was happening right around this great nation and what was happening on the ground. Those 53 volunteer organisations contributed three times a week in the early stages of COVID—and still are now, and that information goes through to each relative portfolio area—and also provided relevant advice to the national cabinet when it was relevant in that space. We see so many of our organisations and those representing us working so hard to do their very best at this time, just like the government is doing. Right out in the communities, there is a lot happening for those that are keeping each other safe. I want to recognise all those who have been extraordinarily kind and caring in their communities—those who have made sure that people, in the earlier stages and during lockdowns, were limited to what they could acquire or what they needed, and those who went out of their way to help particularly in small communities. I also want to acknowledge, with the assistant minister here, the transport and logistics sector, who have really kept the wheels turning. Everything that we see and have access to in our supermarkets, no matter where we are in Australia, in spite of some of the earlier shortages has been delivered by our logistics chain. I want to thank all those in the transport and logistics space for keeping on doing what they're doing, and doing their very best to stay safe at the same time. Yes, we are rolling out the vaccine program. There are, I think we heard today, 12.8 million Australians who are currently vaccinated—and that will continue. I encourage people: make sure you have your vaccine. Get along to wherever the closest venue is for you and make sure that you have your vaccine. To those who have been vaccinated: thank you for doing everything you can to keep yourself, your family, your community and, as the Prime Minister has said, the rest of Australia safe. That's what we're all doing here. Each one of us is doing our best, from the Prime Minister right the way through to the cabinet, to the members of government, to the other side of politics, to all of us out there working in our communities, to try to keep you safe. I will finish this where I started, by acknowledging those who are in lockdown. Yes, it is extraordinarily tough, and I encourage you to look after yourselves and the people around you when you're locked down at this time. But we are here doing everything we can to assist, and the COVID vaccine rollout is a key part of that work. 16:02 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway [by video link] Some of the costs of this government's vaccination rollout failures can be quantified but some are unquantifiable. Some of the consequences are already known but others are yet to be known. We know that the current lockdown in Sydney is costing hundreds of millions of dollars a day and billions of dollars a week. We know that this cost is hitting the pockets of Australian businesses and workers. Meanwhile, Australians in lockdown, in isolation, are suffering deeply from the intangible costs, whether it's the owner of a small business watching their life's work and dreams evaporate or the grandparents who can't hold a newborn grandchild in their arms. Australia shouldn't be in this situation. Australia should and could be in a better position than it is now, had the Prime Minister done his jobs. The Prime Minister had two jobs this year—the speedy effective rollout of the vaccine, and quarantine—and he's failed at both. It wasn't the Prime Minister's job to get Mathias Cormann elected to the OECD, though you could be forgiven for thinking that it was. While the Prime Minister made over 50 phone calls on behalf of Mr Cormann, he didn't once pick up the phone to the head of Pfizer. While Mr Cormann found himself at the top of the OECD, Australia found itself at the bottom of the OECD ladder for the vaccination rollout. Mistake after mistake has been made by this government. We should have had greater supply of more vaccines, including Pfizer. We should be further down the vaccination path than we are. But we are where we are. We can't undo the mistakes of this government, but we can get out of this pandemic if we work together constructively—but only if our leaders show maturity and humility in considering constructive suggestions where they are offered. Australia must get out of the situation it is now in. There is no greater priority. Labor has made and will continue to make constructive suggestions to get our communities, like mine, through this pandemic and out the other side. Labor's four-point COVID plan is clear: we need to fix the vaccine rollout now by getting more supply and we need more walk-in vaccination clinics. At present, there are several of these clinics established in Western Sydney, but none in my electorate of Greenway. I have made representations to the New South Wales health minister, urging him to expand the number of walk-in vaccination clinics in Greenway to help make it easier for local residents to get vaccinated without needing to make an appointment. We also need a proper conversation about how to incentivise vaccinations. Labor has put forward a constructive suggestion of cash payments to help get to the 80 per cent vaccination target as quickly as possible while providing a much-needed cash injection for our economy, and families and young people doing it tough right now. I urge the Prime Minister to put hot-headed politicking aside and to take a calm look at this suggestion in the national interest. There's also an urgent need to address vaccination hesitancy in the community. We need to stop the confusing advice around the AstraZeneca vaccine. Inconsistency on this message isn't helpful for members of my community. We need clear and timely information provision. This means clamping down on misinformation, as well as making credible information available. Here, we need a real plan to get information into our diverse multicultural communities. In-language translations across the federal and New South Wales government websites are patchy and inconsistent. A quarter of Australia's 73,000 Tamil speakers reside in the eight local government areas of concern in Western Sydney now subject to COVID-19 rules and restrictions, including in my electorate of Greenway. And yet it's easier to find COVID-19 information in Icelandic than in Tamil on the New South Wales health website and the federal government's COVID vaccination eligibility checker on the health department's website doesn't include Tamil as a language option. As I speak today, the eligibility checker is available in only 15 languages and it is most unfortunate that Tamil is not one of them. We also need to build our mRNA manufacturing capacity. This is something Australia can do. Western Sydney is a manufacturing hub; aside from the health benefits, my electorate would surely benefit from the jobs this would bring. Most Australians in lockdown are doing the right thing at great personal and professional sacrifice, but they need to know how and when this will end. They need to know where the finish line is, that by staying home and getting vaccinated there's a road map out of this. That's why Labor is offering constructive suggestions, because people need and expect a clear plan and a light at the end of this tunnel. 16:07 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I will pick up where the last Labor speaker left off, because the Labor Party's idea of a constructive suggestion when it comes to the vaccine rollout is to offer cash payments to people who have already had the vaccine. It's ironic that we stand here today, at the Labor Party's urging, to talk about the costs and consequences of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout on the day after they announced a $6 billion policy to give cash payments to people, a good portion of whom are already vaccinated! This is not the Australian way. It just goes to show that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand Australians. Australians don't need a bribe to do the right thing by their families, to do the right thing by their mates or to do the right thing by their communities. They're willing to do it because they know it's the right thing to do and they want to play their part in protecting their communities. That's why more than 1.2 million doses are going into arms every seven days at the moment. The member for Macarthur stood up and talked about the lack of attention to people on the front line—which isn't true from this government, by the way—but he might want to turn to his own Leader of the Opposition and ask why the payments that he's proposing are not going to people on the front line. Or not just: they're also going to Twiggy Forrest, to Gina Rinehart and also to everybody in this chamber. This cash splash is not just a brain explosion by the Leader of the Opposition it is in fact his true colours. When he talks about putting public money towards incentivising people—$6 billion of it towards incentivising people to have their vaccinations—he's talking about your money and using that as a way to pay people who have already done the right thing, as I know that most Australians, over 70 per cent of Australians, are going to do. The member for Macarthur also seemed, in his extraordinary speech, to talk down those military people who were involved on the front line of the COVID response. He seemed to dismiss them simply as—I think his words were along these lines—'people with medals on their chest'. It is something, in our community, to have earned those medals. It is something that we applaud amongst those service men and women, particularly in my electorate. Many of those service men and women have been on the front line of the COVID response for a long time. They've stood at hotel doors as part of hotel quarantine Some of them out of the Enoggera Barracks have now gone down to help New South Wales as well. So, when Labor tries to play cheap class warfare and talk down the military's involvement on the front line of the COVID response, it is an absolute embarrassment to them, an embarrassment to the member for Macarthur. I feel sorry for the shadow Treasurer. I didn't think I'd ever have to say that. Not only has he been demoted—stripped of a vast chunk of his portfolio, which has been given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—but now the Leader of the Opposition is spending $6 billion without even picking up the phone to him. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, in announcing the $6 billion policy, didn't pick up the phone to any of the shadow cabinet and talk to them about whether they thought it was a good idea. The reason he didn't do that is that these are his true colours, like the Labor governments and the Labor leaders before him, when it came to giving out cheques to dead people or paying for pink batts that literally caused deaths, or paying for school halls that weren't needed, or cash for clunkers—and on and on we could go. The Labor Party have never met a problem that they couldn't solve with financial irresponsibility. That is, at the end of it, what it comes down to. This government, on the other hand, trusts Australians to do the right thing. My community is in lockdown right now. It is a nervous time for them. But guess what? They are turning up in record numbers to be tested and to be vaccinated, because they understand that that's what they need to do for their community, to help their community out of lockdown. They don't need cheques or bribes from the Leader of the Opposition. They are getting vaccinated because it's the right thing to do for their family. We have heard the Labor party continue to talk down the vaccination rollout. They should know that they are the ones sending mixed messages to Australians. This government will keep saying to all Australians: 'Go and get the jab, AstraZeneca or Pfizer; they're both good jabs. Get it for the good of your community and your family.' (Time expired) 16:12 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland [by video link] I want to start by reading out a bit of an email I got from a constituent the other week. This is what it says: 'I haven't worked since the lockdown, and the majority of people I know are also not working. The strain this is causing is indescribable. Many of us have families with kids staying at home who are also struggling. I've witnessed a severe effect in their mental state. Some of the children are emotionally drained, anxious and traumatised, and it's very difficult for many of the parents, who themselves are emotionally drained, to take care of their children all day. Many of the parents are struggling with shame, guilt and low self-worth. The financial impact is also immense. The government benefits are low in comparison with our general weekly salary, and many family members are taking out loans, which is adding to the distress. I think the impact of this will last for months if not years.' That's just one story, and there are millions like that here in south-west Sydney. There are lots of people who are really struggling. This is hard. Lockdown is hard. People are tired, people are anxious, people are frustrated. They're confused. They're hurting, and they're angry. They're angry with the state government. They're angry that the state government locked Sydney down too late and that this is not Western Sydney's fault. A lot of people say to me, 'If the state government had locked down earlier, when the virus was in Bondi, people here in Bankstown, Auburn, Fairfield and Blacktown wouldn't be suffering now.' But I've got to tell you, they're even angrier with this federal government. This time last year, we were doing better than almost any other country in the world—because Australians did what we asked them to do, because they stayed at home, because they did their job. But now we're doing worse than most other developed countries—and why? Because this government didn't do their job. The rest of the world is now opening up and we're locking down. Why? Because there aren't enough Australians who are vaccinated to stop this virus from running amok here in Western Sydney and right across Greater Sydney. It didn't have to be this way. This time last year, countries were buying vaccine from pharmaceutical companies like it was going out of style. In July last year the Americans bought 100 million doses of Pfizer. The Poms bought 90 million doses, and we were offered 40 million doses—enough to vaccinate every Australian adult. But we didn't buy anything from Pfizer until the end of November last year, and then we only bought 10 million doses—enough to vaccinate about a quarter of the country. We're paying for that mistake now. If you want proof of that, I would just need to move this camera to show you the empty streets here in Bankstown or take you to the choking hospital wards here in Western Sydney. There are hundreds of people in hospital here now, dozens are in ICU and 23 are on ventilators, and a lot of them call Western Sydney home. This is a place where people are sick and are dying at the moment. Yesterday, not far from here, in Liverpool, a man in his 20s died, not in a hospital but in his home. He was 27. He got married six weeks ago. He had his whole life in front of him, and now he's gone. My whole community is dangerously exposed. We got statistics yesterday that tell us that only 14 ½ per cent of south-west Sydney is fully vaccinated—way below the national average. South-west Sydney is the epicentre of this crisis, and we're less protected than the rest of the country. We've got plenty of police here. We've got plenty of soldiers here. But we don't have enough vaccines. The front page of the Australian newspaper tells us there's some 'lightning response' option the government's developing to take vaccines to hotspots—well, we need them here, and we need them here now. The mayor of Canterbury Bankstown has called for a vaccine hub to be built at the velodrome in Bankstown. That was rejected. The Vietnamese community have offered their community centre as a vaccination hub. That was rejected. Local GPs have asked for more Pfizer. That's been rejected. I've written to the health minister about this—no response. The Prime Minister talked about a GP clinic at Chester Hill the other day in question time. It's not open yet. It doesn't open for another two weeks, and they say they need Pfizer to be able to operate it. If you've got a lightning squad, get it here fast. This is a race. It really is a race: the faster we get the vaccine, the fewer people here in my community are going to get sick and die. 16:18 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on this matter of public importance about the situation Australia is in today in dealing with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. I think it's important to begin by reflecting on some of the very important, early, strong decisions that this government made that mean the things we're talking about today are very different from what they could have been if we as a government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, hadn't made those very significant early decisions that have kept us safe and, comparatively, in such a strong position compared to so many other nations around the world. One of the first significant decisions that the government made was to close our international border, first directly with China and then extending that to closing the border to everyone except for Australian citizens and permanent residents seeking to return home, and other limited types of exemptions. This was an enormous decision. Looking back on it now, of course, we've confronted so many other significant challenges that are once-in-a-lifetime type challenges, but at that time I'd never thought that in my lifetime we would have a situation where we would need to close the border of this nation to the rest of the world. It was an enormous decision to have taken, and, as we reflect in hindsight on what might have occurred if we hadn't decided to put such a strong border in place, we would be in a very, very different position today in dealing with the challenge of defeating this COVID-19 pandemic. One of the second really significant things early on was the decision of the Prime Minister to create and form the national cabinet structure, which meant that he could bring together the leaders of all the other governments around this country, state and territory. This is vitally important because, of course, it would be impossible for the Commonwealth government alone to deal with all the various complexities of the challenges of COVID, both economic and health. One of the obvious ones is that it is the state and territory jurisdictions that manage the health system. If you were not coordinating, collaborating and working with those jurisdictions, it would have been impossible for us to have had the success that we have had on the health front, but also on the economic front and some of the other important things that have required cooperation over the last 18 months between the Commonwealth government and the state and territory jurisdictions. I think that reform is one that is going to be quite enduring beyond the immediacy of the COVID response. It's a great credit to the Prime Minister for the judgement he showed and the decisions that he made to create that. The third was our economic response, which had an enormous number of elements—most significantly, as we know, the JobKeeper program, which undoubtedly held our economy together through the early months of the entire country being locked down and the challenges that different jurisdictions met at different times when they had to take localised decisions around lockdowns and constricting their economies. There was the JobKeeper program, as well as the supplementary payments of JobSeeker and other Commonwealth entitlements, early access to super, the small business support packages, instant asset writedowns—all those things. All those decisions were made to ensure that we were providing as much economic support and stimulus whilst we dealt with the very early and severe restrictions that had to be put in place in our economy to protect people from the health point of view. Now, 18 months later, we find ourselves in an enviable position, thanks to the early decisions that were made by this government under the leadership of our Prime Minister. We are now rolling out a vaccination program. More than a million doses were delivered in the last six days—an amazing logistical effort that is being done in a methodical way, following all the usual sensible precautions that should be followed when it comes to any major public health decisions, like rolling out a vaccination program. Now we are on track, given the announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister, supported by information from the Doherty Institute, to see ourselves reach vaccination milestones and be able to gradually, but importantly, reopen the economy and the society of this country and have something to look forward to in the post-pandemic world of Australia, our future, having dealt with and hopefully learnt to live with the challenges of COVID-19. I commend our government, the Prime Minister in particular, for that leadership and I look forward to the coming months as we continue to implement the important plans we have to see us through this great challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Human Rights Committee 68 Report 68 16:23 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report 9 of 2021 and inquiry report ParentsNext: examination of Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—class of persons) instrument 2021, incorporating dissenting reports. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports. Leave granted. Mr PERRETT HVP I am pleased to speak to these reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights as the deputy chair and I particularly thank the chair, the member for Mallee, for her always cooperative approach to such matters. In the inquiry report, the committee has scrutinised the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—class of persons) instrument 2021, which prescribes a class of persons who must participate in ParentsNext in order to qualify for parenting payment. The committee received 39 submissions and held a public hearing, receiving evidence from community groups, academics, human rights law experts and the Commonwealth department. Participation in ParentsNext may include that a parent complete further education and training or attend playgroups or other activities. Many of these activities may promote the rights to work and education and participation is voluntary. This would raise no human rights concerns. However, this instrument makes participation in those activities mandatory, and a failure to comply can result in the person's parenting payments being suspended, reduced or cancelled. This raises the question of whether the measure permissibly limits the rights to social security, an adequate standard of living, a private life and the rights of the child. Further, noting that 95 per cent of participants are women and approximately 18 per cent are Indigenous, the measure also limits the right to equality and nondiscrimination. The committee notes that approximately half of parenting payment recipients are in financial hardship, meaning that any interruption to social welfare payments, even for a relatively short time, could have a significant impact on their capacity to meet their basic needs and those of their children. In this regard, the committee notes with concern that around one-third of all participants have incurred a total of 159,000 payment suspensions, lasting an average of five days, and that 1,223 participants have had their payments cancelled for failing to re-engage with the program after being suspended. The committee considers that there is some risk that, for participants experiencing underlying poverty, the suspension, reduction or cancellation of their social welfare payments may result in the nonfulfilment of the minimum core obligations of the rights to social security and an adequate standard of living. Further there are questions as to the extent to which the measure complies with the obligation to consider the best interests of the child. In relation to whether this limitation on rights is permissible, the Human Rights Committee considers that the overarching objectives of the ParentsNext program likely constitute a legitimate objective but that some questions remain as to the extent to which participation in ParentsNext activities are effective to achieve some of the broader stated objectives of the program. In addition, the Human Rights Committee considers that a range of concerns remain as to whether this measure is proportionate. Most significantly, it is not clear that there are less-rights-restrictive alternatives available, such as voluntary participation. There are also questions regarding the sufficiency of the safeguards, noting that no assessment is undertaken of whether payment penalties may render a person unable to meet their basic needs or the basic needs of their children. Further, there appears to have been limited consultation with Indigenous communities prior to the decision to expand ParentsNext. The Human Rights Committee considers that the human rights compatibility of the measure would be addressed if an individual's qualification for the parenting payment were voluntary and not linked to meeting compulsory participation requirements. If participation remains compulsory, the committee makes several recommendations to assist with the proportionality of the measure, including that payment penalties only be applied after an assessment that this would not result in parents and children being unable to meet their immediate basic needs. Labor members have also made some additional comments, noting that, as the committee's recommendation could be achieved by disallowing relevant parts of the instrument, the instrument should be disallowed in the Senate next week, which would make participation in ParentsNext voluntary. I encourage all members to closely examine this important report. I turn now to the committee's ninth scrutiny report. In this report, the committee has considered 18 new bills and 103 new legislative instruments, and we have deferred consideration of one bill. The committee has concluded its consideration of two bills and one legislative instrument, and it is seeking further information in relation to one legislative instrument. This includes a concluded examination of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Regulations 2021. These regulations permit the minister to impose a range of additional discretionary conditions on certain bridging visas and require certain visa holders to comply with a code of behaviour. The consequences of not complying may be visa cancellation and immigration detention. The committee remains concerned that the measure may not meet the 'quality of law' test and may not be proportionate, and has suggested a number of amendments that may assist the proportionality of the measures. I also note that a number of the issues raised in relation to the ParentsNext inquiry were also considered in the committee's concluding examination in this report of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's reports, and with these comments I commend these reports to the chamber. BILLS 69 BILLS Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 69

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021

Second Reading 69 16:30 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Deputy Speaker Andrews, it will come as no surprise to you that children are not cheap to raise. I understand you have five of them. Given that you are a similar vintage to me, I suspect it's a little while since they attended child care—and it's a little while since mine did—and a few things have changed since then. This bill, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, seeks to remove some obstacles in the payment schedules for childcare support that are actually proving to be an inhibitor to two parents working in the workforce. While I'm quite keen to make the comment that there are no laws in this country that prescribe that women should be the primary childcare provider in families, it's a fact of life that they often are and certainly more often than not. So, in that case, it's important that we maximise our workforce effort by getting two parents into the workforce. Not everybody will want to do that, of course, and we fully understand and support those decisions that families make for themselves. But there is no doubt that, in Australia at the moment—and certainly out where I live—we are experiencing an extreme skills shortage crisis, and we need all the people we can get into the workforce. While this is a little off subject, I know you'll be tolerant enough to allow me to discuss this issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Whyalla we are at the moment facing the closure of one of the three age-care facilities run by a community organisation called Kindred Living simply because they do not have enough registered nurses to keep the place open safely. It is going to entail 37 residents being relocated, and I suspect at least 20 of them out of the city of Whyalla and quite possibly to Adelaide, 400 kilometres away. Having better support for child care is not necessarily going to halt the closure of the Annie Lockwood facility, but we do need every person possible who can be contributing to the workforce to be there. Though it is not exclusive and there are a lot of male registered nurses, in many cases there are certainly more female ones than there are male ones. So we've got a worker shortage. The current childcare support mechanisms do present some fairly nasty cliff faces for those that are getting the second person into work, particularly when they might be working the third or fourth day of the week. In fact, with a combination of taxes and extra payments for child care, because they've reached the maximum threshold, they might find that they're not taking any extra pay home at all. This is a significant disincentive that the amendments in this bill seek to remedy. With this legislation we are supporting families that have more than one child in child care. If they have a second child going into child care, their support subsidy rate will go from 85 per cent to 95 per cent. That will be quite a significant saving for families. For instance, a family on $100,000 a year could save up to $102 a week and a family earning $180,000 a year will also save. That sounds like a lot of money but, in today's world, it's not through the roof and there would be many middle-income people that are operating around those levels and trying to pay off expensive houses and all the other modern accompaniments to modern living that cost money. So this is not aimed at the top end of town and there are caps on it. In fact, once these new rates come into place, the subsidies that'll be going to those people at the lower end of the pay scales will still heavily outweigh those going to those at the upper end. So I think it's a pretty fair kind of thing, really; 85 per cent of the cost of child care picked up by the taxpayer is good support. As to the fact that now we extend a higher support to those with two children, I am reminded of when former Treasurer Peter Costello was in this place and I think delivered the first intergenerational review in 2004. He made a very famous statement at the time: 'Have one each and one for the country.' In this particular case, we are saying: 'If you are prepared to have that extra one for the country, we're prepared—the taxpayer is prepared—to offer you more help in paying for that child care.' That will enable those two workers to go back into the workplace as well. It's a good reform. Removing the $10,000 cap for families earning over $189,000 will be quite significant. It's the kind of situation at the moment where you get to month six, seven, eight, nine or 10 and all of a sudden the childcare subsidies dry up and it can present short-term financial stress to families. So this kind of reform makes sense. It's well supported. I've been out quite recently at some childcare centres, at some openings and various things that we do with members of the electorate, and, while it'll be a little while before it all kicks into place, parents seem to understand what's coming down the pipeline and understand the government's ambitions in this area. So that's a good outcome. While I've been out speaking to people, it's worthwhile taking this time to point out that not all things are equal in this world, and the further you get from the population centres the more and more difficult it is to actually find childcare. The childcare sector is largely run as a private operation that is subsidised heavily, as we've just been speaking about, by the taxpayer. But it still requires a business model for somebody to invest in that location. In smaller towns, often there are community based centres; often they start off as an adjunct to the kindergarten or preschool, and often they end up, in South Australia at least, on South Australian education department property, which can present problems for expansions in the future and looking for federal government assistance for the expansion of those childcare centres. As to these smaller communities, generally speaking I'm thinking of two towns at the moment that have approached me recently. One is Cummins, down on the southern end of the Eyre Peninsula, and the other one is Crystal Brook, around 30 kilometres from Port Pirie in the mid-north. These are towns with around 2,000 to 3,000 people—though Cummins is a bit smaller than that, to be fair, at around 1,000 people—but with more people living in the farming districts that surround them, and actually finding a business model there that works to offer childcare arrangements for five days a week is really difficult. There's a lot of demand, but finding the business model is quite difficult and normally requires a lot of elbow grease and shoulder work from those in the community to support these things to make them happen. It's something that I think governments need to be very aware of and something that I've raised with my colleagues—that we need to make sure that people remain living, working and producing in our country regions, and we need to make sure that we're utilising all the talent that we have out there at the moment. As I've spoken of before, a lot of these people providing the extra care are women and a lot of them have had high levels of training, skills and education before they get to that part of their lives. So it's very important that we don't let them slip out of the workforce. So, pretty much covering off on all bases, the legislation is good. It's good reform. It's good support for parents and for families, and families, after all, are the foundations of our society. They are the bedrock on which we build good communities—families that give the right kinds of messages to their children about community responsibility. By saying 'families', I am not singling out any particular family configuration; I just mean 'families' as parents, guardians and caregivers who love their children and provide the kind of loving and giving environment in which they need to grow up. 16:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I did listen with interest to the previous speaker, in particular talking about some of the benefits of the baby bonus, which some of us remember. I do find it curious that the government's position now is that it's okay to offer a cash bonus to have a baby but not to get a vaccine. Apparently that's where politics is at in Australia at the moment. I'm sure people will make their own judgement about that. Child care is an essential service. It should be free. It should be universal. Every day around this country, early childhood educators work tirelessly to care for, teach and educate our nation's youngest minds. They're a workforce that is underpaid and undervalued. They're a workforce that, through the past 18 months of this pandemic, have provided a truly essential service. They've been on the front line. With two beautiful children of my own aged six and under, I am so grateful that in this country we have such high-quality child care staffed by amazing childcare workers. But the simple fact is that the system is still not good enough because families around the country are locked out of child care because of prohibitive fees and skyrocketing waitlists. I talk to childcare centres in my electorate of Melbourne and local families who've just had kids and who are daunted by the prospect of getting their kids into the local childcare centre. Parents tell me of rushing their newborns onto waitlists, in the hope that, maybe by the time they're a year old, there might be a spot finally available for their child. This isn't a problem just in inner-city Melbourne. My Greens colleagues campaigning in the seat of Griffith, led by Max Chandler-Mather, have had countless conversations with local families who are locked out of accessing child care because it's simply too expensive. High fees are making our society less equal. Every family should be able to send their kids to child care to give their children the best start in life, in the same way we send our children to public schools, but skyrocketing costs are locking families out. This is more than just an issue of education for our children; it's a gender equality issue. Women are being prevented from making real choices about their work and their life. Too many families are stuck in this horrible bind. They can take on more work, but the prohibitive cost of additional child care gobbles up any additional pay. Right now, our childcare model is locking women and families out of additional work and preventing children from having the development opportunities that come from being in child care. It's promising to see some movement from this government to make it easier for parents to get child care, but more needs to be done. The Greens have a plan for free universal child care. We'll expand access to early childhood education and phase out for-profit learning because education of our youngest should not be a business. It's time for both Labor and Liberal to join the Greens in backing truly universal and free child care across Australia. Labor's plans are a step in the right direction, but anything short of genuinely free and universal child care is a disservice to our future generations. At the next election, with just a small change in the vote, the Greens could be back in the balance of power. We'll introduce a tax on billionaires and big corporations to make them pay their share, so that we can make universal free child care available for every child. 16:43 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler When we announced our childcare plan in my first budget reply, the government said that there was no issue of childcare affordability. Do you recognise a pattern here? We put forward a policy idea. The government says it's nonsense and that it's trying to provide a solution to which there's no problem. Then, they creep their way halfway down the track. It sounds familiar in the context of what we've seen this week. We've put forward an idea of cash incentives: a $300 payment to everyone who is fully vaccinated. They said, 'No, we can't go there,' but we know they were examining it themselves. They're examining lotteries and they're examining other things. Lieutenant General Frewen told us that just before question time. We know that that's the case. So the fact is that child care has followed that pattern as well. Under this government childcare fees have increased by more than 36 per cent and 138,700 Australians are not working because they cannot access child care. Of that, not surprisingly, 92 per cent are women. UNICEF did a recent report, entitled Where do rich countries stand on childcare? It ranks countries on their childcare policies based on affordability, access, quality and parental leave. Overall, where does Australia rate out of 41 countries? It's 37th. Just to explain it really clearly to the government: that's not a mark of 37 out of 41, like in the top percentile here. That's where 36 countries are doing better than us and we're coming in at 37. There are only four countries that are doing worse than us when it comes to these issues. UNICEF also found that we were one of only eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage—only eight countries. Labor's plan that we put forward is good for working families, it's good for the economy and, importantly, given that over 90 per cent of human brain development occurs in the first five years of life, it's good for children as well. This is an investment in our country. What did they say when we announced our policy? They said it was going to cost too much. What was the cost? It was $6.2 billion—there's that figure again—over four years. It's a fully costed, good policy to boost productivity and assist our economic development. It's not welfare policy, it's about the three 'P's that you can do if you want to grow the economy: population, participation and productivity. Obviously it's good for participation in the workforce, particularly allowing women to participate fully in the workforce. And it's good for productivity: at the moment, because women aren't able to participate fully in the workforce we have all sorts of gaps, which in part explains the gender pay gap in this country of 13 per cent. If we want to boost productivity we need to make sure that we value those employees, that they can work five days a week and not make the decision just to work two or three days a week because if they work a fourth or fifth day then the income in their pockets actually goes backwards for so many working women. That's bad for our economy. Apart from participation and productivity, obviously, population is the third P. At this time, due to the circumstances of COVID and the issues with our borders, our population isn't increasing in the way that it was projected to do so. Of course, those opposite are never ones for consistency when it comes to policy. Those opposite were the founders of the baby bonus—a cash payment to have a baby. This policy is about population growth. By allowing people to earn their own income, being able to work and fully participate, people will be encouraged to have the confidence to have a first or an additional child. So it's good for all of the three Ps, but of course it has been opposed and rejected by those opposite. Part of our policy—the front of it—was getting rid of the child care subsidy cap. It limits the amount of childcare subsidy that some families can receive in a year. That's one of the two measures that are in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill. When we announced it, they said it was irresponsible and it shouldn't be done. But now they've got legislation before the parliament saying it should happen. This is in the same term! This isn't ten years on or five years on; this is the same Treasurer, the same Prime Minister, during the same term of parliament. When we said it, they stood up here and opposed our policy. They said it wasn't necessary. They said getting rid of the cap would be a bad thing to do, but that's the first thing that they've done. The second thing they've done is to increase the childcare subsidy rate for families with multiple children under six years of age. They didn't want to adopt our whole policy; they adopted one half of it, and just for multiple children are they improving the rate. The fact is that when families have children many of them do have multiple children in child care at once. But what's a very common scenario is that a child goes into child care and then, two or three years later, following up, the family will have another child, and they'll go into child care as the first child is going to school. That's a very common scenario. Under this government, though, you're on your own unless you have multiple children under six years of age who are all in child care together. This is a policy that will certainly be good for multiple births, but for the great majority of families who have children not at once but one by one this is a very short sighted policy. The government has missed this opportunity. If you have that policy, whereby you have to have multiple children in child care at the one time, then when the first child goes into child care you're not getting any increased support, and then when your second child is in child care you might get some support—or with a third child you might get some support. But, if you have the second one in child care, once the first one goes to school, you're back where you were at the beginning. It is just bizarre that they think this is a sensible, rational policy. It provides a small amount of relief for a small minority of families for a short period of time. That's what this policy does. The vast majority of families get absolutely no additional childcare subsidy support under the Morrison government's plan. Of course, the Prime Minister was the architect of the current childcare subsidy system when he was the minister, a system that has seen fees increase by more than 36 per cent, I remind the House. Labor's policy, our cheaper child care for working families, will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, it will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and it will increase the childcare subsidy rate for every family earning less than $530,000. But remember their response to that as well. They said we were helping wealthy families. They played the old class envy card, they did, over there! Over there, there it was: the old class envy card was played, the same people who had cash for baby bonuses, the same people who said that the cap should remain. It's all there; it's all in this piece of legislation—the inconsistency of this government's approach. We're going to fix Australia's broken childcare system. It currently locks out more than 100,000 families, because they just can't afford it. I'll tell you something else that we'll do as well. In our first term, we will have a Productivity Commission inquiry into a comprehensive review of child care, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. We think that when a child goes to school in our public education system, no matter who they are—no matter their background, their race, their gender, their religion—they're entitled to go to the local school and get an education. As a society, we accept it's something we should do, because we recognise that an education is something that benefits the entire society; it's not a commodity that benefits just an individual and that we can put a specific price on for that individual. We accept it because we recognise as well that universal access to education is not only a human right but pretty smart economics. If you give opportunity to more people, you will get better outcomes for the nation. In the fastest-growing region in the world in human history, where we're located, we need to compete on the basis of how smart we are—not through the government's approach of driving down wages and conditions but on the basis of how smart we are. All of the research says that every dollar invested in early learning is the best investment you can make in a future adult's capacity—every single dollar. If you put a hundred dollars into someone's early learning, a young boy or young girl, that will produce greater benefit for them, and therefore for their future family and our nation, than the same amount put into primary, secondary or tertiary education. It's just a fact because of the way that human development happens. That's why we call it early learning. When you go into these centres right around this country, as I have with the member for Kingston and other members from this side of the House, you see the remarkable work being done by educators. It's not childminding; it's learning. It's remarkable work making an incredible difference. We also want to move a technical amendment to the bill to automatically exempt services from collecting childcare gap fees from families during COVID-imposed lockdowns. What was happening in Sydney, and I was contacted by constituents about it, was that families couldn't send their children to child care because of the lockdown, and they couldn't go to work either, but they were still getting hit with the bill for the gap in fees. This amendment is about fixing that permanently. We want to make sure as well that, when we do this, every dollar spent will make a difference for working families. So we will also put in place provisions that will improve transparency in the childcare sector. Labor's plan is good policy. It will make an enormous difference to people. Ninety-seven per cent of families will benefit. Not a single family will be worse off under our policy, compared with the system that's there today. The government have adopted some of Labor's policy. They should adopt all of Labor's policy. It's only their acute embarrassment that is stopping them doing just that. 16:58 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I'll start by thanking the early childhood workforce of Australia: the educators, directors, cleaners, cooks—everyone who makes this amazing sector of our economy and our society work. Sadly, it did take a global pandemic for some people to realise just how important your work is. Early childhood education and care is essential. Your work facilitates the labour market of today while training the labour market of tomorrow. Some 946,000 families across Australia rely on this sector so that they can live their lives, engage in our economy and give their kids the best opportunities for the future. I know that the 195,000 people who work in this industry have felt forgotten at times. As we've seen in lockdowns over the last 18 months or so, when we talk about what's happening in education, often we'll see people announce what's happening with the schools and what's happening with the universities and the TAFEs, forgetting that 946,000 families are relying on one of these childcare centres—not knowing whether they have to wear masks, whether the centres are closed, or what the rules are around what is and isn't essential. I hope that this renewed political attention on child care also leads to some greater appreciation of the work that this workforce does—and it's a workforce that we need to grow. We need more people to become educators in our childcare centres. Estimates are that we've got a shortage of some 39,000 staff coming to us over the next few years. If we don't do something about it, we're going to see prices go up, availability decrease, and an even tighter labour market. It does frustrate me if I think about what the childcare industry had to do last year, when the government implemented free childcare and very quickly expected childcare centres to change a range of their arrangements. The government said 'You've got a couple of weeks to do this.' The government is now telling us that they can't implement this very simple change for 250,000 families—just 250,000 families—without having 14 months to do it. That infuriates people who work in the sector, because they know that they were expected to change practically overnight. I know that this sector, the early childhood education and care sector, makes a huge difference to families. Both my kids have used child care. Leo has been in there for three years. He went in at five months old, and I remember being very nervous, handing over my precious little baby boy to someone else. He was going to be there for a whole day. I didn't get much work done, as I sort of waited for the clock to tick by. But, actually, today my daughter Ruby had her first day at child care. There was far less of the nervousness, because I knew just what a great level of care and education she was in for and how much she would grow, like I've seen my son Leo grow, learning numbers, having his favourite letters, and the letters that he hates, and developing social skills, empathy, emotional regulation—all of the things that come from high-quality education and care. If you believe that it's important that we as a nation have high-quality childhood education and care, then you'll know that the next election is a choice about the future of child care. When the Prime Minister reformed childcare, he said the changes were 'once in a generation'. He promised he was going to make child care more affordable, but that wasn't what happened. Just like he has failed on his two jobs this year of national vaccination and quarantine, he failed when it was his job to make child care more affordable. Under the Morrison government, we have families paying more out-of-pocket costs for child care than ever before. Before the pandemic, just seven per cent of parents worked from home on a regular basis. Last year, that went up to 60 per cent. The number of families using parent-only care more than doubled from 30 to 64 per cent. Forty per cent of parents said they cared for children while working from home. And parents are doing that again across Australia, as we have more and more lockdowns, reminding us once again just how important the work is and the education is. It's reminding us that it's some of the hardest work—educating a young child who doesn't have all of those emotional skills yet and is still trying to figure out how to regulate their energy and how they fit into the world. It is incredibly tough work. Child care matters. It's a vital part of our society, and it's a vital part of our economy. We learnt at the skills summit that was held in Western Australia last week that child care was identified as vital to the issues in the Western Australian economy that have arisen out of the pandemic. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia both identified the need for more childcare incentives as critical to addressing the skills shortages brought on by the pandemic. As previous Productivity Commission reports have demonstrated, the cost of child care does lock people out of the workforce. There are estimates that up to 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force because of their responsibility to care for children. Alarmingly, the number of parents saying they are not working because of the costs of child care has gone up by 23 per cent. When we have a pandemic leading to dangerous skills shortages, surely we should have more than the legislation in front of us. Surely we should have a comprehensive plan. Surely the government should swallow their pride and accept that maybe, just maybe, Labor's plan is the plan this country needs right now. Lately we've heard a lot from the Prime Minister about how much he's proud of the Olympics. He has an Olympic analogy for everything but a plan for nothing. He told us all about where we finished, first place with gold medals, and where we are. But when it comes to the hard data reports that economists put out, that researchers look at, we don't hear much from the Prime Minister. We haven't had the minister for social services put out a press release about UNICEF's latest report when it comes to childcare centres in developed countries. UNICEF looked at 41 different countries. Where did Australia rank? No. 37. Not in the top 10, not a medal-winning performance, not in the top 20, not in the top 30—fourth last. That's where we finish when it comes to the question of how our childcare system is working in terms of accessibility and performance. We have costs that are out of control and a government with no plan to do anything about it. In the last quarter the consumer price index rose 0.6 per cent. Childcare costs rose 2.2 per cent. This wasn't an irregularity; this has been happening and compounding quarter on quarter. Over the past 12 months, childcare costs rose 33.7 per cent while CPI increased just 1.1 per cent. The government's own advisers in the department of education are telling them fees are going to increase 4.1 per cent every year for the next four years—4.1 per cent this year, 4.1 per cent the year after that, 4.1 per cent the year after that and 4.1 per cent the year after that. That is going to take hundreds and hundreds of dollars out of the pay packets of Australians every fortnight just to pay for their child care. The total record of the government so far is a 36 per cent increase in childcare costs. It has never been more expensive to get early childhood education for a child in Australia than it is today. When it comes to balancing the family budget, this is what families talk about. They don't understand why this government only wants to help some families if they have two children born relatively close together. With the way this legislation in front of us is structured, it's a penalty for parents who choose to have, or by circumstance find themselves with, children further spaced apart in their ages. It lacks any level of foresight and only helps a very small number of those families who access child care on a regular basis. I don't know if the government is trying to incentivise people to have more children closer together. We heard just before about when the government did believe in cash incentives, back when John Howard—the Prime Minister's mentor—and Peter Costello believed in cash incentives; they gave $5,000 to people for having a baby. Apparently that was totally fine and a highly appropriate incentive, but when dealing with a one-in-100-year pandemic no incentives are necessary. I did find, digging into the history books, the press release from former Prime Minister Abbott and then Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison announcing 'no jab, no play and no pay for child care'. That was back when they were happy to have punitive measures on families for not getting vaccinations. I wondered, 'How bad was the vaccination rate when they brought this legislation in, when they started to say they were going to take this money off families?' I found something from the Medical Journal of Australia that noted that, before they introduced that policy, the rate of vaccinations for kids in child care was already at 90 per cent. Yet the Prime Minister, when he was the social services minister, knew it was worth having incentives to get it even higher than 90 per cent. Now ambition has gone so low that we're refusing even to have incentives for 70 or 80 per cent of the population. I've never said that policy consistency is a strong point of this government, but when it comes to the Prime Minister, particularly on incentives and particularly when it comes to childcare policy, it really is all over the place. When it comes to the alternatives available to the Australian people, Labor understands the vital role that childcare plays in our society. I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kingston on the work that they have done on childcare policy. We've done the work. The government could just borrow it tomorrow! Labor's policy will have a lasting impact on generations of Australians. What we know is that, because of the government's slowness to act, either the Labor policy or the Liberal policy—whoever should win the next election—could be implemented in July 2022. That means that Australians do face a clear choice on child care. Under Labor's policy, some 860,000 families will be better off. When it comes to the changes in front of us, 727,000 families will receive no lift in their childcare subsidy as a result. That's 727,000 forgotten Australian families under this government. Under the Labor policy, if you have a single child, by choice or by circumstance, and are on a family income of less than $530,000, Labor will support you. For families with two children, the support the government provides is temporary. Labor's policy is different. We will provide an increase in support for every child because we know that every child deserves a quality education, not just when they get into formal schooling but also in the years leading up to it. Our plan, over time, will make one million families better off—four times the number of families who will benefit under the Liberal Party. We will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent. More importantly, we'll look, with the Productivity Commission, at how we can make that part of a universal childcare system for all Australian families so that in this place we value child care just as much as we value our schooling system, recognising that it's the child's right to receive quality education and quality care and that it shouldn't just be attached to their parents' means or income. I've been fortunate to visit a number of childcare centres in my electorate in recent months. I do that all the time. I love learning from the educators, I love learning from the children and I love hearing from the parents. Last week, for Early Learning Matters Week, I went with the CEO of the Thrive by Five initiative, Jay Weatherill, to the Leederville Early Childhood Centre. Centre Director Sally Whitaker was very generous in showing us around and introducing us to some of the children who were at her centre. We spoke with Sally about the challenges of workforce. This is a problem that is going to hit Australia hard. It's hurting centres now. They are struggling to find staff with the qualifications they need, and it's only going to get worse. We know that there are problems with training quality. Not every person who gets a certificate or a diploma in early childhood education is getting the full set of skills they need. That's unfair for those people who've gone and done that study, because they are paying for something and not getting the economic benefits of furthering their career through that study. I also recently visited the Akidamy, a fabulous centre in the Perth electorate, where the kids were kind enough to pick out a book for me to read. I read I'm Australian Too, by Mem Fox, celebrating the great diversity of this country and indeed the diversity of the children at the Akidamy. I also visited Mount Lawley Child Care Centre, at ECU, where I've been fortunate enough to be able to help them support their vegetable garden through a community grant. They are another great centre in the Perth electorate. 17:14 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga [by video link] Access to affordable and quality child care is something that Australian families rightly expect and desperately need. I want to begin my remarks today by acknowledging and thanking all the early childhood educators across our country and in my community here in the Jagajaga electorate. We are so grateful to you and grateful for the way that you have continued your frontline work, looking after our youngest Australians, throughout this pandemic. I know it's not easy work, and I know that in the last year or so there have been so many points of uncertainty for you that you have battled through to continue to provide an essential service. That's what child care is and that's what early education is. It's an essential service and it's one that is highly valued by those of us on this side of the House. For me, personally, with two very small children, it's a service that I value highly. I value highly the skilled early childhood educators who take care of my children daily. Thank you again for all of your efforts. It was particularly difficult for those of us here in Victoria last year during our extended multiple lockdowns to have to talk with early childhood education providers, educators, owners of centres and parents, because those people were left in a position of overwhelming uncertainty by the Morrison government. They were not backed up; they were not given the framework and support that should have been in place for this essential service. It is good that this bill seeks to remove the annual child care subsidy cap and increase the child care subsidy rates for families with multiple children under six years of age. That fixes some of those gaps, but it's only a small amount of relief for a small number of families for a short amount of time. We can, and we must, do better when it comes to early childhood education and child care in this country. During the last year in Victoria, many people have been in and out of lockdown. They have ceased work, they've lost hours and their family budgets have been impacted hugely. This has really affected their access to child care. For those families here in Victoria, changing the rules around childcare gap fees during those earlier lockdowns would have alleviated so much stress, and yet this government couldn't bring itself to do that. Those families who have been in lockdown here in Melbourne have too often had to be charged gap fees by centres. I know that a lot of centres in my community didn't want to charge those fees but there was no support from the federal government to allow them to get through that. We would have liked to have seen the support that's now being extended to Sydney—and I certainly don't begrudge them that—in Victoria. There shouldn't be this double standard. We need to make sure that all families understand that they can afford and access early childhood education throughout this pandemic. Allowing providers to still receive the child care subsidy but not having to charge gap fees would be really, really important. While I'm looking at the way that the early childhood care system has been treated over the past year or so during the pandemic, I can't go past the neglect that the Morrison government showed early childhood educators last year when they took away JobKeeper from early childhood educators—the only workers for whom JobKeeper was removed early. What does that say, again, about how this government values this support and this work? We're in lockdown again in Victoria during this time and, of course, 96 per cent of early educators are women—women who were hit hard by the pandemic. They were juggling, taking on extra care responsibilities, and then, in their workplaces, they were being left in situations where they weren't getting federal government support. I have spent a lot of time speaking with those women in my community, about what that decision meant for them and how upset and angry they were that at a time when they really needed government support they were left without it. One woman in my community, a 59-year-old early childhood educator, was stood down without pay for six weeks. Her husband was retired and so that was a huge hit to their income. One provider in my community, in Macleod, was trying to do the right thing by her employees and not stand them down. She was also trying to bear those extra costs and was really struggling with that. Employers of early childhood educators were feeling—and I think to some extent are still feeling—unseen and unheard, and worried about their futures. So there's much more that this government should be doing to support early educators as the frontline workers who are helping to bring up our next generation. And of course there's much more that this government should be doing to support Australian families with the costs of child care because, as we've already heard from the Leader of the Opposition and from the member for Perth in their contributions, Australia has some of the most expensive childcare fees in the OECD. Amongst developed countries, our families pay almost the most for child care. That's not a record that we want to hold; that's not a sign of success. It's this government's policy not doing what it should. We know that the Prime Minister, when he was Minister for Social Services, dubbed his system reforms a 'once-in-a-generation reform' that would make child care more affordable. Yet, since then, we've seen childcare costs increase by 7.2 per cent in one year alone before the pandemic. We've got the government saying they made a once-in-a-generation reform with no problems with costs, and yet costs are continuing to rise and continuing to impact family budgets. I can tell you, from both the data we see and the conversations I have had in my electorate, that the people whose lives are being affected by those costs are women. It is women who cannot go back to work because their families cannot afford an extra day of child care. It is women who are making those decisions about 'Will I go back now that I've had a second child?' and 'What will the cost be?' I can't tell you how many conversations I've had while pushing my small child on a swing and chatting to the mum next to me, where the mum will say, 'I think I'll probably only go back to work three days, because we can't afford the extra day or two of child care.' That's where the Morrison government's policies have left child care and early education in this country. It does have long-term effects on women. It has long-term effects on their earning ability and on their careers, and it obviously has long-term effects on their whole family. Most families in Australia these days need two parents to work to be able to afford the mortgage and pay for all the things for their children. They deserve a government that is serious about putting in place affordable child care, not one that's putting in a half-hearted program that may support a few families but certainly not enough. This goes to how the Morrison government use early education and the role of women more broadly in our community. We know that, when this policy was discussed in the Morrison government's party room, members of that party room said, 'Isn't child care just women outsourcing their parenting responsibility?' It is not women outsourcing their parenting responsibility. It is women trying to do all things. It is women trying to work and trying to make sure that their children are cared for properly and given an early education. It is an incredibly valuable service, which again, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, should be a universal service, helping all of our children get the best start in life. It needs to be more than what the Morrison government is putting in place. I'm so proud that Labor's policy makes child care more affordable for families across the spectrum and recognises that child care and early education is something that benefits not just those families with children in child care and early education but all of us by bringing up the next generation with the education for the best start in life. We do know that Labor's policy will benefit many more families than the government's policy. Some 860,000 families, or 86 per cent of all families with children aged under six in the system, will be better off under our policy compared to that of the government. Every single family with one child aged five or under in child care with a combined family income of less than $530,000 will receive no lift in their childcare subsidy rate under the Liberals, but they will under Labor. The vast majority of families with a combined family income of between $69,806 and $174,806 with two children in child care will be better off under Labor. That's 97 per cent of Australian families with children in care that Labor will make child care cheaper for. We will increase the childcare subsidy for more than one million working families, remove the annual cap on childcare benefits and prevent out-of-control fee increases. We're not going to put extra complexity into the system and say that it's only when you have a second child within the right time frame that you'll get the extra support that the government is offering. We'll support every child in child care with an improvement in the subsidy arrangements that will help 97 per cent of Australian families. That is going to make such a difference in my community. It is going to make such a difference for women across Australia who are making decisions about 'What does it look like trying to go back to work?' and 'What does the financial juggle look like around trying to access those extra days in child care?' so that they can continue to work to build their career and make sure they have an income for the future while also making sure that their children are getting the support and early education that means that they will be getting a great start in life. Labor value early education; we value early educators. We understand that this is frontline work. We understand that our early educators should be supported through the pandemic and into the future. We understand that making reforms to early education and child care in this country are foundation policies that will not just transform participation in our economy but will make families' lives easier across Australia and help support the next generation of Australians. Making sure that we are giving all Australian children access to quality early childhood education means that they all have a chance at the best start in life. It's not outsourcing women's work. It's not outsourcing parenting. It is seeing your child develop and grow. In my experience as a parent of young children, seeing what my child gets out of child care every day convinces me beyond doubt that she is in a place that supports her learning and emotional growth and is setting her up for her future. Labor sees a future where all families can access that sort of support and where all Australian families know that accessing child care should not be a big hit to your budget. It should be affordable, it should be universal and it should be accessible. There is a lot of work still to do in this space, and we know that despite the government saying they did a once-in-a generation reform, they didn't get there, because they're trying again. This policy doesn't get there either. Don't be half-hearted about it. Don't just accept a few tweaks from Labor's policy because we pushed you into it. Do it properly. We plan to do it properly. We plan to set up an early education system that supports young children and families across our country. My final plea to the government is to support early childhood educators through this pandemic. Recognise that they remain on the front line—they can't do their jobs remotely. They are there amongst the snotty noses and the coughs, wondering every day what that might mean for them and their communities. So support them to get vaccinated. They need to be vaccinated as soon as possible. Support them financially. Don't cut off their financial support early like you did with JobKeeper last year. These people need support. They are doing vital work. I certainly know that I would not be able to be here doing my job if it were not for early educators and the work they continue to do through this pandemic. That deserves to be recognised by this government. They do deserve extra support. I am proud that Labor both values early childhood educators and wants to support them through their work and into the future. We want to build a child care and early education system that will support Australian families, and we'll make sure that Australian families can afford it. They won't struggle at the end of every week, thinking, 'What was our childcare hit this week?' Our system will mean that our children will get the best start in life. 17:28 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt [by video link] The Morrison government's spin around their childcare announcement has been annihilated by new data. In July, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed 138,700 Australians aren't working because they can't access child care. Of those people, 92 per cent are women. Further, 113,000 Australians want employment but aren't actively looking, because they've given up on all job prospects. That's about 250,000 Australians. The Productivity Commission estimates that number is even higher—almost 300,000 people. Australia's expensive childcare costs are preventing parents—specifically, but not always, women—from working the hours they want and contributing to our economy. This is also doing nothing for our gender pay gap. It's something the Prime Minister, a former treasurer at that, has only just realised actually exists. Perhaps that's why we have slipped from 15th in the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Index in 2006 to a shameful 50th place on gender pay equity. The costs of child care are undeniably out of control, and the Morrison government's half-hearted policy before us today falls appallingly short of what's required to provide genuine relief for families. The policy before us in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 will see a small amount of relief dished out to a small minority of families for a limited amount of time. That's good for them, and we don't oppose that. But the vast majority of families don't get additional support under this plan from the Morrison government, and they desperately need it. Our nation desperately needs it and it wants it. New polling shows that three-quarters of Australians support a universal early education and care system. The Early Learning Monitor, a poll of almost 5,000 Australians on behalf of Thrive by Five, makes clear that the high cost of early learning and care is a barrier that parents want removed. And that's fair enough. Parents in Australia cop some of the highest out-of-pocket costs for early learning and care in the world. For many, they can't afford to work. More than half of parents with a child under school age say that having access to more affordable quality early learning and care would help their families and would reduce the career and family sacrifices they're required to make. Australians are moving away from the outdated idea that early education and care is just an issue for women or that it's some form of middle-class welfare. Early education is an economic policy that will substantially impact our nation's economy and GDP overall for the better. The lack of affordable child care is holding back small businesses and our nation from the recovery that we all desperately need. We know that about 99 per cent of all Australian businesses are small and medium enterprises. We also know that 40 per cent of these businesses are owned and run by women. The high cost of childcare fees has resulted in increasing withdrawals of children from care, which means less income for childcare centres, job losses for educators and career stagnation for many women. I met with a childcare centre in my community last week who revealed they've lost many children due to the unsustainability of childcare costs for their families—and they're one of the more affordable centres in our community. So many working parents, predominantly mothers, are being left with no choice but to reduce hours or give up on work to look after their children, regardless of their desire to continue working. The pandemic has proven that child care is an essential service. Research tells us that increasing female workforce participation is one of the biggest economic opportunities for government and that cheaper child care for more workers can deliver it. Increasing the childcare subsidy can have a multibillion-dollar positive impact on our nation's GDP. Only this week, families across the country have been hit with bills from the federal government, calling on debts dating back to 2017 to be repaid. One resident from Sydney said she is claiming COVID 2019 disaster payments after losing most of her income through the pandemic. But with one hand they give and with the other the government are taking away. This mum summed it up when she told 9News: I feel the system is flawed. Not only do we spend an extortionate amount on childcare, more than any other country, but this system that the government has put in place to supposedly help us and get mums back into the workforce, has got little loopholes where they can throw out random bills to us. Hundreds of families have been hit by similar situations, with many of these debts arising from the childcare subsidy. One of my local constituents has been hit too, with no notice of such debt that arose over a year ago and was sent directly to debt collectors as well. The ABS, independent research and Labor have all discovered the same thing: that the Morrison government's rhetoric around their childcare policy is nothing more than spin. Labor's policy proves unequivocally that our policy position provides more support for more families and for longer. Eighty-six per cent of all families with children under six already in the childcare system would be better off under Labor's child care policy rather than this one from the government. To break it down: every single family with one child aged five or under in child care—that's some 727,000 families—with a combined family income of less than $530,000 will receive absolutely no lift in their childcare subsidy under the Liberal government, but they will under Labor. The vast majority of families with a combined family income of between $69,806 and $174,806 with two kids in child care will be better off under Labor. That means that the vast majority of the community of Perth's south-eastern suburbs that I represent will be better off. But the federal government, dangling that carrot for families, by supporting families with three kids in care at the same time, will assist just 1.8 per cent of all families. Meanwhile, Labor's childcare plan will leave a million families better off than they are right now—four times as many as the Liberals' plan. Our plan to support more families for a longer amount of time will result in a boost to GDP three times greater than that under this government. Both policies—the Liberal policy that is before us today and the policy federal Labor is committed to—are both due to kick off in July 2022. That, of course, is after the next election. So, it's up to the Australian people to decide: do you want a childcare system for which the government's own department of education predicts that costs to parents will increase by more than four per cent every year for the next four years? Or do you want a real plan to tackle the skyrocketing out-of-pocket childcare costs? Australia's childcare system is fundamentally broken. The proposal before us today falls well short of what Australian families actually need. Labor has a plan to bring down the cost of child care and keep it down for 97 per cent of families. A federal Labor government will introduce cheaper child care for working families. That will see the scrapping of the $10,560-a-year childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money for an extra day's work. It will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent, and it will increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family that's earning less than $530,000 a year. Importantly, the ACCC will be charged with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees in order to drive them down for good. Meanwhile, the Productivity Commission will also conduct a comprehensive review of the sector, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all Australian families. It's time we made child care more affordable and made it easier for Aussie families to get into—or back into—the workforce. It's good for our nation's economy, it's good for education, it's good for working families, it's good for their career progression and it's good for household budgets. It will help spearhead our nation's economic recovery from this pandemic. So, let's bring down childcare costs and make child care more accessible for all Australian families, with a real plan, not just what we see in the plan in this bill. 17:37 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Do you know what's really stressful? Organising child care. It's really stressful. You've got little kids, so you probably don't get that much sleep—I know I didn't. You're trying to work out whether you can find child care that lines up with the days you work or the hours you work, how you're going to get there, how you're going to make sure you get the kids there safely and pick them up safely, how it's going to line up with your breastfeeding schedule if your child's still breastfeeding, whether you're going to need to pump at work and then organise frozen breast milk, whether you're going to have to switch your child to formula and whether you really want to do that. And then, on top of that, is the child going to have a good time at child care? Are they going to make friends there? Are they going to feel lonely there? Are they going to miss you? How are you going to feel when you drop them off for the first time, if they're crying or if they're not crying? All these things are so stressful, but we do them because we actually need to have child care in place, for a whole range of reasons. The first reason is so that we can go back to work—and that's parents; I'm not just talking about mothers but parents who are on parental leave, who are organising child care so that they can get back to work. I'm talking about paid work. Child care is work. Parenting is work. But this is so you can get back into your paid employment. The second reason is so that your children get the benefits of early learning, the benefits of being with other kids and the benefits of being with professional educators who will develop them and who will make sure they get a really great early learning experience. So, we do it because child care is actually really important. It's crucial. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we know how important early learning is to kids' brain development and to kids' capacity later in life. We know that early learning is really important. For all of those reasons, child care is fundamental to making sure that our society can operate well, that parents can work and that children get the chance for early learning. On top of all the stresses I mentioned at the beginning, one of the biggest stresses, if not the biggest stress, is the cost of child care. It's incredibly difficult for a young family to manage the cost of child care. It's very clear to us in Labor that you need to ease the burden on working families when it comes to the cost of child care. This is not a matter that is clear to the Liberal and National parties, who are in government. It's not a matter that's clear to the Prime Minister. It's a matter that we've had to drag them into understanding. Certainly the pandemic, particularly the first wave of lockdowns, really exposed some of the weaknesses in the way the childcare system is set up here in Australia. But there were massive problems before that. It's hard to use, it's hard for parents to navigate sometimes, but what's really hard is bearing the cost. As I said, this is apparent to Labor and has been for a very long time. Throughout our history we have understood the importance of early learning. In fact, if you go back to Gough Whitlam's speeches in 1969 and 1972—those terrific Graham Freudenberg speeches; may he rest in peace, and may Gough rest in peace—you'll see that Gough was recognising the importance of early learning when he put forward his case to lead a government here in Australia. This is something that Labor knows. We've got an intuition about it. We know it inherently, because we are connected to the working lives of people. For the same reason, the Liberals and Nationals don't really get it. They don't really understand the pressures on working families, because they're not in the same way connected. So, it was no surprise to me and no surprise, I think, to a lot of people on the Labor side when Anthony Albanese, very early in his time as the Leader of the Labor Party, made a significant policy commitment in relation to child care. It was a significant policy commitment that goes to making sure that we get the workforce participation benefits of an easy-to-use, affordable, accessible childcare system and also recognising implicitly the importance of early learning to children. That's why I was unsurprised that it was one of Labor's first real major commitments under Anthony Albanese's leadership. I was also delighted by it. The fact is that this country needs affordable child care. Women need it, men need it and children need it. We all need it. Even if you don't have kids of an age to be in child care, you need the childcare system to operate, because our economy depends on improving workforce participation, on making sure that we don't waste any of the potential of the talent that our people have because for some reason it's uneconomic for them to go to work because of the cost of child care. We all need for Australia to have a good childcare system, just like we all need Australia to have all those other really important services that knit our society together, that give us cohesion and that maximise the opportunities that we all have as Australians, that maximise the opportunities that we have to make sure that talent is able to flourish and that people reach their full potential. Child care is important to working families, but it's important to everyone as well, for those reasons—for the direct and indirect benefits that we as a nation get from having a good quality, affordable, accessible childcare system that's responsive to workforce needs as well as responsive to children's needs. Anthony's announcement, quite a while ago now, was to make 97 per cent of families that are using child care better off and no families worse off. It's a very important, landmark policy because it would make child care more affordable and alleviate some of the stress that parents are facing, particularly now, particularly in difficult economic times and difficult times more generally—alleviating that stress, investing in the nation, investing in increasing workforce participation, investing in our people and making sure people have those opportunities. As I said, I think the government was a little bit bemused by our childcare announcement. They didn't really get why we would do it or why it was important. But now they have belatedly come up with some childcare policy of their own, and here we are debating a bill to give effect to that policy. As I said, Labor's policy makes 97 per cent of families better off and leaves no families worse off. The Liberal's policy is much narrower and assists many fewer families. In fact, 860,000 families are better off under Labor's policy than under the Liberal's policy. And it's not surprising, because the thing you've got to know about the Liberal Party and National Party policy, the legislation we're debating today, the Morrison government approach, is that the benefits they want to provide get taken away the minute your oldest child is in school. The minute your oldest child is old enough for school, you don't really get the benefit of this policy. I think the Australian people are going to see through this. They're going to see that it's a bit of a fig leaf. The government know they've got to have some sort of childcare policy, because they've seen the popularity of our cheaper childcare policy. But they don't really want to do it properly, because they don't really get it. So they've come up with this fig leaf and they've put it in the parliament, and then they've done nothing but spin, spin, spin. We all know this government is all spin, no substance. We all know that it's led by a prime minister who has been known for a very long time for being all about the marketing, not about the delivery. This is a government that makes big announcements and then doesn't deliver on them. That's their modus operandi, isn't it? So we know that spin is their default approach to the world—and haven't they been trying to spin this policy as a good childcare policy? But I think Australians will work out very quickly that it's Labor's childcare plan that will provide more support to more families for longer. With both of these policies set to start in July 2022, Australian families are going to go to the ballot box at the next election deciding between the following two election commitments: childcare policy that leaves 97 per cent of families better off and no families worse off, or the Liberal's very pale imitation. Families out there who are really feeling that stress, that pressure on the household budget, are sitting around the kitchen table thinking: 'How do we manage to sort out our budget? What can we keep? What has to go?' Child care doesn't need to be this much of a burden. We can actually do better as a nation and provide good, sound childcare policy and a good, sound childcare system that delivers terrific early learning, that helps the next generation, and at the same time is responsive to parents' needs and allows them into the workforce without having to make terribly difficult decisions—the sort of decision where you think, 'If I pick up a third or a fourth day of work, does the additional income I get for that additional day of work get cancelled out by the amount of additional money I have to pay for child care?' These are considerations that people are having to take into account every single day. They are decisions that people are having to make: 'Do I go back to work and effectively not get paid for it, because the money gets put straight into the additional childcare costs, and in doing so not really see much of an improvement in our living standards right now? Or do I not go back to work, not pick up the additional day of work, and perhaps miss out on opportunities—opportunities for training, opportunities to work on important projects, opportunities for promotion—therefore affecting my future earnings as a consequence of me not picking up this additional work?' There is a chance of greater future earnings, perhaps, or alternatively a definite failure to get paid for the additional day because the money goes straight into additional childcare costs. These are the decisions that people are having to make, and why should they have to? It's so counterproductive for us as a country. Don't we want our best and brightest to be able to go into paid employment if that's their choice? Why should that choice be taken away from them by inadequate childcare support? It shouldn't be. That's why this government really needs to lift its game when it comes to early learning in this country. They need to appreciate the pressure that families are under and appreciate the value of early learning. Since I'm on the topic, might I also say they need to better value the work that early learning educators are doing every day. Throughout this pandemic, early learning educators and other staff of early learning centres, kindergartens, childcare centres—everyone connected to early learning—has been doing an incredible job at turning up to work and caring for the children of essential workers during lockdowns. They've absolutely been on the frontline in our community, being in a position where they don't necessarily get the choice to stay safe at home like so many of us. So many of us get to stay safe at home during the lockdown periods. There are so many people in our community who do not get that choice and must go out to work because they're an essential worker. Early learning educators have shown how valuable they are, the work that they're willing to do and the sacrifices that they're willing to make throughout this pandemic period. I know that every member of this House would be so grateful to educators and to others involved in child care for the work that they have done. I certainly am. I pay tribute to all of the early learning educators and all of those in the childcare and kindergarten sector in my community. There are far too many to list them. If anyone is interested, as before the lockdown, my staff and I have been getting around the early learning services as much as we can. Check it out on my social media. We were very lucky to drop in to a kindergarten just the other day for Early Learning Matters Week to thank that particular kindy for the work that they were doing, but that is replicated in kindergartens and childcare centres throughout the electorate of Griffith, just as it is throughout our great nation. I thank those people for all the sacrifices they're making and all the work that they're doing to care for our precious little ones. I know that people really appreciate it. 17:51 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite [by video link] I rise to speak on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021. This bill, if passed, will enact the government's anaemic solution to our childcare affordability crisis. It must be said: it's not a solution, and it will not be enacted until July next year, after the election. Schedule 1 of this bill would abolish the national subsidy cap. Schedule 2 would introduce new rates to somewhat improve current payments, but this is a second-rate plan. Let me be clear: the Morrison government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to even acknowledge there is a crisis in the childcare sector. When it comes to the escalating costs of child care being imposed on families, and in particular on women wanting to return to work, the Morrison government has only introduced change because Labor has already stepped up, acknowledged the crisis and announced a childcare policy that better supports families. It makes child care very affordable and empowers women and men to get back into the workforce without it costing an arm and a leg. In contrast, this bill will do little to unlock the full potential of the Australian economy and the women and mothers who want to be part of it. Sadly, under this government, childcare costs will remain a barrier to our nation's economic productivity and will continue to stop women from getting back into the workforce. The rising costs of child care in my electorate are just one example of this government's failure to support young families. In the 12 months to March, my electorate saw childcare costs rise substantially. The increases ranged from 4½ per cent to 21½ per cent. A 21.5 per cent yearly increase would mean the cost of child care would double every 3½ years. It is not affordable or sustainable and it means many parents are forced to work less. So, instead of working full time, a parent, generally the mother, will work only three days or not at all. The consequences of this are significant for our economy, for our productivity and for the health and wellbeing of families, women and children. Children lose out on their development when their entire education is set back at the first formal step, and the economy loses out because the pool of workers is reduced, driving down incomes and consumption. And women lose out: they bank less superannuation and they're more vulnerable to homelessness and insecurity in their later years. They can also lose confidence with their skills and connections to their own networks. This is the exact opposite of what we want for women. I have been through this myself and I understand just how frustrating it is. It's not good enough and it needs to change. Under Labor's plan, announced by the Leader of the Opposition some 10 months ago, more children will be able to attend child care, more women will choose to undertake more work and, importantly, 97 per cent of all families will be better off. No family will be worse off. This will be good news for my electorate, because when I visit childcare centres and speak to young families in Corangamite they tell me that the cost of child care is exorbitant, limiting and that it impacts unfairly on women. I recently spoke to a Grovedale mum, Pawandeep Gill. She wants her young daughter to experience the benefits of an early childhood education, but the childcare costs that come with working another day a week greatly outweigh what she earns as an aged-care worker. This is not what we want for Pawandeep, or for all women. The Morrison government's childcare policy undervalues women. It fails to support them and it undermines their opportunities. Unlike those opposite, Labor wants women to achieve their potential. Pawandeep should be allowed to choose and families in Corangamite and across Australia should be allowed to choose when they work. But of course, not only does the Prime Minister not much care for the people of my electorate in Corangamite he doesn't much care for people outside New South Wales. Just a week ago, families who are locked down in Victoria and South Australia were paying for child care they could not access. Why? Because the Morrison government failed to allow childcare providers to waive gap fees. In contrast, when it comes to New South Wales, the Prime Minister has given providers the green light to waive these fees. While I, and Labor, welcome these concessions and wish New South Wales and everyone in New South Wales all the best in their endeavours to defeat this virus, we will continue to call on the Morrison government to waive lockdown gap fees in other states, including in Victoria. But I'm not holding my breath; the Prime Minister is becoming increasingly the Prime Minister for New South Wales. During this time of pandemic we must put aside such disappointments and be constructive. We can fix child care, the problem with affordability and get families back to work if they wish to. Labor has the plan. Labor has announced that an Albanese government will introduce the working family childcare boost for childcare fees and put more money back into the pockets of working families straightaway. Labor will scrap the $10,560 child care subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money for an extra day's work. It will fix the maximum child care subsidy rate to 90 per cent, increase child care subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than half a million dollars a year. This means that 97 per cent of all families will save between $600 and $2,900 a year. Under Labor many primary carers across my electorate will choose to work more and the local economy will benefit by tens of millions of dollars every year as a result. And, as KPMG points out, increased investment in early education and child care will boost our gross domestic product by between $4 billion and $11 billion through increased workforce participation. In contrast, the Morrison government's broken childcare subsidy system has failed to keep a lid on costs and has failed to support working parents—particularly women—to work full-time or to increase their hours. This latest bill is limited in its response to the crisis in childcare affordability. And, as I stated earlier, it will not be enacted until July 2022—after the next election. This lag is concerning. It means the struggle for young families needing child care will continue. But there is opportunity—opportunity to embrace Labor's childcare policy because the bottom line is that families will be better off. I must say that we must also do better for our early-years educators. This government must do more to support them and value them. In Corangamite, there are economists calling for Labor's reform. Women and families in Corangamite are calling for this reform. Families should be able to afford child care for their children, and mothers and fathers should be given the opportunities they deserve to strive and reach their potential. So, while Labor will not stand in the way of this bill, I urge every young family to embrace Labor's childcare plan at the next election, because families will be better off, our economy will be better off and young families will get the opportunities they deserve. 18:01 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley [by video link] Like everyone who's spoken before me, or at least everyone on my side of the chamber who's spoken before me, I find this piece of legislation, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, both important and disappointing. It's important because any reform to the childcare subsidy system, which, under the Morrison government, is flawed and is one of the most expensive in the OECD, is welcome. It's disappointing because it just doesn't go far enough. Of course it's not as good as the policy that was announced by the Leader of the Opposition, and I join with my colleagues in urging the government to put aside petty partisanship and look to improve this legislation and the system in the way that federal Labor has proposed. But it's not just that lack in this legislation that is disappointing. It's the lack of any vision of what early childhood education and care really is about. The disappointment is the lack of any vision for how to better the working lives of the frontline workers, who are predominantly women, without whom we could not have gotten through the lockdowns last year in Victoria and without whom we will not be able to get through the current lockdown or any that we may have in the future. There is no vision for how to improve their pay, no vision for how to improve their working conditions, no vision for how to say, 'Early childhood educators and carers are crucial because they are looking after and educating our children and our future.' There is no vision for how to make early childhood education and care an integrated part of the education system so that it can be one of the tools we have to address socioeconomic and systemic disadvantage between communities across the country. That's what education should do, and early education and early childhood education should be a part of that. The disappointment in this legislation is the lack of vision of a culture in this country where the care of children isn't a women's issue, where the care of children is a human issue and a family issue and we acknowledge that child care is a responsibility of both men and women. There is a lack of understanding of how workforce participation in early childhood education and care is an economic driver in this country, not only bringing about economic growth but also bringing about equality in economic opportunity. To have an economy that grows for all, not just for some, we need to be assisting all to participate as much as they want to and to their full capacity. This legislation, which, it's worth noting, came about despite the fact that the Prime Minister, his ministers and his government derided Labor for saying that the childcare system needed to be fixed, while it makes some changes, doesn't go far enough. Not every child in our country can access the quality early learning they need, and we can't accept that. That should not be good enough for a prosperous and successful country like ours. Systems that are based just on the workforce participation of parents exclude some children from the early learning system, and they often exclude children that need it more than others because they aren't getting the same level of early education and care at home as other children. The cost of accessing early learning for those extra days—the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day—is not only preventing predominantly Australian women from going back to work. It's preventing their children from getting the early education and care that they deserve and that they should be entitled to. The gender pay gap in this country is unacceptably high and stubbornly high, and any reductions that we have seen in the last few years can be attributed predominantly—not entirely, but predominantly—to general wage stagnation and issues with men's pay in areas like mining not going up. It's linked to occupations like early education and care that are seen to be gendered, are gendered and have traditionally been undervalued because they're seen to be women's work and care. We have to change the way we view early education and care in this country: to value it for itself, to value it for what it gives our children, to value it for what it gives parents who want to work, to value it for what it gives to the economy. We also have to change a view that is embedded in our industrial relations system, and how pay is often set, that somehow work that is predominantly done by women is worth less than work that is predominantly done by men. We have to change that. That is a role for government as much as it is a role for society. It's a role for government with its industrial relations policies, with things like equal remuneration orders, with getting in there and saying, 'This industry needs to be paid more, and the workers there need to be paid more,' because that is in part the way we value that the work they do. Labor's policy is to give this work—early education and care—the value that it deserves. Labor's policy is to take the pressure off almost every working family in this country in terms of the affordability of child care. It's to allow parents to get back that fourth and that fifth day and it's to remove structural barriers that prevent it. Labor will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which is the barrier that I just spoke of. A Labor government would lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and a Labor government would increase childcare subsidy rates for every family earning less than $530,000. More than 100,000 families are locked out of child care because they can't afford it—100,000 families across this country—and that's not acceptable. Under Labor, the Productivity Commission would be asked to conduct a comprehensive review of child care, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. It should be seen as part of our education system. In this country, from the start of your life to the end of your life you should be able to be continuously learning. You should be able to access education and training, no matter where you live, who your parents are or what your background is. You cannot do that at the moment in this country. We need a public education system that allows that. It is something that my community absolutely understands. I want to finish my contribution like many others before me by acknowledging the amazing work of the early childhood educators and carers across my electorate. Just recently, since the most recent lockdown that we've had in Victoria—and here's hoping we don't another one for quite some time—I've had the opportunity to visit Monique, at the Early Learning Sanctuary in Frankston; Kylie; at Genius Early Learning Centre in Seaford; Ruby, at the Veronica Street Children's Centre in Langwarrin; and Jodie, at Kidding Around Childcare Centre, just across from John Paul College in Frankston. What these centres have in common is that they are run by people who are absolutely passionately dedicated to the future of the children that they are entrusted to care for for one to five days a week. I've spoken to parents at many of those centres, predominantly women, who understand the value of the people who work at those centres. They are handing over their most precious loved ones, their children, for hours and days of the week, and they want their carers and early educators to be paid properly and to have wages and conditions that reflect the work that they do. They also want to be able to afford to give their children the opportunity for that early learning on as many days as possible without essentially having to work for free two days a week to have them go there. I want to say to Monique, Kylie, Ruby, Jodie and all of the childcare workers and centre owners across Dunkley: we see you, we hear you, we value you and we know that we couldn't have got through 2020 and the first half of 2021 without you, and I will continue to dedicate my time in this chamber to making sure that you get paid properly and that your wages and conditions are at the standard that you deserve and that parents across this community can send their kids to early learning and child care without wondering how they're going to pay for it or having to give up work because they just can't. 18:13 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley [by video link] In speaking on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021, I want to firstly thank the member for Dunkley, who graciously stepped in and took the place ahead of me because I was sprinting back from dinner, bath and bedtime at my house here in the electorate of Lilley—a very calm and restful time, as all parents would know. It was an example of why virtual parliament needs a bit of work, I think, to make it as flexible as caregivers need to contribute both in the parliament and at home. It was also an example of the member for Dunkley's tireless advocacy for parents and working parents and being a champion for them in all circumstances, whether it is in her electorate of Dunkley, like the caregivers she has just been championing or whether it's her colleagues like myself. Thank you very much to the member for Dunkley. I know that she joins me in hoping these ongoing lockdowns, all of the sacrifices required, do also provide this place, this federal parliament, with the opportunity to work on cultural change and work on how we can be a more flexible place so that more caregivers—whether it is the caregivers of very young children, or the caregivers of their elderly parents, or the caregivers of anybody in your family or neighbourhood who you give care to in our community—can make a contribution in this place. I would highlight that both the Speaker and Serjeant-at-Arms have been at pains to help me through this process and I thank them for it. I'd also like to take this opportunity to note that the Morrison government has scheduled a childcare debate for between 4.10 pm and about 7.00 pm which is the worst possible moment of the day for parents of young children, who wish to contribute to this debate, to manage both those young children and the parliament. Until we have more champions, more people with that lived experience, in senior roles making those decisions in this place we will continue to have circumstances such as mine where we're trying to juggle both dinner, bath and bedtime at home and important legislation—legislation that I came to this place to fight for—at the same time, at the witching hour. We can do better. We can do better if it's front of mind. I urge the Morrison government to give that some thought. I also want to thank the early educators who have spent some of today looking after my four-year-old and all little ones across South-East Queensland whilst we endure another lockdown. While many more people are working from home in this lockdown, our early educators continue go to their work every day, work which is on the frontline of this pandemic, putting their own health at risk so that other essential workers can go to work. I personally would like to thank the educators who allow me to do my job today representing the constituents of Lilley in this parliament. The Morrison government has been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way to introduce a policy that actually addresses the skyrocketing price of child care. They have yet to address the systemic workforce issues in this sector. I have had childcare drop-offs with two children under five that have been easier than trying to deal with the Morrison government on this important policy area. We have heard reports, from a coup in the LNP caucus, about men in the government spitting the dummy about this very bill because they want to incentivise mothers to say home with their kids. And note they didn't say parents. They did say mothers. We've seen a government senator, who's own office is in Chermside, in my electorate of Lilley—childcare fees have increased by 3.8 per cent in Chermside in just the last year—who does not support childcare subsidies because he says, 'Dorothy did not say there's no place like child care.' I welcome the Morrison government to table this bill even if they are going to sit at the table and sulk because at least we are here and at least we can debate it. In saying that, I'm extremely disappointed to hear that the Morrison government might be voting against Labor's technical amendment to this bill. They still have to make their minds up I guess. But to automatically except services from collecting the childcare gap fees from families during a government imposed COVID lockdown is supremely unfair. While families have been instructed to stay at home during lockdowns, childcare centres have remained open as an essential service for essential workers. However, in Queensland families staying at home who are not sending children to child care, who are doing the right thing, who are following the medical advice, are still being charged gap fees by centres as they are legally required to levy those fees. This week my electorate office has been bombarded with calls and messages from northside parents who have been told that they need to keep paying their gap fees, but they cannot take their child to child care because they are not classified as essential workers. Kate is a great hardworking Lilley mum. She's a mental health worker. Both Kate and her husband are working from home. Kate was told by her service provider that they cannot accept her children at her childcare centre during lockdown because there are two parents at home. Kate, who is a mental health worker, now has to do mental health checks on her clients in her car so that she is not interrupted by her kids. That is something that the Morrison government is endorsing by not voting with our amendment tonight. Hayley is another Lilley mum who contacted me in a very similar position. She was told by her provider that she also cannot bring her son to child care because she's able to work from home. But she's still being slugged with the gap fee. She now finds herself in the position of having to work from home as an accountant whilst also looking after her son as a single mum. I don't think that's good enough. Kiara, another Lilley mum, who contacted me while I was actually drafting this speech, has found herself in the same frustrating situation. Kiara and her husband juggle online meetings while working from home and while entertaining their three-year-old and six-year-old. Kiara's outside-school-hours-care provider waived the fees for her six-year-old, but Kiara and her husband still have to pay back their three-year-old's day care fees. These fees aren't cheap. This is a lot of money to not receive the service whilst trying to work at the same time. These are just three mums who have contacted me in the last couple of days to ask me for help. Imagine how many northside families out there right now haven't had the bandwidth to reach out to their federal member for help and are instead just copping those gap fees, even though they can't use the service. Clearly, there are not enough government members trying to juggle working from home with their caring responsibilities. It's literally impossible to give 100 per cent of your attention to both. The minister has the ability to help Kate, to help Hayley and to help Kiara. The minister has the ability to help every single parent who is balancing caring responsibilities with working by giving childcare centres an exemption from charging those gap fees, but is deliberately choosing not to. It is ridiculous that the Morrison government would expect families to continue to pay gap fees during crucial lockdowns when their children are at home and when they are doing the right thing by keeping their children at home. It is such a shame the Morrison government isn't willing to work in a collaborative and bipartisan manner and to accept Labor's proposed amendment to help early educators, service providers and families who are trying to do their best during lockdown. The Morrison government has bungled early education and child care throughout the entirety of this pandemic, and it is the parents, the children, the educators and the providers who have paid that price every step of the way. As a mum of three kids under five, all of whom go to child care, I truly understand the toll that childcare fees take on the household budget. Under consecutive LNP governments, childcare fees and the costs have been out of control. In 2021, under the watch of the Morrison government, Australian families are paying more out of pocket for child care than ever before. I would cite the latest ABS data or the department of education data or the Productivity Commission data to prove this, but I don't have to because every day I'm talking to parents on the northside who have sent their child to child care over the past three years; they will tell you that their household budgets are being crushed by these ever-increasing fees. Childcare fees are skyrocketing, and federal government support has continually failed to keep up. Since September 2013, when the LNP came to power, childcare fees nationally have increased by 37.2 per cent. Between December 2019 and December 2020, childcare fees increased by 3.8 per cent in Chermside, by 5.4 per cent in Nundah and by a whopping 8.5 per cent in Everton Park. Child care in Brisbane costs on average around $112 per child per day. The average monthly mortgage payment in Brisbane is $1,885, or $62 a day. It is roughly twice the cost of your mortgage per day to put your child in child care in Brisbane. It is a huge amount of money. Childcare costs on average absorb 27 per cent of the household income, of a family's income, which is on par with about 30 per cent for the average mortgage. UNICEF found that Australia is one of only eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage, ranking our system a dismal 37th out of 41 countries. While this bill promises to help families bear the burden of childcare fees, the relief won't last for long or help a large percentage of families. The government have taken it just far enough so they can take credit for introducing childcare policy reform without having to concede they have been on the wrong side of this debate for the last eight years. This policy will only provide a small amount of relief for a small minority of families for a short amount of time. Documents from the Morrison government's own education department predict that childcare fees are going to rise by 4.1 per cent every year for the next four years—substantially outstripping inflation, to which this childcare subsidy is pegged. The vast majority of families will get no additional childcare subsidy support under this policy. In contrast, Labor has a plan to bring down the cost of childcare fees and to keep it down for 97 per cent of families. Only Labor has a plan to make sure that early education is affordable, accessible and high quality for working parents. Under Anthony Albanese, a federal Labor government would scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy gap, which often sees women losing more money from taking on an extra day of work. We will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent, and we will increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family that is, together, earning less than $530,000 a year. We will direct the Productivity Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. Importantly, we will task the ACCC with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. To put it simply, Labor's plan for cheaper child care goes further for Northside families and it benefits more families for longer. Labor's cheaper childcare plan does not differentiate on the size of the family, has no age cut-off and applies to all children using outside school hours care during primary school. Labor's childcare plan will leave one million families better off than they are now in paying childcare fees, which is four times as many as the plan of the Morrison government. Analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Office modelling shows 86 per cent of families in the childcare system will be unambiguously better off under Labor's plan. Any extra support the Morrison government provides to families with two children will be temporary as it will be ripped away when the family's oldest child goes to school. In contrast, Labor's boost in support will be provided for every child for the entire time that they are in child care. Labor is on the side of families. We always have been and we always will be. We know what access to affordable child care means for our families. We know that affordable child care does not just benefit families; it provides amazing bang for buck as an economic investment. A review by PwC into the value of early childhood education and care in Australia found that, for every dollar we invest in child care, the country gets $2 back through productivity and workforce participation. That is amazing bang for buck. Our plan for cheaper child care will reward working families and allow more second-income earners, who are usually women, to work more and contribute to our economic recovery as a nation. We will keep working to fix Australia's broken childcare system, which currently locks out more than 10,000 families because they just cannot afford it. We will keep working and we will keep fighting because we know that affordable early childhood education and care is not just vital infrastructure for parents and children but also vital infrastructure for Australia's economic recovery. Australia needs an early education and care system that ensures early learning is affordable and accessible for families, will keep educators in jobs and will protect the viability of our childcare providers. I thank the House. 18:27 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I thank the member for Dunkley and the member for Lilley for their contributions. It's a pleasure to follow them tonight and I join them in talking about Labor's strong commitment to early childhood education and care, which has been a longstanding commitment for Labor. We support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021 before us tonight from the government. It is about addressing the problems that we are seeing with child care in Australia at the moment. This is a massively missed opportunity and, sadly, another example of where the government saw what has become a political problem and went just far enough to where they think they have solved it. With this legislation, they are not actually addressing the deep-seated problems with the childcare system that we are seeing: the crushing costs that mean that parents aren't able to work as much as they would like to. They're staying out of the workforce or aren't increasing hours to an extra day, because they simply can't afford it. This is wrong. This is bad for families, bad for women, bad for the economy, and bad for the little children that miss out on an incredible opportunity to access high-quality early childhood education and care. We know that, in the preschool years, children's brains develop at the greatest rate for their entire lives. What they learn at this time will set them up for the rest of their lives and has impact on that trajectory for them. It's an incredibly important part of our education system, yet it's not quite treated equally by the federal government. One of the most exciting parts, I think, of Labor's policy is that, in government, we will task the Productivity Commission to look at a universal childcare system that would enable it to be treated more like public school, where everyone can access the great benefits. Also, when we make child care affordable, it changes the conversation about who is doing the work and who is doing the caring in the family unit. It makes it an equal discussion between men and women, and that is so important. What I want to emphasise there is choice. I think both mothers and fathers have a role in raising young children and balancing work and family at that time. Unfortunately, on the other side of the chamber, we have seen, in recent months, the discussion in their party room where they referred to early childhood education and care as 'outsourcing parenting' and were worried that, if we made it too affordable, women might be forced into the workforce. I think that just shows how incredibly out of touch the Liberal and National parties are with families, with Australian women and with the Australian community, who are wanting, more and more, to balance parenting and work and to access the great benefits of early childhood education and care. This is not just about childminding. And I want to take this opportunity to again acknowledge the incredible work that early childhood educators do. It's a mixture of really skilled educating of these little Australians—and, as the mother of a three-year-old and a 10-month-old, I am very alive to the challenges of dealing with these very young people and trying to understand how their young minds work— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Hear, hear! Ms PAYNE 144732 the member for Macarthur is nodding—combined with this deep care that they have. Like all parents, when you first go to take your child to early childhood education and care, there is a little bit of hesitancy with leaving your child somewhere. But to see what my son's learnt and how he is cared for has been incredibly important for me. One of the most touching things was that, when my son was very hard to get to have his nap—and at home we used to push him in the pram to get him to sleep—one of his educators used to basically sit, rocking him, for the entirety of his nap. The fact that she would make that time for one individual child just shows the dedication and the patience that these educators provide. It's about time that they were given the respect that they deserve by the federal government. Early childhood education and care has been through an absolute roller-coaster ride through this pandemic when it comes to the government's stance, and nothing has brought home how incredibly important this essential service is for families, our economy and our community more than this pandemic. I probably don't need to go through it again, but, basically, at first, and throughout lockdown—and we are seeing it again now, with Sydney and much of Queensland in lockdown and another recent lockdown in Victoria—early childhood education and care has been and is an essential service that has been required to stay open. But, as people are not working, the government is not stepping in to provide help for those families this time, to cover those extra costs. Our amendment has asked that they should, but I understand that the government is going to vote against that and I think that is incredibly irresponsible. When COVID-19 first hit, it was only after pressure from Labor that the government finally stepped up to address the issue that this essential service needed to continue and that families that were out of work at the time couldn't cope with this. They then announced that it was free child care, but they didn't back the centres in and actually support them to provide that. Finally, we've got the childcare system that we see now, which is failing families, providers and our youngest Australians. Costs are skyrocketing at the moment, and I'm sure all of us hear this from families in our electorates. I know that I certainly do, here in the electorate of Canberra, where we have some of the highest average childcare fees in the country, and I hear, very regularly, that families are not able to work as much as they would like because they simply can't afford it. If the government really wanted to address this—rather than address the need to have something to say about childcare—and to actually fix the system, they would have a look at Labor's policy. We announced this last October and they have followed in our footsteps by announcing something about child care, but it simply does not go far enough. It doesn't benefit the number of families that ours does and it only benefits them for a short time. Labor's policy will benefit 97 per cent of families. We see this as an important economic measure. Our policy will benefit families, regardless of the number of children, right through until their children are in school, if they're accessing out-of-school-hours care. It benefits more families for longer, it does not differentiate on the size of the family, it has no age cut-off and it applies to all children using out-of-school-hours care during primary school. Eighty-six per cent of families in the system, or over 851,000 families, will be unambiguously better off under Labor's policy. Six per cent receive approximately the same benefit under both policies and only eight per cent will be better off under the Liberal's policy. The ABS data confirms that Scott Morrison's childcare system has completely failed in less than three years. The cost of child care is now higher than it was even under the previous childcare system, with a 0.3 per cent increase—higher than it has ever been. The data shows that childcare costs are out of control, soaring by 2.2 per cent in the past quarter alone, more than three times CPI. Really importantly, the number of parents who say that they're not working mainly due to the cost of child care has increased by 23 per cent in the last year. That's around 91,700 parents who are not working because the cost of child care is too high. They want to work but they can't. This is a handbrake on our economy that we cannot afford, particularly as we're battling a global pandemic. The data also shows that the median cost of child care has soared by 5.6 per cent in the year from 2019 to 2022, to $523 a week on average. This is not good enough for Australian families. In contrast, Labor has a plan to bring down the cost of child care and to keep it down for 97 per cent of families. An Albanese Labor government will introduce the 'cheaper child care for working families package', which will scrap the $10,560 child care subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money from an extra day's work. It will lift the maximum child care subsidy rate to 90 per cent, increase the child care subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. It will also task the ACCC with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees, and drive them down for good. And, as I mentioned previously, we will task the Productivity Commission with looking into a universal free childcare system which, ultimately—in my view—is what this country needs. UNICEF's new report Where do rich countries stand on childcare? ranks countries on their childcare policies, based on affordability, access, quality and parental leave. Overall, Australia ranks a dismal 37th out of 41 countries. UNICEF found that Australia is one of only eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage. This is simply not good enough. There's another question for the government: they're in government now but why does their package not start until July 2022? A good thing about that is that Australians are most likely to face an election before then and they can choose between these two policies and these two alternative governments. One is doing a quick fix that benefits some families, but only while they have two or more children in child care at once. The assistance will be ripped away from them when the older child starts school. Or there's a Labor government that deeply values early childhood education and care—what this means for our youngest Australians, for families and for parents wanting to enter the workforce or to increase their hours. We value the importance of this to our economy; it's going to make it better for 97 per cent of families. Ninety-seven per cent of families would be better off under Labor's policy, and 86 per cent would be better off under ours in comparison to the Liberal's policy, which won't start until July 2022. I would urge people, if they haven't yet done this, to go to our online calculator and look at just how much better off they would be under Labor's policy. This is an incredibly important package, and the fact that we announced it back in October shows that this is something we are deeply committed to and that we understand— and that's because we are deeply committed to Australian families and we understand what is important to them. We listen to them in our electorates. We know how important it is for people to be able to afford child care to return to work, particularly as we battle with a global pandemic. Our policy will see those families better off. It will change that conversation at the kitchen table about who's going to return to work and who can afford it, as child care becomes more affordable. This is incredibly important for children, for families, for women and for our economy. This pandemic has really shown us how important early childhood education and care is in a range of ways, including for our community. Last week was Early Learning Matters Week, and I had the pleasure of visiting Goodstart Early Learning at ANU. I wanted to go there to thank the educators for everything that they do, but I was honoured to also be asked to open their community food pantry. I think that this shows just how embedded these centres are in our community. They've opened a pantry—a local business built and donated the beautiful pantry, with the food also donated by local businesses, the O'Connor IGA and the O'Connor pharmacy, and by parents—because they had noticed the need in the community since the pandemic, probably including a lot of students from ANU and people in that vicinity who were needing help with these things, as well as families at the centre. And so, on a week that was about celebrating them, they decided to make it about something for their community. I think that says everything we need to know about early childhood education and care and how important it is within our communities. Again, I thank those wonderful educators in my electorate and around the country. And I urge the government to think again about supporting our amendment to ensure that families can meet the costs of child care while in lockdown—a lockdown that so many Australians are now facing because this federal government has failed on the two jobs it had: to manage a vaccination rollout and to get a national quarantine system that was functioning well. If not for that failure, we would not be in this lockdown now. 18:42 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I rise to speak on the Labor amendment to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021. Australia's childcare system is fundamentally broken. It doesn't work for families and it doesn't work for the economy or for the country. It's holding back our productivity and stopping particularly women, who are usually the ones forced to stay at home when a couple can't afford both parents to go to work. It's holding people back from participating in the workforce to the extent that they would want to. Since the Liberals were elected eight long years ago, childcare fees in this country have risen by more than 36 per cent. In fact, their own education department—these are the government's own figures—predicts costs will rise by an average of 4.1 per cent over the next four years. This is in an environment of record-low wage growth. Let's be really clear, this is the government's economic policy: hold wages down—low wages are a deliberate design feature of the economy, as the government's former finance minister told us—and let childcare fees rise by four per cent. That's hurting families and puts a squeeze on them. The government have really dropped the ball when it comes to child care. This bill implements one part of Labor's childcare policy. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, so I thank the government for finally recognising what we've been saying—that the childcare cap is bad policy. It's bad for families, especially women locked out of the workforce as I said, and it's bad for the economy. But the change doesn't start until July next year. It also fails to fix numerous problems in the system. Australia needs real reform of child care this year—now. There is no reason whatsoever that the government couldn't implement this change now. Labor said last year in the budget reply that we would have done it from 1 July this year. The bill also does nothing for 75 per cent of families. Labor has a plan for cheaper child care for working families. This would see 97 per cent of Australian families better off. It would bring the cost of child care down and keep it down. Labor's plan would support more families for longer. Importantly, our plan has no age cut-off. It does not differentiate on the size of the family. You only get a reward from the government for that short time that you have two or more kids in care crossing over. Our plan applies to all primary-school-age children using outside-school-hours care. The Liberals' childcare policy, if you can even call it a policy, is a stunt. It's half-baked. It's the sort of plan you have when you don't actually have a plan or want to have a plan, to try and trick people into thinking you were doing something. Compared to the government's policies—we've done the analysis, and it's been independently verified—Labor's plan would better support 86 per cent of Australian families. Only eight per cent of families would be better off under the government's policy. As has been said, families will be able to compare plans when they vote. There's going to be an election before the government's plan comes into effect, so people can choose. There are two plans on the table: the Liberals' childcare plan that gives less support to fewer families and Labor's plan to give more support to more families for longer. Importantly, our plan isn't just good for families; it would boost Australia's economic growth, our GDP, by more than three times than the Liberals' effort because it would unlock the potential for both parents, if they want to—it's a family's choice—to participate in the workforce. It's funny, isn't it? You can tell when the Liberals really don't want to talk about something, because, if there's one thing the Prime Minister is good at, it's having his photo taken and popping up, making announcements. Has anyone seen the Prime Minister near a childcare centre for months? I don't think it's something that the government wants to talk about. They really don't want to talk about child care, because they know, when Australians focus on the government's plan and Labor's plan, which one they'll choose. It's clear as day. If the government were really committed to their plan, they'd have their ministers and the Prime Minister all over the childcare centres. Photos of them with little kids would be everywhere. We're not seeing those photos. That's more telling than anything from this government. The bill also does nothing to deal with the unfair impacts of lockdowns on families with kids in child care. For the last 18 months families across Australia have done the right thing and adhered to lockdowns and restrictions. Millions of Australians are doing it tough right now, including in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Freelander, in south-west Sydney. They're doing the right thing by staying home, balancing their work, difficult as it is, with children at home, and keeping their communities safe. But, for too many Australian families, doing the right thing has come with a very high price tag, because the government, in effect, has made families in many lockdowns pay for child care that they can't access. That's the real issue right now. It's not copying a bit of Labor's policy in a half-hearted way that might come into effect next July. That's not actually the issue the parliament needs to be dealing with right now. Right now we have a confusing and inconsistent regime to support families and the childcare sector struggling through COVID lockdowns through much of the country. The rules are different and the support is different every time there's a lockdown. There's no predictability or certainty. It's up to random government whim whether they'll extend support or whether they'll extend some relief for that particular lockdown. Sydneysiders have now rightly been exempted from fees, a couple weeks in, in their seemingly never-ending lockdown, but Victorians and South Australians were not given this relief this year. We need consistency and certainty. So Labor will move a technical amendment so that, when a lockdown or a stay-at-home order is announced, centres will automatically have the ability to waive the gap fees, so that there will not be random ministerial discretion for the incompetent ministers in government over there but certainty that people can plan on. We heard the Prime Minister tell us that his fourth economic response plan—his fourth or fifth set of rules he's made up—is to give businesses a little bit more certainty, so why not child care, childcare centres and families? But, as I've said, action is now urgent. The childcare cap should be abolished now, not in a year. Action would also deal with the manifestly unfair situation that has particularly affected people in my home state of Victoria. Mark my words: if the government doesn't fix this, late this financial year the people in New South Wales are going to experience the bill shock that thousands of Victorians have experienced. Nothing was done by the government. Take Radmila in my electorate. She has a two-year-old and a four-year-old. I know her well. I've helped her family with many issues over the last few years. She was told by the government, during Melbourne's months of lockdown last year, that she could keep her place in the childcare centre, so she did so in good faith. Of course, she wasn't actually able to use the spot during the lockdowns. She had to care for her kids at home and try to work full time. But, after Melbourne's lockdowns, late in the financial year, about last March, she opened the mail, and there was a letter from Centrelink, telling her—shocked—that her annual childcare subsidy was used up and that she'd now have to pay full fees for the rest of the financial year. The government didn't warn parents that they were using their childcare subsidy during the lockdowns and that that was going to hurt them later in the financial year. It never crossed their mind that, when they didn't have kids in the childcare centre for month after month after month, the government would be sneakily trotting this up towards the annual childcare subsidy, 'This is going to happen in New South Wales.' Radmila didn't have a spare, lazy $10,000 to cover two months of childcare fees without the subsidy, funnily enough. She had to pull her child out of care and try to work from home, full time, doing her professional job, with her child running around as well as caring for her other child and her profoundly disabled child, which has been the subject of other speeches and media attention—the NDIS, which is another disaster story under this government. This change has affected thousands of families. The Herald Sun covered it. The government said, 'Let's not worry about it; it's only a few thousand families.' The Liberals effectively took these families' childcare rebates and used them to prop up the childcare sector, which was banned from getting JobKeeper. If you're a billionaire in this country, you'll get $12 billion from the government spread across businesses to increase their profits, but if you're a family or a struggling childcare centre, you don't get JobKeeper, and you don't get support from the government. In effect, they privatised their recovery and support for the sector by stealing the rebates from individuals who would need them later in the year and used them to prop up the sector because they didn't give them JobKeeper. It meant that, when the restrictions were raised, families reached the annual cap and were hit with fees they couldn't afford. They need to fix this or the same thing is going to happen in New South Wales. Then again, given the double standard treatment that Victorians are used to from this government, from the Prime Minister for New South Wales, it would be no surprise if they cotton on and fix it for gold standard Gladys and leave Victorians paying the bill. The government used Radmila's money to keep the childcare facilities open. Why did she pay the price when her children were at home with her? Child care is vital. Almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force due to caring for children. I will just make a little aside. I feel uncomfortable making many of these speeches talking about child care. I passionately believe that early learning is the right language. This is about early childhood education. I understand that the community, the shorthand is child care, but I think I need to put on the record that early childhood education is what we need to be thinking about when making these investments. This is not means-tested welfare like the government continues to maintain. We need to change this country's mindset and move away from the notion that this is somehow childminding, like babysitting. This is investing in the next generation. We know that, from all the research and the scientists—and I know that you're a paediatrician, Deputy Speaker, and you're passionate about this—investing in those critical early years of a child's development, with structured early learning, gives the children the best possible chance in their life. It's also one of the best investments that we can make as a country, 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, to have a smarter, more productive Australia. We invest in babies and children now. Labor's approach is visionary. It's transforming means-tested child care that's measured as welfare, as the government sees it, into a universal system, a universal entitlement. As I said, 97 per cent of families will be better off under our system. We don't assess a parent's income and have all these sliding scales if you want to send your kid to a primary school or a government secondary school. So why can't we, as a country, transform the so-called childcare system into an early childhood education system that stands up alongside all the other parts of our education system? Of course, the government, in their party room, as we heard through the newspaper, are still debating the merits of whether we should even make these investments. We had Liberal and National MPs saying: 'Isn't investing more in child care just outsourcing parenting?' Women might be forced to work.' I don't envy the women in the coalition party room. I listened to some of the speeches earlier. I particularly acknowledge the measured contribution of the member for Curtin. She acknowledged the different sides of the debate very respectfully. She used facts and evidence to put an argument on the table—an argument that really should not have to be made in the year 2021—to try and bring some of male colleagues in the government party room, given those ridiculous comments that were leaked to the media, and cajole them gently with facts and evidence. The barrier to women's participation: if both parents want to go to the workforce, they can end up spending 40, 50, 60 per cent of any extra dollar they earn. In some cases, they can spend up to 80, 90 per cent. Why would you go to work to earn effectively 10 per cent of whatever the wage is, with the rest going back to child care? We can change this. The bill only highlights that this government does not care about working families. They're half-hearted about the change. They've just stolen one little bit of Labor's policy without actually understanding it's the whole package that makes that visionary transformation in the system. In March, Labor proposed an amendment that would automatically exempt services from charging families to keep their doors open. The government voted it down. For the sake of working families, I really hope they won't make the same mistake again—in their arrogance and their refusal to accept a good idea from Labor. Remember they said no to wage subsidies at the start of the pandemic, then a couple of weeks later they went, 'Oh, actually, maybe we need a wage subsidy.' They designed it badly to give away billions of dollars to companies to increase their profits, but we credit them for finally taking up our idea. You could save families a lot of pain by learning from your mistakes and taking a good idea when you see one. Support our amendment. In closing, at the next election Australian families will have the chance to vote and to choose between the two plans: Labor's plan, which provides more help to more families for longer and that 97 per cent of families will benefit from, or the government's plan. 18:55 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It's been a really confusing time for parents and for early educators during this latest lockdown in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, and I'm really pleased to be able to support a bill that reduces red tape on services in this highly complex area. As we've seen in the last 12 to 18 months, it's a rapidly changing area, where decisions get made, and parents and directors of early learning centres alike hear about them on the radio before they're given any formal notice of them. I really want to talk about what parents and directors and early educators have been dealing with in the last six weeks within the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, to paint a picture of the chaotic situation that they are facing right now. I'm going to quote some of the parents who've written to me, because I think that is the most powerful way of describing the distress, the confusion, the tearing their hair out, that they're experiencing. I really want to make the point that this is not just mothers emailing me and calling me about the challenges of their children being in day care or family day care or even preschools. This is parents—mums and dads—and there are other carers involved. The first story I want to tell is from Tristan. Tristan is like many people who are concerned about almost being pressured to send kids out to their early learning centre, even though the rest of us are being told to stay at home. He wrote to me about a couple of things, partly drawing on some of the challenges parents face in normal times. He describes the current situation as leaving families stuck in the impossible situation of having to either lose their childcare placements—placements that were difficult to get in the first instance—or be stuck paying the fees to hold the placement while their children stay at home with them. This is because the government's response during this COVID lockdown was to say to the centres, 'You may waive the gap fees.' It was not, 'You will waive the gap fees and we will help you do it.' It was simply: 'You may. We'll give you permission to do it if you want.' I'm going to talk about it from the centre's perspective, although parents are very mindful of the challenges that their centres face. These are not places where it's just click and collect in reverse, drop and go. These are places that you've chosen and you've invested yourself in. You help them out and you care about the other kids who are there; you care about the other families; and you care about the early educators, who have your children's lives in their hands all day while you're at work. As Tristan says, 'This whole dilemma has put a serious emotional strain on families who are working from home while providing full-time care to their children.' He is also concerned about having his kids mix at a time when we're being asked not to mix. Here's his key point: 'The pandemic is not new. These lockdowns and what effects they have on Australian families and individuals are not new. The government knows exactly how this plays out every time, yet each time support is slow to come and comes with massive blind spots. But, as slow as they are to roll out support, they're lightening quick to end it.' I think that sums up this government's attitude to this sector: give as little as we need to, and take it away as fast as we can. One of the things we're very pleased to have seen—and it didn't come without fighting and calling for it and asking for it—is that, for the 42 days that families are allowed to have their child absent from the centre, COVID is not where those days are claimed from; they are separate to COVID. But it took five weeks for that decision to be made, and in that time there was significant distress about it. I'm going to give you another example, from Amy. Her big thing was that there was this lack of information about how it was going to work. She contacted her centre to see whether she was able to have her gap fee waived, and the centre said to her that they were unable to offer the scheme due to a lack of information from the government about how it will be supported. Well, it's probably even worse than what that centre identified, and that was several weeks ago now. It's the fact that there is no support for the centres to do this. There's permission, but no support. It's an extraordinary situation for the centres that are running either as privately owned centres or not-for-profit centres. Even not-for-profit centres are in this same invidious situation about how they cover the fees and the costs without that gap fee. This is one of the consequences of it, the financial pressure that it's put people under. And I'm not going to quote all of her, but here's Belinda's summary: 'As you can see below, I'm feeling the financial pressure as I'm paying for child care and also paying for my son to be home.' She was writing to her centre to see whether they would waive the fees, and I'm very pleased to say that after I provided her with some information she was able to have a successful outcome there. But this is not happening easily. The government has not made it easy for anyone. It is wrong to be putting these extra pressures on people. I count myself very lucky that I don't have school-age or preschool-age children at home. I think it would be one of the most challenging situations to be in, and I really take my hat off to parents who are doing that. To make it even harder for them is unforgiveable. I want to talk about Christopher, who has also written to me about this issue. The big problem that he identified, which others have identified, is that centres had advice to do it for up to 30 July. That was up to the first wave. But then this gap emerged, and no-one quite knew what was happening after that gap. So, this is a lack of information, a lack of coordination and a lack of forward planning, because no-one's bothered to think it through. Yet, as Tristan said and as Christopher is reinforcing, this was not an unknown possibility. Christopher, again, sympathises with the centre, who, as a service, 'are unable to claim business support to cope with the offer, thereby leaving a multitude of families who've lost income having to foot the bill for a service that they chose not to use in order to abide by the health professional advice to minimise movements outside the household where possible'—people trying to do the right thing. He recognises that as a family they're at the end with what they can cut back, and the financial support around this is lacking for both the parents and the centres. I heard a similar sentiment from another mum in the Blue Mountains. She raises this point: doesn't it defeat the purpose of sending people to work from home when we send a child out each day to mix with others in a close setting? Given what we're seeing about transmission amongst younger children, I can understand these parents' concerns. Lauren was really anxious as well. When she contacted the director of her centre when the construction industry was shut down, she was just trying to work out what the options were. The centre advised her that, due to their current family attendance numbers, they didn't feel that they needed to change the assistance. She was given a two-week credit, but they really weren't given any indication that they could access this waiver, because the centre didn't feel the need to do it. Unless we support centres, they are not going to be able to do what we'd all like to see them do. Alicia was in the same situation. The centre the children were enrolled in decided not to pass on the gap-fee waiver because the LGA is not in the hardest lockdown that Sydney has seen. Again, this left them with the choice about whether they could even can keep their children there. That's from the parents' perspective, and there's nothing in this legislation that's going to clear up any of that for parents. I want to talk about the experience of an early learning director. Here is how much she cares about her families. She says: 'Many of them are self-employed tradies, with mums who work part-time or have their own businesses. We feel that we need to support our families who've supported us over the years. We need to take a hit as much as the next business. We're not unique. We're currently implementing the gap-free payment for our families who don't attend for the lockdown fortnight.' She knew that they'd have to reassess it because there were only such small amounts of information given. They've had nearly 20 families who've opted to have fees waived. But, of course, that leaves her with a huge gap. She says that most of her families are on a 20 per cent to 50 per cent CCS. So they're losing roughly $50 to $60 a day per child. She's down thousands of dollars a week. However, she said, 'We feel that this is something we need to do in order to support our families.' She talked about the income loss that she faces and she said, 'If we stay at our current attendance, we won't qualify for assistance'. She was really hoping that lockdown would end. But, of course, it hasn't, and it is going to go on. I call on this government to provide much better support for our early education centres. As the member for Bruce said, these are places that we entrust our children to because we know they develop much better with the educational framework that is there. They learn by playing and they are cared for and nurtured. In the environment that we're in in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, sometimes they need quite long days at those centres, because we have families who normally commute. We value what they do. Whether it's family day care, whether it's long day care or whether it's in a preschool environment, they are helping create the future generation of workers, but they are helping them have an easy way into the education system. That's how we should be thinking about this. The disappointment with this legislation, when we move beyond a COVID lockdown environment, when we snap back to the old confusing system that exists, is due to the inadequacy of that system for normal times. The fact is that in Sydney child care is now more expensive than when the system was introduced in the middle of 2018. So, in three years, any benefit that was there has evaporated. Labor has been very clear that it believes that this system has to change profoundly. Labor wants to bring down the costs of child care and early learning and keep them down—not just have a little sugar hit and soften them but keep them down. That is why we have a plan to benefit every family across the board. Let's make it as simple as we can. We know there will be enormous productivity gains out of it. We will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap which so often sees women losing money for an extra day's work. It would have hit me as a young mum if this system had been in place. We want to lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent, to actually make it affordable for families, and increase the subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000. I think the thing that goes with that is tasking the ACCC to bring in a price regulation mechanism that works across the board. We need to shed light on the fees. Parents deserve to know where the fees are going and how they are being used. When people talk about this as something that only affects a small number, well, they're wrong: it affects the future of every one of us. The kids that haven't started school yet are going to be looking after me in my old age. There might be some who are already at school who might have to do that! But, as we go through, that's the generation, and we should be setting the way for them. I want to finish by quoting the CEO of the Grattan Institute, Danielle Wood, who said: The Labor plan to make childcare cheaper will deliver big economic and social dividends. Reducing out-of-pocket cost also improves accessibility to early childhood education and care, which is good for children, good for women's workforce participation and good for the economy. It's the policy that we need for these times, and it is the policy that parents in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, who want to do the best by their kids, who want to be able to afford to work and cover the costs that they face in having quality early learning for their kids, deserve, and it is exactly what Labor will deliver if we get a chance to be in government—and, my goodness, the country's going to be better off for it. 19:11 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill, which we're told was one of the critical reasons that parliament had to sit this week, yet I note on the speaker's list tonight—this is such an important piece of policy for the LNP and the Prime Minister that only four speakers have bothered to rise to their feet about this. I'm really not surprised considering the appalling record that this government has, and previously coalition governments have, when it comes to delivering quality and affordable child care. In fact, when the parliament last sat, on 22 June, when this piece of legislation actually went to the joint party room, it was opposed, as media reports have said, by the sensitive New Age guys inside the LNP: well-known Senator Rennick; Mr Christensen, member for Dawson; of course Senator Canavan; and Terry Young, the member for Longman. I note that in the media reports there was a colleague inside the LNP who actually stood up in their party room and said that child care was 'outsourcing parenting'. It's archaic but not surprising. It's bad enough that those 1950s or 60s views are still permeating in society, but we're seeing them inside the party of government in this country. I'm delighted, after reading media reports, that there were at least some strong advocates for child care inside the LNP, and my friend and colleague Senator Hollie Hughes, who I don't always agree with, is reported as getting up in the party room and saying, 'Thank you, boys, for telling us how to best raise our children!' When you get such division inside the government party room about the future of child care, is it little wonder the people of Australia, the working men and women—and let's face it: one of the great outcomes out of the pandemic was shining a light on some of the unsung heroes in our society, which have to be early childhood educators, the people who didn't have a choice about whether they went to work or not at the height of the pandemic and, dare I say, don't have a choice now in my home town of Brisbane, which is currently under the most severe lockdowns that Queensland has seen. We're seeing ongoing tragic lockdowns in New South Wales. We saw Victoria come out of lockdown, and South Australia has come out of lockdown. What we saw during the pandemic with the so-called free child care, which wasn't free at all but just another marketing spin by the Prime Minister, was those frontline workers, those heroes and angels of our childcare centres and early learning centres, being forced and deciding for themselves to front up, to do their job to protect the vulnerable children while their parents fought the pandemic. I was hopeful that, with this legislation coming forward, we would see stronger measures to recognise and reward what parents of Australia have had to go through. But I think it's quite clear that the measures in this bill were designed with one thing in mind: an announcement. It's a package designed to look and sound good in front of a camera. I want to go through the details of the legislation tonight. In my opinion, on behalf of the families that I've been consulting and some of the early educators that I've spoken to about this legislation, it's clear that this bill does not provide anywhere near enough of the relief that struggling families need and indeed are demanding. We are in support of the two key measures in the bill: removing the annual childcare subsidy cap and increasing the rate for families with multiple children under six years of age. They are positive steps, and we're not going to stand in the way of them. However, the bill does not go nearly far enough to address the evident failures in the government's childcare system. Analysis of the government's childcare policy in comparison to the positive agenda and policies that the federal opposition have put forward shows that we have a plan to provide more support to more families for longer. There are around 860,000 families that would be better off under a future Labor government and a Labor childcare policy than under what is being offered by the government. Under our childcare plan, 86 per cent of all families in the system with children under six will be financially better off. In fact, under the government's policy, every single family with one child aged under five in child care and with a family income below $530,000 will receive absolutely no improvement in their childcare subsidy rate. They will, however, see an improvement under a future Labor government. Those opposite can spin this—and I did hear some spinning today from the member for Curtin, the member for Higgins and the member for Mallee, who were trying to defend this as good policy—but we know that when it comes to delivering child care it is the Australian Labor Party that is better at supporting families with two children, particularly low- and middle-income families. I want to talk about some of the numbers which are an important part of this. The facts are, analysis has shown that most families with a combined income between approximately $70,000 and $175,000 will be better off under a future Labor government. Any extra support that a family receives under this government is due to be ripped away the moment their eldest child goes to school. This would not happen under Labor. Our policy supports every child for the entirety of their time in the childcare system. I really do wish more members of the government would actually engage with this. If this is such an important policy, a signature policy for the Prime Minister and the government, I'm not sure why members aren't jumping to their feet wanting to defend the policy. I want to say it very clearly: Labor is better at backing working families, backing women and delivering policy that will actually make a difference in the lives of working Australians. The government's childcare policy delivers a fraction of what Australian working families need. It's a policy that is designed for political spin and political spin alone. In contrast, Labor's plan addresses the real cost-of-living pressures that Australian families are facing. Just about every day I speak to local residents and families who are struggling to make ends meet. For many of them, going to work is just not worth it when the cost of child care is so high. You only need to visit a shopping centre, do a street-corner meeting or pick up the phone and talk to a local family—people will tell you the same thing: 'It is not worth working, because we just work to pay the childcare bills.' We in the chamber have all heard that. We've all lived that. We've all heard that time and time again. I don't understand why, during a pandemic and, hopefully, coming out of a pandemic, we're not seeing a greater investment in child care. Australian families are paying more out of pocket for child care than ever before. Right now in Australia, under the Morrison government, you're paying more for childcare costs than you have ever done. The cost of child care is now higher than it was under the previous childcare system. It is the highest that it has ever been. If this is not true, if this is wrong, I'm happy for all those bureaucrats sitting in the alcove out there, scrawling away on their laptops, to give the minister at the table advice and information, and I will gladly yield my time to hear about those facts. The fact is that, under the Morrison government, child care is becoming more and more unaffordable and is costing the most it has ever cost in this country. Costs have risen by 2.2 per cent in the last quarter alone, an increase that is more than three times CPI. In the past 12 months alone, childcare costs have soared by 3.7 per cent. These amounts of money might not be a lot for members of the government. I understand that. Many of them don't live in the real world. They don't engage with their constituents and they don't listen to families talking about the struggles that they're going through. But I know from the communities that I represent that childcare fees are out of control in this country. They have soared more than 36 per cent since the election of the Liberal government in 2013. Let's put that in context. They have increased by 36 per cent since the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections. Our childcare system is fundamentally broken. Not only is this having a real human impact upon the families I represent; it's also economically damaging. I'm really proud of our plan, which will leave one million families better off than they are now. That's four times as many as the government is promising. This increased support will result in a boost to our nation's GDP that is three times as large as what is predicted under the government's plan. Those opposite have put their spin machine into desperate overdrive, trying to convince the Australian public of something that simply isn't true. They're trying to convince Australian families who are struggling under the cost of living that keeps going up that they will be better off under this weak, watered down plan. The analysis completely busts the spin and affirms our position as the true champion of working families. When the Prime Minister stood up in one of his rare beloved press conferences, he dubbed his failed system as 'a once-in-a-generation reform' promising that it would make childcare more affordable. This proved to be, at best, a severe misjudgement, and, at worst, it was a complete mistruth. Parents don't need spin. This is where the government came a cropper: they announced it at an empty childcare centre on a Sunday. They had to get the keys, unlock the doors. I mean, hello? If you're announcing a childcare policy, wouldn't you think you'd want parents there or early educators to say, 'This is a good plan'? No. Der—they announced a policy in the dark at a childcare centre that wasn't even open. It kind of says it all, doesn't it? Enough of the spin from this government. Parents need real policy. Aussie parents need a real plan to tackle skyrocketing out-of-pocket childcare costs. The Liberal's broken system that they are stubbornly clinging to is just not going to cut it. This year the Productivity Commission released a report on government services. This report showed that childcare costs are locking Australians out of the workforce. Almost 300,000 Australians are not in the labour force due to caring for children, and a number of parents are saying they are not working primarily because the cost of child care has increased by 23 per cent. What a damning figure. The cost of child care is stopping Australians from entering the workforce. The dinosaurs on the other side, in their party rooms—geniuses like Senator Rennick, the member for Dawson and Senator Canavan, the usual suspects—somehow think it is not appropriate that parenting is outsourced. No brave soul is getting up to suggest that. Well, Senator Holly Hughes slapped them down when she went into the party room. I don't know who else got up on their feet and actually said they were wrong. I haven't heard anyone else condemn it. I tell you what: that would not be accepted in the modern Australian workplace, and it shouldn't be accepted in our nation's parliament. In contrast, Labor has a plan to bring down the cost of child care and keep it down. A future Albanese Labor government will introduce the cheaper childcare for working families plan, which will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap; lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent; and increase the childcare subsidy rates, tapering them for every family earning less than $530,000. Under our plan the ACCC will design a price regulation mechanism which will ensure that costs and fees are brought down for good. The Productivity Commission will also conduct a comprehensive review of the sector, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for Aussie families. This is a plan designed to reward working families for their contribution to our nation's economy and workforce, not punish them for taking on extra work. This is the kind of policy thinking that we need to drive our nation's economic recovery post the pandemic. The current system is not good enough. The current system is not working. Australia overall ranks 37th out of 41 countries. Australians are not used to being at the back of the pack, such as when it comes to vaccines, where we're losing the vaccine Olympics. We're not even close to the stadium when it comes to rolling out the vaccines. This is not who we are. We know that the system is broken, and Labor and Anthony Albanese will fix it. I'm so pleased that this is a front-and-centre policy that we will campaign on every single day until the election. Our shadow childcare spokesperson, the member for Kingston, has been listening to parents. She has heard and has read the room. She has sat down with the peak bodies, she has listened to what the Australian community want, and so has our Labor leader, Anthony Albanese—people in touch with the workforce, people in touch with the modern Australia, people who will include these workers in our decision-making—to make sure that we reward effort and make sure that families are supported when they need it most. 19:26 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to support this much welcomed announcement of an additional $1.7 billion in this year's budget to assist hardworking Australian families with the cost of child care. Some families are currently paying more in childcare fees every month than their mortgage repayments, and that's across all types of services. In day care, average fees have risen from $6.60 per hour in 2011 to $10 per hour in March last year, and that's above CPI increases yearly. In 2019, Australia had one of the highest net childcare costs in the OECD. A family with two children in child care, with one parent on an average wage and one just below, will pay around 17 per cent of their net household income on childcare costs alone. When the government introduced the new system of childcare subsidy in July 2018, there was much hope that more parents would be able to return to work with more affordable childcare options available to them. However, in the first year of these changes, one in three families were reporting that they were still paying the same amount in childcare costs, while one in three families were paying higher costs. Some childcare providers chose to increase their charges to above the hourly rate funded by the government, and unfortunately in regional electorates, such as my electorate of Mayo, much higher increases were seen. One of the main objectives of the new childcare subsidy scheme was to increase workforce participation. However, a year on from the scheme being introduced, 77 per cent of parents surveyed said that the changes to the childcare system had made no impact on the number of hours worked or studied. Currently, the government covers up to 85 per cent of childcare costs for some families but only if they earn less than $69,000 and only 50 per cent is covered when families earn more than a combined income of $175,000. The highest childcare costs tend to be borne by families with multiple children, resulting in a significant barrier for parents. It's just not worth working. Under the proposed changes, for second and subsequent children five and under, the childcare subsidy received by families will increase by 30 percentage points to a maximum of 95 per cent, which will hopefully benefit around 250,000 Australian families. Under these changes, a family on $110,000 with two children in full-time care would be $120 better off a week. Imagine the difference that could make to a family's weekly budget. I recently spoke in this place on the high cost of child care in my community and highlighted the need for the removal of the subsidy cap. This will be critical. I've seen examples of some parents paying more for child care than they actually earn after hitting childcare cap. I asked for this serious issue to be addressed and I'm grateful that the government was listening and has removed this cap altogether. It would be remiss of me not to give a speech on child care without raising the cost of child care on families in Australia. Many families find that the cost of the second parent returning to work and the significant drop in the childcare subsidy mean it's just not worth going to work. This really impacts women in particular. It makes women feel undervalued and it has far-reaching impacts on the work and the economy. I have some concerns and I will end with this. I have some concerns that the date for this is not until July 2022— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 96 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19: Biosecurity 96 19:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair [by video link] Like many of my colleagues, I am speaking tonight from my electorate. I'm here in Ipswich. My constituents are frustrated that we are 18 months into a pandemic and the Prime Minister has failed to develop a network of dedicated quarantine facilities. There have been nearly 30 leaks from hotel quarantine, leading to community outbreaks, lockdowns, economic hardship and—worse—illness and death. Here in South-East Queensland we're unlikely to have a dedicated quarantine facility until sometime next year. It's frustrating because we could have had a fully operational quarantine facility in two months, except that the Prime Minister thought Toowoomba was located in the desert, disregarding the fact that such a quarantine facility would be close to an airport, close to a well-equipped hospital and within range of major Brisbane hospitals. Canberra is more arid than Toowoomba, yet our forebears built the national capital there. The Prime Minister appears to be making decisions based on partisan politics, regularly praising Liberal and National Party premiers while castigating Labor premiers, national cabinet notwithstanding. In 2020, when it became clear that a sustainable, long-term approach was required to address this pandemic, the Queensland government put a proposal to the Prime Minister for a dedicated quarantine facility at Wellcamp, near Toowoomba. Rather than concede to Premier Palaszczuk, the Prime Minister chose the old Damascus Barracks in Pinkenba, a site where there are risks from asbestos, buried military hardware and PFAS contamination. If work could start today, it is unlikely that it could be operational until sometime in 2022. Even today, overseas visitors continue to be herded into hotels purpose-built for holidaymakers and visitors. Quarantine is the responsibility of the federal government. This government should have been working with states and territories, rather than passing the buck and sniping from the grandstand. While the pandemic is a major issue, the public know there's only one road back to any semblance of normalcy: mass vaccination. The delta variant is racing through communities. Sydney and South-East Queensland are in lockdown, with only about 20 per cent of the population fully vaccinated. This Prime Minister has failed to secure enough vaccine to protect the Australian public. He decided the vaccine rollout is not a race. The result is that we don't have enough supply. That's what local health authorities are telling me. We're now last in the developed world when it comes to having the population fully vaccinated. There are still people in the priority 'vulnerable' categories yet to be fully vaccinated. This government is procrastinating rather than doing the hard work. We should have had five or more vaccine deals organised. According to the Darling Downs and West Moreton PHN, only 44 per cent of local aged-care workers in our community are vaccinated with one dose. Only one in four local aged-care staff are fully vaccinated. The mandated vaccination deadline for anyone working in aged care is 17 September 2021. We have just over a month to get all aged-care workers vaccinated, including chaplains, physiotherapists and occupational therapists as well as care staff and nurses. We know through tragic experience that getting aged-care workers fully vaccinated is critical to protecting our vulnerable ageing population. Until now, the vaccination rollout has resembled a pre-Federation approach, with states and territories doing their own thing in the vacuum of policy advice and leadership from the Morrison government. The Prime Minister has failed at quarantine and vaccination. Jobs have been lost and hours reduced. Businesses have closed their doors. In the last couple of days, I've spoken at length to the presidents of local chambers of commerce, local organisations and local faith based leaders across my electorate of Blair. There are concerns about the members of their respective communities. Local business leaders I've spoken to are frustrated and fearful because they don't know what the future holds. No-one doubts lockdowns are necessary, but they're made necessary by the Prime Minister's failure, and it's costing the public enormously. I urge the Prime Minister to take up Labor's offer of a $300 vaccine initiative. Recently, the Prime Minister likened the pandemic to the Olympics. The performance of this government during the pandemic is far from Olympian and, frankly, merits disqualification. This is a national emergency. Prime Minister, it is a race—a race against the virus. Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games, Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games 97 19:35 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I congratulate all the Olympic athletes and medallists who have done us proud at the Tokyo Olympics. Special Moncrieff congratulations go to Chelsea Hodges, who won gold in the 4 x 100 medley relay and Cameron McEvoy for his bronze medal in the mixed 4 x 100 medley relay. I also congratulate Gold Coasters Emma McKeon, for gold in the 50 metre and 100 metre freestyle, 4 x100 relay and medley relay, and for her 100 metre butterfly bronze; and Logan Martin, whose spectacular BMX ride for gold took our breath away. On the back of Tokyo we've recently heard the fantastic news—good news in the midst of a global pandemic—that the Gold Coast will be a co-host to 2032 South-East Queensland Olympic and Paralympic Games. I welcomed the announcement at the Kurrawa Surf Club in my electorate on 21 July, where I had the honour of representing the Australian government alongside the state government representative and the Gold Coast mayor. In my speech to Gold Coasters, who were on the lawn in front of the outdoor stage for the announcement, I said: 'This is an historic moment for the Commonwealth of Australia, a generational opportunity for Queensland, and a moment of hope and aspiration for Gold Coasters.' I thanked the International Olympic Committee for choosing South-East Queensland and I congratulated all those involved in the bid, including the Australian Olympic Committee. The Morrison government, matched by Queensland, contributed $10 million to the bid. The member for Fairfax was the Prime Minister's Olympic bid envoy—our secret weapon who led the charge when he travelled to Lausanne in Switzerland; our supreme high jumper, who cleared the bar; our champion hurdler, who jumped over all the obstacles; our flexible rockclimber, who navigated the unstable ground to make sure the biggest risk was averted. He made sure that the politics didn't get in the way of the great vision of a South-East Queensland Olympics. The Gold Coast thanks the member for Fairfax and the Prime Minister for the work they did to deliver the 2032 Olympics bid. What can the good people of the Gold Coast expect in the lead-up to the 2032 Olympics? The Games of the XXXV Olympiad, with eight sports so far earmarked for the Gold Coast, will be approximately the same size as the 2018 Commonwealth Games. In addition to those eight sports in seven venues across the coast, in the plan there is a 2,600 bed athletes' village in Robina and a media centre and broadcast studio hub in Broadbeach. The Olympics will once again showcase to the world the Gold Coast as a destination, featuring our lifestyle and, importantly, our ability to deliver world-class events. It will kickstart the next decade of forward planning for population growth and for jobs in construction, tourism and infrastructure such as light rail, heavy rail, upgrades to facilities and more. Once international borders open, it will attract teams from around the world for training camps that will fill our hotels, our small businesses, our attractions and of course our beaches. It will showcase the Gold Coast as an international sports capital and cement it as the Australian home of women's sport. It will support and grow our local state and national economies. The lion's share of events will be in Moncrieff, with the exception of indoor volleyball hosted in Coomera and football in Robina. In Moncrieff we will host beach volleyball at Kurrawa and Broadbeach, golf at Royal Pines Resort in Benowa, judo wrestling at the Gold Coast Sports and Leisure Centre in Carrara, triathlon and aquatics at Broadwater Parklands in Southport, and volleyball and weightlifting at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre in Broadbeach. The Games of the XXXV Olympiad will inspire the next generation of youth into competitive sport. It will improve physical and mental health and promote sports and physical activity. It will further enhance partnerships with and development for First Nations peoples and will promote Australia's cultural values of diversity, equality and human rights around the world. In 2032 Australia, Queensland and the Gold Coast will see their children and grandchildren compete for gold on the world stage—at home. The Gold Coast schoolchildren of today will follow in the footsteps of the giant Gold Coast Olympians before them: Glynnis Nunn, Duncan Free, Sally Pearson and Grant Hackett, to name just a few. Gold Coast kids will grow up with the goal of competing in their chosen sport on their home territory to win a medal for team Australia—what a dream! COVID-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry 98 19:40 Mr BURKE DYW Watson The arts and entertainment industry has been smashed by COVID. After last year, people had this sense of hope that 2020 was going to be the bad year and there would now be a pathway forward. Since 1 July, we've now had in the order of 23,000 gigs cancelled—just since 1 July. We have a situation where major festivals are now wondering whether they can take the risk to put themselves forward again. The policy answers to all of this are actually pretty simple. It's about insurance and it's about a wage subsidy that will work. The government has gone down a path—with the Guy Sebastian announcement that they made, where they used one of our great celebrities in a horrible way—where they made the big announcement and then we found out a couple of weeks ago that, of the $200 million they promised, only $100 million had gone out the door. A grants program was never the ideal way to spend this money anyway, because a grants program always meant picking in advance where you would get to make an announcement, next to somebody famous, for an event, but an event that ultimately might not have actually needed the grant, because, in different ways, this sector is commercial. But this sector now has one form of risk against which it cannot insure and which it cannot predict, and that's a COVID shutdown that can happen right up until the moment of the event itself. Bluesfest, two years in a row now, has been cancelled—last time, right when the event was about to start. Think what that means. All the food trucks have turned up; they've bought all their food. All the workers have turned up; they have assembled the marquees. The roads have been put down. The entire complex has been built. The artists have flown up. The audience have paid for their tickets. Bluesfest, when it was cancelled last year, had pandemic insurance. You can still get pandemic insurance, but you can only get it for COVID-20 or COVID-21. You can't insure against an event that is already here. So how can commercial enterprises around the country, whether they're major expos, events or festivals or big shows and productions, or even a smaller operation where someone wants to be able to organise a tour, have the confidence to take that risk—if they can find the capital; a lot of people have run down the capital—if there is an event that you know you cannot insure against and that could terminate all your plans at a moment's notice? The smartest way to spend the money is to do what the government has done, to its credit, with the film industry: set up a business interruption fund. The businesses that don't get shut down never draw on the fund. But it gives every business the confidence to know that the form of risk that is the most dangerous at the moment is covered. They pay a fee to be part of the scheme, but it means that people have the confidence to know that. Think of the big shows that people here might know of, like Harry Potter or Hamilton, where cast members have found that this is their big opportunity and people from within this chamber have taken their free tickets to go to opening nights. These workers have found themselves suddenly stood down, with a promoter who needs to refund the tickets, still has the liabilities and has to ask the question: 'How can I know to take the risk again another time?' An insurance scheme, as exists for the film industry, if made available to major events and to touring, would allow commercial events to take a commercial risk again, instead of expecting them to take a risk which is then to be determined by state government decisions over which they have no control and which, we know, particularly now with Delta, they cannot predict. With a wage subsidy system, we then are able to deal with those events after lockdowns where the social distancing rules still prevent something from otherwise being commercial. A whole lot of events I went to last year with smaller crowds were not commercial, were it not for the fact that there was a wage subsidy allowing them to happen. But it meant that people got to work, it meant the venues still survived and it meant that people got to see shows within the social-distancing rules. The solutions here are not complex but they mean going down a pathway where you don't get to make the big announcement with the celebrity but you do get to deliver jobs. Veterans' Affairs Portfolio 98 19:45 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I entered politics to try to make a difference, and over the past three years I have been part of a team which has helped to save lives and transform the system of veteran support in Australia. Along with my loyal and incredibly capable staff, the outstanding leadership team at the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the ex-service community itself we have worked in partnership to improve the way that veterans and their families are recognised and supported in Australia. I'm very proud of the work that we've done together and honoured to have had that opportunity provided by the former Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. The support I received from Michael and my cabinet colleagues as part of several budgets has helped to fund significant changes which will continue to deliver benefits for future generations. To the secretary of the department, Liz Cosson: your professionalism and passion for our serving men and women, our veterans and their families is an example for your entire team to follow. Please accept my thanks for your support and guidance. The incoming minister would be well advised to listen to your wisdom, gained from years of personal experience. Thank you also to the hundreds of people and representatives of ex-service organisations who have contacted my office in recent weeks to extend their personal best wishes. It has been truly humbling and deeply appreciated by my former staff, and it has vindicated their hard work. Being sacked from the ministry is like being alive at your own funeral and listening to the eulogies! I promise you all that I am alive and well, and ready to get on with the next challenges and adventures in public life. But, before doing that, I want to publicly close the chapter of my work with our veterans as their minister. As a government, we have invested heavily in veterans' employment and transition services while boosting mental health care and developing a network of wellbeing centres. As a government, our introduction of the Veterans' Recognition Program and the Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant, along with the redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial, will help define how we respect and remember our service personnel in the future. And, as a renowned dog lover, the successful introduction of psychiatric assistance dogs for veterans experiencing PTSD will remain one of my proudest achievements. The letters from veterans about the dog program have touched me the most. They're already making a difference in the lives of dozens of veterans and their families. As always, there's always more work to be done. But that task will fall to the incoming minister, and I do urge the ex-service community to provide the same constructive feedback, practical advice and input that my team always benefited from. I urge the minister to listen very carefully to the considered and collective thoughts of the majority, not to the tiny minority who sometimes push an agenda which is divisive and unhelpful. The royal commission in particular is a chance to unite the veterans' community—and I stress that everyone has the chance to have their say and should be supported as they give evidence, which could be difficult and distressing for them. As a backbencher, I want to see the coalition government maintain the momentum for reform and to build on all the good work we're doing while the royal commission runs its course and the national commissioner receives its powers as an enduring addition to public policy. I will continue to advocate strongly for Australians to understand that the majority of veterans will transition successfully to civilian life. The myth that all veterans are broken is damaging to their wellbeing and creates a vicious circle of despondency and desperation. As a grateful nation, we must support those who need our help, but at the same time we must promote the many achievements of our veteran community. I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the extraordinary leadership of the Australian Defence Force, and the many thousands of serving personnel I've had the pleasure of meeting over the past seven or eight years. Three years ago, as your minister, I started saying thank you for your service at every public event—not to embarrass you but to remind those of us who haven't served about the risks you take on our behalf. You keep us safe in an ever-changing world and you are the first people we turn to when the job gets too big for local or state agencies. As a civilian, it has been an extraordinary privilege to see you training and deploying both at home and abroad. In my own electorate of Gippsland, with your work on Operation Bushfire Assist, and more recently with the COVID program and the flood and storm recovery, I have been constantly impressed by the professionalism, the determination and the resilience you display. Your character values of always looking after your mates and acting with dignity and respect in adversity have set a standard which I hope to emulate. It has been the greatest honour and privilege of my working life to spend time with you and represent your interests within the federal government. Thank you for your service. Finally, to my wife, Julie and my four children: ministerial responsibility takes hours away from family life, and the biggest benefit of being sacked from cabinet for the second time is that we get to spend more time together in the place we love. I love Gippsland. I'm not going anywhere. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 May I take the opportunity to thank you, Member for Gippsland, for your service in that portfolio. Macquarie Electorate: Infrastructure 99 19:50 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I join you, Deputy Speaker Wallace, in extending my thanks to the member for Gippsland for his service to veterans. I have spoken a lot about the impacts of COVID on my community. While that's dominating our lives in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury now with the lockdown, it's no excuse for any government to walk away from the responsibilities that it has in other matters. Governments can't use COVID as a cover for their failure to fix other problems or to take short cuts. I want to talk about two major road projects in my electorate. One is the upgrade of the Great Western Highway at Medlow Bath. Medlow Bath residents are understandably furious that their opportunity to examine the New South Wales government's plans for a four-lane highway through their village will be limited because no face-to-face consultation and discussion can be done before the deadline. As Residents Association President Debra Brown said, 'Anyone without a computer had no possibility of seeing the plans.' Under pressure, Transport for NSW has offered to send USBs or hard copy, but it's still complex design plans, a 220-page review of environmental factors and 866 pages of appendices. State MP Trish Doyle and Mayor Mark Greenhill have, with me, written to the roads and regional transport minister of New South Wales and to the federal transport minister, Barnaby Joyce, calling for an extension beyond lockdown so that face-to-face consultation can occur on this federally funded project. What the community really needs is an opportunity to sit down and discuss the detailed plan they've worked up around extending the Blackheath-Mount Victoria tunnel that stops just short of Medlow, so that this little hamlet with the historically significant Hydro Majestic is not obliterated by a four-lane road. I don't understand the haste, except that maybe someone wants to get federal money spent fast. The Medlow Bath community deserves to be listened to, and I have to say that I see the potential long-term pluses in their plan that would benefit the Upper Mountains tourism economy and the Central West. There are fears of similar haste and disregard of genuine consultation on the Richmond Bridge project. We all know that nothing replaces face-to-face communication, and, with something as large as the project which is so important to get right, there is no excuse for using COVID to cut out community consultation. I have to say that I'm very concerned about the failure of Transport for NSW to provide me with the opportunity to ask questions about the project on behalf of my community. This is too big to politicise, and I've fought for too long for these additional bridge lanes. The New South Wales government needs to grow up and commit to a constructive dialogue, irrespective of political ties. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that I've been focused on solutions in the Hawkesbury for a decade, before and since being in parliament, and it is petty of them to cut me out of something I have such a deep commitment to. I want to turn to another issue for the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury that I've spoken on many times: mobile phone coverage. This Liberal and National government has ignored the very real needs of many parts of the region in spite of the natural disasters we face. In the latest round of mobile black spot funding, they announced one new site—only a single location at Lower McDonald. I welcome that; it is absolutely needed. But this round was allegedly focused on helping bushfire prone areas—tick! It's especially insulting to the people in areas like Mount Tomah and Berambing, which lost homes in the devastating black summer bushfires. People who battled fires have told me, they've told the royal commission, they've told the Senate inquiry and they've told the New South Wales inquiries of the problems in organising crews during the crisis because they didn't have mobile coverage. They've told us of their fears of loss of life. Mount Tomah was meant to have a tower years ago. It was promised by then Minister Fletcher in the lead-up to an election and taken away—plonked in the Central West to shore up support for the Nationals in the lead-up to the next election. The case for a black-spot solution at Mount Tomah is overwhelming, and I've worked closely with the Blue Mountains rural fire service to put forward a solution. There is simply no mobile coverage for much of the area and along the Bells Line of Road, and it comes on top of fragile mobile and landline coverage in Bilpin. This is more than just cynical politics. This is putting lives in danger. Don't be surprised if, in the lead up to an election, after eight or nine long years, this government decides to throw a few bones to a desperate community. Just don't trust them. They've made those promises before. Whitsundays: Tourism Industry, COVID-19: Health Care 100 19:55 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson The tourism operators in the Whitsundays would have to be some of the most brilliant business owners in this country, considering what they've been through in recent years. They've endured quite a lot. They've been buffered by cyclones. They've been rocked by shark attacks. But the latest and ongoing round of lockdowns and restrictions and border closures from the chief medical officers, who seem to be running our states at the moment, could be the thing that finally sends them to the wall. It's sad to note that these snap lockdowns are endorsed by the federal government and the opposition, and yet there is growing evidence to show that these lockdowns do more harm than good. I'll share those findings in a moment, but here is the cry for help from Tourism Whitsundays Chief Executive Officer Tash Wheeler on behalf of the 345 tourism businesses that that organisation represents. Ms Wheeler says: 'Every day I receive numerous calls from distressed tourism business owners who are on the verge of collapse. The current situation is more severe than that at this time last year.' She explains that island resorts, which staffed up for the school holidays again, are now sitting at 20 per cent occupancy. Because it's tough to get staff, they've had to provide full-term contracts to secure workers, and now they're facing the loss of all those school holiday travellers from their key domestic markets. Overnight sailing vessels, which did what they were asked to do and pivoted their products away from overseas tourism offerings to provide for the domestic market, have seen that market disappear due to the lockdown as well, and these businesses are on the cusp of closing their doors permanently. Whitsundays Chamber of Commerce President Allan Milostic points out in today's Whitsundays news: 'It's incredibly hard for all businesses, large, medium and small, as they've got to stock up on staff when it's flat out, and then they're suddenly at 25 per cent.' One in every three jobs in the Whitsundays is a tourism job. The region is the most tourism-reliant in Queensland. These businesses are now in dire straits because of draconian lockdown measures. So do these lockdowns work to destroy viruses, or do they just destroy livelihoods? There are some highly credible studies that have surfaced this year which essentially conclude that lockdowns are doing more harm than good. In the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 'The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and policy responses on excess mortality' researchers measured the change in excess deaths following the introduction of stay-at-home or lockdown orders. They call stay-at-home orders SIP, or shelter in place. Rather than reducing deaths, the finding was that lockdowns increased them. The report concluded: We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases. And further— … the implementation of SIP policies does not appear to have met the aim of reducing excess mortality. In the US, the finding was that the reduction in non-COVID health care partly contributed to an increase in non-COVID deaths. Another study in the UK predicts that there will be approximately an additional 3,000 deaths within five years due to a delay in diagnostics because of the COVID-19 pandemic. By the way, here in Australia, the death rate from January to April this year is 5.6 per cent higher than the 2015-19 average. One must wonder if lockdowns and restrictions have actually contributed to that increase. Another study in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, titled 'Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19', made the same findings as the US study. The European study noted: … we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs— Non-pharmaceutical interventions—that is, mandatory stay-at-home and business closures— Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions. In summary, it all may be for naught. Businesses will close and precious freedoms will be lost for no other reason than that they're politically popular. Unelected health officials have never had it so good, and there is no doubt that the power has gone to their heads. I don't know that anyone could have envisaged a year and a half ago that we would be facing the degree of lockdowns and restrictions that we are continuing to suffer through. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 101 NOTICES