
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2021-09-02</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>7</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Thursday, 2 September 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6774" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Today the Morrison government is taking further steps to strengthen our economy, create jobs and opportunities for Australians, ensure the delivery of affordable and reliable power and continue to drive down emissions.</para>
<para>I am pleased to introduce the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill to this House. This bill establishes a regulatory framework for a new Australian industry, building on this government's strong record of supporting renewables projects and critical grid infrastructure.</para>
<para>Specifically, this bill will facilitate and regulate the development of offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth waters, including transmission infrastructure and generation. Australia is an attractive place to invest, with many opportunities to harness and a skilled and talented workforce to deliver important projects. Leading developers have expressed a keen interest in investing in offshore electricity infrastructure projects in Australia, and this bill provides a licensing framework and regulatory certainty for those investments to occur.</para>
<para>Enabling the development of an offshore electricity sector will deliver significant local benefits to all Australians.</para>
<para>Investment in transmission infrastructure will support a more secure and reliable electricity system.</para>
<para>Market competition from new electricity generation capacity will help put further downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices and ultimately lead to lower retail electricity prices as well.</para>
<para>We can take advantage of evolving and emerging technologies to secure cost-effective electricity solutions for Australia.</para>
<para>Thousands of skilled regional jobs can be created, providing both direct benefits and indirect opportunities for regional businesses.</para>
<para>Already, there are a number of projects that stand to benefit from this legislation, representing an economic opportunity for Australia.</para>
<para>This bill will help the implementation of Marinus Link, the proposed 1,500 megawatt (MW) transmission line between Tasmania and Victoria.</para>
<para>Marinus Link will provide the additional interconnection needed to export the electricity generated by the Battery of the Nation hydro projects in Tasmania, to the mainland. In doing so, it will unlock new investment in generation projects, including pumped hydro energy storage. Marinus Link will help deliver a more reliable, affordable energy system, helping keep the lights on and drive prices down.</para>
<para>Passage of this bill will also provide business certainty for other proposals that are under development, such as 'Star of the South', a proposed offshore wind farm off the coast of Gippsland, Victoria, and 'Sun Cable' in our north.</para>
<para>Combined, these three proposals, Marinus Link, Star of the South and Sun Cable, are estimated to be worth over $10 billion and create over 10,000 direct and indirect job opportunities during construction. There are also ongoing employment opportunities for the staff that would be required to operate and maintain the infrastructure. Much of this job creation would occur in our regions.</para>
<para>While these are the most advanced projects, there are at least 10 other commercial-scale projects that have been proposed by developers for construction around Australia.</para>
<para>International experience shows that offshore electricity sectors coexist with other offshore sectors and activities, such as fishing and shipping industries. This bill protects these maritime stakeholders by requiring developers to take into account the impacts that potential projects may have on existing users of the offshore area. Importantly, under the bill, areas will not be available for offshore electricity infrastructure projects if their impacts cannot be appropriately managed and enforcement action can be taken if licence holders interfere with existing users of a declared area.</para>
<para>Environmental approvals will be sought through established processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This approach secures necessary protections while avoiding the imposition of any additional or duplicative regulatory obligations.</para>
<para>Securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces is paramount in this high risk offshore marine environment. The bill will apply the national model Work Health and Safety Act 2011, with some necessary modifications to ensure that the framework operates appropriately in the ocean.</para>
<para>The bill also requires developers to agree to provide financial security to cover the cost of decommissioning proposed infrastructure, prior to any construction or installation commencing. This financial security will be equal to the cost for government to decommission infrastructure in the licence area. This important feature ensures that taxpayers do not foot the bill for removal of any retired assets in the future.</para>
<para>Supporting the development of large projects and a new offshore industry represents an exciting new opportunity for Australia. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill to enable the development of a new industry that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, and facilitate a more affordable and secure energy system.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6775" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am pleased to introduce the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 to the House. This bill supports the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 (or the main bill) which establishes a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects in Commonwealth waters.</para>
<para>The main bill supports investment in large scale offshore electricity infrastructure through a new licensing regime, administered and regulated by the Offshore Infrastructure Registrar and the Offshore Infrastructure Regulator.</para>
<para>The regulatory levies bill ensures the Offshore Infrastructure Registrar and the Offshore Infrastructure Regulator are fully cost-recovered to undertake the functions required to facilitate the life cycle of offshore electricity infrastructure projects.</para>
<para>The National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (known as NOPTA) and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environment Management Authority (known as NOPSEMA) will be appointed as registrar and regulator of the framework, respectively. These agencies have extensive experience in developing regulatory processes for the offshore environment and are best placed to support and regulate the offshore electricity infrastructure sector.</para>
<para>Under the offshore electricity infrastructure framework, NOPTA's principal functions will be to administer the licensing scheme, including maintaining a register of licensees and managing the application process.</para>
<para>NOPSEMA will be responsible for regulatory duties relating to workplace health and safety, infrastructure integrity, environmental management and compliance.</para>
<para>Currently, NOPTA and NOPSEMA perform regulatory functions for the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage industries, and are fully cost-recovered by way of fees and levies imposed on these industries. NOPTA and NOPSEMA's functions will expand under the new framework to regulate the offshore electricity infrastructure industry.</para>
<para>Levies collected from regulated entities will be placed in the Offshore Infrastructure Registrar Special Account established under the main bill, and will be apportioned between the agencies to recover costs incurred.</para>
<para>Supporting the development of large projects and a new offshore industry represents an exciting new opportunity for Australia.</para>
<para>I urge my colleagues to support the passage of these bills that will enable the development of a new industry that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, and facilitate a more affordable and secure energy system.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6782" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 amends legislation to deal with the cessation of the Council of Australian Governments and the establishment of the National Cabinet and the National Federation Reform Council.</para>
<para>This bill ushers in a new and exciting era for our federation.</para>
<para>Twenty twenty tested the nation, and presented great challenges for the Commonwealth and the states and territories. However, as the Prime Minister stated, our 'federal instincts' kicked in in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and we knew we had to come together.</para>
<para>Australians have all witnessed—and benefited from—our federation and our policymaking institutions adapting to bring about unprecedented cooperation.</para>
<para>On 13 March 2020, the Prime Minister, the premiers of each state, and the chief ministers of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory agreed to establish the National Cabinet to coordinate and deliver a response to COVID-19 in Australia.</para>
<para>The National Cabinet began from a realisation that if the Commonwealth, states and territories each tried to go their own way, Australia would fall short in its response to the pandemic.</para>
<para>It is working as a true federated decision-making body leading the national response to the pandemic. Many crucial decisions have been collectively made through the National Cabinet to both control the spread of COVID-19 and keep essential services operational. This has included decisions on social gathering restrictions; the introduction of 14-day quarantine for returning international passengers; the establishment of protocols to move freight, seasonal workers and emergency services across state borders, as well as bringing in seasonal workers to support the agricultural sector; and the adoption of emergency commercial tenancy arrangements for small and medium sized businesses to avoid evictions and unsustainable debts.</para>
<para>As Australia transitions its COVID-19 response, the Prime Minister, premiers and chief ministers are focussed on the successful delivery of the national rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and on the economy.</para>
<para>National Cabinet is increasingly driving a job-making agenda, focused on six priority areas of reform—rural and regional, skills, energy, infrastructure and transport, population and migration, and health.</para>
<para>In contrast to the National Cabinet's agility and decisiveness, COAG and its related bodies were burdened by red tape and bureaucracy which made them inefficient in taking decisions and slow to advance reform.</para>
<para>COAG operated on a consensus based decision-making model—an unrealistic and impractical feature, given the diverse and disparate needs of each state and territory. As the Prime Minister summarised, such a model 'sets the Federation up to fail'.</para>
<para>In the Prime Minister's words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">By any measure, the National Cabinet has proven to be a much more effective body for taking decisions in the national interest than the COAG structure.</para></quote>
<para>The Prime Minister is not alone in his view on the effectiveness of the National Cabinet.</para>
<para>The Premier of Western Australia, Mark McGowan, has said. 'The National Cabinet process has removed the political boundaries that can hamper COAG.'</para>
<para>The Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, has said the National Cabinet is 'definitely worth having' and that the:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… National Cabinet has demonstrated our ability to get things done more quickly. And what COVID has taught all of us, the state jurisdictions and I think also as a national government, is that you can do things better and differently and let's use this opportunity to keep improving the quality of life of our citizens and streamlining our processes.</para></quote>
<para>The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For five years before 2020, COAG for me was a forum where nothing got done. Lots of important discussions, very little action. National Cabinet is different. It's been right for its time and, in my view, it has a bright future.</para></quote>
<para>The Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I think we shouldn't gloss over the fact too that this National Cabinet has worked in the best interest of all Australians ... We have been provided at all times with expert advice on health and at all times expert advice on the economy. So that has been absolutely critical to the way the National Cabinet has worked and how I think it's going to work into the future.</para></quote>
<para>The announcement of the cessation of COAG on the 29 May 2020 was accompanied by the formation of the National Federation Reform Council. This council comprises first ministers and treasurers from all jurisdictions and the presidents of the Australian Local Government Association. The National Federation Reform Council has changed the way the Commonwealth and states and territories come together to progress priority national federation issues. Once a year, the National Federation Reform Council meets to consider issues that fall outside the National Cabinet's job creation remit, such as women's safety, Indigenous affairs, and veterans' wellbeing.</para>
<para>The role of the Council on Federal Financial Relations was also enhanced with treasurers taking responsibility for all funding agreements.</para>
<para>To consolidate and reset the existing structures under COAG, the National Cabinet agreed on the 26 June 2020 that the former Commonwealth cabinet secretary, and former Director General of the Western Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet, Mr Peter Conran AM, would lead a review of COAG Councils and Ministerial Forums (the review).</para>
<para>The review rationalised and reset these bodies, and provided recommendations to make their operations more effective with focused work programs and a streamlined structure.</para>
<para>Mr Conran's review sought not just to rationalise the number of ministers' meetings—as has been the focus of many past reviews—but more importantly to overhaul the way they function.</para>
<para>Mr Conran recommended to the National Cabinet that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our system must be able to adapt and evolve and it must empower ministers to set clear objectives and get on with the job of delivering them.</para></quote>
<para>The new system of federal relations that the review recommended was modelled on the efficient way that the National Cabinet deals with issues—that is, quickly, on the advice of experts, and with ministers dictating priorities and parameters.</para>
<para>All first ministers, through the National Cabinet, unanimously accepted the review's recommendations on the 23 October 2020. This included reducing the number of ministerial forums, and ensuring those that remain are agile and responsive to emerging national priorities. Ministers are empowered to take direct responsibility for decision-making in their portfolios, and will not report to the National Cabinet or the National Federation Reform Council unless directly tasked.</para>
<para>Recognising the cessation of the former COAG model, the review also recommended that the Commonwealth should introduce legislation to the parliament to amend outdated references to COAG councils and ministerial forums.</para>
<para>And that is what this bill seeks to do: its purpose is to amend our legislation to reflect the new streamlined architecture that governs our federation today.</para>
<para>The amendments made in schedules 1 and 2 will recognise and give effect to the cessation of COAG, in line with the Review of COAG Councils and Ministerial Forums.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill would primarily replace references to the COAG Reform Fund with references to the Federation Reform Fund throughout Commonwealth legislation where that term exists. This means that the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008 would have a new short title of the Federation Reform Fund Act 2008. The Federation Reform Fund will continue to be the mechanism through which the Commonwealth makes grants of financial assistance to the states and territories.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill would amend other references to intergovernmental bodies in Commonwealth legislation. The term COAG will now be replaced by the term First Ministers' Council, defined as a body consisting only of, or including, the Prime Minister, premiers and chief ministers.</para>
<para>The term Ministerial Council will remain, however it will be defined flexibly, as a body consisting of the minister of the Commonwealth and each state and territory who is responsible for the relevant matter, such as health or education.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 3 of the bill deal with confidential information of the National Cabinet and its committees. The National Cabinet is established as a committee of the Commonwealth cabinet.</para>
<para>Like the Commonwealth cabinet and its committees, all proceedings and documentation of the National Cabinet and its committees are confidential.</para>
<para>And like the Commonwealth cabinet and its committees, the maintenance of confidentiality is essential to enable full and frank discussion between the representatives of all jurisdictions.</para>
<para>The purpose of the amendments in schedule 3 is to confirm that where Commonwealth legislation has existing provisions to protect from disclosure the deliberations and decisions of the cabinet and its committees, the same protections apply to the deliberations and decisions of the National Cabinet and its committees.</para>
<para>The changes to our intergovernmental decision-making framework, supported by this bill, herald significant and timely change for our federation.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>5</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privileges and Members' Interests Committee</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>5</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present a report concerning an application for the publication of a response to references made in the House of Representatives.</para>
<para>In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>5</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>5</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6758" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>5</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the benefit of the House, I'm completing a speech started by the Minister for Regional Health, and member for Lyne.</para>
<para>People said they wanted this review, with a broad scope that considered whether the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act was still needed and whether it was meeting its objectives. It included three phases of 22 dedicated weeks of consultation where people were asked what they thought should be looked at in the review, what they thought of potential changes to the CATSI Act and then what they thought of the draft legislation.</para>
<para>The bill will (1) make it easier and less costly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations to register and operate under the CATSI Act, in particular to ensure that regulation is proportional to size and avoids overregulation; (2) promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's economic development through CATSI corporations by providing more flexibility to create business structures and operate more effectively in small communities; (3) increase transparency of corporation operations through improved reporting for members, common-law holders and other stakeholders; (4) enhance support for CATSI corporations that are experiencing difficulties returning to health and, ultimately, the control of members; (5) streamline the process of winding up defunct corporations; (6) enhance the efficacy of operations by increasing corporations' access to modern technology, including for managing their membership bases; and, finally, (7) provide the registrar with expanded powers to enable a graduated, proportionate response to noncompliance.</para>
<para>As said in an earlier speech, this bill comes at a key point in the economic development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. Since 2015, more than $4.3 billion has been awarded to over 2,380 Indigenous businesses under the Commonwealth Indigenous Procurement Policy. There has been a significant increase in Indigenous Advancement Strategy funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. Measures in this bill will better support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to realise these and other economic and community development opportunities and to take advantage of the momentum within the Indigenous corporate sector. At the same time, the bill will ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations operate within a regulatory framework that supports high standards of corporate governance and financial management and provides the registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, as the corporate regulator, with appropriate powers to ensure effective regulatory compliance.</para>
<para>Good corporate governance does not happen by chance. It needs a well-designed regulatory infrastructure to support it. This bill improves and strengthens the regulatory architecture so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations can continue to thrive and deliver for the communities that they serve. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations play a central role in delivering services to communities across the country in a way that meets the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A stronger CATSI Act will reduce disadvantage and improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6766" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was a major achievement of both the Whitlam Labor government and its successor, the Liberal government led by Malcolm Fraser. The legislation was introduced by the Whitlam government, lapsed on the dismissal of that government in 1975 and was then reintroduced and passed, with Labor's support, by the Fraser government in 1976. The land rights act was based on the recommendations of the final report of the Woodward Aboriginal Land Rights Commission in April 1974. In that final report, Commissioner Woodward said that he believed the first aim of Aboriginal land rights is 'the doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation'. Commissioner Woodward went on to state that the aims of land rights could be best achieved by measures which included the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a)   preserving and strengthening all Aboriginal interests in land and rights over land which exist today, particularly all those having spiritual importance,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b)   ensuring that none of these interests or rights are further whittled away without consent, …</para></quote>
<para>Woodward's final report included drafting instructions for the bill that became the land rights act, which was the first legislation passed by any Australian government giving legal recognition to Aboriginal land ownership. This law has been of immense significance in shaping the Northern Territory ever since, with the provisions of the land rights act now governing around half of the land area of the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>Although this bill we are now debating was only introduced to the parliament last week, without any prior briefing to or consultation with Labor, in the week we have had it we've done our best to examine the sweeping changes this bill will make to Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. The minister, in his second reading speech, described this bill as 'the most far reaching set of reforms to the land rights act since it was enacted in 1976'. The minister went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The reforms are about activating the economic potential of Aboriginal land to grow the prosperity of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory for the long term.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is a new era of land rights—one that empowers Aboriginal people to unlock the potential of their land and grow their communities, their businesses and their culture for generations to come.</para></quote>
<para>Labor will always support effective measures to support the economic empowerment of Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>In that context, I want to note that I was very pleased to see that, unusually for this government, it has consulted on the design of this bill with First Nations people who will be affected by its measures. In particular, the government has consulted with the four land councils of the Northern Territory: the Tiwi Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Anindilyakawa Land Council and the Northern Land Council. All four of those land councils strongly support the changes this bill will bring about. In a media release welcoming this bill, dated 25 August 2021, the Northern Land Council stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This historic bill represents years of effort by the Northern Territory land councils working with the Commonwealth government on the most significant set of reforms since the Land Rights Act came into effect in 1976.</para></quote>
<para>In that same release the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Samuel Bush-Blanasi, is quoted as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have been working on this now for many years. For the first time Aboriginal people have been at the table with government ensuring the interests of Aboriginal people are front and centre. Finally we are seeing real progress.</para></quote>
<para>Labor takes great comfort from the involvement of the four Northern Territory land councils in the development of this bill.</para>
<para>There are a number of measures in this bill directed to the objective of economic empowerment, which we see in the bill's title. Specifically, this bill seeks to make four significant sets of changes to the way in which the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 operates. First, the bill will establish a new Northern Territory Aboriginal investment corporation, an Aboriginal controlled corporate Commonwealth entity funded from the existing Aboriginals Benefit Account. The ABA was established in 1952 and continues to receive royalties from mining on Aboriginal land. Decisions about investment and other payments from the ABA are currently made by the Australian government with advice from the ABA advisory committee.</para>
<para>The new Aboriginal Investment Corporation is being established by this bill to make investment decisions largely independently of government, led by a board of eight Aboriginal representatives from the Northern Territory, two government appointed directors and two independent directors appointed by the board. This new body will also take over responsibility for making beneficial payments to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory that are currently made by the ABA. This is a very significant reform. The ABA currently holds some $1.3 billion accumulated from mining royalties. The government has stated that the Aboriginal Investment Corporation will receive an initial $500 million endowment from the ABA, with an additional $60 million per year during the first three years of its operation.</para>
<para>The second set of changes made by this bill are to the processes around negotiation, consent and approval for exploration and mining ventures on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The government says that these changes will reduce inefficiencies and delays without compromising the rights of traditional owners. This includes measures the government says will facilitate 'more flexible traditional owner consultations' by land councils. I note that this government has a dismal history with respect to making changes to traditional negotiation and consent processes in the context of native title. In recent years, claimed improvements to make those processes more efficient have in fact come at a cost to the rights of First Nations people and have threatened the integrity of traditional decision-making processes. With that concern in mind, we have done our best to analyse the implications of the changes this bill will make to those traditional processes. Ultimately, we are guided by the fact that, unlike previous measures of this kind introduced by this government, in this instance there have been extensive consultations with the four Northern Territory land councils, and they have given their strong support for these measures. On that basis, Labor will support their passage.</para>
<para>The third set of changes this bill makes are to land administration arrangements under the land rights act, particularly with respect to community-controlled policing arrangements. This includes a range of measures to give land councils greater authority to act on behalf of their communities without ministerial approval and increase penalties for unauthorised access to Aboriginal land. As part of these changes, Labor welcomes this bill's repeal of section 28A of the land rights act, which was introduced by the Howard government in an attempt to fragment and undermine the authority of the land councils and which Labor opposed at that time. An attempt by the previous Labor government to remove this power was blocked in the Senate, but fortunately the power has never been used and we welcome the fact that the government has finally bowed to pressure from the land councils to remove it. The bill will also bring about the repeal of section 74AA of the land rights act, which was part of the Howard government's 2007 Northern Territory intervention. That provision has the effect of preventing land councils from overturning permits for accessing Aboriginal land that had been granted by a minority in the community and against the wishes of the traditional owners. That provision should never have been introduced, and its repeal is welcome.</para>
<para>Fourth, and finally, this bill will align the operation of the ABA under the land rights act with the Commonwealth financial framework by ensuring that payment of mineral royalties is consistent with Northern Territory legislation and by clarifying the purpose of the ABA. I note that the measures in this bill enjoy strong support from the four Northern Territory land councils, and Labor is happy to support their passage today.</para>
<para>Before I finish my remarks about the reforms contained in this bill I want to return to its title, which includes a reference to the stated purpose of this bill, which is economic empowerment. Speaking on the occasion of NAIDOC Week in November last year, my friend and colleague the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, the member for Barton, reiterated in unequivocal terms that Labor's commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is rock solid. She made clear that our commitment includes support for establishing an Indigenous voice to the parliament in our Constitution. It includes establishing a makarrata commission, which will have responsibility for agreement- and treaty-making, and it includes establishing a national process for truth-telling.</para>
<para>My friend and colleague in the other place Senator Dodson, known across our nation as the father of reconciliation, had this to say during NAIDOC Week last year:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Uluru Statement is a very important invitation to the nation, in order to take things forward and deal with a Voice to the Parliament, have that constitutionally entrenched; to deal with the Truth-Telling about our history, and our relationship, and an understanding of how it's intertwined, and has contributed good things as well as many sad things. But it's also an opportunity for us to relook at our relationship and enter into agreements around the many things that still cause consternation to First Nations peoples, and that actually diminish our nation because we've been haven't resolved them.</para></quote>
<para>Voice, treaty, truth: these are the pillars of Labor's commitment to honouring the Uluru Statement from the Heart. As I've said before, it's of deep regret to me that the pillars of the Morrison government's response to that invitation to reconciliation have been arrogant silence, cynical obfuscation and lame excuses for the government's continuing to do precisely nothing.</para>
<para>It is clear that this bill includes important reforms that will help to provide a degree of economic empowerment to First Australians of the Northern Territory. However, it's of great regret to me that this government continues to deny First Australians from across the entire nation the more profound empowerment that they have asked for with such eloquence in the Uluru Statement from the Heart—voice, treaty, truth. It has been said of this government that it knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. While this bill makes welcome changes that Labor supports, if this government were respectful of the wishes of First Nations people across this nation and were serious about the lasting empowerment of First Nations communities, it would be focused on honouring the three key requests of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, rather than on trashing them.</para>
<para>Despite the appalling failings of the government in responding to the Uluru statement, I acknowledge the good work that has been done here to develop the reforms in this bill in consultation with the Northern Territory land councils. Labor commenced this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1306" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a revised explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Sexual harassment is unacceptable in any context, whether in the workplace or elsewhere. Everyone has the right to feel safe at work.</para>
<para>That is why the Australian government commissioned a landmark National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. The government thanks the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, for her leadership conducting the inquiry.</para>
<para>The product of this inquiry—the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report—made 55 recommendations to improve the prevention and response to workplace sexual harassment, informed by extensive stakeholder consultation and analysis. The <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report highlights the important roles that the Australian government, states and territories, employers, and industry groups all have in supporting cultural change and creating safe workplaces.</para>
<para>The government's Roadmap for Respect: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces—released on 8 April 2021—sets out its long-term commitment to preventing and addressing sexual harassment, agreeing to (in full, in-principle, or in-part) or noting all 55 recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work </inline>report<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>The government has already provided more than $64 million over four years in the 2021-22 federal budget to support implementation.</para>
<para>For those recommendations that require action from the state and territory governments, the Government has led discussions through appropriate national forums, including at National Cabinet and the Meeting of Attorneys-General.</para>
<para>The Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021before us today represents a significant step by the government to swiftly implement a number of reforms in response to the findings of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. These amendments are aimed at rapidly strengthening and streamlining the national legal frameworks that deal with sexual harassment. The bill makes important changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure Australia's legal frameworks are effective in preventing and responding to sexual harassment.</para>
<para>I thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its consideration of the bill and recommendation that the bill be passed. I would also like to thank all stakeholders that engaged in this review process.</para>
<para>Sex Discrimination Act amendments</para>
<para>The Sex Discrimination Act provides an important framework to protect against discrimination on various grounds, including discrimination involving harassment.</para>
<para>The bill introduces a new object in the Sex Discrimination Act of achieving equality of opportunity, so far as practicable, between men and women. While achieving substantive equality between men and women requires a cultural change that goes beyond legislative reform, the government is confident that this bill, in addition to the other work that the Government and civil society is progressing to implement the Roadmap, will be a step towards achieving equality of opportunity between men and women in Australia.</para>
<para>The bill also makes a number of changes to expand the scope of existing protections under the Sex Discrimination Act.</para>
<para>These include amendments to remove the exemption of state and territory public servants and clarify that the Sex Discrimination Act extends to members of parliament and judges at the federal and state and territory levels. These amendments will ensure all workers have the same protections from sex discrimination and sexual harassment regardless of their jurisdiction, occupation or workplace.</para>
<para>The bill also makes clear that discrimination involving harassment on the ground of a person's sex is expressly prohibited and will not be tolerated. Making this clear under the Sex Discrimination Act will ensure there is a clear avenue of redress for sex based harassment, which does not always involve sexualised conduct.</para>
<para>Importantly, the bill fills gaps in the types of workers protected from sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act. The <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report identified that the existing sexual harassment protections do not cover all people involved in the contemporary world of work. The bill will address these gaps by expanding the scope of the sexual harassment and sex based harassment protections to all types of paid and unpaid workers. The amendments draw on concepts used in the model work health and safety laws to ensure greater consistency between legal frameworks and make it easier for both workers and employers to navigate these frameworks.</para>
<para>The bill also makes a number of technical amendments, such as clarifying that victimisation under the Sex Discrimination Act can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination, and ensuring that the ancillary liability of persons involved in unlawful acts extends to sexual and sex based harassment prohibitions under the Sex Discrimination Act.</para>
<para>Australian Human Rights Commission Act amendments</para>
<para>To ensure people who experience sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination are not discouraged from making complaints, the bill will amend the discretion of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission to terminate a complaint under the Sex Discrimination Act so that it does not arise until 24 months after the alleged discrimination took place. This discretion previously arose after six months.</para>
<para>Fair Work Act amendments</para>
<para>In addition to reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act and Australian Human Rights Commission Act, the bill will amend the Fair Work Act to clarify what action can be taken to deal with workplace sexual harassment.</para>
<para>The bill adds a new legislative note in the unfair dismissal provisions in the Fair Work Act, which makes clear that sexual harassment can constitute a valid reason for dismissal. This is not a change to the law—sexual harassment of course can already constitute a valid reason for dismissal. However, the addition of the legislative note will provide greater certainty to employers that taking disciplinary action in response to workplace sexual harassment is appropriate and reasonable. It also clearly communicates to perpetrators of sexual harassment that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated in the workplace.</para>
<para>The bill will also clarify and expressly provide for the availability of 'stop orders' in relation to sexual harassment within the existing stop-bullying jurisdiction. This change will ensure a clear pathway for those who have been sexually harassed at work to seek an order from the Fair Work Commission to prevent further workplace sexual harassment. This will enable more sexual harassment victims to pursue workplace claims through the commission, which offers an independent, expeditious and low cost avenue for handling workplace sexual harassment.</para>
<para>These amendments form an integral part of the government's long term commitment to building a culture of safe, respectful relationships in Australian workplaces.</para>
<para>This bill also introduces an important change to the compassionate leave provisions in the Fair Work Act that will enable an employee to take compassionate leave if they, or their current spouse or de facto partner, has a miscarriage.</para>
<para>A miscarriage can be an incredibly difficult experience for many families and sadly one that is often surrounded with social stigma and silence.</para>
<para>It is estimated that one in five confirmed pregnancies in Australia ends in miscarriage before 20 weeks, however the Fair Work Act does not currently provide any specific leave entitlements for miscarriage.</para>
<para>Currently, the Fair Work Act provides two days paid compassionate leave (unpaid for casuals) when a member of the employee's immediate family or household contracts or develops a personal illness, or sustains a personal injury, that poses a serious threat to their life, or dies. Compassionate leave is also available where a child is stillborn, where the child would have been a member of the employee's immediate family, or a member of the employee's household, if the child had been born alive.</para>
<para>This change will ensure that an employee can take time away from work to grieve and come to terms with their loss.</para>
<para>The government recognises that most employers are supportive of their employees. Employers can of course continue to offer leave that goes beyond the minimum safety net and employees will continue to have the benefit of any additional related leave terms in existing enterprise agreements.</para>
<para>While not everyone who experiences a miscarriage will want to access compassionate leave, it is important that we give employees the choice to access that leave, should they choose to.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government, I would like to thank all of those who have shared their experiences and incredibly painful memories to bring these changes to Parliament, including the Pink Elephants Support Network and Mr Julian Simmonds MP, the member for Ryan, who has championed this amendment.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>In summary, this bill will ensure all Australians are protected from workplace sexual harassment, by expanding the scope of existing sexual harassment prohibitions, promoting clarity for employers and workers, and reducing procedural barriers for sexual harassment complainants.</para>
<para>Together with the other commitments outlined in the government's Roadmap for Respect, these amendments will support the creation of safe workplaces and are essential for advancing both women's safety and economic security.</para>
<para>Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will be brief. The main speech from the executive of the opposition will be given by the member for Sydney shortly. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it took the Coalition Government over 12 months to respond to the landmark Respect@Work Report;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the bill before the House fails to deliver the legislative changes recommended by the landmark Respect@Work Report that the Prime Minister promised every Australian woman he would implement in full; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a Labor Government will fully implement all 55 recommendations of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Respect@Work Report to help keep Australians safe from sexual harassment at work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to fully implement the legislative changes recommended by the Respect@Work Report, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amending the Fair Work Act to explicitly prohibit sexual harassment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) introducing a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment happening in the first place;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) making substantive equality between women and men one of the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) establishing cost protections for complainants, so they are not discouraged from taking legal action against perpetrators due to the possibility of having to pay massive court-ordered legal costs".</para></quote>
<para>I want to make a few brief remarks. I'll speak in more detail when we get to the in-detail stage, where I will have a number of amendments to move, and at that point I will seek leave to move them together. We will be seeking a division if the government opposes those amendments. We won't seek a division on the second-reading amendment itself, but we will on the amendments in detail. There is an intention to make sure that we are well-through this debate and it has all been concluded before we reach question time today.</para>
<para>We shouldn't be in a situation where we are in a rush. We're in a situation where we're in a rush because the government received the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report on 5 March last year and did nothing. It's a report about whether half the Australian population were receiving respect at work. From March last year, when the report was tabled by the then Attorney-General, the government did nothing. We then received a response on 8 April this year, more than a year after the report had been tabled. Labor's position has been simple: we want to see all 55 recommendations adopted. That's our position. The government spent that year deciding to not implement all 55 recommendations. Not all of those recommendations are legislative, but the ones that are will be subject to the amendments that are moved in detail later today. At that point, the question will be very clear. If you support implementing the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report you will vote for those amendments then.</para>
<para>But people will not be able to evade the question in the way they evade questions in media conferences, because these amendments have a real impact. The National Foundation for Australian Women really said it all in their submission to the Senate inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government has declined to act on Respect@Work recommendations 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 35 and 39, in some cases by ignoring them and in others by calling for further consideration at some unspecified future time.</para></quote>
<para>Labor's amendments that will be moved later today deal with the express prohibition of sexual harassment and sex based harassment in the Fair Work Act; deal with a new complaints process in the Fair Work Act to be able to deal with sexual harassment and sex based harassment claims; and add a 'stop sex based harassment order' in the Fair Work Act which, it has been made clear, would give the Fair Work Commission that power. We will also move, yet again, for 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave—the government's refusal to agree to that I still find extraordinary. We will also deal with the narrow definition of work in association with a 'stop sexual harassment order'.</para>
<para>I won't go through all the different examples of the failings of the government with respect to the legislation that's in front of us, but just let me deal with one key failing, which is the positive duty on employers. Where there were recommendations that were making sure we could fire people more easily, they made sure they made those legislative changes. We will support them. But where there was a recommendation to put a positive duty on employers that was ignored by the government. If you don't put a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment happening in the first place, what do you think will happen? What do you think the outcome will be? If you want to avoid that outcome, then put forward the positive duty on employers. I'll leave it to the member for Sydney to put forward the principal objections and principles from the opposition in her speech shortly. I simply say that the legislation in front of us will be supported. Labor clearly supports the implementation of all 55 recommendations. The government has between now and around one o'clock to decide whether they will do the same.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Butler</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. This bill acts to strengthen and streamline the national legal frameworks that deal with sexual harassment. This bill is about ensuring safe and respectful relationships in the workforce. This bill builds on work commenced by my predecessor in the seat of Higgins, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, who, as Minister for Women, commissioned the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report in 2018. I would like to thank and acknowledge the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and her team for the wonderful work they have undertaken and which forms a significant basis for the legislative reforms being debated today.</para>
<para>This bill is just one of the many steps on the road to equality for women, a road that seeks to ensure justice and equality for women not just in this place but in every workplace, not just for the women of today but for the women of tomorrow. It's a journey that we as women have been on since the dawn of time. It's a journey that has made great strides in some countries, like Australia, but it's been a journey with many roadblocks and frustrations. It's a journey peopled with champions from all political persuasions and backgrounds. But, sadly, this journey is lagging in other countries, as we've seen all too starkly in images relayed to us following events in Afghanistan in the last two weeks.</para>
<para>The bill debated here today forms part of a long-term strategy for preventing and addressing sexual harassment, outlined in <inline font-style="italic">A roadmap for respect: preventing and addressing sexual harassment in Australian workplaces</inline>. The bill makes important changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure Australia's legal frameworks are effective in preventing and responding to sexual harassment. Let me be clear: this is one of the steps on a long and necessary journey of reform, reform that had already commenced but that has only now been hastened by the sad and disturbing event that occurred in this very building early in the year before last.</para>
<para>The changes made by the bill give effect to a number of different recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. These include clarifying that the Sex Discrimination Act covers judges, members of parliament and ministerial staff. The bill also removes an existing exemption to ensure that state and territory public servants are covered by the Sex Discrimination Act. It also ensures all paid and unpaid workers, including volunteers and interns, are protected from sexual harassment under the act by expanding the coverage of protection from workplace sexual harassment under the Sex Discrimination Act to include the broader concepts of 'worker' and 'persons conducting a business or undertaking', as defined under the Work Health and Safety Act.</para>
<para>Madam Deputy Speaker, it is quite hard to hear myself talk, and this is quite an important issue; I would ask that members in the House could perhaps keep it down a bit.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Higgins. A little cooperation for members speaking on the floor of parliament is always greatly appreciated. My apologies for your interruption, on behalf of members at the table. Please proceed, member for Higgins.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I am wont to say, the behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept. So thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling that out.</para>
<para>I really welcome this last provision because I believe volunteers remain particularly vulnerable to bullying and harassment because of the often transient nature of their relationship with the workplace, and also because the OHS aspects of paid employment can be so easily sacrificed in these less formal and often part-time workplace relationships. We need to make sure that these laws apply to everyone in the workplace, whether it's a formal interaction or a less formal one, as happens with volunteers.</para>
<para>This bill introduces an express provision to the act to clarify that sex based harassment is prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act. It does this by inserting a new object clause in the Sex Discrimination Act to make it clear for decision-makers that the act aims to achieve equality of opportunity between men and women, in addition to the elimination of sex discrimination and harassment. This issue of equality of opportunity is particularly relevant this week when we've just had Equal Pay Day. As a government, we believe economic empowerment is a key driver for women's safety. I welcome the women's economic security statement—again, a legacy of my predecessor, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, and one that I have spoken on many times in this House.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, there is still a national gender pay gap. Let me be clear: paying different amounts to men and women to do the same job has been illegal for over 50 years. That is not the issue here. That is not what drives the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap occurs for different reasons, and there is more to do to address this. The gender pay gap relates to three key issues. Firstly, women are doing lower-paid jobs. They dominate professions such as nursing and teaching. Men dominate more highly paid jobs, more lucrative jobs, such as IT and construction. Secondly, women take more time off work to have children and raise them, and women are more likely to be part-time. Finally, women are less likely to fight for a raise or a bonus. These three things have an impact on women's opportunities to be paid equally. There's much to do to ensure we give women the same opportunity as men. Elimination of sex discrimination and harassment provides a basis to help change a culture—a culture that we want to ensure women are welcome in, particularly in the highly paid jobs and professions where men predominate. Those that come to mind include law and politics.</para>
<para>As someone quipped recently, it seems every woman can give you a story about sexual harassment, but no man knows a rapist. What that says to me is there is a disconnect about what women find acceptable and what some men do. This bill also expands the coverage of the ancillary liability provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act to include sexual harassment and a new sex based harassment provision. There is so much to do to ensure that our society is fair and equal. Every workplace needs to be safe for each and every one of us. This bill clarifies that victimising conduct can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act, in addition to a criminal complaint. It also clarifies that the Fair Work Commission can, under the existing antibullying jurisdiction, make orders to stop sexual harassment, and it clarifies that sexual harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal under the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act.</para>
<para>A further welcome clause in this bill, which was not actually recommended in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, is a miscarriage provision. That is, if an employee or an employee's current spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage, the employee is now entitled to take up to two days of compassionate leave. Unfortunately, each year in Australia, 147,000 or so women—it's probably underreported—experience a miscarriage. What's more, the deep and ongoing emotional effects brought about by these tragic events are often underestimated and overlooked. While the grief associated with miscarriage is all too common, it is most often a private grief. Miscarriage can happen at a time when a woman has not told anyone, including her family, and least of all her employer, she is pregnant. As I said in my first speech, there are no words to describe the loss of a child. Miscarriage can be equally devastating. I welcome this provision, which I know was championed by the member for Ryan, someone who has had personal experience with the loss and grief of miscarriage. This minimum safety net leave provision provides a provision to access this new form of compassionate leave.</para>
<para>Finally, I'd like to emphasise that, while these reforms are most welcome, there is still significant work to do. Some of this will necessitate substantial policy consideration and consultation beyond that undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in developing the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. This is particularly so with respect to the recommendation for a positive duty provision for employers to prevent sexual harassment and sex based harassment and discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act. Further policy consideration and consultation is required to ensure such a duty would operate effectively without increasing complexity for those seeking to use protections. This includes an assessment against the model work health and safety laws, which already impose a positive duty on employers to protect workers from health and safety risks, including psychosocial risks such as sexual harassment. In respect of including a clear prohibition on sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act and a new complaints process in the Fair Work Commission for workers with current or historic experience of sexual harassment, I note the Attorney-General has outlined with the government in the road map that they would review the Fair Work system once the amendments in this bill have been implemented and their impact assessed. These provisions will be important in the future, and we must stand strong to ensure that this is actually taken into account going forward.</para>
<para>I would like to conclude by reading an extract from a letter I received last week from two students in my electorate:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Dear Dr Katie Allen. We are writing to you to thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, even though we know you are a very busy woman. You are a great inspiration and role model to women and children, especially us. Thank you for showing all girls that women can be leaders. If you didn't keep pursuing your dreams of helping children in hospitals and the community, some great women today might not have had the spirit to become what they are today.</para></quote>
<para>Thank you, Sienna and Clara, for your kind and generous words. I shared my story with you, because I wanted you to understand that there are ups and downs in the journey to justice and equality for women. It is a tough journey. There are many battles on the way. But there are also many benefits. I know there are students like you in my electorate who are the leaders of tomorrow. I want you to have the courage and to know the battle is worth the victories achieved. I stand here as a proud member of parliament. I'm here not because I'm a woman but because I represent my community. I'm proud to represent my country in this way, but, most importantly, I'm here because I believe that good and sensible decisions in this place are what set the foundation for our future. The decisions made every day in this place influence the very fabric of our society. The decisions in this place influence the lives of each and every one of us, almost each and every day. As they say, you cannot be what you cannot see. I'm proud to be one of the many women in this place helping to enact change. I'm also proud that it's both men and women in this place who are pushing their shoulder to the wheel. Bills such as the ones debated today will help ensure that the girls of today will have a juster and fairer future. I commend the bill to this House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I know this is an issue very close to your heart. I rise today to speak on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 and to support the second reading amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. Labor welcomes the opportunity to begin implementing the recommendations made in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. We have this opportunity because of the brave women who have spoken up about safety at work, in schools, in cafes, in factories and even in the federal parliament. These women have refused to accept harassment as a normal part of life or a normal part of work. They have fought for something better. We saw this earlier this year when a new generation of remarkable young women made their voices heard. These were women who refused to live with the burden of silence. They experienced pain and were let down by the system, but they then used their experiences to demand change. I think we all know they're the reason that we have this bill before us today, because the government was in no hurry to legislate on workplace sexual harassment before these brave women made them.</para>
<para>It wasn't on their radar—you only need to look at the time line to know that. We know the government received an advance copy of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report in January 2020. This report is a serious piece of work. It's based on 460 submissions and widespread consultation across Australia. Yes, the government initially said the right things in public. The Attorney-General at the time, the member for Pearce, Christian Porter, promised to take his time to consider the report's recommendations and to work with stakeholders and advocates. But, as we learned in Senate estimates, the then Attorney-General did not meet the author of the report, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, to talk about the report's recommendations—not once, in over a year. When, in March this year, the member for Pearce stood down as Attorney-General because of historic rape allegations, the government had still not responded to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report. This is not the behaviour of a government that prioritises safety at work or understands the urgency of putting an end to sexual harassment.</para>
<para>In truth, the Prime Minister only started paying attention when it became a political problem, when his poll numbers with women started going backwards As we often see with this Prime Minister, he only began to care when it impacted his own job. Of course Labor is happy that the Prime Minister did start paying attention, even if it was for shallow and selfish reasons, but as it stands this legislation looks more like a political fix than a genuine attempt to implement the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. It's the kind of bill you produce to tick a box, not to solve a very real social and economic problem.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister told Australian women that he supported all 55 recommendations of the report. But this legislation doesn't fulfil that promise, not in spirit and not in detail. In fact, it only includes six of the report's 55 recommendations, those the government was able to pull together quickly to give the appearance of action. It doesn't include the report's central policy recommendation, to introduce a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment in workplaces. It doesn't explicitly prohibit sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act. So it doesn't include the changes that would help prevent sexual harassment happening in the first place. Revealingly, the government can't even bring itself to support the basic principle that the Sex Discrimination Act should aim to achieve equality between men and women. It even waters down the report's recommendations to 'as far as practicable'. Just think about that for a second. The government is not even prepared to say that we should aim for full equality between men and women.</para>
<para>Labor desperately wants to see positive change. I desperately want to see positive change here. We want Australians to be free of harassment and safe at work. We want this bill to succeed because sexual harassment is ruining too many lives and too many careers. Forty per cent of women and 25 per cent of men have been sexually harassed at work in the last five years. It occurs in every industry, in every state and at every level of seniority. Most people who experience harassment never report it, because they fear the damage it will do to their own career or their own reputation. They fear being labelled difficult or being somehow tainted by the experience. This is a very reasonable fear, given the reports we've seen of victims of harassment paying the price of reporting. Sadly, this silence only papers over the deep and ongoing damage caused by harassment. As one person told the Respect@Work inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The outcome of all of this for me was catastrophic. My health was destroyed; I lost my job and my income and everything I had ever studied and worked for; my family was greatly affected; and my life has never recovered from the betrayal and injustice.</para></quote>
<para>It's this sense of injustice that brought so many people onto the streets earlier this year—the feeling that victims aren't protected, that our system is complicit in the hurt being inflicted on people, the feeling that you can't rely on the legal system to protect victims and punish perpetrators.</para>
<para>That's why Labor wants this legislation to work and that's why we support the handful of positive steps it takes. We support expanding the coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act to include all paid and unpaid workers, including volunteers, interns and the self-employed. We support the expansion to cover MPs and senators, judges and state public servants. We support extending the time period to make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, noting that it was this government that shortened the period not so long ago. We support allowing Fair Work to issue stop orders in cases of workplace sexual harassment. We support adding sexual harassment to the valid reasons for workplace dismissal. We hear too often of people being managed out or paid to go away after they've sexually harassed colleagues. It should be clear that, if you sexually harass a colleague, that is a valid reason for dismissal.</para>
<para>There are sensible and constructive reforms here, and Labor agrees with them so far as they go, but the truth, as the commissioner herself said, is that this bill is a missed opportunity, and Labor doesn't want to miss this opportunity in a year where the safety of women has been at the forefront of people's minds. That's why we have introduced and supported a number of significant amendments to make this legislation do what it says it's going to do. My colleague the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, moved the second-reading amendment earlier, and we will move further substantive amendments in the continuation of the debate.</para>
<para>Firstly, Labor wants to amend the objects clause of the Sex Discrimination Act to achieve substantive equality between women and men. This is the first principle of everything we do in women's policy. It's not about giving anyone special treatment; it's about giving everyone a fair go. If you can't commit yourself to this basic idea, then how are you going to commit to the policies needed to achieve it? Sexual harassment is about power. Unless you work towards true equality, you can never truly combat harassment or violence. Violence against women thrives where inequality between men and women is greatest.</para>
<para>Secondly, we want the government to include the key recommendation from the report, which is to introduce a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The current system, which makes employers vicariously liable for harassment that occurs in the workplace, means that there are only ever consequences for an employer if a victim is brave enough to risk their career and make a complaint, often against their own boss or a senior colleague. This means that, too often, there are incentives for employers to discourage victims from coming forward and making complaints. The incentive should be to discourage staff from sexually harassing colleagues.</para>
<para>The Sex Discrimination Commissioner recommends turning it around so that we move from the current reactive model that relies on complaints after harassment has happened to a proactive model that will require positive action from employers to stop harassment happening in the first place. This also helps move the burden from individuals making ad hoc complaints to a proactive system where companies and employers take the initiative to create safe workplaces. This has been a successful approach implemented in the United Kingdom and in Victoria without any adverse impacts on business. Indeed, we know that sexual harassment is an enormous cost to business. The estimate is that it costs about $3½ billion per annum, so it follows that reducing sexual harassment will be a saving for business. Wouldn't it be better to stop harassment occurring in the first place than to mop up the unhappy mess after it has occurred?</para>
<para>That's one of the reasons that the Business Council of Australia endorsed the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report—'to provide greater protections for victims of inappropriate workplace conduct and also provide greater clarity regarding the obligations on businesses to provide a safe workplace'. That's why the Law Council of Australia also called the government's legislation 'a missed opportunity to give effect to the stated intent of the bill'. And that's why the union movement has fought so tirelessly for these changes both in recent times and over many years. The government is trying to implement the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report without its key components. It's like building a car without an engine.</para>
<para>Labor's other amendments include changing the Fair Work Act to explicitly prohibit sexual harassment, allowing unions and other organisations to bring legal action against perpetrators and establishing cost protections for complainants so they aren't discouraged from taking action by the prospect of huge costs. And of course we will move again support for Labor's commitment to 10 days paid domestic violence leave. We support the government's inclusion of miscarriage leave with this legislation and we believe it would be appropriate for the government to support Labor's move for 10 days paid domestic violence leave.</para>
<para>As well as fully implementing the legislative recommendations of the report, Labor has also committed to fund working women's centres around Australia. These would provide free and confidential assistance on workplace matters, including harassment, as is recommended in the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report. We've also announced that we would support the Human Rights Commission to be the first port of call, a one-stop shop, for both complainants and employers seeking advice on sexual harassment. We've also said that we would support the Human Rights Commission being able to take reports of historic instances of sexual harassment.</para>
<para>If Scott Morrison won't, Labor is committed to implementing all 55 recommendations of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report, not just the easy bits. Sadly, that's what has characterised the Prime Minister's action—too little, too late, half-hearted, too focused on his own political interests. If we're being honest, there is a reason that so many people are sceptical of the Prime Minister and doubt his commitment on this issue. After all, he is leading a government that has kept the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming, in its party room. This is after he allegedly took crass and inappropriate pictures of a young woman at work without her permission, filmed another from the bushes and engaged in online trolling. It's a government that refused to conduct an independent inquiry into the serious allegations of sexual assault against a cabinet minister. It's a government that, when there was allegedly a rape in the ministerial wing of the parliament, after allegations that senior advisers knew of this crime, still has not made clear yet who knew what, when, in the Prime Minister's office. There's a reason that people are suspicious of the Prime Minister's commitment on these issues—why they think it's all about politics.</para>
<para>Labor, on the other hand, is committed to acting to end harassment in our workplaces. That's why we're guaranteeing 10 days of paid domestic violence leave—so no-one has to choose between their safety and their job. It's why we're committed to a childcare policy that would make early childhood education and care cheaper for 97 per cent of Australian families. It's why we're committed to a range of policies that will increase women's wages at work and help close the gender pay gap, which, sadly, has widened again recently.</para>
<para>That's our promise. At work, in the family, in retirement, we have an agenda for women written by women that wasn't produced to solve a political problem but to pursue genuine equality. It's an agenda that you can trust, because for us equality can never be reduced to an exercise in political damage control, and we're not afraid to say it. Our simplest and our most important belief is that every Australian is born with the same value and with the same right to safety and happiness. When we fail to meet this standard, when we fall short on equality, it's bad for women and it's bad for everyone.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I'm keen to commend the substantive bill before the House today, the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. It has a lot of measures in it that will ensure that women are treated equally in the workplace, free of harassment and sexual intimidation. It's an incredibly important bill. In my own life, as many other members know, I'm lucky to be surrounded by very strong and confident women—in the workplace, Alyson, who runs my office, and Georgia; and, at home, my wife, Maddy, and my daughter, Isabelle. But, as the government considered its response to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, some of the stories they told me about their treatment in previous workplaces were truly shocking and upsetting, and I'm sure other members have heard of similar experiences as this process has gone through its stages.</para>
<para>The legislative changes before us are important, they're necessary, and—I hope—if I could present a succinct summary, they will send a very clear message to men who undertake this kind of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace: 'Your time is up, and it won't be tolerated. This behaviour is unacceptable, and it always has been.' These changes will go a long way to ensuring that the workplace is free of harassment and sexual intimidation of women.</para>
<para>There is another aspect of this bill that in fact wasn't recommended as part of the Jenkins report but is in there, and I want to speak about it today. Some of my colleagues will cover off in greater detail the other measures of this bill. I wanted to use the majority of my time to talk about the important provision in the bill to extend compassionate or bereavement leave to those couples who suffer a miscarriage.</para>
<para>I wish I could be there in the chamber with you today, but there are a lot of disappointments as part of COVID—border closures and all the rest of it—for every Australian, so my disappointment pales in comparison. But I wanted to give this speech to you in person in the House because it is such a passion of mine and these are changes the parliament will support today. I don't want to understate these changes. It is pretty rare that this parliament changes the Fair Work Act and even rarer that this parliament extends new leave provisions, but that is what we're doing for Australian couples today by extending them two days of compassionate or bereavement leave when they suffer a miscarriage.</para>
<para>This particular change has been championed by the Pink Elephants Support Network, and I want to pay tribute to them, as the minister did and as Minister Cash did in the Senate last night. Particularly with regard to the Pink Elephants Support Network, I want to read the names associated with the network onto the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline><inline font-style="italic">.</inline> Samantha Payne is the co-founder and CEO. Sarah-Jane Monahas is the COO and Katrina Groshinski is on the board. I acknowledge them for the incredible work that they do at the Pink Elephants Support Network, which supports women and couples who are going through the loss of miscarriage. Together these three incredibly strong women have created the Leave for Loss campaign. They're championing the idea of additional leave from workplaces being given to couples who are suffering miscarriage. I have to say that the workplaces of Australia, workplaces around our nation, have been incredible in getting behind the Leave for Loss campaign. They have extended leave and, in some cases, very large companies give leave of up to five days to affected employees. That was a large part of the initial success of the Leave for Loss campaign.</para>
<para>I am also delighted that I got a chance to be part of the Leave for Loss campaign and to champion it within this House and to the government to ensure that bereavement or compassionate leave is extended to all couples who find themselves in this situation in all workplaces around the nation. We went through a process as we were talking to the various ministers about this particular change and what it entailed. I'm seeking feedback from the small-business community around the nation. They were overwhelmingly supportive, with over 70 per cent of small businesses that we surveyed supporting this campaign. The survey was conducted during the stress of the pandemic and everything else, so at a time when they had a lot of things to worry about, including their own survival. But over 70 per cent of small businesses we surveyed strongly supported or were very supportive of the idea of extending additional leave entitlements to couples going through miscarriage. I want to thank those small businesses for their support.</para>
<para>I also want to thank Minister Porter and Minister Cash, the two Attorneys-General during the period that the construction of this bill was under consideration. Both of them have been incredibly receptive and diligent. They listened to people from the Pink Elephants Support Network and to me. They listened to the stories of couples around the nation who have been impacted by miscarriage and they have taken those concerns on board in looking at how we might incorporate additional leave provisions in these Fair Work Act changes. The ministers are supported by incredibly diligent people in their offices, like Jess and Callum, who have been there along the journey with us as well. Thank you to them. I think one of the reasons why both Minister Cash and Minister Porter and all those small businesses around the nation were so supportive and keen to get behind this amendment is that miscarriage is something that affects so many couples and so many women around the nation. We reel off the statistic that one in four pregnancies end in loss. That means 283 women a day are suffering a pregnancy loss, the vast majority of them before 12 weeks in the form of a miscarriage, and 74 per cent of women who suffered a miscarriage felt unsupported. That is an absolute tragedy in our nation, and I hope that this new provision of extending compassionate or bereavement leave will go some way to rectifying that.</para>
<para>We know the stats—much as we like to reel them off—are not the full story. You have to talk to people who have been through miscarriage or you have to have been through it yourself to truly understand the strain and grief that it puts so many women and so many couples under. It's no secret that my own family has been through miscarriage. A lot of women and couples who go through miscarriage go through multiple miscarriages, and it doesn't get easier. In fact, it gets remarkably harder with each and every occurrence that they go through.</para>
<para>With the indulgence of the House, I will read a little from the words of my own wife, from when she was reflecting on the miscarriage journey that we've been through. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think it's really important, because it's something people shouldn't be embarrassed about. I think it's the only kind of loss people don't talk about. If someone in your family dies, you don't pretend that you're okay. You let them know that you are grieving and that you're sad, and I think the more people talk about it, the less people feel they need to hide it and the more sensitive people will be about asking whether or not you're planning a family, how it's going and those kind of things.</para></quote>
<para>Those were a little bit of her words about our story. Our story has driven me to be a champion of these particular changes. If I had my time again, and I've said this before in the House, my family would have taken more time to grieve our losses from miscarriage. My wife was one of those who shouldered the burden and was back at work that very same day, not because she didn't have a supportive boss—she had a very supportive boss—but because isn't that just what people do? This is a loss that normally isn't acknowledged. That has got to stop. It has to stop with these changes that are supported by both the government and Labor. Of course, the leave that we're extending—the two days not just to women who suffer miscarriage but to couples—isn't enough. They're not going to get over it in two days. But this is meant to send a very strong message to couples that early pregnancy loss is a very real loss. It is something that you have to take time to grieve. It won't be better tomorrow or the day after, but take time now to grieve—it will be better with the passage of time.</para>
<para>It's important that you talk about it as a couple, that you come together and take those two days to talk about what you've lost—the hopes and dreams and what could have been that you've lost. It's important that you take time to grieve as a workplace right, not as something that has to be negotiated with the boss, not as something that, at a time when you're feeling a great deal of pain, both physical and mentally, you have to walk down the hall to the boss and try and negotiate a leave entitlement but as something that you know is there for the taking for a reason—so that you can go through the grieving process together. And in doing that, know that there's support that you can reach out to. You can reach out to the Pink Elephants Support Network and be part of that community of so many couples who have gone through it, so many couples who are happy to share their experiences with you, who are happy to support you. And, perhaps, at a time when you don't even feel like you want to talk to your closest family about what happened, you can talk to those couples who have been through a very similar thing.</para>
<para>This government has a very proud record of supporting Australian families; of protecting our kids, protecting them from exploitation; and of supporting couples through the horrors of stillbirth, which we have done previously, and now with these amendments around miscarriage. I really want to acknowledge that there is bipartisan support for this part of the bill, and I thank Labor very much for their support, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it's the government that has driven this change and that has brought it to the House for voting on. It's one of the reasons why I'm so proud to be a member of a government that is supporting Australian families. With those remarks, I will simply say that I hope this change, this new leave entitlement extending compassionate and bereavement leave to those couples who suffer miscarriage, will go a long way to easing the pain of this very difficult time that so many couples in Australia go through.</para>
<para>Thank you again to The Pink Elephants Support Network for all the wonderful work they do and for driving this change within the community. Thank you to Minister Porter and Minister Cash for helping me to drive this change within the government. This change isn't just for my own family, who have suffered loss through miscarriage; it is for every family who has suffered loss through miscarriage. It is for every family and couple in my electorate of Ryan and for every couple and family in Australia who go through this. We're here with you to support you; you mustn't go through these things alone. I'm very proud to be part of a government that has brought it to this place to make it a reality.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll begin by commending the words of the member for Ryan, who just gave a very personal speech in this chamber about the experience of himself and his family. It was an outstanding contribution; it shows courage to tell such a personal story before the House.</para>
<para>Grace Tame, Brittany Higgins and the women who came together in their thousands this year have inspired a national conversation about the treatment of women at home, at work and in our communities. That we are living in a transformational time is clear to all, except perhaps to some in the government—including the Prime Minister. The <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work </inline>report was presented to the Morrison government in January 2020. We're now in September 2021. It sat on the desk of the former Attorney-General, the member for Pearce, and no action was taken. After the March4Justice, the Prime Minister, at last, was shamed into taking some action. He said this in the parliament that day:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have personally taken on the responsibility of ensuring this response is in place very soon.</para></quote>
<para>He said that on 24 March.</para>
<para>In April, the Prime Minister stood up with what was purportedly a comprehensive adoption of the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work </inline>report, a report that he and his government had ignored, at that point, for more than a year. Four months crawled by and, finally, the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 is before the House today. To the distress of many but the surprise of nobody, the government's response to this powerful, sobering report has been mendacious, tricky and half-hearted. With some of the key recommendations, this bill does nothing more than acknowledge that they exist and that someone has read them. It doesn't adopt them and, unfortunately, it has been a long time since a broken promise from this Prime Minister came as a surprise.</para>
<para>As it stands, this bill ignores or sidesteps many of the key legislative changes that were identified as essential by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to make Australian workplaces safe. To be very clear: this independent report was not a report of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party or minor parties. It was an independent report based upon submissions that were made—based upon submissions that were themselves based upon the real-life experience of working women in real workplaces. But, yesterday in the Senate, the coalition voted against seven of the amendments that were proposed by Labor or by minor parties.</para>
<para>This is what the government voted down in the Senate but has the opportunity to change its mind on here in the House of Representatives. The first amendment was to introduce a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment happening in the workplace—not an onerous duty, but something that would be consistent with the recommendations that are made in the report. The second amendment was to change the Fair Work Act to explicitly prohibit sexual harassment—something pretty fundamental, I would have thought. The third amendment was to make substantive equality between women and men one of the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act—again, something that would be very difficult to argue against, I would have thought, and I look forward to hearing any argument against it. It's beyond my comprehension how, given the debate that's taken place in this parliament during this year, the government could not support such a measure. The fourth amendment was to allow unions or other organisations to bring legal action against perpetrators on behalf of complainants—again, a pretty fundamental principle. That's what unions and other organisations, and professional associations from time to time, do—they represent people. Particularly given the very personal nature of complaints in this area, of sexual harassment at work, the capacity of organisations to represent individuals in this area is perhaps more important and fundamental than in any other area I can think of. The last amendment was to establish cost protections for complainants so they wouldn't be discouraged from taking legal action against perpetrators due to the possibility of having to pay massive court-ordered legal costs—again, a pretty fundamental principle, I would have thought.</para>
<para>So Labor will be pursuing those amendments here in the House of Representatives and giving the government a chance to reflect on whether they really want to be in this position, given everything that has happened in workplaces—including this one, with the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins that is now the subject of legal processes. We have in this parliament today a potential difference of opinion over the implementation of <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> recommendations from the Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, not over things that have come from anyone in this House. This should be a clear case. There are 55 recommendations in this report and they should be implemented, consistent with that report.</para>
<para>When it comes to gender issues, the record of this government is very discouraging indeed. We know that the March4Justice occurred as a result of the leadership of and courage shown by Brittany Higgins. When the March4Justice was happening at the parliament, at the front of this parliamentary building, and marches occurred right around the country that day, led by women but not just attended by women—our mothers, our aunties, our sisters, our daughters and our friends—it was an extraordinary spontaneous uprising, the likes of which haven't occurred in my political lifetime. Normally, movements are structured. There are organisations behind them. This was an organic movement of women saying, 'Enough is enough, and we're going to take action on it.' But nothing was going to budge the Prime Minister from his cave that day. He couldn't get up and walk outside the front of Parliament House, not to talk but just to listen. If he had done that, he would have been a great beneficiary, because I regard it as a great honour to have walked out there that day with my parliamentary colleagues.</para>
<para>He would have witnessed as fine a speech as I've seen from Brittany Higgins, who reminded the rest of us what courage looks like that day. In the midst of that huge crowd, Ms Higgins found what was not available to her in the building just behind her that we're now in: support and people who are ready to listen. The Prime Minister should have been there. It was a seismic day across the nation. If he'd gone and listened to the tough truths being spoken that day, maybe it would have jolted him a little closer to reality. But he couldn't do that. Instead, he stood up after that rally, stood at that dispatch box, and said: 'At least people got to demonstrate. If it had occurred in some other countries, they would have been shot.' He expected that to be somehow comforting to the women, for many of whom it was a very personal experience to talk to others about what had occurred to them. But he couldn't do that.</para>
<para>We never got to see, up to this point, the report of Mr Gaetjens into what his office knew about the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins in a ministerial office just metres from the Prime Minister's office. His office, his dirt unit, can find great detail about trivialities. We've seen in recent times the extent to which they can do research about trivialities, but they can't ask each other, 'What did you know, who told you and when?' about a reported sexual assault. We're now in September. So I say to the Prime Minister: get your dirt unit to disband, and do your job. Do your job on issues that do matter to over half the population directly in terms of sexual harassment at work and on what matters to every one of us, because discrimination against one affects us as a society. It affects women, but it affects everyone, and we all have a responsibility to do better.</para>
<para>Yet the Prime Minister's office, who were out there backgrounding against Brittany Higgins and her loved ones, just like they've backgrounded against the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, couldn't tell us what his office knew at that time. We've seen it as well with Bridget McKenzie being the only person who took the fall for the sports rorts scandal and the Australia Post chief executive, Christine Holgate, who was told to leave her job, on the floor of this chamber, at great cost in the end to taxpayers. This is a Prime Minister who just doesn't get it.</para>
<para>We need to get this right, which is why we need to fully embrace all 55 recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect</inline><inline font-style="italic">@</inline><inline font-style="italic">Work</inline> report. This is something that impacts all organisations, including the Labor Party, which is why we instituted a rigorous process to reform our internal policies and procedures. I note our caucus chair, the member for Newcastle, is here in the chamber. She led that work, along with the women members of the ALP National Executive in particular at that time. All organisations need to do better. We need to get this right. We don't have to settle for being half-hearted, like this legislation before us today is. We don't have to live with the minuscule ambitions of this cave-bound Prime Minister. What we need to do is to get this right—in the interests of this generation but also in the interests of the ones to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80072</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak in support of the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. I'm going to be relatively brief in my comments. I note I'm following the Leader of the Opposition, the previous speaker. While there is a lot in what he said, particularly the rhetoric about the government, that I disagree with, there is also an awful lot in what he said that I do agree with. One comment he made—discrimination impacts all of us as a society—I would add to; I would say that, sadly, discrimination also reflects our society. That is something we need to address, and that goes beyond legislative change.</para>
<para>Earlier this year we had women and men across Australia marching and rightly demanding changes—changes to our laws and changes to some of our longstanding cultural norms and approaches with respect to discrimination against women, and sexual harassment and sexual assault on women. I had the opportunity at that time to speak in this place on the centenary of the magnificent Edith Cowan's election to an Australian parliament. She was a trailblazer, a role model and a fighter. I noted at that time that while the world has changed significantly since Edith Cowan was elected, there is still so much that needs to be done. We still have workplaces where there is sexual discrimination. We still have workplaces where sexual harassment and assault exists—including this one. We still have workplaces where women have to adapt their behaviour, adapt their mode of operating to get their work done and their voices heard—including this one. Approximately one in two women aged 18 and over have experienced sexual harassment during their lifetime. All of the above is so completely wrong and so completely unacceptable. Seeking to ensure we have safe and respectful workplaces should not be a pipedream, and they should not be contentious. They should just be.</para>
<para>This set of amendments the government is putting forward today is a step along the road to addressing this. I will note at the outset they can't be the last step. And let us also not fool ourselves into thinking that laws alone can change attitudes and behaviours. They help, but we all—individually and as a society—need to do our own bit. We need to own it, we need to take responsibility for it and we need to address it.</para>
<para>The Respect@Work bill is implementing legislative reforms committed to by the government in its <inline font-style="italic">A roadmap for respect</inline>, released in April this year, including in response to recommendations 16, 20 to 22, and 29 to 30 of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. I note, at this point, that the government agreed in full, in part, in principle or noted all 55 recommendations of this report. While this bill does not implement all the legislative recommendations in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, it does focus on those changes that can be implemented quickly and that will see the greatest improvement to the anti-discrimination and industrial relations frameworks. The legislative recommendations not included in the bill are still under active consideration by the government.</para>
<para>Others have spoken at length about what this bill does, and I will simply pull out some of the salient points. Firstly, it makes amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to introduce a new objects clause to make clear that, in addition to the elimination of discrimination and harassment, the Sexual Discrimination Act also aims to achieve, as far as practicable, equality of opportunity between men and women. I'm rather embarrassed that that actually has to be put in legislation, but it does and it is. It clarifies that sex based harassment is prohibited under the Sex Discrimination Act with an express prohibition. It removes the current exemption for state public servants and clarifies that the Sex Discrimination Act applies to members of parliament, ministerial staff and judges. It ensures that prohibitions against sexual harassment and sex based harassment covers all forms of workers. It amends the act so that a person who assists someone to sexually harass a person, or harass a person on the basis of their sex, can also be found to have engaged in unlawful conduct. And it clarifies that victimisation is unlawful and can form the basis of a civil action.</para>
<para>This bill also makes important amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to reduce procedural barriers for making complaints, by providing that the president's discretion to terminate a complaint initiated under the Sex Discrimination Act arises after 24 months since the alleged unlawful discrimination took place rather than the current six-month time period. This is vitally important. There is clear evidence that people are hesitant, or may be hesitant, to come forward immediately, for understandable and legitimate reasons. Extending this time period from six months to 24 months is common sense and it recognises those impediments or those hurdles or fears that people might have in coming forward immediately.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill makes amendments to the Fair Work Act to clarify that sexual harassment can be conduct amounting to a valid reason for dismissal under the unfair dismissal provisions. Again, I would have thought that this was a no-brainer, but apparently it's not clear and we need to actually put this in the act. It also makes it clear that the Fair Work Commission can, within the existing stop bullying jurisdiction, make orders to stop sexual harassment.</para>
<para>The government is separately progressing changes to the Fair Work Regulations to amend the definition of 'serious misconduct' in the regulations to include sexual harassment and to clarify that sexual harassment is grounds for summary dismissal. On another issue altogether, and one that my colleague spoke about beautifully moments ago, is the changes being put in place by this bill which will enable an employee to take compassionate leave if the employee or the employee's spouse or de facto partner has a miscarriage. As my colleague spoke about, this is very personal to him and very personal to a lot of people, and it is a very important provision.</para>
<para>I want to finish by saying the marching that took place in March this year was a very powerful statement. These changes to the law that we are passing today are good laws. They will help. But we can't allow the march to become a simple historic moment in time; it can't become a sepia coloured still photo. We must keep questioning, we must keep listening, we must keep talking and we must continue to be open to what else needs to be done to ensure that we have a society in which we really have equality of opportunity and where everyone truly has the opportunity to reach their full potential in a tolerant national community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] The debate we're now engaged in, on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021, should mark a historic day for this parliament. This should be a day on which partisan politics are set aside as we work together as Australian lawmakers to pass into Australian law measures to implement the recommendations of Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins's groundbreaking report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work: national inquiry into sexual harassment in Australian </inline><inline font-style="italic">workplaces </inline>report 2020. But this is not that day. There is nothing historic about this bill; rather, it is very much in keeping with the routine that this government has long established as its way of governing: first, ignore problems for as long as possible or pretend it's someone else's problem, and avoid responsibility for the problem if at all possible; second, if there's no other choice but to face a problem because of public outrage, pretend that you have finally understood how serious that problem is and then make grand announcements about how you're going to fix it; third, crab walk away from your promise, ideally under cover of other problems you've ignored. And so it is with this bill, because this bill that we are now debating does not make the sweeping changes to Australia's sexual harassment laws that Commissioner Jenkins' 55 carefully designed and interconnected recommendations would bring about if faithfully implemented. To the contrary, this bill implements only a handful of those 55 recommendations, and even some of those it does pretend to implement have been watered down.</para>
<para>My good friend and colleague Labor's Shadow Minister for Women and member for Sydney has already spoken eloquently this morning about this bill and the massive missed opportunity that it represents. I endorse all that the member for Sydney and the Labor leader have said. I will not revisit the litany of betrayals that this bill represents, but I will make some further comment about what this failure suggests about this government.</para>
<para>The Australian Human Rights Commission is a vitally important institution in our nation. We are one of the very, very few developed countries that does not have an entrenched bill of rights or even a legislated charter of rights. Given this context, the Australian Human Rights Commission has a particularly important role to play in upholding the rights of Australian citizens that this parliament chooses to protect in legislation. It also plays a vital role in identifying where there are gaps in the laws protecting the basic rights of Australians and making recommendations for changes to our laws to protect those rights through new laws to be made by the Australian parliament. That is what Commissioner Jenkins' <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report called for, and, sadly, that is what this bill largely fails to do.</para>
<para>What is astonishing to me is that, having received a critically important report from one of the most important institutions in his portfolio, the former Attorney-General, the member for Pearce, threw that report in his 'don't care, don't bother' tray. How else can this government explain its total silence about this really important report for more than a year after receiving it? How else can the government explain that for all of that time the former Attorney-General did not even once meet with Commissioner Jenkins to discuss her report? And, having attempted to bury the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report for over a year, it was only the explosion of outrage caused by unfolding scandals within the government that forced this government to finally look at that report. But it is clear that when they did finally look at the report they received over 18 months ago, outlining the need for urgent action to deal with the scourge of workplace sexual harassment, this government approached it not as a serious problem that required bold action to counter but rather as a political embarrassment to be managed through a cynical marketing exercise. That is the origin of this bill.</para>
<para>This is a document of missed opportunities when it should have been a document of historic change. If you read the fine print, when the government says it 'agreed' to all the recommendations in Commissioner Jenkins' report, there were also those recommendations that it only agreed 'in principle' or 'in part' or actually they just 'noted'. They didn't even have the integrity or the respect for the thousands and thousands of Australians who contributed to this report that they're now pretending to implement to be up-front with the Australian people about the many recommendations they have in fact rejected outright.</para>
<para>The government has the opportunity to work with us today to fix this bill. It can do that by accepting the many amendments we have put forward to ensure this bill is not the missed opportunity it currently is but can bring about the legal changes that are needed to deal with the scourge of workplace sexual harassment. But none of us is holding our breath, because that would require courage from this Prime Minister. That would require integrity from this Prime Minister. That would require leadership from this Prime Minister—all qualities this Prime Minister entirely lacks, and many Australian workers, in particular women, will continue to suffer for it.</para>
<para>If the government refuses our invitation to amend the shortcomings of this bill, an Albanese Labor government will, as a matter of priority, work with the workplace sexual harassment council, employers, workers, unions and legal experts to fully implement all 55 recommendations of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report to help keep Australians safe from sexual harassment at work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the bill before the House, the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021, and I'm very proud to do so. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, in my former capacity as Australian Human Rights Commissioner, I had extensive engagement with the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner, then commissioner of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Kate Jenkins, who I am also proud to say is a wonderful constituent of the Goldstein electorate.</para>
<para>If it were not for the pandemic and all of the various economic and health policy responses required, the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report probably would have got a lot more public attention when it was initially tabled. Its tabling early last year led to it being somewhat overshadowed, but the substance of the report should not be overshadowed, because it addresses some of the fundamental challenges faced by all Australians, particularly women, around sex discrimination in the workplace. This a position or a standard which no member in this House, I would expect, is prepared to accept.</para>
<para>In conducting the Respect@Work inquiry, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner looked at the current operations of the legislation and the legislative framework around Australia, the circumstances in which Australians were experiencing sex discrimination and what we need to do to reform the law, amongst other policy measures and programs, to address those gaps so that Australians can go to a workplace in this country with confidence, knowing that they're covered by law and protected by law and that, no matter who you are, you enjoy the proper protection of the law. It's a very extensive report, I might add, but a welcome one. One of the challenges that can often exist for commissioners of this parliament is that they can do extensive work which then doesn't go on to be actioned. This is a classic example of how a commissioner, focused on legislation that's relevant to this parliament, can develop a body of work and an evidence base to justify reform, and I'm glad to see that, apart from some of the minor amendments that have been put forward by the opposition for the object of signalling to constituencies, it enjoys bipartisan support.</para>
<para>In summary, the bill introduces a new objects clause to make clear that, in addition to the elimination of discrimination and harassment, the Sex Discrimination Act also aims to achieve, as far as practicable, equality of opportunity between men and women—something that we all as a parliament should support. It certainly is a foundational principle of liberalism going all the way back to the contributions of John Stuart Mill, who was a very strong feminist in his time. The bill will clarify that sex based harassment is prohibited under the act. There is the removal of exemptions related to state public servants. Some question, as I do, why those exemptions ever existed, but they did.</para>
<para>It clarifies that the Sex Discrimination Act applies to members of parliament, ministerial staff and judges. Again, this was an initiative of the government, and, again, some of us do question why it was that it did not apply in the first place, but that is the nature of reflecting on the law at the time. We are glad and proud, as this government, to address these gaps in the law and these exemptions to make sure that it applies equally and consistently in all workplaces—particularly after the serious concerns arising out of this place in recent years that all staff, all members of parliament and of course judges should treat staff in a consistent way regardless of their sexual gender and should not open up staff to sexual harassment. It ensures that prohibitions against sexual harassment and sex based harassment cover all forms of workers, regardless of workplace. If somebody needs assistance it ensures that there are appropriate measures to follow through, particularly when it comes to unlawful activity, and it clarifies that victimisation is unlawful and can form the basis of a civil action.</para>
<para>More critical—and this is a very serious issue—is one of the things that I discovered as a consequence both of my former role and continuing in this role: the fundamental misunderstanding about how the Australian Human Rights Commission works and, as a consequence, how the application of the law works. The commissioner is not responsible for the complaints-handling process related to the Sex Discrimination Act, just as the Race Discrimination Commissioner is not responsible for the complaints-handling process of the Racial Discrimination Act et cetera. That may surprise a lot of people within the community, but there's actually a fundamental and structural reason why the act is set up in the way it is to empower the president of the commission to be able to fulfil those functions. That's a role that's currently fulfilled by Professor Rosalind Croucher.</para>
<para>The reason for this is because it involves the reflection of the application of the law. You can't have the same person administering the law while also running commentary or reflecting on the policy framework around the application of the law without having issues arising around the appropriateness of their conduct and impartiality in fulfilling their duties. This was something that was a point of contention during my term as Human Rights Commissioner, where the president at the time decided to start offering running commentary on an inquiry which they were also overseeing. That led to a public barney over the substance of the inquiry when, in fact, it was the conduct and the structural behaviour which they engaged in which brought the inquiry into question. It was a legitimate one about removing children in detention; the legacy of which the Labor Party inherits for locking children up and which this government is proud to be part of removing. Nonetheless, it raises broader issues around the structural application.</para>
<para>One of the amendments in this bill is to amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, essentially to give power to the president to investigate and have an inquiry on complaints for up to 24 months under the law if there is an alleged unlawful discrimination that has taken place. The current revision under the law is only for six months. There are also a number of amendments which are necessary to maintain consistency with the Fair Work Act, to fulfil the objectives not just of the report but of course for consistency with the Sex Discrimination Act.</para>
<para>These are the legal and functionary components of the legislation. But the impact of this legislation, as you and I know, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, is human. It's because there are people who, tragically, are going to workplaces around this country and experiencing sex discrimination, unjustly, because of people's attitudes or because of issues of issues of sexual harassment and the like. I would hope that no member in this place believes that that is acceptable in 21st century Australia. That's not just because we want Australians to work—we do; not just because we always want, where possible, to increase women's participation in the workforce—we do; and it's not just because we want to ensure that, no matter who you are, your gender, your sexual orientation or any other differential, you can go into a workplace and not just be an economic participant but feel safe and secure and able to contribute to the health and wellbeing of our country—we do; it's because it reflects the type of country that we want to be.</para>
<para>You may recall, Deputy Speaker, that we've had a number of debates in my time in this chamber, as well as with other members, about the type of country we want to be. The message that has come from the Australian people—resolutely, loudly and clearly—is that we want a country free of discrimination and harassment; one that is free and without people feeling like they're worth anything less than any other citizen. That goes to the heart of the liberal ideal that founded this nation. That's the type of country that we as a government want it to be and that the Australian people want it to be. It lives in their DNA. When they see another citizen or another Australian, they have a live-and-let-live respect and understand that people are people and should be treated with dignity and respect regardless of who they are. That transcends what happens in the workplace, which is of course of critical importance, and goes into the public square, where we want people to be full participants and to be able to live out their lives.</para>
<para>Liberalism at its heart is about empowering people — not empowering the state, not empowering this place, not empowering big super funds, not empowering capital, not empowering government and not empowering other interests . Liberalism is: how do we build a nation where 26 million people — and note the continued population growth — are able to realise and live out their full dreams , a nation where they can live the best life that we are able to support them in ? Liberalism is: how can they , through standing on their own two feet, make the best wicket of it ? Whether it's the language of the Prime Minister, of 'have a go to get a go' , or of empowerment , however you want to phrase it , it's about how we make 26 million people succeed in their own right .</para>
<para>When people see the course of their life and their success, their achievements and their independence, they don't look at this chamber and say, 'The solution is to empower them.' We look in this chamber and ask , 'How do we empower the Australian people?' This is a fundamental difference between the world views of some members who enter this chamber and some on this side of the chamber. Their answer more often than not is, ' How do we empower Canberra, corporates, unions, vested interests and central interests? ' One of the cor e tenets of liberalism is: how do we break apart that power so that we can empower as many as possible because we don't trust central authority to always act in the public interest? Free citizens taking responsibility for themselves and living out the success of their own lives with dignity and equality of opportunity are in the best position not just to care for themselves but to support others and the organic institutions of our nation: families, communities and small enterprise.</para>
<para>Those are the principles that underpin this bill and this government's approach not just to the Sex Discrimination Act — which is a critical part of it , because you cannot have that enlivenment and empowerment if people feel unsecure or lacking in their safety —b ut to every policy we take and we bring into this chamber. That's why I'm proud to support the bill. I don't care what people's personal circumstances are; they should have the freedom to live the fullness of their own lives —that t heir freedom is respected, their rights are respected and they take responsibility for themselves. I know that many members in this chamber will share that sentiment. The more we empower Australians to do that, the better the community they will come from and the better the country they will come from. That's why I support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I am at a loss for words that the member for Gol d stein would take up 13 minutes of precious time in this House in a debate that is of such importance to so many millions of Australian women who are watching us today. The government has given us less than two hours to debate this legislation that they are seeking to rush through, despite giving themselves 18 months to deflect, consider and now not do nearly enough with this report. We had to sit here and listen to a broad-sweeping ideological rant about the various theoretical underpinnings of ideologies that have brought the member for Goldstein and his colleagues to this place. In doing so, he soaked up those 13 minutes in place of women who were elected to this House to represent the women in their constituencies who seek respect at work. I am staggered that there are now women who will not get time to speak on this bill because of people like the member for Goldstein who think that it's more important for us to hear their opinion on ideology in this debate, which has been limited to two hours, than to have an actual debate about the lack of reform that is coming down the pipeline from this government. Honestly, I am absolutely at a loss about having to listen to their sense of entitlement in this debate of all debates.</para>
<para>To my point about the legislation before this House today, this began in 1970. The situation was at boiling point in 1970, and so fed-up clusters of women across Australia sat cross-legged in their lounge rooms and worked together to build momentum to create a sweeping grassfire of feminist purpose and resolve to get reform—and they did it. They got revolutionary reform through the Whitlam government. By the time they hit International Women's Year in 1975 the Whitlam government had granted millions of dollars in community health centre funding. They had gotten underway antidiscrimination legislation. They had created a new benefit for single mothers that meant that young women could keep their child if they wanted to, rather than having their baby taken and put into the adoption system. This year's March 4 Justice was done in the shadow of that revolution and reform from the work of the women in the 1970s.</para>
<para>This year's March 4 Justice was actually my first day back in the parliament after the birth of my second and third children—twin boys. I ran for parliament because of a couple of things that happened to me in a couple of months that changed the course of my life. I was diagnosed with an aggressive chronic disease that wasn't responding to treatment and I gave birth to my first child, a baby girl. I was struck like lightning by the momentum of the women's marches in Washington, where millions of women showed up following the election of President Donald Trump. These women, like me, realised that they could not afford to take progress for granted any more. These women showed up to say that they would not allow President Donald Trump to shape their futures a day longer than was necessary. When those millions of women started marching forward, their force was unstoppable—and they won.</para>
<para>On that sunny day in March this year the lawns at the front of our parliament felt white-hot with that same resolve. This year Australian women marched for justice and asked us all, through their nation's parliament, to give them respect at work. Ms Brittany Higgins addressed us that day:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We fundamentally recognise the system is broken, the glass ceiling is still in place and there are significant failings in the power structures within our institution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are here because it is unfathomable that we are still having to fight this same stale, tired fight.</para></quote>
<para>She is right, and Grace Tame is right. The millions of women they speak for are owed because we are now 50 years on from those revolutionary reforms that the Australian women of the seventies secured for us.</para>
<para>Today, in this place, the bill crafted by the Morrison government is nowhere near enough to deliver the 55 recommendations proposed by the Sexual Discrimination Commissioner as urgent reform. It is quite revealing to audit what issues the Morrison government considers to be urgent enough to take immediate action on, because they tell you about its values and where its priorities are. When the Morrison government's mates complained about getting sued by social justice law firms, the Morrison government took swift action by changing disclosure laws to shield their corporate comrades from liability shareholder class action. In 2018 and 2020, when the Federal Court made two separate decisions that two blue-collar workers were wrongfully classified as casuals when they were permanent employees, the government took immediate action to dismantle the rights of casual workers. In 2018, when consumers found a couple of needles in their strawberries, the Prime Minister held an immediate urgent press conference to issue a stern warning to anyone sabotaging our strawberries and introduced legislation that day to create a new offence to criminalise recklessly contaminating fruit, which carried jail time. Those are the things on which the Prime Minister has acted with urgency in this place.</para>
<para>When it comes to <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline>, the Prime Minister and his government have attempted to bury this report for over a year—a report that blows the whistle on systemic toxic sexism and calls for urgent action to deal with the scourge of workplace sexual harassment. It was only the explosion of outrage caused by previously unspeakable scandals within his own party and 100,000 women marching across the country for justice that forced the Morrison government to finally acknowledge Commissioner Jenkins's report. But his answer, in the form of this bill, ignores the most important and urgent legislative changes required.</para>
<para>This bill just nibbles around the edges of the substantial reforms that are needed, with most changes simply clarifying or confirming the way the law already operates. The government have accepted the recommendation to introduce stop orders when sexual harassment occurs, but they have refused to introduce a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment happening in the first place. And they've refused to explicitly prohibit sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act. They have failed to implement the regulatory changes that could help prevent sexual harassment in the workplace from occurring in the first place. That is despite their response to this inquiry stating that 'prevention must be our focus'.</para>
<para>The government can't even bring itself to make clear that one of the objects of the Sex Discrimination Act should be to achieve substantive equality between women and men. Instead, they have watered down that ambition with weasel words, only aiming for equality of opportunity as far as practicable. They didn't even have integrity, or respect for the thousands of people who contributed to this report, saying they are now implementing these recommendations in full, when they're not.</para>
<para>Last night, Labor and the Greens moved amendments in the Senate to improve this bill so it actually makes the suggestions in the Jenkins report. When the Morrison government voted against those amendments, it didn't just vote against Labor and the Greens; it voted against protecting Australian women from sexual harassment in the workplace. This is prevalent; this is pervasive. It occurs in every industry. It occurs in every location at every level in every Australian workplace. Australians across the country are suffering the financial, social, emotional, physical and psychological harm associated with sexual harassment.</para>
<para>Australia was once at the forefront of tackling sexual harassment globally. Women's organisations in Australia began to press for the legal and social recognition of sex discrimination in the early 1970s, 50 years ago. Yet here we are today, with as limp a reform as this. The question now is whether, here in 2021, this moment is any different from too many tipping points that have come before, and, crucially, whether this moment will trigger the change that so many have been hoping for, and fighting for, for decades, not just in politics but in institutions and in workplaces and in the criminal justice system and in schools and in churches and in homes and on our streets. The bill before the House today should be that change. This bill before the House today should be the next raft of revolutionary change that women in 50 years time look back upon and remark how long the fight was and how hard the fight was, but how necessary the fight was to get such sensible, helpful, purposeful measures implemented. But today isn't that day. And that is the most egregious failure of understanding of humanity and of leadership on the part of this Prime Minister.</para>
<para>So this issue will remain a storm cloud hovering over the parliament. When will enough political leaders here take the rage and grief behind these marches seriously? When we will listen? When will we take steps to improve the systems and cultures that have failed so many victims? What day will that be? It is clear that there are many members of this place who want this to happen. It is clear that there are many members of this place who, like me, have come here to work ceaselessly for this to happen. And it is clear that there are still not enough of us to overwhelm an immune, immobile and imperious Prime Minister. So it won't be today. But it is my hope and our mission that, come the next election, more white-hot women take the place of the recalcitrants and join us here as lawmakers under new political leadership to legislate some very long-fought-for justice for women. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an honour and a privilege to be able to speak on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 today, which the Morrison government has brought to the parliament based upon work that we instigated and initiated.</para>
<para>Everyone in this place agrees that we all have the right to feel safe at work, especially women. Sexual harassment is unacceptable in any context, particularly in the workplace. Our workplace laws must reflect these ideals to ensure all Australians are protected from workplace sexual harassment. That's why the Morrison government is acting quickly to strengthen the national antidiscrimination and industrial relations frameworks by simplifying and enhancing protections against sex based discrimination and harassment in the workplace. We began by funding the Australian Human Rights Commission to undertake the landmark National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. The inquiry was the first of its kind in the world, and represented a landmark moment for Australia.</para>
<para>The federal government's response to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work </inline>report, the Roadmap for Respect, released on 8 April 2021, sets out the government's long-term commitment to building safe and respectful workplaces. The end product of this national inquiry found that too many workplace cultures fall short. We must do, and are doing, what we can to ensure this changes. The <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report made 55 recommendations—directed at the Australian government, the states and territories, employers, industry groups and others—highlighting the important roles all groups have in supporting cultural change and creating safe workplaces. The Morrison government has either agreed to—in full, in part or in principle—or noted all 55 recommendations in the report.</para>
<para>I want to briefly pay tribute to the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Amanda Stoker, for her incredibly hard work on a response to this report and for her wonderful, tireless advocacy for women. She has been a great friend to me and a wonderful supporter through the various trials and tribulations I have experienced. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Attorney-General, Michaelia Cash, and of the former minister for women and member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, who commissioned Kate Jenkins to do the report in the first place. We miss the member for Higgins very much. She was a great champion for women, especially in the Liberal Party, and should be incredibly proud of everything she achieved for women during her time in parliament, including the legislation we see before us today. I also want to pay tribute to Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who is an absolute champion for women. She's an incredibly thoughtful, kind and compassionate woman, and she's doing wonderful work for the government in other absolutely critical areas so we can make sure all women are safe in their workplaces in every way.</para>
<para>This bill will ensure that more workers—in particular, vulnerable workers—are protected and empowered to address unlawful conduct in their workplaces. These reforms are essential for advancing both women's safety and women's economic security. The Respect@Work bill does this by implementing legislative reforms committed to by this government in its Roadmap for Respect, including in response to recommendation 16, recommendations 20 to 22 and recommendations 29 to 30 of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work </inline>report. It implements the majority of the legislative recommendations in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, focusing on the changes that can be implemented quickly and see the greatest improvements to the antidiscrimination and industrial relations frameworks. It's also important to stress that those legislative recommendations not included in the bill are still under active consideration by the government.</para>
<para>While this bill addresses many of the recommendations outlined in the<inline font-style="italic"> Respect@Work</inline> report, more measures are already underway. Through our commitment to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report in the long term, the Morrison Liberal government has commenced actions to implement the Roadmap for Respect, including through establishing the Respect@Work Council; developing the Respect@Work website and a package of training and education resources; consulting with states and territories, including at the recent meeting of attorneys-general and at national cabinet, regarding their respective responses to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report; and preparing for the fifth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces.</para>
<para>To implement our response to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report we are also providing more than $64.3 million over four years, as announced in the 2021-22 budget, building on the initial $2.1 million over three years provided in October 2020, to implement key recommendations of the report. Through this funding we will see $43.89 million committed over four years to additional legal assistance funding for specialist lawyers with workplace and discrimination law expertise, and $5.3 million committed to the Department of Social Services to be provided to Our Watch, Australia's national research organisation for women's safety, and to 1800RESPECT to build the evidence base and develop primary prevention initiatives to respond to sexual harassment.</para>
<para>But, of course, this is not all we have done on this very important issue. We commissioned the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces, as I've outlined, through the former Minister for Women and former member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer; Kate Jenkins reported back to us and we have now responded, which is why we're seeing this legislation before us today. We have also this year commissioned the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces; that was commissioned in March, and the progress update was released in July. So there is a huge amount of progress occurring in that area as well to address the incredibly serious issues that we have seen spoken about and reported on this year. The Prime Minister also commissioned—and this was a bipartisan agreement and there was bipartisan support for this—the Review of the Parliamentary Workplace: Responding to Serious Incidents, in February. I know the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and her wonderful team are doing fantastic work on this issue.</para>
<para>I have sat here and sat in my office this morning listening very closely to the contributions of those opposite, particularly the member for Watson, the member for Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition. I really cannot describe those contributions, and some of the content and the allegations made against our government and me and my colleagues, particularly the Prime Minister, as coming from a place that is not completely disingenuous. Each and every one of those individuals, quite frankly, sounded like a sanctimonious hypocrite. I, more than any person in this place, have put up with absolutely unacceptable behaviour thanks to GetUp, Labor and the unions, which those opposite still refuse to address. They still refuse to condemn GetUp and their tactics. They refuse to condemn the unions.</para>
<para>I'm really proud of the actions my government has taken, and the actions the Prime Minister and the Treasurer took, to publicly condemn the sexist and misogynistic behaviour I suffered during the 2019 election campaign. They supported and encouraged me to present to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and I was absolutely thrilled to see one of its key recommendations pass this parliament recently, through the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021. The provision in this bill, which I'm delighted to say will now offer proper protection to every single member of parliament, to our volunteers and to our staff, clarified what constitutes interference with political liberty. It noted that violence, obscene or discriminatory abuse, property damage, and harassment or stalking with relevance to an election are examples of what can be considered interference with political liberty, with penalties of imprisonment for three years or 100 penalty units or both. This is critical for the operation of our democracy and for the continued free and easy access that every single member of the Australian public deserves to have to their elected representatives.</para>
<para>I have just outlined how my government, how our government, how the Prime Minister, have shown leadership time and time again in addressing the incredibly serious issues that so many people in this place have unfortunately suffered. But I ask myself what on earth those opposite have done. I had to come in here and give a highly emotional speech outlining how deeply distressing my experience as a female member of parliament had been before the Leader of the Opposition would even go out there and not only apologise but say that if he was ever made aware of this sort of behaviour again then he would act.</para>
<para>I find it extraordinary that, back in March, Samantha Maiden reported the most horrifying, genuinely horrifying, allegations of sexual harassment and assault and generalised abuse and bullying of female Labor staff members. I have not heard a word from those opposite as to whether these women are safe, whether the perpetrators have been held to account and brought to account, yet they come in here today and start telling us that we have a problem. I'm going to read some of this into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> because it needs to be recorded, because I will not by lectured by those opposite, as I've said before, when I know that they have even more-serious problems than the ones that have already been revealed by the brave women who have come forward:</para>
<list>He is a man who punches the wall next to his female staffer's head calling her a "f***ing c**t" when she passes on news he doesn't want to hear.</list>
<list>He is a man who calls his female colleague a "pig dog" when she disagrees with him and says in front of her staff "that's why no one wants to f**k you"</list>
<para>This is female Labor staff members reporting the behaviour of current and former Labor MPs. The article continues:</para>
<list>He is a man who says he'd "never f**k a woman without a thigh gap" and asks if I'll show him mine while we sit waiting for a meeting I'm about to run to start in a room full of young men.</list>
<para>This is disgusting behaviour. 'What are you doing about this?' I say to those opposite. It goes on and on. It is horrifying. It is truly, truly horrifying, and it had better be being addressed, because I want to know whether these women are safe. We do not know whether these women are safe.</para>
<para>That's why the sanctimonious, hypocritical lectures that I heard directed at us today from those opposite are precisely that. You cannot trust anything those opposite say on these issues, because they do not have their own house in order and they refuse to address the problems that they have. This is another example:</para>
<quote><para class="block">• He is a married man who plied a young woman with drinks until she had no idea what was happening. He promised others at the gathering he would get her home safely but before putting her in the cab he had sex with her when she had no ability to consent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">• The next day he texted to demand she take the morning after pill and blamed her for what happened saying she was so drunk that she came onto him. He threatened "tell no one".</para></quote>
<para>I could go on. I'm not going to go on, because these allegations are so deeply upsetting. As I said, I sincerely hope that these women are safe and that they are getting the help and support that they need. I believe that they now know through everything that's happened this year where to get that help, whether it is through contacting the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, contacting 1800RESPECT or contacting the Department of Finance and accessing the many, many supports that we have put in place since a range of terrifying facts and allegations have been made this year.</para>
<para>I am really pleased to support this legislation because we all know, we should all know—those opposite certainly do know, whether they admit it or not—that everyone bears responsibility for improving the safety of women in the workplace, whether it's sexual harassment, violence against women or bullying. Whatever it might be, we all bear a responsibility to fix this behaviour.</para>
<para>If we in this place—every single political party, Independents and everyone—can't get their own houses in order, can't get their own parties in order, then what hope do women out there in businesses around Australia have of things improving for them? We have to demonstrate, we on this side are demonstrating, the leadership that is desperately needed in this area. I am very proud to have worked with my senior colleagues—like the Prime Minister; the Attorney-General; and the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Amanda Stoker; to see this legislation, and with the Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters, Ben Morton, to see the Electoral Act tightened up—so that every single person is safe in their workplace in every single way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge the horrifying stories I've heard this morning from all sides, but, for me, it's not about taking political sides on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021; it's about taking the side of women who've been abused, harassed and subjected to the most horrifying treatment all over the nation, in all sorts of workplaces. For me, it's about them; it's not about us. It's about this legislation, it's about getting it right and it's about being serious when we say to women, 'We are on your side.'</para>
<para>Six months ago, tens of thousands of Australians marched upon town squares across Australia, and on the front lawns of this place, to tell this government that they're fed up with inaction on women's equality and safety. Dressed in black, hundreds of my constituents poured onto the streets of Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla, Yackandandah, Yarrawonga, Eldorado, Glenrowan and Porepunkah, to name just some of the towns. Two busloads of people from my electorate got up at dawn and came here to Canberra to protest on the lawns of this house. Anna Moran brought her little daughters with her because she had such hope in her heart that they would be witnessing an historic moment when this government would finally listen and act.</para>
<para>These women had a very, very clear message: Australians were sick and tired of seeing cultures of sexism and misogyny bred into workplaces, social clubs, sporting teams and homes across the nation—cultures that disrespect and endanger women and silence their voices. Australians were sick and tired of a lack of leadership to fix it. Many watched on in horror and disgust as the allegations of rape and sexual assault came out of this place. We'll never forget that moment when the brave Brittany Higgins told her story. Australians were also horrified, but unfortunately not surprised, to watch those in power close ranks around each other, implicitly excusing violence against women and seeking to discredit, ignore and smear the brave woman who came forward. Many women who marched had experienced the same themselves and refused to stay silent any longer. As one constituent put it to me: 'This march is about everyone being safe, irrespective of their workplace, and we want our federal parliament to be held to the highest standards.' I wholeheartedly agree, and I think every member of parliament agrees. We must be held to the highest standards.</para>
<para>This bill should be a proud moment for us all in this place, but it's not. We should be celebrating a parliament that knows how to come together and heed the call of so many Australians who have stood up to say, 'Enough is enough.' But instead what we've got is half-hearted action, drip-feed progress. I'm just so disappointed—I really am—to have to make this speech. And I think there are lots of other members who are disappointed too. When we were all gathering at the front of this parliament, we hoped that the day would come very soon when we would be making celebratory speeches in this place.</para>
<para>Since the publication of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report in March last year, I have called on this government, as have so many others, to implement all 55 of its recommendations without delay. Instead, until today it had implemented only three. Last year I met with the former Attorney-General Christian Porter to implore him to take the report off the shelf and act. But he left it there to gather dust. On the same day as the marches, I seconded a vital and overdue bill from the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, to close a glaring gap in the Sex Discrimination Act which nonsensically excludes parliamentarians and judges from being protected from or liable for sexual harassment. We urged the Prime Minister to let us debate and pass that bill as a matter of urgency, but he refused. And, when the government finally decided to come to the table after the March4Justice, I met with a new Attorney-General, Michaelia Cash, to implore her: please don't cherry pick, please don't delay these important reforms. I'm sad to say that this bill is unfortunate in that it seems to me now that the Attorney-General has ignored that call too, to take this as far as it needs to go.</para>
<para>Many government MPs who have spoken on the bill this morning have said this bill is the first step on a journey of reforms to improve women's safety in this nation. I ask: what journey are we exactly being taken on? Is it another round of filibuster consultation or a press conference full of hot air? If this government wants to talk about taking steps, it should look at the hundreds of thousands of steps taken by everyday Australians when they marched across this country.</para>
<para>The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, has described this bill as a 'missed opportunity'. Today I heard so many members pay their respects to the incredible work that Professor Jenkins does, and yet she tells us this is a 'missed opportunity'. People like those from the Business Council of Australia support all the recommendations too, and so do I.</para>
<para>As an independent, I review each and every bill on its merits. I do my best to make sure the law we pass in this place is based on sound evidence and responds to community need. And, more often than not, I vote against amendments from the opposition, because they're not constructive and they turn this chamber in a game of political mud-slinging. But the amendments today are refreshing. For the life of me I can't understand why the government doesn't support laws that would encourage employers to take reasonable steps to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation in the workplace, or why the government refuses to prohibit behaviour in the workplace that facilitates an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment. If the government can write in new reforms like the improvements to compassionate leave for employees affected by a miscarriage—and, gee, I support those; I commend the government for those—I say to them: 'If you can do that, then you can implement these other recommendations too.'</para>
<para>Kate Jenkins and the Australian Human Rights Commission poured over the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. This is no way to treat it, and I must say it casts a deeply concerning shadow for me over the review into parliamentary workplace culture that Kate Jenkins and the Human Rights Commission are pouring over right now, which I and hundreds of people in this building are participating in right now. And, like women all over the nation, I will not relent on calling for justice. But, unlike women all over the nation, I have a voice in this place, and I intend to use it. I use it today to get real and genuine reform.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill tells us that the government does not want women to be equal. You don't have to dig around and string an argument together based on things people have said outside the chamber to make that very clear; it is clear from the words themselves. This bill is the government saying that it is implementing the recommendations of one of the most significant reports that this parliament has seen for a long time. It was a wide-ranging report into sexual harassment and mistreatment at work, led by Professor Kate Jenkins—and whose work on behalf of the Greens I want to join with others in applauding. That report said to us very clearly that what we needed to do was to put into law a basic principle that the legislation should aim for equality for women. Instead, the government isn't even prepared to do that. The government comes up with a bill that says, 'Well, we'll aim for equality of opportunity as far as is practicable.' So, in other words, the government is bringing in legislation that says women will continue to remain unequal. But they're only even bringing this legislation before the parliament because they have been dragged kicking and screaming by the women of Australia to act and to implement the report.</para>
<para>Tens of thousands of women marched around Australia in response to and in support of the brave statements from people like Brittany Higgins, who stood up and showed enormous courage to hold systems and their perpetrators to account. There was widespread support for women finally standing up and lifting the lid on the bad behaviour of men, including in this parliament. I was very proud to join and, together with many of my Greens colleagues, lend my support to those women when they came up here. But they never should have had to do it. The change that we need, in our laws but also our behaviours, is change that men need to make. It's change that men need to make about the way they act, but also change that men need to make to the laws of this country.</para>
<para>We had the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report sit with the then Attorney-General, Christian Porter, for over a year before even a press release was issued. Then, when the government bring a bill to this parliament it fails to do what they have been asked to do, not only by the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report but by the tens of thousands of women across Australia who have been marching and demanding change. It's not only the failure to legislate for equality in this bill that needs to be condemned. It's also the failure to do the single central thing that the report said needed to happen: to change the law to require employers to make sure their workplaces are safe. That is the thing that needed to happen. It happens in workplace health and safety, and there are very simple reasons for that. It is often very difficult to find that someone has committed an offence, discriminated against or harassed someone or made a workplace unsafe, because it takes a lot of courage to speak up. We changed the law with respect to health and safety to make sure that employers have a positive obligation to create a safe workplace. That's what Professor Jenkins wanted us to do in the law here regarding discrimination. It is the right move, and the government won't do it. The government will not make employers ensure their workplaces are safe.</para>
<para>The tragedy is, when these bills were going through the inquiry stage, everyone across the political spectrum and across the worker-employer divide supported changing the law to make sure that workplaces were safe. It was something that had widespread support because it would have made a huge difference, it would have shifted the culture in this country and it would have helped ensure that everyone could go to work and know that their workplace would be free from harassment and violence. But the government has refused to do that. These changes, changes to behaviour and the law, should have been implemented by men and they haven't. Today, we continue to see the refusal of this government to do the things that are necessary to make sure that every woman everywhere knows their workplace will be safe.</para>
<para>There are many other things that should have been implemented in this bill and are not, including 10 days' family and domestic violence leave. I won't go through all of those amendments, because the government has dragged the chain for so long and has only given us very limited time to deal with this. Instead, I want to acknowledge the work of our leader in the Senate, Senator Larissa Waters, who has led the charge on behalf of the Greens both in parliament and outside to ensure that the amazing work of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report is implemented and turned into law. I want to note that we all support the amendments that the Greens moved in the Senate, where we worked cooperatively with Labor, and are reflected in the amendments that are being moved in the House here by the opposition. They got significant support in the Senate and they should get support here as well. What I fear, and what we fear, is that once the government have passed this legislation they will show no appetite to come back and close other loopholes and improve the law in the way the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report asks us to.</para>
<para>We will support these amendments that we worked on together in the Senate, and I commend my colleague for moving them. With that, given the short period of time that the government has allowed for such an important debate, I support the amendments. Some of the elements of the bill do go some way towards implementing the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, so we will be supporting that, but this bill demonstrates that this government is anti-women. It does not want equality for women, and so, on behalf of the Greens and on behalf of all of our senators, I pledge we will keep fighting to ensure that the voices of those who have marched on this place and who continue to burn with anger will be heard until the law is changed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to make a contribution to the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 debate, and to strongly endorse the amendments moved by the Manager of Opposition Business in the House on behalf of the member for Sydney earlier today.</para>
<para>Here we are, just days away from this government's women's safety summit, and yet the head of that government, the Prime Minister, cannot even honour the word he gave, the promise he made to Australian women in April to implement all 55 recommendations of the Jenkins <inline font-style="italic">Respect</inline><inline font-style="italic">@</inline><inline font-style="italic">Work</inline> report. I join with so many of my colleagues in saying how disappointed we are in the lack of action by this government. I've actually moved beyond disappointed; I've stepped right into the incensed stage. There is an urgency that is required from this government, and yet we see zero action.</para>
<para>How short are the memories of members opposite? Thousands of women across this nation descended on the front lawn of Parliament House to have their voices heard. They were marching in the streets in country towns and cities across the nation. When those women arrived in Canberra, they had a message they wanted us to hear. I was very pleased to be part of a strong Labor delegation that went to listen. That delegation included the Leader of the Opposition and our extraordinary women, Labor women, who make up our strong caucus here. We went to listen to what that message was. We listened to the most heartbreaking speeches made by so many women, the most notable being the speech made by Brittany Higgins. Yet the government and the Prime Minister could not find their way to the front lawn to listen to that message. The Prime Minister couldn't see his way to do that. And he wonders why Australian women are now incensed? But is it any wonder when people feel so ignored, when they look at the track record of this government, when we look at the ongoing failure of this government to make the link between gendered inequality in Australia as a driving force behind the gendered nature of violence in our communities?</para>
<para>This bill before the House today is a half-baked effort to try to implement just some of those recommendations made by Kate Jenkins. This is a report that the government itself commissioned in 2018. It chose to let it sit on the desk of the then Attorney-General, Christian Porter, for 12 months—doing absolutely nothing. Then the shocking allegations of rape in a minister's office, just metres from the Prime Minister's office, finally dragged the government into some kind of response. That's when the Prime Minister gave his false promise to Australian women, when he said he would implement all 55 of these recommendations. We know from the speeches before what an utter failure this bill is in that regard. That's why Labor have moved a second reading amendment and we'll be moving additional amendments in consideration in detail—to try to get this bill back on track and to try to honour that promise that was given to Australian women.</para>
<para>This place has been under an enormous spotlight for our own unsafe workplace practices. The Australian parliament must be a model employer, yet today we are being asked to tick off on legislation that fails to meet those benchmarks that were set by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. She found these laws in Australia to be wanting, to be very sadly lacking. We actually didn't need that report to know that. There are few Australian women that haven't felt the brunt of sexual harassment or gendered violence in this nation, and that is to our eternal shame. There are deep, systemic issues of inequality that must be addressed. This bill tries to ignore and paper over that. It is the inability of the government, in fact, to get the connection between gender inequality and gendered violence that dogs every effort they make to try to ensure that women are safe at work. Women deserve to be safe at work, on the streets, and wherever they may go in public or private places.</para>
<para>Whilst this bill does bring some very minimum reforms, it falls way short of the expectations that we have of this government. Australian women deserve a government that can listen, that actually understands and that doesn't just think that we're going to be content with a webinar about women's safety next week as a measure to try to deliver on a promise that this Prime Minister has utterly failed to act upon.</para>
<para>I am strongly supporting the amendments moved by the Labor opposition today. This bill is a shocking missed opportunity. As I said, it is more than disappointing. I know that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Law Council of Australia have both warned the government about the failure to implement recommendation 17, and the positive duty on employers to ensure that our workplaces are safe and free of sexual harassment and violence. Seriously, no-one in Australia thinks that is a bridge too far. How this Prime Minister cannot get on board and agree that our workplaces should be free of sexual harassment and violence is beyond belief.</para>
<para>There are 55 recommendations in the Jenkins report. Each and every one of them need to be implemented today. There should be no ifs or buts about this, no weasel words from this government. The Prime Minister made a promise; we're simply holding you to account. You are to implement all of these recommendations in full. At the very least, you should stick to your word. You should honour and show Australian women some modicum of respect. You like to talk about respect quite a lot. Well, I've got a message for you, Prime Minister: we're asking for you to respect Australian women today. We want you to honour your word to implement all the recommendations—no half-baked measures as presented in this bill will suffice. Women in Australia should not have to wait a second longer for you to take our concerns about the lack of safety afforded to Australian women, not just in workplaces but in our community more broadly. You have so much work to do.</para>
<para>We are here, willing and able to assist government. You should accept the amendments moved by Labor today. There are no excuses anymore. You've got to take some responsibility, Mr Morrison, Prime Minister and now's your time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I rise to speak on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. I'm thankful that we are finally getting to this. It has taken way too long. Following the delay in the government responding to and implementing the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report recommendations that sat for way too long on the then Attorney-General's desk, on 15 March this year I introduced the sex discrimination amendment bill. On the very same day, thousands of women and men marched around Australia demanding change. At that time, we urged the parliament and the Prime Minister to urgently debate and move these laws. It has taken months. I've had discussions with the government and members in this place about the need to urgently update the Sex Discrimination Act and prohibit sexual harassment.</para>
<para>I welcome this bill and the fact that the government is now finally taking action on many aspects of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@</inline><inline font-style="italic">Work</inline> report. I do welcome the broadening of the definition of 'workplace' and the clarification in this bill that parliamentarians and judiciary are protected from but also liable for sexual harassment and discrimination, which has been very much the focus of the private member's bill that I put before parliament.</para>
<para>But there are serious concerns that remain about this bill, that it does not go far enough and fails to implement all recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. This is serious, because women are demanding change. I've listened to the debate in this place today from members of both sides, and it is disappointing that it does fall back to partisan politics. This should be above partisan politics. Keeping over 50 per cent of the population safe in their workplaces and ensuring they have respect in their public life is something that falls on every member in this place, regardless of their political views. Prohibiting sexual harassment in all circumstances is essential and really needs to be ensured. I urge the government to look to further broaden the definition and to continually monitor the impact of the legislation on workplaces and also as they continue to evolve.</para>
<para>There are a number of technical concerns with this bill coming from the Law Council of Australia and the ACTU. They have taken issue with the implementation of the recommendations through the legislation. The government has unnecessarily added qualifiers to the types of sexual harassment that would be prohibited under this bill. It is questionable that there really is any question of types: sexual harassment is sexual harassment and should be prohibited in all circumstances. The government has inserted the word 'seriously' as an additional test which leaves open to interpretation the severity of the offence to the judge, rather than just a simple blanket prohibition for it to be illegal in all circumstances. It really begs the question of how seriously you are willing to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace when you start putting those little provisos and additional tests in to make it that much harder to prove and prohibit.</para>
<para>The Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council and the ACTU have also called for the inclusion of the prohibition of sex based harassment to be incorporated in the Fair Work Act. We don't want a half-baked job. This needs to be a complete job across all legislation. Of course, as we've heard today, there are recommendations from the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report that have been missed. The most prominent recommendation that almost all groups have voiced support for—from the Business Council of Australia to the ACTU, and from the Law Council to the Human Rights Commission—is the positive duties recommendation. Positive duties put an obligation on employers to protect their staff from sexual harassment in the workplace. It's the most important cultural change to help seriously address sexual harassment in our workplaces, and it needs to happen. It's disappointing that the government simply has not tackled that in this bill.</para>
<para>Sexual harassment is not a women's issue; it is a societal issue, which every Australian and every Australian workplace can contribute to addressing.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Workplace sexual harassment is not inevitable. It is not acceptable. It is preventable.</para></quote>
<para>These words were written by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, in January last year in her opening foreword to her report. The key finding of the inquiry was that workplace sexual harassment is prevalent and pervasive. It occurs in every industry, in every location and at every level in Australian workplaces. Australians across the country are suffering the financial, social, emotional, physical and psychological harm associated with sexual harassment, and this is so unacceptable. As we saw last year the Australian parliament, sadly, whereas it should be a place of best practices, is not immune to the scourge and arguably it is behind the corporate sector and the private sector as a workplace. We need preventative measures to be implemented in all our workplaces.</para>
<para>I'm pleased the Foster report will deliver training on awareness and prevention of sexual harassment in this place, but it doesn't even begin to go far enough. It needs to be rolled out nationally if we truly want to change the culture of our workplaces and improve working conditions for women, in particular, but also for men and non-binary people in our community. The report revealed an urgent need to shift away from the current reactive, complaints based approach and move to one that requires positive action from employers and a focus on prevention. Another aspect is the cost of bringing on litigation. At the moment the duty puts a severe consequence on complainants bringing forward complaints. Many in the legal profession, including the Grata Fund and the Human Rights Law Centre, highlighted that cost orders are a key barrier to access to justice for those wishing to prosecute sexual harassment cases. This should be addressed with urgency by the government. We need to address this because access to justice needs to be available to all.</para>
<para>I welcome the bill and the steps taken, but we need to do more. So many of the recommendations have been left out and they should be addressed. We need a significant cultural change in Australian workplaces. We need to get rid of toxic misogyny. I am a mother of two teenage boys. It is so important for everyone out there, men and women, that we move this dialogue along, and it has to come from the top. Change has to come from leadership. Finally, I want to thank the many brave women and men who've come forward to tell their stories, not just the stories that we've heard in this place this year, which have been incredibly shocking, but all stories from across all workplaces: the thousands that marched for justice earlier this year. People who have been made to feel powerless and worthless have stepped forward, grabbed back power and demonstrated their inherent worth. To those survivors I want to say: we hear you, we believe you, and things will change because of you. For me, if there is one thing that I absolutely pledge to do in this place, it's to represent their voice in this place and ensure we do change. Partisan politics is entirely inappropriate in this issue. We should have the decency to rise above it and implement all the necessary measures to keep women and men safe and respected in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all members who contributed to the debate on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. The Australian government is pleased to be taking action to streamline the national legal frameworks that deal with sexual harassment as part of its long-term strategy to prevent and address sexual harassment outlined in the report entitled <inline font-style="italic">A Roadmap for Respect: Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces</inline>. This bill will ensure that all Australians are protected from workplace sexual harassment, by expanding the scope of existing sexual harassment prohibitions, promoting clarity for employers and workers and reducing procedural barriers for sexual harassment complainants. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (51), as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1A Subsection 3(1) (definition of <inline font-style="italic">class member</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the definition, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">class member</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in relation to a representative complaint—means any of the persons on whose behalf the complaint was lodged, but does not include a person who has withdrawn under section 46PC; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to a representative application—means any of the persons on whose behalf the application was made, but does not include a person who has withdrawn under subsection 46POA(7).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1B Subsection 3(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">representative application</inline> means an application made under section 46PO on behalf of at least one person who is not an applicant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">representative party</inline> means a person who makes a representative application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 17), after item 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3A Subsection 46PO(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a complaint has been terminated by the President under section 46PE, paragraph 46PF(1)(b) or section 46PH; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the President has given a notice to any person under subsection 46PH(2) in relation to the termination;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">an application may be made to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) alleging unlawful discrimination by one or more of the respondents to the terminated complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), the application may be made only by an affected person in relation to the terminated complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) If the unlawful discrimination alleged in the application is an act, omission or practice that is unlawful under Division 3 of Part II of the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination Act 1984</inline>, the application may be made:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by an affected person in relation to the terminated complaint:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on that person's own behalf; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on behalf of that person and one or more other affected persons in relation to the terminated complaint or a related complaint; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by 2 or more affected persons in relation to the terminated complaint:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on their own behalf; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on behalf of themselves and one or more other affected persons in relation to the terminated complaint or a related complaint; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) by a person or trade union on behalf of one or more other affected persons in relation to the terminated complaint or a related complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Part IVA of the <inline font-style="italic">Federal Court of Australia Act 1976</inline> also allows representative proceedings to be commenced in the Federal Court in certain circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3B Paragraphs 46PO(3A)(b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "the complaint", insert ", and any related complaints covered by the application,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3C After subsection 46PO(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) In the case of a representative application, subsection (4) applies as if a reference to an applicant included a reference to each person who is a class member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3D At the end of section 46PO</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">related complaint</inline>, in relation to a terminated complaint, means a complaint:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to which paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) apply; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that is against the same person as the terminated complaint; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that is in respect of, or arises out of, the same, similar or related circumstances as the terminated complaint; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that gives rise to a substantial common issue of law or fact with the terminated complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3E After section 46PO</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">46POA Additional rules applying to representative applications</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Class member may not make separate application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person who is a class member for a representative application in relation to a complaint is not entitled to make a separate application under this Division in respect of the same complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Consent required</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A representative application may not be made without the written consent of all class members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Requirements for representative applications</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A representative application must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) describe or otherwise identify the class members; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) include a statement from the representative party certifying that each class member has consented, in writing, to being a class member; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify the nature of the relief sought.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In describing or otherwise identifying the class members, it is not necessary to name them or specify how many there are.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) However, a representative application must not identify, and must not contain information that is reasonably capable of being used to identify, a class member unless the class member has consented, in writing, to being so identified.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Right of class member to withdraw</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If a representative application is made, the court concerned must fix a date before which a class member may withdraw from a proceeding instituted by the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A class member may withdraw from the proceeding by written notice given under the relevant Rules of Court at any time before the date so fixed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The court concerned, on the application of a class member, a representative party or a respondent in the proceeding, may fix another date so as to extend the period during which a class member may withdraw from the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Except with the leave of the court concerned, the hearing of the proceeding must not commence earlier than the date before which a class member may opt out of the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 17), after item 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3F Subsection 46PO(4) (notes 1 and 2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the notes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3G Section 46PSA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">46PSA Costs only if proceedings instituted vexatiously etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A party to proceedings in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) under this Division may be ordered by the court concerned to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings only in accordance with subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The party may be ordered to pay the costs only if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the court concerned is satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the court concerned is satisfied that the party's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 3 (after the heading specifying <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3H Paragraph 3(e)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) enabling fairness, gender equity, and representation at work and the prevention of discrimination, sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex by recognising the right to freedom of association and the right to be represented, protecting against unfair treatment, discrimination, sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex, providing accessible and effective procedures to resolve grievances and disputes and providing effective compliance mechanisms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3J Paragraph 6(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) provides other protections, including protection from discrimination, sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 20), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 22), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (before line 25), before the definition of <inline font-style="italic">miscarriage</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">harass on the ground of sex</inline> has the meaning given by section 28AA of the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination Act 1984</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Other parts of speech and grammatical forms of "harass on the ground of sex" (for example, "harassment on the ground of sex") have a corresponding meaning (see section 18A of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (before line 25), before the definition of <inline font-style="italic">miscarriage</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">harassed on the ground of sex at work</inline>: see subsection 789FD(2B).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6A Section 12 (before paragraph (a) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">worker</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) in section 351A—see subsection 351A(4); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 7), before item 7, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6B Section 12 (before paragraph (a) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">worker</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) in Part 3-1A—see subsection 378B(1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 21), after item 9, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9A Section 334 (paragraph beginning "Division 5")</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5 provides other protections, including protection from discrimination, sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9B Paragraphs 336(1)(c) and (d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to provide protection from workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) to provide effective relief for persons who have been discriminated against, victimised, sexually harassed, harassed on the ground of sex or otherwise adversely affected as a result of contraventions of this Part;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9C After section 351</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">351A Sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person must not sexually harass, or harass on the ground of sex, a person (the <inline font-style="italic">second person</inline>) who is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a worker or prospective worker; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person conducting a business or undertaking;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">if the harassment occurs any circumstances connected with the second person being:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a worker or prospective worker; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a person conducting a business or undertaking.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person conducting a business or undertaking must take all reasonable steps to prevent a worker or prospective worker (the <inline font-style="italic">second person</inline>) in the business or undertaking being sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with the second person being a worker or prospective worker in the business or undertaking.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">person conducting a business or undertaking </inline>has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">worker </inline>has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>, but does not include a member of the Defence Force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Broadly, for the purposes of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>, a worker is an individual who performs work in any capacity, including as an employee, a contractor, a subcontractor, an outworker, an apprentice, a trainee, a student gaining work experience or a volunteer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 22), before item 10, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9D After Part 3-1 of Chapter 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3-1A — Sexual harassment and harassment on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">378A Guide to this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part allows for the granting of remedies to workers that have been sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with being a worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">378B Interpretation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Definitions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">person conducting a business or undertaking</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">worker</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>, but does not include a member of the Defence Force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Broadly, for the purposes of the <inline font-style="italic">Work Health and Safety Act 2011</inline>, a worker is an individual who performs work in any capacity, including as an employee, a contractor, a subcontractor, an outworker, an apprentice, a trainee, a student gaining work experience or a volunteer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Former and prospective workers</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A reference in this Part to a worker includes a reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person who is no longer a worker; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person who may become a worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">378C Object of this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The object of this Part is to establish quick, flexible and informal procedures for providing effective remedies for workers that have been sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with being a worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Remedies for workers that have been sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">378D Power for FWC to deal with a dispute about sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A notification may be lodged with the FWC under this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by a worker who claims that they have been sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with being a worker; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) jointly by 2 or more workers who claim that they have been sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with being a worker for the same business or undertaking; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) by an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a worker or workers referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The notification must be made within 6 years after the sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex occurred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If a person has made a notification under this section, the FWC must start to deal with the matter within 14 days after the notification is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The FWC may deal with the notification by arbitration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The FWC may also deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the FWC is satisfied that a worker has been sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant harassment</inline>) in any circumstances connected with being a worker, the FWC may make any order it considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) prevent the worker from being sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with being a worker; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) prevent further sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex in the business or undertaking for which the worker carried out, or will carry out, work at the time of the relevant harassment; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) provide the worker with a remedy, including compensation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) In dealing with a notification by a worker under this section, the FWC must take the following into account:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) fairness between the parties concerned;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the public interest in the elimination of sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the extent to which the person conducting the business or undertaking for which the worker carried out, or will carry out, work at the time of the relevant harassment has taken all reasonable steps to prevent workers for the business or undertaking being sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex in any circumstances connected with being a worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A person must not contravene a term of a FWC order made under this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (line 26), after "another person", insert "or harasses another person on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 27), after item 10, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10A Subsection 539(2) (cell at table item 11, column 1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "351(1)", insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 28), before item 11, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10B Subsection 539(2) (after table item 12)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (line 29), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (line 31), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 31), after item 12, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12A Paragraph 578(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "eliminate", insert "gender inequity, sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex, and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 2), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (line 4), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 4), after item 14, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14A After Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 6-1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision BA — Notifications relating to sexual harassment and/or harassment on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">733A General rule — complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person must not lodge a notification under section 378D in relation to sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a complaint has been lodged by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the same sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex under Part IIB of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>;and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the complaint has not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) been dealt with by the Australian Human Rights Commission; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) been withdrawn by the person who lodged the complaint.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person must not lodge a complaint under Part IIB of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 </inline>in relation to sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a notification under section 378D has been lodged, by or on behalf of, the person in relation the same sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the notification has not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) been dealt with by the FWC; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) been withdrawn by the person who lodged the notification.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">733B General rule — applications under Part 6-4B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person must not lodge a notification under section 378D in relation to sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an application has been made by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the same sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex under section 789FC; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the application has not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) been dealt with by the FWC; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) been withdrawn by the person who made the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person must not make an application under section 789FC in relation to sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a notification has been lodged by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the same sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex under section 378D; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the notification has not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) been dealt with by the FWC; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) been withdrawn by the person who lodged the notification.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (line 6), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (line 8), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (line 10), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) Schedule 1, item 18, page 5 (line 12), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 14), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) Schedule 1, item 20, page 5 (line 16), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Schedule 1, item 21, page 5 (line 18), omit "or <inline font-style="italic">sexually harassed at work</inline>", substitute ", <inline font-style="italic">sexually harassed at work</inline> or <inline font-style="italic">harassed on the ground of sex at work</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) Schedule 1, item 22, page 5 (lines 21 to 23), omit subsection 789FD(2A), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) A person is <inline font-style="italic">sexually harassed at work </inline>if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is sexually harassed by one or more individuals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the harassment occurs in connection with the person being a worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(31) Schedule 1, item 22, page 5 (after line 23), after subsection 789FD(2A), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) A person is <inline font-style="italic">harassed on the ground of sex at work </inline>if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is harassed on the ground of sex by one or more individuals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the harassment occurs in connection with the person being a worker.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(32) Schedule 1, item 23, page 5 (line 25), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(33) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (line 5), omit "either or both", substitute "any or all".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(34) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (after line 15), after subparagraph 789FF(1)(b)(ii), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the FWC is satisfied that the worker has been harassed on the ground of sex at work by one or more individuals, and the FWC is satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be harassed on the ground of sex at work by the individual or individuals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(35) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (lines 23 to 27), omit paragraph 789FF(1)(e), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if subparagraph (b)(iii) applies—prevent the worker from being harassed on the ground of sex at work by the individual or individuals; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) prevent any combination of the things referred to in paragraphs (c) to (e), as the case requires.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(36) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (line 29), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(37) Schedule 1, item 26, page 6 (line 31), omit "or sexually harassed", substitute ", sexually harassed or harassed on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(38) Schedule 1, item 27, page 6 (line 33), omit "or sexual harassment", substitute ", sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(39) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (before line 7), before section 49, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">48A Notifications relating to sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3-1A, as inserted by the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021</inline>, applies in relation to sexual harassment or harassment on the ground of sex that occurred, or is claimed to have occurred, on or after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(40) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (after line 28), after clause 50, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">51 Orders to stop harassment on the ground of sex</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of subparagraph 789FF(1)(b)(iii) (as inserted by the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021</inline>), it is immaterial whether the worker has been harassed on the ground of sex at work before, at or after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(41) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 28), after item 28, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28A Before subparagraph 214(1)(b)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) Division 2 of Part IIB of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28B Subsection 214(1) (after note 1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1A: Subparagraph (b)(ia)—see section 46PSA of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline> for proceedings in relation to matters arising under Division 2 of Part IIB of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Federal Court of Australia Act 1976</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28C After paragraph 43(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) section 46PSA of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(42) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (lines 11 and 12), omit "to achieve, so far as practicable, equality of opportunity between men and women", substitute "to achieve substantive gender equality".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(43) Schedule 1, item 60, page 14 (line 23), omit "seriously".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(44) Schedule 1, item 60, page 14 (after line 29), after subsection 28AA(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) For the purposes of this Act, a person also harasses another person (the <inline font-style="italic">person harassed</inline>) on the ground of sex if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person engages in unwanted conduct related to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person does so in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated the possibility that the conduct would:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) violate the dignity of the person harassed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) create or facilitate an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person harassed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(45) Schedule 1, page 15 (line 1), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(46) Schedule 1, item 77, page 19 (after line 21), after Division 5, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 6 — Duty to eliminate discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex and victimisation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47B Purpose of Division</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of this Division is to provide for the taking of positive action by employers and persons conducting a business or undertaking to eliminate discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex and victimisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47C Duty to eliminate discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex or victimisation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking who has a duty under this Act not to engage in discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex or victimisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) It is unlawful for the employer or person to fail to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate that discrimination, sexual harassment, harassment on the ground of sex or victimisation as far as possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also the definition of <inline font-style="italic">unlawful discrimination</inline> in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In determining whether a measure is reasonable and proportionate, the following factors must be considered:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the size of the employer's or person's business or operations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the nature and circumstances of the employer's or person's business or operations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the employer's or person's resources;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the employer's or person's business and operational priorities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the practicability and the cost of the measures;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other relevant factors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: Other relevant factors may include, for example, systemic issues within a particular industry or workplace.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: Examples of measures that may be reasonable and proportionate include the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a small, not-for-profit community organisation takes steps to ensure that its staff are aware of the organisation's commitment to treating staff with dignity, fairness and respect, including developing and implementing a clear procedure for managing staff complaints;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a large company undertakes an assessment of its compliance with this Act and, as a result of the assessment, the company develops a compliance strategy that includes training, regular monitoring, annual progress reporting, and continuous improvement of the strategy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47D Commission may assess compliance etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commission may, on its own initiative or on application by a person, inquire into the extent to which an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking has complied with section 47C if the Commission is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the subject of the inquiry:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) raises an issue that is serious in nature; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relates to a class or group of persons; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that one or more contraventions of section 47C have occurred; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the inquiry would advance the objectives of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) As soon as practicable after commencing the inquiry, the Commission must give the employer or person a written notice (a <inline font-style="italic">show cause notice</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) stating the grounds on which the Commission commenced the inquiry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) inviting the employer or person to give the Commission, within 28 days after the day the notice is given, a statement setting out the measures the employer or person has taken to comply with section 47C.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commission may, in writing, extend the period of 28 days referred to in paragraph (2)(b) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the employer or person requests the extension by giving notice in writing to the Commission before the end of that period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commission is satisfied that the employer or person has a reasonable excuse for not providing a statement in response to the show cause notice within that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Commission is satisfied as a result of the inquiry that the employer or person is not complying with section 47C, the Commission may do either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) accept a voluntary undertaking given by the employer or person under section 47E;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) give the employer or person a written notice under section 47G.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47E Enforceable voluntary undertakings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Commission is satisfied as a result of an inquiry under section 47D that an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking is not complying with section 47C, the Commission may accept any of the following undertakings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a written undertaking given by the employer or person that the employer or person will, in order to comply with section 47C, take specified action;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a written undertaking given by the employer or person that the employer or person will, in order to comply with section 47C, refrain from taking specified action;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a written undertaking given by the employer or person that the employer or person will take specified action directed towards ensuring that the employer or person does not contravene section 47C, or is unlikely to contravene section 47C, in the future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The undertaking must be expressed to be an undertaking under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The employer or person may withdraw or vary the undertaking at any time, but only with the written consent of the Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The consent of the Commission is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Commission may, by written notice given to the employer or person, cancel the undertaking.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47F Enforcement of undertakings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commission may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for an order under subsection (2) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking has given an undertaking under section 47E; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the undertaking has not been withdrawn or cancelled; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Commission considers that the employer or person has breached the undertaking.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the court concerned is satisfied that the employer or person has breached the undertaking, the court may make any or all of the following orders:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an order directing the employer or person to comply with the undertaking;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any order that the court considers appropriate directing the employer or person to compensate any other person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any other order that the court considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47G Compliance notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Commission is satisfied as a result of an inquiry under section 47D that an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking is not complying with section 47C, the Commission may give the employer or person a written notice (a <inline font-style="italic">compliance notice</inline>) under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, the compliance notice must not be given unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commission has given the employer or person a show cause notice under subsection 47D(2); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the employer or person has given a statement in response to the show cause notice; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the 28 day period (or if extended under subsection 47D(3), that longer period) specified in the show cause notice has passed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The compliance notice must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) set out the name of the employer or person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) set out the details of the employer's or person's non-compliance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify action that the employer or person must take in order to address the non-compliance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) specify a reasonable period within which the employer or person must take the specified action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) specify a reasonable period within which the employer or person must provide the Commission with evidence that the employer or person has taken the specified action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Commission may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for an order under subsection (5) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commission has given an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking a compliance notice; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commission considers that the employer or person has failed to comply with the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the court concerned is satisfied that the employer or person has failed to comply with the notice, the court may make any or all of the following orders:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an order directing the employer or person to comply with the notice;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any order that the court considers appropriate directing the employer or person to compensate any other person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the non-compliance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any other order that the court considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47H Powers of Commission in relation to inquiries</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In conducting an inquiry under section 47D, Division 3 of Part II of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1958</inline> applies as if the inquiry were an inquiry under that Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47J Delayed commencement of positive duty</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application of positive duty</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Section 47C does not apply to an employer, or to a person conducting a business or undertaking, before the enforcement day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The <inline font-style="italic">enforcement day </inline>is the day occurring 6 months after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Inquiries into non-compliance with positive duty</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commission must not commence an inquiry under section 47D before the enforcement day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47K Commission must publish guidance material</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commission must develop guidance material on the operation of section 47C.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In developing the guidance material, the Commission must consult with relevant stakeholders, including the Respect@Work Council and its associate members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commission must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make the guidance material readily accessible to the public as soon as practicable before the enforcement day (within the meaning of subsection 47J(2)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ensure that the guidance material is kept up to date.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(47) Schedule 1, page 19 (before line 22), before item 78, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">77A After paragraph 48(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) to exercise the powers conferred on it by Division 6 of Part II;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(48) Schedule 1, page 19 (before line 22), before item 78, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">77B After paragraph 48(1)(f)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(fa) to inquire into any matter that may relate to systemic acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful under this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(49) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 17), after item 83, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">83A After section 48</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">49 Performance of functions relating to systemic acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful under this Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commission shall perform the function referred to in paragraph 48(1)(fa) when:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commission is requested to do so by the Minister; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it appears to the Commission to be desirable to do so.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commission may decide not to inquire into a matter, or, if the Commission has commenced to inquire into a matter, may decide not to continue to inquire into the matter, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commission is satisfied that the matter does not relate to systemic acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful under this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commission is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that an inquiry, or the continuation of an inquiry, into the matter is not warranted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The function of the Commission under paragraph 48(1)(fa) shall be performed by the President, and a reference in this Act or the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline> to the Commission or to a member of the Commission shall, in relation to the performance of that function, be read as a reference to the President.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">50 Reports to the Minister</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commission has inquired into a matter that may relate to systemic acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful under this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commission is of the opinion that the matter relates to systemic acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful under this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Commission may report to the Minister in relation to the inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(50) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 21), after item 85, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">85A After subsection 104(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Subsection (1) does not allow the President to delegate any of the President's powers relating to the function of the Commission under paragraph 48(1)(fa) that is to be performed by the President because of subsection 49(4) to a member of the Commission other than:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commissioner; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Human Rights Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">85B Subsection 104(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "The", substitute "Subject to subsection (3), the".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">85C At the end of section 104</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the President delegates any of the President's powers relating to the function of the Commission under paragraph 48(1)(fa) to the Commissioner, subsection (2) does not apply in relation to those powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(51) Page 23 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 — Ten days Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Section 12</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">paid family and domestic violence</inline> leave means paid family and domestic violence leave to which a national system employee is entitled under section 106A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Section 12 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">unpaid family and domestic violence leave</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the definition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subsection 17(2) (note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "paid family and domestic violence leave".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraph 61(2)(e)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "paid family and domestic violence leave".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Division 7 of Part 2-2 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Unpaid", substitute "Paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Section 106A (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Subsection 106A(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "5 days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave", substitute "10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Subsection 106A(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Unpaid", substitute "Paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Subsection 106A(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Paragraph 106A(4)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "5 day period", substitute "10 day period".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Subsection 106A(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "more than 5 days of unpaid leave", substitute "paid or unpaid leave in addition to the entitlement in subsection (1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 At the end of section 106A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If an employee takes a period of paid family and domestic violence leave, the employer must pay the employee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an employee other than a casual employee—at an employee's ordinary hourly rate, including applicable shift loadings and penalties.; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a casual employee—at the rate of pay that the employer would be required to pay the employee, for the hours of work in the period for which the employee was rostered, including casual loading and any applicable shift loadings and penalties.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Section 106B (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Subsection 106B(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 Subsection 106B(1) (note 1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the note, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: Examples of actions, by an employee who is experiencing family and domestic violence, that could be covered by paragraph (b) include (but are not limited to) attending legal proceedings, counselling, appointments with medical, financial or legal professionals; and/or relocation or making other safety arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Subsection 106B(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit all of the words before paragraph (a), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) <inline font-style="italic">Family and</inline><inline font-style="italic">domestic violence </inline>is violent, threatening or other abusive behaviour by a close relative of an employee or a member of an employee's household that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 Subsection 106C(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Employers must take steps to ensure information concerning any notice or evidence an employee has given under section 107 of the employee taking leave under this Subdivision is treated confidentially.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Information concerning an employee's experience of family and domestic violence is sensitive and if mishandled can have adverse consequences for the employee. Employers should consult with such employees regarding the handling of this information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Section 106D (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Paragraph 107(3)(d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unpaid", substitute "paid".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 At the end of Part 11 of Schedule 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">52 Entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subdivision CA of Division 7 of Part 2-2, as amended by the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021</inline>, applies in relation to an employee whose employment started before the commencement of this clause as if the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starting on that commencement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on the first day after that commencement that is an anniversary of the day the employment started;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">were a 12 month period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of this clause, if an employee is employed by a particular employer:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) as a casual employee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a specified period of time, for a specified task or for the duration of a specified season;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the start of the employee's employment is taken to be the start of the employee's first employment with that employer</para></quote>
<para>I will briefly remind the House that the purpose of these amendments is to do what the government said it was going to do, which is to implement all 55 recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. The amendments do the following: the objects to include achieving gender equality, recommendation 16(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report; the seriously demeaning threshold, recommendation 16(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report; and implementing the hostile environment clauses, recommendation 16(c) of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. Recommendations 17 and 18 of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report call for a positive duty and compliance powers for the Human Rights Commission. It's not in the government legislation. This amendment will put it there. Recommendation 19 of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report is to implement them. Recommendation 23 of the report is to implement representative actions to allow unions and other representative groups to bring representative claims to court as per complaints to the commission. Recommendation 25 of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report is for the commission to implement cost protections. They're the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act and other acts that were recommended in the report that are not in the current bill.</para>
<para>As for the recommendations for amendments to the Fair Work Act that were in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, recommendations 28 and 29 deal with the prohibition on sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act and having a complaints process to be able to deal with it. Further, the amendments have an extension of the 'stop sexual harassment order', as per the Human Rights Commission recommendation to the Senate enquiry; and they deal with the recommendation for 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave to be included in the National Employment Standards.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just make some brief comments on behalf of the government in relation to the amendments that have been circulated by the opposition, to essentially highlight the point that we have given careful consideration to each of these, and that consideration underpins the particular approach we have taken.</para>
<para>For example, in relation to paid family and domestic violence leave, the primary purpose of this bill is to implement the government's commitments in response to recommendations made in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. This bill, in the government's judgement, is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to consider broader reforms to family and domestic violence leave. The Fair Work Commission is currently reviewing the family and domestic leave clause in modern awards. Further consideration of the issue of paid leave by this government will be appropriately informed by the commission's consideration of this issue.</para>
<para>In relation to the question of representative actions, as outlined in the government's <inline font-style="italic">Roadmap for respect</inline>, there is already an existing mechanism to enable representative proceedings in the Federal Court under part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and, given these avenues, it's not clear that a further ability to make representative claims is required. In relation to cost protections, there are mixed views on whether the model recommended by the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@ Work</inline> report and adopted in one of the amendments that the opposition has proposed based on section 570 of the Fair Work Act will actually address the issues identified with the current model. For example, as part of the consultations for the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, Victorian Legal Aid outlined their view that this model would still provide a disincentive for applicants, given it would not enable them to recover their costs, even if they were successful.</para>
<para>In the interests of time, I won't go through a comprehensive response, but I can assure the House that the government have carefully considered the amendments on their merits, and we've arrived at the views we have based upon policy considerations such as the ones I've just run through.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [13:10]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allen, K</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Connelly, V</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR (teller)</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Haines, H</name>
                  <name>Hayes, CP</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Payne, AE</name>
                  <name>Smith, DPB</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM (teller)</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Afghanistan</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] In my previous remarks on this motion a few days ago I had initially expressed the enormous gratitude that we as people of Australia should have for the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, particularly those who served overseas in Afghanistan in this 20-year-long conflict. I also moved to recap why we went to Afghanistan in the first place, noting that four in 10 Australians today were either children aged below 10 or, indeed, not born when we engaged in this military conflict in Afghanistan.</para>
<para>In about a week's time we'll remember the 20th anniversary of 9/11. We'll remember the al-Qaeda attacks, and not just those on New York and Washington—anybody who can remember watching that on their television screens and seeing those terrifying events play out can never forget them—but also the other terrorist attacks around the world: in London, in Madrid, in Africa, in Indonesia and elsewhere. These were attacks which killed fellow men and women Australians—attacks, as was that in Indonesia, upon Australian facilities. It is important to remind ourselves why Australia became engaged in Afghanistan in the first place.</para>
<para>This is not the occasion to discuss the circumstances of the ending of that engagement just a few days ago. There are other occasions to do that and to discuss the consequences of that ending and the manner of it for strategic postures in the future. But I do want, in this time, to address two criticisms that have been made. The first is that because the engagement ended in withdrawal and the reassertion of the Taliban then it wasn't worthwhile. I profoundly disagree with this criticism because that military engagement, starting some 20 years ago, ended the widespread terrorism that was occurring around the world—terrorism born and bred in Afghanistan. That was the primary reason why our forces, along with forces from the United States, NATO and other nations, went to Afghanistan.</para>
<para>And it did produce a better human rights outcome for the people of Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls, for the past two decades. But it's a reminder also that the fight against evil is never ending, that we must remain eternally vigilant. As Edmund Burke once said, 'All that's required for evil to prosper is for good men and women to do nothing.' We're also reminded that people in any part of the world must desire liberty themselves and that it's not something that can simply be imposed upon them from outside.</para>
<para>The second criticism that has been made is that, because of the withdrawal after two decades and the circumstances of that withdrawal, the sacrifices of those who died and those who were wounded and maimed, and the sacrifices of their families, were therefore worthless—worth nothing. Again, I disagree with that criticism. We should remember in this context that the Anzac legend, of which we are so immensely proud in this country—and, indeed, in New Zealand—was born of a defeat. When we commemorate Anzac Day, as we all do at cenotaphs around this nation, we're not celebrating some victory; we're marking the loss of those who gave their lives in other wars for freedom and liberty around the world. But Anzac itself, as we all know, ended in a withdrawal from the Gallipoli Peninsula—in effect, a defeat.</para>
<para>So the idea that for those who gave their lives, the 41 brave Australians and the hundreds more who were maimed and wounded, that somehow their sacrifice was for nothing, is, as I said, something that I disagree with. As former Prime Minister Howard said, there's no hierarchy in terms of sacrifice by people from various conflicts, who have given their lives for this country and for the peace, liberty and dignity of individuals around the world. The sacrifices of those who were killed and wounded in Afghanistan remain equal to the sacrifices of those who were killed and injured in other conflicts and in other wars.</para>
<para>In conclusion, let me return to where I started—to thank the almost 40,000 Australian Defence personnel who served in Afghanistan. We appreciate what you did and we can never fully repay your sacrifices, but we should never forget them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Members of parliament get many chances to speak in this parliament. At another time I will reflect on the war in Afghanistan—a noble and worthwhile cause, yet a strategic failure and defeat. Instead, now, this speech is to give voice to people who may never get the chance to be heard by Australians—certainly never in this parliament. These Afghan Australians from my electorate deserve to be heard. Their common cry is the worry for their family. Their common despair is that their loved ones should have been safe in Australia years ago. The common factor is government delays in processing their visa applications.</para>
<para>I've changed the names to protect their families, but these are their words. From Ali: 'I've been with the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan for about four years. Mate, I was one of those frontline interpreters. Even though I got multiple threats, including one target killing, I was super lucky, as the Taliban fighter's bullet just missed my forehead. Mate, my family is living in hell right now. Taliban took over Kandahar. My family is stuck there. Mate, I did apply for family members under humanitarian visa last year, but I have not received any response from Australian department. I don't want my sister be forced to marry a Taliban and I do not want my nephews to be taken by the Taliban at the age of 12 or 14, and this will happen sooner or later. They just killed three people in our village this morning whom used to work for coalition forces in the Kandahar airfield. Mate, you're my last hope.'</para>
<para>From Hasti: 'I applied for my husband's partner visa in 2018. I've called the immigration numerous times and no-one has helped me. I fear I may never be able to see my husband again. I fear to be able to hear his voice ever again. We spoke last yesterday. He's been harassed by the Taliban, slapped and kicked on his groin and asked questions: "Why have you shaped your beard like this? Why did you cut your hair in that style? I'll cut off your hand for having a tattoo on it." He got away, but the Taliban learned he has worked for diplomats and married an Australian, and are looking now to kill him. He's been going to relatives' houses, but no-one gave him shelter as they're all so afraid, if they give shelter to him, their lives will also be in danger. He's at the airport as I'm writing. My husband is educated and speaks in five different languages, including English. He has a bachelor degree in economics and commerce. He will contribute to the Australian economy and country when he arrives. Please get him a visa. It's been three years and time is running out.'</para>
<para>From Rasoul: 'I'm writing to plead with you to have my family's visa processed. My application was lodged back in June 2013. They've completed their medicals twice, last in 2019. I've been waiting for my family to join me safely. My eldest son, Medi, was taken by the Taliban yesterday after he was suspected of helping allied forces. This was a case of mistaken identity but I haven't heard anything. I pray they will release him unharmed. Please, please, help me get their visa.'</para>
<para>From Waleed: 'I sponsored my daughter and her three kids for visa in 2010. She's my last relative, who has no-one to care or support her, as she was left widowed after her husband's passing a long time ago. Now she can no longer leave the house without a male by her side, meaning she cannot provide for her kids. This will leave her and her children with no shelter and no food. Because of the Taliban, who are killing village citizens, they have been displaced and had to flee. They're currently in Kabul airport but attempts to get visa have failed. I plead for your help to get her and her three children the visa to Australia for a chance at life.'</para>
<para>From Ahmed: 'I applied for a family visa for my wife three years ago. I didn't mind waiting for visa approval but it's not safe now. Why won't the government approve their visa? I now must go back to Afghanistan and try to save my family instead of sitting here and waiting. I own three businesses in Dandenong but I can't work. I'm nearly losing my mind. So please help me and give me some advice. How can I get travel permission to go to Afghanistan and help and bring my family? I know it's a big risk but my family's important. What else can I do?'</para>
<para>From Hayat: 'I'm an Australian citizen from Hazara minority. I've worked several years as an interpreter with our forces. I've lost eight members of my family—father, four sisters, uncle, cousin, uncle's wife, nieces, three brother-in-laws—who were all killed by the Taliban terrorist group ten years ago. My only two brothers are still missing. My mother was the latest victim of the Taliban atrocity, while waiting for the processing of her visa application. My last brother and sister have faced suffering, war, injustice and ongoing trauma, and are now facing humanitarian crisis and violent Taliban takeover. My family, including my nieces and nephews, who are all waiting for the finalisation of their visas, are extremely frightened and fearful. I've applied for their visas but heard nothing. I plead for your intervention and help.'</para>
<para>From Aisha: 'My husband is in danger. He worked for medical military. His partner visa was lodged in 2018. Almost three years we are waiting. I believe my application is decision ready. I've updated all my things to my ImmiAccount: the police check, the health check-up, the marriage documents. Currently I'm going to have an operation now—an ovarian cyst, possible cancer—and need emotional support and someone to take care of me. The stress and anxiety are getting us so helpless and sleepless. I sometimes feel I will not see them forever.'</para>
<para>From Zana: 'I fainted the other day due to the stress of my husband being in Kabul. I applied for his visa nearly two years ago. After telling him to wait for five days outside the airport without taking him inside and assessing our visa, they told him they can't help, because I'm not there. They said, "We help only Afghans whose citizen partners are there." This is unjust, unfair and discriminatory. Do I need to go out there myself, place myself in a dangerous situation, just to get my husband's visa? If that's the case, if they can't do anything for me as an Australian citizen, I request: take me now on an evacuation flight back to Kabul, so whatever happens I can face it together with my husband. Whether we die, whether we go missing, whatever happens, I want to be with him. If my husband is not welcomed here after paying a $9,000 visa fee and waiting years, how can I stay here?'</para>
<para>From Nazrul: 'I applied for a partner visa in 2018. I'm yet to hear any news. My wife and kids are in a desperate situation. They cannot leave the house. Someone told the Taliban that I'm in Australia. Having an Australian connection, we are labelled nonbelievers and traitors to be sent to the graveyard. I'm scared to death. My wife and kids are looking up to me for help, and I feel absolutely powerless and guilty because I cannot do anything to give them their visa. The Taliban visited my house twice already. They came back and beat my wife, but she still told them I'm in Iran. Three of my daughters are aged over 12. They're hiding. We're afraid the Taliban will take them for forced marriage. My family are in great danger and they haven't slept or eaten for days. My kids are traumatised. I haven't slept for days now. I'm desperate to get them out of there. I beg you to please help me out. Put pressure on the government to approve my partner visa so they can get out of there. Do something. I've called immigration and told them my story but nothing has happened. They told me, "Someone might call you." Please help. I have no-one to reach out to. They will kill or injure my wife. God forbid if they see my daughters.'</para>
<para>From Hasib: 'I hope you are doing well and safe. Mr Julian, it's been more than five years that we are waiting for our visas as a family. I see your speech. I even don't know why I'm emailing this to you. But, in the state of helplessness and being imprisoned amongst the gunmen in Kabul, I've done everything I could just to get out of this hell. I don't know whether this will be my last email or we would be out of here, safe and alive. We're in the state of helplessness and raising our hands to the Australians and the government of Australia. I hope there will be a listener and listen to us. Thank you. May you be safe and sound with your children.' I haven't heard from Hasib for over a week now.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coombs, Mr John</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute to my friend the late John Coombs. As National Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, John Coombs was one of the faces of the wharf dispute of 1997-98. Australia got to know what so many already did, that he was a man of courage, of tenacity and of unbending principle. He was also a man of great empathy. He felt all too keenly the emotional toll on so many of his members, more than he felt the personal vilification levelled at him by Howard government ministers. I will never forget the sight of John leading 2,000 sacked wharfies back through the gates. It was one of his many triumphs.</para>
<para>With his passing, we pay respect to a life of dedication and devotion to his family and to his broader family on the wharves and the open sea. It was a devotion that knew no boundaries. He was committed to international trade unionism, principally through the International Transport Workers Federation. While his focus was always on others, we hope he always drew strength and comfort from the great respect in which he was held across the labour movement. John was also a loyal member of the Australian Labor Party, and I personally benefited from his support and his mentoring.</para>
<para>John made a difference. Importantly, he made a lasting difference. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Small Business</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like so many others in this chamber, I have been moved by the small and medium-sized business owners in our communities who have been doing it tough during the ongoing uncertainty of lockdowns, especially by Victorian businesses, who are currently under lockdown No. 6. One such business in my electorate of Higgins is Acland Travel in Malvern East, owned by Brad Jukes. Like many other travel agents across Australia, Brad is struggling with the ongoing state and international border closures crippling his sector. In fact, travel agents have been in hard lockdown since March last year.</para>
<para>When international travel shut down in March 2020 Acland Travel, like most travel agencies, experienced an immediate 95 per cent fall in revenue. Brad is immensely grateful for federal government support received via JobKeeper and the sector-specific grants. He said it has literally saved his business. International travel is his core revenue driver, and without ongoing support and until international travel resumes this won't change. Travelling Australians need this industry now more than ever, and that's only going to increase as we come out of these lockdowns.</para>
<para>We need all premiers and territory leaders to keep the commitment made in national cabinet to ease restrictions when vaccine targets are hit, so that we can all get travelling again and that businesses like Brad's have a hope of surviving.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lee, Ms Deborah (Debbie)</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] At the outset of this year's finals series, Debbie Lee become the first woman inducted into the Australian Football Hall of Fame. In the House today, I want to especially congratulate Debbie and acknowledge her extraordinary contribution to football, especially across Melbourne's west, and as a driving force in the establishment and success of the AFLW. Debbie has been a distinguished player, coach and administrator across more than three decades. She was a superstar of the game in her own right as a five-time Victorian league best-and-fairest, a triple-premiership player and a six-time all-Australian. She also represented the big V, 16 times.</para>
<para>Within my own community Debbie was a trailblazer. She built from scratch the Sunshine YCW Spurs, the first women's football club in the west, whilst overcoming the doubt and even outright abuse and sexism of many. She also founded, coached and led the St Albans football club for many years. As president of the Victorian Women's Football League, Debbie led the charge towards a fully fledged professional and national women's competition, which is so successful today. She is now the general manager of women's football at the great Western Bulldogs.</para>
<para>Debbie's elevation into the AFL hall of fame is richly deserved. I am sure the House will join me in offering congratulations and thanks for her truly outstanding contribution to Australian football.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Victoria</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a large park a few blocks from where I live in Melbourne. It's a very popular park, especially with the many recently migrated families who live in the area, many in old semidetached apartments that were constructed in the 1950s. For these families, the park is the only place of recreation for their children, which is why Premier Dan Andrews's bans are so destructive to the social life of these people.</para>
<para>I ask: is the Victorian Premier so cruelly uncaring, or has his totalitarian impulse to control the minutia of our lives become overwhelming? His so-called easing of restrictions is a farce. People, for example, who are fully vaccinated and who have had numerous negative COVID tests, cannot even return home from interstate and quarantine for 14 days at home. A week ago I described to colleagues from interstate the mood of Victorians as quietly desperate. Today, I would say it is rising anger. Stop corralling fear, Premier Andrews, and start trusting the people of Victoria.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wavehill, Mr</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Today I pay tribute to my old friend Mr Wavehill, an extraordinary man who lived an extraordinary life. He recently passed at his home in Kalkarindji surrounded by his family, two days after the 55th anniversary of the historic Wave Hill walk-off. He was born at Low Level in Katherine in the bush to his Mudburra parents, Mini and Left-handed Charlie. Born into cattle, he grew up on stations. He got his first job in Delamere, where he worked for nine years. He then went on to work in many other stations in the region before ending up at Wave Hill. There he met and married the love of his life, Biddy, and they went on to have 10 children. He was a young stockman when he took part in the Wave Hill walk-off. He was there at Wattie Creek when Gough Whitlam symbolically poured the soil into the hand of Vincent Lingiari, giving him back country.</para>
<para>Mr Wavehill was an important and strong voice for land rights and protecting country. He was passionate about his family, his community and his culture. He was an active member of the Central Land Council for many years. He was an artist. He loved passing on his knowledge to the rest of us, and it made him so very happy. He had a great smile. He was someone I knew very well. He was a man of stature, grace and humour. He was a gentleman. He was special, one of a kind. His passing is a devastating loss for his family and community. I extend my condolences to his wife, Biddy, extended family and friends. Goodbye, my old friend. Rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Madill, Dr Frank, AM</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():</para>
<quote><para class="block">When I was just a boy, about 15, he asked me if I would like to come to hospital and see him operate and I was very keen.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I was going into the operating theatre, his advice to me was, 'if you faint, fall backwards, don't fall on my patient'—</para></quote>
<para>His dad's words began the young man's career and became the title of his first book, <inline font-style="italic">If you faint, fall backwards! Medicine: warts and all</inline>. This Sunday that young man turns 80.</para>
<para>Dr Frank Madill AM arrived in Tasmania in 1966, soon after graduating from medical school in Melbourne. He fell in love with Tasmania and his wife, Linda, and spent many decades working as a GP in Launceston's northern suburbs. Between that work, running a Romney sheep stud and raising two daughters with Linda, Frank ran for the state seat of Bass and was elected in 1986. After retiring from parliament in 2000, he continued to practice as a GP, only hanging up his stethoscope in 2017.</para>
<para>In 2014 Dr Madill was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his significant service to the Parliament of Australia, to medicine as a general practitioner and to the community. Dr Madill is still an active community volunteer, including with the Migrant Resource Centre, and he recently celebrated 50 years of service to the North Launceston Football Club. Frank, I could speak for more than 90 seconds about your dedication to our community, but I want you to know you are beloved by so many. On behalf of Northern Tasmanians, happy 80th birthday.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Anticorruption Commission</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Almost 1,000 days have passed since the Prime Minister and the former Attorney-General stood before the Australian people and finally, grudgingly, promised them a national anticorruption commission. That's 1,000 days of corruption unchecked, 1,000 days of rorts, rorts and more rorts, and there's still no action and still no legislation from this government to establish a national anticorruption commission.</para>
<para>Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption body, but not the Commonwealth. By contrast, the Prime Minister knows he and his ministers can get away with just about anything—sports rorts, carpark rorts, 'Grassgate', the member for Hume's dodgy documents, the airport land rort, and that's just since the last election. The only minister ever forced to resign from the Morrison government didn't even have to wait out one term before she was invited back and given a pay rise. Nothing more graphically illustrates why Australia needs a powerful and independent anticorruption commission and why Mr Morrison and his colleagues will do everything in their power to stop one from being established.</para>
<para>If Mr Morrison won't act, Labor will. Labor will put an end to the Morrison government's shameful inaction by establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moncrieff Electorate: Economy</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently, the Morrison government, in conjunction with the Queensland government, announced a $600 million support package to assist businesses and the tourism sector which have been suffering due to state imposed lockdowns. I extend my thanks to Gold Coast industry leaders and, in particular, to Moncrieff City Heart task force members, who provided valuable insights and key pillar reports that I delivered directly to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment.</para>
<para>My subsequent letter to the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the Treasurer and the tourism minister, calling for urgent assistance measures, helped to underpin the reasoning for this support package that was announced by the Treasurer. As a result of three Gold Coast LNP members working together to advocate for this package, our voice was heard loud and clear in Canberra and we delivered a result for Gold Coast businesses when they needed it most. In addition to that assistance, last week the Treasurer announced the expansion of the SME loan scheme, which will now help many businesses in my electorate to qualify. These measures give so many the chance to keep their businesses operating, their staff employed and their hopes intact.</para>
<para>On behalf of Moncrieff, I thank the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and cabinet for their rapid response to our calls for help. This support at this time means we can lift our heads, look to the horizon and work towards opening safely, in line with the national plan.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Housing</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Last week's Tasmanian budget contained some welcome funding. Alongside long-overdue spending for education and youth, there was important funding for legal aid services and mental health. As TasCOSS says, there are green shoots of change in this budget, showing that the government is beginning to listen to the community.</para>
<para>But all that is cold comfort for the thousands of Tasmanians who are looking for a home, like the woman who approached my office recently. She has been on the housing waitlist for four years and is currently living on her parent's couch—with her five kids. Or there's the constituent who was removed from her housing property in January due to safety fears after a violent ex-partner found her location. She hasn't been rehoused and is still living in a hotel with her two young kids nine months later. Unbelievably, these people have been forgotten in this state budget.</para>
<para>Tasmania's public housing waitlist is predicted to exceed 5,000 in the next year, the appalling result of underinvestment by multiple governments. Moreover, affordable rentals are rarer than hen's teeth. So while, yes, the state government has shown it can listen on some issues it's not the case when it comes to housing, where the problem goes from bad to worse. Clearly, that's not good enough. It's as simple as that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans: Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I would like to congratulate the Department of Veterans' Affairs for providing fully trained psychiatric assistance dogs for eligible veterans right across Australia. As we know, mental health issues are often difficult to treat and resistant to treatment. The evidence is growing that these specially trained dogs can play an important role in our veterans' community.</para>
<para>They have successfully placed 36 dogs now around the nation, with another 130 in training. As the former minister I have received many positive letters from grateful veterans and their families, talking about how their dog has made a huge difference to their family life. This week I had the enormous pleasure to meet Rosie, a golden retriever, and her veteran friend Dale in a little coastal town called Seaspray in my electorate. It was quite remarkable to see the way Rosie and Dale are working together for the benefit of his mental health. After just a few months Dale is already reporting less anxiety and more confidence in social settings, and less need for medication. He credits Rosie for changing his life. He's now working to try to make sure that access to psychiatric trained assistance dogs is extended to first responders here in Victoria, particularly to Victoria Police.</para>
<para>I want to thank the dog-training organisations—the volunteers and professionals—who have done this enormous work. They're working in partnership with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and our veterans' community. Your work is really making a difference on the ground. Your work is saving lives and it's changing lives. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Canberra Electorate: COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As everyone here in this chamber and building knows, Canberra, my home town, has been in lockdown since 12 August. My community knows how dangerous this delta strain of COVID-19 is and it is doing the right thing to help limit the spread of this virus. What started with an index case a few weeks ago has grown to a cluster of over 250 active cases, with 13 cases in hospital.</para>
<para>When providing their daily update on the situation in the ACT, the Chief Health Officer or her deputy give a shout-out to a section of the team doing the hard yards to keep us safe: contact tracers one day, our expanded testing team the next, our excellent epidemiologists. Today I would like to give a shout-out to our Chief Health Officer, Kerryn Coleman, and her leadership team for their resolve and direction through this ongoing crisis. I'd also like to give a shout-out to the broader workforce getting our community through this: our educators and support staff; our school students; our essential cleaning staff across the government and care sectors; our online delivery drivers, delivering food to hundreds in isolation; our community sector staff, working with government to support and vaccinate our most vulnerable citizens; Julie Tongs and all the staff at Winnunga. There are too many to list in 90 seconds, but I thank all of you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Early in the pandemic we saw harrowing footage of the CCP ruthlessly enforcing lockdown measures. At the time you could have been forgiven for shrugging and thinking, 'Only in communist China.' How wrong you could have been.</para>
<para>Australia has gone to insane lengths to halt a disease with an infection fatality rate of 0.27 per cent. We've had the military patrolling the streets to enforce lockdown orders; mask mandates and travel limits; a three-year-old toddler denied a border exemption to be with his parents; dogs executed to prevent rescue volunteers travelling outside their designated five-kilometre radius; an elderly man arrested by police who didn't believe he was exempt from wearing a mask due to a heart condition, causing him to collapse of a heart attack; lockdown protesters fired upon with tear gas and pepper-ball bullets; a man in Alice Springs tackled to the ground and fined $5,000 for drinking a coffee without having a mask on; $11,000 fines issued for crossing a road into a different local government area in New South Wales; babies left to die because they can't cross state borders for the treatment they need; families forced to celebrate birthdays across the Queensland-New South Wales border barricade; anti-lockdown campaigner Monica Smit locked up for a political activity. I could go on for hours.</para>
<para>It's time that we took off the COVID blinkers and looked at what has happened to our once great and free country. Australia might not be communist China, but, I've got to tell you, it's a hell of a lot closer than it was just two years ago.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I find this government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic astonishing. This week the government has put forward legislation to ensure that the minister for health can secure further vaccines without waiting for an allocation by appropriation, which can take up to six months. Eighteen months into the pandemic and 12 months since it was clear that vaccines would be available soon, to me it beggars belief that this government is so slow.</para>
<para>The endless New South Wales lockdown is also due to a slow government. The lockdown has cost billions of dollars a week and thousands of small businesses their livelihoods. Just imagine what a government could do with that money flowing through its economy. Instead, there is personal cost, and lives are damaged or lost. The Prime Minister may crow about 30,000 lives that weren't lost, but what about those that are gone too soon because of the government's inaction? These people have families who mourn. What about the toll on mental and physical health? And now cancer screenings are being put off. How many will lose their lives because they couldn't have the medical treatment they needed as our hospitals are more and more overwhelmed? Government is about responsibility and leadership. It is time we had a government and a prime minister willing to follow through with that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sidwell, Mr Oswald William Thomas (Bill)</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Last week we lost a gentleman, a great sportsman and a great Australian. Bill Sidwell for some time had been Australia's oldest living Davis Cup player. He was an outstanding player during the golden era of Australian tennis, reaching five grand slam doubles finals and winning the US championship with John Bromwich over George Worthington and Frank Sedgman in 1949. The war had interrupted his tennis career, but he attributed his good health to, when in service, taking a course in nutrition and learning the value of green vegetables, resulting in a lifelong love of green vegetables—and he did enjoy a long life.</para>
<para>The last time I saw Bill he'd just played 18 holes, which he did every Saturday and Monday. It was a very hot day, in the mid-30s, but Bill had walked the course and was having a beer before lunch. We immediately engaged in conversation about tennis as if picking up from the day before, and he did bring up some issues for me to consider. When I asked how his golf was he was modest, but he revealed that he had scored under his age. He then laughed and said, 'That's not hard when you're 99 years old.' Another revelation was that he has a beer every night before his dinner of steak, mashed potatoes and green vegetables. He thought Ellsworth Vines was the greatest player he'd ever seen but wouldn't be drawn on how his generation compared to the greats of today. Billy Sidwell was a gentle man, a sportsman and a great Australian.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Afghanistan</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the past weeks I've been speaking with Afghan members of my community, including on Monday, when I met with representatives of the Canberra Hazara community with the member for Scullin, and I thank him. The situation for the Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan is now extremely dangerous, as their historic persecution becomes emboldened and amplified under Taliban rule. It is really hard to fathom what these people are going through, some of them having been separated from family for up to nine years while waiting to get visas. They share their stories with me and I want to help them as much as I can, but, ultimately, we need the government to really step up to help the people in Afghanistan and the people here, particularly those on SHEVs and temporary protection visas, who are trying desperately to have a future for themselves and to get their families to safety.</para>
<para>We need the government to increase Australia's refugee and humanitarian intake drastically. The UK and Canada have pledged to accept 20,000 Afghan refugees, and there is no reason that we cannot do the same. We need to process the partner and family visas of Afghan applicants with absolute urgency. The discrimination which has left people languishing for up to five years must stop now, and we need to scrap temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas. The crisis in Afghanistan shows us in stark clarity that the situation of refugees is rarely ever temporary.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tokyo Paralympic Games</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Australian Paralympic athletes on their outstanding achievements. From my own electorate of Cowper we have four remarkable men and women who are proudly representing our country. Ryley Batt from Port Macquarie, captain of the Australian wheelchair rugby team and widely regarded as the greatest wheelchair rugby player the world has ever seen, narrowly missed out on a bronze after defeat by the host nation, Japan. Bill Latham from Coffs Harbour, an integral member of the Australian wheelchair basketball team, made it to the quarterfinals last night against Japan. Paige Leonhardt from Port Macquarie, who competed in the SM14 swimming category, is now bringing home a silver medal after a spectacular performance in the 100-metre butterfly. Maddie McTernan, who found her love of swimming at Coffs Harbour Nippers, is also bringing home a silver medal from the electrifying mixed 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay.</para>
<para>However, with up to $20,000 cash from the Australian Olympic Committee for able-bodied podium finishes, to learn that absolutely no financial award is provided to their Paralympic counterparts was very disappointing. I think we can all agree that something needs to be done about this disparity. Thank you Ryley, Bill, Paige and Maddie; you've done Cowper and this country proud.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: New South Wales</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm a worried man. I wish to make my concerns known. The government is putting all its eggs in the Doherty modelling basket, and I'm very worried man. I'm worried that the modelling is just that; it's not the truth and it's not the Ten Commandments. The Doherty modelling is based on a lot of assumptions that, certainly in my electorate of Macarthur, are not true. Our intensive care is overflowing, over capacity. Our wards are being filled with patients with COVID-19, and, as in any health crisis, the vulnerable are the ones that are paying the price.</para>
<para>I'm a worried man. I'm a worried man because the Prime Minister seems to exist in a fantasy world where he believes that restrictions can be eased very soon. I'm a worried man because all our eggs are in the one basket. I'm a worried man because staffing is a major issue in our health services. I'm a worried man because the most vulnerable are not being protected. I'm worried that those in western New South Wales, in remote communities, in Dubbo, Wilcannia and Burke, are lacking resources; their immunisation rates are very low and the most vulnerable, again, are the ones that are suffering. We've had over 1,200 cases in New South Wales because of the incompetence of the New South Wales government and the discriminatory way in which they've put restrictions in place. I'm a worried man. This government doesn't understand the reality of the pandemic. It doesn't understand what's happening in my electorate, on which no modelling has been done.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cairns Cup</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Cairns Cup has been run and won for another year, with locally trained and owned Tutelage saluting the judge. It was the husband and wife training duo of Janel and Ronnie Ryan's fourth Cairns Cup, following wins in 2001, 2015 and 2018. The Ryan training feat saw Tutelage go from a maiden to a winner, winning at the Cairns Cup in 18 months, a pretty impressive effort in anybody's books. Nearly 5,000 people got dressed up in their finest and headed to Cannon Park over the weekend for a sun soaked Far North Queensland day to catch the action on day 2 of the Cairns Cup carnival. In fact, the numbers through the gate at the Cairns Cup outstripped all expectations and made it the biggest event on record. Ladies Day, the previous weekend, saw 2,500 people head to the races, a number on par with previous years.</para>
<para>All eyes now turn to the Cairns Amateurs Racing Carnival in a few weeks time. Cairns amateurs is arguably the biggest event on the Cairns social calendar. Sadly, last year's event was cancelled due to COVID, but in 2019 it set a 10-year record, with about 11,000 people passing through the gates. I have no doubt that, if there are no last-minute lockdowns or spur-of-the-moment restrictions placed on Far North Queenslanders, this year's Cairns amateurs will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, on record. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia has had bad governments before, but have we ever had a more mendacious, incompetent, thin-skinned, secretive, cowardly government than this one? Australians are furious that the Morrison government gave $13 billion of JobKeeper to firms with rising revenues. In Britain, Canada, the United States and New Zealand, the public knew every firm that got wage subsidies. In Australia, the only reason we know anything about JobKeeper recipients is that ASIC required listed firms to disclose to the stock market. But only three per cent of JobKeeper went to listed companies. That's why Labor moved to have a public register listing all JobKeeper recipients with a turnover above $10 million.</para>
<para>So what did the government do? They added a Clayton's transparency amendment that requires disclosure of the three per cent of JobKeeper given to listed companies. They're so scared, the only information they will give to people is what we already know. Privately, I know that many of those opposite are embarrassed by 'dividend keeper'. In her column today, Niki Savva points out that 'Liberals fear long-term damage to their brand' because the government lacks a 'commitment to any cause beyond surviving the news cycle', and because of the infighting between the Treasurer and the defence minister. If only they were as ambitious for the nation as they are for themselves.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackellar Electorate: Fashion Industry</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Too many people say that manufacturing is not possible in Australia; that we have to compete against overseas manufacturers, who offer wages equivalent to modern slavery; that innovation does not allow for well-paid, engaging jobs or for Australia to lead the way. Allow me to offer a substantial counterpoint: Jimmy Stuart, made here in Australia by the genius that is Avalon local Jimmy Grenenger. Thirty-seven years ago, at the age of 21, Jimmy, a prison officer at Long Bay, had a dream. He dreamed of shirts like this, which stand as proof that Australians are only limited by the bounds of their imagination. Jimmy went to TAFE, studied fashion, made his own designs and has never looked back.</para>
<para>As Jimmy will tell you, nothing is easy. He told me that running your own business in the rag trade is a lot more dangerous than prison. His inspiration comes from making garments that own the room, and making them right here in Australia. He told me that this is probably his greatest success. 'When just about everyone else was taking their businesses offshore to China, I fought hard to make my shirts here.' Jimmy admits to his mistakes too, like when he thought it would be a brilliant idea to make a shirt that had an opening at the back and not the front. It turns out it didn't work. At any time it is important for us to support our entrepreneurs, but at this time it is especially important. I urge anyone looking for a shirt that owns the room, including the House of Representatives or elsewhere, to check out Jimmy Stuart.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will not call the member for Whitlam—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can stand there for eight seconds, if you want to! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tokyo Paralympic Games</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the parliament rises, as we indeed did for our great Olympians, I want to share Australia's joy and pride in our Paralympians. There are still three more wonderful days ahead, and we are so, so proud of our team. They have shown discipline, focus, determination, dogged persistence, a great sense of humour—a great sense of the Australian spirit on display. We have witnessed the essence of what sport is all about: being the best you possibly can be.</para>
<para>Our team has won 60 medals, including 13 gold, so far. These are Australia's newest gold medallists: Madison de Rozario, gold in the 800-metre T53; and James Turner, gold in the 400-metre T36. In the cycling there is Darren Hicks, gold in the 24-kilometre road time trial C2; Amanda Reid, gold in the track 500 time trial C1-3; Page Greco, gold in the track 3,000-metre individual pursuit C1-3; and Emily Petricola, gold in the track 3,000-metre individual pursuit C4. In the swimming there is Rowan Crothers, gold in the 50-metre freestyle S10; Ben Popham, gold in the 100-metre freestyle S8; Lakeisha 'Lucky' Patterson, gold in the 400-metre freestyle S9; William Martin, gold in the men's 400-metre freestyle S9; and the men's 4x100-metre freestyle relay, 34 points, including Matt Levy, Rowan Crothers, William Martin and Ben Popham. In the table tennis, there were Australia's first gold medals in the sport for some 37 years: Lina Lei, gold in the singles class 9; and Qian Yang, gold in the singles class 10.</para>
<para>We have won 60 medals so far, and, recognising the national significance of the Paralympic team, I'm very pleased to announce that the government will provide additional support to Paralympics Australia to ensure our Paralympic medallists will receive equivalent payments to our Olympic medallists. The Minister for Sport, at my request, spoke to Paralympics Australia CEO Lynne Anderson earlier today, and I'm delighted we've been able to support our fantastic Paralympians in that way. I thank Lynne for the great work that she does with our Paralympic team and the way we've worked together on this.</para>
<para>Our Paralympians are wonderful and powerful role models. Darren Hicks, who won gold and silver in Tokyo, was a truck driver who had a terrible accident seven years ago. With the help of others, he rebuilt his life. Fighting back the tears, Darren said, 'It's an absolute dream to hear the anthem.' There's Curtis McGrath. Curtis served as a combat engineer in Afghanistan, and in August 2012 lost his legs after an IED explosion. That same day he vowed, 'You'll see me at the Paralympics.' He kept his vow, winning gold at Rio, and he's been competing today, progressing through his heat to the semifinal. Australia is proud of Curtis, proud of his service and proud of his grit.</para>
<para>So many others have inspired us. There was Grant 'Scooter' Patterson's ecstatic reaction after winning a bronze medal in the swimming individual medley and achieving his childhood dream after missing out on the Rio Paralympic Games. We witnessed the incredible return of sprinter Isis Holt. Isis won two silver medals and a bronze medal in Rio. Isis is from here, from Canberra, and took a two-year break from the sport to focus on her studies, and she comes away from Tokyo with two more silver medals.</para>
<para>Swimming silver medallist Ahmed Kelly, until the age of seven, lived in the Mother Teresa orphanage in Baghdad along with his brother. He was adopted by a humanitarian worker. Like so many others, Ahmed made Australia his home. Ahmed loves Aussie rules, and he was given the nickname 'Nails', because he's as tough as nails. There's the youngest athlete on the team, 15-year-old Isabella Vincent. She won silver in the pool. As a six-year-old she was inspired by the great Australian Kurt Fearnley, who happens to have the same condition as her. Izzy and Kurt met not long before she was jetting off to Japan. She said: 'They say you shouldn't meet your hero. They are wrong.' Now Kurt says he is her No. 1 fan.</para>
<para>Speaking of No. 1 fans, I'm claiming membership of the Todd Hodges fan club, together with Peter Gutwein. How good is Todd Hodges! When he was asked about his technique and his motivation in the shot-put circle, this is how he described it: 'I said "God and country" and I whacked it!' Todd's planning all the way out to Brisbane 2032—and I will be there to watch him. I have to give a shout-out to Dan Michel and his ramp assistant Ash McClure who won bronze in boccia—I hope I've got that right; I'm glad barre's not in the Olympics!—which was Australia's first medal in this discipline in 25 years. Dan and Ash are from the Shire, and I'm a very proud local member for them.</para>
<para>All our Paralympians are incredibly dedicated, but the dedication of Christie Dawes in athletics and Danni Di Toro in table tennis is simply extraordinary. They are both competing in their seventh Paralympics. James Turner, who won gold in the men's 400-metre T36 race, explained why the Paralympics matters so much to all of us. He said: 'Having a disability is defined as what you cannot do, but competing at the Paralympics is all about what you can do. I want to go out there and show what you can do instead of focusing on what you can't.' That's a great lesson for all of us.</para>
<para>To everyone in the Paralympics movement and to all who organised these games, especially our great friends in Japan, I say thank you. It has been a great triumph and will continue to be in the days ahead. To all our Paralympians, thank you so much for inspiring us. Congratulations on your tremendous efforts. I want to thank all of your families and your friends and your supporters and everybody who has stood alongside you and helped you along your way. They know that, at the end of the day, it was you who made the choice as a Paralympian, it was you who decided to go forward, it was you who decided to commit and be determined to be where you have been over these magical few weeks. You have inspired us and we are grateful that you're one of us as Australians. There is still much to complete and, in the days ahead, we continue to wish you all the best of luck.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's safe to say that, during what's a very challenging time for Australians, a common sentiment across our nation is: thank goodness for the Tokyo Paralympics! This is the largest Australian team ever sent to a Paralympic Games overseas—179 athletes supported by 168 staff and competing in 18 of the 22 sports. At present, with three days to go, Australia is eighth on the medal tally, with 13 gold, 23 silver and 24 bronze—and more medals to come, we hope, over the next few days.</para>
<para>Some of the performances so far have been nothing short of stunning. Australia's first gold medal of the games was won by South Australian Paige Greco in the 3,000 metres women's individual pursuit. She broke the world record by seven seconds in her heat, and then—because apparently that wasn't enough!—she knocked another two seconds off that time during the next race. Her teammate Emily Petricola then saw to it that Australia had back-to-back gold medals. Swimming champion Will Martin, who has already won gold in the 400-metre freestyle and the 4 x 100 metre freestyle just went and broke the world record in his 100-metre heat—a record that, incidentally, was set by him.</para>
<para>Once again, the great stories are not just laid out in gold. As COVID was hitting Sydney, swimmer Tiffany Thomas Kane had just an hour to pack and leave. Her grandmother died after she left Australia, and Tiffany dedicated one of her bronze medals to her. We've seen our 37-year gold medal drought in Paralympics table tennis brought to an end by Lina Lei and Qian Yang, who won their respective women's singles finals in Tokyo. For Yang it was her first time representing Australia. That's certainly one way to debut for your country!</para>
<para>It's been a time for drought-breaking. Dan Michel won Australia's first medal in boccia in a quarter of a century. I can inform the Prime Minister that boccia is a version of bocce, the Italian game, for people to compete with mobility impairment. It's a game of great skill that I watched the other night. It's quite an extraordinary game of skill. Dan said, 'I am heaps excited with it.' As are we, Dan!</para>
<para>I say to every one of our Paralympians: you have done us all proud as a nation in Tokyo. You are performing magnificently as athletes, as human beings and as representatives of your country. You embody everything that is great about the Paralympics. I want to take the opportunity as well to thank our friends in Japan for hosting the games.</para>
<para>I know we'll all be cheering on Dylan Alcott tonight when he plays his quad singles final. He's in with a good chance of completing something that can only happen by definition every four years—a golden slam, winning all four majors and the Olympic singles gold in a single year. Let our hopes for him remind us just how much the games are about dreams.</para>
<para>In a trackside interview, wheelchair racer Sam Carter recalled watching the Paralympics as a 10-year-old boy. He said, 'Every time I show up at the village, it's like I get a mental high-five from 10-year-old Sam.' I will leave the final word to Sam, who has this advice for any 10-year-olds who are dreaming that same dream: 'Get out there. If you work hard, you can do it. It's totally within reach.'</para>
<para>Our Paralympians have the goodwill of every single Australian, including the goodwill of our entire parliament. Well done.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sex Discrimination Legislation</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister failed Australian women and voted against Labor's amendments to implement key recommendations by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins in the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. As the member will well recall, the government has provided a full response to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. Our response to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's report sets out our long-term commitment to preventing and addressing sexual harassment. It seeks also to build a new culture of respectful behaviour in Australian workplaces by agreeing to—in full, in part or in principle—while noting, all 55 recommendations in the report. The Respect@Work bill implements, specifically, recommendations 16, 20 to 22, 29 and 30 from the report, in line with the government's commitments in the Roadmap for Respect that the Attorney-General and I outlined many months ago. The bill also clarifies the applicability of the Sex Discrimination Act to members of parliament and judges, and makes key amendments that will immediately strengthen the overarching legal framework with respect to sex discrimination and harassment.</para>
<para>We've prioritised these reforms for immediate introduction, recognising that other more complex reforms require further consideration and stakeholder consultation. A number of recommendations need to be carefully considered together because they fundamentally change the core function of the Australian Human Rights Commission. A number of the remaining recommendations were directed to state and territory governments, to independent agencies, to regulators and to the private sector, recognising the whole-of-community approach taken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, who I again thank for her work. Work to implement and coordinate these responses is already underway through intergovernmental meetings such as the national cabinet, the Meeting of Attorneys-General, the women's safety task force and the work, health and safety ministers group.</para>
<para>At my initiation, through the national cabinet, I have requested that all states and territories provide their response to the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. At that time that had not been done by state governments, but I welcome the fact that that has now been done by state governments and they have come forward. Even now, as we speak, the women's safety summit is underway, with roundtable discussions proceeding right now and progressing some of the most important issues that you could imagine in keeping women safe in our country. We are supporting that, particularly with a $1.1 billion investment in women's safety through the 2021-22 budget, which includes over $60 million for implementing the Roadmap for Respect. Our government has delivered one of the single largest commitments to supporting the safety of women in our community, consistent with the actions of previous governments under the road maps and national plans which have been developed; they were started by Prime Minister Gillard, and have been faithfully continued by our government in a bipartisan way.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: National Plan</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Australian families and businesses, including in my electorate of Barker, want to be able to plan for their futures with confidence, free of the uncertainty and damage of widespread lockdowns. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how sticking to the national plan will safely achieve this goal, in line with increasing vaccination rates?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Barker for his question. I know the member for Barker will be very pleased that, in the state of South Australia, Premier Marshall is a strong supporter of the national plan, a very strong supporter of the national plan, because he knows that it enables Australians to plan for their future with confidence, as the member asks. That plan gives people that certainty to be able to look ahead. And in the member's electorate, which spans a vast array of business activities and production activities, having the certainty that the plan delivers is critically important to his constituents. And Premier Marshall understands that. The Premier of South Australia understands that support for the national plan is vital to the state's interests so that we can live with the virus and not live in fear of it, that we can live without lockdowns, and that businesses and Australians shouldn't have to fear lockdowns in the future—that they can have the certainty to get on with their lives creates the confidence that is necessary for them to invest and go forward.</para>
<para>The national plan provides a safe path out, a safe path out based on the best possible medical and scientific advice and evidence, as demonstrated through the Doherty institute, which means we can go forward with confidence about our safety, as the member says. It's not just about opening up for the good of our economy and our wellbeing; it is the right thing to do in terms of the safety of Australians and it is based on the best possible medical advice. The South Australian government understand this, because they're implementing the plan by being the state who put up their hand to do home quarantine trials so that home quarantine can work right across Australia, in New South Wales and Victoria, in Queensland and in other states. I was discussing this with the Victorian Premier last night, with the New South Wales Premier the night before. Home quarantine will mean people will be able to travel again. Australians who have been vaccinated can return to Australia. Australians who have been vaccinated can leave the country and return, as they once could, and have the opportunity of home quarantine, which is so important.</para>
<para>The vaccination rate is now 20 million doses or more having been distributed and administered across the country; 60.5 per cent first dose for the population aged over 16 and around 80 per cent for the population aged over 50. In South Australia, 35.5 per cent have had the double dose, and 53.7 per cent are on the first dose. And that is in a state that, like the great state of Tasmania, has low levels or zero levels of COVID, and yet their vaccination programs are forging ahead. I thank the Premier of South Australia and I thank the Premier of Tasmania for achieving those results. The Premier in South Australia understands that his state cannot go forward without the national plan to get the workers it needs, to get the advances it needs and to get the certainty that is required. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Lockdowns</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Eight days after the New South Wales outbreak began, the Prime Minister said, 'I commend Premier Berejiklian for resisting going into a full lockdown.' Since then, more than 23,000 people in New South Wales have been affected, and there are now almost a thousand people in hospital, including 160 in intensive care. Does the Prime Minister regret this comment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've addressed that matter already in this place. I draw the member's attention, I draw the leader of the Labor Party's attention, to the work that has been done on tracking the outbreaks in Victoria versus the outbreak that has occurred in New South Wales. As the delta variant hit, there were hopes that those lockdowns, whether they were implemented—I think it was in seven or eight days in New South Wales, after the commencement of the outbreak in New South Wales, or even earlier by the Victorian government. I remember the Premier of Victoria making those comments at the time. They wanted to avoid the circumstances which had occurred in New South Wales. But we now know that that outbreak in Victoria is going along the same path as it is in New South Wales. That is the nature of the delta variant. The Leader of the Labor Party may seek to ascribe all sorts of blame in these sorts of things—they may seek to do that—but the Australian people know that the delta variant of the COVID-19 pandemic is voracious. The Leader of the Labor Party may seek to score political points off a pandemic, but we will remain focused on our response. We will remain focused on delivering the national plan, which provides the pathway out. The Leader of the Labor Party may want to focus on negativity and blame. We are going to focus on delivering the COVID response, delivering the vaccines—20 million doses have been delivered—which is going to liberate this country, liberate people from lockdowns. We're focused on that positive task. We're focused on the hope. The Labor Party are focused, as usual, on negative politics and pointscoring.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Agriculture</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government's national plan is ensuring the availability of critical workers to regional Australia now to support the agriculture sector? How important is understanding time lines when making decisions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. He understands, as a former fuel distributor, how important timeliness is, especially timeliness so you can get the proper products to the proper areas at the proper time for the delivery—for all sorts of things, including the manufacturing of food products, which is vitally important. Now in Western Australia it is time for the harvest. We've got about 10 million tonnes of wheat, in excess of four million tonnes of barley and over two million tonnes of canola that has to come off. This can't happen unless there are the appropriate workers. The appropriate workers must arrive there. This morning we heard reports of them needing up to 600 farmworkers. But currently Western Australia and Queensland are yet to sign on to the agreements to get machinery drivers into the grain sector right now, to get these workers across, to bring these workers in.</para>
<para>It's alright having the rhetoric of keeping a place locked up, but circumstances arise where you have to get your economy going, and the economy of Western Australia and the agricultural economy of Western Australia are going to need these workers. They're going to need the capacity of government to make the changes so we can bring these people in. We can't just have the place locked up for ever. It won't work that way. It's not just the fact that we won't get these crops off, but our major markets that these crops go to—one of which is a key, crucial economic ally of Australia, Indonesia—are also needing this product. They will be watching to see—because 80 per cent of Western Australia's wheat crop is exported—whether they can manage to get that crop in.</para>
<para>It goes beyond that. It goes down the line to the other things that are produced from agricultural products, such as reconstituted skim milk, milk solids, vegetable oil, glucose-fructose syrup, sugar, glucose syrup and fat-reduced cocoa powder. I know the member for Grayndler knows about these, because they are the ingredients of the Viennetta ice cream. The Viennetta ice cream! He has nostalgic views about the Viennetta ice cream. He went to a shop the other day—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to the Deputy Prime Minister—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and had to buy one to remind him of his childhood—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat or at least cease talking for a second. There's no way what the Deputy Prime Minister is saying fits in with the substance of the question. He's tried. He's bent it as best he can, but it's not going to work.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, Mr Speaker, you have to give me 10 out of 10 for trying, don't you?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have to do anything, actually!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But what is important is the honesty and the capacity for us to make sure that we can get that crop off. We are going to be making sure we do it, because we will be delivering on the plan, not only to keep the people safe but to keep our economy going.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Hospitals</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In the six weeks between now and when parliament is due to meet next, the number of COVID patients in New South Wales intensive care units is expected to peak. Today, the Australian Medical Association warned that Australia's hospital system is unprepared for a sharp increase in critically ill patients. What extra resources will the Prime Minister give the nation's health system so it can cope?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. In my discussions with the New South Wales Premier on these very issues—and I believe her public statements have also reflected this fact. They understand that peaks in ICU needs in New South Wales will be reached later in October. That's their most recent information, and they are modelling these issues regularly to ensure that they are mapping their resources and capacities against their expected demand.</para>
<para>This is an important project that I have initiated through the secretary of the Department of Health and the national cabinet process. We're doing this right across the country. This is not a new item; this is something that has been done by the secretary of the Department of Health for many months. In fact, from the start of the pandemic, it has been the most regular matter that we have continued to investigate and review to ensure the system capacity. That's why some $6 billion of additional resources have been provided to states and territories, right across the country, as part of our funding partnership with the states and territories to co-share the burden—to co-share meeting the demand in and through the state public health systems to make sure they can meet the emerging demands.</para>
<para>That goes on top of the fact that funding for public hospital services in all states and territories has grown substantially, from $13.3 billion to $25.5 billion, some 92 per cent, since we came to government. Funding is projected to continue to grow under the current 20- to 25-year National Health Reform Agreement, providing $135.4 billion between 2020-21 and 2024-25. That began preparation in February 2020.</para>
<para>We have increased ICU capacity, from 2,000 to 7½ thousand ventilated beds nationwide, and invested $30 billion in COVID health measures, which includes the $6 billion I've already referred to. That includes establishing telehealth and GP respiratory clinics to ease pressure on hospitals and state workforces. And, as I said, we're investing over $6 billion directly into state hospitals.</para>
<para>There's the private hospital partnership, which provides a 100 per cent contribution—integration of private hospitals with state and territory health systems to ensure that over 30,000 hospital beds and the sector's 105,000-strong skilled workforce is available alongside the public health sector. And we established a testing system, with over 32 million tests, and which is now testing at over 200,000 a day.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth government, every single time when these needs have been highlighted, has stepped up. We've supported our states and territories and we have carried that load with them—fifty-fifty all the way. The planning continues because the pandemic continues to change. The secretary of Health, Professor Murphy, has been working with his colleagues consistently all throughout the pandemic to ensure that what is required is available because, of course, the public health system is an important part of implementing the national plan. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Tasmania is very fortunate to be safe and not locked down. The problem is that half the country is locked out, which is causing big problems for businesses reliant on visitors from Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT. No wonder sectors like tourism, hospitality, the arts and transport are being hit hard. It's no wonder airport workers are being laid off, tumbleweeds blow through Salamanca Market and publicans are working second jobs to pay staff. Prime Minister, some federal government help has been forthcoming, but it's not enough. Will your government provide increased targeted support to businesses in Tasmania, similar to what is being provided to other jurisdictions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for the question. The Treasurer will add further to the answer, as he has done a sensational job working with all state Treasurers to ensure we're delivering record levels of support, including in states that have not had to go through the significant lockdowns that we've seen in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and, from time to time, Queensland and South Australia. Indeed, Tasmania has done an outstanding job. I commend Premier Gutwein for the great job he's been doing with his government throughout the COVID pandemic. I'm pleased to advise the House that he's in much better health and will be returning to work soon—I understand he may even be there already, from my engagement with him over the last few days. I thank members for their interest and concern in the Premier's wellbeing.</para>
<para>The most important thing that can happen in Tasmania to ensure tourism businesses, orchards and other agricultural producers can access the workers that they need to progress their businesses, and for hospitality venues to get their staff back and all of those things, is support for the national plan. I want to thank Premier Gutwein for his support of the national plan, despite there being very low levels of COVID—virtually no levels of COVID—in Tasmania. He's been so supportive of the national plan. He's been particularly supportive because in Tasmania 60.9 per cent of Tasmanians have had a first dose of the vaccine and 43.7 per cent of Tasmanians have had a second dose. That is in a state that has got such a low level of COVID. There have been issues with hesitancy in states that have had low levels of COVID, where they feel perhaps the virus may not come to them or communities that are remote. But the fact is that in Tasmania they've been rolling up their sleeves. They've been doing a terrific job in ensuring that their vaccination program has maintained the pace and strength that it has. I will ask the Treasurer to add further.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. He knows that the Morrison government has stood by the people of Tasmania since day one of this pandemic. Indeed, more than $2.8 billion has gone from the federal government to the people of Tasmania, helping to drive their unemployment rate down to 4.5 per cent today. We have partnered with the Gutwein government on a specific plan to support businesses in Tasmania with grants of up to $10,000. I can confirm to the House that already 400 businesses in Tasmania across a range of sectors have received those grants of up to $10,000.</para>
<para>Of course, in the budget this year we forecast that there would continue to be challenging times across states and territories, like in Tasmania, as we seek to recover from COVID. That's why we put in place in the budget a range of measures, whether it was the tax relief—we saw nearly $4 billion in the June quarter go to Australian households, including those in Tasmania—our infrastructure projects or a range of other support measures.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Morrison Government</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the Treasurer if he could remind the House why it's vital for economic recovery that all states and territories stick to the national plan as agreed so that businesses and families can return to life after the COVID-19 pandemic. I ask him in addition: is he aware of any alternative policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Menzies for his question and acknowledge his incredibly strong contribution over so many years to his place and to his electorate of Menzies. He's somebody who's deeply committed to supporting his constituents through this very difficult time. He has supported policies that we have driven from this side of the House that will see, for example, more than 20,000 businesses in the electorate of Menzies being eligible for the extended immediate expensing provisions, supporting that economic recovery.</para>
<para>The member for Menzies and others on this side of the House understand that last year the Australian economy faced the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression. Treasury thought that the unemployment rate could hit as high as 15 per cent and that the economy could contract by as much as 20 per cent or more in the June quarter. We responded with overwhelming economic support. That has seen a very strong recovery in the back half of last year, with the strongest growth numbers in 50 years. We've seen the unemployment rate today come down to 4.6 per cent, the lowest in 12 years.</para>
<para>Yesterday, we had the June quarter national accounts: better than what the market was expecting, at 9.6 per cent through the year. What was particularly pleasing was that household consumption was up, off the back of our tax cuts and the easing of restrictions. We saw strong businesses investment. In fact, for machinery and equipment, it has been more than 20 per cent up since last October's budget, the fastest rate of growth in that category in nearly 20 years. Housing investment was up on the basis of very important programs like HomeBuilder that have helped create jobs in the construction industry.</para>
<para>We also know that the economy today, right now, faces real challenges, despite that strong economic rebound we saw in the back half of last year and the beginning of this year. There are real challenges, with our two largest states in lockdown. That's why we're responding with the COVID disaster payment—$750 for hours of work that have been lost—as well as business support packages with every state and territory. There are small business loans that have also helped to support small businesses through this difficult time.</para>
<para>We know that the pathway to Australia's recovery is not through higher taxes but through lower taxes. We have passed tax cuts, while those opposite continue to support higher taxes. They took to the last election $387 billion of higher taxes, and now they pretend that they support our stage 3 tax cuts. The reality is that, just like we're now seeing with JobKeeper, they're coming after small business. They're also coming after Australians with higher taxes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Hospitals</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Intensive care at Liverpool Hospital is already beyond capacity, with COVID patients being sent to other hospitals as far away as Wollongong. There are extra ventilators, yes, but not enough ICU nurses to run them. Why is training and recruitment of additional intensive care nurses only happening now, 18 months into the pandemic?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would respectfully correct the member for Macarthur. I respect his work in the community, but on this occasion he's wrong. The program for upskilling additional nurses began in February last year. Through that process we have seen approximately 20,000 nurses who are skilled in ICU. We've seen many other nurses who've been brought back to the system. The approach for protecting, preserving and strengthening the hospital system was laid out in February last year in <inline font-style="italic">Australian health sector emergency response plan for novel coronavirus (COVID-19)</inline>.</para>
<para>We're assisting in five particular ways. One, of course, is in terms of the specific training of nurses, including the upskilling to ICU. That was commenced not just a year ago; it was 18 months ago. In relation to that, we're also assisting, secondly, with beds, thirdly, with ventilators, fourthly, with funding and, fifthly, with PPE. To run through those, the private hospitals partnership agreement, or what is known as the private hospitals viability guarantee, creates a national partnership. It brings 30,000 beds, 57,000 nurses and over 100,000 staff into a partnership which can be drawn upon by any of the states and territories. At this stage, New South Wales has activated that and now has over 19 hospitals in partnership. They are able to draw upon beds, nursing staff, general staff, ICU availability and ventilator capacity. In addition to that, the Commonwealth is able to provide and has provided through the National Medical Stockpile, gloves, gowns, goggles, surgical masks and N-95 masks. All of these have been activated.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will just pause for a tick. The member for Macarthur on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Freelander</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is relevance. I'm well aware there's enough equipment, but they are desperately short of nursing staff in intensive care.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will ask the member for Macarthur to resume his seat. It's not a matter for debate. The minister was very relevant on that subject at the beginning of his answer and the material he's now providing is providing further information on the topic. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In addition to the training of nursing staff and the upskilling, particularly for ICU capacity, there's the provision of nursing staff through the private hospitals viability guarantee, which has already been activated within New South Wales and then, of course, the provision of funding. So far, $6 billion has been provided to the Australian public health system for public hospitals. In New South Wales, $1.1 billion has been provided through that partnership. We are expecting another $1.4 billion. So if you bring it all together—nursing staff, beds, ICU capacity, ventilation capacity, funding and PPE—these are all of the things which we are bringing on the basis of the plan, which was developed 18 months ago, which is being continuously reviewed and which is being implemented at this moment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister please outline to the House the importance of Australia's national plan and how sticking with the plan will support the health and the mental health of all Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Moncrieff. She's been a passionate advocate for health in her electorate. Indeed, I had the privilege of visiting the TriCare aged-care facility in Mermaid Beach with her. It was a facility in which one of the maintenance staff had a positive case, but because that facility had been double vaccinated there was no transmission to any staff, on the basis of the knowledge that I have. The facility immediately put in place all of the elements for preparation in case of a potential outbreak, and those residents were protected. That was a model response to an outbreak.</para>
<para>More generally, when we look around the world, we see again the ravages brought by COVID-19—over 725,000 cases recorded in the last 24 hours and 23,000 lives lost. So it is fundamental that we acknowledge—as a House, as a parliament, as representatives—that this global pandemic continues and has embedded itself as endemic in so many parts of the world. It will therefore be with the world for a long time to come.</para>
<para>Against that background, the vaccination program is fundamental to the work that we are doing, on top of all of the other protections which we put in place. There have been 330,000 vaccinations in Australia in the last 24 hours, but critically we have reached the 20 million dose milestone, as the Prime Minister said. What that means, also, is that we have now passed over 60 per cent of all eligible Australians 16-plus with first doses. What that means, as well, is that we are now two million Australians from having 70 per cent of all eligible Australians vaccinated and four million Australians from that 80 per cent mark. That means these things are within reach. We are doing our work.</para>
<para>It opens up the national plan, and that is so fundamental to mental health. We all know, whether it is a small-business owner, an employee or a single parent, that the notion of being locked at home, a child unable to attend the playground or a child unable to go to school—these things can have an impact in terms of anxiety and depression. So the national plan is fundamental in two ways. It's fundamental in keeping us safe. The 80 per cent target is globally a highly conservative target. But we can get there. We're on the cusp of achieving this. At the same time it is also fundamentally about hope, about hope that families can be reunited, people can recommence their lives and, ultimately, Australia can proceed safely but with a sense of open optimism.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. New analysis shows the Morrison-Joyce government gave more than $300 million of JobKeeper to firms that tripled their revenues. Given the government is chasing pensioners to return welfare overpayments, why is the government letting these businesses keep millions of taxpayer dollars they clearly didn't need?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's hard to work out the member for Fenner. One minute he's saying he invented JobKeeper and that he voted for JobKeeper. Now he is saying that he's criticising JobKeeper. The reality is that JobKeeper helped save our economy. In the first six months, the program was based on an anticipated decline in turnover. The reason that we took Treasury's advice on that key point is that the economy was staring into an economic abyss. At that time we saw that the economy could have unemployment at 15 per cent or above. That means more than two million Australians. We all remember those images of our fellow Australians lining up outside Centrelink. Those images were, for many, reminiscent of the Great Depression. We responded with JobKeeper, based on an anticipated decline in turnover. Then there was a review after three months, and it was recommended that we leave the anticipated decline for another three months before we moved to an actual decline in turnover and a tiered system for the back half.</para>
<para>What the honourable member fails to understand is that the great uncertainty in the economy at that time meant that we gave businesses certainty through JobKeeper. We gave businesses the ability to plan for their future. We gave businesses the opportunity to hang onto their staff. That has meant that the unemployment rate today is 4.6 per cent, a 12-year low. Do you know what it was when we came to government? It was 5.7 per cent. We've been through a recession, and the unemployment rate today is lower than when we came to government. We also know that we avoided, through the recession, a scarring of the labour market like we saw in the eighties and nineties recessions, which would have meant hundreds of thousands of Australians being long-term unemployed. That has been avoided by the fact that the JobKeeper program provided that degree of certainty. It was a well-targeted program. In Treasury's review, they found that the average decline in turnover in April was 37 per cent for JobKeeper firms, but in non-JobKeeper firms the decline in turnover was just four per cent. That has been described by no less a figure than the Governor of the Reserve Bank as a remarkable program. Today Professor Steven Hamilton, a visiting fellow of the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute of the ANU, writes the following in the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… at a time of great uncertainty, when underpinning confidence was key, it's not crazy to have opted for the cleanest, simplest scheme that gave businesses an ironclad guarantee of what they'd receive.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's investment in cutting-edge technology is equipping our Defence Force with the capability they need to keep Australians safe, especially with global uncertainty?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question and for her very significant support of the Australian Defence Force and the personnel who live in her electorate. The reality for our country and region is that we are living in a very uncertain time. Over the coming years and, indeed, over the coming decades, we know that the Indo-Pacific will be as uncertain as it was in the run-up to the Second World War. We are worried about the situation in the Indo-Pacific at the moment. That is why it's important for Australia to take the steps now to protect and defend our country and to keep our country safe. We have invested significantly in the Australian Defence Force in the course of the last eight years and we will continue to do that. There's a lot of building and rebuilding taking place, after the Labor Party took money from the Defence Force.</para>
<para>We are putting more into personnel and equipment. We are putting $1 billion into the sovereign guided weapons enterprise, which boosts skills and creates jobs. It helps to create Australia's sovereign defence capability and it is a significant deterrent to people—our detractors, our adversaries—who might think that Australia is a soft target. We are investing $15 billion over 10 years into Defence's cyber and information warfare capabilities. We know that that investment is critical in the era of grey-zone warfare and we know that there are many companies, there are many institutions, including health institutions, that were targeted in the course of COVID, particularly last year but again this year. These cyberattacks are prolific.</para>
<para>We need to make sure that we have significantly more invested in our defences and also our offensive capability. In the Australian Signals Directorate, within the Australian Department of Defence, we have a world-leading agency that works very closely with the NSA in the United States and other agencies to keep Australians safe—that is, to keep our defence industry safe, to make sure that we keep families safe in our country and to keep those in small business safe. It doesn't stop there. We've also invested in a significant way to work with the United States to comprehensively develop the precision strike missile—referred to otherwise as PrSM—which is a surface-to-surface, all-weather precision-strike guided missile, capable of destroying, neutralising and suppressing diverse targets at ranges of 70 to over 400 kilometres.</para>
<para>We are managing the economy well. We're managing the budget as best we can in the circumstances, because we want to invest in those things, not only to help us get out of the lockdown as soon as possible but also, of course, for the safety and security of our country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, 'Ultimately everything is a state matter.' Was it the states or the Prime Minister who backed Clive Palmer's attempt to tear down the Western Australian border last year and expose Western Australians to COVID? Can the Prime Minister confirm his support of Clive Palmer cost taxpayers $1 million, some of which went directly to Mr Palmer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said previously, state borders are state matters, and the Commonwealth did not pursue that matter.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Abuse</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Next week is National Child Protection Week. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is backing our law enforcement agencies to tackle this evil crime of child sexual exploitation and keep Australians safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Ryan for his question. I thank him for representing me yesterday in Brisbane at the launch of a partnership between the NRL and Suncorp Stadium to promote a new campaign to fight child abuse, which will be aired during the NRL finals. I thank everyone involved, and I hope that it can encourage a very important relationship and conversation about child sexual abuse and exploitation, because it is one of the most evil crimes imaginable. It's a crime that can cause lifetime suffering, and too often it goes unreported and unnoticed. Our government is serious about changing that. That's why we established the world-leading Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. It's known as ACCCE. It's spearheading both our law enforcement and our community awareness efforts, and it's making a real difference.</para>
<para>This morning, I joined the team at ACCCE, along with Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, to launch the Stop the Stigma campaign to encourage people to talk about the crime of child sexual abuse. It's a tough conversation, but it's a conversation that we all need to have, especially in the coming week, which is National Child Protection Week.</para>
<para>I'm sure every Australian would be incredibly shocked to know that, last financial year, the ACCCE received over 22,000 reports of child sexual exploitation. That is over 60 a day. Yet research conducted by ACCCE just last year found that only half of Australian parents talk to their children about online safety, 50 per cent of parents don't know what to do to keep their kids safe online and only three per cent are concerned about online grooming. Most parents believe that online child sexual exploitation is too repulsive to even think about. But it's important that we do talk about it so parents are aware of the risks, particularly online. Just last week, online predators were put on notice with the passage of new laws to give police more powers to identify and disrupt criminals and paedophiles hiding on the dark web. It's a further step in the right direction.</para>
<para>As a government, one of our most crucial jobs is ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools that they need to combat crime wherever it exists, especially the evil crime of child sexual abuse. To everyone who is here in the chamber, I encourage you, over the coming days and weeks, to start the discussion about online child sexual abuse and to continue to do all that we can to make sure we get rid of this hideous crime.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I associate Labor with the comments of the minister and congratulate her on her ongoing efforts that follow her predecessor. It is an outstanding achievement to establish this centre of excellence. It is world's-best practice and it has the full support of not just this chamber but all decent Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Quarantine</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Is it the states who are responsible for quarantine or is it the Prime Minister? How many quarantine leaks from hotels, built for tourists, have there been?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. Since 28 March 2020, when mandatory quarantine commenced—when public health orders were put in place by the states to support the decision of the Commonwealth government to close the borders—over 434,000 people have arrived and we have detected and isolated over 4,200 COVID-19 cases. In about half a dozen cases there were breaches of those quarantines which led to breakouts in the community.</para>
<para>What is extraordinary as a result of that program put in place, with the great support of the premiers and chief ministers in the states and territories, has been a system that has played a central role in saving over 30,000 lives. This has been one of the key differences between Australia and the rest of the world. Other countries have engaged in hotel quarantine. New Zealand, significantly, has had success and continues to run that program—as do Taiwan and other places. That's been a program that's been so essential to saving so many lives in this country.</para>
<para>And now the quarantine challenge moves to a new place. As we move into phase b and phase c of the plan, when Australians who have been vaccinated will travel—and more Australians will come home, and we want the restraints on Australians coming home lifted—the answer is home quarantine. The home quarantine trial that we initiated, through the national plan, with the South Australian government is going to see more Australians come home and more Australians resume their connection with people all around the world. We will see families reunited, particularly those in our multicultural communities across this country who have carried the hardest and heaviest burden of that international ban. They will be reunited. They will be able to reconnect. The home quarantine model is absolutely vital to the success of the national plan. Again, I want to thank Premier Marshall for being the one who put his hand up and said, 'We will give that a go.' He knew how important it was to the people in his state and to the entire country.</para>
<para>I remind the House that it's been Australia's great fortune to have been able to come through this pandemic and to have been able to isolate those 4,200 cases in hotel quarantine. If any one of them—or all of them, as we saw in other countries—had been able to go through this country, we would have experienced the same death rate as the United Kingdom, France, Spain and many other places. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting Australians online?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. She is a strong champion of the right of Australians to have the protection of the rule of law online as well as offline. If you interact in the digital town square you're entitled to expect those protections, much as when you interact with others in the physical town square.</para>
<para>That's been a principle that the Morrison government has been very strongly committed to, and we have acted on that principle consistently since our Liberal-National government first came to power in 2013. We established what was then known as the Children's eSafety Commissioner—the first jurisdiction in the world to do that. And we have consistently increased the powers of the eSafety Commissioner. We added a scheme to deal with abhorrent violent material, following the appalling Christchurch mosque attack and the live streaming of over 50 murders—an absolutely horrific occurrence. Indeed, we added other powers as well to the remit of the eSafety Commissioner and, just recently, we have passed through the parliament a new, stronger Online Safety Act, consistent with the promise that we took to the Australian people in the 2019 election.</para>
<para>It means that when those new powers of the eSafety Commissioner come into force early next year there will be a new adult cyberabuse scheme to deal with serious cyberabuse of adults. This is something that many people have been calling for and it's going to make a real difference. There will be increases in the eSafety Commissioner's powers when it comes to the cyberbullying of Australian children. And, very importantly, there will be a new set of basic online safety expectations. This is a really important point here: this act establishes a new platform, a new framework, for being clear to the digital platforms as to what the expectations of the Australian people are, given effect through their national parliament. We are consulting on what's in those basic online safety expectations now, but we want to be very clear about the expectations on platforms on which Australians are interacting online. We expect them to maintain safety standards. In the words of the eSafety Commissioner, 'We expect you to have a principle of safety by design.'</para>
<para>So we are standing up for keeping Australians safe online through those measures and through reducing take-down periods from 48 hours to 24 hours. And we are backing those extra powers with strong extra resources. Indeed, we're committing over $125 million over the next four years to back the eSafety Commissioner and her team in the important work she is doing.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is determined to keep Australians safe, and that includes a place where all of us spend many hours interacting with each other: online.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Indigenous Australians</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Is it the states or is it the Prime Minister who have left First Nations people, including those living in western New South Wales, unvaccinated and unprotected against COVID?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will ask the Minister Indigenous Australians to add further to my answer. I thank him for the tremendous work that he and the Minister for Health and Aged Care have been doing, working particularly closely with the New South Wales government. Two nights ago I had the opportunity to speak to the Chief Health Officer and the Premier of New South Wales when we were reviewing that program and what additional support was required, to work that issue through.</para>
<para>The question, as it was framed—like others which have been put here—once again just continues to seek to misrepresent matters in this place. But on the serious issue that was raised I will ask the Minister for Indigenous Australians to add further.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As of yesterday, we had 38 per cent of Indigenous Australians with their first dose and 21 per cent with their second. Let me say, right from the beginning, we provided vaccines to the ACCHOs in the last week of March this year so that they were prepared. We had a steering committee established to develop the vaccine program. When I look at the membership of that vaccine program I see some outstanding Indigenous leaders: Dawn Casey, Professor James Ward, John Patterson, Jill Gallagher, Dr Mark Wenitong and Olga Havnen. All of them have been involved in framing the action that is needed on the ground.</para>
<para>That plan has involved using the capacity of every avenue that can provide the levels of support—a massive coordinated effort through Commonwealth and state governments, Aboriginal health services, the ADF, the flying doctors, GPs, pharmacies and local community groups. I must admit that it's been challenging. I notice that the member for Barton and the member for Hindmarsh yesterday talked about hesitancy being an issue. Today they put out a new press release saying it's not that but lack of information. So it's a backflip.</para>
<para>It's a combination of things. We have to work to make sure that we put in place the programs that are needed. It doesn't matter what you on the other side say. This is about protecting Indigenous Australians in Aboriginal communities right across—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Dick interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Oxley!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Oxley: you're out of order in terms of saying something you know nothing about. Let me say that Amos from the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> at least did the Fox Mulder—he knew the truth was out there, and he went out and found the truth. He talked to people on the ground. He listened and was well informed in the article he wrote, which is a reflection of the way in which we're working. Pat Turner is doing an outstanding job in making sure that the community is engaged. We will continue to achieve the levels we're striving for, but you're not helping with some of the comments you're making.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Manufacturing Industry</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister please outline to the House how sticking to the national plan will support Australian manufacturers to grow, create jobs and secure our economic recovery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question, for his support of manufacturers in his electorate and for managing to beam in today. It's good to have you back! There are nearly 100,000 businesses in our manufacturing sector, and they employ over 908,000 Australians. Absolutely central to our manufacturers' ability to survive through COVID and to prosper over the coming years on the other side of COVID is two things, and this is what the manufacturers are consistently telling me. There are two critical parts of their businesses that they absolutely need continuity of access to. They need access to their workforces so as to thrive and survive, and they need access to their markets. What they're telling me is that manufacturing cannot cope with lockdowns forever. There was some very important information that came out in parallel with the national accounts—the Australian Industry Group's Australian performance of manufacturing index. That fell, as it was expected to, in August 2021 to 51.6 points. The way in which that index works is that anything over 50 indicates that manufacturing is growing and in the expansion phase. So that figure, although it had fallen, shows the remarkable ongoing resilience of manufacturing, but it also contains a warning. In fact, there have been 11 consecutive months where there has been expansion of manufacturing, notwithstanding COVID. But while Australia-wide manufacturing activity on average is still in a growth phase right across Australia, the sales and the productivity in manufacturing in New South Wales and Victoria have stalled, as we would expect them to have done, and both of those states reported an index below 50. What we have in these figures is a clear warning that we must have a consistent, clear path charted out of lockdowns in New South Wales and Victoria, and if there's not such a clear path chartered and adhered to, then the lockdowns in New South Wales and Victoria won't just damage manufacturing in those states, they will damage manufacturing right across Australia.</para>
<para>The Morrison government is providing that clear, consistent, known pathway out. We're also providing a plan for the other side to grow the businesses that have the greatest comparative advantages and capacity for growth. I want to mention one of those businesses, as part of our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, and that's a great business in Tasmania that has recently received a $5 million grant under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. It's Elphinstone, in Burnie. What is that business doing? It is developing a range of Australian made and manufactured battery vehicles and support vehicles for mining and underground mining. You can imagine the demand for those sorts of vehicles to replace diesel, which is both dangerous and excessive, in underground settings. So what we have is a clear plan out and a plan for the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Hospitals</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Was it the states or the Prime Minister who said the number of patients in ICU is a measure of success? How many patients are in ICU today?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The manner in which that question was asked by the member is again misrepresenting the context of the statement. But on the serious issue that is raised, on the number of people in ICU, my advice is that the number is 184.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Resources Industry</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is sticking to the national plan and supporting the resources sector in taking advantage of increasing demand for Australian minerals, as we safely reopen? And is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Cowper for his question—a former undercover police officer, but his support for the national plan is not undercover! In fact, he's been out talking about the vaccination that he received. Why did he get it? Because we owe it to each other. He's a fabulous member for Cowper, for the people that he represents over there.</para>
<para>As economies around the world continue to open and recover from the pandemic, we know that they'll invest in more infrastructure, and that infrastructure requires more resources, like iron ore, coal, gas or critical minerals—whether it's gold, silver or lead—or any of the things that Australia is well known for providing. They can get it from us. We are a reliable supplier, they can rely on us to deliver, and it will be necessary into the future. Sticking to the national plan means that we ensure that the resources sector stays on track and continues doing what it's been doing now for over a year in terms of the COVID response—dealing with the pandemic and delivering for our economy. The resources sector is forecast to earn some $334 billion for this country this financial year. Tania Constable, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, has stated that minerals exploration investment has increased 14 per cent to $3.2 billion in 2020-21. That is the highest spending since the peak of the mining boom in 2012.</para>
<para>Over in the west, we know that there's been some research commissioned by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy from independent labour market specialists—and I'm not making this up; it is Pit Crew Consulting. That is P-I-T, not P-I-T-T! Pit Crew is in Bundaberg. What they are saying is that there is expected to be a shortfall by some 33,000 workers by 2023. That includes things like geophysicists, geologists, maintenance and specialist engineers, civil engineers and electrical engineers. And, if premiers do not stick to the national plan, how do WA source those resources if they are limited to only their own state? So it is incredibly important that we stick to the national plan and that we continue to deliver for our country.</para>
<para>What we know is that the national plan will help deliver confidence. I come from small business. Business is about confidence—confidence for investment, confidence for coming to our country and confidence for opening additional facilities, including mines. That needs to see us united, and that includes those opposite. They should stop talking down our country, stop talking down our economy, and get in behind the national plan because the national plan will deliver confidence and investment and more jobs and more opportunities right across this country. You cannot continue to fence off the rest of the nation if you need to fill jobs like these and deliver for our country.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Whitlam! It's just noise. I can't understand him. Maybe his adviser can pull his mask a bit tighter; that might help!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Lockdowns</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Is it the states or is it the Prime Minister who is responsible for half the country being in lockdown because of his quarantine and vaccine failures?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject the premise of the question completely, and therefore the answer is no.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Schools</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister update the House on how the national plan will help get schools open so we can focus on lifting our school standards and give our students around the country the best start for their future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She knows the national plan is absolutely critical to our society and economy, including for our schools. As we get to 70 per cent of the population vaccinated, we're going to see fewer lockdowns and fewer restrictions for all people, including young people. When we get to 70 per cent of eligible Australians vaccinated, schools should be open, with closures limited only to hotspot areas. The member for Robertson will know that her state of New South Wales, just today, hit 70 per cent of the New South Wales population having had their first jab, so they are well on the way. Within a few weeks, they'll have 70 per cent of the entire adult population with two vaccinations. Consistent with the national plan, they've laid out their plans as to when schools in New South Wales can open. I hope that the Victorian government will do something similar soon.</para>
<para>That national plan does provide the confidence, the certainty, the hope, that schools can be open and can remain open, other than in absolutely exceptional circumstances. Of course this is just so important, because in some cases, particularly in my home state of Victoria, kids have now lost 29 weeks of face-to-face learning. That can have devastating consequences for their learning, but equally it can have devastating consequences for their mental health.</para>
<para>When we finally get the schools back open and we start to get back to a normal state, then of course we must have that laser-like focus on lifting educational standards so that kids can roar back towards the end of this year and into next year. A key part of this is going to be in relation to the national curriculum. In the curriculum revision which is underway, we want to see standards lifted. We want to see great practices such as phonics embedded in that national curriculum and of course we want to see a positive, optimistic and patriotic view of our history embedded in the history curriculum. At the moment, I'm very concerned about the current draft which the curriculum authority has put out. We would not support the current draft, and I've asked for further work to be done on that because, when you look at some of the standards in the current draft, they go backwards, rather than forwards. When you look at the history curriculum, it has such a negative view of our history, rather than a positive, patriotic, optimistic view of our history.</para>
<para>This national plan gives us great hope and confidence. It gives us the hope and confidence that schools can be opened. We've focused on educational standards to give us hope and confidence that kids can roar back and, together, parents, teachers and kids can be very optimistic about the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAYES</name>
    <name.id>ECV</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Was it the states or was it the Prime Minister who falsely claimed that Australia was at the forefront of the vaccine queue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again the Labor Party in their questions misrepresent things. They simply misrepresent things. This is something I've become very familiar with over the course of the last 18 months. The government have focused strongly on delivering our national plan, and that includes the fact that 20 million doses of that vaccine have been administered in this country. Even just this week 500,000 additional doses have been secured from Singapore. That's on top of the more than a million doses that we were able to secure in an arrangement with Poland. And I can assure you there are more irons in the fire here, Mr Speaker, which means we will be able to continue to support the vaccination rates that we're seeing, which support the national plan—the national plan that enables our country to live with this virus, not live in fear of it, to live without lockdowns and not in fear of lockdowns, so businesses can plan with confidence, so Australians can come together again and connect with the rest of the world, so Australians can travel again, so there are the workers we need to reap the harvest and work in the mines and wherever they are across this country. That's what the national plan delivers. That's what our government has been focused on. By contrast, we get the negativity and the undermining of an opposition that only knows that way and provides no hope and no plan. By contrast, the Australian people can have confidence that our national plan will see them go forward, our economy move forward, to defy the negativity and the undermining of those who would seek for Australia to fail. Under our government, our country will succeed. We're inspired by those Paralympians as well who show us the way. They show us the way of optimism and hope. The hope-stealers of those opposite will be dismissed, and the Australian people will continue to support the optimistic and positive plan that our government has put in place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Summit on Women's Safety</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Women. Next week's women's safety summit will inform the national plan to end violence against women and their children. Will the minister outline to the House how this crucial work involving leading experts, frontline workers, counsellors and survivors will help achieve real outcomes to improve the safety of women and children across Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I thank the member for Bass for her question. She has a deep personal interest in, and a commitment to, the safety of women and their children. She talked about this in her first speech. She works hard for change. I know she is continuing her own series of roundtables with women's safety advocates, and I want to assure her that what they say and what she says will be listened to by this government.</para>
<para>I want to take the opportunity to thank the frontline workers, those who provide crisis accommodation, emergency management and support through the challenging road to justice for women and their families. We know the work you do under harrowing circumstances is vital, especially through the pandemic, in circumstances that change every day.</para>
<para>We cannot stray from our goal to stop it at the start, to work towards zero, so that all women and children can live a life free from the threat of physical violence and abuse in all its forms. We also recognise that as we work towards that goal we want to provide sustainable holistic support for women and their children. And that's why the women's safety summit is an opportunity to continue the conversations, to listen to the experts, to listen to the concerns of particular communities right across Australia—rural and regional, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, recently arrived migrants—to understand the challenges facing older women, to understand how we can improve police and justice responses, to look at economic and housing security, and safety in the workplace.</para>
<para>I was able to participate earlier today in one of the roundtable consultation sessions, and I look forward to the insights gained from the summit. I encourage all members to tune into the summit online at womenssafetysummit.com.au on Monday and Tuesday of next week. The submission process is available until 15 September.</para>
<para>The summit and the consultation on the next national plan will help lay out the road map towards zero, and this of course is being supported by the single largest-ever investment by a government in women's safety—$1.1 billion. That's just our down payment on the next national plan. We invested $64 million in the last budget implementing the Roadmap for Respect, and today the respect at work amendment bill passed the parliament. I welcome its passing, because we care and we respond to women's safety in the workplace. Everyone deserves safety. The crucial work being undertaken by so many will reach a new milestone at the women's safety summit, and I look forward to the summit commencing and updating the parliament on its outcomes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, and I wish the women's safety summit all the very best.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence from 18 October until 28 October 2021 be given to the honourable member for Blaxland for parental leave purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Just briefly, Mr Clare and his wife, Louise, are expecting another baby boy in coming weeks to join young Jack. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, and I'm sure on behalf of the entire House, we congratulate them in advance. Jason is online watching this at the moment. We also wish Louise all the best for the birth. We are having a baby boom on this side of the chamber, there's no doubt about that, and it augurs well for the Labor primary vote in 2039! And by then, myself and the then leader of the opposition might be ready to leave!</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Morrison Government</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've received a letter from the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the government to plan through and beyond the pandemic.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This pandemic has shown the strength of Australian society—the way that Australians are resilient and the way they look after each other. But it's also shown the weakness in our economy, and it's highlighted the failure of a tired government that can't deal with the challenges of today, let alone imagine and create a better future tomorrow. A government focused just on short-term political and media management. The only time they looked up and looked ahead was when the Prime Minister said they were looking for the horizon, and we know horizons are never met.</para>
<para>In contrast, the Labor Party is committed to overcoming the COVID pandemic and creating a better future. When it comes to the pandemic, it's easy to put out claims that would fail the pub test when your failure to act on vaccines and quarantine mean that half the nation's pubs are closed. Direct results of this government's failures include: a failure to secure enough vaccines and to roll them out effectively; failures on quarantine, where we've seen breaches on 27 occasions; and, added to that, its congratulations to Premier Berejiklian for not locking down in June. These failures have led—in New South Wales alone—to 23,000 people being infected, 107 people losing their lives, 1,000 people being in hospital and 160 people being in intensive care. It's also resulted in the spread of COVID-19 to the ACT, Victoria, South-East Queensland, for a while, and even to New Zealand.</para>
<para>The fact is that we need to do more. Labor's COVID approach would be a speedy vaccination rollout, a safe end to lockdowns, protecting our children and preparing for the future. We would ensure a speedy vaccination rollout through a $300 incentive; through securing booster shots now and by supporting vaccine leave; by providing a safe end to lockdowns through fair access to vaccines before reopening; delivering an effective world-class national COVIDSafe app; supporting the national plan; and supporting businesses which want to protect their customers as well as their workers. We would protect our children, including 12- to 15-year-olds in the targets or, if not, specifying targets for them: We would vaccinate them quickly through a school based program, and prepare for under-12 vaccinations by securing a paediatric vaccine supply in the future. And we would prepare school based programs now.</para>
<para>We would prepare for the future, post-vaccination, by manufacturing mRNA here, building purpose-built quarantine and creating an Australian centre for disease control. We have a plan for post the pandemic as well—a plan for a stronger nation, a stronger middle class, a stronger federation, stronger regions and cities. We have a plan for a sustainable Australia and a collaborative, inclusive approach. Stronger nations futureproof their economies. This means producing sophisticated goods and services; plans for new industries through our National Reconstruction Fund; making Australia a renewable energy superpower to drive down energy prices; supporting advanced manufacturing, including in cyber, energy storage, mRNA vaccines, transport and logistics; and more. This means a stronger middle class and secure work. People are struggling out there to pay a mortgage. People are struggling to pay their everyday bills. We need to have secure work that values permanency, that values that security in the workplace. Yet those opposite won't even guarantee that people be paid the minimum wage.</para>
<para>We will have Jobs and Skills Australia, to ensure that Australians can fill the permanent well-paid jobs that we will create in the future. We have simple principles—no-one held back and no-one left behind—and we will make sure they're implemented as well. We will improve workforce participation by making child care affordable. We will genuinely advance women's equality by adopting all the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report, not just some of them.</para>
<para>We need a stronger federation. This government has proven itself incapable of leadership. There has never been a prime minister who has so weakened the federation. The Prime Minister established the so-called national cabinet and today had to introduce legislation essentially to hide what happens in that national cabinet, as a result of the AAT decision. We've seen him go to court, backing Clive Palmer to tear down WA's border—a decision that cost a million dollars for Australian taxpayers, including over $40,000 given directly to Clive Palmer in order to further promote some of those whacky theories that are undermining our health during a pandemic.</para>
<para>The fact is: there is no state premier who this Prime Minister won't undermine. Even the Premier of New South Wales has been the subject of backgrounding and undermining. The fact is: we will introduce proper federal reform, including microeconomic reform. We will work with the states and territories, not against them. We are not seeking to divide Australia but seeking to unite Australia, so we can move forward stronger into the future. This Prime Minister thinks it's acceptable to call Western Australians and Queenslanders 'cave dwellers'. When Queenslanders are watching the rugby league grand final at Suncorp Stadium and when Western Australians are watching the AFL grand final at Optus Stadium, they won't think they're in a cave; they will be thanking their premiers for keeping them safe.</para>
<para>We need to return to respect for the Public Service as well—something that's consistently undermined by those opposite. We need to have appropriate regional development as well as a genuine plan for cities policy. They used to talk about cities policy. Now they just rort programs, like the commuter car parks program. They think that infrastructure development in our regions and cities should be determined not by what it does for the national economy, not by what it does for jobs, not by what it does for improving the standard and quality of life for people in our regions and cities; they think it's all about an electoral map and a colour coded map based upon political marginal seats.</para>
<para>We need a sustainable Australia, one that takes climate action seriously. The whole of the industrialised world will go to Glasgow already supporting net zero by 2050. The whole of the industrialised world knows we need real action. If there's anything that exemplifies this government being scared of the present but terrified of the future, it's the rhetoric we saw during the last election campaign about electric vehicles, about EVs, going forward; we have a government that said they would 'destroy the weekend'. They are completely unable to embrace and shape the future in Australia's national interest. We will once again be pariahs at that conference if we can't even get through net zero emissions.</para>
<para>Australia is a great nation, but we can be even greater. We're located in the fastest-growing region of the world in human history. With that comes enormous opportunity not just to export our resources but to value-add here, to manufacture things here, to imagine the opportunities from lithium, from copper, from nickel—from these great resources that will be so valued in the future. We have the opportunity to be a renewable energy superpower and position ourselves, but that requires leadership, collaboration and foresight. This government ignores problems until they become a crisis, and then their response is too little, too late. Then they never take responsibility and rewrite history. The 'gaslight on the hill'—that's what they have opposite.</para>
<para>Labor has the light on the hill—the light on the hill with imagination, courage and energy to bring Australians together, to create high-value jobs, to lift living standards, to lift people up; to make sure people are not left behind on the basis of where they were born, their gender, their sexuality or their religion; to make sure that we unite as a country. We need a government that's as big and bold as the Australian people themselves—a government with ambition for the future, not ambition for the next news day, not ambition for the next headline. That's what Labor will bring. Labor will bring that ambition for the future—a better future that we will deliver in government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my great honour to be here before you again, Deputy Speaker Wallace. It's starting to be a bit of a regular occurrence.</para>
<para>It's been a long week in parliament and a very trying period for all of us, but I would again like to totally reject the hypothesis of these people on the other side. The opposition have got amnesia. The response Australia had to the COVID-19 pandemic has been second to none around the world. Let's go back to the beginning. People on the other side have incredibly short memories. When the rest of the world and the World Health Organization were in total denial, Australia was out of the blocks declaring it a virus with pandemic potential and issuing biosecurity orders at both federal and state level. We planned and looked at the modelling of what could happen in Australia.</para>
<para>First of all, I can tell you the health response was second to none and the economic response was second to none. Even though they criticise us, we had deals in place for 280 million vaccines. Now we've got forward orders in for booster doses. We sourced PPE from around the world. We redeveloped our own respirator capability, with industrial assistance from lots of sleep apnoea makers, and retrofitted old classic ventilators in New South Wales. We had a special pandemic register to increase the medical workforce. Even my good self got put back under full registration on the pandemic register because we thought we might need hundreds of doctors—you can't forget 33 years of knowledge!</para>
<para>We reregistered and retrained 20,000 nurses, as the Minister for Health outlined. We had agreements in place with state hospitals to increase by over 50 per cent the payment of all the COVID-19 expenses. There was a negotiation and a deal signed with our private hospital network to make their intensive care and ward capability available as surge capacity. We got the vaccine rolled out through a latticework of general practices. There are now over 5,000 registered and currently vaccinating. They have been the workhorses of the vaccine rollout. The Aboriginal medical services, as the Minister for Indigenous Australians outlined, were enlisted up-front. We established respiratory clinics to make sure we could divert the load away from the public hospital system. The states started their megahubs. We also put extra money into the remote Australia rollout of the vaccine through the Flying Doctor Service.</para>
<para>We have contracted vaccine administration services. You've all heard the name Aspen, but there are four or five other companies like that delivering vaccinations around the nation. We can see that we have reached 20 million vaccination doses already. We are catching up at a rate of knots. I expect we'll be reaching 70 per cent, at this rate, within three or four weeks in New South Wales and in other states that are getting on board and catching up.</para>
<para>In the quarantine space, because we were ahead of the rest of the world, we weren't flooded with international travellers bearing COVID-19. Our original testing, tracing, isolating and quarantine worked. That is one of the reasons we have had a good economic outcome. As was outlined, people were criticising our quarantine program, but, of 434,000 people who arrived and were put into either Australian quarantine centres or hotels identified as quarantine hotels, 4,200 cases were identified and isolated. Only six cases out of those 434,000 people who arrived escaped through that system. That is an incredibly small percentage.</para>
<para>The economic response is also second to none. Treasury was forecasting a projected 20 per cent loss of GDP and unemployment rates of 15 per cent. We had an amazing rollout of programs, starting with improving cash flow so that people could get a rebate of tax paid based on their GST and wages. It has been accompanied by continuing the instant expensing, or the instant asset write-off, provisions. We instituted a targeted loss carry-back so that losses this year could be carried back to profits in earlier years, resulting in a retrospective tax return. We started the HomeBuilder program, which had an absolute turbocharging effect on the housing construction industry. That program brought forward $114 billion worth of economic stimulus activity. It's the highest level of home building and the highest level of homeownership for first home buyers in nearly 15 years. One hundred and thirty-five thousand people applied for it. That is unbelievable economic activity in the middle of a pandemic, and it has kept the economy going.</para>
<para>There's a reason we got 161,000 more people in employment when we got over the first wave in the economic bounce-back. The other side has been criticising the JobKeeper program, but it kept people employed and linked to their employer—these companies and businesses that families, individuals, and large corporates had built up over decades. There is the old saying 'Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and they couldn't put him back together.' We kept our economy together so it could rise from the COVID pandemic induced recession. Unemployment is now at the lowest level in over 10 years, at 4.6 per cent. It was 5.7 per cent when we were elected to govern this nation in 2013.</para>
<para>They criticised JobKeeper, but it's been reviewed by so many respected authorities. The Australian tax office has looked at it. As the Treasurer outlined today, at the second assessment, with the same criteria, it was an estimated downturn. That is what the law said, and businesses followed that. The criterion was then changed to actual turnover reduction, but even then the Australian tax office says the average downturn in those periods was 37 per cent. So everyone put their shoulder to the wheel, and there was an enormous sigh of relief that it was life saving for so many businesses and for so many people employed. It kept 700,000 people in employment. Look at the devastation that was wrought by the pandemic in Europe and at the reduction of 11 and 12 per cent in the GDP of other countries. Ours was a fraction of that. Our last GDP growth is still positive, even though with the most recent wave there has obviously been an effect.</para>
<para>There is criticism that we didn't have a plan. We had a plan for everything. I've run through them: workforce, PPE, hospital capacity, ventilator capacity, securing vaccines, telehealth items, mental health programs, respiratory clinics and getting a network of vaccination around the country. The list goes on. In my role as Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment I've been checking with other countries. Death rates in other countries are up to 39 times higher than what has eventuated in Australia.</para>
<para>We have had an exceptional health response and we've had an exceptional economic response. It's absolute nonsense for the other side to say we didn't have a plan. We have had a plan for everything, and the proof of those plans is in the economic response. We have a plan to get out of this current wave. We have voluntarily given up our freedoms of association and of economic activity, but we have a plan to get all those lifted. When 70 and 80 per cent is reached we will be lifting restrictions, and the economy will bounce back. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] We all know the Morrison government has a women problem, so it's not surprising that it's the women of Australia who are being penalised by the lack of a cohesive pandemic plan by this Prime Minister. Many of the financial impacts and inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic are not immediately obvious, yet they can have a profound implication on people's lives, especially on women's lives. Through no fault of their own, people are becoming silent victims because of the Morrison government's mismanagement of the COVID response. It took the Labor Party to drag this government to finally introduce a bill this week to fix a glaring issue that has potentially denied many women parental leave during months of COVID.</para>
<para>Why did it take months and persistent prompting from Labor to get the Morrison government to fix this problem? I can tell you. It's because the Morrison government does not have a pandemic plan. It has lurched from one disaster to another in this pandemic, scrambling to keep up, and besides, parental leave is primarily a women's issue. Women just aren't a priority for the Morrison government. Just take the Respect@Work bill being pushed through today. This government is refusing to adopt all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work review. Labor in government would implement every single one and give women the safety and respect they deserve as we pull out of COVID-19.</para>
<para>I'll tell you what is a priority for the Morrison government: looking after big business at the expense of hardworking families. For example, in my electorate the Morrison government continues to hound a hardworking single-mother of four, while it fails to chase big business for potentially billions of dollars of JobKeeper payments that many of them didn't even need. The Morrison government was forced to drop a claim against this single-mum when its robodebt system was declared illegal, yet the government switched tack only weeks later to relentlessly pursue this hardworking mum over well-deserved childcare support. She's forced yet again to fight the might of big government to defend her right to payments she's entitled to receive in order to support her job and income and support her kids. This single-mum has a question for the Prime Minister and his Treasurer: 'Why are you relentlessly chasing down hardworking Australians but failing to demand big businesses pay back the millions of dollars in profits they have made from JobKeeper?' It's a good question, but sadly, it's fallen on deaf ears. 'Nothing to see here,' says the Treasurer, 'It's up to big business to decide if they will give back their mega windfalls.' For many, many Australians, including hardworking families across my electorate, this is yet another example of the Morrison government having one rule for the big and the rich and another for hardworking battlers in all our communities.</para>
<para>The Morrison government's double standards are on full display in many sectors. This week in my electorate we learnt that hundreds of Deakin University workers could soon lose their jobs as a result of the Morrison government's neglect. The Prime Minister has failed our higher education sector. Staff at Deakin have not been supported. There has been no JobKeeper for them. The government's failure to establish purpose-built quarantine facilities was effectively a double whammy. Without those facilities, there has been absolutely no chance of revenue from overseas students flowing to universities. Billions of dollars were squandered by the Morrison government on JobKeeper, yet our university sector, one of our nation's biggest export earners, continues to be snubbed by this government.</para>
<para>We are now seeing the harsh impacts of the Morrison government's failures, which are putting people's health, businesses and lives at risk. They have failed to deliver purpose-built quarantine facilities and an effective vaccine rollout of the vaccines. They are trashing universities across the nation. They are treating women as second-class citizens and turning a blind eye to the inequities of JobKeeper. They're turning their backs on many in the tourism and arts sectors. The Morrison government has failed on so many levels. There's a lack of coherency, a lack of vision, a lack of clear leadership, a lack of compassion, a failure to respect women. COVID has starkly exposed the flaws in the Morrison government. It's demonstrating to the nation that the Morrison government is a government without a plan, a government scrambling to stay afloat.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I look at the subject of this MPI today and I think it's probably a dorothy dixer: 'The failure of the government to plan through and beyond the pandemic.' I'd like to inform the House that we have a great plan for the pandemic. It's a plan to subdue, to suppress, the virus and then get back to normal. I tell you why it's a great plan. It's a great plan because it changes when the circumstances change, so it's adaptable. Every time something changes, you need to go back to the basics and make the necessary changes. As technology changes, as the virus changes, as indeed the capacity to produce vaccine changes, so too does the program.</para>
<para>I might point out that it's worth remembering the first dose of a mass COVID-19 vaccination plan in the world was administered on 8 December last year, not quite nine months ago. The vaccination program, when you put it in perspective, is now going like a rocket. It's a little behind time and had a bit of a rocky start, it would be fair to say. We had interrupted supply and we had changing official views on the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which introduced hesitancy. But now we're about two months behind, by my reckoning. We know that 20 million doses of the vaccine have been administered in Australia, with greater than 60 per cent of the population having now received their first dose. We are within range of the 70 per cent target, and when four million more doses have been administered we'll reach 80 per cent, which are the figures that are nominated by the Doherty institute. We're closing in on 30 per cent of the population having had two doses. In New South Wales, the figures are 70 and 35 per cent respectively, so it's really picking up speed and it's making a difference.</para>
<para>We have a plan that has been backed up by the work of the Doherty institute, a world renowned institute. They're focusing on those two numbers, 70 per cent and 80 per cent respectively, when we will get rid of the state restrictions on the borders and then get rid of the lockdowns within communities, except in extreme circumstances. It's a good plan and it's been good for the economy. The performance of Australian economy through the pandemic has been simply extraordinary. We're down to 4.6 per cent unemployment and the GDP is 1.7 per cent bigger now than it was before the pandemic. Today's motion talks about through the pandemic and beyond. I've got to tell you, we've got plans for that as well. If I look at my electorate, I've got over a billion dollars of Commonwealth expenditure either underway or in the pipeline for the upgrading of our road network. We've established a national space agency. I would've thought that that's about tomorrow and beyond the pandemic. The Space Agency is in South Australia. In fact, it's at Lot Fourteen, on North Terrace in Adelaide. In my own electorate, Southern Launch has just received approval from the authorities in the last week to launch three rockets towards the end of the year from their new launch facility at Whalers Way, south of Port Lincoln. We have great hopes that this will lead to hundreds of jobs in our regional footprint.</para>
<para>We are backing hydrogen production in Australia and the move to green hydrogen. We have a plan. This government has a plan for green steel. I have 40 per cent of Australia's steel production in one of my cities, Whyalla. Green steel is a great way forward.</para>
<para>We are backing families and women by increasing the support for child care. Eight-five per cent of your payment will be met if you're under the $75,000 threshold as of July next year. That's a great outcome. That's talking about the future. That's about getting women with skills into our workforce, because we need them.</para>
<para>We're providing support from ARENA for electric car-charging stations—support which, at this stage, is being denied by the Labor party, can you believe! They've voted against it twice. We have a plan to deliver zero emissions as soon as we possibly can—hopefully, before 2050. But we are not going to do it by knocking off Australia's economy. At the moment we're making great progress, with a 20.8 per cent reduction from 2005. I looked at the OECD. There are 38 countries in the OECD. Twelve have gone up in that period, and we've gone down by 20.8 per cent. We're making great headway. We've got a great plan, and we will have a great future here in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] We are an island continent. We have every natural advantage. The only reason we are now talking about living with the virus before Australians are vaccinated is because we also have a Prime Minister who failed to plan and has thus failed to manage the two crucial tasks of the pandemic. It's not just a health crisis. It's not just a disaster of people dying and of people filling up ICU wards. It's not just a mental health crisis. It's also now an economic disaster.</para>
<para>The Australian economy is bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars every day and billions of dollars every week, adding tens of billions of dollars to the national debt that the next generation is being asked to repay because the Prime Minister failed to plan and he failed to manage the pandemic. The Prime Minister is now foisting an economic disaster upon our country. Yesterday, despite all evidence, we had Liberal MPs telling us how well the economy was going and how grateful we should be for 0.7 per cent growth, anaemic growth. Remember, that was three months ago, before the current round of mass lockdowns really started. Compare that to countries that are almost fully vaccinated like the UK, which has been getting four per cent growth in the same period. Australians now have fewer jobs, there's less national wealth, wages are going further backwards, small businesses are getting smashed and household budgets are getting smashed because the PM failed to plan and failed to manage the pandemic.</para>
<para>The election of a Labor government at the next election would fundamentally change our nation for the better. We have a plan to create more opportunities for the working family in Everton Park who are sick and tired of living week to week. We have a plan to create secure, well-paid northside jobs so the baggage handler living in Banyo who lost his job because of COVID can find his feet. We have a plan to revive our Aussie-made manufacturing industry in our industrial suburbs like Geebung, Banyo, Eagle Farm and Pinkenba. We will ease the pressure on the household budget for the family living in Brighton by cutting the cost of child care and reducing their power bills. We will embrace the potential of renewable energy not only to protect our environment but to create good, secure jobs for the young apprentice who's living in Deagon. I know that northsiders have aspirations, and they want a government that invests in them and invests in their future. I know an Albanese Labor government will deliver for northside families.</para>
<para>Last week, the Palaszczuk government announced that, from Wednesday 8 September, the Brisbane Entertainment Centre at Boondall will open a mass vaccination hub for northsiders. It will begin with 1,500 and ramp up to 3,000 vaccines a day, once the Morrison government sort out their supply issues, which they failed to plan for as well. Our Premier is also stepping up and doing the Prime Minister's job, by protecting our borders and by getting cracking on a fit-for-purpose quarantine facility in Queensland. Unlike the Prime Minister, our Premier understands that Queenslanders cannot afford to wait until mid-2023 for a fit-for-purpose quarantine facility. The Palaszczuk government's 1,000-bed regional quarantine facility will be ready to go by the end of the year, in just four months. That is real leadership. On the other hand, the Prime Minister couldn't organise so much as a whip-round at the Trade Coast Hotel in Pinkenba in four months.</para>
<para>Over two weeks ago, I wrote directly to the Deputy Prime Minister, requesting an urgent briefing on the proposed fit-for-purpose quarantine facility in Pinkenba in my electorate of Lilley. To date, the federal government has failed to engage in any community consultation with Pinkenba residents about the 1,000-bed quarantine facility to be built at the Damascus Barracks in Pinkenba—not even a letterbox drop, not even a robocall, like their great ally Clive Palmer. When I doorknocked Pinkenba village back in July, some of the residents I spoke to were hearing about the Morrison government's plans for the very first time, and that's just not good enough. At the very least, the Deputy Prime Minister needs to respond to my letter and organise a briefing with the department so that I can keep my constituents in the loop about what's happening with the national purpose-built quarantine facility and do the job that they elected me to do.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister had two jobs this year: secure enough vaccines to ensure a speedy, effective rollout of the vaccine and quarantine our borders. He has failed in both. And, when he is called out on his failures, the Prime Minister's response is always the same: 'It's not my job;' 'It's a matter for the states;' 'I don't hold a hose.' For the Prime Minister, every problem is someone else's fault and every crisis is someone else's responsibility. We deserve better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the topic of this MPI, 'the failure of the government to plan through and beyond the pandemic', just shows how really devoid of ideas the opposition is. I know it's been a tough and long five weeks, but, really, I think you could have tried a bit better. I really don't understand why you haven't been listening to the fact that there is a plan. There's a plan that's called the national plan, and it was a plan that was agreed to at national cabinet by the elected leaders of federal, state and territory governments, using world-leading experts from the Doherty institute, who've provided a safe way to open up. These states and territories need to honour their agreement and stick to this plan, and it would be helpful if those opposite got behind the plan.</para>
<para>We all know that elimination of the delta variant is a fallacy and vaccines are the only way forward. But the opposition hasn't actually acknowledged this. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has shown leadership. As the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The national plan we have developed and agreed is our pathway to living with this virus. That is our goal, to live with this virus, not to live in fear of it.</para></quote>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition, however, insists on political pointscoring ahead of the national interest, and nowhere has this been more obvious than when it has come to the response to the COVID pandemic.</para>
<para>Let's go back to March of last year. The Prime Minister said from the get-go, 'We're going to have to learn to live with this virus.' I really think every global leader probably wishes they had the prescience exhibited by these wise words: 'We're going to have to live with the virus.' He said that because, every step of the way, this government has relied on experts and evidence to inform its plans to respond to a global pandemic. Those plans have had to pivot, because the global pandemic has had more twists and turns than a Hollywood blockbuster. All through those twists and turns, this government has kept in its sights the main goal of saving lives and saving livelihoods, and all the time relying on the evidence and the experts.</para>
<para>Humanity has always had to learn to live with viruses. In fact, the only virus modern medicine has been able to eradicate in the last 200 years is smallpox. That is why the Prime Minister led the plan for the national vaccine rollout, the largest public health initiative in the history of this country. He has known that it is the way out of this pandemic and its rolling lockdowns. Sure, it has had its hiccups, but the government has had a plan to deal with all of these. Global supply has been an issue, something the government anticipated, so we built sovereign capability. And we've dealt with vaccine side    effects with honesty and transparency with the Australian public. We have treated Australians with openness and respect about what the vaccine means for them and for their loved ones.</para>
<para>But the Leader of the Opposition has failed to support the central role of AstraZeneca in the COVID vaccine rollout. He prefers to see a political opportunity rather than understand the importance of leadership on this issue. In stark contrast, the member for Maribyrnong has publicly backed the AstraZeneca vaccine, declaring it is the cure to get out of lockdown. And this was just a day after the opposition leader declined to clarify his own stance on the jab. The member for Maribyrnong met with workers at the manufacturing site, CSL, in Melbourne:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm here today to see the magic bullet to get out of lockdown, the AstraZeneca vaccine. I'm here to see how Australian made is going to break the lockdown and help stop the spread of COVID.</para></quote>
<para>That was leadership from the member for Maribyrnong.</para>
<para>But what was the Leader of the Opposition's response to that? Zero: doughnuts! He just avoided the subject. Quite frankly, his silence in supporting AstraZeneca is a disgrace. More than that, while the Leader of the Opposition supports a debate such as the one we're having here today—after all, it is his MPI, 'the failure of the government to plan'—he refuses even to acknowledge that there is a national plan. Meanwhile, the member for Maribyrnong has publicly backed in the national plan because he knows that the evidence is there, the experts are there and that we need to work together for this.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, the hypocrisy of this MPI is breathtaking. When is the opposition going to get with the national plan? I have implored those opposite in a previous MPI: in this House we are all leaders in our communities. Our supporters look to us to lead, whichever side of the chamber we sit on. Please, I beg you: use your voices for the good of your communities. Support the national plan and support the national rollout. Do it for your loved ones, do it for your communities and do it for your country so we can all get on with our lives. AstraZeneca is part of that response and I implore them to get behind both Pfizer and AstraZeneca.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Never could there be a greater failure of the coalition government to plan through and beyond the pandemic. My constituents are pretty smart—they're pretty savvy. Many are retired and have told me their stories of difficulty in accessing a vaccine or a local GP. Thousands of local small-business owners and workers have been thrown into turmoil due to extended lockdowns due to the Morrison-Joyce government's failed vaccine rollout and a business support package which simply doesn't cut it.</para>
<para>And what does the Morrison-Joyce government do? Nothing—'It's not our problem.' This is what one local business owner, a cafe in Kangaroo Valley told me. Monique did the right thing and applied for support—a business grant. But Monique had heard nothing 18 days after applying. How does she pay the bills? There are so many mixed messages daily between the Morrison-Joyce government and the New South Wales state government through the COVID-19 pandemic. Who can keep up? Families are battling to homeschool their children while working from home. There are impacts on our children, teenagers and teachers, and, of course, our health, aged-care and essential workers. And then there are the people who have been completely left behind: pensioners and carers who don't even qualify for the COVID disaster payment. Why is the Prime Minister so against pensioners? And for the people on JobSeeker there's nothing really to support them this time.</para>
<para>I want to share one of the very sad stories I received this week. An Aboriginal gentleman in his 40s contacted me from Ulladulla: 'I am writing to you to inform you of the struggles my family are having with COVID. We are in lockdown. We are homeschooling as best we can. I have my son back home from Canberra. He is on Abstudy and is currently on a scholarship at school and boarding there. The school asked all boarders to go home due to health concerns, so we brought him home. Abstudy is not doing anything to help financially, nor is the government. We have four children at home. The cost of food, electricity, water and so on are making it harder every week. I'm on a carer payment for my partner, which is making it even harder on me and my family. The struggles are real. It hurts. I cry by myself at night when everyone is asleep, as I have to be strong for my kids and my partner. Can you please help us or point me in the right direction of help, as we need the help? Why is the government only helping workers and businesses, not low-income earners? We are all struggling. We all need help in some way.'</para>
<para>The lack of forethought, planning and collaboration by the Morrison-Joyce government through the COVID pandemic is staggering. They are more focused on short-term political gain and media spin. I am proud to say that the election of a Labor government at the next election will fundamentally change our nation for the better. One of the biggest challenges we face is how we come out of this pandemic. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make things better for people. Don't we owe it to people to do that? Workforce shortage is already a major issue, but, with no plan, this will become an even larger issue. New jobs require a better, skilled workforce. Labor will rebuild Australia's training system. That means investing more in TAFE, investing in renewables and investing in renewables jobs. It means a national reconstruction fund to boost business and jobs.</para>
<para>Labor would commission a white paper on full employment to create a blueprint for new employment arrangements that would rebalance security and flexibility in workplace arrangements. We want more jobs but also secure jobs with better pay. Australia is a great nation but it can be even greater. Only a Labor government can deliver the change that people so desperately need.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really welcome this discussion because it's based on a presumption that is quite an innovation in this House—that everyone in this chamber, for the first time, actually wants the pandemic to end. You need only look at the sabotage that the opposition has engaged in at every point throughout this pandemic, whether it is on the economic response or the undermining of the vaccine rollout, the Australian made AstraZeneca vaccine and making sure we get it into people's arms. Of course, there is the behaviour of the Labor Premier of Queensland in the past 24 hours. The benchmark for getting Australia reopened now is to make sure that those who can't be vaccinated based on scientific evidence are able to do so, and are able to do so where safety and efficacy have not been proven.</para>
<para>It's actually welcome that federal Labor say they want the pandemic to end, because at every point all I see is sabotage and undermining of the efforts of collective and responsible governments that are working to end the pandemic so we can have a future. But, as I said, there's no-one who has been more clear on this than the Premier of Queensland and, of course, her Chief Health Officer, who have actively, deliberately and maliciously undermined the vaccine rollout and the use of the Australian made AstraZeneca vaccine that has been proven by the Therapeutics Goods Administration to be safe and effective for getting into Australian people's arms.</para>
<para>Normally, when I attack state Labor governments, there is a barrage of abuse from members on the other side of the chamber. I think they secretly agree with us on this. I actually think they agree that the reckless behaviour of the Queensland government, the Queensland Premier and her Chief Health Officer is as despicable as I am pointing out—so much so that, to his eternal credit, the opposition leader got up today in a press conference and condemned the Queensland Premier for introducing this new benchmark and saying that they wouldn't open up until those under the age of 12 had been vaccinated, even though the safety and efficacy of vaccines haven't been proved for them to do so. So I give them a point. At least they want the pandemic to end. I give them two points now because they're prepared to call out their Labor brethren for their gross misconduct in the way they conduct themselves.</para>
<para>The reality is that, since the beginning of this pandemic, there have always been stages. We've always known, as the Treasurer said in question time, that there was a stage where the nation was looking into the abyss, economically and on health grounds. Most of us in the public and in this chamber did not know where we were heading and, critically, were concerned about the future. Since then we have gone through a stage of lockdowns and various other public health responses. We've always looked beyond lockdowns and said, 'Where can we grow the country thereafter?' What we've done is put in the support mechanisms to get people through this time.</para>
<para>It's fine to talk about the plan afterwards, but if small businesses still aren't operating or people aren't there—alive—to be able to go on and live flourishing lives then there's no point in having a plan. That's why we introduced, right from the start of this pandemic, additional support for those Australians who need assistance with their mental health, particularly as a consequence of lockdowns. We introduced that last year because we saw the crisis in Victoria. Tragically, we've now seen similar crises go through all parts of the country. We introduced measures around telehealth, so that those who were vulnerable, who couldn't see their doctor in the flesh, because they were concerned about the physical risks of mobility, could do so on online platforms. After years of innovation, we took those steps in just days—something that we should be enormously proud of. And, of course, there is the financial support we provided through critical programs like JobKeeper, which Labor voted for and now they attack and want to undermine, and the early release of superannuation. Of course, when the nation was faced with a moment when the foot was on the throat of households, Labor had an ideological struggle between whether they wanted to take the foot off or not and allow Australians to access their own money.</para>
<para>At every point, we have had a plan to get people through the crisis. The challenge now before this chamber and state governments is whether the states, in working with the Commonwealth, show the maturity needed to get beyond the pandemic. We have consistently seen this from New South Wales, who have talked about the pathway out. South Australia, to their credit, have said today that they want a pathway out that sticks to the national plan. We've seen Victoria finally show maturity to acknowledge that COVID-zero is not sustainable with delta. The big laggards in this are, of course, Western Australia and Queensland, who don't want a future. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is in the mess it's in today because of the Morrison government's failure to plan. Half of the country is in lockdown, with 1.7 million Australians unemployed or underemployed. Our borders are closed. Our health system is at a crisis point, with COVID cases rising and with a mental health calamity hanging over us. Tens of thousands of Australians are stranded overseas, desperately wanting and needing to come home. There are so many businesses facing closure. And, there has been a breakdown of the national cabinet process. This government has failed to plan an effective rollout, failed to secure sufficient vaccine supplies and failed to set up purpose-built quarantine facilities.</para>
<para>Eighteen months ago, when COVID hit, there was considerable goodwill and tolerance throughout the country, but today that goodwill and tolerance has disappeared. For 18 months, the Morrison government has bungled its way through its responsibilities. Only now, 18 months later, are plans for purpose-built quarantine facilities being considered and being rushed through parliament, exempt from scrutiny by the Public Works Committee. Even worse, those facilities are at loggerheads with state government proposals for similar facilities. Labor has been raising these matters from day one, alerting the government to what is needed and planning a way forward. Unfortunately, the Morrison government just simply refused to listen.</para>
<para>It was a failure to plan Australia's withdrawal from Afghanistan—a failure that placed added risk on defence personnel, on embassy staff, on AFP officers and on aid workers and, more importantly and particularly, on desperate Afghan people, who are now at the mercy of hostile forces. These risks should have been foreseen, but the Morrison government's failure to plan this withdrawal meant it was a catastrophic failure. This government refused to process visa applications here in Australia in a timely way. The member for Bruce earlier today alluded to those failures in a very touching speech that he made.</para>
<para>This government has failed to plan for the now-with-us climate change threats, with fires, floods and hurricanes right now, around the world, destroying lives and properties. Unlike Labor, the Morrison government refuses to embrace and commit to a renewable energy future, which would create jobs and secure the future. The Morrison government's failure to plan will cost future generations dearly, for they will have to wear the cost of inaction. But, even worse, these are all matters of life and death. Lives are actually being lost right now.</para>
<para>Governments are elected to lead—to plan for emerging threats, changes and risks. But not the Morrison government. For this Prime Minister, it's always someone else's problem, someone else's responsibility. Even today in question time we consistently listened to him hiding behind the South Australian Premier. If the Prime Minister doesn't want to lead, he should get out of the way and call an election. Australia could do much better and Labor has a plan to do just that, a plan outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in this debate today—a plan that backs secure jobs; a plan that backs renewable energy; a plan that rebuilds Australian manufacturing capability, which we need so dearly; a plan that will cut childcare costs; a plan that invests in skills and trades, where we now have 115,000 fewer apprenticeships than when this government came to office; a plan that will establish a $15 billion national reconstruction fund; a plan that will invest in social housing, which is so badly needed; and a plan that will restore federal-state collaboration, which is disintegrating before our eyes.</para>
<para>I want to finish on this point. If members opposite think the economy is doing so well, why are so many people stressed out to the point where we have a major mental health crisis looming over us? If the economy is so strong, why would half of the Australian people be in lockdown right now? How can they be employed if they're in lockdown?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, the discussion is now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move the following motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in a free democratic nation, any preventive medical intervention should only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that no Australia should be placed in a position where they are forced to undertake medical intervention to open their business, keep their job, to be able to pay their mortgage, or to put food on the table;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) today, many Australians are being coerced, against their free will to submit to receiving a medical intervention (being the COVID vaccines) just to open their business, keep their job, to be able to pay their mortgage, or to put food on the table;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that no Australian should be placed in a position where they are forced to undertake a medical intervention to visit a beach or park;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) today, many Australians are being coerced, against their free will to submit to receiving a medical intervention (being the COVID vaccines) if they wish to visit a beach or go to a park;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that the Australian constitution provides that trade commerce and intercourse between the state shall be "absolutely free";</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the words "absolutely free" in the Constitution are not preceded by first providing some government issued health papers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) many Australians are being coerced, against their free will to submit to receiving a medical intervention (being the COVID vaccines) to cross state borders;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the only document that Australians should need to cross a state border within Australia, is that little book called The Constitution; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) the latest data out of Israel evidences that vaccine passports are deception and little more that a marketing stunt as they provide little evidence that a person is less likely to have COVID, and the latest published science evidences that person with a vaccine passport is no less likely to spread COVID compared to a person without a vaccine passport; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on Government to immediately bring the No Domestic Covid Vaccine Passport Bill 2021 for debate and for a vote.</para></quote>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Hughes from moving the following motion immediately:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the government immediately bring on the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Bill 2021 for debate and a vote before this parliament rises.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Christensen</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hughes has the call. The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just ask: he'd asked for leave?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave was refused.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So he's now moved a suspension.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And the suspension motion wasn't read out in the same terms as the—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Right—but it's been taken as moved?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been taken as moved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And you then called for a seconder, who seconded it and returned to his seat. So they've both had their speeches. So it's now if anybody else wants to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The seconder didn't reserve his right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. He seconded it, and sat down. So whether there are any further speakers is where we're now up to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Dawson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Christensen</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: with your discretion, in these events normally the mover speaks but it was at your call asking for a seconder that I approached. That's not the usual way it's done; normally the mover speaks and then asks for a seconder, and then the seconder speaks. I'm expecting the mover is going to actually speak, but it was at your call that I rose to second it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order: I'm simply raising the same principles that we have to work under. If someone moves a motion they have to give their speech immediately. If they simply move it and don't continue, then that's their speech gone—and lots of motions happen without a speech being attached to them. If a seconder then seconds and says that they reserve their right to speak, then they get an opportunity later in the debate. If they simply second and sit down, then they have spoken in the debate. They're the rules that the other 149 members of this place have to work under. We didn't object to the motion being moved; we didn't try to stop it. If the two people who moved and seconded have had the opportunity to give remarks, and neither of them did, then I think we're now at the point of debate where we have a call for further speakers.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hughes, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Craig Kelly</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A query: I understand that the House will adjourn at 4.30?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's correct.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Craig Kelly</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is the reason I kept my comments very short with the suspension of standing orders motion. If we have someone making that motion and a seconder, there should be a vote.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be disagreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, Mr Christensen and Mr C Kelly voting no.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It being after 4.30, I propose the question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House do now adjourn.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I require that the question be put immediately without debate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form 'That the House do not adjourn.'</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021, National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021, Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6750" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6761" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6763" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6772" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6746" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6688" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has Australia ever had a more secretive government than the Morrison government? This is the government that set up a one-man cabinet committee in order to keep deliberations secret, that has presided over the secret trial of witness K and that has refused Australians access to the spreadsheet that shows how the car park rort was perpetrated. This is a government that has maintained secrecy over the so-called national cabinet, despite the fact that it is nothing of that name, and now over the largest waste of taxpayer money in Australian history, the $13 billion of JobKeeper that went to firms with rising earnings, they want more and more secrecy.</para>
<para>In a range of other advanced countries, when the pandemic hit, they set up wage subsidy schemes. In Britain they set up a wage subsidy scheme, and every recipient was announced on a public website. In Canada they set up a wage subsidy scheme, and Canadian taxpayers could see on a public website every firm that was getting it. In New Zealand they set up a wage subsidy scheme, and all of the information was public. And in the United States they set up a wage subsidy scheme, and all of the information was public. We've been celebrating the anniversary of ANZUS this week. In two-thirds of the ANZUS countries they had wage subsidy schemes where there was transparency with taxpayers. The exception was Australia.</para>
<para>When the Morrison government set up JobKeeper it provided no transparency whatsoever—absolutely none. It was only as a result of ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, that we saw a modicum of transparency, because ASIC said, 'If you're a listed firm, you have to tell the stock market if you got JobKeeper, because it might be market sensitive.' So increasingly Australians have come to learn about the firms with rising revenues that got JobKeeper. They've learned about firms like AP Eagers and Lovisa. They've learned about firms such as Premier Investments and Harvey Norman. As a result, a small number of firms that are publicly listed have decided to repay—a shout-out to firms such as Domino's, Iluka and Toyota that did so swiftly; to firms like Cochlear, who have given some of the money back; and to firms like Harvey Norman, who, after significant public pressure, decided to repay JobKeeper. Overall, there is about a quarter of one per cent of JobKeeper that has been repaid here.</para>
<para>But look across the ditch, to New Zealand. There you've got some five per cent of their JobKeeper equivalent scheme that's been repaid. What's the difference? It's public transparency. Australians are really dirty at a government that allowed $13 billion, nearly a thousand dollars for every Australian adult, to be overpaid to firms with rising earnings. Only nine per cent of Australians, according to a Fairfax poll, support the government's view that profitable companies shouldn't repay.</para>
<para>And so Labor moved an amendment in the Senate in order to see more JobKeeper transparency. We moved that medium and large businesses — excluding small business , which the tax off ice says is under $10 million— firms with a turnover above $10 million , should have their names listed on a public website if they receive JobKeeper. The Senate has supported this principle on multiple occasions. But now the government has gone and done a deal with One Nation. Through that deal with One Nation , they're claiming that they've brought more transparency to the scheme. They have done nothing of the sort. They put in place the classic cl ayton's transparency amendment.</para>
<para>What is disclosed as a result of these amendments before the House today? JobKeeper receipt by listed firms. It's information that's already public. That's the Morrison government's view of transparency: 'We'll tell you information that's already public.' Let's be clear. Only three per cent of JobKeeper went to firms that are listed on the stock market, so that means 97 per cent is secret. The Morrison government proposes only to publish on a public record that three per cent that is already public.</para>
<para>If they weren't embarrassed by the JobKeeper overpayment debacle, then they would agree to Labor's sensible amendments. But they have a lot to hide. They are terrified of public scrutiny. They are running from public scrutiny. We know that they are embarrassed. I've spoken to members opposite who've told me privately that they're embarrassed about the 'Dividend Keeper ' debacle. Labor will keep up this campaign for JobKeeper transparency. We will not stop . <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Mayo</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave— Consistent with the agreement with the government , I table statements of voting intentions from the federal member for Mayo.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Clark, Member for Melbourne, Member for Warringah</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I table statements of voting intentions from the member for Melbourne, the member for Warringah and the member for Clark.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Indigenous Australians</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I would like to acknowledge the First Nations custodians of the land we are meeting on and the custodians of the parts of Australia that all of you are from. A few days ago we had our first Aboriginal person die of COVID-19. He was in Dubbo Base Hospital. He was just 50 years old. He was a grand-uncle who saw his grand-nephew just once. Unfortunately, he was not vaccinated.</para>
<para>We know that case numbers in western New South Wales just increase and increase and increase. These infections could have been prevented. This is too little, too late in western New South Wales. We know that the federal government were warned back in March 2020 that this was going to be the outcome if they did not step in. The death of this man, I am afraid, may not be the last death. There is still an unknown capacity of hospitals to be able to cope. There is still no clear evacuation plan. I know people who live in these communities. I spent the last two weeks talking to these people. They are in desperate need of help, yet they are left with a government that ignores them, a government that has planned poorly. The situation out there is a national crisis. These infections that have spread into these vulnerable communities could have been avoided. And now we see COVID scares in small communities like Muli Muli on the North Coast. Muli Muli has a very small population, something like 49 residents, and it's close to the Queensland border. We await the outcomes of the other screening in Muli Muli. We've seen this happening in so many regional communities that are vulnerable to this relentless virus.</para>
<para>The warnings about vulnerable communities like Wilcannia, like Brewarrina, like Walgett and like Bourke have been well known for many, many months. The federal government knew this was going to happen and did nothing to support these rural communities. The death of this gentleman and the deaths that will follow could have been avoided and should have been avoided. It is extremely worrying to see the reported outbreaks in regional communities of New South Wales when we know that our First Nations people are at a higher risk of contracting infections and diseases than non-Indigenous people.</para>
<para>There is also an increased risk of the spread of the disease in families who struggle to isolate when multiple families are living under the one roof. The use of 30 temporary motorhomes in Wilcannia is an admission by authorities that overcrowded housing is a real impediment to self-isolation, which is essential to stopping the spread and keeping the community safe. Some 2½ weeks after the town recorded its first case, we saw temporary motorhomes brought in last night. But we know that Wilcannia is not the only community facing the spread of COVID and overcrowding in houses. We are concerned about the whole country.</para>
<para>There's concern that the risk paired with underfunded social and health services in regional and remote areas means that our First Nations communities are facing a serious crisis. They have been plunged into uncertainty because of poor planning and poor foresight by the federal government. The health of these communities is at real risk. Families are stressed and struggling. People in priority categories are still not vaccinated. These communities deserve better. We must begin by empowering trusted local Aboriginal community organisations and leaders. But, based on what we're hearing on the ground and what we're seeing with the government's poor First Nations vaccination rates, this is not happening. We must allow First Nations people to have the lead in vaccine rollouts in these communities. This is part of the key to making vaccinations a reality in these regional and remote places.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mackellar Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] The impacts of traffic congestion are far-reaching. Traffic congestion costs drivers money and it means more pollution and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere but, most of all, the more time you spend in traffic the less time you spend with your family.</para>
<para>Indeed, there are many people who think that the level and degree of traffic congestion in our society is a major contributor to mental health issues, particularly amongst parents. Traffic congestion is the No. 1 issue that my constituents contact me about every single day. Not a day goes by where I am not somehow contacted by someone asking why more isn't being done to alleviate traffic congestion on the northern beaches. Many northern beaches residents have to travel over two hours a day within Sydney just to get to their place of employment.</para>
<para>Of course this isolation affects our entire economy and our community. My own wife reminds me frequently that ever since her workplace moved to Parramatta her commute starts so early in the morning that she will often not even see our daughter before school. But she is not alone and, unfortunately, her situation is not unique—especially for those people living on the northern beaches of Sydney. Many people from all different backgrounds have to forgo time with their families and find ways in which to commute into another area of Sydney daily. And if we count the return trip that's twice as much time when they could be doing something productive, useful or that they want to do—something that means something to someone they love and care about.</para>
<para>It's not only that but the northern beaches are home to many world-leading businesses, such as Incat Crowther, HIFraser, Blackmores and PharmaCare. These are businesses that are trying to keep up with the global market by employing top-quality staff. This, however, is made extremely difficult when the daily commute in and out of the northern beaches is so unattractive. Gaining high-quality staff is difficult; they're faced with the choice of either losing their staff or moving their businesses away from the beaches and both options would affect our economy, our community and our lives negatively. Of course these businesses don't have to think, ultimately, of the community or the economy in these cases, so they will generally choose the most attractive option.</para>
<para>But now the government is pursuing positive solutions in order to alleviate congestion and, as such, improve the economic, environmental and social issues that arise with constant traffic. The Beaches Link Tunnel has been given the go-ahead, and I'm constantly pressuring New South Wales transport minister, Andrew Constance, who lives in Bega, to start construction following a $40 million funding boost from the federal government which I helped to secure.</para>
<para>Public transport is another answer to congestion. The people of the northern beaches don't even have Metro available to them; a large area of the city of Sydney is without this useful infrastructure. I believe a discussion should be had over the viability of a Metro line linking the northern beaches to the North Shore and Chatswood. This is nothing new, as it has been proposed numerous times before—including proposals such as the Bradfield plan. It's a viable option for the alleviation of traffic congestion and has been well proven to work in the past as such. It would largely help the constituents and people of the northern beaches to decrease the issues that I have pointed out.</para>
<para>It goes without saying that the northern beaches are home to some of the finest beaches in the world—indeed, we have Layne Beachley! But the fact remains that we also have this problem: we're home to three of the 10 most-congested roads in Australia. These are not roads to nowhere, they are roads to businesses and to homes. But they're also roads of misery. The New South Wales government has received billions of dollars from the federal government to build roads, bridges and tunnels. It's time for them to look after the people of the northern beaches.</para>
<para>The Minister for Transport and Roads built himself a $300 million bridge in Bega that has as many people over it in a year as the Spit Bridge has in a week. It's time for the people of the northern beaches to be looked after.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Small Business, Greenway Electorate: Charitable Organisations</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Small businesses in Greenway are hurting. They are hurting financially. They are hurting from a lack of certainty. They are frustrated because the federal government has not been on their side. On Tuesday night, I held a small-business forum and was joined by Stephen Kamper, the New South Wales shadow minister for small business, someone with deep expertise in the area; and Trevor Oldfield, the President of the Greater Blacktown Business Chamber. I'd like to echo a sentiment put forward by Steve at our forum and acknowledge the sacrifices that small businesses are making for the safety of our entire community. As Steve said, it is a big ask to forego your revenue, hold onto your business and still maintain the costs of your home. On behalf of Greenway, we take our hats off to our local small businesses for their patience and their sacrifices.</para>
<para>There are over 5,000 small businesses in Greenway. These are good people from all walks of life. They believe in enterprise and risk-taking. They want to be financially successful, to live a good life and to provide for their families. That's what I admire about small-business owners: their tenacity to make their own way. Small-business owners do not ask much of governments, but during the pandemic governments have asked much of them. They have required many businesses to close or severely limit their activities in order to limit the spread of the virus. Despite these sacrifices, when the delta outbreak in Sydney began, the Morrison government refused to reinstate JobKeeper for New South Wales businesses. This was incredibly disappointing from the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer, but also revealing about their lack of understanding. It was only after pressure from small businesses, Labor and, indeed, the New South Wales government that a new form of support was introduced.</para>
<para>But there remain many challenges. There are many manufacturing businesses in my electorate. They build kitchens and assemble production lines. You name it, they do it. What some of these businesses tell me is that they need low-cost or interest-free loans to honour stock contracts and help them get to the other side of the lockdown, where there is pent-up demand for their products and services. The federal government's business loan scheme seeks to charge up to 10 per cent or 7½ per cent on loans. The feedback I'm receiving is these rates unfortunately just don't work for many businesses. Small businesses, including hairdressers and beauty salons, for example, are also anxious about what a reopening means for their liability. They need to keep customers and their employees safe. They need certainty about the indemnity framework in New South Wales. They need to know what the plan is.</para>
<para>I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the charitable organisations in Greenway and servicing Greenway, who have used this challenging time of deep economic and emotional strain to help those hit hardest and keep our community going. Last week, I visited the Turbans 4 Australia team at their warehouse, where they assemble packages filled with delicious food and essential sanitary items for those who need it, and, more recently, educational material for children of all ages. Turbans 4 Australia are a charity spearheaded by Amar Singh. They were founded in 2015 and, to this day, embody the Sikh values of equality, respect and service to humanity. Whether it is helping farmers out in Dubbo during drought or helping victims of cyclones in Queensland, Turbans 4 Australia have been out there helping people from all walks of life.</para>
<para>Over the weekend, I was joined by my state parliamentary colleagues Chris Minns, Lynda Voltz and Julia Finn as we masked up and packed veggies and groceries with the Hindu Benevolent Fund. Only yesterday, I paid a visit to the team of amazing volunteers at Hands and Feet in Kings Park in my electorate, who provide everything from clothing to food for over 1,500 people per week through the local church networks. Throughout these visits to charitable organisations, I saw volunteers working tirelessly to ensure that no-one is left behind, and always with a smile under their masks. Among experiences of adversity, sacrifice and immense struggle in the grip of this lockdown, particularly in a lockdown electorate such as Greenway, there have emerged acts of generosity and community spirit. Their kindness has created a safety net for our most vulnerable residents in Western Sydney.</para>
<para>I would also like to wish our celebrating constituents a happy Janmashtami for this week and a fulfilling Ganesh Chaturthi for next week. May Lord Ganesha fill your life with prosperity and success. Although you are sadly observing these auspicious occasions virtually this year, I very much look forward to celebrating them again in person with you all for many years to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHARMA</name>
    <name.id>274506</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] We passed some important milestones in our vaccination journey over the last 24 hours. Across Australia, we've now exceeded 20 million doses of the vaccine delivered—in fact, 20,028,084 vaccine doses delivered as at the end of yesterday, 1 September. That includes a record 330,856 vaccine doses in the last 24 hours. What this means is that we've now got 12½ million Australians who have had at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and that means that 60 per cent, in total, of eligible Australians, or those over 16, have now received at least their first dose. And, on top of that we've got 7½ million Australians who are fully vaccinated—that is, they have received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. That is 36 per cent of eligible Australians, myself being one of them, and I expect many others of us as well.</para>
<para>In my own state of New South Wales the figures are also very promising and positive. We just passed, in New South Wales, seven million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine delivered, including one million doses just over the last eight days. In New South Wales, 70 per cent of eligible adults—that's those over 16—have had at least one dose, and 39 per cent are now fully vaccinated. Even in my own seat of Wentworth we are going quite well. In the Woollahra local government area, which is fully encapsulated within Wentworth, we've got 51 per cent of people fully vaccinated and 73 per cent of eligible adults who have had at least one dose. In the Waverley local government area, 42 per cent are fully vaccinated and 64 per cent have had at least their first dose. In the Randwick local government area, 36 per cent are fully vaccinated and 60 per cent have had at least their first dose. In the City of Sydney local government area, 32 per cent are fully vaccinated and 53 per cent have had at least their first dose.</para>
<para>Just as we used to obsess over and focus on the case numbers each day, now we need to start obsessing over and focusing on our vaccination rates. Why is that? Well, it's because elimination of the virus, at least the delta strain of the virus—with the tools we've got, with the lives we're used to living, and with the freedoms and liberties that frankly make life worth living—is simply no longer possible. I think international experience has demonstrated that. If we look across the Tasman Sea towards New Zealand, which has had a good record in managing COVID-19, we see that New Zealand has now been in lockdown since 17 August. One active case has become 700 active cases; a three-day lockdown has become a three-week lockdown. In New Zealand, just today, there were 49 new cases.</para>
<para>Victoria, the state to my south, is now in its 28th day of its sixth lockdown, a lockdown that many have said is more ferocious and that some have argued is more effective than that underway here in Sydney. Well, in Victoria they had 176 new cases overnight. They've got 1,029 active cases. And, in fact, the cumulative number of cases in Victoria at this stage of their outbreak, on the 29th day, is higher than the number was at the commensurate stage of the New South Wales outbreak. This isn't to be triumphal; this is to simply to say that what may have worked with the original variant of the coronavirus, what may have worked with the alpha variant, has shown itself not to be working with the delta variant.</para>
<para>Elimination of the delta strain of the virus is clearly no longer possible, even with a ferocious lockdown; even with the costs to business and to people's jobs and livelihoods; even with the impact on children's schooling and education, severe as it is; even with the huge and the still untold mental health impacts that are the devastating consequence of prolonged lockdowns; even with the social isolation, the cancellation of weddings, those unable to properly say goodbye to dying loved ones; even with the deferral of the HSC and the cancellation of graduations. Even with all of those things, we've seen that the elimination of the delta strain of the virus is no longer possible. But, if it's not possible, what widespread vaccination has shown us is that it's also no longer necessary, and that is the encouraging thing to focus on here.</para>
<para>Two case studies here: Israel and the United Kingdom, both with adult vaccination rates north of 75 per cent. In Israel, we've seen a high number of cases still, with 85.8 cases per 100,000 people over seven days on average, but a mortality rate of only 0.28 per cent. In the United Kingdom, we've seen about 50 cases per 100,000 people over a one-week average, but a mortality rate of only 0.29 per cent. And, even in New South Wales, with this current outbreak and a lower vaccination rate, we're seeing a mortality that is one-tenth of the rate in the Victorian second wave outbreak last year.</para>
<para>The message here is: please, get vaccinated. Let's hit the Doherty institute targets. Let's open up again. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT (</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>— ) ( ): I would like to thank and congratulate the Morrison government and my National Party colleagues for the fact that we now have in the Senate the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport investigating the definitions of meat and other animal products. I have for some years been continually raising my serious concerns about the false, misleading and fake claims that a number of plant protein and fake meat products are trying to associate themselves with the clean, green, natural, endlessly renewable products that our Australian farmers grow, whether that's beef, whether that's dairy, whether that's lamb, whether that's wool, whether that's eggs or whether it's our seafood. We need to make sure that we are looking after our Australian farmers.</para>
<para>I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with plant protein producers getting their products onto shelves, but I have a huge problem with them claiming to be meat-like products or dairy-like products or seafood-like products. I have huge problems with people claiming to make so-called vegan 'leather', which is purely plastics and petrochemicals. It could not be less like natural, endlessly-sustainable leather if it tried. I am going to continue during the remainder of my time in this place to be fighting for our farmers, for our dairy farmers, for our beef producers, for our sheep producers, for our wonderful fishermen and women around the nation, to make sure that their products are no longer being put at risk by these imposters.</para>
<para>The aim of these groups, companies like Impossible Foods—this is big business; these people are backed by billionaires—as the CEO of Impossible Foods says, is to 'eradicate the meat and fish industries by 2035' and replace them with 'genetically engineered plant based meat'. This CEO, Patrick Brown, has stated, 'I want to put the animal agricultural industry out of business. It is that simple. It is the most destructive industry on earth,' and he wants to see the 'land returned to nature'. Well, my goodness me. That would have pretty catastrophic impacts for Australia and for all of our rural and regional areas if we shut down our livestock producers, if we shut down our dairy producers and if we shut down our fishermen around the coastline of Australia. So I'm going to keep fighting these people and I'm going to take great pleasure in doing so, because I'm going to make sure that their false and misleading claims are no longer applied to products that could not be less natural if they tried.</para>
<para>I have been a bit concerned, I must say, about the efforts of the National Farmers Federation on this matter, who established the Future of Protein Forum to work with alternative protein producers. One of these food producers is Food Frontier, who explicitly state on their website:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we must champion safer and more sustainable ways of producing food. … reducing our reliance on industrial animal agriculture and aquaculture, and backing protein sources that have fewer impacts on human and planetary health, are central to this.</para></quote>
<para>Again, my goodness me! Could we see any more false and misleading statements about our amazing protein producers, our real protein producers—our sheep growers, our cattle producers, our fishermen, our dairy producers, our chicken and egg producers? Animal production is one of the most historic, most successful means of production known to the entire world. It's actually the basis of human civilisation. When we actually managed to start farming we managed to start feeding ourselves in a reliable and sustainable way, and that is why we need to continue to do so. Animal production is endlessly renewable. Cattle and sheep will continue to reproduce and provide fabulous protein sources, not just for Australians but for people around the entire world.</para>
<para>I'm also very disappointed with the National Farmers Federation. Today I read their submission to the Senate committee and I was a little bit encouraged that they seem to be a bit more back on the right track, but I wasn't greatly encouraged, so I'm just putting them on notice that I'll be carefully watching how they manage this. I was deeply disappointed with the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which considered and rejected this matter. They rejected truth in labelling to protect our farmers and our fishers. I will continue to prosecute this issue during my remaining time in the parliament to make sure that Australian farmers can continue to sustain this nation. They are the backbone of this nation and they deserve our support.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the member for Maribyrnong. I'm sorry, it's still not working. What I'll do, if there's no action, is call the member for Scullin. We'll see what we can do in the next five minutes. Member for Scullin.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Parliament</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very hopeful that the issues with the member for Maribyrnong will be resolved. If you could perhaps indicate when they are, I will take my seat at precisely that point. I will also say at this point that I'm conscious that I, like most of us here, have been away for quite some time and I want to acknowledge two things really.</para>
<para>Firstly, you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the parliament, have enabled our parliament to continue sitting at a very important time when there have been very considerable challenges—technical challenges and other logistical challenges—as a consequence of the pandemic. I know that it matters that Australia's parliament has been sitting through this and that we've been able to hold the government to account. The government has been able to pass some legislation that has been urgent in terms of providing critical economic supports. But, otherwise, we've been able to carry on the business of Australian democracy. We've been able to speak up for our communities, in particular the communities that I represent, which are presently under lockdown. I'm very conscious that I am here to give a voice to them, to speak to their concerns and, with all of my colleagues, to do my best to share their understanding of their circumstances right now and their sense of what can come on the other side of this pandemic. I think the challenge that we all need to rise to in this place right now is to understand what different communities are going through and to think about how a national government and all of us in our national parliament can allow people to come together to see that all of the necessary supports are in place. Sadly, that hasn't always been the case. In particular, I know the economic supports that were in place through last year's lockdowns in Victoria would have made such a difference to so many people who are struggling back home right now.</para>
<para>But I also want to say this: when so many essential workers whom I represent who give me the privilege of coming here and speaking for them are undertaking their work, whether it's in logistics, particularly in health care settings and in supermarkets, I think it's important that they see us doing our work. It's also important that I acknowledge the way in which the parliament has enabled those of us who, for a variety of reasons, aren't able to be here to still speak of our communities, as, hopefully, the member for Maribyrnong will be able to do in the very, very near future. We have shown that our parliament can come together—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Shorten interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we are about to show that our parliament can function in a 21st century manner, and I very much look forward to hearing from my friend the member for Maribyrnong.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The member for Maribyrnong has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: People with Disability</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Thank you, Mr Speaker—much awaited! Right now, as this parliament adjourns, there's a man called Jeremiah, or 'Jerry' to his family, in a Melbourne hospital. Jerry is 72 years old. He has an intellectual disability. He lives in a group home where he has 24/7 care from a devoted team. Yesterday afternoon Jerry's family received a call from his care home saying he had been rushed to hospital. He was admitted this morning for further tests. Jerry's family and guardians are, understandably, seriously concerned for his wellbeing. They are not able to visit him and they understand why. So Jerry is alone in hospital—no doubt receiving excellent care, but still alone.</para>
<para>While there is much concern for Jerry's health, there is one aspect his family don't have fear about: Jerry is vaccinated, so therefore his risk of becoming infected during his stay is at least not one of the problems. So his family have solace. He's one of the lucky ones. But people with disability were all too often being left behind in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they still are. The first response of the government, in February last year, failed to mention disability even once. Vaccination rates among people with disability are still unacceptably low when compared with aged-care and other vulnerable cohorts of Australians. People with disability are particularly vulnerable to serious illness and death from COVID, due to underlying health conditions and comorbidities of disability.</para>
<para>A shocking experience in the UK reported in the <inline font-style="italic">British Medical Journal</inline> reveals that people with disability suffer from far greater mortality from COVID than other people. This risk was acknowledged by the prioritisation of people and workers in residential disability settings in phases 1a and 1b of the Morrison government's subsequent rollout. This was meant to be completed by Easter. Jerry was one of 27,000 Australians with disability in a group eligible for vaccination. Of that group, half are still to be fully vaccinated. Half of Australia's most vulnerable citizens are still unvaccinated. When you add in other people with disability on the NDIS scheme, you realise that only 25 per cent are fully vaccinated—so that's 75 per cent who are not. This is six months after the government promised to vaccinate people with disability. The question has to be asked: why are Australians with disability still so far behind?</para>
<para>With the delta variant running rampant through New South Wales and fighting to take hold in Victoria, the need for speed in the vaccination rate of people living with disability has never been more important in Australia. Recently there were 14 cases linked in an ACT cluster of people with disability. There are 111 NDIS workers and 72 participants in New South Wales who are infected, including a number of students at schools for children with special needs. Amongst self-managed NDIS participants, those in aged-care homes or living in state-run facilities, the rate of infection is still unknown. It's unacceptable, isn't it, that the majority of people with disability aren't protected from COVID as Australia begins to discuss opening up from lockdowns while there is still community transmission.</para>
<para>Since the very beginning of this pandemic, people living with disability have been in the shadows—too many unvaccinated and clinically vulnerable. Many have been too scared to leave their homes, with many also unable to see their families, as they're locked in. People are alone because the government hasn't lived up to its duty of care to vaccinate Australia. We had an 18-month head start on the delta variant. Experts said we were vulnerable as a nation to new waves of the virus because not enough of us were vaccinated. Here we are in September 2021. It is beyond me both as a proud member of this great parliament and a father of fantastic children to understand how we've left tens of thousands of people behind.</para>
<para>If COVID is like a war, then we need to throw everything at it. We need to mobilise all our people. We need to be as agile as possible to get each and every Australian vaccinated. For every week we wait to reach the agreed national targets, people will get infected and people will die. For every person with disability like Jerry, there is another who has not been fully vaccinated and is at serious risk of illness or death from COVID.</para>
<para>We want hope. We want to look to the future. But we don't want magical thinking. We can't be fooled into forgetting. We cannot forget people living with disability and we can't forget their carers, both paid and family. And it is not wrong of the opposition to say we can't forget the incompetence of the very poor administration of the vaccine rollout. There will be worse variants. There will be other pandemics. What worries me, on behalf of people with disability in this country and the vulnerable, is that after 18 months the Morrison government doesn't seem to learn the lessons. The reason we will get to 70 and 80 per cent is the Australian people. But we need to learn the lessons and protect our most vulnerable. Surely people should expect nothing less of us.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 17:19</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>