2021-10-19 1 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 19 October 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12.00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

MINISTRY -1 MINISTRY Presentation -1 12:01 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I table the second Morrison ministry list. The document read as follows— SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee -1 Government Response to Report -1 12:01 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I table the Australian government's response to the recommendations in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High RiskTerrorist Offenders) Bill 2020. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee -1 Report -1 12:02 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Independent assessments. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—In August 2020 the government announced a proposal to introduce independent assessments for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This inquiry was initiated by the committee following widespread community concern about the proposal. While some disagreement over policy reforms from affected individuals or interested stakeholders is an expected and constructive part of democratic decision-making, evidence to this inquiry suggested there was widespread opposition to independent assessments in their proposed form. This opposition was almost universal in evidence from state and territory governments, academics and universities, allied health professionals, allied health peak bodies, disability providers, advocacy groups, and people with lived experience and their families. The committee therefore welcomes the announcement by the new Minister for the NDIS, Senator Linda Reynolds, that the government will not be proceeding with independent assessments in their proposed form and will be taking time to consult in a meaningful way. The committee is hopeful and confident the minister will continue to listen to the sector, as well as hearing and taking action on the basis of expert advice, to ensure that future changes to the scheme centre on the needs and experience of people with disability. This report steps through the background and rationale for the proposal to introduce independent assessments. Chapter 2 outlines the proposal's initial announcement, trialling of assessments, consultation by the government on the proposal, and the new minister's announcement, in July 2021, that independent assessments as proposed would not proceed. Chapters 3 and 4 examine the two reports relied on by the government to support the proposal, and key elements of the government's stated rationale for the proposal. Chapters 5 to 7 consider concerns raised in evidence to the inquiry about independent assessments, and chapter 6 highlights concerns raised by people with lived experience of disability. The final two chapters of the report discuss the committee's observations regarding why the proposed introduction of independent assessments were met with such united opposition from people with disability and their families, along with experts in the wider disability sector, and make suggestions for next steps. On this point the committee is particularly interested in approaches that will allow the government and the sector to rebuild trust and work together moving forward. Crucial among these is the use of co-design and undertaking appropriate consultation on proposals to amend the scheme. The committee makes six recommendations, set out in chapter 9, going to broader matters of financial sustainability, approaches to co-design and consultation and bulk-billing consultations—key features that could be incorporated into a revised model if this approach is later pursued by a government with appointments with medical and allied health. Finally, as part of the committee's role to inquire into the implementation, performance and governance of the NDIS, the committee has decided to conduct an inquiry into the current scheme's implementation and forecasting for the NDIS, with a focus on how the NDIS is implemented and funded and what supports are or should be available for people with disability, in addition to the NDIS. This new inquiry is designed to complement the report which I have tabled today, and the terms of reference can be read on the committee's website. I commend the report to the House. 12:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—Labor welcomes the release of the report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme into the Morrison government's failed independent assessments. The report has found what Labor, people with disabilities and, indeed, everybody who works with the NDIS, other than the senior management of the NDIA, knew as a fact: independent assessments were unwarranted and represented a severe breach of trust against the fundamental tenet of disability policy, 'Nothing about us without us'. Unfortunately, due to a revolving door of NDIS ministers with a one-track mind of cutting the NDIS and making the scheme harder for people with disability to access, independent assessments have taken up a lot of time and energy, with no appreciable outcome for people with disability. The Morrison government wanted every one of 466,000 NDIS participants to effectively reaudition for packages of support. They wanted people who had chronic lifelong disabilities to prove again and again that they were really disabled—for the deaf to prove that they still couldn't hear, for the blind to prove that they still couldn't see and for people with other impairments to somehow demonstrate that they were still permanent. They wanted families with young children with permanent disabilities to be reassessed by a stranger who knew nothing about their child or their family or their experts and who was being paid by the government. The reality for NDIS participants was that independent assessments were a terrifying prospect and proof that the government didn't trust them. People with disabilities told them, experts told them and state governments told them that independent assessments needed to be binned, but, unfortunately, the government didn't listen until recently. The government underestimated people with disabilities, their families, their carers and the sector that supports them. They fought back. They did everything that the government asked of them. They took up places in the trial. They submitted themselves and their loved ones to the independent assessment trial process. They provided expert reports on their own experiences. None were positive. In fact, there was almost universal rejection of the independent assessments process, as the member for Menzies identified. The report lays out a litany of charges from participants. The experiences of people who went through the trials were documented as follows: … 'I am terrified of independent assessments. I'm scared that I would not be heard, that my needs would not be met and that my funding would be cut'. Another quote: '… my worst fears were realised'. Another quote: …'inaccurate, incomplete and irrelevant'. Another quote: '…I believe that the risks … to the participant and their families outweigh any … to the Commonwealth…' It was unconscionable, really, that Australian people had to be subjected to the fear of either the loss or the degradation of their right of choice and control. leasingly, though, the joint standing committee has demonstrated its commitment to the parliament by unilaterally rejecting independent assessments. The government has been forced to stop its planned independent assessments. It has done it begrudgingly, but it has admitted that it has failed. This should be the end of this sorry chapter—the final nail in the coffin. I am concerned though that, following an election, if the Morrison government is re-elected, it will bring independent assessments back to life. For the past eight years we've seen that successive Liberal governments have continually gone low when Australians were demanding the high road for people with disability. We cannot forget that this is the government that illegally forced thousands of Australians—many of whom were extremely disadvantaged—to repay money they never owed in the robodebt scandal. There has been colossal mismanagement of the NDIS at the very top, and it's people with disabilities who have been required to pay for the mistakes of others. We would now like to see the government not bin this report but respond to the recommendations that a bipartisan NDIS committee of the parliament has made, and the responses should be done in a timely fashion. The committee noted that the NDIS has been transformational to the lives of people with disabilities and should never be denied to eligible participants. It pressed the point that Australians across all ideological divides support the scheme because it benefits everyone. It urged the government to introduce an NDIS reserve fund. The committee has also said that the government must fix the tier 2 supports available to people with disability who don't access the NDIS before it even considered cutting access to NDIS supports or reducing numbers. We welcome the innovative recommendation for bulk-billed free allied health assessments. We keenly await the government's response to the report. Labor will continue to work with people with disabilities, with carers and with everyone in this country who wants to empower the lives of people with disability. Any changes need to be done with the co-design of people with disability and must be evidence based. Australians overwhelmingly support the NDIS. The NDIS is one of the bright spots in public policy in the last decade of Australian politics. We support the choice and control and the right to an ordinary life which the NDIS provides hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians—and any one of us might need this scheme one day. But I would submit that, in reading the report, only a Labor government can actually be trusted to fix the damage to the NDIS and make sure that it works in the interests of all. BUSINESS -1 BUSINESS Rearrangement -1 12:12 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of Section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 on 23 July 2021 and presented to the House on 3 August 2021, standing in the name of the Member for Melbourne being called on immediately. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS -1 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 -1 Disallowance -1 12:13 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 made under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 on 23 July 2021 and presented to the House on 3 August 2021, be disallowed. Any 2050 plan that relies on expanding coal and gas is a fraud—all the more so when it's done using public money. Public money should be going to schools and hospitals and renewables, not to coal and gas. Everyone now—from John Kerry, who is in charge of climate negotiations for the United States government, to the UN Secretary-General to the International Energy Agency—says very clearly that there is no room for investment in new coal, oil or gas projects if we are to address the climate crisis. They have said that, from this point on, there cannot be new investment or not only will you fast-track climate collapse but you will also end up with stranded assets that produce a product that the rest of the world no longer wants to buy. his message is getting louder and louder in the lead-up to Glasgow. The United States is asking the rest of the world to sign up to a pledge to cut methane emissions. The United Kingdom is asking the rest of the world to sign up to a pledge to phase out coal. But what does the Liberal government do? The Liberal government comes up with a fraudulent 2050 plan that takes public money—money that could be going to schools, hospitals and renewables—and gives it to big coal, gas and oil corporations. This regulation must be disallowed by the parliament because it is using public money to make the climate crisis worse. There is a reason why, all around the world, corporations and financiers are saying, 'We are not going to be putting money into new fossil fuel projects.' They have listened to the science and they have heard the advice of the likes of even the International Energy Agency, a conservative group representing energy producers right around the world, that there is no room for any new investment. What that means is that the only way that this white-elephant investment in new gas and coal can get up is if the government subsidises it, putting its hands in the pocket of the public and saying, 'We're going to take your money and give it to the big gas corporations'—many of which donate to the big parties but pay no tax here in Australia and send their profits offshore. The government at least has some idea about the numbers in this parliament, because it knows that it might struggle to get legislation up to turn the Renewable Energy Agency into a funder of coal and gas. So what does it do? The government comes here with a regulation that even its own Senate committee has said is probably illegal. It moves a regulation to say, 'We want the right to take public money away from renewables and away from schools and hospitals and give it to coal and gas corporations.' This government is so desirous of giving money to its coal and gas corporate donors that it is willing to break the law to do it. This regulation will be struck down in the courts, and that is what the government's own scrutiny of bills committee, headed by a government member, has said. With this regulation, if it is allowed to stand, the government is inviting lawsuits that, even on its own advice, it will lose. It is creating a lawyers' picnic in its desperation to funnel money out the door to big coal and gas corporations. To rub salt in the wound, because the government knows that it may struggle to get the numbers in this place to do that, it is using the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to funnel cash to coal and gas corporations. I've got a hint for the minister. I know he has trouble reading and downloaded documents from time to time, but all he has to do is read the title: 'Australian Renewable Energy Agency' is what ARENA stands for. The clue is in the name. The 'R' stands for 'renewable'. Coal and gas are not renewable. Under no definition put forward by anyone in the world do coal and gas count as renewable, but this government wants everyone here to believe that black is white—that coal and gas are now renewable and that the Renewable Energy Agency should be the vehicle through which to channel public funds to coal and gas corporations. As I said, the government's own scrutiny of bills committee said, 'No, that probably breaches the law.' Well, I'm going to say it definitely breaches the law. ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, is a success story in this country. It was established in the Greens-Labor-Independent power-sharing parliament of 2010, and it has grown and fast-tracked the growth of renewable energy in this country. To use it and to nobble it to say it now has to fund coal and gas is an utter perversion of the purpose of ARENA. I notice that the members for Higgins and Wentworth are here in this chamber and I am expecting them to jump up and say, 'No, coal and gas are not renewable and we should not be subsidising the coal and gas industry.' They're supposed free marketeers who think that the market is going to get us to 2050. Well, not if the government puts its hands in people's pockets and says, 'We're going to start propping up coal and gas by calling them renewables' it won't. So I am hoping that those inner city Liberals who say that they support reduction of our emissions will come with us and cross the floor and vote to stop public money going to coal and gas corporations. Even if you think that somehow renewables don't deserve support it's got to be the case that the coal and gas corporations can afford to fund their own research, especially when these multibillion dollar corporations pay no tax in Australia and send their profits offshore. What could possibly be the small-l liberal case for taking public money and giving it to a coal and gas corporation and funnelling it through the Renewable Energy Agency? They're very, very quiet, these so-called modern Liberals and inner city Liberals when it comes to this gas-led recovery, because they know that something is wrong with taking public money, asking their own constituents to subsidise coal and gas corporations for technology that is not yet proven. If carbon capture and storage could work I am sure that these ultrawealthy coal and gas corporations could've made it work by now. They are making billions of dollars in profits and do not need public assistance. In the last recorded year of income the big gas corporations brought in $55 billion—that's billion with a 'b'—of income and paid zero tax . And now the Liberals are saying as well as these big gas corporations paying no tax, they want their own constituents to subsidise them and give a handout to these big coal and gas corporations and call it renewal energy. If you need any demonstration that the farcical, stage-managed charade going on in the lead-up to Glasgow is nothing more than an excuse to come up with a fraudulent 2050 plan that won't bring down emissions but will allow coal and gas to keep expanding it is here in this regulation. The government's idea of tackling the climate crisis is to make it worse by expanding coal and gas. There's a reason that the scientists, the United Nations and the International Energy Agency have all said, 'We've got to call time on coal and gas' and why we can't be expanding infrastructure, as this regulation in this bill wants to do. To give you an indication, Mr Speaker, of how serious this is, right now we've been told that the world has to cut its pollution globally by 50 per cent before 2030, which would mean a much higher target in Australia, or we say goodbye to any chance of staying below 1.5 degrees. We're headed for a world where the reef is gone. We're headed for a world where extreme droughts are more than twice as likely to happen here in Australia. On current targets we're headed for a world where by the end of the century—during my daughter's lifetime; during the lifetimes of many kids of people in this House—we will have a 92 per cent decline of productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin. That is where we are going at the moment unless we massively cut pollution globally by 50 per cent—more in Australia—by 2030. The kinds of gas projects that this government are talking about supporting are going to blow that budget. The Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory—a project initiated by the NT Labor government and supported by this federal government—is a carbon climate bomb. According to the NT government if we extract the gas in those NT basins we are talking about a up to six per cent increase in Australia's emissions alone and on top of that is all the toxic damage that is going to be caused when this gas is burnt overseas. So just one set of projects in the Northern Territory adds six per cent to Australia's annual emissions. The government is saying they want the right not only to make it happen but to use public money to make it happen. Public money should not be going to making the climate crisis worse. Government should not be stepping in to subsidise coal and gas corporations at a time when money should be going to renewables. Public money should not be spent in a way that pretty much everyone says is illegal. The Renewable Energy Agency is called the Renewable Energy Agency for a reason. The legislation prohibits it from funding fossil fuels, so the government should not knowingly march the public into a series of lawsuits to defend a regulation that is illegal. The government may well be willing. The government may be so keen to please its coal and gas donors that it's willing to break the law, but the parliament shouldn't back it. The parliament should stand up for the legislation that is passed and says in very clear terms what renewable energy is. It should disallow this regulation that says black is white and that coal and gas are renewable. They are not. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is going to be waving this particular regulation around if he goes to Glasgow and telling Joe Biden and Boris Johnson that, whatever he might say on the international stage, back at home he's keen to say coal and gas are renewables and that he wants public money to go into them. We should save the public the money that will have to be spent on the inevitable lawsuits and just disallow this regulation now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is motion seconded? I call the member for Mayo. 12:26 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I second this motion. I very much support this disallowance. We are really in dangerous territory as a nation when we have ARENA, the Renewable Energy Agency, which has been successful despite attempts by government in recent years to cut funding to it, and then make ARENA invest in gas and coal projects. If ever there were an oxymoron, it is 'clean coal'. The reason why the big banks are not supporting new fossil fuel projects is, for some, that want to do the right thing morally, but moreover it doesn't make financial sense. As the member for Melbourne says, they will just have stranded assets. The risk is too great. These are industries that are in decline, and the government's way of fixing that is to say: 'Well, that's alright. We're going to make public money invest in oil, gas and coal.' This is not the right thing to do. This is not what the Australian community wants. This is actually some kind of bizarro world where we would charge ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, with that task. I urge all members of this House—particularly those who like to put in editorials, who say hand on heart how they're all for a clean and green future—to support this disallowance. You can't say one thing to the papers, go out there and help put turtles in the ocean, and have lots of photo opportunities, and then vote differently in this place. The Australian community have wised up to that. They know what is happening in here. There is a reason why big banks and superannuation companies are divesting. How people in this place who are very much of the free market ideology can support the government's position and not support this disallowance is nonsensical. So I urge all of those up in their rooms right now, listening to this speech, to have a look at this disallowance, have a look at what the government is intending to do by regulation and support this disallowance by the member for Melbourne. 12:29 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Just as the Labor Party created ARENA, the Labor Party will defend ARENA. The Labor Party will support this disallowance, just as we've moved a disallowance in the other place, and we will stand against this illegal regulation. ARENA has played an important role in the transition that is underway in Australia. When the minister talks about 'technology, not taxes', he ignores the fact that ARENA and the CEFC have been the central bodies driving the take-up of new technology in Australia and that this minister and this government have been addicted to trying to undermine that work at every opportunity. Never let it be forgotten that this government tried to abolish both instrumentalities when they came to office. In fact, before they came to office, the then Prime Minister wrote to the chairs of CEFC and ARENA and told them not to do any more work, because he was going to abolish them if he won the election. That's how keen and arrogant they were. Here we are, almost a decade later, and they're still at it. As has been said by the honourable member for Melbourne, this House may disallow it, the other house may disallow it yet or the courts may disallow it, but it is important that this House and the other house stand up for renewable energy, because this is just the latest iteration of this government's attempt to undermine the focus on renewable energy in ARENA and in CEFC. This is being done by regulation. There's an important reason it's being done by regulation, which is that this government is so dysfunctional and divided on matters of climate change that they can't trust themselves. They can't trust their backbench to support their legislation when it comes to the CEFC and ARENA. The minister tried to do the same trick with CEFC, but he did that by legislation. He called it a 'milestone bill', and we're yet to see it back in the House. Where's it gone? It's gone missing. It's missing in action. The government couldn't deliver the numbers on their own bill, which they called a milestone, so they thought they'd be very tricky. They've come up with a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a fox. They've done this by regulation. This regulation is being used by the minister to avoid votes in the parliament, because he knows that his backbench might move very inconvenient amendments. You can't do that with regulations. But there's a problem with the way the minister has done it: he hasn't followed the law. The parliament's committee, which is run on a bipartisan basis, has found a very real prospect that this regulation is in breach of the law. Call me old-fashioned; call me a traditionalist, but I happen to think ministers should comply with the law and should not ask the parliament to vote for regulations which are not in keeping with the law. But this minister, who has made something of a habit of breaching protocols and proper practice in this building, thinks it's perfectly okay to introduce a regulation which members of his own party believe is not in keeping with the law of the land. This has happened before; governments have brought down regulations which committees have found not to be in keeping with the law. It can happen. I understand mistakes can happen. Do you know what happened in every other instance where that occurred? The government withdrew the regulation. It worked out how to make it in keeping with the law. This minister is so arrogant he doesn't care about those precedents. He is just rolling along, ensuring that ARENA will be extended beyond the purpose of investing in renewable energy. Not only has he enabled ARENA to invest beyond renewable energy; he's actually requiring it to invest beyond renewable energy. He's put a floor on the amount of money that the board of ARENA can invest in non-renewable technologies. That is just not on. It's not on as far as this opposition is concerned; it's not on, as I understand it, as far as the crossbench is concerned. This is a government which is addicted to undermining ARENA and CEFC. We will not hear one word from this minister about 'technology, not taxes', when he has undermined these technologies at every opportunity. He was there with the rest of them bagging electric cars not so long ago. He was the one who said that climate change was some sort of religion. He was the one who questioned windfarms and the role of wind technology in Australia. He works for a bloke who said that electric vehicles would 'end the weekend'. He works for a bloke who said big batteries are like big prawns and big bananas. That's what this government really thinks about technology. That's what it really thinks about renewable energy. That's what it really thinks about the opportunities that are created in Australia. It is outrageous, just as this regulation is outrageous. It should be disallowed by this House. It should be disallowed by the other house. The other house will get another opportunity when the committee actually reports and, as a result, moves the disallowance. I would say that's another opportunity for the parliament to declare judgement on the mismanagement by this minister. 12:35 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume The disallowance motion before this House is really a very simple proposition: do you support the government's focus on low-emissions technologies or don't you? Do you support a technology led approach or do you support a taxation led approach? We know that the member for McMahon only has one tool in his toolkit, and that's a tax. That's what he took to the last election. He said to the Australian people, 'You make up your mind whether you like it or not.' Well, they did and they will continue to do so, because they know a tax driven approach has always been Labor's preferred approach. But it's not the Australian people's preferred approach. Let's be clear, this is not a question of legality. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 were always envisaged to adapt to changing technology requirements. When they were established in the first place, they were always envisaged to ensure that, as the range of technologies that bring down emissions expand, the regulations would adapt to those technologies. In fact, the regulations have extraordinarily broad based support. Whether it's the BCA, Ai Group, the Minerals Council, the NFF, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, over 20 peak bodies are all in support because they understand we have to use every technology available to reduce emissions. That's exactly what we are doing in this country, and it's working. Emissions are down by 20.8 per cent on our 2005 level. When we left government and the Labor government, with their carbon tax, the member for McMahon's preferred tool in his toolkit, were doing their forecasts, the forecast for last year, 2020, was over 630 million tonnes. Do you know where it ended up? Around 530 million tonnes, more than a hundred million tonnes lower than their forecast. That's because technologies are working. We're seeing record levels of investment in household solar and utility solar across this country, with seven gigawatts of new renewable capacity last year—that's the equivalent of four large coal fired power stations in a single year. In a single year we saw more investment in renewables, 5.4 gigawatts, than we saw in the entire time that Labor was last in government. And the year before was exactly the same. This is world-beating stuff, and yet they say: 'No, we can't use any other technologies. We have to ignore the fact that our emissions in electricity are only 30 per cent of our total emissions. Let's ignore the other 70 per cent.' The first and most important point I'd make about this motion is that Labor is showing its true colours. They're not interested in technologies; they're interested in taxes. They find lots of ways to impose taxes: sneaky taxes, implicit taxes, shadow prices—you name it. They do it through mandates. They force consumers to buy things because they believe that consumers don't know what's in their interest. Consumers don't know what kind of car to buy; governments need to tell them—that's how the Labor Party thinks. They're making the phone calls to the old Soviet central planners, dusting them off and saying, 'It's time to come in and take control of the economy, tell consumers what kinds of things to buy.' This is the Labor Party way, because they don't trust the Australian people. They didn't trust them to get vaccinated. They were going to spend billions because they thought you'd have to bribe them to get vaccinated, you'd have to tell them. They were wrong about my electorate, and the member for McMahon has seen some pretty high vaccination rates in his own electorate. In parts of my electorate we're seeing 99 per cent-plus double-vaxxed. The Australian people make their own choices; they don't need a Labor government to tell them what choices to make. The second thing I would say about this is quite remarkable because is it tells us how Labor is thinking about net zero. They are not focused on net zero; they're focused on zero. They want to wipe out the mining industry in this country. They want to wipe out the beef industry in this country. They want to wipe out the natural gas industry in this country. Labor want them gone. They've wanted them gone for years. We saw that with the RSPT and all the taxes Labor wanted to impose on them. They've always hated those industries, because not enough of them vote for the Labor Party. It's purely politically motivated. They want zero emissions. They want the technologies that support those foundational industries of this great country—the competitive advantage that has made us one of the wealthiest countries on earth—gone. They want them gone, whether it's in agriculture, resources or heavy manufacturing. They used to support the workers in heavy manufacturing, but not anymore. We saw how the people of Gladstone felt about that at the last election. They had had enough. The so-called blue-collar workers that the Labor Party supported turned out to be white-collar workers in the inner cities. That's their focus. They couldn't care less about the regions—and that shows in their approach to this very question in front of the House today. The Labor Party are crowing about 2030 targets—and they don't even have one. They haven't got one. They want to wander off to Glasgow without a 2030 target. Well, let me give them a bit of news: the Paris agreement requires a 2030 target. Labor abandoned theirs from the last election because the Australian people said no, and they now have no idea where they stand. Meanwhile, their focus is on getting technologies out of the portfolio. They don't want them there. They only want their preferred technologies, the ones that politically align with their ideological views. But not everyone in the Labor Party agrees with this. I'm very much looking forward to seeing who turns up from the Labor Party when we have a vote on this later this afternoon. I will be intrigued by who's absent, who doesn't turn up. The Labor Party can't work out where they stand on any of this. That's why they have no plan. They have a target without a plan. That's what they had at the last election—a target without a plan. That's the Labor Party way. They have a divided party room on this. On one side they've got the barbecue stoppers who want to see the end of the iconic Australian institution of the barbeque. They want to see the end of it. There's the member for Cooper handing out leaflets in her electorate saying gas has got to go—'Your gas cookers have got to go.' They want them gone. Labor no longer supports those traditional industries that have been the bedrock of this great country. The intriguing thing about this is that this regulation will also support investment in crucial technologies like low-emission vehicles. It will allow investment in technology for charging, which those opposite, for some reason, seem to oppose. It will allow investment in industrial energy efficiencies, but those opposite are not interested in that anymore. Industry is not their focus anymore. They couldn't care less. We know where Labor are going on all of this. The Labor Party simply don't know where they stand on technologies. They are choosing some that they really like and others that they really hate. It's purely ideological. But the one thing they fail to focus on is what's going to bring down emissions in the most efficient way for all Australians that doesn't destroy jobs, that doesn't raise the price of electricity and that doesn't take away this great nation's great industries, our great sources of competitive advantage. If Labor ever succeed with what they're proposing to do here—with the Greens, of course; they've teamed up with the Greens on this one—the real losers will be Australian workers, Australian farmers, Australian industry and Australian miners, because the Labor Party want those industries wiped out. Their position on this regulation demonstrates what they really think—teaming up with the Greens as they always do in the end. They pretend that they are for the Australian worker, but it's the Greens that they ultimately support when it comes to the crunch. An expanded mandate for ARENA will provide support for those great technologies for our great industries and ensure that we are able to bring down emissions and maintain a strong economy. 12:45 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 should be disallowed. There is no doubt that that is what should happen today. I will pick up on the last words of the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. He talked about protecting the mining industry. With respect, the important thing is protecting people and communities, not protecting industries. That is a very important distinction that needs to be made, because the industries themselves do change over time. We've seen that throughout history through the various stages of modernisation of industrialisation. Industries change. What is important is having a plan for people and their communities. That is where we in this place are absolutely falling short. We are here to discuss a regulation that will categorically impact the mandate of ARENA and really absolutely corrupt it. It is really important for the Australian people to be clear about just what ARENA does. Since being created in 2012 ARENA has invested more than $1.77 billion in more than 600 renewable energy projects. The boon to the Australian economy and the Australian people has been a total project value of some $7.75 billion. It has been the most effective vehicle by which we have been able to support the development of technologies. The coalition government is incredibly fond of talking about its focus on technologies in how it will achieve emissions reductions. Then why is it corrupting the very body that is achieving the results it is trying to take credit for? The reality is that ARENA is there to support renewable energy, not to put a costume on extending the life of fossil fuels. We are on the eve of a major global disruption. There's no doubt about it—the world is engaged in a transition, and that is accelerating. We know that the three main sectors—energy, transport and food—are absolutely moving fast. That disruption and transition is accelerating at a pace. We know from the history of every other industrialisation age that that occurs at such a pace that all of a sudden people are left behind if you don't have a clear transition plan on how to manage that changeover. What's really amazing is the desperation of the government to extend the life of fossil fuels. They go so far as to put forward an instrument that is highly likely to be illegal. It really beggars belief that they are at that level of desperation. A government should never take this course knowingly, and yet the advice is clear that it is highly questionable whether this is a legal path. It really speaks to the dysfunction and desperation within the government. On the one hand they say that they are acting on climate change and reducing emissions but on the other they are extending the life of fossil fuels—of coal and gas. We need to explain what this regulation is really trying to do. It is essentially saying that carbon capture and storage should be funded under ARENA, because it essentially allows the extension of the use of the fossil fuels of coal and gas. Many people out there are confused and don't understand where the connection is. The best analogy I can give is that it is like a magic pill—we can keep emitting and burning fossil fuels and somehow magically we can offset that with carbon capture and storage. It hasn't worked. We have already invested billions of public funds into this, and it simply does not deliver. If this was a solution it would have already been embraced by the rest of the world, and it has not been. Australia is like the dinosaur of the world, trying to hang onto some magic solution, a unicorn that just doesn't exist. It won't happen. The other reason the government is using this is that it wants to somehow 'greenwash' blue hydrogen. The public has heard a lot about hydrogen being a very viable energy source to replace coal and gas. But the real question is, which kind of hydrogen? We can have green hydrogen, made from renewables, which has lower emissions and which will have I think a very successful and very productive international market and really could set Australia up to be a renewable energy superpower of the future from an exports point of view. Or we can have blue hydrogen, which is made from burning gas, which is high in emissions and is not attractive to the international market. The only way you can greenwash that blue hydrogen is to put it with carbon capture and storage and try to somehow, through an accounting trick, say that it is essentially not adding emissions to our global carbon budget. It is all greenwashing. At the end of the day, the solution is clear: we actually need to do the hard work. We need to reduce emissions. There's no accounting trick, no spin, no greenwash that's going to change that fact. We have already used up 85 per cent of global carbon budgets. We must—with urgency, in the next decade—dramatically reduce our emissions. There's no simpler truth that we have to focus on. This regulation has already been disallowed in the Senate, and it's again in this place. I call on many members in this place, in particular those on the coalition. Week after week I read their op-eds in the papers, telling me and the people in their electorates how concerned they are about global warming, about rising emissions and about how we need to commit to net zero by 2050. But when it really comes down to it, what are their actions? What do they actually deliver for their electorates? When it comes time to vote in this place, that is your moment of reckoning, that is when your electorate knows whether it is just greenwashing or whether you truly believe that you have a responsibility to future generations to meaningfully reduce emissions. It really is time to call 'enough' on the greenwash, on the hesitation. The minister mentioned organisations that are in support of this, but the irony is that those very same organisations support the implementation of the climate change bill. They want a legally binding framework so we can have a clear audit process on our emissions reduction in Australia. We can't have this system where emissions go up in one sector and we try to show that emissions are going down in another, and we never have an audit process to bring it all to account. We need to balance the books. We are in the red when it comes to emissions in Australia. I know that the coalition are fond of balancing the books. Well, it's well past time for us to balance the books when it comes to emissions. All those organisations strongly support the implementation of a legally binding long-term commitment and a clear framework on how to get there. So I would urge the government and the minister to focus on the solutions that have support, to focus on the solutions that can bring us all together towards a low-emissions future. There is huge opportunity. The Australian people know there is huge opportunity for us to do that. It's time to put an end to the past, talking about the 2019 election commitments. Seriously, who cares? Since then we have had bushfires ravage our coast. We have had the world's leaders, our international partners and world economies all pivot towards what needs to be done. We have had a clear and present warning from the IPCC about where we are heading. Make no mistake, we are heading to 1.5 degrees by the 2030s. We have a clear message from the International Energy Agency saying that we must stop—no new coal and gas. We must stop. So, seriously, who cares what you promised in 2019? In 2019, no-one promised we were going to lock Australia down because a COVID pandemic was coming, yet the government found the mandate to act on the science—to act on the facts present on the day and take the necessary action. So I call on the government: the facts as we know them now are that we urgently need to decarbonise. It's time to do it. This regulation should be disallowed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the motion be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division will be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. BILLS -1 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 -1

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020

Second Reading -1 12:55 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor supports this bill. The bill responds to a recommendation that was made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor—in 2017!—to establish a federal extended supervision order regime. It is but one of the many valuable recommendations that have been made by independent monitors since the establishment of that office by the Rudd government in 2010 and is yet another reminder of the value of that office. The monitor helps to maintain the Australian people's confidence in our security and intelligence agencies by ensuring that our security laws are effective and fit for purpose and contain appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals. The monitor position is modelled on a similar institution in the United Kingdom, which has now operated successfully for two decades. It is important to remember that the current government tried to abolish the independent monitor in 2014. It is a very good thing that, thanks to strong opposition by Labor, the government failed. Even better, the government appears to now appreciate the value of this important institution. The Liberals' initial strident opposition to and eventual embrace of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has followed a familiar pattern. When the Hawke government introduced legislation in 1986 to establish the first parliamentary committee to oversee Australia's intelligence services, the Liberal Party opposed the proposal in the strongest possible terms. The then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party even declared, disgracefully, that the then Labor government's modest proposal for parliamentary oversight 'gives one very grave doubt about whether they are loyal to this country'. Today, the Liberals support the work of the intelligence and security committee. When the Hawke government introduced legislation, also in 1986, to establish the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Liberals expressed what the then shadow Attorney-General, John Spender, described as 'real reservations' about the proposal. The Liberal Party was particularly horrified at the thought of the inspector-general having the power to investigate acts or practices of intelligence agencies that are or may be inconsistent with human rights. The Liberal Party described that particular power as 'rationally inexplicable' and moved amendments to remove this power from the inspector-general. Thankfully, those amendments failed, and today, 35 years later, most Liberal MPs appear to support the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Long may that support continue. Turning to the bill itself: if it becomes law, it will be possible for authorities to seek an extended supervision order as an alternative to a continuing detention order. Under a supervision order, an offender would be released into the community at the end of his or her sentence but would be required to comply with prohibitions, restrictions or obligations that were, in the court's view, reasonably necessary, and appropriate and adapted, to protect the community. The standard of proof that would apply to extended supervision orders would be the balance of probabilities—that is, the court would have to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the individual posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence. This is a lower standard of proof than the standard that applies to continuing detention orders. The government argues that this reflects the less restrictive nature of an extended supervision order as an alternative to a continuing detention order. The bill is also intended to address what the government describes as 'the current lack of interoperability between CDOs and control orders in the Criminal Code due to the different courts from which these orders may be sought.' Currently only federal courts can make control orders and only state or territory supreme courts can make continued detention orders. That means that a supreme court cannot make a control order or any other type of post-sentencing order if, in the view of the court, less restrictive measures would be effective in preventing the unacceptable risk. If this bill becomes law, a state or territory supreme court would be able to make an extended supervision order as an alternative to a continuing detention order. This is a practical and useful reform, which is of course why the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor proposed it. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in its report, made a range of unanimous and bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill, including the inclusion of additional factors that an issuing authority must consider prior to issuing an extended supervision order, including whether a person is already the subject of another post-sentence supervision order under state or territory legislation; providing that a court may make an order requiring the Commonwealth to bear all or part of the reasonable costs and expenses of the offender's legal representation for an extended supervision order proceeding; requiring an issuing authority to assess the necessity and proportionality of the combined effect of all of the proposed conditions of an extended supervision order, not just the necessity and proportionality of each individual condition in isolation; ensuring that conditions imposed under an extended supervision order cannot amount to effective detention, by providing that a supervision order cannot require an individual to remain at a specified premises for more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period; ensuring that authorities cannot impose new conditions under an interim supervision order unless the subject of the order consents; and ensuring that authorities can exercise discretion when it comes to minor or unintentional breaches of a supervision order—that is, discretion not to prosecute a breach. The committee also recommended that the government commission an independent review of the range of risk assessment tools that are available to evaluate whether a person poses a risk of committing terrorist acts and that there be a statutory review of the new powers within 12 months after the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, completes his review, noting that the INSLM is due to commence his review 'as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021.' The government has largely accepted each of these recommendations, although it has argued that legislative amendments are unnecessary to achieve two of the committee's recommendations, with some justification. The government has, however, rejected part of recommendation 7, which is that proposed clause 105A of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 be amended to require that interim supervision orders, first, may not be subject to application to include new conditions prior to confirming an extended supervision order and, secondly, may be amended with the consent of both parties. The government has rejected the first part of this recommendation on the basis that it would like to retain the ability to have new conditions imposed under an interim supervision order provided that those new conditions are agreed to by the independent issuing authority. This was a considered, bipartisan and unanimous recommendation of the committee, and, in the event that Labor are successful at the next election, it is a recommendation that we would revisit in government. Not all of the concerns that were raised by submitters to the committee's inquiry will be addressed by the government's amendments and nor were all of those concerns addressed by the committee's recommendations. For example, the Law Council of Australia was not persuaded that amendments to the bill put forward by the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Home Affairs in August that would allow a control order or an extended supervision order to apply to a person in immigration detention were necessary. In common with a number of submitters, Labor members of the committee also expressed concern that where the bill departs from recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor those departures had not been adequately justified by the government. If this bill becomes law, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor will be required to undertake a review of the measures contained in the bill as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021. Just as importantly, the intelligence and security committee will be able to commence its own inquiry within 12 months of the independent monitor's report being completed. Those reviews will provide the monitor, the parliament and civil society groups with the opportunity to evaluate the practical application of the measures contained in this bill and to consider whether further improvements are necessary or desirable. I commend the bill to the House. 13:05 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 and I thank those who have contributed so far. The shadow Attorney-General gave a selective history of the Labor Party's interaction with the national security services in this country, talking about the events of 1986 but forgetting the events of 1973 when the Whitlam government's Attorney-General Lionel Murphy undertook his famous oversight of ASIO by arriving unannounced and potentially inebriated at their headquarters in Melbourne. I add that to the record when we're talk about Labor and their respect—or, potentially, lack thereof—for the security services in this country. This is a very important amendment, and it has been recommended by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, to create a new category of dealing with high-risk terrorist offenders after they've completed the sentence for the crime that they've been convicted of in court. There is a comparable regime to the one that we're expanding here, which is, unfortunately, that we which we need to have in place for the most vile and disgusting people that walk the earth—that is, those who commit the sexual abuse of children. In the state and territory jurisdictions, even when someone has been convicted of a crime and has done their time for things such as sexual abuse, and particularly child sexual abuse, there is a very high expectation in many of those cases that that person is likely to offend again, and, if we simply release them into the community because they've finished their custodial sentence, we are not prepared to live in a society where someone might offend again because we didn't have a structure or a regime in place to protect against future abuse of children. This, much like that regime, gives us another power—another tool in the toolkit—to deal with people who have been convicted of terrorism offences. They've served their time, but a court may nonetheless determine that they still pose a risk of committing a future terrorist act. Indeed, the previous speaker mentioned that a similar regime to this has operated quite successfully in the United Kingdom for two decades. We are learning some good lessons from what they've put in place there and we're seeking to do that here. We are creating an additional ability to deal with these people. At the moment we can have a continuing detention order, where it is possible to keep people in a custodial environment if the burdens within that application to a state or territory Supreme Court can be met—that is, to say that a person should not be released back to the community. It may be they have completed a custodial sentence but they are such a risk and meet the burden required that they should continue to be kept incarcerated. A continuing detention order is something that is already in place. It is obviously significant to have to keep someone detained despite the fact that they've served their time for the crime that they have been convicted of. Some of the most ancient fundamentals of our system speak against that principle. That's why there needs to be a very high threshold and a very significant need to keep someone incarcerated beyond the service of the sentence that's been given to them through the appropriate processes of our criminal justice system. Currently, after release, you can apply for a control order over someone who is a high-risk convicted terrorist offender who has finished their custodial sentence. It is interesting—and this is part of why we are undertaking this amendment—that it is through the supreme courts of the state and territories that you apply for the continuing detention order but that you have to go to the Federal Court to get a control order. That's the crux of what we're achieving by introducing these extended supervision orders in this legislation. It's to address that gap. Say someone in my home state of South Australia had been convicted of a terrorism offence. They might have been given a 10 or 15 year sentence. When they come to the end of that period, having served their sentence, they are eligible to be released. At the moment, the AFP can apply to the Supreme Court of South Australia for a continuing detention order and meet the burdens required to have that granted, or not, but it can only make a decision on that application and either grant it or not. Separate to that, you can go to the Federal Court and seek some form of control order to be put in place on that person. There's no interactivity when you're making an application for a continued detention order for anything other than that to be considered, and then, equally, the fallback position is the control order. We're essentially putting something in between those two systems by creating this concept of an extended supervision order. That means that the Supreme Court, which will have jurisdiction over these extended supervision orders, will have the ability to determine applications. It might be that the application is for a continuing detention order but that the Supreme Court feels that, whilst the standard for that has not been met, the standard for an extended supervision order has been met. An extended supervision order is much more far-reaching than a control order. As some of the other amendments that are part of the bill set out, an extended supervision order will provide the ability to undertake surveillance and certain other measures to keep an eye on people who are potentially radicalised and who, where it has been demonstrated in the Supreme Court, pose a high risk of reoffending. To briefly digress, I think it is poignant that we are debating this in the aftermath of the horrendous action in the United Kingdom on the weekend, which may well be proven in the courts to have been a terrorist attack, against a fellow member of parliament, Sir David Amess. It reinforces to us that terrorism is unfortunately still with us and that the risks are very significant and ongoing. As lawmakers, we must always be looking for opportunities to do all we can to protect innocent Australians from the horrors of terrorism. We've had terrorist acts in this country and we've seen awful terrorist attacks across the planet. Unfortunately we have this risk in this country. We have successfully prosecuted people in this country under the terrorist offences legislation in the Criminal Code. That's why we need to do this, unfortunately. There are people who are going to be entering this category of completing their custodial sentence for having been convicted of a terrorist offence, and those people may well still be radicalised and pose a significant threat of undertaking a future terrorist attack. Whether it's in this country or not is immaterial. We need a judicial system that is flexible enough to deal with that risk. No-one will thank anyone in this parliament if we don't make these necessary reforms, which have been recommended by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and then someone who could have been captured by this measure subsequently offends and, in the worst case, we see loss of life when Australian citizens become victims of a future terrorist attack that could have been prevented. There is one other element—and it may well come up in other contributions—that I think is important to address. I know that some stakeholders have concerns about evidence for these applications being used in a confidential way and not given to the subject of a proposed extended supervision order or their legal counsel. It's really important that we think about why it would be necessary to keep that evidence confidential, with access given purely to the court officers who are making the determination and not to the convicted offender who is the subject of the application order. You can imagine that the Australian Federal Police are capable of collecting a whole range of information, the confidentiality of which is vital to their ongoing activities when it comes to counterterrorism. And you can imagine that the Australian Federal Police would be conflicted as to the value of using the evidence they have obtained in a way that is revealed to a convicted terrorist—that is, if the person were told that the AFP had obtained this information. It might be recorded telephone conversations, it might be emails or it might be information from some of the other technological platforms that people are using to interact, communicate and collaborate for the purpose of criminal activity. If the AFP obtains information relevant to an application for an extended supervision order, it is equally the case that if that information has to be provided to the person who is the subject of the application then it effectively gives that person the ability to warn their associates and other people that the AFP is in possession of the information. That could compromise a whole range of other things that the AFP is seeking to do with information, including ongoing criminal investigations and surveillance. The last thing we want is to put the AFP in a position where potentially they have to decide to withhold something relevant to granting an extended supervision order because they don't want to jeopardise other operations they're in the middle of or put informants at risk. You can imagine that, when it comes to seeking these extended supervision orders, a lucrative source of information the AFP might use is informants who have been serving custodial sentences alongside the person who is the subject of the application order—and so on and so forth. I think it's very important to rebut that point from some civil liberties and legal groups—and I'm not suggesting I've heard any contributions in this chamber to that effect. I understand why these groups always make sure they stand up for those rights, but in my contribution I want to make it clear that I reject that concern. I think it's vitally important that all the relevant information is known to those making the decision about whether or not to issue an extended supervision order. It's equally important that the AFP isn't compelled to reveal that information to others. Doing so might jeopardise other operations of the Federal Police and/or mean the AFP withhold that information for the very same reason—that is, they don't want to jeopardise other operations—and we see the wrong decision made on an extended supervision order because all the information to make the determination wasn't provided. With that, I'd like to commend the Attorney-General and all those who have been involved in putting this bill together, and I thank the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. I think this is a really good example of the kinds of important and necessary reform propositions that are brought forward to government from that mechanism. I think it is going to put the Federal Police in a position to do an even better job than the already sensational and excellent job they do in fighting terrorism, protecting our community and keeping us safe. This is the sort of additional mechanism they need. We should give it to them, and we can do that by supporting this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 13:20 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On 29 November 2019 two University of Cambridge academics opened a conference in London to celebrate the anniversary of the program they had created in partnership. They called it Learning Together. For five years the program had helped released prisoners to get an education and escape a life of crime. Just after lunch, following an uneventful morning, a man entered Fishmongers' Hall, where delegates were gathered, shouting threats that he would blow up the building in the name of his religion. Drawing two knives from his sleeves, he began to indiscriminately stab innocent people. In a scene reminiscent of a Hollywood movie but, tragically, all too real, delegates at the conference grabbed decorative historical weapons from the walls in a desperate attempt to defend themselves. Soon, driven out into the street, the man began attacking passers-by on London Bridge. It took the courageous actions of a plain-clothes police officer and a Ministry of Justice public servant, as well as the swift response of the City of London Police, to end the senseless violence. In just five minutes two young people in the prime of their lives had been killed and another three seriously wounded. Perhaps the most striking thing about this incident is that the perpetrator of this barbarous act of terrorism was not an unknown assailant but an invited and accredited delegate at the conference. He was not a newly radicalised young man or an individual suffering from a bout of serious mental health. Usman Khan was a known and convicted terrorist. The Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command and the Security Service had files on him. Nine years earlier Mr Khan had been part of a very serious but, thankfully, unsuccessful al-Qaeda plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange, less than a mile from London Bridge. In 2018 he'd been released from prison and on the morning of the attack had been given additional permission to travel to the city to take part in the day's events as a former participant of the program. He took that opportunity to fulfil the violent intention he had formed a decade earlier. Unfortunately this has not been the only case of convicted terrorists going on to commit further acts of terror after their release. Just last year another convicted offender, Sudesh Mamoor Faraz Amman, left a man and woman in a life-threatening condition after stabbing them on Streatham High Road in East London only weeks after his release from prison. Here in Australia, this is an issue that we will increasingly need to face up to. We are far from immune. In September we saw the sentencing of three men for planning to undertake a terrorist attack in Melbourne. I remember this very distinctly, because I was in Melbourne, only a few hundred metres away from where the event was planned to take place, and I was there on that day. Each of these men has been convicted with a sentence of 10 years in prison. We need to think about what will happen when they and many others who have already been convicted of these kinds of crimes come up for parole. Terrorism is a unique offence. It is not committed for personal gain or from animosity against a particular victim. Rather, its target is an entire civilisation, and as such its motive does not end with the commission of the crime. Our justice system is, rightly, built on the premise that offenders can be rehabilitated and that once they have completed their allocated punishment they return to membership of our society. However, when the ongoing aim of an offender may be the wholesale destruction of that society, unique measures are required to prevent the kinds of horrifying results that we've seen in London over the past two years In Australia, a state or territory supreme court currently has only one option when approached to help prevent those who remain a threat to our way of life from leaving prison and committing a further act of terror. That is the continuing detention order. In short, at the court's discretion, the convicted terrorist is kept in prison until they are no longer considered a risk to society. In a free country, this is a very grave measure. It must be used only in cases where an individual poses a very serious and ongoing risk. Rightly, it requires a high burden of proof to be imposed. However, at present, if a state or territory supreme court identifies that a convicted terrorist poses a less definite risk, their only alternative is to release that individual into our community with only the usual requirements of a person on parole. It is a high degree of trust on the part of our community to place on individuals who have already acted on their ideological desire to harm us. The events in London in recent years show us that, in many cases, it is not a risk that we can afford to take. Currently, in these cases, only the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court can offer a solution. A different applicant must make a separate application to one of these courts under a different standard of proof for the same offender to be subject to a control order. These control orders can stop a person from visiting certain locations, communicating with fellow terrorists or owning and using certain equipment. They can ensure that a person wears a tracking device or obeys a curfew. Such control orders can be an effective deterrent. However, as the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor found, it is not in the interests of applicants, the courts or the offender to run parallel systems in this way. It creates duplication in effort for law enforcement, significantly increases the costs involved and requires those who are the subject of these orders to go through multiple separate court proceedings. What is needed is an equivalent set of restrictions which can be imposed on the past offender in the community by state and territory supreme courts as an alternative to a continuing detention order where appropriate, and this is what the bill delivers. The bill establishes an extended supervision order, or ESO, scheme for high-risk terrorist offenders. It will allow state and territory supreme courts to impose any prohibitions, restrictions or obligations on high-risk terrorist offenders upon their release which the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities are necessary to protect the public. It will mean that these courts have available an alternative to ongoing detention and with a lower burden of proof to reflect the less restrictive measures being imposed. These orders will be tailored to the particular risks posed by each offender, and the court will be able to gather expert assessments from psychologists and other practitioners to understand those risks more fully. The ESO will prevent the doubling-up that is required under the current system and ensure that terrorism offenders can be given a just opportunity to reintegrate into society while the public have protection from the most likely risks of possible further attacks. Under this bill, the ESOs will last up to three years. However, they can be extended if the offender continues to pose a risk to the community and can be modified if circumstances change. Equally, the court will be required to review these orders annually or whenever the Minister for Home Affairs applies for such a review. This will ensure ESOs remain appropriate and necessary for both the offender and the community. With the global natural disaster of COVID-19 unfolding around us, it is fair to say that many Australians have ceased to think about the threat posed by international terrorism. However, the tragic events of the past few months in Afghanistan as well as the dreadful murder of UK member of parliament Sir David Amess in recent days are stark wake-up calls. Though the international community must do our very best to ensure that Afghanistan is never again used as a training base for international terrorists, we must also be alive to the fact that those who would seek to do us harm in the promotion of their radical ideologies can come from anywhere. We must be constantly vigilant. Since September 2014, 139 people have been charged as a result of 67 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. Some of these people will re-enter our society and make a positive contribution and some won't. The unfortunate reality is that that threat may remain for a long time to come, and it will be difficult to tell the difference between the two. We need to ensure that we have a system that caters for every level of threat flexibly and efficiently. That is what this bill will do, and I commend it to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may resume at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS -1 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Youth Voice In Parliament Week -1 13:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon [by video link] I'd like to read the words of territory year 12 student Taylor Mills written for the Raise Our Voice in parliament campaign. Taylor says: 'Last year, 35 per cent of young Australians reported psychological distress. My parents are supportive and try their best to understand, but I've seen the effects on my close friends and others when they grow up in a family which isn't aware of mental health issues and mistake it for their teenager being lazy or moody. Right now so many young people feel that they have no-one supporting them and cannot afford the help of professionals. 'I want to see more adult awareness of youth mental health. Every suicide means something isn't working. Suicide rarely happens without warning, so, the more educated we are about the warning signs and not confusing those behaviours with normal teen moods, the better we can help people. 'Us young people are the next future leaders. In 20 years I hope that, instead of looking at high rates of youth mental illness, Australia will see our young people reaching high and becoming politicians, doctors and nurses, teachers and artists.' Thank you very much, Taylor, for raising your voice to parliament. Flynn Electorate: Economy -1 13:31 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn The future of Flynn is looking pretty good. Flynn is the industrial powerhouse of Queensland and is set to grow by providing raw materials and energy for domestic use and for international export. Gladstone and surrounding districts are set to grow to meet demand. In Gladstone, resources and manufacturing is the primary industry of employment. The top 5 employment industries in Gladstone are manufacturing and resources; construction and engineering; health care and social assistance; retail trade; and transport, postal services and warehousing. These five industries employ 5.39 per cent of Gladstone's population. Gladstone, of course, has the largest coal-fired power station in Queensland and has a great port exporting 125,000 tonnes last year. Gladstone is in the process of embracing hydrogen to become an industrial hub for hydrogen production. Recently we announced that this could result in 5,000 new jobs and $4.2 billion worth of hydrogen exports. There are also many other projects to follow. The future of Gladstone looks very bright indeed. Youth Voice In Parliament Week -1 13:33 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston [by video link] I'm very excited to be celebrating Youth Voice in Parliament, the campaign run by the team at Raise Our Voice. Today I'm giving voice to three young South Australians: Baran Jafari, Tabitha Parker and Sam White. Here is what they want for the future of our nation. Baran said: 'When I came to Australia from Afghanistan, I was given so many more opportunities. I could study and make my own choices, including the choice to remove my hijab. I know that many young women who are living in Australia still do not have these freedoms, and I hope that in 20 years time the restrictions placed on women no longer exist in Australia.' Tabitha said; 'In 20 years time I hope that Australia will have a smaller gender pay gap. Currently men are getting paid 14.2 per cent more than women. In sport there is an evident difference in pay between men and women. In the future I hope that this is decreased.' Sam said, 'I want an Australia that's strong and prosperous for young people, for the unemployed, for the wealthy, for First Nations people, for the refugees and for our retirees. I want Australia to put our interests first and to be a better player on the world stage.' To all those young people who contributed: thank you. We are raising your voice and we are listening. North Sydney Electorate: Longueville Tennis Club -1 13:34 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney This year marks the 100th anniversary of one of Australia's oldest tennis clubs—the Longueville Tennis Club, in my electorate. Like with many things, COVID has impacted its planned celebrations, but I am pleased that it has still been able to release a fascinating history of the club. The idea of a tennis club in Longueville was first proposed in 1920 by locals who were eager to have tennis courts in their area, particularly for young people in the community. A group of residents discussed this and together donated 500 pounds towards building the courts. It is now a much-loved part of Longueville and the broader Lane Cove community. The written history of the club contains some wonderful anecdotes. There were debates in the early years about whether it would be appropriate for men to play in shorts rather than long pants, and about a thing I'd never thought about—the serious impact of World War II, which saw a nationwide shortage of tennis balls as manufacturing was diverted to the war effort. The Longueville Tennis Club has been supported by phenomenal volunteers. I thank the current executive, led by President Margaret Bisley, and particularly Christine Butters for her work as the chair of their centenary commitment. Its success is measured by the fact that its membership has been growing in recent years, and I note its life members include tennis legend Geoff Pollard. I extend my warmest congratulations to the Longueville Tennis Club. Your club has stood the test of time, outlasting even a pandemic. I wish you every success for the centenary and for the 100 years to come. Youth Voice In Parliament Week -1 13:36 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Helen is a 16-year-old young woman living in my electorate. Tragically, she is living with a disability. She is also part of the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, and she has shared with me her hopes for what Australia will look like in 20 years. Helen says: Today there are very limited options when it comes to education in Australia for disabled, neurodiverse, mentally ill, and chronically ill children. The best option at the moment is schools like Sydney Distance Education High School, where students complete their work online and can attend learning hubs 1-2 days a week. We attend this school because we can't attend a traditional school and often spend a lot of time at home, but we still want to go to school and interact with our classmates and teacher as often as we can. I am hoping that these schools will receive a lot more funding to truly meet the needs of students and that there will be more schools with learning hubs all over Sydney, so students can attend the same hub daily and build friendships. I hope these changes can be made so that future students can receive a good education without having to be isolated. Students like us need access to schools where we can thrive and do well. Thank you, Helen, for raising your voice in this parliament on such a critical issue. We should be doing everything we can to support disabled people. Barker Electorate: Little Town Productions -1 13:37 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker On the weekend I attended a dinner theatre production titled Kick Off Ya Boots in Loxton, a small Riverland town in South Australia. Loxton is a small town but it has a big heart. Loxton's Little Town Productions has performed over 125 times to a collective audience of about 35,000 since it was established back in 1999 by local farmer John Gladigau. On Friday night I was privileged to be present for opening night at the debut of their most recent production, Living the Dream, which follows the story of the Connors, a typical multigenerational farming family living in regional Australia. While the production was great fun, it was much more than just an entertaining night out with Riverland locals. The production probed some of the underlying issues faced by generational farming family enterprises and offered some tools to meet these challenges. Rural and regional Australians have been significantly impacted by drought over the past few years, in a time when COVID has made it hard for the community to come together in any meaningful way. The production of Living the Dream saw people come together over good food and good wine, and celebrate what it means to live and work in a rural community. Importantly, it also included strong messages around mental health and wellbeing, and provided some tools for dealing with these issues. I congratulate the whole team at Little Town Productions. Cambodia: Human Rights -1 13:39 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On 23 October 1991 the Paris Peace Agreements were signed by all four of Cambodia's combatant factions plus 19 other countries. Then, Australia and the world made a promise to the Cambodian people to stand up for human rights, peace and democracy. But 30 years on the world has failed to keep its promise, standing by while Hun Sen's gangster regime has attacked human rights, killed democracy, given away the Cambodian people's sovereignty, accumulated secret wealth overseas and undermined our region. I travelled, at my expense, two years ago to see the situation firsthand. What I saw in Cambodia truly shocked me. The trampling of human rights and the state of democracy was dire. It has got even worse through COVID. The question now for Australia, and countries that promised 30 years ago to support peace and democracy, is: what can be done now? The 1991 Paris peace accords are a place to start. There are of continuing moral and legal relevance, as the UN has observed. Article 29 of the accords—they anticipated this—contain a formal mechanism to bring together these countries in the event of serious human rights violations and it's way past time that this clause was triggered. The Morrison government talks a big game but it's not good enough to do just keep saying, 'All options are on the table' but do nothing. Australia's Labor government drove the 1991 peace process. Today, 30 years on, Australia should again play a leadership role in triggering article 29. Grey Electorate: Eyre Peninsula Advocate -1 13:40 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Newspapers in the regions have had a tough time over the last year or so. That's why today I'm very pleased to announce the birth of the Eyre Peninsula Advocate, a newspaper for the northern Eyre Peninsula. Previously this area had been serviced by the Eyre Peninsula Tribune and the West Coast Sentinel. Those papers were discontinued by Australian Community Media. I do congratulate them though for bringing back the Port Lincoln Times, the Transcontinental in Port Augusta, the Recorder in Port Pirie and the Whyalla News. Great credit must be given to the District Council of Cleve who approached the Plains Producer Manager, Andrew Manuel. The Plains Producer is based out of Balaklava, down near Adelaide. Faced with the challenge of a new paper in that area, the Kimba council and the Franklin Harbour council jumped on board to support this legendary newspaper. We've now had two additions. I'm very pleased to see the community getting back those services that it saw before. They were once the only source of news in our communities, whereas today we're bombarded with news and opinions—of variable quality I must say—on issues that challenge the state and our nation, but few have the reliable local news service. We supported local newspapers through the COVID pandemic. I wish to the Eyre Peninsula Advocate General Manager, Stacey Lawrie, and her team every success. Youth Voice in Parliament Week -1 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This week I'm participating in Youth Voice in Parliament Week where we have a chance to hear directly from our young people in our electorates. This speech was written by Elvie in my electorate of Melbourne. 'It's time to step up and show you care. You have a duty of care to your children and the earth that we inherit. We've been here yelling as loud and as clear as we can, taking you to court for something so simple. We beg you, let us have this, a future. When I think about what Australia will be like in 20 years on this current trajectory of emissions I see the truth: the mega fires, the extreme weather events and the sea level rising. I see them not being able to breathe from toxic air. I see babies in N95 masks, 10 million children hospitalised from climate caused injuries. How I wish this was just me exaggerating. Australia, the largest exporter of coal—mining our mother, the land, with your greedy hands, continuing to rip it from beneath the feet of all of us, Aboriginal land, continuing the horrifying torment of genocide and ecocide. How dare you sacrifice us for short-term gain—money. How dare you turn a blind eye when we cannot? And you wonder why we suffer from mental health issues—always on the rise. This is because this is the real world we're living in: the overinformed world. This is the blood on your hands, world. The truth: you have a duty of care to protect us. In 20 years all I want is Australia to be safe.' Thank you, Elvie, from my electorate of Melbourne. Youth Voice in Parliament Week -1 13:43 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I also rise today to deliver a speech written by Kahu Milan, an insightful 17-year-old from my own electorate of Wentworth, as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Kahu was asked: what do you want Australia to look like in 20 years? This was his response. 'I'm reminded every day of the challenges that face younger Australians, from mental health to community safety, to the social challenges amplified by the pandemic. Tomorrow's Australians have a lot to overcome today. This is why I want the Australia of the future to recognise the importance and contributions of young people and the challenges that they face; a safer Australia that has reduced the threats of alcohol, sexual and community violence and has made mental health services readily available and easily accessible to all; a country that recognises and respects its illustrious Indigenous heritage and honours Australia's long and fascinating cultural heritage; a country that stands up for those who cannot and continues to support those who do so in the global quest for democracy; an Australia that welcomes technological enhancements and harnesses that power for the benefit of all Australians. I want a country where Australians can look to their children and see in them their greatest contribution to Australia's future. I want a future for all Australians, young and old, to look forward to. I believe that we have the strength and the will to continue to advance Australia fair.' Thank you, Kahu, for your contribution to our democratic process. Youth Voice in Parliament Week -1 13:45 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I rise today to raise the voice of Jazmyn Michie, who is from my electorate of Eden-Monaro. Jazmyn writes: … our natural Environment is simultaneously my greatest passion, and greatest fear. There is nowhere I am happier than experiencing the natural beauty of this world. No time am I sadder than when I think of what we have already lost and what future generations stand to lose. I am scared. Scared of witnessing another decade of denial. Of not even taking a step, when we need to be sprinting. A leader is supposed to use their influence to inspire and empower others. When our own leader said we need less activism in schools, less activism from young people, we were let down. We are done with being silenced, patronised, rejected and scared for our future. In 20 years we will see resilience, because everything this generation has gone through, will make us strong. The generation who withstood bushfires, a pandemic, climate deniers, record rates of mental illness and yet continued to speak up for what they believe in. Thank you, Jazmyn, for sending through your words. Thank you to the Raise Our Voice campaign, because raising young people's voices in parliament is a really important part of the democratic process. Social Media -1 13:46 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan [by video link] Like most parents and members in this place I'm deeply concerned about the potential harms of social media and I'm passionate about what we as a government can do to rein it in. Recently, in the US former Facebook employee Frances Haugen has given testimony and shed light on the inner workings of Facebook. I've asked her to likewise brief Australian MPs this Thursday. Parents and MPs are alive to the harm that social media can cause. We hear stories about it every day. The content is selectively targeted, not enough is done to remove harmful content and anonymous predators have far too much freedom on these platforms. What is disturbing about Frances's testimony is that Facebook and its offshoot like Instagram know of many of these risks and do far too little to address them. Her testimony indicates that there is an active effort by Facebook not to know: not to properly staff oversight units, not to create detection systems that could pick up under-age users or inappropriate or damaging content. It is simply a 'don't look, don't tell' mentality. We do not have to choose between staying connected and having appropriate privacy and protection. I'm proud to be part of a government that is focused on this and keeping Australian families safe online. We have the world's first eSafety Commissioner, a new online safety bill that targets trolls terrorising adults and kids, and there are more money and resources for our child protection officers. But it's clear Facebook and other social media companies need to be further regulated. They are publishers of this harmful material, plain and simple, and we as a government will continue to keep Australians safe online. Broadband -1 13:48 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Another storm season and another pile of useless NBN boxes for people on fibre to the kerb in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. Since a storm last Thursday, I've had nearly 100 people contact me because their NBN box has blown, by far the majority from Winmalee, Yellow Rock and Hawkesbury Heights. About a year ago I first raised with NBN that their boxes were being zapped in storms. First there was denial, then it was an exception and eventually, after months of storm activity, they admitted they'd had to replace about 10,000 boxes in my electorate. In spite of making a supposedly more resilient box the first big bolt of lightning this year has wreaked havoc. Residents were telling me this was their third, fifth or even nineth NBN box to blow, and remember that when our internet goes down our mobile coverage often goes too. It's the 21st century, people are working from home, they're still schooling at home and the internet goes down, but not just for the 24 hours that NBN claims is the replacement time. It's now the fifth day and many are still without their connection. Christopher is in Winmalee and he's prepping for his HSC. His sister is starting year 12. They've got nothing until the 21st. Telstra and the providers have to prioritise senior students. More to the point, it's not good enough for us to be stuck with such a fragile system in such a vulnerable bushfire area. It's the incompetence of the Liberals that's got us here, and it won't end till they go. Magill Road and Portrush Road Intersection Upgrade -1 13:49 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Last week I had the privilege of being joined by the finance minister, Senator Birmingham, to see the progress on one of the great election commitments in the heart of my electorate of Sturt, the Magill Road and Portrush Road intersection, which is getting a $96 million upgrade under the Urban Congestion Fund, jointly funded by the Commonwealth government and the state government of South Australia. Progress is very impressive. It's good to see that they're almost ready to start laying the tarmac there. The difficult parts—the undergrounding of services et cetera and the relocation of a big 66-kilovolt line from the nearby substation—have all occurred. The fun part is upon us. We are about to lay the tarmac and see some of the new lanes opening. This intersection is on Highway 1. Portrush Road is part of Highway 1, so it's good to see that we're investing in what is a real choke point in the middle of my electorate. Sixty-five thousand vehicles a day are estimated to use the intersection, on both Portrush and Magill roads, so it's a timely investment in overhauling that. We're turning two lanes into three in both directions of Portrush Road, as well as creating double right-hand turn lanes from the current single right-hand turn lanes. Other upgrades to Magill Road on that intersection mean that families are going to get home quicker and safer. It's a great outcome for all the people who live in the area, in my electorate of Sturt. JobKeeper Payment -1 13:51 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Judith Sloan, Janet Albrechtsen and Niki Savva are hardly Labor true believers, but they've been among the fiercest critics of the government's JobKeeper mismanagement, calling the overpayments 'irresponsible', 'inept' and 'inexcusable'. JobKeeper saved jobs, but so much money was given to firms with rising revenues that the cost of saving each full-year job was up to $200,000. The Parliamentary Budget Office first estimated that $13 billion went to firms with rising revenues in the first six months of the scheme. Then the government said that figure was $14 billion. Now the Parliamentary Budget Office has looked at the full 12-month scheme, and they estimate that $20 billion went to firms with rising revenue. That's $2,000 for every Australian household going to companies that didn't need support—companies whose sales were higher in the pandemic than the year before. Among those who benefited from JobKeeper were offshore billionaires, such as Louis Vuitton's Bernard Arnault and Luxottica's Leonardo Del Vecchio. If you asked a family in my electorate what they'd do with a spare $2000, they might say they would get the car fixed, donate the money to a homeless shelter or pay down the mortgage. But—Zut alors! Maledetto inferno!—I'm guessing the one thing they wouldn't do is take $2,000 and pop it in the post to French and Italian billionaires. Townsville City Deal -1 13:52 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert [by video link] I'm pleased to update the House on recent positive progress on the Townsville City Deal. As I've outlined before, I've been working with the community on the reallocation of $195 million earmarked for Townsville. This funding was originally for stage 2 of the Haughton pipeline but was rejected by the state Labor government. We ensured that this funding would stay here in Townsville. The deal partners have now agreed to further projects, which include $2 million for a business case for a concert hall, with the remaining $98 million to fund its construction; $12 million to match the state's contribution for enabling infrastructure for the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct; and $2 million for a feasibility study into recycled water for green hydrogen production. All three of these projects achieve the intended outcomes of the Townsville City Deal, which will make our place a better place to live, work and play. I spoke last time about the roadblocks that are hindering the delivery of these projects. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. The state Labor government is continuing to block funding for the Royal Flying Doctor Service based on factually incorrect claims about the project's effect on Queensland's GST allocation. These Labor lies were debunked in the Townsville Bulletin just recently. Now they are complaining about the funding for the Lansdown project, despite the state begging for the Commonwealth's investment. No-one in state Labor jumped up and down about how the Gold Coast Light Rail or upgrades to the M1 were funded, so why does Townsville get treated differently? (Time expired) National Integrity Commission -1 13:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Writing on ICAC's inquiry into Gladys Berejiklian this morning, Guardian Australia journalist Anne Davies said this: Aside from the lack of judgment shown in commenting on current proceedings involving a political colleague, the prime minister's comments show a woeful lack of insight … I think she's being generous. This Prime Minister does have insight into how effectively ICAC operates to root out corruption in New South Wales, and that's precisely why the national anticorruption commission he promised Australians over a thousand days ago is still nowhere in sight. The Deputy Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag earlier this month when he said that ICAC meant—and I'm not making this up—'politicians are basically terrified to do their job.' While the Prime Minister is currently at war with his deputy on climate policy, they are in heated agreement that a federal anticorruption commission for them is a terrifying prospect. The Prime Minister and his deputy are right to be terrified of what an independent national anticorruption commission would reveal about what they've been up to over the last eight years. Unlike the Morrison government Labor isn't terrified of taking strong action against corruption in government, and unlike the Morrison government Labor in government will establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission to hold all politicians to account. Forde Electorate: Beenleigh Cane Festival -1 13:56 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Over the weekend I got to join our local community in celebrating the return of the Beenleigh cane parade and gala ball. After many years of absence, the cane festival was back sweeter than ever thanks to the hard work of the Rotary Club of Beenleigh and with the support of Logan City Council. Over 2,000 people made their way into the heart of Beenleigh to celebrate this wonderful event, with over 50 floats from community groups, schools and businesses the feature. As one of the judges of the parade, I, along with the other judges, found it particularly difficult to pick a winner, because everyone had gone above and beyond in entering some very colourful and creative floats, but congratulations to the SS Walrus and also to the Beenleigh Garden Club in particular for theirs. The cane festival is a huge part of Beenleigh's history, and for many members of the community it brought back memories from when they were much younger. For the newer members of the community, it gave them a chance to learn about the history of Beenleigh and our iconic cane industry. As the sun set over the local cane fields the Beenleigh Events Centre opened their doors to host the gala ball, which offered the finest of all things local. After another challenging year it was wonderful to see everybody glam up and enjoy a night of fun and frivolity. It was an honour to be involved in the revival of this event, and I thank everybody involved. COVID-19: Homeschooling -1 13:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler For many Australians, lockdown won't truly be over until their children go back to school. To every exhausted mum and dad across the country, I just want to say: thank you for your marathon effort. Thank you to every teacher who worked so hard and so quickly to reinvent their jobs. I want to acknowledge the students who have had to adapt to this new way of doing things, away from their friends, away from the playground. Homeschooling was a solution born of necessity. It's brought some joys but also challenges. For so many parents, home schooling has been a stressful juggling act—one more challenge on top of all the others, as their own jobs have been reinvented or, sadly, disappeared altogether. Homes have been reconfigured into workplaces and classrooms. Families have squeezed in with their workstations around the table or in neighbouring rooms, where the walls suddenly seemed very thin. Over these long lockdowns, patience has been tested. Time-starved parents put aside their own needs to support their children. Any chance of success is dependent upon two crucial ingredients—an understanding boss and reliable home internet. Not everyone has had that. Hopefully, the silver lining of homeschooling is that families have new habits and memories that have made them even closer. But, as life goes back to normal, may that school bell ring loud and ring clear. Space Industry: Crystalaid -1 13:59 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Our government is recognising the great value of Australia's space sector. Recently, the Morrison government announced the recipients of the Moon to Mars supply chain capability improvement grants, and I was proud to see local Tingalpa business Crystalaid awarded over $538,000 in funding. This was on top of the $461,000 awarded to them earlier this year as part of the second round of this grants program, skyrocketing the total funding for this local business to $1 million. This funding will allow Crystalaid to bring more employees on board and deliver more opportunities for their skilled workers. It will enhance their ability to supply cutting-edge electronics to the international space industry and will see Crystalaid used in satellite electronic systems across the globe. It's been a privilege to witness Crystalaid's rapid growth over the years, and I couldn't be prouder of their ongoing success. Mr Speaker, we've got lift-off in Bonner! The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE -1 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change -1 14:00 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what is the impact on the economy of a net zero emissions target by 2050? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook If you have the right plan, it's a positive impact. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L If you have the right plan—if you have technology, not taxes; if you don't have a carbon tax; if you actually have a plan that respects people's choices rather than forces their choices; if you have a balance of technologies, a portfolio of technologies, that can get to scale and that can get to an affordable cost; if you can ensure that you get the balance right between affordable and reliable energy; if you don't rush the plan and you allow those technologies to develop; if you have your transmission fuels in place to ensure you keep the lights on and the costs down; and if you have a credible plan with the proper transparency Australia is well known for—it can be a great positive for Australia. But, if you take the approach that those opposite took when they were in government, which put in place a carbon tax— Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I note that Labor senator, Senator Gallagher, has belled the cat that a carbon price from Labor is back on the table. So, ultimately, in anyone's ambitions to achieve net zero, it's all about the plan. It's all about the economic plan and who Australians would trust with the economic plan that can take Australians through what will be a very challenging time and who they can trust to really look after rural and regional Australia—who they can really trust to do that. And they know that they can't trust the Labor Party on these issues. At the last election, they took a policy to the election— The SPEAKER 00APG I'd just say that the Prime Minister is now drifting from what was a very specific question. He's compared and contrasted but he's now drifted off the question, and I need him to come back to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, again, with the right plan, it's a positive benefit. But we know that the global economy is changing as the world responds to climate change. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs! Mr MORRISON E3L That is true. Those changes will have an impact on the Australian economy. They present risks and threats to rural and regional areas. Only the coalition can be trusted to ensure that we can deal with those threats and that we can support rural and regional Australia. And, if you don't believe me, believe the member for Hunter. The member for Hunter makes it pretty clear that Labor has lost its way on that issue. COVID-19: National Plan -1 14:03 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. The national plan to safely reopen our nation and live with COVID-19 is being realised through the actions of Australians like those in my western Sydney community coming forward to get vaccinated. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton is warned! Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the national plan is ending restrictions and building our path out of the pandemic? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. It is great to see her back in this chamber, as it is to see so many other members now back in the chamber—which is reflective of the fact that Australia is opening up. Our national plan is working. The national plan that we began working on together with the Doherty Institute back March—a plan that was agreed not once but twice by all premiers and chief ministers around the country as I brought that national plan forward—is working. That plan, which is based on the best scientific and medical research, analysis and advice available, is working. We are seeing that plan, which was to safety open and then remain safely open, being realised right across the country. It is a plan that set out clear vaccination targets, scientifically determined, for Australians to know that when they passed those targets they could be confident that we could open safely and remain safely open. Australians have responded. Australians have rolled up their sleeves. Australians are keeping their part of the deal that has come together as part of the national plan. Today 69.2 per cent of Australians aged 16 and over have been double-vaccinated. As a share of the total population, Australia's double-vaccination rate is now higher than that of the United States. In the member's own electorate, in the LGA of Penrith, 84 per cent are double-dose vaccinated—and I hasten to add that in the Sutherland Shire that figure is 89 per cent. So, thank you to all those in the Sutherland Shire in southern Sydney. The vaccination rates are surging in New South Wales, with first-dose rates above 90 per cent. New South Wales is opening. Australians are coming home. There have been 52,300 downloads of international vaccination certificates over the last 24 hours. Victoria is opening up, and I note in particular Victoria's road map, just announced, delivering the national plan, from the Victorian state government. I welcome that. Queensland is opening up. The Queensland borders will be coming down. We welcome that, as Queensland honours the national plan. The ACT is finally opening up, as well as South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. I spoke to the Tasmanian and South Australian premiers this morning, confirming their commitments. As a country, we have the lowest fatality rates in the world when it comes to COVID—one of the strongest economic stories and recoveries in the COVID pandemic—and we're now on track to ensure that we have one of the world's highest vaccination rates. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for McMahon, I will say that it is right that we have a large number of members back here in the chamber, which is fantastic. The unfortunate bit is that it's been accompanied by a rise in interjections, and I just remind members that it's taken a long time to get some of you back. It would be a pity if you'd come back only to be ejected under 94(a). Climate Change -1 (McMahon) (14:07): Mr BOWEN DZS My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer, in which he mentioned the importance of transparency. Will the Prime Minister release government modelling on the impacts of net zero emissions by 2050 presented to the Nationals party room? Why is this modelling secret? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I'm just seeking your clarification as to how the Prime Minister can be asked to answer that question. I suspect that the member for McMahon misstated the question and— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Could the Leader of the House pause for a second. No-one interjecting on my left is helping me hear the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, perhaps you could start again. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, as I understood it—not that I was paying great attention to the member for McMahon, as is probably the case for most in this chamber!—I heard the member for McMahon talk about the presentation to the Nationals party room, and I don't know how that can be within the Prime Minister's remit. He was not in the meeting. He didn't attend the meeting. It was entirely, appropriately, a matter for the National Party. And I don't know how the Prime Minister could be expected to answer that question. The SPEAKER 00APG The question was whether the Prime Minister would release the modelling that was provided to the party room. 14:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can't speak to the discussions in the Nationals party room any more than the Leader of the Nationals can speak to the discussions in the Liberals party room. We're two great parties. We form a great coalition, as we have done for many, many years, and we continue to do so. I can be very clear to the Australian people that we will be very transparent about what our commitments are, what the costs are and what the outcomes are going to be. They can trust me to do that because that's exactly what I did at the last election. At the last election I set out very clearly what our 2030 target was going to be, how we were going to achieve it—that we would meet and beat it—what the costs would be and what the programs were. As a result, the Australian people backed our plan. Those opposite, the Labor Party, had a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. The then Leader of the Opposition couldn't explain those issues. He couldn't level with the Australian people. He couldn't explain the costs. The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the Prime Minister that this is not an opportunity to now move off the question, which was a very specific one about whether he would or wouldn't release modelling. I think the Prime Minister has answered that. It's not an opportunity to talk about the opposition policies at the last election. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can be very clear with the Australian people. We will set these things out very clearly, because that is our form, that is what we have done. I think it's very important for Australians to know what our plans are as they are aware of the plans of all those who would go to the next election pretending to do various things. We will be very clear about our plans. People know what our 2030 commitment is. It's a mystery what the 2030 commitment is of those opposite. There's no plan there. There's no plan for 2050 from those opposite. We will release our plans. We will be clear about the costs. We will explain to people in rural and regional Australia in particular how we'll be standing with them as they work through the challenges that they will face and realise the opportunities are there for more jobs, more investment and a stronger rural and regional Australia. I welcome the fact that, in asking this question, the Labor Party are saying that the standard is that you have to tell people what your plans are, what your costs are and what it means for them. That would be the first time they've ever done that. Infrastructure -1 14:12 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is ensuring strong economic recovery in the regions by investing in infrastructure projects that support communities and create jobs? 14:12 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. I note the tremendous work that he is doing. We have seats next door to one another. Projects, such as the Wollomombi to Kempsey road upgrade, are vitally important. It is a road held by the council. Obviously it's beyond their capacity to do much with it. Not much has happened on that road for a very long time, yet it's a vital connector between the two electorates. It's not just that that he's working on. I also note the work he is doing on smaller projects, such as the Sawtell swimming pool. He got money through the BBR for that. At the Sawtell swimming pool we might get the next Maddy Gough, and wasn't Maddy Gough a great asset? She came fifth in the Olympics and smashed the Australian women's 1,500-metre record at 15 minutes and 47 seconds, if I remember rightly. That is the sort of asset that takes communities forward. It is not just there, because we can't be parochial when we are building a nation. We build across the nation. We have $1.6 billion on the table in the Hunter Valley for the Newcastle bypass. That $1.6 billion will be complemented by $400 million from the state government. That goes to show that when we are building projects we build them across the nation for a national plan. We build them across the nation to make a better nation. And it's not just there. Also in the Hunter Valley we have the Singleton bypass, which we're putting about $560 million towards. Whether it's the Pacific Highway or the New England Highway, we are building to a national plan. There is also the Coffs Harbour bypass, which I know the member for Cowper has put so much work towards. There is $1.4 billion—in fact, a little bit more—to continue the dream and the vision of people, such as Warren Truss, a former leader of the Nationals. He had the dream of making sure that you could drive a car on a dual carriageway from Melbourne to north of Gympie without seeing a traffic light. That is real vision, continued on admirably by the member for Riverina—that Nationals dream, which I am now very proud to be part of, and the conclusion of that dream. This is important: it goes up to the member for Wide Bay's electorate, for the Tiaro Bypass in the seat of Cowper, to Coffs Harbour and the seat of Hunter for the Newcastle bypass. This is a Nationals—and a national—vision, and the coalition is putting in the effort, putting in the money and delivering an outcome that does not just reside in seats of our leaning but resides in seats across this nation, for a national benefit. Climate Change -1 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the government modelled the impact of net zero emissions by 2050? If the answer is yes, will the government release the modelling? If the answer is yes, when? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook When the government has fully considered these matters, we will be, of course, setting out all of our plans. We will be setting out all of the benefits and all of the matters that relate to those policies. That is the answer to the question. We will be very transparent. Where we have been able to assess the impacts of our policies and to demonstrate those benefits, we will certainly do that. That would be the case in the areas the member has referred to. We'll be doing that before the next election. I suspect we will be doing it a lot sooner before they make their mind up about their 2030 commitment. They asked me about this over a year ago, and they still can't tell the Australian people what their 2030 commitment is. I don't know what the time delay is on that side, but they cannot make their mind up about 2030— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Whitlam will cease interjecting. Climate Change -1 14:16 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy [by video link] Prime Minister, since real exports are limited to iron ore, aluminium, copper, coal—all smelted with coal—and if all exports then come directly or indirectly from coal and if net zero 2050 is not a lie, can you convince China to give us solar panels for free and convince Australians to turn their lights on only during the day? Isn't how—not when—Bradfield, Hells Gate producing zero emissions industries, high-protein algae, electricity, petrol as ethanol, sugar—all manufacturing industries. Isn't 'how'—yourself, Joyce, Albanese are after for our country? This is 'how'. 14:17 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Kennedy for his question regarding Hells Gate Dam. I know the member for Kennedy is very committed to the agricultural production of northern Queensland as, indeed, the Nationals and the Liberals are very committed to the agricultural production capability of northern Queensland. As the member, particularly, will know, the government has strongly supported the Hughenden irrigation scheme, which I know is a project that he has had a keen interest in over a long time. That is going to unlock significant potential for jobs and opportunities right across northern Queensland, as we will also see with great projects like the CopperString Project, which opens up that entire north-west minerals province which this government is committed to. We are committed to taking those important projects forward for northern Queensland because we believe in the future of rural and regional Australia and the infrastructure and the energy it needs to realise its potential. But, on the issue of Hells Gate Dam, I'll defer to the Deputy Prime Minister. 14:19 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I commend the member for Kennedy for the work that he has done for the people of North Queensland and as a voice for so many people in so many regional areas. Although at times we might not agree, I absolutely respect the effort he puts into that. He raised the issue of Hells Gate Dam. We are expecting the business case for that early in the next year. What I can say is that the best chance the member for Kennedy has of getting that dam built is if a coalition government is in place. That would be the best opportunity and the best chance, because we too—and I definitely—have the vision of taking water west to fulfil the national vision that we would open up new agricultural precincts in the black soils of western Queensland, which I know the member for Kennedy knows so well. The member for Kennedy is also a great advocate for North Queensland. It's the coalition government that is moving the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority from Canberra to North Queensland. That is the sort of decentralisation package that stands behind our belief of getting people away from this great city into other parts of our nation as well. We also note his work on the Hughenden irrigation scheme, which he has believed in for so long. I know that the member for Kennedy must get some solace and satisfaction from the fact that, after battling for these projects for so long, the prospect and the probability and the commitment to get these projects done—to get projects for North Queensland done—is going to be under a coalition government. He knows those who reside on the other side have nothing more than a plan for the inner suburbs of the cities that are their only hope of ever being supported. Economy -1 14:20 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's strong economic management continues to set up the Australian economy to bounce back strongly as COVID-19 restrictions ease? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Higgins for her question and acknowledge her experience as a paediatrician at the Royal Children's Hospital for 28 years and as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences—a real achievement. The member for Higgins, like others on this side of the House, knows that, today, consumer confidence jumped for the sixth week in a row; last week, business confidence was up; job ads are now 21 per cent higher than they were at the start of the pandemic; and, last week, Fitch Ratings reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating and upgraded our outlook. Today, the Reserve Bank's minutes came out for the month of October. They said that they were expecting the economy to bounce back strongly. They said that the labour market had been more resilient this year than last year and that, in New South Wales, firms were already looking to hire, ahead of those restrictions being lifted. This is the strong economic recovery that Australians can look forward to. This is the $17 billion that the Morrison government has put in to support families and businesses through the delta outbreak, which will help support a strong economic recovery. I'm asked: are there any alternative policies? The Leader of the Opposition, in the last two years, has had two big economic ideas in his head. Last year, do you know what it was? It was the structural productivity-enhancing reform of a national drivers licence. That was going to see the Australian economy lift off! This year, we got nothing in the budget-in-reply speech, so we've been waiting. We've been waiting with bated breath, and 76 days ago, we got it: $300 cheques to people who have already had the jab. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, this was going to be a $6 billion 'conversation starter'. He said: What it will do is spark conversation around the workplace—around communities. 'Have you got your 300 bucks yet?' is a conversation we want. I tell you who didn't want the conversation—his own shadow cabinet. Senator Gallagher went on Insiders on Sunday and was asked by David Speers: 'Should the government offer 300 bucks to everyone or not?' Senator Gallagher said, 'I think, probably, the time has passed for that.' It was a policy that was made on the run and it was a policy that was dumped on the run. Climate Change -1 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Has the minister seen any modelling which shows the economic impact of net zero by 2050 for the regions? What does the modelling say about the economic impact on regional Australia? 14:24 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for Grayndler for his question. Yes, at this point in time we are working very diligently and very closely through so many aspects of the issue of 2050, because it is incumbent upon us to make sure we look after the people of Albury and the people Singleton and that we do the right thing by the people of Nowra and the people of Queanbeyan. We are working diligently to make sure that we look after people, from Busselton to Mount Isa to Albury-Wodonga. To that purpose, we are going through every aspect of the plan that has been delivered to us and we are making sure that we come up with the right capacity to go back to the people, whether it's in the seat of Cowper or in the seat of Flynn— An opposition member interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d Why? What's wrong with that? The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat for a sec. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? The SPEAKER 00APG Hang on. You don't have the call. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance: the question goes to whether he's seen modelling and to the impact on the regions, not to the table of contents of an atlas. The SPEAKER 00APG Going to the substantive part of the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order, which wasn't the last part, the question is very specific. The Deputy Prime Minister has been entitled to give some context, which he's done—and he's not even a minute in—but of course that can't be the entirety of his answer. The Deputy Prime Minister. Mr JOYCE e5d Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling, but I would note how dismissive the Labor Party are of regional towns and how they smirk and snigger whenever you mention— The SPEAKER 00APG No. I'll say to the Deputy Prime Minister: you need to return to the question or wind up your answer. Mr JOYCE e5d I note quite clearly that there has been absolutely diligent oversight within the Liberal Party. The Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Cook—the leader of the coalition and the Prime Minister of Australia—has a mandate from his party room, and I am going through the process of making sure that I respect the views of my party room. The question goes to whether we have seen the results of modelling. Yes, we have. We've seen that in a whole range of reflections on the price of commodities. It's such a tricky question with such an easy answer, isn't it? COVID-19 -1 14:27 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on how breakthrough COVID-19 treatments, along with Australia's vaccine program, are helping to save lives and save livelihoods? 14:27 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Wentworth, who, with his international experience, will know that the pandemic continues to rage worldwide. There have been 444,000 cases, with 6½ thousand lives lost, in the last 24 hours alone. Against that background, the vaccination program in Australia is saving lives and protecting lives. We're now at 32.9 million vaccinations in Australia. As the Prime Minister mentioned, we've passed the 85 per cent milestone for first doses, and we are on the cusp of the third great milestone—the 70 per cent mark for second doses—as part of the national road map. Significantly, there have been 1.9 million doses in the last seven days, 3.9 million doses in the last 14 days and 7.8 million doses in the last four weeks. All of these things are about Australians coming forward in record numbers to protect themselves, to protect their friends, to protect their family and to protect their country. Indeed, one of the things I'm most pleased about is that there are now more than one million doses that have gone to those between 12 and 15 years of age, and we're almost at a 60 per cent first-dose rate in that group. All of these vaccinations are very important protection, but they're not the only protection. What we've also been able to do is to acquire critical treatments, which are an additional, complementary protection for Australians. Previously, we've mentioned sotrovimab: 31,000 doses of a monoclonal antibody, which is given in a hospital setting. That's already in use in Australia, saving lives and protecting lives. But in recent weeks we've been able to announce acquisitions of drugs such as 300,000 doses of molnupiravir, an oral antibody, and 500,000 doses of the Pfizer oral antibody—again, a pill. This means that we can ensure that, wherever people are, they're given that protection, that ability, if they are diagnosed or they've been exposed, to have that additional support. None of these are a guarantee. They are not as strong as vaccines, and it's very important to say that vaccines are the front-line treatment, but only yesterday we had the approval from the TGA of Ronapreve. We've just acquired 15,000 doses of Ronapreve, a monoclonal antibody combination therapy. It's for being treated in hospital and it has a 70 per cent reduction in the likelihood of fatality for those to whom it's applied. All of these treatments and vaccines are coming together to save lives, to protect lives and to give Australians their lives back. Economy -1 14:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Regional Development. I refer to his previous answer regarding the modelling of net zero by 2050 on regions, in which he said, 'It has an impact on the price of commodities.' What is that impact? 14:31 Mr JOYCE e5d New England It's quite obvious that, if the world is going where it is going—and I think even the member— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr JOYCE e5d I don't know what's so funny about that. It's hilarious, isn't it? If they believe that the commodity prices, as have been stated by so many sources, especially for such things as coal—and let's note that there is a whole range of coals and calorific contents of coals and that they have different markets. Of course that does affect the price of commodities. If that is the case—and modelling, of course, is best estimation; it is obviously not written on tablets of stone—that estimation would naturally point to a change in demand which will reflect a change in price. For that reason, in the results of the modelling, which we have seen, it shows a downturn in coal commodities over time. I don't know what is remarkable about that. I understand the tactics of the Labor Party: it's to try to trip me up. But you've got to sharpen that process up a bit. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to table a document? Mr Albanese R36 I'm asking that the Deputy Prime Minister table the modelling that he was referring to in his answer. The SPEAKER 00APG You can't make that request. You can do it by way of a question. You can only ask for him to table a document he was reading from, and he wasn't reading from any document. Defence -1 14:33 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I ask the Minister for Defence if he will update the House on the Morrison government's AUKUS alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom and the benefits for securing our prosperity, our safety and our security in the future. 14:33 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question and also for his service in the defence portfolio. He is a very distinguished former Minister for Defence and is a great supporter of our Australian Defence Force personnel. Our government, as you know, is very clear eyed about the threats within our own region, the Indo-Pacific. There are many countries, including many European countries, who are worried about the unfolding circumstances in the Indo-Pacific, and it's absolutely appropriate that the first order of this government is to keep Australians safe and secure. We will do everything within our power, everything within our capacity, to make decisions to deliver on policies that will deliver that security and that peace to our region. Through the AUKUS program, through that compact, we have been able to bolster the security of our country not only for today but for the decades into the future as well. I, along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had very significant engagements in Indonesia, in India and in South Korea before we went to the United States. We had very significant discussions with the United Kingdom as well. I spoke with the secretary this morning, Ben Wallace, who is a great friend of our country, and he recommitted himself to the process and to the work that we have underway at the moment to look at the acquisition by Australia of at least eight nuclear powered submarines which will provide us with an edge and a capability into the next decade above that which operates within our region. That is an incredibly important asset for us to acquire but it's not the only element of AUKUS. I think this is a very important point to make. I see Phil Thompson, the Member for Herbert, on the screen. I was up at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville not too long ago and I was speaking with some of the troops up there—some of whom, I should quickly note, were involved in the extraction of Australian citizens and visa holders in Kabul. I spoke with Phil and some of those members—remarkable Australians—on FaceTime the other day. We owe it to them to make sure that we deliver on the other elements of AUKUS. Through AUKUS we will collaborate to enhance our joint capabilities across cyber, across artificial intelligence, across quantum technologies and across additional undersea capabilities. It builds on the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the 2020 Force Structure Plan and it also includes, importantly, tomahawk cruise missiles, which will enable our Hobart class destroyers to strike distant land targets with excellent precision. The RAAF will be equipped with long range anti-ship missiles and joint air-to-surface standoff missiles. The Morrison government is determined to keep Australia safe. Climate Change -1 14:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has been in office for nearly a decade. The COP26 congress in Glasgow starts in just two weeks. After nearly a decade how much longer is it going to take the Prime Minister to come up with a climate policy? 14:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Twenty per cent reduction in emissions since 2005 is the product of the policies that we have put in place, particularly over these last eight years, which have ensured that we have been seen technologies realised, that we have been able to drive down those emissions whilst stabilising and reducing electricity prices and keeping the lights on. The world knows what our 2030 commitments are. We signed up to them. I took them to the last election and the Australian people endorsed them. I said we would meet them and we would beat them. And we will meet them and we will beat them, based on the policies that we have pursued: the technology, not taxes approach; the Emissions Reduction Fund; the work that we have been doing in the agricultural community. I'm sure the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction could add more of these. Our policies are reducing emissions. At the same time we have realised one of the most significant expansions in our LNG industry that we have ever seen, at the same time we have seen the number of people in manufacturing go up—as opposed to under Labor when one in eight manufacturing jobs were lost. Under our policies we are getting emissions down, we are getting solar panels on people's roofs, we are seeing record investments in renewable energy, we are meeting and beating our targets, we are getting Australians into manufacturing jobs, we are expanding our resources industries—that's what the coalition's plans are doing. That's what they are doing. And we intend them to keep doing that as we pursue policies in this area which ensure we do the right thing by jobs, we do the right thing by the environment, we do the right thing by our national energy security. That ensures that Australians can look forward to their future with confidence, whether they're living in the Hunter, or on the South Coast of NSW, or out in Portland—where we have ensured that the Portland Aluminium Smelter will continue to operate and continue to run and support those jobs. That's what our energy emissions reductions and environmental policies are achieving for Australia. We will continue to make decisions in that vein. We will continue to do that. We will not be taxing our way there. That is the approach that the Labor Party pursued when they were last in government. That's their approach. Taxes not technology. We are technology not taxes. That's how we get ourselves to achieve these goals. That's how we can make our way through the very difficult global economic challenges that will confront Australia over the next 30 years. We have been careful in considering each of these decisions because we are mindful of the impact they can have on rural and regional areas. We haven't signed Australia up with blank-cheque commitments like those opposite have. We will make and continue to make decisions—(Time expired) Energy -1 14:40 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom My question is for the excellent Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is securing the affordable and reliable energy that Australian families and businesses rely on, and how this will assist our economic recovery from the pandemic? 14:40 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the Member for Groom for his excellent question. He represents Toowoomba, a region with an extraordinary history in those great industries which are the backbone of this great country. It's our resources sector you see there, with leading-edge agriculture and leading-edge manufacturing like we see with Obadare, a business I was lucky enough to visit recently up in Toowoomba. They are reliant, like so many manufacturing businesses, whether in the member's electorate or right across Australia, on affordable, reliable energy. We have seen recently around the world what happens when governments lose focus on customers in energy markets. In the UK, for example, we've seen how a reliance on imported gas combined with prolonged wind droughts have plunged that country into an energy crisis. Default energy prices have increased by 12 per cent, affecting up to 15 million households across the UK. We are determined to make sure that doesn't happen in Australia. Critical to that is gas, much of which comes from the Surat Basin, near Toowoomba. Our manufacturing sector depends on gas. Over 40 per cent of the energy used in manufacturing comes from gas. Across our manufacturing sector, despite COVID, we are now seeing that 80,000 more Australians are working in manufacturing than before the beginning of COVID. We have more than a million people working in manufacturing in this country and they're reliant on affordable, reliable energy. The key to that is balance. We've seen 13.3 gigawatts of new renewable capacity come in in two years—each of those years seeing more than in the entire time Labor was in government. But that needs to be balanced with dispatchable capacity, and that's what national cabinet has agreed on in recent reforms. We're also filling gaps that are emerging, like when the Liddell generator closes in the Hunter Valley. Energy Australia will replace that with Tallawarra, and for us it will be the Snowy Kurri Kurri gas generator. But that's not the end of it. We have the Kidston pump hydro project in Queensland, the Port Kembla gas generator and Snowy hydro, where just today we saw it launch its new precast factory in Cooma. There, 130,000 concrete segments are being produced locally for the tunnels, supporting 220 direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs. We're getting on with the job of delivering affordable, reliable energy as we bring down our emissions. Climate Change -1 14:43 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister arrives in Glasgow in a fortnight's time, will he tell the meeting that electric vehicles will 'end the weekend', that batteries to store renewable energy are as useful as the Big Banana and the Big Prawn and that Renewable Energy Targets are 'nuts'? 14:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I don't accept the caricature that the member has put forward. It's just simply not the case— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L It's a complete misrepresentation, which I'm completely used to from the Labor Party. They can treat the parliament in that way and treat it like a comedy act, but these are very serious issues we are dealing with here as a country. While Labor seeks to joke about climate policy, the government is focused very clearly on the decisions we have to make about what is going to impact on the livelihoods and lives of Australians over the next 30 years. We are not taking a glib approach like those opposite did. They just signed up with a blank cheque— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. These are the Prime Minister's own quotes, his own comments—he's quoting himself—that he's given at that— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat, and I'm going to point out very clearly: he may well raise that on a point of order, but the question didn't ask that. The question asked him whether he'd do three things, and it could have been ruled out on any number of aspects of the standing orders. But when a question like that's asked, it's been my practice to allow the free-flowing debate. Otherwise, I'll be ruling them out. You can't ask a question like that and expect that there won't be some sort of political response. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L The commitment about net zero at 2050 is a very serious matter. It's going to have big impacts and big opportunities for Australia in the future. You don't do it glibly. You don't just sign up to it without a plan, which is what I said from this dispatch box on many occasions. You don't go and sign Australia up to something like that unless you carefully consider what the plan is and what the impacts of that plan are. We have been going through that very exercise very seriously, as a cabinet, as a coalition government—as a serious government does to make these important decisions. We understand that the global changes happening in our economy because of the response to climate change are going to have adverse impacts in Australia, in rural and regional areas in particular. That is going to occur, and our plans are designed to address that and to recognise the opportunities that can be gained from the changes occurring around the world to ensure that Australia can emerge more strongly, based on the plans that we're working on. That's how we're coming to a decision on this issue. Those opposite came to a decision to commit Australia to 2050 without any plan, without any estimate, without any modelling. They claim some modelling, but that modelling assumes a carbon price. It assumes a carbon tax. That is where the Labor Party is at. We are doing this on the basis of careful consideration of the impacts of our decisions on Australians. This is one of the biggest decisions this country has to make. We will make it carefully, we will make it collaboratively and we will be listening to Australians, as we have done over the course of this term to prepare for this very moment, to ensure that when we consider this issue we can do so in a way such that we can position Australia strongly for the future. This is about an economic plan that gets Australia through one of these great challenges. We have such a plan, the low emissions technology plan, already set out, while those opposite, even right now, in the Senate are seeking to disallow a regulation which would see us being able to invest in clean energy technologies, in carbon capture, use and storage. And they are opposing it. (Time expired) Mr Albanese R36 I seek leave to table a document, an article by Phil Coorey, 'Scott Morrison mocks SA's big battery as like the "big banana"'. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. I've made it clear that I won't even ask for leave to be granted to table newspaper articles that are readily available. Agriculture -1 14:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is modernising and investing in Australia's agricultural innovation system, ensuring that this key pillar of our Ag2030 plan is supporting industry's target of a $100 billion sector by 2030? 14:48 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the Member for Riverina for his question. I acknowledge also his significant contribution as Deputy Prime Minister in helping us achieve that Ag2030 plan with cold hard cash and particularly around the innovation systems, which has played a pivotal role in taking agriculture for the first time to over $70 billion. Innovation is driving that and will get us on that trajectory towards $100 billion. We're doing that through our 15 commodity research and development corporations, whether beef, cotton, grain, sugar or horticulture. They are the vehicles which are driving that. We have put over $147 million into modernising that since July 2020, plus the $1.1 billion a year that goes into agricultural innovation from levy payers and the Australian taxpayer. While we've had great success, we are ranked No. 23 in the world. We have the same number of researchers and scientists as the United States and the Netherlands, who are No. 4 and No. 6 in the world. So we are making reforms to ensure that we become No. 1 in the world. We've created a new mechanism, a modernising ag innovation system, to ensure we have the environment and the infrastructure to achieve that. We've created Agricultural Innovation Australia, a commercial entity that will help to ensure that we get back to the first principles of agricultural innovation—value to the levy payer, value to the taxpayer, removal of duplication and commercialisation. We're giving them the tools to do that. The first tool was our growAG platform, a digital platform that lists all the research and development that all of our 15 research and development corporations are doing. We launched that in April last year, up in Wagga. Can I say that since then there have been over 15½ thousand users of that website from over 130 countries, and since then we've had over 120 commercial inquiries to partner with our research development corporations and our regional universities to put money in and to partner with our capital to ensure that we have even better research and development. But we're going a step further in making sure we have a physical platform for those that want to invest to come and feel and touch and understand the research that we're doing. We put $86 million into eight innovation hubs right across the country, including one at Charles Sturt University, which the former Deputy Prime Minister opened with me back in April last year. That's played a pivotal role in making sure that the research and development is being done at a local level, so that the adoption is being taken up by the farmers, not only allowing them to interact with our investors but also our farmers and understanding what's important to them. Those investments are driving the decisions of commercial entities around the world and foreign states to look to Australia as a leader in agricultural innovation, but they're also creating the new jobs of Australian agriculture—bringing the next generation into the new jobs in science and technology in regional universities and connecting them to the users that we want to adopt this technology the most, the Australian farmer. This is the environment and the infrastructure we're putting around the innovation system to ensure we continue to produce the best food and fibre in the world. Climate Change -1 14:51 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said that a net zero by 2050 target couldn't be legislated because of the impact on Australia if the target wasn't met. Doesn't this show this is another announcement the Prime Minister has no intention of delivering? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The same basis that Australia made its commitment to Kyoto, the same basis that we made our commitment to Paris, is the same basis we would take anything forward at Glasgow. The proof of our record is we have met Kyoto 1; we have met Kyoto 2. We are going to meet our Paris 2030 and, in fact, beat Paris 2030. The Leader of the Opposition seems to confuse the processes that he wishes to engage in as having some material impact on what the outcome will be. Australians understand outcomes, and the outcomes are that under our government emissions are falling. They're falling. They're coming down. Emissions have fallen by 20 per cent and more on 2005 levels. They're lower. That's not the only thing that's lower. Unemployment is lower. Youth unemployment is lower. The level of investment in this country is greater. There are more Australians working in manufacturing today, and there were fewer under the Labor Party when they were in power. We've got major big resources projects happening all around the country. We are seeing our LNG industry go from strength to strength, being world-leading, at the same time our policies are reducing emissions. Outcomes count, not broad rhetorical statements from politicians. Outcomes count. Outcomes count, so let me remind the House of a few outcomes: 20 per cent reduction in emissions; 69.2 per cent of Australians aged over 16 vaccinated; the lowest rate of fatality for COVID of almost any country in the world; the lowest unemployment rate in more than a decade. They're the results that the Labor Party don't want to speak about. Defence Industry -1 14:54 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Science and Technology. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's investment in our defence industry is creating jobs and supporting our economic recovery as we come back from the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:54 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I thank the member for Curtin for her question and acknowledge and thank her for her passion and interest in defence industry, particularly in our home state of Western Australia. Our government's $270 billion investment in our defence capabilities is not only delivering the essential equipment that our men and women in uniform require for the safety and security of our country, as important as that is, but also creating and supporting thousands of Australian jobs in the cities and right across Australia's regions. It's also supporting our economic recovery as we bounce back from COVID-19. Our government is also investing $210 million to overhaul the health facilities for our troops in our Defence Force at RAAF Base Townsville in Queensland, in Puckapunyal in Victoria, in Campbell Barracks in Western Australia and across more than a dozen locations as we build and we upgrade those critically important healthcare facilities for our men and women in uniform. This is truly a national endeavour, as this project will deliver health services to 35,000 ADF personnel. As well as that it will support some 6,000 local jobs within the construction project. On average across these projects 92 per cent of work has gone to local businesses, and in many cases the target for local involvement has actually been exceeded. I saw this work only recently when I visited RAAF Base Pearce with the Hon. Senator Birmingham, where we had an opportunity to look at the new health facilities at Pearce. I want to take this opportunity to thank those health professionals we met for the very good service that they provide and the tour and to thank them for looking after the health of our ADF personnel. As we heard from the Minister for Defence today, the Australian defence industry should also be gearing up for the opportunities that AUKUS will offer. The delivery of nuclear powered submarines will require our Australian industry to be involved in helping us to build and to sustain those nuclear submarines. But a closer partnership with respect to the US and UK will also mean opportunities beyond shipbuilding, and I refer to our government's investment of $100 billion over the next 20 years on our sovereign guided weapons enterprise. Our Australian small and medium sized businesses are going to be critical for the success of that important enterprise. We are not slowing down. We are backing our Australian defence industries in the bush and in the city for the defence of our nation. Rural and Regional Services: Climate Change -1 14:57 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. The minister for regionalisation said yesterday that regional Australians are out of sight and out of mind for the Liberal Party. Is that why the Prime Minister has refused to recognise the economic opportunities of climate action for regional Australia for so long? 14:57 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm happy to refer to the Deputy Prime Minister in responding to this question about the many achievements that this government has been able to realise for rural and regional Australia. I simply make the point that the challenges that are occurring globally because of the world's response to climate change will have significant impacts on rural and regional Australia. But they also present significant opportunities, and the plans that the government are considering will ensure that we can deal with both the costs and the benefits. We understand there are impacts and that this is not a road where you will only find opportunities. You will also find difficult impacts on Australia, and the government understands that: the Liberal Party understands that and the National Party understands that, because that's where our constituents live. Between the Liberal and National parties, the Liberal Party in particular, we represent more regional electorates in this parliament than any other party in this parliament. We are joined to the Nationals, and together we are overwhelmingly the representatives of regional Australia in this parliament. That means we understand the impacts on rural and regional Australia, and that's why our plans carefully consider those impacts. That's why our infrastructure plans, our skills plans, our manufacturing and industry plans ensure that we can have heavy industry in places like Gladstone and even down in the Shoalhaven, with the plants there. For all of these places we understand the importance of heavy industry, agriculture and the resources sector to rural and regional Australia, and the contribution those sectors make to Australia's future. That's why every single plan you get from a coalition government will be good for rural and regional Australia. But the Deputy Prime Minister may wish to add. 14:59 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for her question and note so many of the projects. We can go to Tasmania and the Scottsdale Irrigation District. We can start in Gippsland with the Macalister Irrigation District. We can go to roads such as the Hume Highway, the Pacific Highway or the Bruce Highway. We can go to North Queensland and say that the Hells Gate Dam business case will be back in early next year. We can go to Rookwood Weir and actually see us building it. We can go to the Inland Rail—1,716 kilometres—and talk about how that is going to be the corridor of commerce to drive ahead regional areas. Or we can talk about the business plan that we've currently got on the table for the Gladstone to Toowoomba link. All these things are merely a sample. If we go to Western Australia we can see the massive amounts that we are currently putting into road infrastructure, right to the very north into the Kimberley—the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured in there. We can go to the defence infrastructure of Darwin or the defence infrastructure of Rockhampton. There has, without a shadow of a doubt, been massive investment from The Nationals, which is solely the only party that has regional representatives—and also the Liberal Party, which has so many representatives of their own. (Time expired) Home Guarantee Scheme -1 15:01 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's home guarantee schemes are accelerating the dream of Australians to own their own home? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:01 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for Reid for her question. She is a champion for first home buyers in her electorate. In fact, under our Prime Minister, we are a government for first home buyers. There is no doubt about that. One of the solemn commitments that we took to the last election was to establish under our Home Guarantee Scheme, the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which would help first home buyers purchase their first home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. In the approximately 18 months since the establishment of that program, more than 53,000 Australians have been able to get into their first home with the help of the Morrison government's Home Guarantee Scheme. Building on the remarkable success of that program, in the last budget, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I were very proud to announce a new aspect of the Home Guarantee Scheme, which was the Family Home Guarantee. We understood that, yes, for first home buyers getting a deposit together is the hardest part of getting into a home. But if you are a single parent trying to raise children and paying for their education and paying for your rent, purchasing a home—a first home in many cases—is extraordinarily difficult. So we put in place the Family Home Guarantee, which helps single parents purchase a home with a deposit of as little as two per cent. Well more than 1,500 single parents have now purchased their new home, and this has only been in place since the beginning of this financial year. And we are starting to see some wonderful stories coming through. I've got some really heart-warming testimonials from single parents who have utilised this scheme. I received a note from single mother Nicole. It's fair to say that 84 per cent of single parents in Australia are women. Nicole sent this to me: 'With the amount of rent we were paying we were never going to be able to save enough for a deposit. The Family Home Guarantee has given us the ability to buy without having to try and come up with a huge deposit. Buying a house means we get to make memories in a house we'll never have to leave.' That's why we extended this scheme to single parents. I received this testimonial from single mother Cindy: 'Not having to pack up and move around if the landlord sells the place and not having to live through inspections every three months—this has changed my life.' Through not only the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme but also the Home Builder Program, 135,000 Australians and their families have been helped into homeownership. When you add them together, 200,000 Australian families have been enabled to get into a home with the support of the Morrison government. We are a government for first home buyers. Climate Change -1 15:04 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said that the Morrison-Joyce government is 'caught in this vice' of this really strong group of climate denialists who, basically, 'don't take global warming seriously'. How can Australians trust the Prime Minister will deliver on anything that he announces on emissions reductions this week? 15:05 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Because, under our government's policies, emissions are coming down and jobs are going up. That's the outcome of our policies. That is the exact outcome of our policies—policies that we put in place not just under my time but also, indeed, my predecessor's time and former Prime Minister Abbott's. Under three Prime Ministers, we have been putting in place the policies to ensure that we shore up the reliability of our energy supply and put downward pressure on electricity prices. We got rid of, under Prime Minister Abbott, the carbon tax, which was legislated by those opposite, which put prices up. We got rid of that, as we promised to do, and there'll never be a carbon price under this government. But I notice, according to Senator Gallagher, that it's back on the table for the Labor Party. It's back on the table because they want to tell people what they have to do and they want to price people into what they want them to do. We have a greater level of confidence about what Australians want to do, the choices they want to make and the choices we want to enable, whether it's getting into their first home or what type of car they want to buy. Even if they want to get vaccinated, we don't think they have to be bribed to do it by those opposite and the policies that they put forward. We have great faith in Australians. We have great faith that they are making the choices which are good for them and their family. The policies that we're putting in place to enable their choices will continue to see emissions come down. They will continue to see new technologies develop. They will continue to see more consumer choice available and Australia continue to achieve in this area. There will be many who will go to the conference in Glasgow and make great, bold commitments, but very few will be able to go there and say, 'Kyoto 1, done; Kyoto 2, done; Paris, we will meet and we will beat.' That is our record. Our emissions reductions exceed those of Canada, of New Zealand and of the United States. Our record is getting emissions down and putting downward pressure on electricity prices. The record of those opposite is that they drove electricity prices up with their carbon taxes and they made Australians pay for their policies. On this side of the House, our policies are about taking the burdens off. Our policies are about doing the right thing by rural and regional Australia and households so they can have the choices they want to have so they can plan for their future with confidence. Those opposite want to sign Australia up with a blank cheque and no plan and make Australians pay for it. COVID-19: Child Care -1 15:07 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister outline how the Morrison government's childcare policies are supporting Australian families and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they will help our post-lockdown recovery? 15:08 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Berowra for his question. He knows, as we all do in this place, just how important child care is, particularly to allow our parents to go into the paid workforce, if they indeed want to do that. That's why, during this pandemic, we have put $3 billion of extra funding into the childcare providers to keep them stable, to keep them afloat and to keep them going, particularly for those essential workers. That's also why we announced, in the budget of this year, additional subsidies for those families with two or more children in child care. We did this because, even though the out-of-pocket hourly rate for most families is reasonably modest, when you have two or more kids in child care it can add up. We also know that the greatest workforce disincentive is precisely when you have two or more children in child care at any one particular time. Our policy added an additional 30 percentage points of subsidy for your second and subsequent children, capping out at 95 per cent of the subsidy for those particular children. On top of this, we got rid of the overall annual fee cap, which, of course, can be a real barrier for women to continue in the workforce. In the budget, we said that we would start this in July of next year, because that was the advice we had at the time, but we've been working very hard to see if we can bring this forward, which is what we always said. I'm pleased to tell the House that we will be able to begin this on 7 March of next year. This is great news for families and great news for businesses, because what it means is that those 250,000 families that will benefit will have an additional $700 in their pocket this financial year. What it means for families next financial year and the subsequent ones is that they will have $2,200, on average, in their pocket as a result of this policy. What's more, it's also good for the economy. Treasury has estimated that an additional 40,000 people will work more as a result of this policy, adding $1.5 billion to GDP on an annual basis. This policy is good for families, it's good for the economy and it's good for business. It's great policy developed by the coalition. It's in such stark contrast to the reckless policy of the Labor Party—a $20 billion policy where the major beneficiaries are millionaires. It's no wonder that the Labor Party are in such turmoil, when they're eating themselves alive because they're spending $20 billion of everyday working families' money to pay for the millionaires to have their child care. They'll be getting $50,000 subsidies. (Time expired) Regional Australia -1 15:11 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, representing the Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education. Yesterday, the minister for regionalisation said about government policy for regional Australia: There are no friends for the National Party at the moment—not a friend in the country. The peak bodies have deserted us; there's not a friend internationally. Does the minister agree that there is no support for this policy? 15:11 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for her question and note that there was certainly no support for any Labor Party policy. That one fell right over. What I can also say is that what we are doing in the Nationals is what would be expected of us in our regional constituencies. One would think it would be the same that would be expected in the constituency of Eden-Monaro, where you would have the capacity to sit down and diligently go through it, as we have, to make sure that how we represent our people back in our area is an earnest representation of the efforts that they are going through on our behalf in making sure that our nation continues on with the standard of living it has. We reflect and understand quite clearly that if it wasn't for our coal exports—which I wonder whether the member stands behind. I presume she does, being from Newcastle and Newcastle being the greatest coal-exporting port in the world. In fact, coal prices are determined by the price at Newcastle. It's the Newcastle price, and this is why we are making sure that the people of the Hunter Valley and in Newcastle clearly understand that we have their livelihoods foremost in our mind as we go forward—as we diligently and prudently assess what is before us in such a way that we can make the proper decisions on that. That process continues on, and we will make sure that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia has a response from us by the end of this week as to what we see as the pertinent issues, and we will have further discussions in that place. This is not grandstanding. This is not ransom, as has been put forward by so many people. This is making sure we do our job, and we'll continue to do our job. What I can say is that the Labor Party have signed us up. They're going to legislate it, but they haven't actually told the people of the Hunter Valley what that means. So the people in the Hunter Valley are in a little bit of a quandary as to whether they're still going to have a job, whether they'll be able to pay for their house and whether they'll be able to pay for their car. The Labor Party are going to legislate it. They say so. They say they're going to legislate it, so the people of Central Queensland—whether they're in Emerald, whether they're in Rockhampton or whether they're in Townsville—are wondering whether, under a Labor Party, they're going to have a job, whether they can pay for their house, whether they can pay for their car and whether they can pay their children's school fees. The Labor Party have said they're going to legislate it, but they haven't actually told the people of Port Kembla or the people who work at the ports of Newcastle what that means for them. All the Labor Party knows—I know you want to wind me up now, but, I'm afraid, I'll just keep going right to the end, because the end is where you're taking your blue-collar workers. You no longer care for them. (Time expired) Antarctica -1 15:15 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass [by video link] My question is for the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to a lasting and peaceful presence in Antarctica and maintaining Tasmania's place as the world's gateway to Antarctica, ensuring local jobs and investments for my home state of Tasmania? 15:15 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Bass for her question and I commend her on all of the extraordinary work she does for her constituents. She called me the other day from a windswept Flinders Island, asking me to sort something out for her, and of course I shall. Thank you, Member for Bass, for being part of Tasmania's recognition of the importance of our Antarctic Division. Australia is a proud Antarctic nation, and the icy continent has featured prominently in our national story and our national interests, dating back to the early expeditions of Sir Douglas Mawson. Australia was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, signed by the Menzies government 60 years ago. The treaty established the Antarctic as a non-militarised region, with multinational efforts for peace and collaborative scientific endeavour. Today, I would add that it is also for the protection of the environment in the world's last untouched wilderness. A modern Australian Antarctic Program that supports the Antarctic Treaty System is critical for Australia to continue delivering world-class science and run safe and efficient operations. Over the weekend, Hobart saw the arrival of our new $1.9 billion icebreaker, RSV Nuyina. The 160-metre-long vessel is the most advanced research platform of its kind in the word. It's capable of breaking through 1.65 metres of sea ice. It can deal with 14-metre seas, hurricane winds and temperatures of minus 30 degrees. It is the world's quietest icebreaker for scientific research, with minimal disturbance to the ecosystems below. It's a truly incredible ship, carrying up to four helicopters—in fact, the helideck is the size of seven cricket pitches—117 personnel and 32 crew for 92 days at sea. It has three permanent scientific laboratories and a moon pool for direct access to the ocean through the hull. This is fantastic for the partnerships we have with other nations, who can collaborate with their researchers and expeditioners on board the ship. The RSV Nuyina provides an ongoing reminder of the Morrison government's commitment to Tasmania as an international Antarctic science hub, and it arrived just days after the 40th anniversary of the Australian Antarctic Division's move to Hobart in 1981. It sends a clear signal to Tasmanians that the Morrison government is focused on local investment, on creating jobs and on growing Antarctic industries so that Hobart can be the world's greatest Antarctic gateway. We remain committed to scientific research, protecting the environment, and ensuring the continent is used only for peaceful purposes, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with other nations as we deliver a new era of Antarctic endeavour, with Australia, particularly Tasmania, leading the world. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS -1 DOCUMENTS Department of the House of Representatives, Department of Parliamentary Services -1 Presentation -1 15:18 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual reports for 2020-21 for the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS -1 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 7 of 2021-22 -1 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 7 of 2021-22 entitled Australian government grants reporting. Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS -1 DOCUMENTS Presentation -1 15:19 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE -1 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Climate Change -1 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to have a climate policy after eight years in office. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:19 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It's the job of the government of Australia to leave the country stronger than when they found it. It's the job of the Prime Minister of Australia to tackle tough issues, to prepare Australia for the future, to make us stronger as he does so, to argue for things which are tough and right. That's a thread which has joined many prime ministers, from Curtin and Chifley fighting to win World War 2 and then build a better peace; through Gough Whitlam arguing for a better, fairer country with Medibank, Malcolm Fraser arguing that Australia should playing a leading role in tackling apartheid, Hawke and Keating building a better country, and John Howard taking a crisis and arguing for more gun control in Australia, at great cost to himself; to Rudd and Gillard building the National Disability Insurance Scheme and apologising to our First Peoples. That's what good prime ministers do. Over the last week, we've been reminded that this Prime Minister is not fit to be compared with those holders of that office—not fit to be compared with his predecessors. This week the Prime Minister has shown us that when an issue requires leadership he's just not there—and climate change requires leadership. Just like when the bushfires required leadership, just like when ensuring Australians had the world's best access to vaccines required leadership—just like on those issues—Australians look to their Prime Minister and they find no leader in the Lodge. They find a vacuum of leadership in our country. The Prime Minister likes to declare that things are not a race, but the world is in a race—to net zero. We need to be in a race because that's what all the science shows us is absolutely necessary to hold the world to 1.5 degrees of warming and avoid all the catastrophic consequences of not doing so. But also it's a race to net zero to ensure that our country, our people, can get the thousands of jobs that are going to be created in this renewables revolution. Global capital is moving rapidly towards renewable energy, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to ensure that our workers and our technologies are leading that race to zero, leading that transformation for our planet. But this opportunity is falling through the fingers of the government as we speak. They're spending all their time not setting a course to grab those opportunities but arguing about whether we're even going to turn up at the race, whether we're even going to be at the starting line. After 423 weeks in office, and just two weeks before the most important climate conference we've seen, the government are deciding whether we even care, whether they even have a climate policy. After 70,000 hours in office, they need a few more four-hour meetings to decide whether we're even going to be in the race. After 21 goes at an energy policy, they want us to believe that the 22nd one is the one with which they'll get it just right, after all these attempts. If there's one thing that has been welcome this week—just one thing—it's that at least some Liberals have recognised and grasped the fact that action on climate change is good for the economy. For almost two decades their entire political model has been based on arguing that action on climate change costs jobs. It has always been a lie and it's an even bigger lie now. An opposition member: Was it the BCA? Mr BOWEN DZS It could be because the BCA has told them that there are 195,000 jobs to be created, or it could be because the BCA, with the ACTU, the World Wildlife Fund and the Australian Conservation Foundation, has found there are 395,000 jobs to be created from clean energy exports. It's a good thing that some Liberals have recognised this. But there's one thing they haven't given up on: dividing Australians between each other. They're addicted to dividing Australians between rural and regional Australians and inner-city dwellers. They're addicted to toxic politics. I want to say something about rural and regional Australians. They know this land. They know this country. They live on this country and they see it changing before their eyes. They've got a connection to this country and they want to see this issue tackled. They want to see a policy to protect our land. I could talk about the facts and the figures. I could talk about the fact that, of the 250,000 jobs to be created in Australia by action on climate change, 185,000 are in Queensland, or that 13,000 are in Central Queensland, or that 28,000 are in other areas of regional Queensland, or that 16,000 are in the Hunter, or that 6,000 are in northern Tasmania, or that 47,000 are in regional Western Australia. They're the facts. But more important than that is the knowledge of our workers in our regions who have created energy in Australia for decades, who know how to make energy and who want to make energy into the future. They know that they want to manufacture energy and renewable energy infrastructure, and we want them to do it too. They are being denied these opportunities by a government with their heads in the sand. They want to know that Australia's jobs opportunity will be taken. They want to know that Australia's opportunity to be a regional powerhouse in renewable energy will be taken. But it won't be taken by this government. We know that the regions which have powered Australia for so long—those with the access to the ports, the railway lines and the electricity grid—are the same areas that will power Australia and export energy into the future. We will continue to be an export energy powerhouse with the right policies. But this five-minutes-to-midnight conversion by the Prime Minister is not to be believed. This is the same man who has led Australia down a policy black hole for too long. We know what's driving him because his own colleagues have told us. The Liberal MP said it well when they said, 'At the heart of the Morrison government is a focus group.' It's not driven by the need to navigate a massive transformation. This is a government and a prime minister driven only by what is popular and political in the moment. They're not for the future, they don't have the vision of those other prime ministers imagining a new Australia, guiding the course and taking the people with them. They're just focused on the politics. The Australian people are entitled to ask: 'Who is the right party to guide Australia through this transition? Which is the right party to take this opportunity?' They are entitled to conclude that in this building there is a guilty party, and that guilty party sits opposite. That is the guilty party which has avoided the opportunities for eight long years. There are no innocents on that side of the chamber. There are no innocents; they are all equally guilty. When the Prime Minister was declaring that electric vehicles would 'end the weekend', he was guilty. When he was comparing the world's biggest battery at that time with a big banana and a big prawn, he was guilty. When his hand-picked member for Hughes—he may have left the party but the Prime Minister's still responsible for him—was undermining the science of climate change, he was guilty. When the member for Wentworth was comparing electric vehicles to communism, he was guilty. When the member for Goldstein, who has joined the executive, was calling for Australia to leave the Kyoto protocol, he was guilty. When the member for North Sydney was recommending that this House not even debate the Zali Steggall bill, he was guilty. When the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, who is at the table, was arguing that wind farms are injurious to health and claiming that there was too much wind and solar in our grid, he was guilty. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS He is guilty of many other things as well; I do concede the point. When the member for Mackellar was arguing that electric vehicle policy was like the pink batts policy, he was guilty. There are no innocents on that side of the chamber. Their voting record is the same. The member for Goldstein's record is the same as the member for Dawson's. The member for Wentworth's voting record is the same as Senator Canavan's. Not only are their voting records the same but also there is one other thing that unites the other side. They've had their dysfunction and division and we've all seen it. The Australian people have seen it played out. There is one thing that will unite them: dishonesty about climate change. As the election approaches, we've already seen the Prime Minister explain—I thought, very compellingly—that their net zero is completely different to our net zero. It's a very different net zero. The other members were lining up behind him to cheer him on, saying: 'Yes! We've never been at war with Oceania—no, it's a completely different war. It's a completely different net zero.' That's the one thing that unites them: their addiction to power and to being dishonest to get it. So, when the Australian people make this judgement about who is best to manage this transition, they can make the judgement that the guilty party is not the best party to manage the transition. The guilty party is the party that deserves to be voted out. 15:29 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume If I'm watching a game of cricket, a game of rugby, or very occasionally a bit of AFL or netball, or if my kids are playing hockey, I want to know how it's going. I look at the scoreboard. The scoreboard on emissions reduction is absolutely clear: emissions are down 20.8 per cent since 2005. That's the scoreboard. There's no ambiguity about that. Indeed, if you look at the commentators forecasting, you see that their own forecast back in 2013, before they left government, was that emissions last year, with a carbon tax that, of course, the member for McMahon backed in because he's never seen a tax he doesn't like, would be 100 million tonnes higher than they turned out to be. That is, under a coalition government we saw emissions 100 million tonnes lower than Labor expected under their own policies. Of course, in that time we got rid of their toxic carbon tax. They only know one way to try to solve any problem in this nation: to whack a tax on it. There's only one tool in this bloke's toolkit: a tax. We know he's going to find it one way or another. He's going to force people to buy things. He'll find some way of getting a sneaky carbon tax, and implicit carbon tax, a shadow carbon tax, a trading price for carbon. One way or another, he's going to get a price on the electricity and energy that all Australians buy, because that's how he tries to solve a problem. We beat our Kyoto era targets by 459 million tonnes. That's the scoreboard. We're on track to meet and beat our 2030 Paris targets. Over the last two years alone, when you look at the improvement in our position versus the 2030 targets, we've improved our position by more than 639 million tonnes. That's the equivalent of taking every one of Australia's cars—14.7 million of them—off the road for 15 years. This is the extraordinary improvement we are seeing, and one of the factors driving that is the record levels of investments in renewables. There was a record seven gigawatts in 2020, the equivalent of about four large coal-fired power stations. Indeed, over the two years prior to now there were 13.3 gigawatts, equivalent to about seven large coal-fired power stations., added to the grid. That means that, as a result, we have the highest household solar in the world. Australia forged. We drove. We shaped the development of solar in the world. We are right at the forefront. The University of NSW led the work, and the result has been that we are the biggest user of household panels on roofs in the world. One in four Australians have them. Just drive around the suburbs of Western Sydney: Fairfield, Camden, Campbelltown—they're there. That's under our policies. We trust the Australian people to make choices. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr TAYLOR 231027 For those opposite, the only policies that count are the ones where they don't trust Australians to make choices. They bribe them to take a vaccine. That's their solution. But in my electorate 99 per cent are double dosed. They didn't need a bribe. They make the right choices when the technology comes to parity, and that's central to our approach. It is a technology-led approach. That means technology, not taxes. That means expanding choice, not imposing mandates. We are not going to tell Australians what kind of car to drive. We are not telling Australians what kind of food to eat. We are not telling Australians what kind of energy to use. They will use low-emissions technologies as those technologies come to parity, exactly as we are seeing with solar right now. If you look at the uptake of solar around the world, you see it's a marvellous example of technology-led change. In the 30 years up to the early 2000s worldwide, we saw a total of one gigawatt of solar capacity installed around the world. Meanwhile, costs were coming down at 10 per cent a year every year, year on year. From 2001 through to last year the world installed 850 gigawatts of solar capacity, as the cost came down to parity with alternatives. That's how technology works. It is not a straight line; it is explosive growth as the technology works. As we look across our technology focus, whether it's hydrogen, energy storage, low-emission steel, low-emission aluminium, carbon capture and storage—those opposite hate that one—or soil carbon, which they have no interest in either because that's good for farmers, we see those costs are coming down rapidly. As they continue to we'll see uptake, just as we've seen solar uptake right across the world in recent years. At the same time we have focused on affordable, reliable energy for all Australians. At the end of the day Australians want to see emissions coming down but they don't want to see costs added to their electricity bills and they don't want to see jobs lost in those regional industries, those backbone industries of this great nation. We've seen 10 consecutive quarters of year-on-year CPI reductions in the price of electricity. We saw 19 months in a row of wholesale price reductions. As we see energy crises around the world, Australia is making sure that we get balance in our grid. We are making sure that there is a balance across technologies that delivers that affordable, reliable energy. It is true that we as a government have had to make investment in great projects like Snowy 2, the great Snowy Mountains scheme. We're extending its reach into Snowy 2. The Snowy scheme is one of the great engineering projects in Australia's history. Snowy 2 is building on that wonderful legacy in the member for Eden-Monaro's electorate. I'm sure she supports that project and the very great progress that was made at Polo Flat just yesterday. Polo Flat, an industrial area, was right at the centre of the original Snowy scheme. Those opposite lecture us constantly on this. The truth of the matter is that they have failed in taking their policies to the Australian people time and time again, but they're sticking with it. For the sixth time last night in the Senate and then today in the Reps they voted against the technology led approach. They're voting against a technology led approach because theirs is a tax led approach. They voted against $192 million of ARENA investment in electric vehicle charging and industrial energy efficiency. They voted against it. I know that on their side there is a lot of dissension on this, but the member for McMahon is on a rampage. He has a campaign for ideological purity. He wants to make sure that there's no investment in carbon capture and storage, soil carbon and industrial energy efficiency. Those things are not good enough for him. He is as pure as the driven snow. He really wants to do the one thing he has always wanted—to impose a tax on Australians. Mr TAYLOR 231027 That's absolutely right—he salivates over the prospect of another tax. Retirees, houses and cars, but the one he really wants is energy. That tool is in the toolkit. He's whipping it out. He's going to whack us all with the same old tax, as he has always wanted to. You only have to look at what his colleague Senator Gallagher said on the weekend to know that that's true. When she was asked explicitly by David Speers if a carbon tax was an option for Labor, she said, 'We are looking at everything.' Yesterday when asked, 'Are there any climate policy settings that you will rule out Labor either adopting or supporting?' the Leader of the Opposition, no less—Each-way Albo—said, 'We'll examine anything that's put forward.' Each-way Albo has never seen a fence he doesn't want to sit on. I'll tell you what: he'll get off the fence and go for the tax. That's where he always ends up. He will end up saying one thing in Melbourne and another thing in Gladstone and a different thing in Balmain to what he says in Balranald. That's how he works. We will always focus on the interests of all Australians and on the interests of the great industries that have been the backbone of this great nation throughout our history, and that history is what this great country is all about. 15:39 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I was walking into Parliament House on Sunday just as a gaggle of National Party members were walking out of their four-hour meeting—a meeting where they didn't decide anything because they needed a bit more time. For people who are in government, albeit as the junior coalition partner, for a group who have no policy whatsoever except to resist, at the 11th hour, as the Prime Minister booked his VIP to Glasgow to a crucial global meeting on climate change, they looked pretty relaxed, and that's when it struck me: these people think it's some sort of game; it's just a game to have a bit of fun with; it isn't about, quite frankly, the future of our country and our planet. They looked very relaxed, as though it was a sport, just to secure a few select votes of people in certain parts of the country, who, ironically, are profoundly affected by a failure to have a climate change policy and who are going to bear the brunt of global impacts if the Liberals and Nationals continue to twiddle their thumbs. These people seem to think it's okay to play a game, and not just this game. It's a game that's not just going to cost in the future; it's already costing this country now. It's costing people in my electorate now. These people seem to think that you're a competent government if you have 21 different energy policies in the course of your government. Seriously! Although, let's be clear: today Australia does not have a coherent energy policy, let alone a policy to tackle climate change. I think we've been a bit gentle in the language about this. I want to make it very clear that over the last decade they have misled the country on the effects of acting on climate change or not acting on climate change. They knew it was a lie to say that there'd be $100 roasts. They knew it was a lie to say electric vehicles would kill the weekend. They knew it was a lie to say that the world's biggest battery was as useful as the Big Banana. They said these things knowingly. They said them knowing that what they were saying was not right, from Tony Abbott through to Scott Morrison. We have been misled as a country. On this side we have remained firm, knowing how important it is to take action on climate change. People in my electorate know it more than many other places because we live it. This week eight years ago I stood owning one dress, one pair of shoes and one set of underwear, because that's all that was left when my house burnt down in the Winmalee bushfires. I was one of nearly a thousand people. Two hundred houses were destroyed in a single afternoon. We lived that. Two years ago next week the Gospers Mountain fire was started. That was part of a black summer that saw 33 people die and more than 400 people die from inhaling smoke. These are consequences that people are experiencing now. These are not future costs. But the costs are also monetary, because to live in a community like mine it costs you extra if you choose to live there—and we do choose because it's an incredible place. We pay more for insurance. An honourable member: If you can get it. Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 If you can get it, as my colleague says, if you can get it for bushfires or floods—and it probably won't be long before we have trouble getting it for storms as well, as climate change makes these extreme weather events even more extreme. We pay more to build our houses. We don't just have a timber front door. We're not allowed to have a timber front door. In fact my house is not allowed to have a single piece of timber anywhere on its exterior. It's concrete. It's steel. It's corten. It's heavy things. It's got windows like skyscraper windows so that, should a fire like the fierce fire we saw come through, it has greater resilience. That extra cost is not just tens of thousands of dollars but in our case hundreds of thousands of dollars for those in the most intense flame zone areas. It's the same with floods. We also pay through the anxiety and the mental health impacts, and that's a cost that you opposite are responsible for if you fail to act. 15:44 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's a great privilege to speak on this motion moved by the member for McMahon. We've had some political run-ins in the past when, for instance, he spent a lot of time trying to shove Australian retirees down the financial stairs of the nation, and it's good to know that there has been no change in his demeanour. Before the last election he was the man out there spruiking his wondrous idea about how he would cut down incomes and shove Australian retirees under the poverty line, and now he simply wants to reimpose that ambition on energy prices. He wants to turn around to the nation's pensioners and say, 'I've got a solution for you.' The solution is to make sure they pay more for their electricity, so they can't live in comfort and warmth in winter. That is the foundation of Labor's policy related to climate change. It is not one that is anchored in what they'll do to improve the environment. It is not one that will take the Australian community with it. It is not one, as the minister will attest, that acknowledges, understands, appreciates or even considers and listens to the challenges of people in regional Australia and the impact it will have on them. Labor's solution, like so many of their other solutions, is a tax. I know the member for McMahon can't look at me straight when I talk about this, because he knows his legacy and he's taking his solution to the portfolio that he failed in and imposing it on his new portfolio, because they have no other ideas. The foundation of every step of the coalition's position related to climate change is what we need to do to get our emissions down while utilising and harnessing the power of technology. That's what you've seen and what we took to the last election. It isn't something we made up willy-nilly in this term of government. It has been consistent and it asks this question: how do we empower Australians, how do we empower businesses and how do we empower the nation to harness the opportunity of technology to drive down emissions?. We've seen the results: 20 per cent off 2005 emissions for Australia so far, and we continued to drive them down. Of course, we're now having a very important conversation about what we need to do to set long-term targets to make sure that all Australians have the opportunity to be part of the conversation. We've seen the translation of our practical plan to invest in the future of renewables, with $35 billion having been invested in renewables so far. I see this every day in my wonderful Goldstein electorate. In 2017 there were 2,700-odd solar PV cells on homes in the Goldstein electorate. There are now nearly 9,000 in the Goldstein electorate. As the minister said earlier, at every point not only has the coalition government focused on what it can do to empower technology but we have used the legislative instruments available to us to broaden the mandate to increase the opportunity that we see to make sure that people can use the technology and that government agencies can invest in the technology that Australian businesses that Australians need. What we've seen consistently from those opposite is they have blocked every attempt that we have made to do so, whether it is ARENA investing in charging stations or ARENA investing in carbon capture and storage, technology that the IPCC's own modelling says will be necessary to hit long-term targets and that the International Energy Agency has mapped out in its net zero plan. But Labor don't want to have a bar of it because it gets in the way of their one objective, which is the reintroduction of the carbon tax. When I was coming up to the dispatch box I had to check the date because it seems they want to resurrect the carbon tax from the past. It isn't yet Halloween, but we're certainly getting a fair degree of trick or treat. We all remember the promise that was made by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in the lead-up to the 2010 election, when she said one thing before the election until she did a sweetheart deal with the Greens and brought in a carbon tax and imposed it on the Australian community. The fundamental problem is there is no respect for democracy from our political opponents and those who sit on the other side of the chamber. We took a policy to the last election, and it was endorsed by the Australian people. We're seeing this not just from the Labor Party but from the independent member for Warringah, who literally wanted to introduce legislation that would give appointed officials veto power over this parliament and its capacity to decide our legislative agenda and how we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We stand for democracy, we stand for technology and we stand by the Australian people. 15:50 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond When it comes to climate change this government is a total debacle, particularly over the past week. The chaos and the circus we've seen, especially in the last few days from the National Party, all around their wilful inaction when it comes to climate change will be the National Party's shameful legacy. It is absolutely appalling that Australia today does not have a climate change policy. Acting on climate change is one of our nation's greatest challenges. It's also one of our nation's greatest opportunities. Yet they have all squandered that over the past eight years. In almost a decade they have squandered that. We're in this situation today because this Prime Minister never leads and is incapable of effective governance. We are also in this situation because the National Party are just wreckers. That is all they are. They have betrayed the people of rural and regional Australia. The Nationals have deprived regional Australia of all the economic and environmental benefits of acting on climate change. They are to blame. After nearly a decade in power and more than 20 policies what do they have to show for it standing here today? What do you have to show for it? Absolute chaos. That is not governing; that is rolling from crisis to crisis, from inaction to more in action. We are just a fortnight away from one of the most important international climate change conferences that we've seen in a very long time. The circus of the last few days involving the National Party is, quite frankly, embarrassing. That's the only word for it. Let's look at the National Party's actions in the last few days They had that partyroom meeting for four hours. They were saying they couldn't make any sudden decisions. You've had nearly have had a decade. It was appalling. Of course in that meeting there were cabinet ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister. They had a meeting for four hours about whether they would support a decision that had actually been made in cabinet previously. But, of course, the Prime Minister needed them to tick off and they couldn't make a decision. The Prime Minister wasn't even in the room. We were all held hostage to the National Party. That is embarrassing. They just don't understand how serious this issue is. We all know it's in Australia's economic and environmental interests to have action on climate change, including net zero by 2050 and a pathway to get there, because after this decade of inaction we have seen such environmental harm. We've seen job losses. We've seen lost economic activity—particularly in the regions we felt it the most. The fact is it's the people in regional and rural Australia who are paying the price for this wilful inaction with the droughts, the floods, the bushfires—so many natural disasters. We have seen falling farm productivity as well and falling profits. Yet the National Party's chaos, cuts and lies have resulted in nearly a decade of wilful inaction. This is despite that fact that it is rural and regional Australia that can benefit the most from the transition to renewables, to a more renewable economy. It is the regions that have suffered so much because of this wilful inaction. The National Party are stopping economic growth in the regions. They are stopping job creation in the regions. It is the National Party that are pushing up our power prices because of the inaction. That is their shameful legacy. In fact, the people of regional Australia are fed up with this Liberal-National government, fed up with their inaction and their division when it comes to climate change. People bring that up with me all the time. I fact, I asked the Prime Minister yesterday two very simple questions and he just couldn't answer those at all, not at all. He didn't have any information. This is a really serious issue. This government has never taken it seriously at all. It is not just about the environment; it is about our economy and it's about jobs and about future generations. And that's why it will only take a Labor government to take serious action on climate change. Our country deserves that. But this is a Prime Minister who never leads. He never governs. On bushfires he just said, 'I don't hold a hose, mate,' On the supply of vaccines he said, 'It's not a race.' That was appalling. Look at the consequences of that. On climate change he said, 'That's too hard. We'll let the Nats decide.' All we see is massive inaction. The fact is this Prime Minister, this government, the Liberals and the Nationals, have all betrayed the nation with their wilful inaction on climate change—especially the National Party. As I've said many times, National Party choices hurt and their decision not to take action on climate change over a decade has been devastating for regional Australia. The potential for economic growth and jobs has been lost by their wilful inaction. The people of the regions will remember that for a very long time to come. 15:55 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The Australian government's plan is driven by technology, and it's working extremely well. As we heard the Prime Minister say in question time today, emissions are down, at their lowest level ever, and at the same time jobs are up—in the middle of a pandemic. I really trust the Prime Minister to deliver on that. I certainly don't trust the shadow ministers or the Leader of the Opposition to deliver anything like that—not a hope in the world. I know that Australians can trust the Morrison government to get the plan right, to transition with the world to renewable energy and at the same time to maintain jobs. Do you know why I know that? Because the facts support the government. Australia's emissions are down to nearly 21 percent below 2005 levels. Emissions are 21 per cent lower than they were 16 years ago, when the population was lower. Not only that: emissions are lower than they were when emissions were first recorded, back in 1990—31 years ago. We are one of a handful of countries to beat our Kyoto-era commitments. So, the opposition can talk all they want, but the people who are listening to this broadcast can know that the facts are on the Morrison government's side. I regularly hear the perspective of Australia's young people, as Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services, and what young people want is for Australians to tackle these complex challenges together. They don't want to live in fear or to engage in polarising or divisive debate. Just yesterday I met with an impressive group of young Australians who represent Australia across the G20 countries, known as the Y20 youth leaders. They want inclusive action, sustainable action, education and innovation. They made some impressive recommendations, including a 10 per cent increase in current innovation spending by all G20 countries and support for community based green energy and smart microgrid networks—which those opposite, the Labor Party, all voted against recently and, as we heard from the minister today, they continue to vote against microgrids, continue to vote against small EV chargers and continue to vote against hydrogen with the government bill, which the member for McMahon, sitting right here opposite me, leads his party in voting against. Those opposite know it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for local people. You should talk to this shadow minister and get him to sign up. Around 30 per cent of young Australians who were surveyed feel that using renewable energy and favouring renewable energy providers are the most important individual behaviours to combat climate change, followed by reducing consumption of disposable goods. But what we get from those opposite and also what we get from the Greens and some of the Independents in this House is fearmongering. The member for Indi said on 9 August, in relation to youth, that we are handing over to them a world that is burning. First of all, that's just plain wrong. Second, it's alarmist. And third, it affects young people's mental health. The member for Mayo, who is sitting in the chamber, said yesterday that we are last in the world in relation to solar. Firstly, that is plain wrong. It is alarmist, and it affects people's mental health. In Petrie we have one of the highest uptakes of solar in the country. In fact, one in three houses in Petrie have solar, and I thank the members for neighbouring electorates for what they are doing in installing solar. So, some of those Independents have been hanging around the Greens for too long, and we're not having it. The member for Warringah—I won't even start, there. But I'd love it if just once the Independent members would maybe support the government, or maybe even do a three-minute speech on some of the good things that we're doing around climate, to help our young people understand. But let me tell those young people who are listening what this government, the Morrison government, is doing. We beat our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes. Emissions are now at the lowest level in the 31 years since records began. And between 2005 and 2019 emissions in Australia fell faster than in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the United States and the OECD average. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Thank you, member for Mallee. In 2020, a record 7,000 megawatts of renewables were installed in Australia. That's more than the entire six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments combined. That was done in one year. So there was more done in one year under the Morrison government than was done in six years of Labor. To the young people of Australia: the Morrison government is the right government. We will make sure that you are not taxed more and we will make the change that is needed. 16:00 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara [by video link] There is some talk of an early election. If you want to give the Australian people an indication of what governing under the Morrison-Joyce government is like you only need to look at the last 10 days. What a shambles it has been—what a ridiculous display of inertia, of dithering, of dysfunction and of absolute chaos between the Liberals and The Nationals. I say: if you are going to bring on an early election, Prime Minister, the Australian people are fortunate that they won't have to put up with this sort of rubbish that we are seeing from The Nationals and the Liberals right now. What a pathetic display of childish behaviour when we need leadership on the most difficult and important economic and environmental challenge of our time! The states and territories, the international community and the business community are moving way ahead of this government. The debate has moved on. No-one is arguing whether or not we should have net zero by 2050. Of course, we should. That's the baseline. That's the very bear minimum that we need to give ourselves a chance of keeping global temperatures below a 1.5 degree increase. It's the absolute minimum. And this government is at war with itself over whether or not it can even agree to that. The second-weakest leader in this country is the Deputy Prime Minister, who can't even get his own party room to agree to the baseline level that we need to commit to as a country as part of the global community. The weakest leader in the country is the guy who holds the top job, because he's being held to ransom by a bunch of crazies in the National Party. The people who hold the power in the coalition party room are not the modern Liberals—not the member for Mackellar, not the member for Goldstein, not the member for Wentworth, not the member for Reid and not the member for Higgins. They are irrelevant in the power distribution in the coalition. The people who have the power in the coalition are people like the member for Dawson and Senator Rennick and the other climate change deniers, like the Minister for Resources, who this morning he was asked, 'Do you even accept the science?' and he couldn't give a straight answer. He just said, 'The science is changing as it always has.' How pathetic! We need leadership right now and we need certainty. We need it because it is going to cost Australians jobs. It is going to cost our country economic development and opportunity, because of the dithering and the embarrassment that we have seen on display over the last week by the Liberals and Nationals, who are at war with each other. Instead of this ridiculous city-verse-country regional divide that the Liberals and Nationals are trying to manifest, why not put forward some sort of a credible policy that is able to incentivise the economic development that we can realise in this country? Look at projects like Sun Cable in the Northern Territory, where we are talking about potentially exporting a third of Singapore's energy via solar power. How exciting! We are talking about thousands and thousands of jobs. Look at the offshore wind project off the coast of Gippsland in Victoria, which is potentially going to replace all of the energy from some of our major coal-fired power stations. It's brilliant and also so labour intensive. These are jobs that we need to secure for our country, not ignore and just let roll along while the Liberals and Nationals are at war with each other. The Business Council of Australia are calling for a 2030 target of 50 per cent. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. The Business Council of Australia, as much as people might like to believe, are not a bunch of bleeding-heart lefties—like many on the government side like to call us on the Labor side. They are doing this because it's in Australia's economic interests. They are doing it because tackling climate change is the single-most important thing that we can do for the Australian economy, to set it up for the next 20 or 30 years. If we want to secure a future for our children—not just a future a planet that they can live on but a future economy that they can thrive in—we need to take this problem seriously. We need to turn up on the global stage with a credible plan. We need to put the climate wars behind us. Most importantly, we need to kick the dithering, dangerous, dysfunctional Liberals and Nationals out of office and install an Albanese Labor government to take it seriously. 16:05 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I rise to speak to this matter of public importance and to the Commonwealth government's track record on energy, climate change and emissions reduction. We on this side understand how important it is to have coordinated global effort to reduce emissions. Overcoming these challenges is a shared responsibility, and we are playing our part. Australia has a strong 2030 target and, unlike many countries, we are going to beat that target, just like we beat our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes. Between 2005 and 2019 Australia's emissions fell faster than those of Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and the United States. We are committed to the Paris Agreement and its goals as well as to achieving net zero emissions as soon as possible, preferably by 2050. We need to reach this target as soon as possible, but we need to ensure that regional Australia does not shoulder a majority of the burden. Regional Australians need assurances that their economic wellbeing will be protected in a move to net zero. Our government will do this through our Technology Investment Roadmap. Our plan is driven by technology, not taxes. Our commitment is clear—lower prices and keeping the lights on while doing our bit to reduce global emissions without wrecking the economy—and we are seeing results. We've already committed around $1.4 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emissions vehicle technologies. Through our Technology Investment Roadmap, we are backing the next generation of technologies that will deliver lower emissions, lower costs and more jobs. These are technologies like clean hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, low emissions steel and aluminium industries, healthy soils and energy storage. Over the next 10 years we will invest $20 billion in these technologies. This will drive at least $80 billion of total public and private investment and will support at least 160,000 new jobs. Australia's experience has been that when new technologies become economically competitive they are rapidly adopted by Australian businesses and households, including in regional communities. We are seeing that happen right now, with the adoption of renewables in Australia at 10 times the global average and four times higher than in China, Japan, the US and Europe. One in four homes in Australia have adopted solar—one of the highest rates in the world per capita. We have played a significant role in sharing this knowledge around the world. Our government will continue to support the kind of innovation that will help us solve this global challenge. That's why we have developed our Technology Investment Roadmap. In my electorate of Mallee the Commonwealth government has invested $15 million in a solar hydro power plant at Carwarp. This innovative project will help to solve the challenge of storing excess renewable energy. The Commonwealth government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation has also financed several major solar farms in the electorate, including in Kerang, Bannerton and Wemen, as well as Victoria's largest solar farm—the 200-megawatt Kiamal solar farm near Mildura. Taken together, the projects have the capacity to power over 220,000 homes. The projects in the Murray renewable energy zone in the north have been mapped by the Australian Energy Market Operator, encompassing more than 640 megawatts of solar-generation developments. To fully harness the power of renewables in our nation we need to focus on improvements to Australia's energy grid, and we are. That's why our government is investing in game-changing transmission projects, including the Western Victoria Transmission Network Project and the VNI West, both in Mallee. These projects will greatly benefit the renewables sector in Mallee. Their construction gives the private sector the confidence to invest in new renewables projects, as they know that our grid will support further generation. For example, RES Australia are constructing the massive Murra Warra wind farm just north of Horsham in my electorate. This is slated to be one of the largest wind farms in the country, and it wouldn't be viable without the Western Victoria Transmission Network Project. Mallee is positioned to be a national leader in renewables production and a key contributor to Australia's energy generation mix. I see a very exciting future for Mallee. I want to give a shout-out to our farmers, who are on the front foot in carbon emissions reductions. Indeed they are arguably our best environmentalists. They rely on our environment for their livelihood—it's in their interest—and, in turn, we rely on them for our food and fibre. This government is supporting farmers in Mallee through the agricultural and biodiversity stewardship— (Time expired) 16:10 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga After eight years in office, there is no climate policy. The way this PM works, it's like he's not in charge. Events just unfold around him, and all he can do in response is come up with a clever slogan, a stunt or, perhaps, a fear campaign. He doesn't do the hard work that our country needs to set us on the right path, to put the plan in place and to deal with the most pressing issue of our time. Instead, this week he is being led by the National Party room, who pretend they've had four hours to consider the most pressing issue of our time. They haven't had four hours; they've had more than a decade. They've had eight years in office. This is a farce. Apparently, net zero wasn't even discussed in the Liberal-National Party room today. The PM is talking like he might want net zero but is not doing the work to get us there. We can't trust he'll do the work to get us there. He's talking the talk, but there is nothing we see to back this up. In this country, we have wasted more than a decade on the climate wars. The IPCC report makes it very clear that the window is closing. If we do not take significant and serious action now, we will miss that window, and the consequences are there for all of us. We will not limit warming to the level that we need for us all to have a future. Those are real consequences for all of us. There are real economic consequences on the table for all of us. The jobs and the industries of the future—the jobs, industries and investment that we should have right now—are being lost in this country and are going offshore right now because this government and this Prime Minister cannot put a credible climate plan together. That's what's going on under this government. The PM's leadership failures do not just include his inability to do the hard work to put this country on the right track. It's also his inability to bring this country together to set out a plan that works for all of us and a future that all Australians can get behind. Instead, this Prime Minister allows members of his party room, senior members of his government, to stoke division in our country. He allows them to set up this false binary between regional areas and city areas to pretend that only people in regional areas are affected by climate change and only people in the city care about climate change. It's just not the case. Here's what the Deputy Prime Minister had had to say about my hometown of Melbourne. He said he 'couldn't really give a—expletive—' about Melbourne's pandemic challenges, and, when talking about our city, he said: You can almost smell the burning flesh from here. Well, I can tell the Deputy Prime Minister that people in my electorate do give an—expletive—about the jobs and the livelihoods of people in regional Australia. They get that the transition in this country has to support new opportunities and new industries in those regions. What they don't see from this government is the leadership and the plan that will get us there, and what they don't appreciate is the suggestion that their concerns are, somehow, of a lesser order and are not worthy of being considered as part of this debate. That is what they are hearing from this government this week in this place. People in my electorate get up every day, they go to work, they work hard, they look after the kids and they pay their mortgages. Senator Canavan is happy for these people to pay more for their mortgages, because he has an ideological problem with us acting on climate change. They need a leader. They need a government that is prepared to do the hard work for this entire country to put us on the track that we need to be on. They do not need a government playing the politics of fear and division. They do not need a Prime Minister who is about slogans and stunts but who can't follow through with a plan. It's been eight years. The kids who started primary school when this government first got elected are in high school. Others have finished high school. It's those kids' future we are talking about. This government has to come up with a credible plan. (Time expired) 16:15 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'd like to start my contribution by reading from a document. The first part is about an inland rail: One double-stacked container train would take 276 trucks off the road, save 100,000 litres of fuel and prevent thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere on a journey from Brisbane to Melbourne. A little bit further down in the same document: The way society reacts to the issue of climate change will impact greatly on regional Australia. As our country grapples with the extent and effects of climate change, we must remember that agriculture is the cure, not the disease. Farmers have been adapting to the variables of the Australian climate for many years. The adoption of advanced farming techniques, such as zero-till methods of crop production, best-practice management in the irrigation industry and advanced pasture management techniques … That document, 19 February 2008, happens to be my maiden speech to this House—nearly 14 years ago—so I will not be lectured by people on the other side about the concerns of adapting to climate change. Since that time, with the Inland Rail, in 10 days time the first grain train from Moree will go over a newly completed section of that line that is now well underway from Melbourne to Brisbane, delivering grain to the port in a much more efficient and effective manner. Since that speech, large-scale solar farms have been constructed, with the assistance of this federal government, at Broken Hill, Gunnedah, Moree, Nyngan and Nevertire, and a massive wind farm has been built at Silverton, west of Broken Hill, with proposals for a large battery to go in at Broken Hill to supplement it. I'll just say to the people opposite: you need to get out more. For the people of my electorate, this is not a philosophical debate about what you believe. They're actually doing it. They're living it. They're adapting, they're growing to it, and they will not be lectured about their inability to adapt to climate change. In 2020, last year, Australia invested $7.7 billion, which is equivalent to $299 per person, in renewables. That's ahead of Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the US. My electorate has the highest uptake of rooftop solar anywhere in the country, probably anywhere in the world. In places like Dubbo, 50 per cent of houses are covered by rooftop solar. We have irrigation farms that have large solar arrays, pumping water in conjunction with a hybrid diesel plant. On my own farm I have two solar arrays pumping water for livestock. In terms of the jobs that that are being proposed for the Parkes electorate, we have a lithium mine being proposed for the Fifield area, a cobalt mine being proposed for Broken Hill, a rare-earths mine at Toongi near Dubbo—thousands of jobs coming down the pipeline because of the direction, the investment and the guidance of this government. My great frustration during this debate has been that somehow we're at the starting line of adapting to climate change. This government has been doing this since day one. We have progressed right through. It might be fine for the other side to have a scare campaign. I listened to the members in the corner here, the member for Melbourne and the member for Warringah, but I don't see any evidence in their electorates that anyone is doing anything personally to adapt to climate change. If they really meant it, we would have an offshore windfarm at Manly, or maybe North Heads could be covered in solar panels, but we don't see that. The member for Melbourne lectures day after day. I've been there at night, and they don't even turn the lights off in their offices when they go home. This is a serious issue. This government has got in place policies for the future that are going to make sure that Australia not only is doing its bit but is actually leading the world in adapting to climate change. My electorate so far has a proud record—and will continue to do so—of reducing its emissions and making our planet a better place for future generations. I will not be lectured by people here who are treating this as some sort of high school debate on who believes in something more. We actually do things in my electorate; we don't just talk about it. 16:20 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie on indulgence—I just want to correct the record in relation to what I said about the member for Mayo. I said that she said that we are coming last in relation to solar, but she didn't say that. She said we should be leading the world. I just wanted to correct the record. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The time for the discussion has concluded. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS -1 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 -1 Disallowance -1

The House divided. [16:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 49 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wyatt, K. G. Zimmerman, T. M. 45 NOES Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Chesters, L. M. (proxy) Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Dick, D. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Freelander, M. R. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Khalil, P. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Connor, B. P. J. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. (Teller) Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Smith, D. P. B. Snowdon, W. E. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Treaties Joint Committee -1 Membership -1 16:30 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Rice has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that Senator Cox has been appointed a member of the committee. BILLS -1 BILLS Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021 -1

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

Returned from Senate -1 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 -1

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020

Second Reading -1 16:31 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan [by video link] The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 allows the courts to make an extended supervision order for high-risk terrorist offenders that applies for up to three years upon their release from prison. As those who have spoken before me on this bill would have noted, there is already a provision for post-sentencing powers that currently exist in the form of the continuing detention order. Since that bill was introduced, such an order has been issued only once. This is a less restrictive measure, but it applies where the court considers there is a high degree of probability that an offender will commit a terrorist offence. Under this order, unlike the continuing detention order, an offender would be released into the community at the end of their custodial sentence and be subject to a range of restrictive measures. I welcome this bill because all too often we have seen terrorist attacks being carried out by individuals who have already served a sentence for a terrorist offence or a terrorism related offence or who are known to security agencies. In November 2020, there was a terrorist attack in Vienna. That attack was carried out by an individual who had been previously sentenced to 22 months for trying to leave Vienna to join ISIS. He was known to police and he was known to security agencies across at least two countries. He was paroled after serving only eight months of his sentence, upon agreement that he would take part in a deradicalisation program. Despite being assessed as a high-risk terrorist offender and despite being assessed as still holding ideologies and still holding willingness and intent to commit a terrorist act, he was released from prison. Among the PJCIS recommendations on this bill is a recommendation to include an independent review of risk assessment tools that evaluate the risk of reoffending or continued offending for terrorist actors. I especially welcome this recommendation, and I'm pleased to see that the government has accepted this recommendation and will commission the Department of Home Affairs to carry out an independent review. Further examination and analysis of the assessment tools we use in assessing the risk of a terrorist act is absolutely essential. The Austrian terror actor was also subject to the same risk assessment protocols that we use here in Australia. He scored highly on the risk measure of expressed willingness to commit a terrorist act, but he was released because he willingly participated or agreed to participate in a deradicalisation program. This case highlights the need for a comprehensive review of how risk is assessed and the extent to which risk is assessed here in Australia as well as across other countries that use assessment tools for high-risk terrorist offenders. The bill before us today, I believe, is essential addition to the toolbox of agencies and ensuring community safety from terrorism, especially where there is no guarantee or absolute confidence that an individual has fully deradicalised and has the supports in place to remain deradicalised. The fact is that radicalisation and deradicalisation are not linear or discrete processes that can be assured through participation in a specific program or assessed with 100 per cent accuracy through the implementation of some kind of checklist or assessment tool. Radicalisation is not just a matter of individual psychology, and many of the terrorist psychologies and profiles that have been put forward in the past have been debunked purely and simply because they rely too much on the assessment of individuals' psychology. Equally, my previous criticisms of both assessment tools and deradicalisation programs are based on their focus on individual psychology, with no appreciation or no appreciable assessment of the social context or other push-and-pull factors in both radicalisation and deradicalisation. You can look at risk as an equation—an equation that has on one axis intent or willingness to carry out an attack and on another axis opportunity to carry out an attack. What this bill does in the absence of any perfect methodology or close-to-perfect methodology for assessing intent is remove opportunity. We also have here in Australia a dearth of the expertise that's needed to adequately assess and confidently evaluate the ongoing risk that a perpetrator poses to commit or further commit a terrorist attack. A report by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism at The Hague, published in 2019, looked at the different assessment methods for high-risk terrorist offenders and concluded that there was a lack of evaluation of those tools, including the tool that is used here in Australia to assess high risk offenders. The other factor is that the tool can actually be completed without ever having to interview the individual in question. Other tools that are available such as the ERG22+, which use the same methodology as the tool used here in Australia, can be completed by more than one assessor and can do so to eliminate subjectivity and ensure the robustness of the methodology. I welcome this legislation for a number of other reasons, not the least those that I have mentioned with regard to our capacity and the fact that we simply cannot with 100 per cent confidence assess whether or not a high-risk terrorist offender will continue to offend or will undertake to prepare or carry out another terrorist attack upon release from prison. I do welcome that the government has accepted most of the recommendations that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security put forward for this bill. I'm sure that the shadow Attorney-General has spoken at length about those recommendations and about the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security did on this bill and, in particular, on the recommendation about the condition imposed on those who become subject to the post sentencing powers included in this bill. I'm particularly looking forward, as I mentioned earlier, to the review that will be commissioned around our risk-assessment tools, and I welcome that the government has accepted most of those recommendations put forward. But I should also mention the government's departure from the recommendations that were put forward in September 2017 by the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Dr James Renwick, when he recommended the introduction of this extended supervision order regime. His recommendations were particularly around the standard of proof, recommending that it should be a high degree of probability and not on the balance of probabilities as provided for in the bill. I think it's important to make the point that the government has departed from the recommendation made by the PJCIS that we adopt in full the recommendations made by Dr Renwick in his review, including around the high degree of probability as the standard of proof for an extended supervision order. In closing, I commend this bill to the House. I also take the opportunity to commend the PJCIS chair and deputy chair—now former deputy chair—on the work that was put into this bill, as well as the other members of the PJCIS and the PJCIS secretariat. 16:41 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020. Keeping communities safe is one of the highest orders of government. One of our most important priorities as members of this place is to make sure that we keep our communities safe and free from harm. There are many threats which face our country. These are threats like the pandemic, which all of us have felt one way or another over the past two years. We face threats of climate change and the devastating impacts for our country. There are threats of poverty and violence. And, of course, there is the threat of terrorism. Terrorism poses a clear and substantial danger to the safety of our country and the wellbeing of our communities. Imposing smart, effective, proportionate policies to deal with the risk of terrorism and high-risk offenders should have been a priority of the Morrison government. It's disappointing that it has taken this long for the government to finally address this issue. The bill before the House seeks to implement a recommendation made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in 2017 to establish a federal extended supervision order regime. Under a supervision order an offender would be released from custody into the community at the end of their sentence but would be required to comply with prohibitions, restrictions and obligations that are, in the court's view, reasonably necessary and appropriate and adapted to protecting the community. The standard of proof that would apply to extended supervision orders would be on the balance of probabilities, as determined by the court, that that individual poses an unacceptable risk of committing serious terrorism offences. These extended supervision orders would allow for appropriate authorities to monitor those offenders deemed to be a high risk to the community. At present, state and territory Supreme Courts are able to make only continuing detention orders, and Federal Courts are unable to issue such a detention order, instead being allowed to make only control orders. This has resulted in a situation in which the states are able to bring in only continuing detention orders if they deem that individuals still may pose a risk to the community after their sentence, as opposed to being able to implement control orders, which would be equally effective and less persuasive. Allowing the state courts to make extended supervision orders would provide an effective means of protecting our communities from offenders deemed to be a high risk, without the need for ongoing detention of offenders after their sentences have concluded. At present, it's only the federal courts that are able to make ongoing order controls for high-risk offenders. As such, the primary benefit of this bill is its capacity to address the current lack of interoperability between continuing detention orders and control orders such as the ongoing supervision that this bill proposes due to the different jurisdictions from which these orders must be sought. As such, this bill provides a greater array of tools with which the courts may be able to ensure the safety of our community with regard to high-risk terrorist offenders and ensures the proportionality of post sentence orders. For issues that are complex, such as terrorism, it's essential that our state and federal courts have the greatest capacity possible to respond appropriately to those who may present a threat to this nation. We know that the threat of terrorism is real, and this bill has the capacity to significantly assist relevant jurisdictions in confronting and minimising the threat of terrorism to our country. But it is disappointing that after eight years in government the government is only now addressing such a substantial and concerning gap in the capacity of the courts to manage the risks associated with high-risk offenders. The procrastination of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments on issues such as this, which are of considerable concern to many Australians, is further evidence of the government's lack of urgency in addressing issues that are crucial to the safety of Australia. Australian safety, whether from COVID, future pandemics or indeed terrorism, should be treated as an issue of the highest priority to the federal government. Instead, as we've seen with so many issues that are important to the safety of this nation, the Morrison government has procrastinated on its responsibility to work in the best interests of Australians. It's always too little and always too late. This bill is fundamentally about ensuring that we have proportionate legislation with which to protect our communities. We face many threats as a country, and as members of parliament it's our duty to legislate to fill those gaps within existing public policy that put Australians at risk. As I said, it's disappointing that it's taken eight long years for this government to address such a substantial issue. It's never been more clear that an Albanese Labor government is in the best interests of Australians—a government that puts the interests of Australians first and acts quickly on the issues that pose a risk to the safety of our communities. Throughout time we have seen terrorism both onshore and offshore that's impacted the lives of Australians. It's so important that we make sure that those who commit these heinous crimes are held responsible and that those who do their time and do their punishment are monitored to ensure that we look after the values that Australia holds so dearly. But we need to know why. The government should explain why it's taken four years to get to this situation, after reports from its own supported committees have said there is a need for this and that we need to do it soon. The intelligence and security committee made those 11 unanimous and bipartisan recommendations. We know that most of those recommendations have been included in the bill and that the government broadly agrees with some of them. But we need to make sure they're all put in place. This is a paramount thing that we should be doing in this place—ensuring that our citizens are safe and our communities are stronger. The bipartisan work of the intelligence and security committee is so important. It shows that this place can work properly. But there's always that extra step of making sure the executive branch of the government in this country follows through on those things. The importance of the committee's work can never be underestimated. That's why Labor is going to support this bill, and we support the government amendments to implement the unanimous and bipartisan recommendations of the PJCIS. What we are saying is that if the government fails to move the amendments to implement one or more of the unanimous and bipartisan positions of the PJCIS then an Albanese Labor government will commit to implementing those recommendations if we win the next election, because we're on the side of Australians. We want to look after their safety and we want to see this nation prosper, and that will happen only with a government that works in the national interest, not in its own interest. Thank you. 16:49 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I have said this before in this place but I believe it bears repeating: as Australians we need to appreciate that the peaceful freedoms we currently enjoy are not given; they are hard fought and hard won and have been actively and, for the most part, successfully protected in recent years via our current counterterrorism measures. However, just as in the ways our freedom can be threatened has evolved so, too, we have to evolve in the way we protect those freedoms. And I respect and applaud this government's continued dedication to this fair and reasonable evolution. It's worth noting that, over the past two years—and a previous speaker mentioned this—going through COVID, I think we've generally forgotten the dangers that present themselves in the terrorism sphere. They haven't gone away. They're still there and they're still plotting. Very sadly, we saw that in the UK, and my thoughts and prayers go out to Sir David's Amess's family. It's tragic. Quite often we might sit back and think that that's something that happens somewhere else. But it's not; it happens here in our own backyard. This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020, provides for the adaptation of the key counterterrorism powers; namely, the creation of extended supervision orders, or ESOs, and complementary amendments to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Order) Bill 2020 that will continue to ensure the safety and security of all Australians. It is an uncomfortable fact that Australia's national terrorism threat level is 'probable'—which just reinforces what I've said about 'it is in our own backyard'—and it has remained as probable since 2014, despite the fantastic work that our security agencies have done. This means that, over the past seven years, there has been credible intelligence assessed by Australia's security agencies indicating that individuals and groups have not only the intent but also the capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. Over those seven years, 110 individuals have been charged as a result of 51 counterterrorism related investigations and there have been seven domestic attacks and 18 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attack planning within Australia—18. That's 18 times that our agencies have prevented death or injury on our streets—in our backyard. But it's equally uncomfortable that there are 13 convicted terrorist offenders due to be released back into the Australian community following the expiry of their custodial sentence between now and 2025—13 people who have committed offences, been convicted of those offences and put in jail to be released back into our communities. These released offenders can be highly radicalised, motivated and capable of engaging in further offending or, perhaps more worrying, inspiring and engaging others to do so. If we couple these uncomfortable truths with the role of technology in propagating violent extremist ideologies and the COVID-19 by-product of physical isolation increasing the access and reliance on technology for communication, it's not difficult to conclude that our current counterterrorism measures must be adapted in accordance with the risk that is currently posed to our nation. Unfortunately, we've seen that the rampant spread of misinformation during lockdowns and increasing unrest as a result of the government's measures imposed to fight the pandemic have provided extremists with fertile territory to exploit public fear and radicalise other vulnerable individuals. That is the cesspit of what we call social media and the dark web. In essence, this bill is seeking to expand the available legislative implements that the Supreme Court and the AFP currently have at their disposal. There are currently two defined options for managing terrorist offenders. The first is continuing detention orders. A court may impose that a person remain detained where they pose an unacceptable risk to the community and where that risk cannot be addressed through less restrictive means. The second option is a controlled order, which places conditions on a person in the community. It's worth noting that on a state or territory basis that's not an unusual thing. In a former life I acted for people sentenced to terms of imprisonment and the parole system allowed for restrictions or impositions on those people. That is effectively what we're doing here. It's not something new or something radical. It takes into account the offender's state of mind and the assessment of how the objective view of that offender rates. It should be noted that these orders are not tailored for the post-sentence context, as they allow for only a very limited and defined set of conditions and are issued by different courts to continuing detention orders. The first key additions to the current options that this bill seeks to introduce are extended supervision orders, ESOs, and interim supervision orders, ISOs, to complement the current continuing detention orders. ESOs have been specifically devised to ensure that high-risk terrorist offenders can be appropriately managed in the community at the end of their custodial sentence. In essence, ESOs are more flexible and tailored in nature than a blanket CDO, ensuring that each of the conditions imposed on the offender is reasonable, necessary, appropriate and adaptive to address the risk to the community of the offender committing a serious terrorism offence. The Supreme Court may then issue an ESO for a period of three years. That can be reviewed if necessary at that time. The bill sets out the general conditions that could form part of an ESO and these relate to restrictions of matters, such as the movement or travel of the offender; travel documents; licences; communications, particularly the use of telecommunications or precluding them from using telecommunications; education; and rehabilitation. One would think these things are appropriate and reasonable to impose on somebody who has been convicted of a serious criminal terrorism offence. In addition to those matters I just read out, ESOs have the ability to impose a number of prohibitions in relation to alcohol, drugs and weapons—which is very reasonable—and, most importantly, obtaining foreign or Australian travel documents. If we put into context the amendments that this bill will bring about, for the 13 convicted offenders due to be released up till 2025 they are not, in my view, harsh or heavy-handed restrictions, particularly when we look at what's at stake—the safety of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sadly, we saw attacks in New Zealand and the UK. It's good to see that there has been a bipartisan approach on the committee, despite some of the comments from the last speaker. Earlier today Dr Aly made a very good contribution to the bill. In the context of the offenders' initial crimes, these measures are proportionate and necessary. The fact that, through an ESO, these restrictions and prohibitions can be tailored in direct response to the level of risk should be comfort to those who have some suspicions about the imposition on the civil rights of offenders who have served their time. The bill also amends the international production orders regime, which was introduced in 2020, allowing for improved cross-border access to communications data for law enforcement agencies, and we have seen that work so effectively in recent months. These amendments will ensure that agencies are able to obtain international production orders for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the extended supervision orders. In conclusion, I believe—and I will always say this—our country is worth protecting. I would ask any detractors of this important bill to ask themselves if they truly share that belief. The national terrorism threat level is 'probable', and it has been there for seven years. I applaud this government's determination and commitment to ensuring the ongoing safety of all Australians. 17:01 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling The very first role of government is to protect the safety and security of its citizens. As hard as it is to believe, it is a fact that there are those who are opposed to our way of life, our freedom and our values. Amongst that cohort are those who have the intent and the capability to do us harm. It is against those threats which this deal, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020, is directly aimed. This bill will ensure that our agencies have the powers that they need to respond to the evolving threat of terrorism, and this reflects, in turn, our government's absolute and steadfast commitment to the ongoing safety and security of all Australians. In the current security environment, having a range of tools to combat the evolving nature of terrorism is absolutely vital. Indeed, experience overseas has demonstrated that the continuing threat posed by extremists, including those who have already served sentences for terrorism offences, is very real. The 2019 London Bridge attack and the 2020 Streatham attack in the UK were carried out by convicted offenders, highlighting the continued need for effective prevention and risk-management measures to protect our communities. This bill enhances the safety and security of all Australians by creating extended supervision orders, or ESOs, and these will ensure that high-risk terrorist offenders can be appropriately managed in the community at the end of their custodial sentence. The Supreme Court will be able to impose an ESO for up to three years at a time if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities and on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence. The court will be able to impose any condition on an offender that it considers proportionate to the risk that the offender poses. This bill also provides agencies with the necessary tools to monitor compliance with these orders and to protect sensitive national security information and ESO proceedings. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has considered the bill and made 11 recommendations, 10 of which will be accepted in whole, in part or in principle by the government. The bill will establish an extended supervision order scheme for high-risk terrorist offenders who continue to pose an unacceptable risk to the community at the expiration of their custodial sentences. Having people subject to ongoing constraints and even restrictions following the completion of their judicial sentence is not something that is done lightly. It is obviously a principle of fairness that we need to be very considerate and very cautious in our use of such provisions. But, as other speakers before me have pointed out, our first role is to protect the safety and security of Australian citizens. Where those risks are real and imminent, we must continue to act. This will ensure that such offenders are subject to close supervision in proportion to the level of risk that they pose to community safety. That hinges on the flexibility that will be enabled by this bill, which I touched on earlier. Terrorist offenders are typically highly radicalised and often do not change their extremist views whilst in prison despite deradicalisation efforts. Such offenders continue to pose a high risk to the community following their release. Currently, there are two options for managing such offenders. The first is a continuing detention order under which a court may order that the person remain detained when they pose an unacceptable risk to the community and where that risk cannot be addressed through less restrictive measures. The second option is called a 'control order', and this allows conditions to be placed on a person whilst they are in the community. These orders, however, are not tailored for the post-sentence context as they allow only for a defined set of conditions and are issued by different courts to continuing detention orders. This then creates an issue of interoperability whereby the court considering an application for a continuing detention order is not able to impose conditions on the offender where it is not satisfied that a threshold for the continuing detention order is met. As identified by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, there is a need for a tailored option for managing the risk posed by offenders who are released into the community where a continuing detention order is not made. By way of further overview of this bill, under an ESO the court may impose any conditions that it is satisfied are reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted for the purpose of protecting the community from the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious terrorism offence. In creating ESOs the bill will broaden the range of measures available to address the risk of terrorism to the Australian community. The government has put in place robust legal frameworks to provide agencies with appropriate powers, including control orders, preventative detention orders and emergency stop, search and seizure powers. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has recently reported following its consideration of these powers and recommended that they be continued. This bill will add further to that framework with a measure that addresses the specific risks posed by convicted terrorist offenders. As we've seen from the recent terror attack in New Zealand and similar attacks in the United Kingdom, convicted terrorist offenders can pose a very real risk to our communities. Protecting the community from such risk remains our government's highest priority. There are of necessity some amendments that will be required to other related legislation, which I'll now touch on. The bill amends other legislation to support the effective implementation of the extended supervision order scheme. To ensure the compliance of an offender with the extended supervision order, the bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to extend the existing regime of monitoring warrants for control orders to also include extended supervision orders and interim supervision orders. These amendments will allow law enforcement to monitor the compliance of an offender either with their consent or with a search warrant for their premises or person. Amendments to Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 will allow law enforcement to obtain warrants for electronic surveillance to monitor compliance with supervision orders and inform the minister's decision as to whether to apply for post-sentence orders. The bill also amends the international production order regime, which was introduced through the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020, to allow for improved cross-border access to communications data for law enforcement agencies. These amendments will ensure that agencies are able to obtain international production orders for the purpose of monitoring compliance with extended supervision orders. The bill amends the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 to extend existing provisions which apply to control order proceedings, to allow the court to consider sensitive information in extended supervision order proceedings without that information being disclosed to the offender or their legal representative. This is important, because it will ensure that the process of applying for an extended supervision order does not inadvertently and harmfully reveal sensitive sources, which is of the utmost importance in custodial environments. To ensure that the offender receives a fair hearing, the bill extends the special advocate regime which is currently in place for control order proceedings. The bill expressly prohibits the court from considering court-only evidence in determining whether to make a continuing detention order, as is currently the case. Since this bill was introduced, in September 2020, the government has considered potential issues which may arise in the practical application of control orders and continuing detention orders. The government amendments to the bill would address those issues by, firstly, clarifying how control orders and extended supervision orders operate when a person is subject to immigration detention and other forms of custody, and, secondly, providing that control orders and extended supervision orders are the only measures that may be considered by a state or territory Supreme Court when deciding whether there is a measure less restrictive than a CDO that would be effective in preventing the offender's unacceptable risk of committing a serious part 5.3 offence. These amendments are necessary to ensure that these orders are as effective as possible in addressing the risk posed by terrorist offenders. The government amendments have been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The government amendments also respond to recommendations made by the committee following its detailed consideration of the bill. The committee made a total of 11 recommendations, and the government has accepted 10 of those in part, in full or in principle. The bill, including the government amendments, has been approved by a majority of states and territories, in accordance with the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws. In conclusion: this bill ensures that our agencies have the powers they need to respond to the evolving threat of terrorism, whilst also reflecting the Morrison government's absolute and ongoing commitment to the preservation of the safety and security of all Australians. 17:12 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this very important bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020. Protecting the community from terrorist threats is and will continue to be one of this government's highest priorities. With a number of convicted terrorist offenders due to complete their custodial sentences of imprisonment in the next five years, the need for effective risk management measures to keep our community safe is obviously greater than ever. This bill will therefore be an important addition to the government's response to protect the community and, of course, to protect Australians from the threat of terrorism. The extended supervision orders will complement and add to the existing tools available to manage high-risk terrorist offenders at the end of their custodial sentence. This bill will also ensure that law enforcement agencies have access to appropriate warrants to monitor an offender's compliance with these orders while they are in the community. It will also ensure that sensitive national security information is protected when it is necessary to rely on that information when applying for an extended supervision order. I would particularly like to thank all of my colleagues on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, as well as senators, for their detailed consideration of this bill. I also want to thank colleagues across the parliament for recognising the need for these important changes. Again, the bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to protecting Australians from the threat of terrorists and ensuring that our law enforcement and security agencies have all the powers they need to respond to the evolving threat of terrorism. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail -1 17:15 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I also ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (79), as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I move government amendments (1) to (79): (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 to 13), omit the definition of detained in custody in subsection 100.1(1), substitute: detained in custody has the meaning given by subsection (3A). (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 13), after the definition of detained in custody in subsection 100.1(1), insert: detained in custody in a prison has the meaning given by subsection (3B). detained in non-prison custody has the meaning given by subsection (3C). immigration detention has the same meaning as in the Migration Act 1958. (3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 3, insert: 3A Before subsection 100.1(2) of the Criminal Code Insert: Elements of the definition of terrorist act 3B After subsection 100.1(3) of the Criminal Code Insert: Definition of detained in custody etc. (3A) A person is detained in custody if the person is detained in custody under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (3B) A person is detained in custody in a prison if the person is detained in custody in a gaol, lock-up or remand centre, including under a continuing detention order or interim detention order. However, a person is not detained in custody in a prison if the person is in immigration detention in a gaol, lock-up or remand centre. (3C) A person is detained in non-prison custody if the person is detained in custody, but is not detained in custody in a prison. Note: An example of a person who is detained in non-prison custody is a person who is in immigration detention (whether in a gaol, lock-up, remand centre or otherwise). References to person, property or public (4) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 13), after item 6, insert: 6A Subsection 104.2(5) of the Criminal Code (note) Repeal the note, substitute: Note: An interim control order in relation to a person who is detained in custody in a prison does not begin to be in force until the person ceases to be detained in custody in a prison (see paragraph 104.5(1)(d) and subsection 104.5(1D)). (5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 15), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (6) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (after line 17), at the end of subsection 104.5(1D), add: Note: An interim control order in relation to a person who is detained in non-prison custody begins to be in force when the order is served personally on the person (see paragraph (1)(d)). (7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 18), after "control order", insert "referred to in subsection (1D)". (8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 21), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (after line 29), at the end of subsection 104.5(1E), add: Note: Persons detained in non-prison custody are taken to be in the community (see section 105A.18AA). (10) Schedule 1, item 28, page 11 (line 19), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (11) Schedule 1, item 28, page 11 (after line 25), at the end of subsection 104.15(5), add: Note: Persons detained in non-prison custody are taken to be in the community (see section 105A.18AA). (12) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 20), after item 30, insert: 30A Section 104.27 of the Criminal Code Before "A person", insert "(1)". (13) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 26), after item 31, insert: 31A At the end of section 104.27 of the Criminal Code Add: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person contravenes the order because the person is detained in non-prison custody. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2). See subsection 13.3(3). (14) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 15), after item 37, insert: 37A Section 104.28B of the Criminal Code Repeal the section, substitute: 104.28B Giving documents to persons detained in custody (1) A document that is required under this Division to be given to a person (the detainee) personally who is detained in custody is taken to have been given to the detainee at the time referred to in paragraph (3)(b) if the document is given to the following person (the recipient): (a) the legal representative of the detainee; (b) if the detainee does not have a legal representative—the chief executive officer (however described) of the prison or other facility in which the person is detained, or a delegate of the chief executive officer. Note: The obligation to inform the detainee of the matters referred to in paragraphs 104.12(1)(b), 104.17(1)(b) and 104.26(1)(b) and (c) might not apply if it is impracticable for an AFP member to comply with the obligation (see subsections 104.12(3A), 104.17(2A) and 104.26(3A)). (2) The recipient must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give the document to the detainee personally. (3) Once the recipient has done so, the recipient must notify the Court and the person who gave the recipient the document, in writing: (a) that the document has been given to the detainee; and (b) of the day that document was so given. (15) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 29), after item 47, insert: 47A Paragraph 105.26(5)(b) of the Criminal Code After "custody", insert ", and detained in custody,". (16) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 31), after item 53, insert: 53A Section 105A.2 of the Criminal Code (definition of prison ) Omit "or other place of detention", substitute "or remand centre". (17) Schedule 1, item 59, page 20 (line 18), omit "detained in custody", substitute "imprisoned". (18) Schedule 1, item 59, page 20 (line 21), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (19) Schedule 1, item 59, page 20 (line 27), omit "detained in custody", substitute "imprisoned". (20) Schedule 1, item 59, page 20 (line 30), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (21) Schedule 1, item 59, page 21 (line 1), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (22) Schedule 1, item 59, page 21 (line 4), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (23) Schedule 1, item 59, page 21 (line 7), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (24) Schedule 1, item 59, page 21 (line 9), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (25) Schedule 1, item 59, page 21 (line 25), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (26) Schedule 1, item 59, page 21 (line 32), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (27) Schedule 1, item 59, page 22 (line 17), omit "detained in custody", substitute "imprisoned". (28) Schedule 1, item 59, page 22 (line 20), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (29) Schedule 1, item 59, page 22 (line 23), after "custody", insert "in the prison". (30) Schedule 1, item 59, page 23 (line 1), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (31) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 34), after item 59, insert: 59A Subsection 105A.4(1) of the Criminal Code After "detained in", insert "custody in". (32) Schedule 1, item 69, page 26 (line 2), omit "and". (33) Schedule 1, item 69, page 26 (after line 2), at the end of paragraph 105A.5(3)(d), add: (iv) if the offender is subject to an order under a law of a State or Territory that is equivalent to a post-sentence order—a copy of that order; and (34) Schedule 1, item 77, page 26 (line 27), omit "prison", substitute "custody". (35) Schedule 1, item 82, page 29 (after line 21), after paragraph 105A.6B(1)(h), insert: (ha) whether the offender is subject to any order under a law of a State or Territory that is equivalent to a post-sentence order, and if so, the conditions of the order; (36) Schedule 1, item 84, page 30 (lines 1 to 10), omit the item, substitute: 83A Paragraph 105A.7(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) the Court is satisfied that there is no less restrictive measure available under this Part that would be effective in preventing the unacceptable risk. 84 Subsection 105A.7(1) of the Criminal Code (notes 1 and 2) Repeal the notes, substitute: Note 1: The rules of evidence and procedure for civil matters apply when the Court has regard to matters in accordance with section 105A.6B, as referred to in paragraph (1)(b) of this section (see subsection 105A.6B(3) and section 105A.13). Note 2: For paragraph (1)(c), an example of a less restrictive measure that is available under this Part is an extended supervision order. A court can make an extended supervision order under section 105A.7A even if a continuing detention order was applied for (see subsection 105A.6A(1)). (37) Schedule 1, item 86, page 30 (line 35), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (38) Schedule 1, item 87, page 31 (lines 25 to 29), omit paragraph 105A.7A(1)(c), substitute: (c) the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that: (i) each of the conditions; and (ii) the combined effect of all of the conditions; to be imposed on the offender by the order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from that unacceptable risk. (39) Schedule 1, item 87, page 32 (line 20), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (40) Schedule 1, item 87, page 33 (lines 6 to 14), omit subsection 105A.7B(1) (including the note), substitute: (1) The conditions that a Court may impose on a terrorist offender by an extended supervision order or interim supervision order are: (a) any conditions that the Court is satisfied; and (b) those conditions whose combined effect the Court is satisfied; on the balance of probabilities, are reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious Part 5.3 offence. Note: The Court may, under section 105A.7C, specify conditions from which exemptions may be granted. (1A) If the terrorist offender is subject to an order under a law of a State or Territory that is equivalent to a post-sentence order, the Court must consider the conditions under that State or Territory order in imposing conditions in accordance with subsection (1). (41) Schedule 1, item 87, page 33 (after line 32), after subsection 105A.7B(2), insert: (2A) A condition imposed under this section must not require the offender to remain at specified premises for more than 12 hours within any 24 hours. (42) Schedule 1, item 87, page 34 (lines 14 and 15), omit "but for no more than 12 hours within any 24 hours", substitute "subject to subsection (2A)". (43) Schedule 1, item 92, page 42 (line 25), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (44) Schedule 1, item 95, page 45 (line 25), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (45) Schedule 1, item 95, page 46 (before line 5), before subsection 105A.9B(1), insert: Requirement to apply for variation (1A) If the AFP Minister is satisfied that a condition in an extended supervision order or interim supervision order in relation to a terrorist offender is no longer reasonably necessary, or reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious Part 5.3 offence, the Minister or a legal representative of the Minister must apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory to vary, under section 105A.9C, the order by: (a) removing the condition; or (b) varying the condition. Note 1: The AFP Minister or legal representative may also apply under subsection (1) for other variations of the order, including adding conditions. Note 2: A copy of the application must be given to the offender under section 105A.14A. (46) Schedule 1, item 95, page 46 (line 5), omit "apply", substitute "otherwise apply". (47) Schedule 1, item 95, page 46 (line 6), after "may", insert "(subject to subsection (1A))". (48) Schedule 1, item 95, page 46 (line 19), omit "The application", substitute "An application under subsection (1A) or (1)". (49) Schedule 1, item 95, page 46 (line 23), before "(1)", insert "(1A) or". (50) Schedule 1, item 95, page 48 (line 4), omit "subsections 105A.9B(1) and (2)", substitute "subsection 105A.9B(1A) or (1), and subsection (2),". (51) Schedule 1, item 102, page 51 (line 18), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (52) Schedule 1, item 102, page 51 (line 19), after "detention", insert "in the prison". (53) Schedule 1, item 121, page 60 (line 19), omit "prison", substitute "custody". (54) Schedule 1, page 60 (after line 19), after item 121, insert: 121A Subsection 105A.15(1) of the Criminal Code Omit "in a prison", substitute "in custody". 121B Paragraph 105A.15(1)(b) of the Criminal Code After "prison", insert "or other facility in which the offender is detained". (55) Schedule 1, item 122, page 60 (lines 20 to 25), omit the item, substitute: 122 Paragraph 105A.15A(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Omit "continuing detention order", substitute "post-sentence order". (56) Schedule 1, page 61 (after line 4), after item 126, insert: 126A Section 105A.18 of the Criminal Code (heading) Omit "release of terrorist offender", substitute "sentences ending or orders ceasing to be in force". (57) Schedule 1, item 132, page 62 (line 3), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (58) Schedule 1, item 132, page 62 (lines 7 and 8), omit "being released from custody or despite the period for which the order is in force ending", substitute "the event in subsection (1) occurring". (59) Schedule 1, page 62 (after line 8), after item 132, insert: 132A After section 105A.18 of the Criminal Code Insert: 105A.18AA Persons in non-prison custody taken to be in the community A person who is detained in non-prison custody is, for the purposes of this Part, taken to be in the community. (60) Schedule 1, item 133, page 63 (after line 14), at the end of section 105A.18A, add: (3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the contravention of the condition or direction occurs because the person is detained in non-prison custody. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3). (61) Schedule 1, item 134, page 64 (line 12), before "detention", insert "prison". (62) Schedule 1, item 134, page 64 (line 13), before "detention", insert "prison". (63) Schedule 1, item 134, page 64 (line 16), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (64) Schedule 1, item 134, page 64 (line 17), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (65) Schedule 1, item 134, page 64 (line 20), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (66) Schedule 1, item 149, page 70 (line 10), after "detained", insert "in custody". (67) Schedule 1, item 149, page 70 (line 19), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (68) Schedule 1, item 151, page 71 (after line 12), after subsection 106.11(1), insert: (1A) The amendments of section 104.27 made by Schedule 1 to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Act 2020 apply in relation to conduct occurring after this section commences. (69) Schedule 1, item 151, page 71 (line 24), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (70) Schedule 1, item 151, page 71 (line 34), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (71) Schedule 1, page 82 (after line 14), after item 188, insert: Intelligence Services Act 2001 188A After paragraph 29(1)(bb) Insert: (bbaaa) to commence a review, within the period of 12 months after the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor completes a review under subsection 6(1C) of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, into the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 105A of the Criminal Code (which provides for post-sentence orders in relation to terrorism) and any other provision of the Criminal Code Act 1995 as it relates to that Division; and 188B Paragraph 29(1)(cb) Repeal the paragraph. (72) Schedule 1, item 215, page 89 (line 12), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (73) Schedule 1, item 221, page 91 (line 27), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (74) Schedule 1, item 222, page 92 (line 26), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (75) Schedule 1, item 240, page 99 (line 3), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (76) Schedule 1, item 315, page 115 (line 12), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (77) Schedule 1, item 328, page 119 (line 16), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (78) Schedule 1, item 351, page 123 (line 32), after "custody", insert "in a prison". (79) Schedule 1, item 362, page 127 (line 27), after "custody", insert "in a prison". Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading -1 17:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES -1 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee -1 Reporting Date -1 17:17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to the following resolution: That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System be extended to 16 December 2021. The Senate requests concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee. Ordered that the message be considered immediately. 17:17 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That the House concur with the resolution of the Senate. Question agreed to. BILLS -1 BILLS Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 -1

Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021

Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021

Second Reading -1 17:19 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today to confirm Labor's support for the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021. These bills are the enabling legislation to implement the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. In doing so, I move the second reading amendment that will be circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the need for transparency in trade agreement negotiations such as the Government's current negotiations in relation to trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union articulated in Report 193 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties; (b) reports that labour market testing waivers were a feature of RCEP negotiations and are under consideration in current and ongoing trade negotiations, which would harm Australian workers and our ability to recover from the COVID-19 global pandemic; and (c) the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Recommendation 2 of Report 196, which calls on the Government to continue to pursue the restoration of civilian, democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority, and consider making a declaration to this effect at the time of ratification; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) adopt the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in relation to Myanmar, introduce Magnitsky-style laws to place targeted sanctions on regime leaders, and use all possible international fora to condemn violent repression of protests by the military leadership; and (b) adopt and implement the recommendations of JSCOT Report 193". The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—or RCEP, as it is known—was signed on 15 November 2020 by 15 countries: each of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN countries, which includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as the five non-ASEAN countries of Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. These countries make up 29 per cent of world GDP and 30 per cent of the world's population. RCEP is, simply put, the biggest trade agreement in history, taking in one-third of global trade. Negotiations for RCEP started in 2012 at the 21st ASEAN summit in Cambodia. Former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Labor trade minister Craig Emerson commenced negotiations for RCEP on behalf of Australia. From the very beginning, Labor has supported Australia being actively involved in the negotiation of this extraordinary example of regional trade infrastructure which was, very importantly, led by ASEAN itself. This trade bloc of our own region's creation will be bigger than the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement of US, Mexico and Canada. RCEP reflects the dynamism of the region in which we live. It is not just a big deal for the world; it is a big deal with for Australia. It includes nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners and economies, which account for 58 per cent of Australia's two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports. Ratifying RCEP will mean that Australia has a seat at the table in the biggest trade agreement in the world. Importantly, Australia will be able to influence the rules as the agreement continues to develop. Once delivered and ratified by all countries concerned, RCEP will rank behind only the World Trade Organization itself in its significance. In essence, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement strengthens the rules already developed through a number of Australia's existing free trade agreements and creates new regional architecture for economic activity, with the potential to act as a forum for ongoing dialogue and cooperation. Further, RCEP includes core investment protections; rules requiring payment of compensation where an investment is expropriated; a minimum standard of treatment of investors under international law; and compensation for losses due to conflict and civil strife. The agreement provides avenues for tackling non-tariff barriers, including areas such as quarantine and technical standards, by promoting compliance with WTO rules and further improving cooperation and transparency. Importantly, RCEP supports economic capacity building and, in particular, provides a dedicated chapter addressing the capability of small and medium-sized enterprises in the region set to benefit from the agreement. These protections and transparency provisions will provide greater certainty and confidence to Australian businesses looking to invest in the region. The advantage of RCEP is that it provides a single set of rules for exporters to use rather than having to rely on the multiplicity of different rules and procedures under our existing free trade agreements. This opens up opportunities for Australian exporters looking to utilise regional supply chains. Regional supply value chains are an essential component of the contemporary global economy. They are cross-border industrial networks producing goods where countries specialise in different stages of production associated with a finished product. RCEP, as a trading bloc, will render such value chains cheaper and easier to access for all Australian companies. As a multilateral trade agreement, RCEP is designed to streamline these rules, standards and procedures, encouraging the development of deeper value chains. For example, businesses will be able to use a 'made in RCEP' origin certificate with standardised rules for how much local content is needed to qualify. Even though there may be bilateral FTAs between nations, businesses with global supply chains may yet have higher tariffs or restrictions because some component parts are made elsewhere. For example, an Indonesian-made product may have components from Australia or China and, therefore, face tariffs applied elsewhere in the ASEAN free trade zone, but, with RCEP, all components from any member nations will be treated equally. This provides an enormous incentive for businesses in the RCEP countries to look within the 15-nation bloc for suppliers to contribute to their product. In this context, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement will possibly make the Indo-Pacific the most attractive location to build value chains in the global economy, and a strong, vibrant and prosperous Indo-Pacific is good for Australia. As an open-trading nation, Australia has been the beneficiary of the multilateral, rules based trading system that has operated for decades. Labor recognises that Australia's security and prosperity rely on our continued economic engagement with the world and integration with our region, including through trade and investment. International trade creates jobs. One in five Australian workers, more than two million people, are employed in a trade-related activity. Labor know that open trade will be an integral component of Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and we acknowledge that open trade agreements and comprehensive economic partnerships have become matters of strategic and geopolitical significance. Labor will at all times act in the national interest and in accordance with Australia's international obligations in dealing with open trade agreements and comprehensive economic partnerships. As the WTO body stagnates and reform is stalled, regional agreements such as the RCEP are integral to creating an even playing field between Australia and its trading partners around the world, particularly in our vibrant region, from which our future prosperity will be earned. But Labor knows that the community is rightly sceptical about this government's approach to economic change and trade agreements. We all know the Liberals and Nationals treat trade agreements like trophies to put on a shelf: ink the deal, get dressed up for the photo-op, but then have no follow-up. So I'd like to take this opportunity to reflect upon Labor's approach to international trade and trade agreements. We would do things differently while pursuing an open trade agenda. A future Albanese Labor government would promote Australia's international competitiveness, maintain a commitment to an open economy and work to increase the volume of Australia's trade with other nations. Labor has a long record as an advocate for an open global trading system. Reducing barriers to trade creates more competitive industries and benefits consumers through lower prices and greater choice. Trade is a pathway to a high-skills, high-wages future for working Australians. Labor will set out an ambitious open trade agenda in government aimed squarely at increasing the complexity of our exports in order to create more well-paid, secure jobs, strengthen economic resilience and ensure that every trade deal we sign will increase the living standards of the Australian people. Labor will promote services-sector innovation and identify the capabilities needed to establish Australia as a leading global trade and services economy. The benefits of trade can and must be shared fairly, both at home and abroad. Labor will invest in education, training, skills and innovation, building Australia's national infrastructure and promoting the health and welfare of the community so that Australians can benefit from the opportunities created by trade. When multilateral trade negotiations, such as those of the WTO, are not making satisfactory progress, Labor will consider high-quality regional or bilateral trade agreements that are in Australia's national interests and that support the multilateral trading system. We are committed to trade policies consistent with Australian values of justice and equality, community views, workers' rights and the interests of developing countries. Trade agreements must be consistent with Australia's social and economic values, be based on widespread consultation, provide for appropriate minimum and enforceable labour and environmental standards, take account of social and economic impacts and allow sovereign governments to make decisions and implement policies in the interests of their citizens. Economic growth has been good for developing countries, but, in many economies, these benefits have not been fairly shared. More equal economic growth will create decent jobs, lifting people out of poverty and giving them economic dependence while supporting human rights. RCEP as it stands does not have an environment chapter or a labour chapter. When Labor was last in government, the then trade minister, Craig Emerson, sought to include these provisions; however, other RCEP members were not amenable to this. Prime Minister Gillard, Trade Minister Emerson and the Labor government at the time rightly decided to proceed with negotiations, despite the setback, to ensure Australia continued to be involved in the creation of regional trade architecture. Opting out and retreating to the sidelines were absolutely not an option, and to do so would have set back Australia's relationship with ASEAN significantly. The intent of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is capacity building, bringing emerging economies up in line with established economies like ours. This stands in contrast to other more ambitious agreements with developed economies which do include labour chapters with enforceable international labour standards. However, RCEP does include ratchet measures, with the ability to continue to develop provisions in these areas through successive reviews over time, and Australia must participate actively in those reviews in the future. Labor does not support arrangements that undermine the Australian government's capacity to govern in the interest of all Australians, including any provisions that remove Australia's protection of local jobs through regulation of temporary work; that waive labour market testing; that further limit the capacity of governments to procure goods and services locally; that require the privatisation or contestability of public services; that undermine Medicare, the public health system and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; that undermine state or Commonwealth workplace laws or occupational licensing arrangements or laws that relate to antidumping. I have sought and have received clear written advice from the trade minister that RCEP does none of these things and that ratifying the agreement will not undermine the Australian government's capacity to govern in the interest of all Australians. I can confirm that RCEP does not expand waivers of labour market testing for foreign workers. Stakeholders have rightly queried the inclusion of an instrument in the Migration Act which mentions a change to our domestic market testing regime. I've clarified with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that this is a technical measure and there are no changes to labour market testing in this country as a result of participating in this Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Indeed, the instrument under the Migration Act foreshadowed in the national interest assessment establishes that the obligations set out in RCEP form part of Australia's legal obligations. Such instruments are made under the Migration Act for every international trade agreement Australia enters into. To be clear, RCEP does not restrict Australia's domestic procurement arrangements at any level of government. It does not require privatisation of any Australian Public Service, nor does it undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. RCEP does not undermine state or Commonwealth workplace laws, occupational licensing arrangements, nor does it undermine Australia's antidumping regime. It does not include provisions that limit the right of the Commonwealth to regulate in the interests of public welfare in relation to safe products and there are no investor-state dispute settlement provisions. I would like to take a moment to commend the work of civil society and the trade union movement in steering this government away from implementing ISDS as a base for dispute settlement in trade negotiations. The fact that we are seeing ISDS less and less in our international treaties is a testament to the tireless campaigning of the ACTU, AFTINET and others. Recent media reports that a former member of this place Mr Clive Palmer is exploring the use of ISDS mechanisms to sue the Australian government just go to re-affirm our opposition to them as a general provision of international trade deals. Having already forked out $1 million on legal fees, because the Prime Minister supported Mr Palmer's attempts to sue Western Australia, Australian taxpayers don't want to be stung again by another vexatious suit from a vexatious litigant that only seeks to serve himself and to damage the state of Western Australia and the whole nation. A future Albanese Labor government will ensure that trade agreements signed by the Commonwealth require skills assessments, including practical and theoretical testing, to be undertaken in Australia, and not restrict such skills assessments for temporary visa holders, and would include in any future bilateral regional or multilateral trade agreement a labour chapter with enforceable internationally recognised labour standards. Labor supports, and will ensure in government that, a rigorous, independent economic analysis of trade agreements is conducted. Labor would also require an independent economic assessment of the impact of each agreement to be included in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to the parliament. I note the treaties committee report into treaty making, report No. 193, tabled in August this year recommended: … the Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a trade agreement, at both the macro and sectoral levels, is undertaken in the future by the Productivity Commission, or similarly independent and expert body, and provided to the Committee alongside the National Interest Analysis to improve assessment of the agreement, increase public confidence in the benefits of trade agreements, and facilitate the longitudinal assessment of actual trade outcomes. Public confidence is critical in free trade. Labor calls on the government to implement this recommendation. This important review of the treaties committee into treaty development would not have happened but for Labor. In discussions with the government in relation to the Indonesian-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership the government, through then trade minister Senator Birmingham, agreed to my request that JSCOT be asked to undertake such a review. I'm glad the government allowed to this happen and gave the parliament an important opportunity to examine the manner in which it addresses free trade treaties and agreements and demonstrated the community desire for more openness and transparency from government in relation to free trade negotiations. A future Labor government will ensure that Australians are informed about trade negotiations and will undertake full community consultation before entering new agreements. The provision of public updates will follow each round of negotiations and, where feasible, draft text would be released. Labor will ensure transparency in future trade agreements through the tabling of national interest assessments and consultation with industry, unions and community groups during negotiations. We would ensure the tabling of negotiation material in parliament where feasible, again, as recommended by the treaties committee in its report into treaty making. In relation to future trade agreements, Labor would commission an independent national interest assessment which includes a comprehensive social, economic and regional impact assessment of the negotiated treaty text, and we would implement reviews of existing free trade agreements. Labor recognises that trade agreements should not be used to undermine Australian working conditions and that foreign workers should only be used in situation where specific skills shortages are present and only for the period it takes to train and develop the capacity of an Australian citizen to do the job. Labor does not support the inclusion of provisions in trade agreements that confer legal rights on foreign businesses that are not available to domestic businesses. But we are not yet in government, as you well know, Deputy Speaker, and, as we know, international treaties are the remit of the executive. Labor called for the final treaty text of RCEP to be publicly released before the agreement was signed and allow it to be scrutinised. But the Morrison government refused that request. Labor has previously raised concerns over the Morrison government's refusal to commission independent economic modelling for the RCEP. There is nothing new about this all-talk do-nothing government. At a time when calm and skilful diplomacy is needed to resolve our trade tensions with China, the Morrison government has given the member for Dawson free rein to spout inflammatory comments and spread misinformation about our largest trading partner, China. Under Prime Minister Morrison, Australia is more dependent than ever on China for our exports and jobs. In fact, we depend on the Chinese market more than any other country in the world. When trade diversification is of the highest priority for this nation, the Prime Minister is putting at risk our trade agreement with the European Union due to the diplomatic ineptitude on the recent nuclear subs decision. Labor knows that achieving genuine trade diversification will require a long-term whole-of-government commitment and a plan. Every portfolio in government should be thinking about what it can do to contribute to a national effort to diversify what we export and where we export goods and services to. In health and finance, for example. Australia has a remarkable capability that is already exported but much more can be done. Australia has $3.3 trillion of funds under management through our superannuation system. We have developed an industry that is envied around the world, and economies like Japan are looking to Australia for funds management expertise. Similarly in health, Australia is expert in providing traditional and digital health care into remote areas, which will be replicated in the complex and challenging geography of Indonesia and its many islands at a time when Indonesian healthcare companies are looking for internationally competitive health solutions. Labor is prepared to make that commitment and build that plan in conjunction with job-creating export industries to diversify our export economy. We would work with exporters to build relationships and secure the markets that Australian jobs depend on. Diversifying export markets is more than a photo op for a free trade signing ceremony. Unlike the Morrison-Joyce government, Labor knows that our relationships with our trading partners cannot just be set and forget. Signing a free trade agreement is the beginning of the story and not the end. In 2019, the Morrison government committed to a range of measures to secure Labor's support for the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—namely, compelling JSCOT to review the way our country negotiates trade agreements. I'm satisfied that the JSCOT treaty-making review has been completed well, and I thank all members of the committee for their hard work in undertaking this process. I call on the government to implement the remainder of these commitments—in particular, those related to work exploitation—as a matter of urgency. In relation to RCEP, unions and other civil society stakeholders have expressed concern regarding the potential for public regulation in the aged-care sector to be constrained under RCEP. DFAT and Minister Tehan know that there are reservations in RCEP, like in any FTA, that allow Australia to regulate in the public interest, which includes for aged-care or climate change action. The Minister for Trade has confirmed in writing to me that 'RCEP will not prevent or impair the implementation of any recommendation of the aged-care royal commission'. Furthermore, the minister has confirmed that RCEP will not constrain the government in its delivery of the reforms of aged care in response to the commission's final report. Indeed, Labor would not support any agreement that would inhibit the government's ability to implement in full the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care services. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the senior officials and all the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the minister's office for allowing them to be available to brief members of the Labor caucus over the course of this year in relation to the RCEP agreement. I will make some final remarks on Myanmar, which as an ASEAN nation is a signatory to RCEP. Labor condemned the military coup of 1 February and the subsequent killings of thousands of civilians by the Tatmadaw in ongoing protests. This was a direct attack on Myanmar's ongoing democratic transition. We've since seen widespread arrests of politicians, activists and media representatives. These actions by the Tatmadaw are unacceptable, and the Myanmar security forces must cease their violence, ensure the right to peacefully protest and engage in dialogue with the people of Myanmar. On 2 February Labor called for the Australian government to review its military cooperation with the Tatmadaw, and over a month later that cooperation was suspended. We also called for targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup. In April Labor called on the government to provide visa pathways for at-risk Myanmar nationals to remain in Australia. Once again, a month later, the government said that those on temporary visas could apply to extend their stay. But the Morrison government has still not implemented any additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup and the human rights abuses we're witnessing in Myanmar. This is despite many of our like-minded partners taking strong actions against the coup and despite the fact that in June the government-chaired Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade recommended sanctions against the Tatmadaw and in August the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties had to, embarrassingly, remind the Morrison-Joyce government once again of the need to act. Labor members of the treaties committee worked very hard to finalise the final report, report No. 196, in relation to RCEP to reflect stakeholder concerns on Myanmar. I'd like to take a moment to thank the deputy chair, the member for Wills, as well as Senator Ayres, the member for Fremantle, Senator Ciccone, Senator Kitching and the member for Jagajaga for their tireless efforts on the committee, and all other members of the committee for the work they did in this regard. The JSCOT inquiry into RCEP recommended that the government continue to pursue the restoration of civilian democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority and consider making a declaration to this effect at the time of ratification. Now we have a situation where two government-led committees have recognised three times between them that there is a need for targeted sanctions against the coup leaders in Myanmar, but the Morrison government still refuses to act on this. I call on the government to act on the recommendations of the parliamentary committees that it leads and to prevent the impression from growing that Australia does not care about this ongoing crisis in our region. Australia must stand up for human rights. It is past time for the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to act in support of Myanmar's democracy and to implement targeted sanctions and to support the people and the development of democracy in Myanmar. It is important that Australia support ASEAN in its efforts to restore democracy to Myanmar to end the violent repression of its people. ASEAN itself has taken the important step of banning the military leadership of Myanmar from its upcoming regional summit. Consequently, the military have announced the release of 5,600 political prisoners held in custody because of their participation in protests against the military coup. It remains to be seen whether these prisoners will in fact all be released, but this is an important step by ASEAN and also by the military themselves. I am pleased to stand here today to support the passage of the enabling legislation for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. It is significant for ASEAN and of critical importance to our relationship with all the ASEAN nations in an increasingly contested region. Labor is the party of open trade. Our country's economy is as strong and as vibrant as it is because of Labor governments' acknowledgment that our future prosperity and security will only be found in the region. Our relationship with South-East Asia and ASEAN is critical to this future. Rules based trade, as contemplated by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, is a vital component of a stable and prosperous region that is respectful of sovereignty. With those words, I commend these bills to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Bowen DZS It is, and I reserve my right to speak. 17:45 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the associated bill. I start by saying I'm very proud to be speaking on this bill, and I hope to have the opportunity to speak on similar bills many more times, for as long as I've got the honour to serve in this place. Free trade and pursuing a free trade agenda and export opportunities for this country is one of the reasons that I've been inspired to want to serve in this place. I think that trade with the rest of the world is vital to the continued success of our country, the continued growth of our economy, the continued increase in the number of jobs in our economy and the prosperity that that brings, and I'm certainly proud to be a part of a government that has such a strong history and plans for the future when it comes to expanding and improving our engagement with the world, particularly economically and particularly through free trade agreements. We know, of course, that we've already taken steps to pursue a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom, and I commend Minister Birmingham and, now, Minister Tehan for the progress that is happening there. It would be fantastic to see this country be one of the first nations, if not the first nation, to sign a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom now that they have exited their customs union with the remaining European Union. Equally, it's been good to see progress with regard to signing a free trade agreement with India. There's still some work to be done there, and I might make some comments about India, regarding RCEP, later on in in this address, but it's great to have such a forward-thinking agenda when it comes to pursuing free trade opportunities. Of course, this bill is the culmination of a long process, but we're happy to be now at this point, where we are making the legislative changes we need to to bring into force the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement that we've signed with the 10 ASEAN nations and four other nations—New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and China—as well as Australia. Before I started a career—rightly or wrongly—in politics, I had the pleasure of working at an iconic Australian wool company, Michell. It was certainly iconic in South Australia; I think it was nationally. They're in their 151st year of operations, having commenced in 1870 in a small mid-north town in South Australia. In the eight years I worked in the wool industry, it was a pleasure to have the opportunity of travelling to most of the countries that are covered by this agreement. Of course, the wool industry is one of the industries that, undoubtedly, built this nation, probably the first major industry since European settlement in Australia. Not just in the early days but also particularly in the fifties and sixties, it was one of the largest—and sometimes the largest—export commodity industries in the nation. Before the petrochemical textile products that we now see dominating the sector, cotton and wool made up the vast majority of fibres that were used in apparel textiles but also more broadly in the textile industry. Though wool doesn't have the same volume that it had decades ago, from a quality point of view, I think no-one would dispute that Australian merino wool and products made from Australian merino wool, like the suit I'm in right now, are some of the best fabrics and best textiles in the world. Australia, of course, is renowned for its superfine, high-quality merino wool for apparels, particularly in weaving. Michell was a company that operated right through the wool supply chain, from early-stage fibre processing, scouring and carbonising right up through combing and superwashing for shrink resistance to spinning, knitting, and even cut-and-sew. When I worked at that company, starting as the commercial manager and then the general manager in the textiles division, I had the opportunity to work in a part of the business that was 100 per cent export, and our supply chain was right throughout Asia and South-East Asia in particular. So I had a lot of experience with the issues that are going to be addressed in the changes that are made thanks to this agreement. I also see this agreement, very much, as a foundation, and other speakers have mentioned that this is something we can build on. Obviously, the nations that it covers are already very important economically to us. I think nine of our 15 most substantial trading partners are in this agreement. Clearly, although we have other bilateral free trade agreements with some of the nations in this, it is a good thing to bring them all together into a group of 15, because it provides an opportunity for that group to pursue and make common changes in the interests of free trade, trade liberalisation and increasing the economic activity within the member nations of the agreement. For a country of 25 million people that's as wealthy as we are, we know that wealth comes from the fact that we export and that we make our money not only through the economy here within Australia but also, on top of that, from our ability to export and sell to a market well beyond the 25 million Australians that we have here. Free trade is a great thing. The economic opportunities are clear and obvious. For a nation like Australia, it means jobs. It means a high national income. It's also very important for the peace and harmony of the planet. For thousands of years, trade restrictions have led to significant global conflicts. If we can be more integrated economically—if we can rely on other countries economically and if we can sell the things that we make the best or the services that we produce the best to the other nations of the world and, equally, buy the best that they have to offer—we will be less likely to have conflict. That's a very positive additional benefit of free trade. It's not only the economic dividend but also the peace and security dividend of us being interconnected. If we think of the nations that are captured within this agreement, the more engagement with and the greater the depth of the economic ties and harmony between those nations that are already on our doorstep and in our region, the better that's going to be, economically and from a security point of view. I note that India were initially a part of negotiations when it came to RCEP. They made the decision a few years ago that they would not progress towards the agreement with the other nations involved, which is now being reached and which we are now putting in place through this legislation and other nations are doing similar things to implement. That is a disappointment, but hopefully it is temporary. I know that there is goodwill amongst the other 14 nations, like there is from Australia, to welcome India into this agreement as soon as they're ready and we can come to appropriate terms with them for them to have a part of this new structure that works for India and for the other existing nations that are members. India is very much a disappointing omission from this group of nations. I think that, if we had the Indian economy within this agreement, it would be a truly Asian agreement—with lots of scope for other nations on the periphery of ASEAN, to be sure. The Indian economy is the largest economy in the region that is not represented, and I think that, if this is a foundation that we can build on, one of the things that we want to do is to progress their membership once they are equally open to negotiating it. In the meantime, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, we, as a nation, are pursuing, bilaterally, a free trade agreement with India. Whether success first comes through a bilateral agreement or via the RCEP mechanism, I'm very passionate about seeing a much more significant trade relationship between Australia and India, which will come if we have a free trade agreement of some sort with them. There's also opportunity to deepen the terms of the RCEP. We have bilateral free trade agreements with other nations in the agreement already, of course. We have them with Japan, Korea, China, Indonesia and other ASEAN nations. Or economic zone with New Zealand is probably the most liberal trading arrangement we've got with any nation on the planet. And so I accept and concede that some elements of this agreement don't go as far as some of the other bilateral agreements that we have in place, but that wasn't necessarily what any of the parties were seeking at this stage. But I think we should have the ambition to work towards that in the years that come. I think that, if we can create some trust and goodwill through implementing what all 15 nations have agreed on and we have a mechanism to engage through this process regularly on ways to further liberalise the trade and investment relationship between the member nations, that will be a good thing. Australia's future is clearly in trade, continuing to pursue export opportunities and continuing to seek every opportunity we can find to reduce barriers to trade and investment between us and other nations of the world, particularly those in our region. The RCEP group of countries, of course, are very much in our region. I think this is an exciting time to debate this bill and to ratify it given some of the challenges but also opportunities, particularly in export markets, in the years ahead. It's timely that we are debating it now and, hopefully, passing it through this chamber and this parliament so that it can progress to be fully implemented not just here but amongst the other 14 member nations. I look forward to the opportunities that this free trade agreement is going to provide to businesses in my own electorate of Sturt but also right across Australia. Whether we like it or not, our future is going to be in much further integrating our supply chains and businesses across nations working together to create wealth and create jobs. This agreement is going to lead to that. I commend the bill to the House. 17:57 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to make some remarks about the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, which implement commitments that Australia has made under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. I'd like to say some things about what the RCEP is and what it isn't. We are a trading nation and our trade relations are incredibly important to our own social, economic and environmental wellbeing and also to the way that we engage with the wider world. This is a key agreement in relation to our engagement with the Indo-Pacific as a trading nation. I sometimes feel that in the parliament and perhaps also in the wider public domain our conversation around trade can be simplistic and can fail to engage with some of the details and nuances of trade and particularly with trade-agreement-making. I reflect on the contribution that the member for Brand, the shadow minister for trade, made earlier; it was an excellent overview not just of this agreement but of trade-agreement-making and some of the things that are caught up in that process and that are important for Australians to consider. This agreement is a plurilateral trade agreement. It's the world's largest in terms of economic coverage. As the previous speaker, the member for Sturt, said, it picks up the 10 ASEAN nations. It is effectively an ASEAN led plurilateral agreement, which is significant in itself. In addition to picking up Australia, it covers China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. It is a shame that India isn't part of it, and from Australia's point of view the inclusion of India would have been meaningful in expanding access to markets, as I will talk about a little bit later on. The reality of this agreement is that it doesn't give us access to markets to any greater degree than we already have, because we have existing agreements, in some cases several agreements, with all of the countries that are covered by RCEP. It follows not too far from the heels of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—another plurilateral. Why are we seeing these plurilateral agreements? They follow on from a period in which Australia and other nations went pretty hard in trying to settle bilateral trade agreements and, to some degree, saw the limitations of having a somewhat messy and complex set of separate bilateral arrangements. Why did we have a period of going down a bilateral path? That was because the multilateral system, the system that was put in place under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and through its successor the World Trade Organization, has really run out of steam. The best indication of that is that the Doha Round commenced in 2001 and hasn't completed yet, 20 years later. Unfortunately the WTO, as the multilateral architecture for international trade, has lost its sting. There's been a significant deterioration in co-operative spirit and participation and the practical effect of what should be an effective multilateral trading system, and so we get to these plurilaterals. We've had the CPTPP, and now we have the RCEP. Australia should pursue those. Labor has always thought that a multilateral system is the best system because it has the widest coverage. But, if you can't get that, there's certainly some benefit in plurilateral arrangements like the RCEP. They're better than having a welter of bilateral trade and investment agreements. When we enter into these agreements, in the interests of the Australian people, we should be looking to achieve trade and investment arrangements that are more fair, responsible and sustainable as well as more free, to overcome barriers that affect Australian producers both when it comes to tariffs and when it comes to non-tariff barriers. We should be seeking agreements that harmonise arrangements and avoid what's called the noodle-bowl problem, which is what I was hinting at when I described the welter of bilateral agreements. It's very difficult for business, particularly for small and medium enterprises, when they are trying to expand into a range of markets and each of those markets is covered by a separate bilateral. The things they need to conform to in order to have the benefit of those trade agreements change all the time. It becomes difficult to manage and difficult to comply with. That's what is meant when trade analysts or experts refer to the noodle-bowl problem, and sometimes through plurilateral arrangements you can help clean that up. We should also be trying to get into agreements that draw nations together in a genuine commitment to ensuring that economic activity doesn't compromise our environment and doesn't compromise workers' rights and human rights, and I'll come back to that in terms of the RCEP. Certainly in that regard there's a big difference between the CPTPP and the RCEP. The RCEP has value as a framework, as a mechanism, for drawing the participant countries into closer collaboration, particularly when it comes to integrating the Indo-Pacific economically, but the pure economic benefits are not that great. The reality is that, even when fully matured, the RCEP would only provide tariff-free access that is equivalent to 94 per cent of what we currently have. If we were to get rid of all the agreements that exist with the other 14 nations—if we were to just click our fingers and make them all disappear—and rely on the RCEP, we would straightaway be going down to 86 per cent of existing tariff-free coverage. Even fully matured, we'd only have 94 per cent of the existing tariff-free coverage. That's just where the negotiations ended up. The economic value to Australia is apparently going to be in what's called value-chain improvements. Some of the tariff arrangements between other countries—not between ourselves and the other 14 nations but between those nations themselves—provide the potential for economic benefits to Australian producers that are contributing into what is a multinational production chain. Those value chain improvements aren't hard to understand in concept, but they are hard to quantify, and there was nothing that could be provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to really get down to the nitty-gritty of what those value chain improvements might be. As it currently stands, through our treaty-making process we don't have any independent economic analysis. We should, but we don't, so it's very difficult to see what the precise benefit of agreements like the RCEP would be. The RCEP could fix, but doesn't fix, the noodle bowl problem. That's related to what I've just said—we can't get rid of the existing bilaterals because it would put our producers in a worse position than they're currently in, so we need to keep most of those bilaterals and some other ASEAN-plus arrangements for their tariff benefit. Unfortunately, the potential for using the RCEP to alleviate some of those noodle bowl problems can't exist. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry made an argument to the JSCOT that the RCEP would be beneficial only if Australia wouldn't 'start to clean out the agreements from underneath it'. As I said, that would have impacts in reducing the amount of tariff-free access that Australian companies currently have under those pre-existing agreements. To give an example, Australia has five separate trade and/or investment agreements afoot with Malaysia. Imagine you're a company seeking to expand and to trade into Malaysia for the first time. Which of the five would you be using? Unfortunately, RCEP doesn't include any commitments when it comes to a nation's approach to environmental protection, workplace rights or human rights. The CPTPP did, but RCEP didn't. Even though, when negotiations commenced in 2012, Australia put that on the table and pushed for that, the other nations—those in ASEAN in particular—were not interested in including that. That's a shame. There are mechanisms by which the RCEP can evolve, and Australia should continue to use our diplomatic and trade leverage to push for those things to be included in time to come because they are important. There's no ISDS in the RCEP, and that's welcome. That's probably not because Australia is resistant to it—the present government is quite happy with ISDS—but it was the case that other participant nations didn't want that. We've discussed in this place at length the fact that an international tribunal system does potentially give companies the right to sue the Australian government in relation to our own public policy, and I don't understand why we would ever give away our sovereignty in that respect. It puts us at risk, and we saw that with Philip Morris and the plain packaging case. There is a question mark over some areas of the Australian economy—care service industries and aged care in particular—in relation to reforms that we might seek to make in future. That was explored a lot by the JSCOT and we were given reassurances that nothing in the RCEP would compromise Australia's ability to make those kinds of rules. However, Australia lodged particular reservations in relation to child care. We lodged a specific reservation saying Australia will always maintain the ability to regulate with respect to child care, notwithstanding anything in the RCEP, but there was no similar reservation for aged care. Understandably, that raises the question: why child care and not aged care? There's nothing in the RCEP in terms of dispute resolution or remediation that is really any different to what's in the WTO, and I think that's something we should all reflect on. The member for Brand talked about the way the government will say: 'Here's this new you-beaut trade agreement—tick! Put it on the shelf.' Let's just remember all of our recent experience of geoeconomic coercion involving China. The government told us how good the free trade agreement was with China. This is a plurilateral agreement that includes China. How much has that bilateral agreement helped us with some of the actions that have been taken in relation to Australian producers and trade over the last couple of years? Does anyone think that the RCEP is going to change that? If they do, they're not too bright. We heard through the JSCOT inquiry a list of the same kinds of concerns and shortcomings that really apply to our existing trade agreement-making process, and the member for Brand, the shadow minister for trade, talked about that list. I encourage members of the community and members in this place, if they're interested, to look at report 193. It's an unusual report in the work of the JSCOT because it's not a report on an international agreement, which makes up most of the diet of JSCOT. It's a standalone report on the trade agreement-making process itself. I've been fortunate to be a member of the JSCOT since I was elected in 2016 and I think it was a really worthwhile exercise. The report was delivered on a genuinely bipartisan basis and it makes some key recommendations about how we can improve the process of making trade agreements. The JSCOT itself was introduced in recognition of what was called at the time a democratic deficit when it comes to the way the Australian government enters into international agreements because, but for the JSCOT, there is literally no involvement of the parliament in those agreements, other than when we get what we're dealing with here, enabling legislation. But it puts the parliament in a very difficult position when we're dealing with enabling legislation that has been committed to by the executive in a trade agreement that's already been signed. That's why the JSCOT should, in my view, be enabled to have more to do with the making of these agreements than it currently does. The JSCOT only sees these agreements once they've been signed. The recommendations in report 193 include: improved transparency; that the government publish negotiation aims and objectives in advance and both the community and the parliament get to see those documents; that the JSCOT be briefed biannually not just on agreements close to being settled but on those that are in process; that the government also looks to deliver greater stakeholder engagement through non-disclosure agreements so that there's midstream engagement; and of course that there's independent economic modelling. I finish my remarks by again especially thanking the civil society participants in the treaty-making process, in this case and generally. I also thank the labour movement organisations like AFTINET and others. They make a huge difference despite not having any specific funding. They do it in the best interests of Australia as a whole. They raise really important issues, and without what they do we would end up with much lower-quality agreements than we get. 18:12 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to speak on these two bills, the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, which effectively cover the RCEP agreement. When I looked at the speakers' list, I saw that most of the speakers represent regional areas. They might ask why somebody from an outer suburban seat is speaking on these bills. The reason is that, like many in this chamber, I have businesses in my electorate that export goods across the world, including many that export goods to Asian countries. I was interested in the comment that the member for Fremantle made around the veracity of agreements when governments of other persuasions decide to do something that doesn't honour the agreement, particularly in reference to China over the past couple of years. Like any agreement, it's only as good as the willingness of all the participants in that agreement to honour what's in that agreement. We've got to work very hard to ensure that we maintain those relationships and keep working on these agreements. They're not something that we can put on a shelf and say, 'Yes, that's done and that's all we're going to do with it.' They need to be continually worked on, reviewed and built upon. I recognise, as the member for Fremantle and others have observed in this debate, that we already have a range of agreements with countries across Asia. In building on those agreements or, sadly, adding to the complexity of some of them, our businesses need to make decisions as to how they're going to approach those markets. It's still important that we look to engage with these countries as groups to build a framework that seeks to broaden the agreement across a wide range of countries where we're all working together for an economic outcome not only for Australia, which is obviously our interest. Equally, we want to see Asia continue to grow, prosper and develop because we know that, as the Asian middle class continues to grow, prosper and develop, there are very significant opportunities for Australian business. Over the past five, 10 and 15 years businesses in my electorate, such as Frosty Boy and Teys abattoirs, have made inroads into Asia. They're doing stuff in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, China and other countries. Companies like that have put time and effort into developing those markets. I hope this agreement reinforces the investment they have made already in Asia and gives them confidence to build on it and grow. I look at this agreement and the opportunities it provides. As the member for Fremantle has outlined, it doesn't really add a lot to what we've already got in a range of bilateral agreements, but, as I said, I believe it builds an additional level of confidence in those markets and across the region. As we move forward with this we need to encourage our local businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that agreements like this present. Several years ago I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. We held an inquiry into how we encourage small- to medium-sized businesses to dip their toe into export markets. I talk to businesses in my electorate that are exporting. Traditionally they are larger businesses that have the resources, the capital and the connections, or the ability to build connections, across the region to enter these export markets. We need to work with our small- to medium-sized businesses and encourage them to build export capacity. With these agreements I would like to see some more discussion on how we generate that. I am not convinced how well that is considered in the development of agreements. I hope that this agreement provides an opportunity for us to have a discussion with our small- to medium-sized businesses and encourage them to step into that export market and take advantage of the opportunities that arise because they're presently not in the market. I agree with the member for Fremantle's comments that big businesses are already in that space and there probably isn't a huge amount of value to them in this agreement. But for our small- to medium-sized business there may well be opportunities that don't presently exist. I will spend some time exploring that in my discussions with my local business community, such as the plastic manufacturers that are developing new products for the agricultural sector. I have a plastics business that has developed a specific injector for avocado trees. That might be applicable to other crops grown across Asia. They are developing other products with biodegradable plastics. We've now seen some technology developed around waste recycling. BlockTexx have developed a special process to break down linen and towels into their constituent elements and resells those to be put back into the supply chain. We know that waste is a significant issue and that the recycling and reprocessing of waste is an immature industry, not just in Australia but across our region, so how do we use that opportunity to bring the technology we're developing here in Australia into those markets in Asia as a result of this agreement? I commend the government for the work that it's done to get this agreement to completion and I recognise that it was started under a previous Labor government, back in 2012. But any of these agreements create opportunities for our business sector and give them the confidence to dip their toe into export markets where they previously hadn't done so. That's certainly part of the discussion I'm having with my business sector. It is an enormous market opportunity for us. Far too often I think our business community looks to the US or to Europe, and maybe, in reality, we were focused on China for far too long as a single market, but there are other opportunities right across the region. As a result of this agreement, we've now got opportunities in Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, the People's Republic of China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. It is another piece in our trade puzzle that should encourage small- to medium-sized businesses to look to export as a way to grow their business. As a result of this, we also need to look at how we can assist small- to medium-sized businesses to access those markets and give them the opportunity to access the capital needed and the people with the skills and the ability to help them engage in these markets, but this is a great step in that direction. I commend the bills to the House. 18:21 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Debates over trade have a long history in this place. At the time of federation, New South Wales Premier George Reid, who ran the one free-trading state, said that, for his state, going into a federation with the question of tariffs to be decided later was like a reformed alcoholic setting up house with five drunkards and leaving the question of beverages to be decided by majority vote. In the early years of the federation, my side of parliament allowed members a free vote on questions of tariffs, but, by 1905, we had decided to join with Alfred Deakin's Protectionists, and Labor supported tariffs—as, indeed, did the conservatives. Tariffs nearly doubled during the 1920s, the era of Smoot-Hawley, and by the late 1960s the Australian economy was, according to one analysis, 'the most protected economy in the advanced world'—what Black Jack McEwen called 'protection all-round', meaning that, if you wanted to sell a product in Australia, you either had to get an import licence or pay a tariff, which could often double the price of the product. Then along came Gough Whitlam. In 1973, Whitlam cut tariffs across the board by 25 per cent. He did so for a number of reasons. He thought that high tariffs had left Australian companies uncompetitive and unable to compete with the world; he thought that tariffs hurt consumers; and he thought that they hurt workers in developing nations who found it hard to sell their products to Australia. Crucially, Bob Hawke, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, put out a statement, cautiously welcoming the tariff cut and saying that protectionism had 'dulled the entrepreneurial spirit' of Australian manufacturers and that we could never pursue enmeshment with Asia behind high tariff walls. It was the Hawke government and then the Keating government that continued to reduce Australian tariff barriers, largely not because we were doing so as part of a bilateral deal with another country but by recognising the wisdom of the great Cambridge economist Joan Robinson that it's worth taking the rocks out of your own harbours, even if other countries aren't taking the rocks out of their harbours. By the early 1990s we'd reduced Australian tariffs by two-thirds from where they were in the 1960s. That benefited all Australians; it put thousands of dollars in the pockets of the typical Australian household. But the people who benefited the most were low-income Australians. We on this side of the House have long had the greatest scepticism about consumption taxes. We were very sceptical about the introduction of the GST and the effect it might have on inequality. It was Labor that pushed for carve-outs from the GST, and it's for the very same reason that Labor supported tariff cuts through the 1980s and 1990s—because tariffs are consumption taxes on imports, and they're regressive in the same way that the GST is regressive. As we've steadily brought down tariffs on clothes and cars, all Australian consumers have benefited. But as a share of income, the benefit has been greatest for low-income consumers. For economists, trade is just another example of how comparative advantage works. Most of us don't fix our own cars, cut our own hair—well, unless we're in lockdown!—or make our own clothes. So, too, Australia—as a nation that has just 0.3 per cent of the world's population—benefits from focusing on what we do best and importing other goods that we need. Trade has made us more prosperous than we would otherwise be. It's also opened up huge consumption possibilities. One study of trade liberalisation in the United States found that the number of product varieties tripled from the 1970s to the 2000s. If you look through a large supermarket you might feel as though you're hit by the paradox of choice. But if you're a collector, if you love unusual cars or if you're a hobbyist, you've benefited from the reduction in trade barriers. It's not just about bringing down the average tariff—which we've done—but the way in which a lower average tariff brings more products into the market. When we think about employment effects, we have to remember that for many workers their jobs are significantly enhanced by the use of equipment that has been imported. If you're a farmer, you benefit from imported fertiliser. If you're an office worker, you benefit from imported computers. If you're a factory worker, you benefit from imported factory machinery. If you're a truckie, you're certainly driving an imported truck, and that's making you much more productive. Indeed, many of our export-oriented firms rely on imported capital equipment. Naturally, many have been concerned about the impact of trade on employment. But it is important to remember what's going on globally in manufacturing. Global employment in manufacturing has peaked as a share of the workforce. Indeed, as a share of the workforce, manufacturing peaked in the Philippines in 1992, in China in 1995, in Mexico in 2000, in Indonesia in 2001 and in India in 2012. So, even in the countries where manufacturing dominates the workforce, it is falling as a share of employment. The main reason for that can't be trade. If global manufacturing employment has peaked, it must be the case that this is a technology effect. That is why most of the studies that look at trade and technology say that about four-fifths of the job loss in manufacturing is delivered by trade. You only have to look at the factories of the future to see that many of them are far more capital intensive than factories of the past. There are many good jobs in manufacturing, and there are many great employment opportunities in manufacturing for Australia. But it is vital that when we look at what's happened in manufacturing employment we recognise that the chief impact on employment is coming through technology rather than trade. Australians hold warm views about trade. We're much more positive about trade than people in most other advanced countries. Fifty-nine per cent of Americans say trade is bad when it comes to creating jobs in their economy; only 35 per cent of Australians think trade is bad for jobs. Sixty-seven per cent agree that international trade is good for their own standard of living and for the Australian economy; 61 per cent say it's good for Australian companies; and 62 per cent agree that Australia's trading future lies with Asia. But it is increasingly true that trade negotiations are taking place on a plurilateral rather than a multilateral basis. If you look at the postwar achievements of the GATT and then its successor the, WTO, they struck eight global trading deals, in 1947, 1949, 1951, 1959, 1962, 1967, 1979 and 1994, and then it stopped. That was partly because global trade deals had brought down tariffs from 22 per cent to five per cent and partly because developing countries were better represented. So an all-in trade agreement became harder to achieve. Now we are in the world of plurilateral or bilateral deals. Australia has bilateral deals with all of the countries that are members of RCEP. Those bilateral deals can be helpful, but it is important to remember that the more countries that are in a trade agreement the less likely it is to be trade diverting, the less likely it is to suffer from what Jagdish Bhagwati called 'the spaghetti bowl effect', and the more likely it is with a large trade agreement that you're able to get broad-based trade liberalisation rather than trade diversion. Trade diversion can be particularly harmful because many products now aren't made in one country; they are made in the world, and multinational supply chains tend to span borders. So these broad deals ensure that Australia can be part of those multilateral supply deals. We need to make sure that we have better scrutiny of trade deals. There's nothing globophobic about opposing trade deals whose costs outweigh the benefits, whether that's costs in intellectual property and lengthening patent and copy right terms in a way that doesn't boost innovation, whether that's costs through investor-state dispute clauses that enable companies to sue governments and which are not part of RCEP, or whether that's costs in terms of migration agreements which don't serve the interests of Australian workers. Allowing the Productivity Commission to scrutinise trade deals would give Australians greater confidence that these deals were being struck in the interests of all Australians and greater confidence that they hadn't been captured by insiders. I commend the work of my colleague the member for Brand and shadow minister for trade in working constructively with the labour movement and with the government to secure a number of key agreements. We have received assurances that RCEP and the enabling legislation won't remove Australia's capacity to protect local jobs through the regulation of temporary work; that they won't inhibit the government's ability to implement in full the recommendations of the royal commission into aged-care services; that they won't force the privatisation of public services; and that they won't undermine Medicare or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And, as I mentioned, RCEP doesn't include investor-state dispute settlement provisions. It is clearly in Australia's interest to support what will be the world's largest trading bloc. This RCEP agreement covers nearly a third of the world's population, nearly a third of global GDP. It will be bigger than the European Union and bigger than NAFTA. It covers 58 per cent of Australia's total two-way trade. It is an agreement with Australia's key trading partners. The members of RCEP are not overall democracies. In this sense, this is a different trade deal than we would be striking in our negotiations with the European Union, the United States and the United Kingdom. But it is worth ensuring that we liberalise trade at the same time. This is a foundation agreement, one which has the potential to act as a platform for reducing trade barriers, but it will rely on the hard work of the Australian government. We saw the promises of APEC in the late 1990s to secure zero tariffs from developed countries by 2000 and from developing countries by 2020. Well, that promise didn't eventuate, so it's important that we have follow-through from the government on this trade agreement. Australia needs to ensure that we continue reducing those tariff barriers because so many Australian jobs are tied up with exporting industries—exporters that employ more Australians, that do more research and development, and that pay higher wages. It is in the interests of Australian workers and Australian consumers for us to continue down the path of trade liberalisation. I finish with the words of the late senator Peter Cook, for whom I had the privilege to work in the late 1990s. He said: … I am a strong supporter of free trade. Not "fair trade". Free trade. Naturally, free trade in itself will not solve the world's problems. Governments can and must play a strong role in ensuring that opportunities are fairly distributed to everyone. This is why I will always be a social democrat. Like the late Senator Cook, I will always be a social democrat. That is why I believe in trade liberalisation and why I strongly support trade agreements like RCEP. But because I am a free trader I also believe in a strong social safety net, and only Labor can ensure the benefits of trade are fairly distributed and that no-one is left behind as we enjoy the gains in prosperity that can come from broad-based trade liberalisation and trading with the Asian region. 18:37 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls The Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 give many members in the House the opportunity to rise to talk about the way that Australia has been able to forge an incredible reputation for itself as a trading nation and, as the previous member stated, how we have excised ourselves away from the protectionism that we had in place through the sixties and seventies. We opened up to the world and we certainly opened up to China and many other Asian countries. Many of those countries are represented in the RCEP agreement, and it's great that we continue to hone these agreements in ways that are going to give our exporters access to lower tariffs and favourable arrangements when they can prove that the goods that they are trading are, in fact, originating goods that have come solely from any of these 14 countries. The work that we have done in recent years in China with the ChAFTA, Japan with the JAEPA, and Korea with the KAFTA has been with substantial agreements. They have continued over the years to give our exporters more and more favourable opportunities as the years go on. That's effectively how our trading reputation and trading situation have got to where we are at the moment. In agriculture we talk about a nation that can grow enough food for 75 million people, and this year is going to be a bumper year with our grain harvest, our dairy production and our fruit harvest. Many of these companies that exist within the Goulburn Valley have very strong markets overseas, and the need for us to have word-leading trade agreements is absolutely paramount for their success. We have only recently signed the UK trade agreement, a brand-new agreement that we've been working on as Britain has been exiting itself from the European Union. Over the last four or five years we have been working extensively with the European Union to try and bring about a free trade agreement with that block of nations as well. As you can understand, that's taken an awful amount of time and negotiation. But if we are able to land a free trade agreement with the whole European Union I think it would certainly give Australia its third biggest trading block. In the Goulburn Valley, within my electorate, we have companies such as Unilever, who have a base at Tatura. SPC is an iconic Shepparton preserving company—a factory. We have Campbell Soup, Freedom Foods, saputo, Parmalat, Bega, Kagome tomatoes. We have canola refineries making canola oil—sending that off overseas—based in Numurkah. We have Fonterra and Kyvalley Dairy. It is incredible how many food and dairy processing plants we have within the Goulburn Valley and nearly all of them are reliant upon strong and robust trade agreements. A phrase that has come to the fore of trade negotiations and trade speak recently is 'a rules based order'. Unfortunately the reason why we talk so much about a rules based order is that we do in fact come up against some countries—one in particular—that tend to shy away from some of the rules that are in place. So we do in fact need to have these very strict and very tight rules that will give our exporters the confidence they need, and give them the comfort that they need, so that they can plan for their futures in a way that when fruit that hits the wharf in another country we know that it's going to be accepted. If the food and the processed food is of a high quality we expect it to be accepted. We expect the financials to be reciprocated. But we do have a range of issues with that. We just have to continually stress the importance of a rules based order when it comes to our trade. With these bills that we are dealing with here today we will see the honing down of this term, which is an RCEP originating good, and that's going to give our traders that extra incentive, as the preferential rates for the customs duties are bought into effect. That's going to be a significant saving for our exporters. As the previous speaker also noted, we have been through an enormous change in the last 50 years in relation to trade and how it has significantly impacted our standard of living and the way we go about doing things here in Australia. Unfortunately in the last decade we have lost a motor vehicle industry, but prior to that we had an incredibly prosperous motor vehicle industry. We have also lost a whole range of other industries—like with our wool. Unfortunately we've got this situation in Australia where we produce about the 95 per cent of the world's fine wool, but we send 95 per cent of that fine wool over to China where it is processed and sent around the world as a processed yarn. We buy back very expensive Italian suits—with our own produce. These are some of the challenges that are now facing us. Are we able to go back in and put our toe back in the water in relation to some of the processing and some of the manufacturing jobs and industries that we have let go over the years? Are we able to go back and reinvigorate some of these manufacturing industries that are going to give us that opportunity to value-add and get a far better slice out of all of this food and fibre that we produce here in Australia? I think that, if we can continue to hone our agreements that we have in place and build on new ones—there are many agreements that we have such as the comprehensive and progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership that we have with another 11 or 12 trading nations there. There are other countries looking to come in and join the CPTPP, and that will again give us greater access under different arrangements as well. It's a very bright time for Australia. I want to commend the work that Minister Birmingham did when he had this portfolio, and now Minister Tehan takes over the mantle. It's a very exciting time for Australia, and we have this incredible opportunity as more and more countries look to get hold of our high-quality exports as these developing nations move into the middle class. I think Australia has much to benefit from if we embrace the trade opportunities that are available. But, as I said earlier, it is critically important that we have the safety net of these rules based trading agreements. We simply cannot afford to get overexposed—which we probably already are—to some nations that then refuse to follow through with the original agreements that have been in place for a number of years. Look forward very much in the next short while to us finalising the deal with the European Union. Having those 26 or 27 countries come on board with that pact will also open up an incredible opportunity for many of our major industries. I think it will really add to our GDP but will also add to our quality of life if we are able to create a whole range of new markets of the substantial populations that exist throughout Europe. I look forward to these bills going through the House. I look forward to the opportunity for us to continue to put new trade agreements in place, improve the ones that we already have and make sure that into the future there are going to be great opportunities for us both to import and, in this instance, effectively to create the export markets that we have done so well with to date. We look like we will be able to do that in the future even more so with improved arrangements such as we are talking about here in this bill. 18:48 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne What a Liberal-Labor trickle-down love-in this whole debate has been. We've been treated to a whole evening of evidence-free neoliberal liturgy—'Trust us. Pass this free trade agreement and manna will fall from heaven. We can't tell you how much, even though we've got Treasury modelling coming out the wazoo. We can't actually point to a single dollar of benefit for you, but trust us. There is wonderful. Sign it away. This is all upsides and no downsides.' Liberal and Labor have even been competing for ownership of trickle-down economics. We even had one Labor MP get up and say, 'Not only was this idea; we are the Labor Party, and you should support us because we are for free trade, not fair trade.' We had the Labor Party getting up in here and saying: 'We are not for fair trade. That's why you should support this agreement.' What absolute rot. It's no wonder this agreement is being pushed through with only a few speakers, because even the most moderate push on this house of cards makes it tumble down. This is not a free trade agreement. This is another one of those things that countries sign up to trade away sovereignty and give corporations greater rights to influence public services and how governments act. We already have free trade agreements with most of the countries that are covered by this legislation. That is why there's no benefit that can be pointed to from signing this—because the countries that are part of this are already, by and large, covered by free trade agreements. What this agreement does is to give corporations in those countries additional rights to come in and interfere with what the Australian government might want to do for the Australian people, and it's critical to understand how that works. At the moment, governments in this country, because people demand it, do things like invest in the public sector—in child care, in aged care. We then put in place protections around those services, because people here expect those protections. Apart from in a few fields that the government has bothered to exempt, basically this legislation says, 'You're not allowed to increase protections in these fields anymore.' Corporations from overseas could attack you and sue you for taking steps to lift the welfare of your population. That's what this legislation does. We know this because the government has carved out exceptions for some areas. But there are others where it hasn't, and one of those is aged care. During the royal commission we saw with crystal clarity what happens when we don't regulate the aged-care sector enough and we hand over the care of our older people to billionaires who are more interested in driving Maseratis and paying executive bonuses than they are in looking after people. We have seen that privatisation of aged care has been a mistake. We have seen that looking after our older people should be done for care and for the public good, not for profit, because those who try to do it for profit squeeze money out of it by denying people care. We saw what happened when people went into some of those aged-care institutions. It was so bad that we had a royal commission into it, and we were told, as part of that royal commission, that we had to regulate the sector better. The Greens think we should end privatisation, the for-profit nature of the sector, and run it for the public good, but we've been told that we've got to regulate better. This legislation impinges on, and potentially removes, our right to do that. The government has been called out. Submission after submission to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties said that we would be opening the door to unscrupulous, overseas based big corporations, who we can't regulate, coming in and owning parts of our aged-care sector, and that we would be powerless to lift standards in our aged-care sector. Even if overseas corporations aren't coming in, we may be prevented from doing it anyway. And it's not just aged care; it's other areas as well. One of the areas that have not been preserved by the government is environmental services. What does that mean? We don't know, but it could mean that if we have a change of government—kick this mob out and put the Greens in balance of power to push the next government to start taxing the billionaires and investing in renewables—and start to put in place regulations to reduce emissions or say, 'We want to grow a publicly owned renewables sector,' overseas corporations could come in and say: 'No, you're not allowed to do that. When you signed up to this deal you forgot to carve out that particular thing and protect it. Sorry; your regulations are frozen in time.' Another way of saying it is: this deal will bind future parliaments and stop them improving regulations for the welfare of the people of this country. This has happened time and time, because these agreements give big corporations a greater right to sue governments. They also weaken and carve out big holes in our labour laws. In this country it should be a basic principle that, no matter where you come from or what kind of visa you're on, local rates and conditions apply; you can't carve out exceptions to our labour laws. Local rates and conditions apply, and, if governments want to say that, in particular sectors, you have to advertise locally first, they should be able to do it. If you're coming to working here, local standards should apply as well. Everyone who comes in should meet the Australian standards. These free trade agreements, which are getting the big rubber stamp and being frozen in time by this legislation, carve out huge loopholes in that—loopholes big enough to fly planeloads of exploited overseas workers through. That is terrible for those workers, because they're just doing the right thing by themselves and their family. They see an opportunity to come and work in Australia, and, in many respects, we should encourage that. But it should be on the basis of people coming in to fill jobs where we haven't been able to get people locally. Then, when they are here, they should get local wages and conditions and they should have pathways to permanent residency. Instead, what all the free trade agreements have done is say, 'No, we're going to carve out certain categories where labour market testing and the local standards you might expect of your electrician, for example, don't have to be applied to people who come through.' Instead of closing these loopholes, the Labor and Liberal parties are freezing them. This agreement contains no labour chapter; it doesn't contain a chapter protecting and advancing labour rights. You might say, as someone on the Labor side did: 'Well, we tried to get one in. We couldn't do it. It would have been great if we had got it in, because we could have taken a step forward, but it's not like anything bad is going to happen because there's no labour chapter. At least we're not going backwards.' That's wrong. This is a deal with countries that we know use forced labour. We know that because, when it suits the government, they get up and talk about the Chinese government's oppression of the Uighurs and forced labour camps. They rattled the sabre around for Donald Trump when it suited them to do that and said, 'We've got to take that on,' but then they go and sign a deal with countries that engage in forced labour practices and say, 'The Australian government can't regulate to protect Australian businesses from competing against them.' In other words: this is going to be forcing Australian businesses to have to compete for jobs with countries that we know engage in forced labour practices and other forms of human rights abuses. So it's putting Australian corporations at a disadvantage, and it's tying future governments' hands so that they're not able to regulate it, because regulations get frozen in time. The icing on the cake is that, at a time when there has been a military coup in Myanmar and there's a junta in charge—and the United States is saying, 'Hang on; we need to bring significant pressure, including economic pressure, to bear on this country'—the Australian government is saying, 'Let's go and sign a trade deal with Myanmar and the junta there.' No. That gives them the biggest endorsement you could imagine. When the Australian government says, 'We are going to sign up to that,' all of the words from the Liberal and Labor parties about protecting human rights vanish into nothing. It is clear that the dollar speaks the loudest—the big corporations who want to undermine our ability to regulate to protect our citizens and the people who live here. As to other countries which don't have the same standards that we and workers have been able to secure here, now this government and Labor are saying: 'Well, we don't believe in fair trade. We believe in free trade, and you're going to have to be forced to compete with them. If they've got lower standards than we do in Australia, we're sorry; it's just bad luck.' And any future government that wants to try to mend it by lifting the standards is going to find itself potentially at a huge disadvantage. Given all the downsides, you would imagine that the government and Labor, who want this legislation rushed through, would be coming in here with a whole list of upsides and say, 'This industry over here is going to benefit by $3 billion, that one over there is going to benefit by $5 billion and that one over there is going to benefit by $6 billion. So, yeah, there are trade-offs but it's worth it.' You would imagine that they might say that. But there has been nothing—not a sausage. Why? It's because this is a facade—that's why. This is a façade that is designed to give corporations greater rights than governments and to put Australian companies and workers at a disadvantage. You just need to look at the government's own words in the regulatory impact statement. You would imagine they would be trumpeting this in the documents that accompany it. But, no, we see: Given the relative quality of Australia's existing FTAs with RCEP parties, including the CPTPP, we do not expect RCEP goods market access commitments to provide Australia with additional market access with our current FTA partners. That's the national interest analysis—no additional market access. This is what the government are saying. They say, 'Well, it's not really going to help with tariffs.' As they say in the national interest analysis: Under our existing FTAs, Australia will already have eliminated tariffs on imports from all RCEP parties by 1 April 2021. So it's not going to help with tariffs. The national interest analysis goes on: There are no costs in losses of tariff revenue for Australia associated with the entry into force of the RCEP as—under existing FTAs—Australia will have already eliminated tariffs on imports from all RCEP parties by 1 April 2021. Not a single dollar of benefit under the government's own national interest analysis. But it's not surprising. It's not just been the Greens, working groups and international groups who have called out this sham. It's not often that you get the Greens and the Productivity Commission on the same page. What the Productivity Commission has said is that we keep signing up, Liberal and Labor, to these so-called free trade agreements with spurious promises of benefit to the country but it's never quantified. Even the Productivity Commission has said, 'Before signing up to these things, let's have an analysis of whether it is actually going to benefit people at all.' The government and Labor march in here and the best they can say is to read from the national interest analysis from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which says that there will be no additional market access and not one single dollar but there are plenty of downsides and exposure for Australian corporations and workers. When that is the best that the government can put on it, when the ability to regulate our aged-care sector is at risk and when we are giving corporations the right to attack future governments because we are freezing in time protections, we should not support this legislation. If Liberal and Labor want to engage in a competition to say, 'Oh, no; this is actually ours,' it tells you why we have seen so many protections eroded in this country over so many years. 19:03 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It's always good to follow on from the Australian Greens leader to put some rationality back into the debate. I'm always encouraged by the fact that many truck drivers who keep this nation moving listen in to parliament. What they would have heard just then was 15 minutes of passionate debate, yes, but debate that would have discouraged them, perhaps, from thinking that the nation is going well ahead with trade and discouraged them from doing the grand job that they do for and behalf of this nation in moving goods around. Many of those goods are going to port. Of course, Australia is a trading nation, and we need those goods to go to port, to get on ships and to go to other nations so they can also realise and reap in the benefits of our farmers, our resources and everything else that we put on those ships. I'm always encouraged by the feedback I get from our truck drivers. They've done a magnificent job through COVID-19. The National Transport Commission's code has enabled them to cross borders when others couldn't. It enabled them to continue to ferry goods right across this nation in a timely fashion, often to get vital medical equipment to where it needed to be, particularly in regional Australia and especially in remote areas. As I said, Australia is a trading nation and it always has been. One in five Australian jobs is reliant on trade. We know that when the government and Labor get on board with something, it must be right, it must be good, and when the Greens are against it, that must give it the big tick of approval—it must, indeed. In regional areas, that number is closer to one in four jobs being reliant on trade. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP, agreement is a free trade agreement. Aren't we lucky we've got those free trade agreements and aren't we lucky we've got a Liberal-Nationals government which has been forthright and progressive in making sure that we get even more FTAs signed up, even more FTAs agreed upon? This RCEP agreement is complementing and building upon Australia's existing FTAs with 14 other Indo-Pacific countries. That is a good thing. It is a modern and comprehensive—as the name suggests—free trade agreement covering trade in goods and trade in services. That's important because sometimes, when we talk about trade, we don't think of or remember the many services that we engage in with other countries. The agreement also covers investment and economic and technical cooperation and it creates new rules around electronic commerce, intellectual property, government procurement, competition and small and medium sized enterprises. It has new rules for those areas of endeavour. RCEP negotiations were launched in November 2012 between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the RCEP agreement includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and ASEAN's FTA partners: Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. Even without India, RCEP will still be the world's largest FTA, and that is significant. To give a market snapshot of RCEP, the gross domestic product in Australian dollars is $35.19 trillion covering 2.3 billion people. Indeed, trade with Australia in 2019 figures is $712.65 billion. They're big, big numbers, and we need these markets. We need these export opportunities. That's why the member for Wannon, now the trade minister, and others before him on this side of the House, and I'll give a compliment to those on the other side for what they did when they were in government, have endeavoured to do what's right in the national interest. A report released on 31 October 2017, four years ago, suggested that trade liberalisation has given Australians higher incomes and more job opportunities. This Centre for International Economics report provided very real and convincing evidence about the benefits delivered by trade liberalisation in the period 1986 to 2016. The report found that average household income, bearing in mind that this report was published in 2017, at the time was $8,448 higher in 2016 than it would have been without trade liberalisation. The report found: one-fifth of the workforce, 2.2 million Australians, at the time, 2013-14, worked in trade related activities; 1.6 million worked in export related activities; and 671,000 worked in import related areas. Those figures are somewhat dated, and we know that what we've done in the meantime has only been good and has bolstered those figures and bolstered the average incomes of Australians, certainly the incomes of Australians in trade related enterprises. Real GDP was 5.4 per cent higher in 2016 than it would have been without trade liberalisation and investments were 11.7 per cent higher. Real wages were 7.4 per cent higher, which is significant. I know those opposite are always talking about real wages—7.4 per cent higher wages, and prices 3.4 per cent lower. We know that when there's a Liberal-National government on the treasury bench we're always going to be promoting trade. Those sorts of figures for real wages and job opportunities are always going to be higher with us in government. We know that. The report underscored the importance of Australia's long-term commitment to free trade. Deputy Speaker Chester, you and I come from a party that has been very trade focused. 'Black Jack' McEwen was a brave pioneer to go to the Japanese market after World War II, when it was not popular to trade with that nation. Others since have followed that fine tradition. I know you and I are proud of that fact in our party, but we know, too, that regional Liberals are very much reliant on the trade, the opportunities and the market access that our policies promote. Any move back to high tariffs and trade barriers would see job losses—we know that—as well as cuts in household consumption and falling living standards, according to the 2017 report. That is as right today, in 2021, as it was then. Since the CIE's modelling excludes services of investment and all liberalisation by trading partners, its estimates of the benefits of trade liberalisation are conservative. You can imagine what the figures put in that report four years ago are today. As I say, we've finalised eight FTAs since coming back into office. That is great. We have reached agreement in principle on a United Kingdom FTA, and we're pursuing an FTA with the European Union. That is encouraging for our farmers and for those truckies who are, at the current point in time, driving around those fantastic goods from the fine electorate of Gippsland, which punches well above its weight when it comes to output, and indeed from mine, in the Riverina and central west. Australia has FTAs with eight of our top 10 trading partners. We have lifted our share of trade—and this is an important statistic—covered by FTAs from 26 per cent to 70 per cent, and we of course have plans to grow it even further. We delivered the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Vietnam and many other countries, including of course New Zealand, our great friends across the ditch. It's the gold-standard FTA in our region, and it came into force in Australia on 30 December 2018. The RCEP, a modern, progressive partnership with 14 other nations in the Indo-Pacific, is going to cover all areas of a modern free trade agreement, including those difficult areas that are sometimes hard to negotiate between trade ministers. Aren't we lucky, as a nation, that we have the member for Wannon, a coalition colleague from Victoria, doing what he needs to do, travelling far and wide, to organise even more free trade agreements. Specifically, the proposed amendments that we're discussing and debating will provide rules, including product-specific rules, for determining whether imported goods are RCEP-originating goods. This is how importers prove that their goods are produced by, obtained from or include sufficient content from one or more of the RCEP parties. I know former senator John Williams did a lot of work in this regard. We have followed on that work in good faith to make sure that if a good says it's from somewhere, particularly our own nation, then it truly is from that particular nation. Indeed, the line of access from farm paddock to plate is significant, and it has helped our trade arrangements. Satisfying these rules qualifies the goods for a preferential rate of customs duty when imported into our nation. It requires Australian exporters and producers to keep sufficient records to enable them to prove their goods are RCEP-originating goods if they claim a preferential rate of customs duty when exporting their goods to one of the other 14 RCEP parties. That's significant. So it's two-way, in good faith, and this is an important part of the bill that we're debating tonight. It also creates a new schedule of preferential customs duty rates for goods that qualify as RCEP-originating goods. The new rules for determining origin status of goods and recordkeeping requirements for exporters and producers will be added to the Customs Act, which goes back to the year of Federation, 1901. The new schedule of preferential customs duty rates will be added to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The Customs Act 1901 will be amended to insert rules for determining whether imported goods are RCEP-originating goods. Satisfying these rules qualifies the goods for a preferential rate of customs duty when imported into Australia. Is that significant? Yes. Making sure that we keep faith with our trading partners is of course one thing that we always take very seriously. Making sure that we continue to provide the freshest, cleanest, best produce is something that our farmers, whether they're in Gippsland or in the Riverina—no matter where they are across this great nation—take very seriously. We are, in fact, very lucky to have the farmers who operate under world's best practice, who make sure that every available drop of water is accounted for, who make sure they're making the best use of every available hectare of arable land. The main amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 inserts that new schedule of preferential rates. It is part of what we're debating and putting through. When these particular schedules have cross-party alignment and support and the Greens are against them, you know that they are a good thing. Why are these changes important? Why are they being made now? RCEP was signed by the then trade minister, Senator Simon Birmingham, back on 15 November 2020. We've been acting in good faith with the 14 nations since then to nail down the important side points, the important attributes of this legislation, of this agreement, to ensure that everybody's on the same page. We have cross-party support and we know it's in the national interest and it needs to be agreed to by legislation ensuring the agreement can enter into force as swiftly as possible, because putting this now makes sure we can extract the benefits sooner rather than later. It is in the interests of Australian businesses, consumers and exporters. They've done it tough in recent times with COVID, with the lack of export opportunities because of the smaller number of planes coming into and leaving our country. That's why we have put in place those arrangements. Whether they are lobster fishers in north-west Western Australia—indeed, Geraldton—or produce the salmon from Tasmania, the sheepmeat from Victoria in your electorate, Mr Speaker, or right across this nation, we put in place assistance measures so that those products could be transported out of Australia. That gave great hope to exporters. The amendments in this bill before the House continue to build on the fine trading export opportunities that we have always put in place and will continue to put in place as Liberals and Nationals in government. 19:18 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith This bill ratifies the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership treaty and brings into operation the world's largest free trade agreement—bigger than the European Union, bigger than the North American Free Trade Agreement. Twenty-nine per cent of the world's GDP is covered by this trade agreement, and it's within our region. I simply can't see how we can't be part of this. It's the biggest trading agreement in the world and it's right here within our region. Almost all of the nations of our region that we have an economic relationship with are part of this agreement. There are 15 countries, including ASEAN and including our biggest trading partner, China, with a clear set of rules for nations within the region regarding trade. We've strengthened economic ties with the most dynamic region in the world, which will quickly develop into the world's largest middle class. That will bring investment opportunities. It will bring increasing trading opportunities, particularly around the delivery of services. When a population moves into the middle class, demand for services, particularly education services, aged-care services and financial and legal services, grows. When you talk about the Asia-Pacific region, one of the leading economies in the delivery of those services is Australia. This provides an opportunity for us to capitalise on that specialty and provide those services to the Asian region as the area grows and as more people come out of poverty and move into the middle classes. It's traditionally been hard for Australia to break into many of those economies when it comes to services. We've had a great trading relationship with Asia when it comes to delivering commodities, particularly fossil fuel based commodities, but we haven't had success when it comes to providing services for many of those nations. That's because, in many respects, there are a lot of non-trade barriers that have been obstacles to Australian businesses in breaking into those markets. Many of them have seen it as too hard. Making the required changes to business models, getting to understand the different regulations and, in the past, unfortunately, having to know personalities to get things done have prohibited Australia from being successful in breaking into the delivery of services in many Asian markets. This trade agreement will help break down some of those barriers. RCEP countries include nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners, accounting for 58 per cent of Australia's two-way trade and 67 per cent of our exports. The benefits will come in terms of a reduction in non-tariff barriers to trade, such as quarantine and technical standards, which can make it all too hard for many Australian businesses to break into some of those markets. The agreement provides the opportunity for parties to the agreement to bilaterally negotiate reductions in tariff barriers. Let's face it: although Australia has free trade agreements with most of the nations covered by RCEP, there are still further barriers to trade, in the form of tariffs, that can be reduced, particularly for Australia's agricultural exports into many of these markets. It provides investment protections for companies and businesses that want to trade and do business within Asia. But I reckon that the most important aspect of this agreement—one that will provide benefits, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises in Australia—is that it sets a single set of rules for exporters to trade under, rather than the multiplicity of different rules and procedures under the various free trade agreements that Australia has. In that respect, it's very important in cutting red tape, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. If you're one of those businesses, you've got a product or service that businesses in Asia may be interested in and you're looking to break into that market, having a single set of rules under which you can apply to multiple nations is a big benefit. It's a big benefit for the creation of investment opportunities and jobs here in Australia. The agreement also contains accountability measures for member states regarding trade. This will be important in combating and reducing corruption in trade. I think it's worth noting that many of the nations that will be party to this agreement are not democracies. In the past there have been issues with doing business in many of these nations, where corruption has unfortunately been ingrained as part of the culture and part of the process of doing business. In Australia, of course, we don't do business that way. There are laws and there are regulations and there are bodies in place to combat those sorts of activities. With accountability measures for trade between member states, the reduction that will come, hopefully, in corruption associated with doing business in some of these countries, particularly in the nondemocracies, will be a huge step for free trade within the region. It will also be a huge step for the development of a rules based trading system within our region. There has been much debate over recent times, particularly the last decade, about the strategic merits of ensuring a rules based trading system for countries operating in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly when you're talking about democracies trading with nondemocracies. This will be important in delivering a rules based trading system that all can work to, apply to and understand, and breaking down some of the barriers that exist. Like with any free trade agreement, concerns have been put forward by Australians and organisations. I can understand the concern of Australian workers about their job protection and free trade agreements. The first issue I want to deal with is investor-state dispute settlement clauses, ISDSs. The Labor Party has as part of its platform opposition to these on a routine basis being put into free trade agreements. There's a good reason for that. In the past companies have tried to use ISDS clauses in free trade agreements to undermine Australian laws and regulations that were put in place for the good of the Australian people. The classic example of this is the challenge by Philip Morris to laws that were put in place by the Gillard government and then minister Nicola Roxon around plain packaging on cigarette labels in Australia. It was a health measure brought in to discourage Australians to take up smoking or to continue smoking. It was a health measure supported by the Australian population. It was challenged through arbitration under an investor-state dispute settlement clause in a free trade agreement. Thankfully, Australia won the argument through that arbitration, but it cost the Australian taxpayer a lot of money to defend that action. The notion of a corporation being able to use a clause in a free trade agreement to undermine and challenge an Australian law that was decided democratically by this parliament and the people of Australia for the betterment of the Australian people is something that Labor does not support. Importantly, this free trade agreement does not contain ISDS clauses, so that should not be a problem. It does not dilute the capacity of the Commonwealth or the states to regulate skilled temporary migration. This is important to the Labor Party, the union movement and workers. No-one likes to see labour brought into the country, particularly on conditions and wages that are lower than for domestic workers. It has been a challenge for Australia to regulate that in the past because typically when we do try to negotiate free trade agreements other nations like to provide opportunities for employment in Australia for their workers. It was a particular challenge with the China free trade agreement. Thankfully, due to Labor sticking to its guns, we were able to strengthen that agreement and get labour market testing as part of that. Nothing in this agreement will undermine the ability of the Commonwealth or the states to continue to regulate for labour market testing and for domestic or international skills assessments. The final point I'd like to raise relates to Myanmar. I want to point out that I and Labor members condemn the human rights abuses that have occurred in Myanmar following the coup. We have condemned the Tatmadaw's actions. We have asked the government to review military cooperation with this particular group and with the junta. We have asked the government to undertake targeted sanctions. We have asked the government to be much stronger when it comes to defending democracy in Myanmar. We of course sympathise with the people of Myanmar and condemn the actions of the coup leaders. But the best way to ensure that the concerns of Australians and the concerns of people in Myanmar are heard is through international dialogue. This particular free trade agreement provides an opportunity for Australia to be part of that regional architecture, to put those concerns and to ensure that, hopefully, they can be actioned. One way that potentially could occur with respect to Myanmar is for this free trade agreement to be done, for Myanmar to be admitted as a free trade party and then to be immediately suspended by the parties until they can work out the situation that has developed in Myanmar and return to democracy. That is an option that is on the table that the Australian government could consider. All in all, this is of benefit to Australia and to Australian workers. I'm pleased that the Labor Party is supporting it. I commend it to the House. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT -1 ADJOURNMENT COVID-19: Tasmania -1 19:30 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin [by video link] Here in southern Tasmania, where I'm coming to you from today, we've just endured our first lockdown in more than a year. Thankfully, for three days there have been no new COVID cases in southern Tasmania. But it has got Tasmanians talking about our vaccination levels and about why we're in the middle of October and still so few Tasmanians have had their vaccines. I congratulate those Tasmanians who have gone out and got their vaccine—I think we're at 69 per cent with a double dose now, fourth out of the eight jurisdictions in Australia. Tasmanians are particularly concerned about what will happen when Tasmania opens up when we hit that magical 90 per cent that our state Premier wants, or 80 per cent according to the national plan—we're still not sure what that will be. We understand that our Premier will make an announcement this Friday about what the opening up plans for Tasmania will be. Tasmanians know that we have the oldest population in Australia and, sadly, the sickest population in Australia. We know that our hospital system here in Tasmania is already under great stress. We have a health system that is struggling to cope, whether it be GPs around the state in regional and outer suburban areas, mental health services, hospitals or ambulances. We know Tasmania's health system is not in good shape. We know that in August fewer than half of all patients at the emergency department were seen on time. That is the worst result on record. We know that our ambulance response times are the slowest in the country. We know that ramping at our hospitals is a regular occurrence because we simply do not have enough staffed beds. We know that Tasmanians are already struggling to get the care they need, and Tasmanians are worried that when COVID and the delta strain arrive on our shores we will not be able to cope. We know that all state and territory ministers wrote to the Commonwealth asking for additional resources and funds, saying they need extra support for their health systems. In my home state of Tasmania this is particularly true. We know that this support is needed. We know that Tasmania can't do it without the Commonwealth's support. Today in question time we heard the Prime Minister say he has spoken to our state Premier. I hope that, when the Premier announces Tasmania's plan on Friday about how we are going to reopen to the other states of Australia, included in that is Commonwealth support for our health system. It simply cannot cope without additional support. The state and federal Liberal governments have now had more than 18 months to get this right. If Tasmania's hospital system fails under the weight of COVID when we reopen, it will be at the feet of the Prime Minister and the Premier. They will be responsible if Tasmania's health system does not survive this reopening. We've had assurances from the state government that they've purchased more ventilators. We've had assurances that there are enough trained staff. But we also know that the last time we had COVID in Tasmania—on the north-west coast in June last year—the federal government had to call in the Army to deal with the hospitals on the north-west coast because the system could not cope. I hope that, since that time, the state and federal governments have done their jobs. The Tasmanian public is very anxious and very concerned about what it will mean when we reopen the borders here and the delta strain of COVID comes into our state. Tasmanians, I urge you to go out and get vaccinated. We know that far too many Tasmanians are still not vaccinated, particularly in some of those regional communities and particularly some of the vulnerable groups. We have had to raise particular circumstances to get people access to vaccines. That should no longer be an issue. We know the state government has finally gotten around to getting a bus to visit regional communities, but I urge every Tasmanian to please go and get vaccinated. Once you hear the Premier's plan on Friday, please don't panic—we're doing everything we can to put pressure on the state and federal governments to make sure that our health system in Tasmania will cope, that people will be able to access GPs and that people will be able to access the hospital emergency department when they need it. Far too many Tasmanians are wondering what will happen and whether it will work, and they haven't yet had any assurances from the state and federal governments about how this is going to work. I hope that on Friday, when we get the big announcement about when Tasmania will reopen, the government has done its job. (Time expired) Pathfinders National Aboriginal Birth Certificate Program -1 Indi Electorate: Hospitals -1 19:40 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Albury Wodonga Health is already one of the busiest regional health services in regional Victoria and regional New South Wales. As the population on the border grows it will only get busier. People right across Indi use Albury Wodonga Health services and we need a new hospital on the border before it's over capacity. Within 15 years the border population will grow by one third. By 2040 we will need a hospital capable of handling 150,000 emergency presentations, 40,000 surgeries and 1,900 births per year. As a former nurse and a midwife who worked in north-east Victoria for decades, I know how much stronger our communities will be with new facilities, from neonatal care right through to aged care. Albury Wodonga Health are finalising a master plan for publication next month which will set out just what our community will need in a health service for decades to come. Now is the time for the federal government to step up and commit to funding this new hospital. In the past fortnight over 700 of my constituents have signed an open letter through my office calling on the government to commit to funding, and that number is growing by the day. The New South Wales and Victorian state governments have shown their interest in making the hospital a reality and I'm calling on federal government to do the same. If we had a world-class hospital in Albury-Wodonga people needing medical treatment wouldn't be separated from their families, alone in hospital in Melbourne. They wouldn't experience delays in really high technical treatment. In fact they wouldn't avoid treatment altogether, which some people do. They choose not to be treated rather than have to go to Melbourne. Little babies could be looked after in a neonatal intensive care unit close to home. Specialist appointments wouldn't take a 3½ hour drive each way. Ongoing treatments wouldn't mean moving away from family supports and comforts. That's what regional Australians truly deserve. I have been meeting with doctors David Clancy, Barbara Robertson and Phillip Steele from the Border Medical Association who share my vision for a state-of-the-art hospital on the border. The Border Medical Association is a non-political group which represents a large group of doctors based around Albury-Wodonga who I know are passionate about securing this new hospital. The Border Medical Association recently had this to say: 'The current health service is struggling to keep up with the demand and maintain safety in two small hospitals separated by the Murray River. The infrastructure in these hospitals is obsolete, overrun and no longer fit for purpose. The duplication of hospital services and stretching of resources leads to harm for patients on both sides of the border. It leads to inordinate waste. We cannot provide a high quality service for our community, which stretch from Mansfield to Hay. With the parlous state of our hospitals our community knows this and they need to see meaningful change. This need should have been resolved much earlier—before we reached this critical juncture. The urgency now means that the federal government needs to support and facilitate the states making this a reality.' I have also had many constituents contact my office to tell me what a hospital on the border would mean for them. Here is what one constituent had to say: 'This would be a game changer for us in the regions. No more trips to the Royal Melbourne. They're fantastic there but the travel, the traffic, the parking and the trauma when you have a chronic health condition—the benefits of a new hospital would be immeasurable.' And another: 'My mother is 93. We need to ensure prompt access to medical attention for her. In 2019 she needed a pacemaker and received excellent care but then had to be transferred to Melbourne. With the pressure of the pandemic and growing population on the border we need to increase our capacity to ensure all patients like her are able to receive prompt, effective patient-focused care.' Or this constituent: 'In the past 10 years my wife has had two life-threatening incidents requiring hospitalisation in Melbourne intensive care units. The health care was amazing but it was so difficult for our family to be near her at that time. It would be so much better if there was a world-class hospital on the border.' Just recently, I met a man in Wodonga who suffers from congenital heart disease, obviously since he was born. He has a small young family and has his own business. He loses a day of work every time he has to travel to Melbourne for treatment. He asked his specialist if he could be treated in Albury and he said, 'I'm sorry; they simply don't have the facilities'. Now is the time for the federal government to step up and commit to funding a world-class hospital on the border. (Time expired) Regional Australia -1 19:45 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes This week regional Australia has been at the centre of a lot of the discussions around emissions reduction. But tonight I want to talk about the fact that some of the commentators and journalists have shown a clear lack of understanding of the sophisticated nature of what's happening in regional Australia. Indeed, one sneering journalist on the weekend referred to my constituents as yokels. This year, agriculture looks likes it's going to be worth about $67 billion in exports. So it is a large part of our economy. Indeed, agriculture and mining have keep this country afloat over the very difficult time that we have had over the last 18 months to two years with the pandemic. At the moment in the Parkes electorate harvesting is about to begin on what's possibly one of the biggest grain harvests that this area has ever seen. Sure, we have had an improvement in the weather and farmers have been coming out of drought. But one of the reasons that this crop is so good is because of the way the farmers managed their soils through the drought and subsequently. It is also due to the varieties that are grown. Not many people realise that the Sydney university has had a plant breeding facility in Narrabri for over 50 years, breeding varieties of grain that have high protein and are suitable for the difficult climate of western New South Wales. We have got record prices for livestock, cattle and sheep. Sure, there's supply and demand, but one of the reasons is the quality of the product. Breeders are undertaking selective breeding, getting the best genetics from all over the globe and undertaking embryo transplants. There's a lot of work going on, and the quality and size of the livestock that is coming through onto the market are much improved. But, away from agriculture, there is talk of the mining sector. I've got a proposals for rare earths—lithium and cobalt—but also the established lead, zinc and copper mines across the western part of my patch and the coal on the eastern side. Even as the globe transitions away from coal, there will be a place for the high-quality low-sulphur and low-ash coal from the Gunnedah Basin for years to come. Even as our customers like Korea and Japan might transition on to hydrogen and other things, they will still have a mixture of the high-quality product that comes from my electorate. There are also companies like Furney's, which was just announced as company of the year for western New South Wales. I was able to help them with a grant from the Commonwealth government last year to help modernise their business. There are highly sophisticated businesses. At the moment right across my electorate, there are thousands of jobs available—not just labouring jobs but also sophisticated jobs for engineers, for medical professionals, for educators, for lawyers and the list goes on. You could name any of the professions and there are opportunities in western New South Wales at the moment. There's been a lot of negativity coming out during the pandemic about some of our western towns and the Indigenous communities, but you don't hear the stories of Brewarrina where the local council has 80 per cent Indigenous employment and of the men and women of Goodooga who are now working on building very high quality roads into their area and the upgrade they have done with the help of the federal government for their bore baths, where they've seen up to 80 people camping at the border town that's largely Aboriginal population. There is so much positivity at the moment, and the last thing we need is journalists who don't look beyond the surrounds of this capital referring to the people of western NSW and my electorate as yokels. They're far from yokels. It's a sophisticated, go-ahead area, and, with the help of some more people migrating to that area, it has a very, very bright future. Kingsford Smith Electorate: COVID-19 -1 19:50 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith To the people of Kingsford Smith, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your sacrifices, your compliance and your hard work during the past 3½ months in getting us through this most damaging delta outbreak of COVID. I give a special thanks to the parents who have been undertaking home schooling of their kids for the past 3½ months and doing it tough and to all of our essential workers who have kept our economy running during this difficult time. Thanks, too, to our aged-care and healthcare workers and those running our vaccination clinics and our testing sites. We must not forget that we expect a spike in cases now that we're opening up and that our healthcare system is going to be under enormous pressure. We need to make sure we support our already tired and overworked healthcare workers. I'm proud of the campaign that the Labor Party has run to get local vaccination clinics up in our community. In the Bayside local government area, the second dose vaccination rate is now at 73 per cent. Unfortunately, in the Randwick LGA, it's still only at 68 per cent, so there is more work to do in our community. I say to those who are eligible to get the jab: it's not too late to protect yourself and the people you love. Please consider getting your first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as possible. You don't need to book and it's free. In New South Wales, 535 lives have already been lost. One of those, I want to pay tribute to is Paul Nicolaou, a friend of mine who was my local drycleaner at Matraville. Paul, to your family, we say commiserations. There are currently 586 cases in hospital, with 125 of those in intensive care. We should not forget that we should never have been in this situation. The Prime Minister had two jobs this year: a speedy and effective rollout of the vaccine and quarantine. He failed at both. It was uncovered that the health minister knocked back a meeting in June 2020 with Pfizer. That saw us six months behind on our vaccine rollout. And, a year after telling Australians that they were working on developing domestic mRNA vaccine manufacturing capabilities, the Morrison government is no closer to producing mRNA vaccines. They can't even provide a realistic timetable for delivery. Yet, by this government's own admission, hundreds of thousands of immuno-compromised Australians need additional protection from COVID. They're being let down by a government far more interested in announcements than deliveries. Many in our community are swept up by the euphoria associated with opening up, but I want to remind people that many are still doing it tough. Many have lost their jobs. Many businesses are still struggling. Particularly I want to mention the travel industry, both domestic and international, which has faced some of the harshest conditions throughout the last 18 months. Many of those businesses have been unable to trade due to government regulation and have had to lay off staff. But the Morrison-Joyce government has focused on announcement over delivery and continues to puts the jobs of thousands in the Australian travel sector at risk. There are going to be businesses which, because of public health orders, will be unable to trade even as we pass the 80 per cent vaccination level. A classic example is travel agents. Because of the restrictions around travel, travel agents can't resume their normal trade, so they won't be able to employ people in normal circumstances, yet they're going to lose their Commonwealth government support. It's not good enough. The economic pain won't disappear overnight, and the decision of the Morrison government to end support will make it worse. Until international travel normalises in 2022, an ongoing financial lifeline is now critical to the 30,000 Australians working in travel and 3,000 travel agencies and businesses who employ them. Australia's travel agents and businesses need ongoing support, including round 3 funds from the COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program. The government must release those round 3 funds. The New South Wales government has said that it will continue to pay its share of disaster support and recovery payments until the end of November, albeit at a tapered rate, but the Morrison government has completely cut off its share now that the state has passed the 80 per cent vaccination rate. New South Wales recognises that what the Commonwealth is doing is not good enough, and that those businesses and employees are going to need that support right up until the moment they can resume normal trading. It's not good enough for the Morrison government to abandon those in the travel sector. The government must restore support to get those businesses through this difficult period of COVID. Victoria: Regional Rail -1 19:55 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls For a few years now—in fact, since before the last election—the federal government has had $2 billion of its taxpayers' money on the table for the Victorian government to match so that we could end up with a fast train service to Geelong. Nothing has happened, of course, and the Victorian government seems to be hell-bent on spending $120 billion on a suburban rail loop that seems to be totally fanciful. However, the consultancy group Juturna, who have been contracted by the Geelong council to work out the best way to deliver fast train services to Geelong, have come up with a report called Stronger, Together. It offers an opportunity for fast trains not just to Geelong but also to Seymour, Shepparton, Bendigo, Ballarat, the Latrobe Valley and even, on the north-east line, Benalla. This is an opportunity for the 1.5 million Victorians who live outside of Melbourne. It's an opportunity for 200-kilometre-per-hour electric trains to bring around 600,000 of those Victorians within commuting distance of Melbourne. Right now, if you look at the wealth distribution of Victorians you see some people who are lucky enough and successful enough to live in what you would call inner Melbourne, where they are able to access high-paying jobs and take advantage of what those high-paying jobs bring to their family. You then have another class of Victorians who live on the outskirts of Melbourne, in the suburbs—they travel an hour into work every day and still have access to those high-paid jobs. They are the second class of Victorians. Then there's a third class of Victorians, who are prohibited from accessing these high-paying jobs and the wealth that exists within inner Melbourne. They are the people who live in regional Victoria. There are 1.5 million Victorians who live in regional Victoria, outside of that commuting distance to the Melbourne CBD. The proposal for this 200-kilometre-per-hour train program has been fully worked through and has a business case associated with it. It simply needs the Victorian government to get on board and start looking at ways in which we could have a proper resettlement plan. In a country like Australia, to have 43 per cent of the nation's population living in two cities is a joke. What we need is a way to get the population to and from our capital cities so that people will be more inclined to headquarter their businesses out in regional Victoria. Bendigo Bank is an amazing organisation. At one stage it very nearly brought its headquarters into Docklands, but it didn't. It stuck with having its headquarters in regional Victoria. Bendigo Bank is headquartered in Bendigo, and 500 high-paying jobs stayed in Bendigo because of that. I'm sure that situation could be replicated many times over if we had connectivity back into Melbourne so we could have genuine two-way traffic. Having 200-kilometre-per-hour trains effectively halves the travel time of our existing services. All of a sudden Geelong comes inside 30 minutes, Bendigo comes to 45 minutes and Ballarat would probably be around 35 to 40 minutes. Even places like Shepparton become accessible to Melbourne, with a one-hour travel time. What we have here is an opportunity. That money is still on the table. The Victorian government simply needs to look beyond spending $120 billion back in Melbourne to maybe bringing the rest of Victoria along for the ride. Spend a little bit of money in the regions. Connect regional Victoria back to Melbourne and connect Melbourne back to regional Victoria. There are great opportunities out there. The Victorian government simply needs to realise that everybody deserves to be looked after when it comes to infrastructure spending, and not to look just at the projects that are going to benefit Melbourne. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES -1 NOTICES

Tuesday, 19 October 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Wicks ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS -1 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Brand Electorate: Seniors Forum, Local Council Elections: Western Australia, Rockingham Senior High School: Telethon -1 16:00 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Last Thursday I hosted a seniors forum for my older constituents in Kwinana, and I can tell you they were as angry as me to hear about the Morrison government's cashless welfare card for age pensioners. One attendee aptly pointed out that those on the age pension don't get a lot of money to begin with, so surely they at least deserve the freedom to spend their money as they wish. Imagine being an age pensioner working all your life and now being told that you may not have the agency to spend your money as you wish. My constituents are disgusted at such a proposition. Indeed, we know all Australian age pensioners are gravely concerned by the prospect of a cashless age pension card being rolled out in this country. Next week Labor will introduce legislation to scrap the cruel cashless debit card, and only Labor will end the Liberal's plan to roll out the cashless pensioner card right across this country. WA's local government elections were held last weekend. I really want to take the time to congratulate the successful candidates in the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana, which constitute my electorate of Brand in Western Australia. Deb Hamblin was elected as Rockingham's first popularly elected mayor and also became Rockingham's first female mayor. Caroline Hume, Dawn Jecks, Leigh Liley, Mark Jones, Brett Wormall and Robert Schmidt were also elected as councillors. In Kwinana, current mayor Carol Adams was re-elected. Matthew Rowse, Barry Winmar, Sue Kearney and Michael James Brown were also elected as councillors. I note Councillor Winmar is Kwinana's first Indigenous councillor. I would like to thank everyone that nominated for both the mayoral race in Rockingham and for all of the council elections across both cities. It isn't always easy to put yourself out there and campaign, but the community thanks you for your effort and for standing up. I am pleased to report that Rockingham and Kwinana had an increased voter turnout of close to four percentage points. Thank you all, local residents, for being part of the democratic process in local government. I would also like to praise the generosity of Rockingham Senior High School students, who raised an extraordinary $47,000 for Telethon. Over the past eight years the school has raised more than $275,000 for Telethon, the iconic charity that's been running in Western Australia for many, many decades. In fact, I remember as a young girl having sleepovers with my friends and watching the high jinks and fun that goes on at Telethon as people raise money for disabled children and sick children in our community. The spud king himself, Tony Galati, who's first and original Spudshed is in Baldivis, raised $300,000 by shaving off his iconic caterpillar eyebrows, while Mark McGowan's Labor government donated $10 million towards the record-beating total of $62 million. Congratulations to all. Southern New South Wales Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hub -1 16:03 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I met by telepresence last week with newly appointed chairman of the Southern New South Wales Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hub, Barry Irvin AM; chief executive of the hub, Cindy Cassidy; Charles Sturt University director of external engagement, Samantha Beresford; and professor of food sustainability, the Hon. Niall Blair, to discuss progress on this important venture. Mr Irvin, who is also the Bega Cheese executive chairman, leads a board of industry leaders in agriculture, water management, business, law and sustainability, including Batlow farmer Barney Hyams, putting in place measures to find solutions for the economic, social and environmental impact of future droughts and to ensure that the hub enables our farmers to have the very best tools available to continue to remain competitive on the global market. The Southern New South Wales Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hub is one of eight hubs established across the country through the federal government's $5 billion Future Drought Fund. I was with the agriculture minister, the member for Maranoa, at CSU's AgriPark in Wagga Wagga to announce the hub on 12 April this year. Each hub will have a particular focus on collaboration. They will provide networks for researchers, primary producers and community groups to work together to enhance drought resilient practices within their focus region. They'll become flagships for precincts of agricultural innovation. Indeed, they will advance commercialisation. These opportunities to help and enhance our wonderful farmers are very important. The Wagga Wagga hub recently received a further $2½ million, on top of the $8 million announced to establish it in April, to expand on its remit of drought resilience. We know that the next drought is on its way. We know that. Australia is a country of flooding rains and, indeed, droughts, so what we're doing with this agenda is targeting four priorities: exports, climate resilience, biosecurity and digital agriculture. The hub is already playing a key role in developing and researching technologies to ensure that farmers in the Riverina and the Central West, who punch well above their weight, and farmers right across the nation will be best placed to adapt to environmental and economic challenges based on science and innovation. Riverina and Central West primary producers are very mindful of this, they're very glad about our investment, and they're getting right behind the hub. The southern New South Wales hub is going to be a leader for agricultural innovation and supporting farmers and communities right across my region. CSU earlier this month established the Agriculture, Water and Environment Institute, to be opened by the end of this year, to build on the work being done through the hub, and it will employ 20 research positions. So there's a lot happening in this space. I'm very mindful of the government's investment. It's a very wise investment. It's very good indeed. COVID-19: Morrison Government -1 16:06 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen At midnight on Thursday, Melburnians will begin to emerge from our sixth lockdown, and all of Victoria, including us who live in the electorate of McEwan, will begin to navigate a new stage in this pandemic journey. I want to take this opportunity to recognise and applaud the immense courage, strength and resilience of our community and all Victorians. Faced with unprecedented hardships over the course of this pandemic, I've watched my community again and again come together and confront the challenges. The stories of camaraderie and everyday kindness that I've heard from those in our electorate have confirmed once again the enduring spirit and strength in Australians. However, let us be clear. Many of these challenges that our communities have faced throughout the course of this pandemic, particularly over the last 12 months, have been avoidable. They were a result of an unprepared and irresponsible Morrison government. When the Treasurer gave a press conference criticising the time that Victoria was taking to emerge from lockdowns, like so many other Victorians I was outraged. This COVID outbreak which originated in Sydney and the subsequent outbreak and lockdown in Victoria were a result of two things: the Morrison government's failure on quarantine and the Morrison government's failure on vaccines. Time and time again, throughout the course of this pandemic, the Morrison government has continued to fail Australians. In Victoria, we have felt the impacts of that failure more so than anywhere else. The Morrison government claimed that we were at the front of the queue for vaccines, but we know that wasn't true. In fact, we were at the rear of the queue. They wasted so much time rejecting proposals for federal quarantine facilities, only to agree to the need for such facilities once they became obsolete. They have acted too slowly in securing and rolling out rapid antigen testing, which has been used in the US and the UK for months now, to get Australians back to work and school as quickly as possible so that life can return to normal. At every stage of this pandemic, the Morrison government has failed Australians and failed our communities in McEwen. If the government hadn't dragged its feet on vaccines and federal quarantine, Australia would have hit its vaccination targets a year earlier, and Melbourne would not have suffered so many lockdowns. For the government to come out now and criticise Victoria's handling of the pandemic, and for the Treasurer, who spent most of last year's lockdowns here in Canberra—he deserted his community and came up here for his safety; to go out for dinner and have fun while we were all locked down—to attack Victorians and support the premature ending of COVID disaster payments is an absolute disgrace. Victorians in our community of McEwen have navigated this pandemic with strength, resilience, kindness and the courage of Australian spirit. The Morrison government has failed them. It continues to fail them, and that has never been clearer. Australian Broadcasting Corporation -1 16:09 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman [by video link] On 30 April this year the ABC's 7.30 aired a special investigation containing a series of accusations from mildly annoyed critics who never did, said or acted at the time but years later accepted the invitation to join a pile-on at the same time the same national broadcaster was colluding with its employee to avoid deleting or apologising for a series of defamatory private tweets. At what point over five months does an honest mistake become a dishonest one? The tweet came after a 31 March investigation that explicitly ruled out what was being tweeted. At what point does a taxpayer-funded model litigant cease to be one? This came to the fore in April when the ABC investigative reporter Lorna Knowles alleged I had asked grooming-like questions of a minor nearly 10 years ago—potentially criminal conduct punishable by imprisonment. However, Knowles was unwilling or unable to substantiate any of the accusations she put to me, saying simply—words to the effect—'I've obtained an at-length sit-down interview and I intend to broadcast it in full, followed by whatever you want to say.' It turns out my online exchange of just 42 words back in 2012 was utterly appropriate. I confirmed the profile's identity, encouraged them to comment, reminded them not to use rude words and concluded with 'got to go'. My question is whether Knowles had this exchange and ignored it or never had the wit to get it in the first place. But either way, her entire taxpayer-funded investigation was based on a fabrication and, just minutes before broadcast, was torpedoed when I provided the transcript. But that is not the end of the story. Knowles recovered and cobbled together scuttlebutt interviews to fill the gap and these included a netball sideline squabble, two uncomfortable academics—including one so uncomfortable they immediately accepted a lift to their hotel after they got off the flight with me—me asking a 19-year-old if I could add them to Facebook and, finally, claiming this behaviour extended beyond Australia because an ALP campaign manager said so. But when her complaint was proven not to exist, she claimed it was 'only a phone call'. This entire episode is an embarrassment and a stain on the national broadcaster founded on a presumption of guilt and an expensive refusal to apologise in a timely fashion. Ms Milligan should regard this as a taxpayer loan for her legal costs as one she must pay back and this must be done to the ABC. There's no law to prevent the actions of Knowles, of Milligan or of the ABC, but the taxpayer should never be forced to underwrite it. This taxpayer contribution is effectively a loan to Milligan and she should be made to pay it back to the ABC and to the taxpayer immediately. Mental Health, COVID-19 -1 16:12 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The member for Bowman just had three minutes to talk about his constituents and he spent three minutes talking about himself. How very on-brand for the member for Bowman. I'd like to give voice to a young woman from my electorate and her vision for Australia in 20 years' time. Brighton teenager, May Johnson, writes: 'My first experience in Australia's mental health system was at 12 when I went to see a psychiatrist for the first time. At 13 I was officially diagnosed with depression and anxiety. At 15 I went on my first medication for my insomnia. At 16 I was officially diagnosed with an eating disorder and at 17 I stayed in the paediatric intensive care unit after my first suicide attempt. My state still does not have a psychology ward for young people. Now aged 19, I reflect on my time within Australia's mental health system and I can't understand how our politicians argue that only now they realise it's broken. The shadow pandemic is not something new only discovered under COVID; it is something I and many young Australians have dealt with nearly our whole lives. In 20 years, I hope politicians will have stopped using my mind as a political battleground. Instead, I want politicians to deliver the following: comprehensive funding towards psychologists, accessible mental health care, preventative mental health care, awareness around medication and improved infrastructure. This would help those having mental health problems, all of which would make a happier and healthier Australia.' I thank May for her contribution and I fully endorse her words. I want to now speak on the COVID-positive man who entered Tasmania from the mainland without approval, who escaped hotel quarantine and who sparked a three-day lockdown in the south of the state.   I am angry with this man and Tasmanians are angry, and rightly so. He has been fined $3,000 and the Premier wants police to consider charging him with offences that carry steeper penalties, and that's a call which most of us would support. But Tasmanians are also asking why the system failed so badly. How did this man leave quarantine undetected for so many hours? Where were the guards, where were the cameras? I understand a guard was changing his PPE when the man left. This indicates that the guard did not have someone available to stand at his post. These matters require full investigation and transparency; the premier must not default to secrecy. As our borders prepare to open, Tasmanians deserve confidence in COVID security measures for our state. Thank you. Flynn Electorate: Hydrogen Industry -1 16:15 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn One of the word's largest hydrogen equipment manufacturing facilities is planned for Gladstone. Recently, Andrew Forrest visited Gladstone and announced that his company, Fortescue Future Industry, FFI, would build a first stage plant at Gladstone. This initial stage 1 will cost $114 million or thereabouts and will create 120 construction jobs and 53 operational jobs. A start date is January-February 2022, not that far away. The coalition government, in addition, is providing $2.17 million through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, to support the $10.5 million project for the Stanwell Corporation Ltd study into large-scale hydrogen electrolysis and liquefaction at the facility in Gladstone. A further $5 million was put forward by our federal government, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in Gladstone in May 2021. Under stage 2 and through to stage 6 of the FFI plan, more than 5,000 new jobs are expected to be created, adding $4.2 billion in hydrogen exports. Because of projects like these, the Morrison-Joyce government has guaranteed a prosperous future for regional workers and their families in our community. There are various methods of producing hydrogen, and they are put into colour codes. Depending on the type of production used, different colours are assigned to the hydrogen. Green hydrogen is made by using clean electricity from surplus renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power, powering electrolysis of water, which emits carbon dioxide in the process. Blue hydrogen is produced mainly from natural gas, using a process called 'steam reforming'. That brings together natural gas and heated water to form steam. The output is hydrogen and also hydrogen dioxide as a by-product. That means carbon capture and storage is essential to trap and store this carbon. Grey hydrogen is created from natural gas or methane, using steam and methane reformation, but without capturing the green gases made in the process. Brown hydrogen is used with brown or black coal in the hydrogen-making process. Any hydrogen made from fossil fuels through the process of— (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination -1 16:18 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Over recent months, Canberrans have rolled our sleeves up and got vaccinated. Today Canberra became the first state or territory in Australia to have more than 80 per cent of the over-12 population vaccinated. Ninety-nine per cent of Canberra's adults have had a first dose. Under the leadership of Andrew Barr, Rachel Stephen-Smith and Kerryn Coleman, we are on track to become the most vaccinated city in the world. Why has Canberra done so well? It's true that Canberra is the most progressive jurisdiction in Australia: socially inclusive and internationally engaged. We're quick to take up new technologies and are enthusiastic about education. When I've spoken in this place about refugees, international development, marriage equality or climate change, I know I've been speaking for my electors. But while Canberrans are progressive, we've also shown a commitment to old-fashioned values: hard work, putting the community first, caring for others, respecting your neighbours, taking care of the elderly and looking after children. What Canberra has done in recent months might have surprised others, but it didn't strike me as unusual. Canberrans have high levels of community trust. We're more likely to join, volunteer and donate, and less likely to drop litter on the ground. This isn't just Australia's bush capital, it's the nation's social capital. Canberrans' willingness to get vaccinated in record numbers reflects the altruism and deep sense of honesty in our community. We don't have much patience with shysters or hucksters. We trust the experts and their hard-won wisdom. We care about family. We keep our promises. Canberra is an inclusive community and we know that the best way to protect those whose health is compromised is for everyone else to get vaccinated. Of course, Canberra didn't just become altruistic in the last few months. If we'd had enough vaccine we could have hit our vaccination targets months ago. In July 2020 the Prime Minister had the chance to buy enough doses of Pfizer to vaccinate every Australian adult for about a billion Australian dollars. He chose not to take that deal. At the same time as he was giving $20 billion of JobKeeper to firms with rising revenues, he wouldn't pay $1 billion for enough Pfizer to vaccinate every Australian adult. So make no mistake, these latest lockdowns have been the Morrison lockdowns. If we'd started the vaccination program when Britain, the US, Canada and Israel did so— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:21 to 16:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 So make no mistake: these latest lockdowns have been the Morrison lockdowns. If we'd started the vaccination program when the US, the UK, Canada and Israel did, then half of Australia would not have spent the past few months in lockdown, and some of the 1,543 Australians who died from COVID would be alive today. But, late as it is, Canberra is coming out of lockdown. Thank you, Canberrans. Page Electorate: Sport -1 16:33 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to acknowledge the Woolgoolga United Football Club, who this year are celebrating their 50th birthday. The first senior men's team was formed in 1971, and in 1975 they won their first premiership. They had only one team for the first six years, and then in 1977 formed a reserve grade side. From 1979, games were played at the high school. The first women's team was formed in 1999, and Kim Batty has played in the women's team since it was formed, making this year her 29th year playing first grade footy for the Woolgoolga football club. Now, in 2021, the club has over 400 players registered across 27 teams and is one of the largest clubs in the Coffs district. The club also established the Harmeet Shetra Memorial Shield in memory of club member Harmeet Shetra. This special event, organised by Gurminder Singh, is held once a year at the Clive Joass Memorial Sports Park. I thank the current committee, which includes President Peter Knott; Vice President Kim Batty; Secretary Bec Smart; Treasurer and Registrar Jada Johnson; social media, Patrick Mullan; publicity, Holly Stapleton; Summer 6's president Dave King and Junior Vice President Rob Barselaar; Sponsorship Coordinator Alex Bodnar; and committee members Brett Nudd and Teresa King. I would also like to acknowledge the life members, who again include Kim Batty, and Michael Jackson, Andy Muir, Ian Whiteman, Mark Drew, Rob Barselaar, Bill Robertson, Peter Davey and Michael Lamont. Congratulations to the Woolgoolga United Footie Club and happy birthday on your 50th birthday. I'd like to acknowledge Pauline Wagner, who has been named the New South Wales Female Community Coach of the Year by New South Wales Rugby League. Pauline has played for many years, but this is her first year coaching the Kyogle Turkeys ladies league tag team. Pauline received the award for her passion and drive to promote women's tag competitions in our region. She also encourages those of all skills to get involved in the game. Junior and senior football has experienced a 30 per cent growth in female participation in New South Wales since 2019. Pauline received a personal video message from Brad Fittler, New South Wales Blues coach, to let her know she had won and to congratulate her. Congratulations, Pauline, on such a tremendous achievement, and thank you for putting in the work and being an inspirational person for young women in our community. Griffith Electorate: Greenslopes Red Cross Hall -1 16:36 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith [by video link] In August, a batch of documents was released about the Commonwealth-owned former Red Cross Hall site. Those documents show that the Liberal National government has, throughout their entire eight long years in office, ignored calls to act on dangers posed by asbestos, lead paint and pesticides. When the Red Cross let the premises in 2013, site contamination reports told the government of significant asbestos, lead and pesticide risks. In March 2014, the then veterans' affairs minister told the finance minister that the site should be remediated to remove the contamination but his department did not have capacity to fund the remediation. Instead of providing the funding, the then finance minister responded that the site should not be remediated until the government decided on its future. Seemingly oblivious to the zoning, he wanted the site to be sold for residential or commercial development. So, instead of remediating the site, the government put up fences and signs. They're still there. In February 2015, Asbestos Audits Queensland said that the roof was in an advanced state of deterioration after recent hailstorms and should be removed and replaced. This advice appears to have been completely ignored. In March 2015, the government claimed they were working towards remediation as quickly as possible. The following month, though, they were 'unable to indicate' how long it would take. In 2017—three years after the government had decided to go ahead and sell the site on the open market without remediating it first—they changed their mind. Instead, they would make a private sale to a preferred purchaser. In August 2017, the government again said they had not started remediating. In 2019, there was a new asbestos audit. Five years had passed since the last one, even though it had recommended annual audits. The report said: 'The two buildings have been left to deteriorate since our last inspection in 2015 and asbestos contamination from the roof cladding has spread across the site and built up in various areas. It is no longer a matter of simply resealing the roof cladding. The entire site requires remediation and the roof cladding removed, including cleaning of all support beams, ceiling and roof spaces et cetera and the clean-up and removal of the top layer of soil in grounds of the site carried out.' Now, the newly-released documents show, remediation has still not started. Meanwhile, the government's proposal for the site has been deemed a controlled action by the environment minister, which commences an assessment and approval process that will take significant time. I have written to the veterans' affairs minister three times since the documents were released in August. I am still waiting for a response. My community deserves an explanation and we deserve to know what the Morrison government intends to do to remedy its long-running neglect of this historical site. It's an absolute disgrace and it needs to be fixed. The government needs to get its act together. It has been eight years, and they've been dithering on it, putting people at risk and wasting a crucial piece of community infrastructure. National Police Remembrance Day -1 16:39 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Police Dog Rambo, one of the fine canines that protect us in Wide Bay, was unfortunately killed in the line of duty while tracking a wanted person in Maryborough this year. It's a fitting tribute that the dog park in Neptune Street, Maryborough, near where Rambo found a missing child, has now been named in his honour. Last week his handler, Sergeant Ian Grigoris, the Police Dog Squad and Fraser Coast Regional Council opened the off-leash dog park in his memory. Rambo rescued a young girl, tracked down offenders and died pursuing an offender with his handler. We acknowledge National Police Remembrance Day every year on 29 September, where we pause to reflect on the courage of those who put their lives on the line to protect our communities. This year we honour three members who lost their lives since last Police Remembrance Day in 2020: Senior Constable David Masters, Senior Constable Kelly Foster and Detective Senior Constable Michael James Cursiter. The death of any police officer is tragic for their loved ones, their colleagues and the community. Every time a member of the police force puts on their uniform and wonders what the shift will bring, they reflect on the dangers inherent in policing. The risks and the dangers associated with policing sometimes mean that a member won't make it home at the end of their shift. The past 18 months have been morale sapping for police, who have been the face of enforcing social distancing, arbitrary lockdown measures, and border closures across the nation. Police swear an oath and/or make an affirmation to serve the people according to the law. They don't make these laws. They enforce them. Whilst I'm one of the few who have done both, I spent a lot of time—16 years—dealing with sometimes poorly formed laws put out by parliamentarians. We deal with many political ramifications in this place, but people who deal with the front end of our decisions are often the police officers on the ground, who don't have a choice. Police, accompanied by their dogs and horses, have copped the brunt of our lockdown responses in protests across the nation. We should remember the risks all police take in the course of their duty. Thank you for the service of all the police officers who made the ultimate sacrifice and to all past and present serving members of the Australian police forces serving in uncertain and very trying times. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I understand it would suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber for constituency statements to continue for an additional 30 minutes. There being no objection, I call the member for Adelaide. Higher Education: Language Studies -1 16:42 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide [by video link] La fantastica comunita Italiana ha contribuito tantissimo al nostro stato e oggi voglio lottari per loro. What I just said is that the fantastic Italian community in South Australia has contributed enormously to our state and to Australia, and today I'm fighting for them. I am also fighting for everyone who believes in multiculturalism and in the importance of multiculturalism, linguistic diversity and ensuring that Australia becomes an even more important global player on the world stage. But we can only do this if we continue to have a population that is multilingual and multicultural. That's why I'm joining the Italian community and other concerned South Australians on calling on the Flinders University and the Morrison government to stop the cuts to languages, the arts and humanities subjects. Flinders University is completely cutting its Italian studies program, which has been running for over 50 years in South Australia. However, we have to ask ourselves: what role do the higher education funding reforms introduced by the Morrison government play in this? Those decisions that were made, and the changes to humanity degrees, meant they have more than doubled in cost. This is clearly a strategy to deter students from studying humanities, including languages like the Italian language at Flinders University. Even the then education minister, the Hon. Dan Tehan, didn't bother hiding the fact when he confirmed during a speech at the National Press Club that the government was unashamedly trying to steer students away from the humanities. The decision to cease offering Italian studies impacts a large section of the community and our economy. There are well over a million people of Italian background or who identify as Italian in Australia. Italy is one of Australia's major trading partners and a valuable source of foreign direct investment in Australia. Several Italian companies have established businesses and business operations in South Australia in growing high-tech sectors, such as the aerospatial industry and renewable energies. It is imperative that Italian and languages in general continue to be taught in Australian universities, especially given our reliance on trade in a globalised world, which is maintained by our international relations. We stand to lose too much if programs like Italian studies continue to be cut through the Morrison government's changes to the humanities. I call on the Morrison government to ensure that languages are maintained. (Time expired) Edens Landing State School -1 16:45 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Over the past 12 months, Edens Landing State School has continued to grow and build from strength to strength. The school culture continues to evolve on their foundation of positive relationships and high expectations for all members of the school community. The impact of this cultural change is highlighted by the student learning outcomes. There has been a real opportunity to celebrate, as the data shows that more students are passing English than ever before. The teachers are implementing high-yield strategies that are clearly making a difference to every student, every day, and helping them soar to great success. The staff have developed a process of intentionally focusing on every student. This is called faces on their data walls, and is looking for the next best step for each child. Teachers are walking beside their students as lifelong learners, developing their craft to deliver quality teaching and learning through innovative, differentiated learning experiences for the students. They see this as their greatest achievement. The staff have strong relationships and work as a team, from collaborative planning days all the way to classroom teaching and learning. Edens Landing State School has also been driven to create a wonderful environment in which students can learn. New playgrounds, sports equipment, grounds beautification and general facility upgrades have provided students and staff with a renewed pride in their school. The creation of a new school mascot, 'CC', a six-foot tall rainbow lorikeet, leads the charge for positive behaviour for learning and engagement in school life. This increase in student results, increased attendance and reduced numbers of negative behaviours are all outcomes of having great people with a community focus at the heart of what they do. It is obvious the school is much loved within the community when you see the foundation students enrolling their own children into prep, to start their education journey, at Edens Landing State School. Three staff members have also been acknowledged and celebrated at a state level for their amazing work at Edens Landing. Mrs Lizanne Hitchmough has been a year 5 classroom and foundation teacher at Edens Landing since 1997. She was nominated for and has won the Excellence in Teaching Award and is now a state finalist in the 2021 TEACHX Awards, the Dr Alan Druery OAM Excellence in Teaching Award. Mrs Lisa Hasenkam, a teacher aide at the school won the Outstanding Contribution to the Edens Landing State School Community Award and is a finalist in the Queensland Staff Community Awards. Breanna Ellis, a prep teacher at Edens Landing, has won an Excellence in Teaching Award. Congratulations to everybody at Edens Landing State School for their great work and outcomes. Macquarie Electorate: Bushfires -1 16:48 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In times of crisis, fire, flood or pandemic a leader is someone who shows up, someone who rolls up their sleeves, pulls on their boots and does what needs to be done. That's the bare minimum, in my mind. But how does that description measure up for this Prime Minister, for 'Mr Hawaiian holiday', 'Mr It's a matter for the states' or 'Mr The rules don't apply to me'? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I would remind the member for Macquarie to refer to members by their correct title. Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Yes, Deputy Speaker. I know the Prime Minister doesn't hold a hose. All of Australia knows that. But this person, the leader, does hold a pretty important position—he's the Prime Minister of Australia, for goodness sake. Where was he while my community suffered through the worst bushfires in living memory? Where was the support during the devastating floods or through this crippling pandemic? When things were tough, he was completely missing in action. Instead of stepping up, he stepped back. When hard decisions were needed, he stepped away. When we needed this government to show up for us, they weren't there. Why is this relevant now? 26 October, a week from today, is the two-year anniversary of the day the Gospers Mountain mega fire ignited. The Sunday just passed was the eighth anniversary of the day I lost my own home to bushfire. Bushfire season is serious in my electorate, and it's here. What has this government done to assist bushfire prone communities to be better prepared? Nothing. Are they talking about bushfire preparedness? No. About using Indigenous fire management practices? No. Is there anything about building an additional fire and rescue station and ambulance station west of the Hawkesbury River? No. What are they talking about? Themselves! What are they focused on? An election. And who loses? My community. Not only do you not hold a hose, Prime Minister, but your support of those who do and the communities they fight to protect is pitiful. Now, to my Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury communities, this is another reminder to prepare yourselves for bushfire season and to revisit your bushfire survival plan. As we know, there are two parts to this: preparing your home and knowing what you will do in case of a bushfire. Don't think that it won't happen to you. I'm the proof. The RFS website has lots of useful information about preparedness. Given that we live in one of the most bushfire prone places on Earth, you need to revisit this regularly. So my wish for you this coming weekend is: go clean your gutters. Health Care -1 16:51 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins There are so many challenges that we must face during this global pandemic—balancing work, taking care of children and even elderly loved ones—while we are likely to be physically and even mentally exhausted. As we open up post-COVID, I want to make sure that people in my electorate of Higgins and right across Australia are taking care of their health. The Morrison government has ramped up health and mental health funding to record levels during this pandemic to ensure supports have been able to pivot online through things like telehealth or adapting vital services so they can remain accessible. But there is a gap. The gap is evident when you look at preventive healthcare services. Research shows that many of us are delays preventive health check-ups during COVID. It is not surprising. This is a problem we need to address. As one example, around 27,000 people skipped heart health checks. The Heart Foundation says this number of skipped checks will result in nearly 350 heart attacks, strokes and heart related deaths that now won't be prevented. When it comes to mammograms, it is estimated there'll be between 1,300 and 2,600 missed or undiagnosed breast cancer cases based on Cancer Australia data released this month. Meanwhile, diagnostic and investigative surgeries dropped by up to a third in the first wave of COVID-19 alone. I want to be very clear, and Australians need to hear this: you need to put your health first. You need to catch up on your preventive health checks. There will be potentially life-changing health risks going undetected. If caught early, it can save your life. That's why I am working hard with my community to hear from them directly what they have skipped or missed during the six long lockdowns in Melbourne. I'm finding out through surveys what, when and how they would like these services delivered to be most convenient for them, to ensure we deliver the services that are required to make their health better. I'm advocating that we as a government pivot our healthcare system once again—this time to adapt our preventive health care services, provide surge service, incorporate telehealth services or potentially establish health hubs where needed. This pivot will allow Australians greater opportunities to catch up and ultimately prevent further strains on our healthcare system. As I said in my first speech, I've always wanted to prevent health problems; not just wait with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for problems to arrive. I want to send resources to the top of the cliff so that we can help keep people healthy and safe from the precipice. That's what this government has been doing through COVID with our testing and our vaccines. We know Australians want to get into the public health deal stream. That's what I'd like to hear—people going and getting their preventative healthcare checks, making sure that they're checking up for cancer and heart health. Australia Day Awards: Tasmania -1 16:54 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Yesterday, the Tasmanian finalists for Tasmanian Australian of the Year were announced. I want to talk about some of the finalists who are nominated from the electorate of Franklin. The first is Professor Gretta Pecl, who is a Tasmanian Australian of the Year finalist for her important work in marine ecology, assisting in the fight against climate change. Gretta is ranked on the Reuters hot list of climate scientists for her work and is ranked in the top 20 scientists on this list. She is passionate about women's participation in science and has received national and international awards for her science communication and research. Joanne Cook is a nominee for Tasmanian Australian of the Year for her advocacy work in eating disorder recovery. She's the founder of the Tasmania Recovery from Eating Disorders foundation, which merged with the Butterfly Foundation back in 2017. She spent a long time advocating for more services in Tasmania, recognising that, in our state, the lack of support for people living with an eating disorder is particularly bad. Jay Chipman is a nominee for the Tasmanian Local Hero of the Year for her role in supporting cancer sufferers and their families with her charity, Homely Retreats. Mrs Chipman was a young mother when she was diagnosed with cancer back in 2014. After experiencing six months of chemotherapy and more than two years in recovery, she was determined to help other families in her situation. She now has Homely Retreats, a respite service for Tasmanians affected by cancer. Of course, my electorate did very well in the Tasmanian Australian of the Year Awards last year. We also have Grace Tame from our area who went on to become Australian of the Year. These awards show what great people we have in our local community. I want to end by talking about one of them today, who's retiring tomorrow: Anne Harrison from the Risdon Vale Neighbourhood Centre. Anne has worked at the Risdon Vale Neighbourhood Centre for decades—I won't say how many or she'll get cross with me. She has been a real champion for her local community, being involved in local organisations, such as the breakfast club at the local Risdon Vale Primary School, the community garden and the bike collective. She has been involved in organising community lunches and big Christmas lunches. During COVID, she was not just instrumental in ensuring that people in the local community had food supplies but personally delivering hot lunches to people. She has been involved in programs with young mums. She has been involved in programs for disengaged young people from the local school, Work for the Dole programs and youth justice programs. She has people from local aged-care facilities coming into the centre. She is working with the community at all levels and has been involved in them for many years. To Anne, I say thank you. Your community will miss you, but you've earned a rest, and we say thanks. Parents Beyond Breakup -1 16:58 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I want to commend Parents Beyond Breakup, who offer outstanding support and guidance for families in crisis in the Berowra electorate and across Australia. I'd particularly like to acknowledge their CEO, Gillian Hunt, their chairman, Brendan Blomeley, and their staff and volunteers for their dedicated work. Parents Beyond Breakup is a national suicide prevention charity focused on supporting separated parents experiencing trauma through family breakdown. They also support parents and grandparents with child access issues. Parents Beyond Breakup has several streams, including Dads in Distress, Mums in Distress and Grandparents in Distress. The organisation consists of more than 50 dedicated volunteer peers, including separated mums, dads, grandparents and other people who want to make a positive difference to those most in need and most at risk. During 2021, Parents Beyond Breakup provided 1,451 face-to-face engagements, 1,429 online engagements and 1,778 helpline calls. I was first approached by Campbell Lennox, the leader of the local Dads in Distress group, because of my work in suicide prevention. I was invited to a Dads in Distress session at Hornsby. I subsequently went to sessions in other parts of Sydney and was involved in briefing their senior leadership team. I was impressed by the way the organisation runs and the care and professionalism of their sessions. They operate in a safe, confidential and accepting environment for parents to share and receive support. Some people have been in the family law system for a long time, while others have just begun their journey. The aim of the sessions is to support people as they go through the system, focusing on not getting angry but navigating one of the most difficult experiences in a person's life. The group sessions help parents to develop skills to negotiate and build relationships with their children. In 2020, 3,000 Australians died by suicide—a tragic statistic, with nearly nine people every day, and 65,000 people attempted to take their own lives. Research show that separated parents have a higher risk of attempting suicide and developing suicidal thoughts than other marital groups. In one Australian study, 23 per cent of alienated parents said they had attempted suicide in response to losing contact with their children. Losing contact with children can be one of the most distressing things a person can experience, and this is the focus of Parents Beyond Breakup. Around 12 per cent of Australian children whose parents had separated had no contact with one of their parents a year after the separation. And around three per cent of separated parents use courts as their main pathway to parenting arrangements. These are predominantly families affected by family violence, child safety concerns and other complex issues. Parents Beyond Breakup encourages people not to get angry but to understand how the system works and how to navigate it. Their groups offer practical advice and peer support, and are constantly seeking to influence the direction of policy and support around people's experience of the family law system. Parents Beyond Breakup's vision is that all children enjoy the best possible relationship with their parents. I'd like to thank everyone at Parents Beyond Breakup for the continuing support they give families across the electorate of Berowra and also across the country. They are a very important organisation. Cybersecurity -1 17:01 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon [by video link] I want to talk about the current scourge of unwanted text messages and emails that are irritating so many Australians. Of course, many legitimate businesses use texts and emails to communicate with their customers, and my comments are not directed towards them. Spam, as well as malicious text and emails, have been a worldwide problem for some time, including here in Australia and they seem to have escalated sharply during COVID-19—particularly here in my electorate. The ACCC says that scams delivered via phone or text this year outnumber those sent through any other delivery method, including social media and email. Reports suggest that SMS scams cost Australians approximately $6 million over the past 12 months. Delivery and postal scams are particularly common, but there are other types of fraud, such as premium rate tax fraud, tax demands, fake contact tracing messages and SMS phishing. There have also been recent reports of a flu bot scam, duping hundreds. Australians are desperate to stop this SMS tsunami, with 13,000 complaints to the ACCC's Scamwatch in August and September. That rose to 16,000 in the last month. (Time expired) Spinal Muscular Atrophy -1 17:03 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to give a big shout out to an amazingly resilient young mother from my home town of Katanning. Rachel Dark and her husband, Michael, have endured the sort of grief that no parents should have to go through, losing their beautiful baby, Rosie, to a rare genetic disorder called spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA. Rosie was born with no indication of this disease that would progressively ravage her little body, leading to her death at only 5½ months of age. In the weeks and months since Rosie's passing, grieving mum, Rachel, has campaigned tirelessly to have this genetic condition included in a suite of diseases tested in the newborn bloodspot screening, or heel prick, test—which you are well aware of, acting Deputy President Freelander. This simple test, costing approximately $10, would have led to an early diagnose of SMA for Rosie and pre-emptive treatment which could have proved not only life saving but led to her living a relatively normal life. Instead, by the time Rosie started to lose the use of her arms and legs, and the diagnosis was made, her disease was too well progressed. While potentially life-saving drugs, like SPINRAZA, have recently been listed on the PBS, unfortunately these are not able to reverse the paralysis that ultimately cost Rosie her life. Although grieving, Rachel has bravely resolved to lobby her state and federal MPs to make sure that no other WA family will endure this tragic loss. After hearing her story, I wrote to WA health minister, Roger Cook, requesting that WA align with the ACT and New South Wales health protocols, which include SMA testing in their NBS testing of newborns. Although Minister Hunt has publicly advocated for all states and territories to adopt the SMA testing, I shared the story with him as well. In a win for common sense and compassion, Minister Cook has announced SMA would be included as a pilot in the WA MBS program going forward. It won't bring baby Rosie back but her legacy will be the lives that this simple test saves in the future. Rachel and her husband are both carriers of the recessive SMN1 gene, which means there is a 25 per cent chance of having another baby with SMA. One in 45 people carry the gene for SMA, and, undiagnosed and untreated, it is the most common genetic disorder leading to death in babies under two years of age. I close by offering my heartfelt gratitude to Rachel and her husband, Michael, and to all the families who have taken up the fight to secure Australia-wide access to SMA testing through the MBS. I'm proud to support Rachel's ongoing quest to persuade other states and territory governments to add SMA to their MBS screening. Australia-wide adoption of this simple, cheap and effective screening test will provide confidence for all parents into the future and will be a lasting legacy for those precious little lives lost. 17:05 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Rosie's parents have been in contact with me and are trying to get a national program. Corangamite Electorate: Telecommunications -1 17:06 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite [by video link] Imagine your partner is desperately ill. You have to call an ambulance to your home but find you can't do so because your mobile reception is so poor. Unbelievably, this is the reality for residents living in a new housing estate in Armstrong Creek, just near Geelong. Many residents in this rapidly growing area of 16,000 people, which includes Warralily and Mount Duneed, are being let down by their mobile phone companies and by Commonwealth government inaction. We have long known Armstrong Creek would become one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia yet telcos and the Commonwealth government have failed to plan for adequate mobile services of residents. After getting many complaints about poor or non-existent mobile coverage and frequent call drop-outs, I've begun a petition and already have 400 signatures. I've also held a virtual community meeting with shadow communications minister, Michelle Rowland, to better understand the problem. Attendance reflected the high level of frustration, with over 120 people registered. I felt it opened a hornet's nest, as story after story came out about mobile phone failures. The COVID pandemic has exacerbated the problem because so many people are now working from home or home schooling with unreliable or non-existent mobile connectivity. Often people can only get coverage out the front of their house or in one particular room. Sometimes whole streets seem to be mobile-free zones. My own calls drop out often as I am travelling about Armstrong Creek on official business. For many people it is more than just simply frustrating; it's a matter of life and death. Kate shared her emotional story of a medical emergency where her husband had collapsed, needing an ambulance. Receiving the instructions over the phone from a triple-zero paramedic while waiting for the ambulance was near impossible. Kate, a neighbour and a brickie, who was working across the road, all tried unsuccessfully to get coverage on their phones. All were on different mobile networks, so all three networks failed. Thankfully, Kate's husband did get to hospital and is now fine, but the couple live in fear of a recurrence. I'm now talking about taking Armstrong Creek's concerns directly to the management of the three big mobile phone carriers. This is a bigger issue. Clearly the problem is serious and widespread. The telcos are not keeping up with the population and housing growth in the area and the resulting demand for mobile services. The Morrison government is also not doing its part; telecommunications is a federal responsibility. We must have robust requirements for telcos to provide adequate mobile services to new urban communities like Armstrong Creek. COVID-19: Racism -1 17:09 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm As Melbournians are coming out of the longest lockdown, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Chinese-Australian community, particularly those in my electorate of Chisholm, for what they have done during one of Australia's toughest times. In the early months of this pandemic in 2020, I was incredibly disappointed to see the uptick in racial abuse towards the Chinese-Australian community. According to the ABC, a shocking eight in 10 Asian Australians reported discrimination during the pandemic. I would like to thank the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and many of my parliamentary colleagues who called out this regrettable, disgusting and un-Australian behaviour. When Chinese Australians felt excluded and got blamed for the pandemic that they had no part in creating, and at the same time had to suffer just like anyone else, the Prime Minister came out to bat for them. He said that Chinese Australians 'were the ones who first went into self-isolation'. He said, 'They led the way and the broader community is now following.' This has contributed to the low infection rate and death rate in Australia. However, I was saddened by an outbreak in Box Hill, with one of my constituents passing away from COVID-19 only last week. He worked at a popular Chinese takeaway. Because of the slow action of the state government, this takeaway had not been listed as a tier 1 site days after his death, while heated debate and speculation on his death were widely circulated on Chinese social media, and many Chinese locals are feeling very concerned. I was also angered to hear that a small minority of people are seeking to capitalise on his death by pushing an antivaccination agenda, which will weaken the vaccine rollout and put people at risk. The facts about vaccination are clear. These vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccinated Australians are over 90 per cent less likely to be hospitalised after exposure to COVID-19, and they are 50 per cent less likely to pass the virus on to someone who can't be vaccinated. I'm proud of the Chisholm community, and they are fully, firmly on board with the vaccination rollout. MOTIONS -1 MOTIONS Amess, Sir David Anthony Andrew -1 17:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to pay tribute to Sir David Amess, whose death has come as a profound shock. The cruelty of Sir David's murder was counter to everything that he was. Tributes speak of his gentleness, his kindness, his humour, his generosity, his faith and his unwavering spirit of public service. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who entered parliament the same year as Sir David, said of him: Though on opposite political sides I always found him a courteous, decent and thoroughly likeable colleague who was respected across the House. That is the mark of a politician for whom humanity comes first. The shock is also that it happened at all. The United Kingdom has carefully and painstakingly built and nurtured a system that places in the hands of every adult citizen something far more powerful than any weapon: the ballot. To take up arms against elected representatives is an act of cowardice, one that is designed to make people lose their courage. The murder of Sir David as he met with his constituents was a betrayal of everything our shared democracies stand for: transparency, accountability and approachability. In both our nations, with our deeply entwined political heritage, our elected representatives are not separated from their constituents by walls of security. People are able to approach the politician who acts as their voice in parliament and make their own voices heard. It is about conversation. It's about understanding. It is about the absence of a divide between the representative and the represented. That is something that we have taken for granted in both our nations, but it is precious and it is rare, and it is not invincible. Once it is lost, it can be lost for good. Sir David embodied these values—values that transcend the political divide. His death comes five years after Labor MP Jo Cox, who I knew, was murdered on her way to meet with her own constituents. Her young family was robbed of a loving wife and mother, and her community of a talented, much loved representative. Somehow her husband, Brendan, was able to gather himself in his time of grief to make a statement of extraordinary grace. In it he said that what Jo would have wanted would have been, to quote: … that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her. Hate doesn't have a creed, race or religion. It is poisonous. Just as remarkably, Sir David's family have also risen above the awfulness of what has happened to send a message of great humanity. In it they said: He was a patriot and a man of peace, so we ask people to set aside their differences and show kindness and love to all. This is the only way forward. Set aside hatred and work towards togetherness. Whatever one's race, religious or political beliefs, be tolerant and try to understand. A remarkable statement. That is the spirit that should drive us all because it is so much greater than that which seeks to divide us, which seeks to cower us, which seeks to erode the courage that is at the heart of every great democracy. We feel the pain of the British people. This has been a blow against one of the great foundations of their modern nation. Both our countries rely on good people putting up their hands to represent their communities, whether it's in parliament or on the local council. The courage that is now required is very much on display. In the wake of Sir David's death, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, went ahead with his own regular meeting with constituents. He stressed that it was essential that MPs maintain their relationship with those they represent. In his words, 'We have got to make sure that democracy survives this.' Sir David died as he lived, serving his constituents. It should never have come to this. Our thoughts are with the British people. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party I express my condolences to Sir David's colleagues in the Conservative Party and his colleagues right across the UK Parliament, but especially our condolences go to Sir David's family. Despite your loss, you have sought to lift everyone higher. With one gesture you have reminded us all that even in the face of the inhumane, a better force can triumph. There could not have been a more fitting tribute to Sir David. May he rest in peace. 17:17 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I rise on behalf of Australia and this House as the Minister for Home Affairs, to send my deepest condolences to the family, friends, colleagues and constituents of Sir David Amess MP—member of parliament of the United Kingdom, dedicated lawmaker, husband, father. His tragic murder last Friday, in what UK authorities have described as an act of terrorism, shocked all decent people. The murder of an elected official is a despicable crime and was doubly so in this case as it occurred while Sir David was in the very act of meeting with his constituents. As a person who enjoys meeting and listening to my own constituents, I felt genuine shock, grief and sadness on hearing the news. As the minister with responsibility for Australia's policing and law enforcement agencies, I wish the investigators in the UK well as they seek to establish before a court of law what happened and why, and ultimately seek justice for the tragic and cowardly act. I would say to my fellow members on both sides of this House, and further afield in the UK, do not let this attack deter you from your important work in the communities that we serve. Terrorists seek to create fear and division in our communities. Their ultimate aim is to destroy the ties that bind us together as a nation. There is no greater refutation of their ideology, nor proof of their impotence, than the free, open and transparent debate that occurs in this place. Speaking with constituents, hearing their concerns and bringing those here to give them voice in this House: this is a privilege we must not shy from. So too is the act of passing legislation through a parliament elected by the Australian people and reflective of their diversity a direct challenge to terrorist ideologies. It's also emblematic of our adherence to the rule of law, a concept alien to terrorists who kill indiscriminately. Make no mistake: this was an attack on Sir David, but it was also an attack on democracy and on all of us who value the fundamental importance of representative government and its democratic institutions. For that reason, we must be clear-eyed that terrorism is a real and enduring threat. Here, in Australia, the national terrorism threat level remains at 'probable', where it has been since 2014. ASIO assesses lone actor attacks, as occurred in this instance, as the most likely form of terrorism we will experience in Australia. Such lone actor acts can be motivated by a range of hateful ideology. That's why this government is committed to addressing the full spectrum of extremist threats regardless of political, religious, social, cultural or issue-specific ideology. It's a commitment we take seriously. Since September 2014, 143 people have been charged as a result of 70 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. There have been nine attacks and 21 major counterterrorism disruption operations, and I commend our operational agencies for each and every one of those disruptions. But this House has an important role to play too, providing our agencies with the powers they need to keep us safe. To that end, I note that earlier today the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 was debated in the House. This bill is an important piece of counterterrorism legislation. It will create a new extended supervision order scheme to assist law enforcement agencies to keep Australians safe when high-risk terrorist offenders are released into the community after serving their sentences. Further, later this week, I will chair a forum of Australia's police and law enforcement ministers to discuss the threat of terrorism and to ensure we are all taking the steps needed to protect Australians from harm. I thank Sir David for his nearly 40 years of service to public life and wish his family, friends, colleagues and constituents the best as they continue to grapple with the fallout from this abhorrent attack. He would no doubt be proud to know that his murder will not deter us from our important work: meeting with and listening to our constituents, representing our communities and settling political issues through discourse and debate. His legacy will be our continued determination to the principles of democracy and freedom. 17:23 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I also join with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs to offer my condolences and remarks about the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. Six days ago, Sir David tweeted: 'My next constituency surgery will be taking place on Friday 15th October' and he pinned that tweet. Like many of us who connect with voters, we often hold mobile offices, or surgeries as they're called in the United Kingdom. At this event he was fatally stabbed 17 times. Sir David was one of British parliament's longest-serving MPs, who died at the age of 69. Though he spent more than half his life in the House of Commons without ever obtaining ministerial office, many of his colleagues have recently given tribute to his life and said he would have not wanted it anyway, as his focus has always been about the people of his electorate. He devoted his career to the promotion of his constituencies, first Basildon then, from 1997, Southend West, always dealing with voters' concerns. He had a very high local profile and was always willing to meet constituents, advertising his regular weekly surgeries in advance. Everybody in his electorate knew where he was. Sir David espoused a number of causes throughout his life, as a longstanding Eurosceptic and a committed Brexiteer, but it was his devotion to animal welfare which led him to become one of the few Tories to support the abolition of fox hunting. His manner was genial, friendly, and lacking in rancour or conceit. Interestingly, he had friends on all sides of the House of Commons. Almost every week in parliament since the day he was elected he would call for his local town of Southend to be made into a city, something he was very, very passionate about. His family paid tribute to his strength and courage in their statement: He was a patriot and a man of peace. So, we ask people to set aside their differences and show kindness and love to all. This is the only way forward. Set aside hatred and work towards togetherness. Whatever one's race, religious or political beliefs, be tolerant and try to understand. As a family, we are trying to understand why this awful thing has occurred. Nobody should die in that way. Nobody. Please let some good come from this tragedy. We are absolutely broken, but we will survive and carry on for the sake of a wonderful and inspiring man. Tragically, the stabbing comes five years after MP Jo Cox, aged 41, who was gunned down and stabbed to death in broad daylight. The Labour politician and mother was murdered by Thomas Mair, 53, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole-life order. At the time, Jo's husband, Brendan Cox, said, 'Attacking our elected representatives is an attack on democracy itself.' Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said this week My heart goes out to David's wife and children, his staff, friends and constituents. This is a dark and shocking day. The whole country will feel it acutely, perhaps the more so because we have, heartbreakingly, been here before. Above all else, today I am thinking of David, of the dedicated public servant that he was and of the depth of positive impact he had for the people he represented. Informed by his faith, David had a profound sense of duty, that I witnessed first hand in parliament. His Catholicism was central to his political life and he was highly respected across Parliament, within the church, and in the Christian community. Let us come together in response to these horrendous events. We will show once more that violence, intimidation and threats to our democracy will never prevail over the tireless commitment of public servants simply doing their jobs. Sir David was doing his job, and his loss will be felt by many. My condolences to his wider extended family, members of the House of Commons and, of course, the people of the United Kingdom. May Sir David rest in peace. 17:27 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I join with others in this Chamber and in the main chamber to speak on this motion today. The Prime Minister, the Speaker of course, and the opposition leader had many fine and eloquent words, as did the home affairs minister, as did the member for Oxley just now. Sir David Amess, 69, had been a member of parliament since 1983, 38 long years. Just think about that: 38 years. He'd been elected 10 times—initially in Basildon, three times from 1983; and in Southend West, where he had been elected seven times since 1997. Of course, his great passion was to get Southend city status, and may that happen soon, perhaps as a legacy of his memory. He was married to his wife, Julia, with whom he had five children—four daughters and a son. How very heartbroken they must be. We sign up to this, but our families do not. They ride the highs and lows, and, sadly, this is one of those dreadful circumstances that no family anywhere should have to endure. He was a father, a devoted member of parliament, going about his business, making sure that his constituents knew where he was, where he was going to be and that he could openly discuss matters of importance to them. The frenzied attack which brought about his end is really shaking the very foundations of the British parliament as we speak. He was a member of numerous Commons committees, including the health and social care, and the backbench business committees. He had wide and diverse interests. Of course, as we've heard, he had a particular interest in animal welfare and in socially conservative values. He was a good man. He was born in Plaistow in East London in 1952. He went to school in the capital and he taught at a school in the city—a great occupation, being a teacher. That's just like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, being a doctor: they're great occupations. I know that members of parliament who have been educating people or who have been treating people—as indeed you have for many years—and then go into the parliament bring those values into the parliament, and the parliament is better for it. He was also a recruitment consultant before becoming a member of parliament. He was knighted in 2015 for a life in politics and public service; he was always there for the public good. The British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that Sir David had an outstanding record of passing laws to help the most vulnerable and that he was a man who believed passionately in his country and its future. He said: We've lost today a fine public servant and a much-loved friend and colleague. I know the fact that we've had the Prime Minister, the opposition leader and others, including the minister, speak about Sir David, indicates that the Australian parliament is also shocked by this tragedy. And we are: all of us in this chamber and right across Australia. I've had constituents phone me and say how dreadful this is. Just 15 minutes before the attack Sir David was standing on the church steps, chatting and laughing with locals, as we all do as we meet constituents. I know it's an important part of our job; to be there for them is an important part of our job in the here and now and will be in the future, although it must be said, given the fact that this is now the second tragic death in the past five years, following the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016, it must make British parliamentarians really worried about their security. That is understandable, but they will go on doing what they need to do for and on behalf of constituents because that's what members of parliament do. That's on both sides, on every side, whether they're Labour, whether they're Conservative or whether they're, indeed, Independents. Sir David had spoken about the worrying and disturbing rise of knife violence in the UK after one of his constituents, just a teenager, just 18 years old, had been stabbed to death just months before he, too, became a victim himself. This must be particularly heart-wrenching for those people of good mind and faith who just abhor violence, and that is 99.9 per cent of people right around the world. The family, as the member for Grayndler has pointed out, have put out a very loving message of support to Britain. They described how enormously proud they were of him, as they should be. The public statement said: Our hearts are shattered. However, there was still so much David wanted to do – this we know from the events of the last few days. So, this is not the end of Sir David Amess MP. It is the next chapter and as a family we ask everyone to support the many charities he worked with. There are so many to mention, so find one close to your hearts and help. You can just imagine a family in their time of need and their time of darkness, reaching out and still having that faith and that devotion to public good, having lost their husband, their father—somebody who they would look to for advice and he will no longer be there. But he will be there in spirit. Of course, he was working on the South End gaining city status and was also trying to raise funds, and as much as he could, for a memorial to Dame Vera Lynn, the famous World War II singer and entertainer who brought so much joy and hope to the allied troops. Hopefully, that project can get off the ground, too, as another legacy of this fine man. As an aside, I would also like to pay tribute to the former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who died on Monday, US time, battling cancer and complications due to COVID-19. We've lost two fine statesmen and the world is poorer as a result. I offer my condolences, certainly to Sir David's family as well as to Colin Powell's family. These are tragic losses and the world is, as I said, so much the less for them. 17:34 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I join the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Oxley and the member for Riverina in extending my condolences to the family of Sir David Amess, so tragically killed in going about his work—our work, too—as the member for Southend West in the House of Commons. I'm thinking, as I'm sure all of us are here, of his staff, his family, his friends, his colleagues and his constituents, who are no doubt in mourning and in shock. I think it is important that we recognise his life of public service. For, I think, almost all of us here, to think of 38 years in parliament is something that almost defies comprehension, and, for many of us, too, the quality of the tributes paid to Sir David by his colleagues on both sides of politics are not things that we could expect. His service, I suspect, was unique—informed by values, informed by faith and informed by a sense of duty that has so clearly been conveyed in these tributes; a life, indeed, of public service; a life in politics characterised by values, not the pursuit of high office; a life ended in public service, when he was brutally stabbed to death at a constituency surgery days ago. On that, I think it is important that we think about the wider context in which this has taken place—a context of a coarsening of politics, a cheapening of political discourse and debate, which has led, in the UK, to a debate in particular around the reform of social media, which is a debate that I will follow with great interest. I noted also the comments of Brendan Cox in respect of this. He called for a reflection on 'the day-to-day brutality with which our political debate is conducted, from increasingly regular death threats to online abuse'. And, tragically, Brendan Cox would know, because his wife, Jo Cox, the former Labour MP, was murdered in strikingly similar circumstances five years ago. At that time, this House supported a motion acknowledging that and paying tribute to her service and the manner in which she went about it, and I'm pleased that we are doing likewise now. In that debate, I recognised the many similarities between my life and my political outlook with Jo Cox's. I can't say the same of Sir David—he would be very pleased to hear, I'm sure—but the manner in which he went about his work is something that we should recognise, as well as the circumstances which ended his work. I was pleased also that some of these issues about how we go about our work and how we respond to these threats were raised sensitively by Rob Harris in the Nine papers today. I'm sure it's a piece that many of us have reflected upon. I think it is important that we continue this wider debate, because, as we go about our work and think about how Sir David did his, I think we need to recognise the personal tragedy and respect that, and first, in our thoughts, be thinking of those closest to him. But it is also an attack on democracy as we understand it, and we can't ignore that, because it is not an isolated attack, as indeed the tragic murder also of Jo Cox demonstrated. We can't be cowed by these threats. We must strive to continue to go about our work in ways which engage our constituents with the work that we do and which connect our roles and our responsibilities to their lives. I take great pride, in attending citizenship ceremonies, at the surprise that new citizens have of the close contact they can enjoy with members of parliament in this country. It's something that we can't take for granted, and it's something that is so important—this direct, unmediated contact between representatives and the people for whom we are privileged to work. We can't be cowed by these threats as we seek to respond to them. And I think we can also be better. People have touched on the very generous words of the family of Sir David. The member for Oxley referred to a remark of extraordinary generosity that I was also struck by when they said that we should let some good come from this tragedy. I think it's incumbent on those of us here to lead in making sure that happens. I say this knowing that I have on many occasions fallen short of the standard that I am arguing for here, but I hope this is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on how we conduct ourselves and how we can shape public debate, not so that we should always agree—that's not practical—but to think about how we can express our disagreements more respectfully and civilly. That is something we can all do to pay tribute to the fine words of Sir David's family and to the manner in which he conducted a fine life in public service. Vale. 17:40 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt [by video link] Some months ago, I spoke in this chamber about one of the most shocking days in British politics in this century, a day that occurred just five years ago, a week before the Brexit vote, where brewing tensions came to a head with a horrific act of violence, the murder of UKMP Jo Cox. Jo was on her way to meet with constituents in her community when she was a attacked. She was merely doing her job. Today I speak of another UKMP being killed in the simple act of doing their job. Sir David Amess was stabbed do death while meeting with his local constituents last week, a routine, necessary, and important part of the work of all MPs. Following his murder, there has rightly been an outpouring of grief and affection from all sides of politics, both in the UK and around the world. Sir David was an MP who advocated fearlessly for his community for more than 40 years. He never was a minister; rather he was the greatest champion for his community, a clear example of the importance of being a good community representative before anything else. Former UK Prime Minister Theresa May summed it up when she said, 'I suggest to anybody who wants to be a first-class constituency MP that you look at the example of David Amess.' Prime Minister Boris Johnson overnight told the UK House of Commons that politics needs people like Sir David, describing him as 'dedicated, passionate, firm in his beliefs, but never anything less than respectful for those who thought differently'. He went on to say: While his death leaves a vacuum that will not and can never be filled, we will cherish his memory, we will celebrate his legacy, and we will never allow those who commit acts of evil to triumph over the democracy and the Parliament that Sir David Amess loved so much. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer added, 'Sir David held his beliefs passionately but gently,' adding, 'I believe that not only can we learn from that but we have a duty to do so. Civility in politics matters.' From what I believe was the greatest praise of all, one of his constituents said that Sir David was an MP who would cross the street to talk to you, and people would cross the street to talk to him. We are elected to public life with a certain understanding that we will be targeted and put down just as much as we will be sought after, but the life of a politician shouldn't come with the caveat of expected violence and malicious behaviour. Generally we believe we are free of such things in Australia. Until recently we thought that, too, in the UK. Things that used to be deemed unacceptable in public discourse have now become too common. We saw this with the murder of Jo Cox. We see this every day when politicians are trolled relentlessly on social media and increasingly harassed or even threatened in their offices or out in public, and now we see it in the brutal murder of Sir David. This trend must be reversed to preserve our highly accessible democracy, not descend into the need to sequester our members of parliament away from the public to ensure their safety. Ultimately what drives us all as parliamentary representatives, what we all have in common regardless of our political ideology, is the intention to make our nation better. While we may disagree on how and the detail, I believe we all seek to represent our communities in the best way possible and achieve the best outcomes for our constituents and the country. We all have more in common than what divides us. As a result, across the globe, we stand in solidarity with Sir David's colleagues, his family and his community against this violence. Vale, Sir David. Your community and this world were all the better for having you in it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The debate is now to be adjourned. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 17:45 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. GRIEVANCE DEBATE -1 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Climate Change -1 17:46 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari You look as if you own that position, Deputy Speaker Freelander! Onto serious matters—not that you're not serious. Here we are, two weeks away from Glasgow, a great and very important climate change conference, and we're in disarray about whether or not we've got an emissions target of zero by 2050. This is largely due to disarray within the coalition, and mostly because of the pig-headedness of some in the National Party. As a party to the Paris Agreement, we're meant to be going to Glasgow with concrete improvements to our emissions reduction schedule. I've not heard one word from the government about what that might look like. Indeed, we should be going to talk about our 2030 pledge of 26 to 28 per cent, which we'll meet walking in our sleep. Instead of reviewing that and giving us a greater pledge for 2030, we're hearing nothing from the government in that regard. We'll get to hear about a target of 2050, I am imagining. We'll have some people from the National Party continuing to bleat about regional Australia when in fact there are many in regional Australia who want this debate over and done with. They understand its implications. Every state and territory, most of our major businesses, the National Farmers Federation, the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council, APPEA—all of these groups are now committed to zero emissions by 2050. They want a way forward and they understand the importance to their industries of climate change and doing something effective. We all know that net zero is not just an environmental imperative but an investment framework to guide decisions by business and policy from governments. As I said, every state and territory has an emissions target of zero by 2050. This government can't bring itself to show the leadership that's required to show us what that pathway might look like. It's not surprising in that context that the world is wondering what we're up to. For the world, the next decade will determine whether warming can be kept to 1.5 or 2 degrees. It's imperative that we show some leadership in this debate and not be just a follower. For Australia, the next decade will determine whether we become a renewable energy superpower or lose the global race that is already underway. We hear a lot about regional Australia from the National Party. I haven't heard them spruik the importance of using our solar resources as an export commodity. But in the Northern Territory there is an ambitious project taking shape to supply solar sourced electricity into the Singapore market, which is currently dependent on gas fired power. Sun Cable's vision is to build the world's first intercontinental power grid connecting Australia to Singapore to supply 24/7 renewable power. Sun Cable is a private Australian solar energy infrastructure developer, and we know that Australia has the highest per capita solar resource in the G20 and the second highest in the world. There is unique opportunity to export large volumes of renewable energy, supporting regional energy needs and sustaining economic growth. There's no reason why we shouldn't be making sure that we are exporting this power into South-East Asia. This is exactly what Sun Cable is doing. The Australia-Asia PowerLink is expected to channel renewable electricity to a solar battery in Darwin, the world's largest solar battery, before travelling by submarine cable 3,750 kilometres to Singapore. If the project goes to plan—and there is no reason why it shouldn't—it will provide Singapore with up to 15 per cent of its electricity needs from 2028. Sun Cable's $30 billion Australia-Asia PowerLink project includes a 17- to 20-gigawatt solar farm and a battery on a remote pastoral station about 70 kilometres south-east of Elliott, at Powell Creek. Elliott, as you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, is a township around 250 kilometres north of Tennant Creek and 636 kilometres south of Darwin, and to the west, I might say, of the Beetaloo Basin, which is, of course, a major gas resource. The solar farm will be enormous, covering 12,000 hectares—imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker—or 125 square kilometres. The electricity generated at the storage facility will be transmitted overhead to Darwin and then via the undersea cable from Darwin Harbour to Singapore. These projects don't happen overnight, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, but slowly the boxes are being ticked, with the prospect that this project will start construction in late 2023, with electricity commissioned for Darwin by 2026, and transmission to Darwin by 2026 and Singapore in 2027. To say this will be a boon to northern Australia is putting it lightly. To say that it will be a boon to the Northern Territory economy is putting it lightly—a regional economy. Whilst the National Party are contemplating their navels, the world is getting on with business. Sun Cable has now announced that it has received crucial approval from the Indonesian government to allow an undersea cable to run through its territorial waters to Singapore. This is a major change. The storage system, as I said, described as the world's largest battery, has the goal of storing between 36 and 42 gigawatt hours. It's estimated the project will inject $8 billion into the Australian economy, with most of it being spent in the Northern Territory, a regional part of Australia. Sun Cable have lodged a development application with the Development Consent Authority in the Northern Territory. The development proposal is also for a manufacturing facility that will pilot a semiautomated production line manufacturing MAVERICK solar array systems in Darwin. So not only are we getting this huge solar farm in the centre of the Northern Territory; there will be a manufacturing base in Darwin providing direct and indirect jobs to many hundreds of people. You would have thought that this would be seen as something that's quite important, but there's been not a word, not a whimper, from the National Party about this very, very important regional development project which will support our target of zero emissions and do a great deal to demonstrate to the world how solar energy can be exported from Australia into our near neighbours. You don't have to be Einstein to work it out, but it seems you can't be in the National Party to do it. I don't know why that is, but you would have thought commonsense would prevail and they would see the merit in looking forward, not backwards, and understanding that we can have developments like this, which have a major advantage for the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia—and, indeed, the world. The project is expected to deliver a total carbon emissions abatement estimated at 8.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year. That's enormous. We should be celebrating. Instead of talking about old technologies, we should talking about new technologies. We should be parading our ability to get to the emissions target of zero emissions by 2050 and do something a lot better by 2030. New Acland Coal Mine -1 17:56 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I afford you all the same flattery as the previous Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Thank you. Mr HAMILTON 291387 We are in the dying days of the operation of the New Acland Coal Mine, in my electorate of Groom. The mine that exists just a few kilometres outside of the town of Oakey, a town that's had a reasonably difficult time over the last couple of years—well publicised PFAS with flood mapping and, of course, a pervasive drought has gone through the area. So the end of stage 2 of the New Acland Coal Mine will no doubt hit the town hard—and has been. After 14 years of fighting for stage 3 approvals, the coal reserves and the mine's existing footprint have finally run out. The last coal will be extracted on 24 November, and to point out what I mean by last coal: this is the end of the lease. The coal that would be under stage 3 is right there. There's no physical boundary. There's no change in seam. It's just the lease boundary. It's right there, right in front of us. Quite frankly, its presence is heartbreaking, I think, for those in the community who have seen this mine for such a long time as a great source of employment. I would like to take a moment to commend the remaining workforce at the mine, who've continued their work safely and efficiently in the face of such career uncertainty. Health and safety on a mine is a very tough thing to change. It's not just about practices; it's about the mine culture. This is something I've learnt over a long time in the industry, asking that question: why is one mine safe and why is one different? It comes to that hazy answer of culture. It's something about the way that people work and how they work together. Clearly, at New Acland that culture still exists. I would like to extend my thanks, of course, to the management of the mine and to acknowledge the great work they've done, including the CEO of New Hope, Reinhold Schmidt, who I spoke to this morning, and David O'Dwyer, who's doing a great job as general manager out there. He's another alumni of UQ's now extinct mining engineering course. Neither of these two have stopped pushing for the project and have committed to leaving the mine in a state of readiness should the Palaszczuk government decide to grant the removing approvals so that stage 3 can proceed. It's so important to point out that there is precedent for the state government to step in. They did this at Olive Downs. They've done this at Adani. And, as I've done previously, I'll continue to ask the premier to step in and provide the approvals and keep New Acland going. New Hope's gesture of good faith in keeping the mine in good readiness shows the community of Oakey that, if these jobs can return, they will. After 24 November, the mine moves into a care and maintenance mode and will have a skeleton crew, the bare minimum on site to keep the place in a state of safety and readiness. Hope does exist that we will get a change in fortune. The Land Court decision is coming forward and I pray for a favourable outcome. New Hope will continue its rehabilitation mission at the mine site, turning former pits into useable farm land. I'd go a step further: they turn it into great farm land. By using modern technology to shape the ground to best capture that rain run-off and by using augmented seeds in the fields they're getting a fantastic return from the 2000-odd head of cattle that they have on that grazing land. It's some of the best grazing land in the area. But in general I'd like to acknowledge the long history that the mine has and the great work it's done throughout the region. Mining started there in 1910 and just recently I was out at the mine and saw some of the old workings exposed. It's fascinating to see the old room-and pillar-mining that had been undertaken, some of it by hand. It was a great reminder of how far technology has come. Far from being pitted against the local agricultural industry, the mine has played an important role in many locals' lives, either directly or indirectly. It's often the case that local farmers would send their kids to work in the mines, to get their trade or to put some cash in the bank for a rainy day—or, more likely in our region, for a very, very dry one. New Hope has played a big role in shaping our region. It has provided jobs; at its peak we had 500 on stage 2. It's actually built local supply chains and it engages directly with the local community. It's given great careers to kids who otherwise wouldn't have had them. I think that's true across the whole mining industry, and I count myself, perhaps from another mine site, as one of those kids for whom the mining industry changed completely the trajectory of life. It's a fantastic industry and it has done a lot for Australia. It has done a lot for regional communities and it's something that I think we must continue to protect. New Acland, like many mines around Australia, provides a great way of providing social mobility to our nation. It's providing equality of opportunity to regional kids, making sure that there are the pathway so that we can have the same aspirations of those living anywhere else in the country. The loss of the mine is not just a blow to Oakey's economy but also, certainly, to its identity. I talked about how long the mine has been there, and there have been underground mines at Acland, Balgowan, Wallaroo and 1 and 2 at Sugarloaf. The coal mines in the area service railways, brickworks and gasworks, and even hospitals and abattoirs. It's a history that was preserved for many years in the Acland Coal Mine Museum at the site of the former No. 2 colliery, and it's a history that's very important to remember. And New Hope Group has been a major contributor to community groups like the Oakey Bears Junior Cricket Club, the Oakey Bears Rugby League and the Oakey Show Society through donations, grants and sponsorships. I'd also like to acknowledge all the good work that New Acland's community liaison officer, Bec Meacham, has done in supporting her local community. While the federal government is unable to intervene, of course, with required state government approvals, I do take this time again to point out that something can be done. This is a policy decision and the Queensland government stepped in at Olive Downs and they stepped in at Adani for exactly the same reason. This is a mine which is right there; it has all the built infrastructure required. It has the roads, the rail and the operation. Go to the mine and you'll see what they call it the Palaszczuk line, which is a bit tongue-in-cheek. They have lined up all the trucks that are no longer being used, and it's a terrible shame: all this investment sitting there rusting, waiting. It could be put to good use and local people could have jobs. Sadly, we're missing that. The skill sets that have been nurtured there over years are already slipping away. The management are absolutely in full support of employees who choose to take work elsewhere. Mining is a small community and, often, we move from place to place. But should we get the go ahead, unfortunately, we're going to be starting right back at base level, having lost many of the efficiencies and productivities that a highly skilled workforce develops over time. Mining is not an easily replaceable skill set. Considering the opportunity lost by not going ahead with stage 3, it's worth pointing out that this is coal that will be produced now, and that there's a need for it now. We have incredibly high prices and we have demand now. I've been an advocate for the mine before and continue to be one now, even if in the current debate it may be politically inconvenient. It's something of a conviction of mine to support this industry and to support this mine. I will continue doing that throughout this debate not because I'm there for big industry, not because I particularly support coal—quite frankly, having worked in a coalmine, coaldust is a terribly pervasive thing, and I do not enjoy it—but because this mine, absolutely, has been the backbone of Oakey's economy. It underwrites Toowoomba's economy. Our ability to invest in new technologies in our region, our ability to grow, has been underwritten by the economic technology this mine has brought to the region. I hate to think that zealotry on either side of the current debate on net zero would unnecessarily cost hardworking people their jobs, rob them of their dreams and stifle their aspirations. I would hate to think that we would ignore the immediate good, the achievable good, in pursuit of unachievable perfection. This is a point that I know the community get behind. Local LNP MPs, the CFMEU and the Chamber of Commerce have all lobbied hard to keep this mine alive, to keep this mine going, and I will continue to join them on this point. Time's running out, and I could speak more on the benefits of this mine, this industry. I will continue—regardless of where the debate takes us, regardless of the future—to support this mine, to support this industry. The people of New Acland can count on me for that. Werriwa Electorate -1 18:06 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise today to bring to the House my grievances about the treatment of my community in south-west Sydney. I am angry, I am disappointed, I am sad, yet not surprised about what has happened in the last several months, and I think that is what makes the situation so much worse. I grew up in my community. I live in the house where I spent my childhood. I know what it's like to have to fight for basic things that elsewhere in Sydney are on the doorstep. In the seventies, Whitlam talked about the need for—and had to fight for—sewerage, high schools and universities. So why, 50 years later, is there still such a gap? To the west of the latte line we will host more than half a million more people in the next 30 years and a world-class airport. Our economy is the third largest in Australia, but we still have to fight for what needs to be done for our community so it does not continue to be treated as second rate or worse. We spend hours on overcrowded trains that regularly run late. We put up with a second-rate NBN that most of the time doesn't make half of the speeds promised and that blows up when there's a thunderstorm. Seriously, in 2021, how can this vital technology be so bad? I know that governments point to the plans they have to provide infrastructure, but the people of Austral and Kemps Creek and other suburbs within the aerotropolis zone know that those plans can change on a whim. They know that the value of their land can become worthless overnight, and the New South Wales government will then say it will take them 20 years or longer to acquire it. I note the plans have changed again for residents living in this zone after the community's effort to have proper consultation and discussions. That was a fight that took several years and caused heartache and stress that was really unnecessary. And what about the M12? This federally funded and state funded road has been in the planning for the best part of 12 years. It was supposed to support the construction traffic for the airport. The traffic is currently being forced onto roads that were last fit for purpose a century ago, when the area was still farming land. Planning is not of any use if it stays on a whiteboard. To the north of the airport the western train line is significantly over capacity, yet the plan is to build a metro to the airport connecting that line, that doesn't have a stop at Western Sydney University, to bring passengers to the airport. I can't in my wildest dreams understand how that will work, mixing workers with luggage. We also need a link to the south of the airport that joins Kingsford Smith and the suburbs of Werriwa and Macarthur, to support the promised jobs that will come from industry that is planned to be built around the airport. Now the spread of COVID-19 in Australia has exposed further divides and inequities in Sydney. When the state Liberal government decided to lock down LGAs of concern because they'd lost control of the virus, which came from the eastern suburbs, the first press conference said that only emergency services personnel would be able to leave—police, ambulances, nurses and doctors. However, less than 12 hours later, at midnight that night, the government had to revise that list and add 20 more categories of work. Our government did not realise that my community are aged-care workers, plumbers, electricians, supermarket and postal employees. They work in factories and carry and process meat. Basically, they keep the whole of Sydney and beyond running. There have long been fundamental differences between regions in Sydney, and the pandemic has brought them into stark focus. With the world facing a once-in-a-century crisis, the divide has been clear for all to see. For the last 18 months, my constituents complied with every health order, but we have been constantly singled out. We know it's not our region that caused the local outbreaks, but the mixed messages and unclear instructions from both state and federal levels of government did little to help. This is merely another failure to understand that Greater Sydney should be one region where we all live together and everyone deserves their fair share. I've said many times that south-western Sydney has been treated by governments with a troubling lack of concern. The expectation as we open up is that there will be more cases of COVID-19. Delta is affecting more children under 12, and there is yet to be a vaccine approved for their age group. I fear opening up will disproportionately affect my community. Sadly, one in five who have died caught the virus in Sydney hospitals, and many of those were local hospitals in my area. To add to the worry, we have an overworked and underfunded health system. The health professionals are doing a superhuman job, but they have their limits. How long will they and the system be able to hold together? Three hospitals in Western Sydney had to turn away patients for days on end as well as suspend elective surgery. What's troubling is that health services in south-west Sydney were bound to suffer from overcapacity and overworked professionals. Underinvestment in health in south-west Sydney is nothing new, as the New South Wales upper house inquiry already proved last year. The inquiry showed that south-west Sydney is well under-resourced when compared to other health districts across greater metropolitan Sydney. We have the highest emergency department presentations in any local health district and the lowest number of specialists. We have the second most populous local health and the lowest annualised budget. We also have the highest growth rate and the highest birth rate, but the lowest number of GPs per population. Adding to that, between 2012 and 2018, the total annualised expenses budget per resident for the health district was one of the lowest in Sydney. All the while, the delta variant is causing huge problems in my community. There have been too many deaths, with over 500 since June, an average of four per day. A neighbour's father died after catching COVID in Liverpool Hospital, and tomorrow a funeral will be held for Mr Stephen Cheatham, a life member of Prestons Hornets Cricket Club. As a life member of the club, Chubbles mentored many young cricketers, including my sons, and I know him well. He was described by one of my sons as a great bloke who would give you the shirt off his back, and yet he succumbed to COVID. It is an indescribable loss to his family, all that knew him and our community. There are so many like him who have not been able to survive COVID, and I send my condolences to all in my community who are grieving. During the pandemic it was the community, not the government, that held us together. It was volunteers and essential workers. It was the principles of my local schools and community groups, such as the Hindu Benevolent Fund, Turbans 4 Australia, Western Sydney MRC and the Marist Sydney Old Pupils Association who were working to provide free grocery hampers for those in my community who were struggling. It was the mayors of my local councils who found solutions and gave advice to people. It wasn't the government departments, who did not check on families diagnosed with COVID and told to isolate; it was our volunteers who had to support them. I despair what our community would have done without these wonderful volunteers in our community. We all want to see an end to the pandemic and return to some kind of normal. However, we need to do that in a way that ensures it doesn't come at the cost of further loss of our loved ones. Withdrawing support such as the COVID disaster payment too early will mean that families, individuals and small businesses just won't bounce back. And areas that were disadvantaged before COVID will have taken a larger hit from COVID-19 and the delta wave. Without support, my community will be left behind. After more than 100 days of lockdown, it is the residents of south-west Sydney who are subject to the harshest restrictions and will be the least able to make a living and keep their businesses open. Meanwhile, those in the eastern suburbs continue to enjoy the beach unhindered. We saw the new Premier of New South Wales setting a wonderful example by breaking his own government rules twice because of a photo opportunity. there has been little evidence that suggests my community was not compliant with the rules yet we were subject to curfews that the government knew wouldn't work. What my community needs now is support as we emerge from lockdown. There has to be a way to make my communities in south-west Sydney more resilient but removing supports will not help the economy snap back. The people of my community in the south-west of Sydney are strong and hardworking. We just want to be treated with the same respect and care as everybody else, with roads that are fit for purpose, with proper healthcare opportunities and with a first-class NBN. Everyone deserves their fair share but it has been too long since south-west Sydney has had ours. Climate Change, Mental Health -1 18:16 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid So much in today's world seeks to divide us, to put us into this category or that category. From misinformation to bad-faith actors and Twitter bullies, there are more forces trying to divide us today than there have ever been before. Division lives in the present. It blinds us to the bigger things. It blinds us to the big tasks we must tackle, the wicked problems, the types of problems which require us as elected representatives to analyse, not catastrophise, to listen to the scientists, not the sceptics, to actually read the evidence and interpret the evidence, not follow the social media posts or opinion In my electorate of Reid, the state of our environment is a major concern for so many of my constituents. From across the multicultural community groups through to our businesses, from our school children to parent groups and principals in schools, my entire electorate are concerned about climate change and what it means for their families. They also appreciate how this issue of climate change transcends local issues while still being a local issue. Reid is a long way from the country, and urban and rural Australia are too often seen as two different Australias. But my constituents see that we're reliant on each other. We are connected, whether we like it or not. I became a psychologist for the same reason I entered politics—I want to help people and I want to help people improve their lives. A key area of that mission is mental health. Rural and regional communities are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. This was a key finding of the Climate Council's 2016 report. Rates of suicide and suicidal behaviour remain higher in our rural and regional areas, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Last year, the suicide rate of people living in areas classified as 'very remote' was 2.2 times that of people living in major cities. And while the suicide rate for people living in major cities remain below the national rate, which is 12.1 deaths per 100,000 of population, for people living in all-remote areas the suicide rate remains all above the national rate. Over the past decade suicide rates in very remote areas generally increased from 22.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2010 to 29.4 in 2019. Sadly, the rate for self-harm in our rural and regional areas mirror these suicide rates. Many factors contribute to these heartbreaking statistics, and it remains an essential and urgent area of research. People living in rural and remote areas of Australia have so far experienced the effects of climate change in far more palpable ways than those living in our cities and suburbs. The increasing frequency of extreme weather events and natural disasters such as drought and floods and bushfires will unfortunately get worse if we do not tackle climate change. In light of this, I was deeply troubled to read recent studies that suggest the environment impacts of climate change are negatively impacting the mental health of our children and young people. Rising ambient temperatures and the extreme weather events and natural disasters associated with climate change are resulting in increased rates of self-harm, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide in Australia, and also around the world. An article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that climate change related factors such as heat, humidity, rainfall, drought, wildfires and floods were associated with a range of negative outcomes. This included psychological distress, worsened mental health and higher mortality among people with pre-existing mental health conditions, increased psychiatric hospitalisations and heightened suicide rates. A local study by independent industry organisation Doctors for the Environment Australia discussed the positive correlation between increasing suicide and suicide attempts with hotter weather. The study also highlighted the fact that Australia is expected to become hotter than most other countries. In a joint letter published in the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, leading doctors in Australia echoed the link between rising temperatures and mental health and pointed out that high humidity may be contributing to the rates of hospitalisation in New South Wales for intentional self-harm, and rising more steeply in coastal regions. The mental health of our young people is under threat not only by the concept of climate change itself as a source of anxiety but directly through the very physical effects of climate change. These studies add a significant new dimension to both Australia's climate change policy and Australia's mental health policy. This growing evidence warrants urgent study and a re-evaluation of our policy approaches. It cannot be ignored. As chair of the House Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, I believe the work of the committee will make a significant impact in this area and related areas. For now, I simply wish to highlight the relationships between these two seemingly disparate policy areas in order to foreground a more fundamental idea—seeing the big picture. I think again of my constituents in Reid. I think of the young families, the schoolchildren, the youth, the university students, the small businesses, my multicultural community groups, the sporting organisations, the doctors who work in our local hospital, other health professionals, the community organisations, and I think they have spoken. They want further action on climate change. They want our emissions to be lower. And they think about the future and their future generations; their health and their children's health; and, more importantly, our mental health. Further action on climate change is action on mental health, and long-term action on mental health requires long-term action on climate change. Nowhere is this twin necessity more dire than in our rural and regional areas. And no-one in this twin necessity is more crucial than our young people. We cannot ignore this research on this. We cannot turn a blind eye to this evidence. To improve the mental health of young Australians we must have a plan and a target to reduce emissions in Australia. My focus on the young is not to diminish the mental health challenges facing people of all ages. I say it simply to highlight that it is our young people who will inherit the consequences of our actions now, just as all of us are already experiencing the consequences of the decisions made before us. We are all elected to serve our communities. That service does not cease at the end of a three-year term. As the Greek proverb goes, 'A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.' We must seize this moment. Australia needs an ambitious plan to get to net zero. Indi Electorate: Telecommunications -1 18:25 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi If there is one constant issue that unites my rural constituents in Indi from corner to corner it's poor telecommunications. At any moment dozens of us are searching for an elusive single bar of reception or dropping out of a Zoom meeting at exactly the wrong time and wondering, 'Is this as good as it gets?' The time for accepting bad internet as a necessary price of life in the country has long passed. Australians should be able to use their mobile phone or connect to the internet no matter where they are. It's an essential service, as vital now as water, electricity or roads, and we deserve better than what we're currently getting. During the pandemic, the fractures in our fixed wireless and satellite connections have grown. Households in lockdown jostle for limited bandwidth with remote business meetings and remote learning taking place at once. EFTPOS has largely replaced cash, which means you don't have business if you don't have an internet connection. Some people need to walk their machine to a window to make a customer payment. Farmers' markets often can't operate because the internet is down. I've been fighting for better service and coverage from the NBN ever since I became an MP. I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN, where I'm working hard to keep the NBN rollout in regions accountable and pushing for the expansion of telehealth into the regions—if we can get the telecommunications infrastructure. The reality is that many telehealth consultations have no videoconferencing; they just go by telephone because the bandwidth is not sufficient. It's a travesty that the failures of NBN connectivity and the gaping holes in our mobile phone coverage don't get more airtime. It's not a matter of downloading movies faster, although that's good fun. It's that without good internet we simply go backwards. We can't run a business, we can't attract manufacturing and we can't bring in new investment. It's holding regional communities back from reaching their potential as the engine room of our country. Many rural communities have thrown their hands up in exasperation, believing that nothing will ever change, and that's a reasonable position, given the history and their experience. I'm happy to say though that, while exasperated, we haven't given up in Indi. In Indi we've taken the task of improving telecommunications very much into our own hands. We really do try to come up with solutions. The Indi Telecommunications Advisory Group, or ITAG, is a consultative committee that I chair. It is made up of local governments, regional stakeholders and representatives of Telstra, Optus and NBN Co. We develop community led responses to telecommunication challenges in the region. As far as I know it's the only such forum in Australia. Through this body we make sure that the telecommunication needs of our constituents aren't consigned to the margins. Every couple of months we convene to share information on telecommunications upgrades and advocate for improved mobile phone reception. We collaborate, and we often get results. It's a model that's paid off for us. Working together, we assess and nominate mobile black spot areas for funding under the federal government's Mobile Black Spot Program. A stunning 51 towers have been federally funded since 2013—since Independents have represented the seat of Indi. That's a full 21 per cent of all towers across the 11 Victorian electorates. Since I took office in 2019, nine towers have been funded in rounds 5 and 5A, and that's 39 per cent of the total allocation in Victoria. Better mobile phone reception is coming as a result of this for people in the surrounding areas of Creightons Creek, Cudgewa, Harrietville, Mount Bruno, Taggerty, Burrowa, Frenchman Gap, Koetong and Tawonga. All of these places were nominated by our ITAG group in consultation, and they all received funding. This has made Indi one of the top electorates nationally to eliminate black spots, and it absolutely proves its value. I would encourage all members of this parliament to adopt a similar model and work together. In the last few short years, we have seen other big strides connecting Indi. NBN Business Fibre Zones will come on line in Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla, bringing superfast internet speeds to these areas. Under the Strengthening Telecommunications Against Natural Disasters program, we've secured upgrades to 21 mobile phone towers in Indi as part of our bushfire recovery, and I helped secure $2.6 million for a 42-kilometre fibre-optic cable connecting Harrietville, Dinner Plain and Mount Hotham to higher-speed internet. I've made telecommunications a priority for my term in office, and it's delivering results. Last year, nine years after it began, the government declared that the NBN rollout was complete, but I'm sorry to say the job is not done yet. There is a lot more work to do. What my constituents live with and pay for bears no resemblance to the promise made to them a decade ago. So, when the government asks us what we actually think about this service, we don't pass up the opportunity to have our say. ITAG did this in our recent submission to the Regional Telecommunications Review, and I wanted to draw out the experience of some of our councils and present them to the House. 'Dissatisfied, disadvantaged and disconnected'—that's how Strathbogie Shire and its residents feel right now about the NBN. Fibre is only available in two towns in Strathbogie, and then only to some. Most of its residents rely on fixed wireless and satellite. The patchy service affects small businesses—including farmers, who need internet for just about everything for a competitive, modern-day agricultural business, from ordering supplies to planting crops and accessing markets. The mobile phone system and NBN alike face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts. Strathbogie is characterised by its rugged terrain and rural location, and it has a staggering 50 mobile phone black spots where service is simply non-existent. Indigo Shire is famous for being a historic tourism drawcard and for stunning topography that places it in a very high bushfire risk zone. These two factors coincide in the summer months, placing enormous pressure on the system. In peak visitation season, Beechworth's population triples, and our EFTPOS and ATM facilities splutter and fail, meaning less cash in pockets, and our businesses—hungry to recoup lost revenue after 18 months of disruption—find this exasperating and frustrating. In an emergency, there are real concerns about whether the system could actually hold. Mobile phone coverage is patchy, even in some parts of Beechworth, and the other two major roads reaching out of Beechworth have long periods, long stretches, of zero bars—just what you don't need in a crisis. We really need to do better. In Benalla, the council and community worked with local solar farm developers Neoen to put in a submission to the Mobile Black Spot Program for a tower in Goorambat. Neoen even put $100,000 on the table for the tower. However, the application was ultimately not supported by Telstra, as their mapping indicated that connectivity issues weren't bad enough. Well, the lived experience of locals from Goorambat, through dozens of letters of support and signatures on petitions, would prove otherwise—understandable, from a nationwide perspective, but a major hurdle for this transformative renewable energy project and the community all around it. In Wangaratta, Hybrid-Ag is an agricultural business which supplies blended soil and nutrient products. They are located in an industrial estate seven kilometres from the CBD, where they're on wireless broadband. However, the signal is so weak that Zoom drops out and they can't send large files. They were told their only option was to install a $50,000 private fibre-optic network to the industrial estate that only their business can connect to. But the problem is: they can't share the benefit or the costs of this significant new installation. Other businesses in that industrial estate are missing out too. We need to support business or private investment into connectivity, rather than solely relying on telcos or NBN Co to support rural services. The Regional Co-Investment Fund is the latest step to improve satellite or fixed wireless NBN connections, including upgrading both to fibre-to-the-premises and supporting higher speeds. This $300 million fund operates on a co-investment model, where governments stump up funding, alongside NBN Co, where investment would be 'subcommercial'. However, smaller local councils on ITAG have sounded the alarm on this—that they are the most disadvantaged by this system. They have low ratepayer base limits, and their ability to co-fund this new infrastructure is severely limited. My local mayors are absolutely red-hot furious about this. Why should their citizens need to chip in when their metro counterparts don't? We can't have small councils going backwards if they can't afford to co-fund the digital infrastructure that tree changers, industry and businesses see as absolutely essential. I greeted with cautious enthusiasm the member for Berowra's recent private member's bill which imposed a new universal obligation to ensure that mobile phone users can make a call or access the internet inside their home or workplace. But I do wonder why the backbenchers need to bring this to government. Government should be doing more. (Time expired) Telecommunications Industry -1 18:35 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Telecommunications are an essential service that Australians rely on. The pandemic has reminded us how much we rely on it. We need telecommunications to keep in touch with family, for school, for work, for health and in times of emergency. But for many Australians the telco is worse now than it was 20 years ago when we all had landlines. People in the cities and regions can't use their phones at home, people can't access the internet and there are so many stories of bad telco customer service. On a good day, bad telco is an inconvenience which leaves people seething with anger. On a bad day, it's a matter of life and death. Telecommunications companies take money from customers and don't deliver any services, and when the customer tries to call and complain or to get their money back they spend hours waiting and get no solutions. It's not good enough; the telcos have been getting away with shocking consumer practices for too long. In my electorate, which is in metropolitan Sydney, people work from their cars or from park benches because they can't get the coverage they need in their homes. People went to work in LGAs of concern during the lockdown because they couldn't realistically work from home. Teachers were teaching from McDonald's car parks, because they couldn't deliver lessons on Zoom at home, and kids learned from a shopping centre car park, or some schools had to run their printers around the clock so they could deliver lesson packs to children when learning online wasn't possible. Last week I met a family of five working and homeschooling from an outside table at the Kenthurst shops. The family had come from Arcadia, several suburbs away. It was cold and rainy, and they said they did this most days because they have no telco service at home. Kenthurst and Arcadia are 10 or 15 minutes away from Castle Hill, not in a remote part of Australia. I spoke to another woman, from Dural. Her internet and phone services are so bad that her son had to defer his university degree. He can rarely attend class online and, when he can, it constantly drops out. The lack of service has affected his mental health and caused unnecessary stress for the rest of the family. It's because of situations faced by families like these that I recently published an exposure draft of a telecommunications reform bill with the support of 16 other colleagues from every state in Australia. Since the release of the exposure draft on 30 September I have received hundreds of submissions and emails of support from people across the country. The bill proposes a universal mobile service obligation so that people are able to use a mobile phone to make a call or access the internet inside their home or at their workplace. A customer service guarantee will mean that no caller to a telco will be left on hold for more than five minutes. No-service no-fee provisions mean anyone who is without service at their home or business for more than six hours between eight am and eight pm over a month gets that month of service for free. The bill makes telcos and their executives financially liable for preventable deaths caused by their inaction when a coroner finds that the death would have been prevented had the telco acted differently. Telco execs would be held personally accountable for their poor customer service and failure to meet the needs of customers. Telco executive bonuses would be contingent on customer service improvements. So what did the telco sector say in response? Did they admit they had a problem or suggest an alternative solution? No: the response from the telco sector should surprise no-one. Firstly, they said that there's nothing to see here and that they're doing a great job. Secondly, they said that the bill asks far too much of them. Big telco attacked the bill—how unsurprising—because the status quo suits them just fine. The telcos are as out of touch today as the banks were in 2017. In 2017, when the now Prime Minister was Treasurer, he introduced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. The rationale for that regime was that the banks were in a privileged position in the economy. They deliver an essential service and the community expected a higher standard of accountability from their executives, especially when the banks were failing to meet community expectations. Today the same is true of telcos. In those days the banks said it would never work, that it would harm consumers and it would increase costs. Instead, it built community trust, created greater accountability, deferred executive remuneration and pegged it to better outcomes. But the telcos don't want to change. The CEOs of Telstra and NBN live the high life on multimillion-dollar salaries while people in my electorate are in life-threatening situations because they have no mobile reception. Last year I was contacted by a woman who had called an ambulance when her husband was experiencing chest pain. When the ambulance arrived, the defibrillator could not communicate with the cardiologists at the hospital to send and receive instructions, because it relied on a mobile signal. Paramedics were running back and forward from the house to the street trying to get reception. The patient tragically died. In another case a mother had to text her daughter to call an ambulance for her father because there wasn't enough reception to make a call. It's time the telcos took their heads out of the sand and started to deal with the real problems that Australians face every single day—the appalling customer service, the lies they tell about connectivity, and the fact that at times of natural disaster they're not accountable for failing to provide life-saving services. The status quo means that they can keep billing people for services they don't receive. It means telcos can say, 'Yes, you've got coverage in your home,' even if the only place you've got coverage is standing on the dog kennel when the wind's blowing in the right direction. Let's see the contempt with which the telcos treat their customers. New figures released today by ACMA show the average amount of time taken by telcos to fix problems has risen by almost 50 per cent. Fiona Cameron from ACMA said: The time taken to resolve complaints is going in the wrong direction and one million complaints a year is still far too many. Echoing provisions in my bill, she said: We think it's time for every telco to make its complaints handling performance public and transparent. Last month, Telstra announced a customer service improvement plan. It involves closing call centres and sending customers to bots. The executive responsible said his teenagers don't like to talk to people and do everything online. Last time I checked, it wasn't the teenagers who are paying the bills. How is this tricky move improving customer service? Recently Telstra said they were making all payphones free. They said it as if they were performing a great act of philanthropy. In fact, it's taxpayers' money that funds much of the payphone network, under the universal service obligation, and Telstra is pretending to be generous. Telstra is also charging customers more for less, giving customers no reduction in fees despite slower upload speeds on its NBN plans. Earlier this year Telstra sold 49 per cent of its tower business to taxpayer funded superannuation funds for $2.8 billion. Despite all this taxpayer money, only a tiny proportion is being invested into network improvements. Last year, Telstra shocked the nation when the full scope of its abuse of vulnerable Indigenous consumers was revealed. In a first, Telstra was ordered to pay $50 million following an ACCC investigation. Telstra admitted that between 2016 and 2018 it breached Australian Consumer Law and acted unconscionably when sales staff at five Telstra stores signed up 108 Indigenous consumers to multiple postpaid mobile contracts which they didn't understand and couldn't afford. ACCC Chair Rod Sims said Telstra: … used unconscionable practices to sell products to dozens of Indigenous customers who, in many cases, spoke English as a second or third language. This conduct included manipulating credit assessments and misrepresenting products as free, and exploiting the social, language, literacy and cultural vulnerabilities of these Indigenous customers. Telstra's board and senior executives failed to act quickly enough to stop these illegal practices when they were later alerted to them. The conduct of the telcos is appalling and they must be brought into line. It's obvious that they have no fear and that the current regulations are not causing them to change their behaviour. Consumer groups have shown support for my bill. Their research highlights the telcos' woeful performance. CHOICE'S Alan Kirkland said: It's unacceptable for people living in a city like Sydney not to have mobile reception in their home. Even worse if they live in a bushfire risk area. The Consumer Action Law Centre published a report that found that telcos were using pushy sales tactics and didn't make available affordable financial hardship programs, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. When families were experiencing financial distress as a result of the pandemic, the telcos sent in the debt collectors instead of offering payment plans. The Consumer Policy Research Centre published a sector scorecard which looked at mortgage providers, credit providers, rental providers, insurers, energy providers and telcos, and compared their performance. Telcos came equal last, alongside credit providers, when it came to supporting consumers during COVID, and they were last by far for offering assistance and support to consumers. They came second last for offering helpful advice and customer service, and this won't surprise anyone who's had to try and call their telco. On customer service they were worse as the pandemic progressed. Possibly most concerning, though, is that telcos came dead last, scoring a woeful 2.8 out of 10, for providing accessible and positive user experiences. Allan Fels, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, also supports my bill, saying more needs to be done. He said: 'For many years, the telco industry has failed to make access to mobile phone services universally available, even in a number of suburbs. Yet such access is an essential service and vital in emergencies. After waiting so long, it is clear that the only solution is legislation backed by sanctions compelling it.' They were the words of the former head of the ACCC. I say, when the banks needed to do better we brought in the Banking Executive Accountability Regime; the telcos are next. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18 : 46