2021-11-22 1 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 22 November 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Agreement for Members to Contribute Remotely to Parliamentary Proceedings 1 Presentation 1 10:01 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I present a document called Agreement for Members to Contribute Remotely to Parliamentary Proceedings. The docu ment read as follows— HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGREEMENT FOR MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE REMOTELY TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS This agreement is made pursuant to the Resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on 23 March 2020, entitled Special provisions for human biosecurity emergency period, for the upcoming sittings of the House of Representatives from Monday, 22 November 2021 to Thursday, 2 December 2021. (1) Members not physically present in Parliament House may participate in proceedings of the House of Representatives Chamber or the Federation Chamber, as provided by this agreement, if: (a) they participate via the official parliamentary video facility only; and (b) the Speaker is satisfied the Member is unable to physically attend Parliament due to reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) Reasons to be provided to allow the Speaker to make a decision in accordance with 1(b) above should be provided by the Leader of the House to the Speaker for a Government Member, the Manager of Opposition Business to the Speaker for an Opposition Member and directly to the Speaker for a non-aligned Member. The reasons should address the personal circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic that have made it essentially impossible, unreasonably impracticable, or would give rise to an unreasonable risk for the Member to physically attend Parliament; (3) The standing orders apply except as affected by this agreement; (4) Members participating in proceedings by this agreement must use the official parliamentary video facility and be present at either an Electorate Office or a Commonwealth Parliament Office; (5) Members present by the official parliamentary video facility may speak only after being recognised by the Chair: (a) for the purposes of making a speech; or (b) to ask or answer a question at Question Time; (6) Members present by the official parliamentary video facility may not: (a) vote or be counted for quorum; (b) move or second any motion; (c) move or second any amendment to a motion or bill; (d) propose or support a proposal to discuss a matter of public importance; (e) call for a division; or (f) call for a quorum to be counted; (7) Notice is to be provided to the Chair, 15 minutes prior to: (a) a Member, participating in proceedings by the official parliamentary video facility, seeking to make a speech; (b) a Member, participating in proceedings by the official parliamentary video facility, seeking to ask a question in Question Time; and (c) Question Time, by the Leader of the House, indicating whether any Minister will be present during Question Time by the official parliamentary video facility and is therefore available to answer questions; (8) At the conclusion of a question made through the official parliamentary video facility, the questioner participating in accordance with paragraph 7(b) above shall remain available to seek the call if that member wishes to raise a point of order during the answer; and (9) Contributions to proceedings made by Members present by the official parliamentary video facility will be recorded in Hansard. COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 2 Report 2 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the 33rd report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, together with 115 petitions and 14 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. Of the petitions I present today, two petitions have collected so many signatures that they are in the top 10 of the largest e-petitions the committee has ever received. Another, scheduled to be presented by a different member this fortnight, is the fifth largest e-petition ever received. These three petitions alone together collected over 417,000 unique signatures in the four weeks that they were open. This is a significant amount of public interaction with the petitioning process in a relatively short amount of time. It is evidence that petitioning the parliament, and participating in democracy, is something that Australians are actively interested in and will continue with vigour. The committee are pleased to be able to support this high level of public petitioning and continue to consider how the process, the e-petitioning system and the petitioning information displayed on our website can be improved. A project to further improve user experience with the e-petitioning system is due to commence shortly, and I will continue to provide updates to the House on its progress. Mr Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge this being your last day as Speaker and thank you for your continued support of the work of the committee and the democratic act of petitioning. I wish you all the best as you transition to your new/old role, and I look forward to providing updates to your incoming successor. Thank you very much. The SPEAKER 00APG Thank you. PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Presentation 2 10:01 Mr 139441 Flynn O'DOWD (—) (): I present the following petitions: COVID-19 2 COVID-19: Vaccination 2 COVID-19: Vaccination 2 Members of Parliament 3 COVID-19: Vaccination 3 Diabetes 3 Australian Society 3 Housing Affordability 4 Law Enforcement 4 Compensation for Detriment Caused by Defective Administration Scheme 4 Law Enforcement 5 COVID-19: Vaccination 5 COVID-19: International Travel 5 Electoral Communications 5 COVID-19 6 COVID-19: Biosecurity 6 Hindus 6 Dental Health 7 Taiwan 7 Biosecurity 7 Gambling 7 Electoral Communications 7 Law Enforcement 7 COVID-19 8 HomeBuilder Grant 8 HomeBuilder Grant 8 HomeBuilder Grant 9 Electoral Communications 9 Members of Parliament 9 COVID-19: Vaccination 9 COVID-19: Vaccinations 9 COVID-19: Biosecurity 9 COVID-19: Vaccination 10 Alzheimer's Disease 10 COVID-19: Vaccination 10 COVID-19: Quarantine 10 Electoral Communications 11 Electoral Communications 11 COVID-19: International Travel 11 Climate Change 11 Ethiopia 11 Child Support Scheme 12 COVID-19: Vaccination 12 Child Abuse 12 COVID-19: Vaccination 12 COVID-19: Vaccination 13 Climate Change 13 Law Enforcement 13 COVID-19: International Travel 13 COVID-19: Vaccination 14 Financial Services Industry 14 Veterans 14 Veterans 15 COVID-19 15 Parent Visas 15 Veterans 15 Child Abuse 16 COVID-19: Vaccination 16 Tourism Industry 16 Eating Disorders 17 COVID-19 17 Higher Education 17 Defence Procurement 17 Electric Vehicles 17 Renewable Energy 18 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 18 Asylum Seekers 18 Veterans 18 Yazidi People 19 Biosecurity Act 19 Australian Defence Force 19 Teachers 19 COVID-19: Vaccination 20 COVID-19: Vaccination 20 COVID-19: Vaccination 20 COVID-19 21 COVID-19: International Travel 21 Climate Change: Agriculture Industry 21 Video Game Industry 21 Veterans 22 Australia Post 22 COVID-19: Vaccination 22 Human Rights 23 COVID-19: Vaccination 23 Rail Network 23 Gambling 23 HomeBuilder Grant 23 COVID-19: Vaccination 24 Media 24 Commonwealth Integrity Commission 24 Myanmar 24 Mental Health 24 Child Obesity 24 National Disability Insurance Scheme 25 Women's Sanitary Products 25 Workplace Relations 25 COVID-19: Vaccination 25 Russia 26 Immigration Detention 26 Dental Health 26 Asylum Seekers 26 COVID-19: International Travel 26 COVID-19: Vaccination 27 Commonwealth Integrity Commission 27 Pensions and Benefits 27 Cybersafety 27 Denmark 27 Medicare 28 Eating Disorders 28 Transport Industry 28 Media 28 Commonwealth Integrity Commission 28 Asylum Seekers 29 Veterans 29 Australian Constitution 29 PETITIONS 30 PETITIONS Responses 30 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Veterans 30 Veterans 30 Child Care 31 COVID-19: International Travel 31 COVID-19: Vaccination 32 Prospective Marriage Visas 32 Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 33 COVID-19: International Travel 33 Vaccination 34 COVID-19: Vaccination 34 COVID-19: International Travel 35 COVID-19: Vaccination 36 COVID-19: Vaccination 36 COVID-19: Vaccination 37 NOTICES 37 NOTICES Withdrawal 37 10:03 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Clark has withdrawn notice No. 1 standing in his name and the honourable member for Berowra has withdrawn notice No. 2 standing in his name. The order of precedence of remaining private members' business notices as determined by the Selection Committee's report adopted by the House on 27 October 2021 remains unchanged. BILLS 38 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021 38

Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021

First Reading 38 Second Reading 38 10:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This election will be a contest between two very different paths for our shared future as a nation. Labor is determined to shape Australia's recovery in the same spirit we got through the pandemic—together; a recovery built on Australia's greatest ethos: the fair go. This government stands in the way of the fair go. It seeks to divide Australians rather than bring us together. Labor's mission, as represented in part by this bill, is to bring Australians together with, in this case, a very straightforward concept: same job, same pay. Two C lasses o f Worker Many labour hire firms across Australia operate in a fair way and exist for a good reason. We have no issue with them. But there are unscrupulous ones making a quick buck off the backs of working people, providing workers to major companies at lower wages than if the companies had hired them directly. And, therefore, changing the competitive nature between companies within the one industry. The truth is that someone pays a price for this. You end up with two Australians working side by side, doing the same hours and the same job, with the same qualifications; yet one gets paid less and has less security than the other. For those women and men, work is unreliable, but their bills never are. We know that casual workers in Queensland's coalmining industry are consistently earning less than their permanent colleagues—proving it's a myth that casuals are getting paid their rightful loading. If anyone benefits from double dipping, it's the companies and labour hire firms that indulge in these practices. The company pays less for the work getting done so it can pad the bottom line and avoids the obligations of providing full-time work. The labour hire firm takes its cut. Dollars are taken out of the wallets of everyday Australians and out of those communities. It's a rort that must end. But while it is most common in the mining industry, it is more widespread. It's at the airport, where a customer service officer employed directly by an airline on a permanent contract could be checking you in, while someone is checked in at the very next counter by a casually employed labour hire worker, who doesn't even know if they'll be there the next day. It's happening in suburban libraries, in health care, aged care, disability care and manufacturing: two workers doing the same thing, one with the benefit of a stable pay cheque, an income they can count on to plan ahead, to buy a home, knowing they'll be able to pay the bills; the other with less income, less stability and less security. The difference can amount to hundreds of dollars a week. These firms exploit casual workers and undermine job security. During COVID, they risk undermining public health. And throughout it all, they undercut wages. If you're working for a labour hire company, chances are you'll get as much as 40 per cent less than a permanent worker, even if that worker is doing the same job under the same conditions. On this government's watch, a class of economic second-tier citizens is being cemented into place. If you're a casual, you don't have annual leave. You don't have sick leave. You don't have job security. And good luck if you want to get a home loan. It's also hard to plan for a family. An Unconscionable Cost The problem of creeping casualisation and cowboy labour hire firms is affecting a growing number of industries and workplaces. The miners union and the McKell Institute focused on the most prominent in a report titled, Wage-cutting Strategies in the Mining Industry. Its subtitle is: 'The cost to workers and communities'—which says it all. Money is shifted to big cities or overseas at the expense of these regional communities. As I said when I launched that report in Mackay, the scale on which miners are being ripped off through the casualisation of the workforce is a major problem. It is the consequence of the weakness in our current workplace laws that let mining companies use outsourcing strategies to bypass union negotiated enterprise agreements. Money is being taken from families to fatten a bottom line. Workers are losing the gains that were won over generations. Many feel like their job is substandard, that they're dispensable. Without job security, they struggle to put down roots in their community, never knowing when they'll have to move on. And when it comes to workplace safety they feel too scared to speak up. This is what the Queensland Coal Mining Board of Inquiries said in May: There is a perception among coal mine workers that a labour hire worker or contractor who raises safety concerns at a mine might jeopardise their ongoing employment at the mine. That's from their report into the explosion at the Grosvenor coal mine at Moranbah. It is an unconscionable cost. These dodgy practices are also loopholes exploited by bad employers to undercut workers' wages—which the cowboy labour hire firms are cashing in on. What do we see from this government? We see this government spending taxpayers' money to defend court cases, legal action in the courts, to overturn when courts have previously determined that these practices undermine permanent work and that these practices are inappropriate. The fact is, particularly in highly unionised, well-paid sectors like mining, it is effectively an exercise in busting the benefits of collective action that have been won over generations. It cuts a chunk of the workforce out of the EBA conditions negotiated fairly and in good faith by workers and their unions with good employers. The Prime Minister talks a big game about being on the side of miners and on the side of families. But the truth is he joined with the labour hire firms in a High Court case to maintain these rorts. He wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to ensure the continued ripping off of casuals and their families. He also teamed up with One Nation to pass IR changes that extinguish the rights of casual workers. Under the government scheme passed earlier this year, employers can benefit from the certainty of a permanent worker, but they don't need to give them the benefits of permanent work like sick leave or annual leave. If workers want to be casuals, they can be. For so many people, it's an important choice, but it should be a real choice. Flexibility must come with security, not at the expense of it. Flexibility must benefit workers as well as employers. Only Labor understands these principles. We know that flexibility and security can exist together. Job stability is at the core of our plan to deliver more secure jobs, better pay and a fairer industrial relations system. A Very Simple P rinciple A Labor Government will write the principle of Same Job, Same Pay into law. But we do not have to wait until then. Just as JobKeeper grew out of calls from Labor and the union movement, together with employers, for wage subsidies during the pandemic, we can do this right now. This is the chance for the LNP to put their votes where their mouths are and stand up for the people they purport to represent. With this bill, Labor will ensure that workers employed through labour hire companies don't get ripped off. Labor will uphold the principle that if you work the same job, you should get the same pay. It's not complex. We will legislate to ensure that workers employed through a labour hire company will not receive less pay than workers employed directly. The use of temporary labour hire to help employers manage increased demand during surge periods or replace absent workers has been around for decades. This bill will not disturb that business model. That's important. But this new business model that has been adopted under this government has distorted the labour market and undermined enterprise bargaining. We will crack down on companies trying to circumvent their obligations to pay their workers directly. We will make sure on-hire workers are treated no less favourably than directly engaged workers. We will remove barriers to career paths and secure employment opportunities for on-hire workers. A Better, More Secure Future We see that the pandemic has given us the opportunity to shape a better future with stable jobs and secure income for all Australian workers and their families. It means so much when families can plan ahead to buy homes. It means so much when your job pays for your kid's school shoes, fees and swimming lessons and covers the mortgage. It means so much when you can plan to have a family based upon secure work going forward. We in the Labor party, since 1891, have stood up for the fair go. We have stood up for the rights of working people. We don't do what those opposite do, which is to pretend to care about 'people in the mining sector' when what they really mean is just 'overseas shareholders'. That's what they mean—not workers in the industry. We believe in the fair go, and nothing says a fair go as simply as 'same job, same pay'—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That has built this country. That is the fair go that a Labor government will deliver. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Ms Swanson 264170 It is. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the leader and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 (No. 2) 40

Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 (No. 2)

First Reading 40 Second Reading 40 10:15 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this bill be now read a second time. We are blessed to live in a country with a strong and proud industrial relations history. We accept the rights of individuals to receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, without a second thought. We accept that a person's toil should be appropriately rewarded irrespective of their gender, race, religion or age. And we accept the right of a person to move freely from one employer to another. The notion of exploitation of others is repugnant to us and the abuse of forced or slave labour is unfathomable, and against every value we hold dearly in this country. Sadly however, forced or slave labour is the hellish daily existence endured by millions of people around the world. Men, women, children and the aged, forced to work in the most heinous of conditions with limited or no access to food, water or even basic necessities. Working for up to 22 hours in a day then locked up for a miserly two hours' sleep, day after day after day. The International Labour Organization Forced Labour Convention, 1930, defines the practice: … forced or compulsory labour is: all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat or a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily. It is estimated that between 38 to 46 million people globally are subjected to modern slavery, of which more than 10 million are children. The exploitation occurs in the private economy as well as under ruling government and military regimes. It would be easy to attribute these atrocities to countries with poor human rights records or third world economies. And for the most part, that is the case for the majority of forced labour activity. However, around 1.5 million people are working in forced labour arrangements in developed economies, including the United States, Canada, European Union, Japan, New Zealand and right here in Australia. Furthermore, developed countries are often the end point for services and products, especially apparel, produced by forced labour. It is difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to truly determine if their goods are produced by or with materials sourced from forced labour activities. Indeed, many or all of us in this place, are most likely the unwitting owners of some garments that are the end product of forced labour. Cotton products in particular, are at high risk of originating from or a part of forced labour arrangements through the supply chain. The Uighur region in Xinjiang, China, produces approximately 85 per cent of all Chinese cotton. Much of this cotton enters transactional supply chains, where it is then used in intermediary manufacturers in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Ethiopia, China and Mexico. Much of the cotton in the Uighur region is hand picked by people forced to do so, and the textile factories in the region are known to employ forced labour. Citizens who are minoritised are also transferred thousands of kilometres away to inland China to work without choice in the factories in major textile and apparel exporters. This parliament has expressed strong support for international efforts to suppress forced labour. Senator Patrick introduced the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020 to address the well-documented human rights abuse of hundred of thousands of Uighur people in Xinjiang province in China. The bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which reported on 17 June this year. The committee endorsed the objectives of the bill without reservation and went on to observe that the state sponsored forced labour to which the Uighur people are subjected by the Chinese dictatorship is a grave human rights violation. It is incumbent on the government to take steps to ensure Australian businesses and Australian consumers are not in any way complicit with these egregious abuses. The committee took the view that it would be preferable to introduce a global ban on the imported goods to Australia that were produced by forced labour and the committee accordingly recommended that the Customs Act 1901 be amended to prohibit the import of any goods made wholly or in part by forced labour, regardless of geographic origin. The Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 (No. 2) seeks to implement the committee's recommendations through the amendment to the Customs Act to impose an absolute ban on the importation of goods produced in whole or in part by forced labour. The proposed ban is global in nature and does not specify any geographic right for its application. I call on every member in this place to help put an end to the injustice of forced labour, to give a voice to the millions of unheard people working against their will and to give consumers the confidence to buy products that have been produced without forced labour or from the products of forced labour. This bill is too important to be subject to the usual politicking of this House. It must not be sent off to committee to be left on the table to expire. We have the opportunity to actively join the international community and make a positive difference to the lives of the most disadvantaged people in the world. If we fail to get this bill through this place, we will fail the millions of people globally that are dependent on countries like Australia to help change their fate. If you value your rights of individual freedoms and oppose the atrocities of forced labour, I ask you and all members of this place to support this bill. Mr Speaker, on your final day, may I express my enormous gratitude as a member of the crossbench. Thank you for your service to the parliament. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Mayo. Is the member for Mayo's motion seconded? Dr Haines 282335 I rise to second this bill. I reserve my right to speak on the bill. Mr Speaker, I too would like to thank you for your service to this parliament, for your great leadership and for the wisdom and great ethics you've brought to the role. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG Thank you so much. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 42 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Child Care 42 10:24 Mr E0D Bonner VASTA () (): I move: That this House: (1) notes that the Government's support for childcare helped Australian families during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and continues to support families as our economy grows; (2) further notes that the latest data shows more than $3 billion has been provided through the pandemic to keep services viable, staff in work and children in care; (3) recognises that women's workforce participation has reached a record high of 61.8 per cent; and (4) further recognises that the Government is investing more than $10.3 billion in the childcare system this year, helping more than 1.2 million families. The childcare sector is fundamental to nurturing the potential of our children, and that is why I rise today to move a motion which recognises the support our government has provided to this sector. Our government is making a real difference to the lives of families across the country. Even during the pandemic, our support has continued to be unwavering. Our government has remained committed to keeping the childcare sector open and staff employed. Two hundred thousand early childcare workers, educators and teachers in Australia have been able to keep their jobs, and around 6,200 services in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT have received $234 million in payments to date. This is on top of our government's continued flow of the childcare subsidy. Just last month, we announced that our increased childcare subsidy for multiple children has been brought forward four months earlier than first expected. It's certainly been a challenging time, but it couldn't be clearer how important this sector is to Australian families, parent workforce participation and our economy. I have seen our government deliver for this sector across my electorate of Bonner. I regularly visit our local childcare centres and kindergartens, spending time with the staff and children, and learning about what we can do to support them. These are heartwarming visits. Not only can I see the widespread benefit of our government's funding in this space; I'm also able to recognise the dedicated staff who do an incredible job of supporting our children's passion for learning. During these visits, a guaranteed crowd-pleaser is reading to the children, and the book of my choice is If I Was Prime Minister by Beck and Robin Feiner. Seeing the smiles on the children's faces is priceless, and it makes it especially worthwhile to also donate the book to these centres. Last month I donated the book to the vibrant kindergarten class at C&K at St Catherine's Community Kindergarten in Wishart. The children loved the book so much they created and sent me their own version which told the story of what they would do if they were Prime Minister. Some said they would save the animals, help people and take care of our environment. At a very young age, these children already have amazing hearts for making a difference, as do their family members and educators, who are playing key roles in this. Pulling this book together was truly a tremendous effort by the kindergarten and the staff at C&K at St Catherine's. It's a book I've now shared with my family and even other members of the House. This is just one example of many. Time and again I hear the overwhelming support from local centres for our government's funding. During this year's federal budget, we announced the investment of a further $1.7 billion into child care to increase its affordability and to give parents the choice to take on extra work. I caught up with Tingalpa's LEAD Childcare centre manager, Krissy, who was very pleased with this. It was especially meaningful to hear her positive feedback, as she's someone with extensive experience in the sector. Supporting our children to engage in early education is the fundamental building block to ensure that they are best prepared to start school. During Early Learning Matters Week, which fell a couple of months ago, I visited Green Eggs Early Childhood Centre in Mansfield and Mother Duck Childcare centre in Manly, two fantastic local centres that are fostering inclusive spaces for children to grow into confident and enthusiastic learners. These visits were an opportunity for me to personally thank the staff for the high-quality early education and care they provide. When I asked the Mother Duck Childcare centre nominated supervisor, Kate, why being an early educator matters to her, she said that children need strong role models both at home and in their everyday lives, and educators play a special role in guiding them on the value of early education right from the very start. So today I am shining a light on how our government continues to enrich— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the motion seconded? An honourable member: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:29 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I have now been in this parliament for eight years. With some of the things I've seen from this government, it takes a lot to shock me. But I almost fell off my chair when I saw this motion from the member for Bonner. I don't doubt the member for Bonner's sincerity in having a personal commitment to early education and child care, but let's be clear: the Morrison government's handling of child care during the pandemic has been absolutely abysmal. It has been abysmal before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to go through this motion and provide the facts about this government's childcare failures. The first point of this motion says that the government helped families during the height of the pandemic and continues to support families. For me, as a Victorian and as an MP who is in constant contact with families and childcare centres across my electorate during the pandemic, this is an extraordinary claim. The government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to their short-lived free childcare experiment. There were thousands of families writing to MPs across the country. It was not perfect, but it was good—so good that the government bagged the idea when Labor proposed something similar at the 2019 election. So they came up with the free child care, which, for the first time, made families understand what it might look like, particularly after they'd been so stressed in the weeks prior to that with people not being able to work and people holding their kids out of child care for fear of catching COVID. They then found that there were limited numbers of days that children could be out of child care and that they would still be paying full fees—and then still paying gap fees. This government clumsily staggered from one issue to the next throughout this. And, of course, their free childcare moment was withdrawn and wasn't there for subsequent lockdowns. So the whole cycle began again: families having to instigate conversations with members of parliament and the industry having to ring us to talk us through the conditions they were finding themselves. Paragraph (2) of the motion notes that the latest data shows government programs have kept services viable. That is what we were telling them throughout the pandemic: that services would not be viable without government intervention. What does the data actually show us about what's happened in this space? The ABS data confirms that families, on average, are paying more than they ever have in out-of-pocket expenses for child care. In a single quarter, out-of-pocket costs have gone up by 2.1 per cent nationwide, more than double the CPI. Childcare fees have now soared by 39.2 per cent since this government came to office in 2013. The department of education's most recent data, in March 2021, shows that childcare fees had risen by 2.4 per cent over the previous 12 months—again, more than double the Consumer Price Index. This increase included six months of frozen fees. This government is patting itself on the back today about the support that it gave to this sector and to families, but with the families in my electorate the numbers are extraordinary. In the electorate of Lalor there are 21,000 children in early education and childcare settings. That is 16,000 families in 160 local services. That's an enormous number of families. It's the highest number of families accessing early education and child care of any federal electorate in the country. These are families that are working incredibly hard. These are families who this government is ignoring, because it won't take up the ideas that are being presented by Labor. If Labor is elected, an Albanese Labor government will make child care cheaper for 97 per cent of families. Importantly, we will task the ACCC with designing a price regulation mechanism to shed light on costs and fees and drive them down for good. The Productivity Commission will also conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families. I stand here today and clearly tell the people in my electorate: only Labor has a plan to fix the coalition's broken childcare system, only Labor will deliver better services and more affordable— (Time expired) 10:34 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I thank the member for Bonner for moving this motion and providing this opportunity to speak on a topic I feel immense passion for. As the economy recovers in 2022, the childcare sector will play a critical role in facilitating parents' workforce participation. With more than 280,000 more children in child care than when we came to office, the Morrison government knows that support to this sector is completely critical. Parents want the confidence that they can go to work knowing that their children are safe and cared for. Many of us in this place are working parents. We know the challenges that face young families when they need to return to work. Many of us know intimately both the emotional and the financial challenges placed on young families as they navigate the work-family juggle that comes with having young children, and there's never been a more trying time than during COVID. Those early years are not easy for young families. Sleepless nights and toddler wrangling is often mixed with critical junctures in one or both of the parents' careers. Add to that, parents may need to upsize their house as their family grows. Mortgage pressures are added to the increased cost of feeding a growing family. This government understands that happy and supported families grow happy and supported children, children that become happy and supported citizens themselves of our great nation. That is why at the last budget the Morrison government stepped up to invest a huge boost to funding in the childcare sector. From early next year Australian families are set to benefit from the Morrison government's budget measures to increase childcare subsidies for families with more than one child under six. The increased subsidies will flow from early March 2022, and these changes will see 250,000 families pay fewer out-of-pocket costs. Furthermore, the removal of the current income cap removes the disincentive for a second earner to undertake work. This will take our total investment to almost $11 billion a year for families to reduce their childcare costs—almost double what Labor spent in their last year in office. This investment will help local childcare centres right across Higgins, childcare centres including Murrumbeena Children's Centre, Glen Iris childcare centre on Warrigal Road, Malvern Early Learning and Childcare Centre, Little Paddington childcare centre in Malvern East, Clever Kids child care in Ashburton, Inspire Early Learning in Murrumbeena and the Renown childcare centre. The impact of this subsidy does more than just make child care more affordable and more accessible; it helps to encourage workforce participation, particularly for women. We know that an increase in child care costs results in more women staying at home. The government understands that our economy is stronger when we have fuller participation. We also understand that women make for a stronger and more diverse workplace. We want to encourage workforce participation, particularly among women. We want women to take their place in the world in a way that ensures their financial independence and that their contribution to society is appropriately remunerated. The extra investment that government has made in the last budget will allow around 40,000 people to work an extra day per week. We all know children are a gift we are given. But, as a mum of four young adults, I know only too well that they grow up in a blink of an eye and then they go on to make their own way in life. We want to make sure that young families can get through the early tough times so that they can thrive and prosper. Helping young families with that early juggle is key to that. These new budgetary measures will put more money back in young families' pockets. It will lower disincentives for parents to return to work or take on additional hours, and Treasury estimates these measures will boost the level of GDP by up to $1.5 billion a year. This complements our 2018 package that has kept out-of-pocket costs for families low. We overhauled the childcare system to introduce one simplified childcare subsidy for all families. These changes combined have helped ensure the highest female participation rate in Australia ever. As a paediatrician, I understand the value of quality child care for children for their best start in life. The Morrison government understands this too and will continue to provide subsidies for quality child care to the benefit of parents and children now and in generations to come. 10:39 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Childcare workers and childcare directors—or, as we like to think of them, early learning educators—have been asked to do a lot during this pandemic. They were asked to stay on the front line when we knew very little about COVID. Nearly everyone else had to stay at home, but they had to be able to care for the children of essential workers, showing just how essential they themselves are. They were initially denied vaccinations, and then they had them mandated, and I know both these things caused anxiety. They were also hearing about the funding arrangements and the changes to their sector only when they were announced in media conferences, never with more than a couple of days notice to make massive changes to their working lives from who could attend child care to how much people would or wouldn't pay. Directors have called me in shock about the changes that were sprung on them over the last year and a half. These directors are predominantly women, and women who recognise the value and role of early learning, and to be treated so cavalierly by the Morrison government was frankly insulting. They deserve the support that they were given as a sector financially, and I think they deserved more, but they also deserved much more respect. I also want to talk about the parents. It has been more than two decades since I had children in early learning—we called it child care then. From talking to parents now, I can see that the task of choosing the right people to care for and educate your little ones is no less agonising than it was in the 1990s. For the last nearly two years, parents have been asked to trust that their preschoolers were safe at their long day care centre, their family day care centre, kindy or preschool. There was a time when there were told that they were bad parents if they were working from home but still sending their child to be cared for at a centre. Seriously, have you ever tried to work from home with an under-5? COVID has given the phrase 'juggling work and family responsibilities' a whole new definition. When my volunteers and I have done our community check-in calls, it's clear to me that parents, especially mothers, have had a massive load. There was confusion about whether they'd have to pay a gap or whether it would be waived. Parents were dependent on their centre being able to sign up for it, and the centres were given no support to do it. These were the most challenging of times financially and emotionally. Now, as COVID seeps into places where we've largely managed to keep it out, I wonder at the government's failure to support the widespread use of rapid antigen self-testing inside childcare centres. You cause havoc to a family and a centre economically, logistically and emotionally when it closes due to a COVID case. There's a screening tool at hand that can reduce that impact, but it isn't being widely used. Kindergartens and long day care centres in Victoria will soon be in line with Victorian schools and have access to free rapid antigen testing kits to help manage outbreaks and limit disruption to children's learning. We need leadership at a national level from the Morrison government. I know that's a lot to ask and we've not seen a lot of it, but we need really good screening programs freely available to the directors and workers to help the parents and support the kids who are in early learning. Of course, COVID gave parents a momentary taste of access to early learning for free. Even before COVID, though, on this side we knew the burden the cost of quality care was placing on families, especially when wages were stagnating yet childcare costs kept on rising—by around 20 per cent in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. Now parents of children, like me, look and think, '$100 or $105-plus a day for child care is a lot to pay out of your wage.' The Morrison-Joyce government's policy sounds okay in an ad, but let's look at the detail because that's where it lets everybody down. It only provides some relief to one in four families. It completely leaves out parents with one child in care. That's 74 per cent of families. It rips the extra support away from families with two children in care once the older child goes to school, and it does nothing to put downward pressure on rapid fee growth. By contrast, our plan will bring the costs down and keep them down. Our plan will benefit 97 per cent of families and address the structural issues. Only Labor will fix this childcare system. 10:45 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I don't think there's a member in this House who wouldn't acknowledge how important early child care or early childhood learning is, and child care is the subject of the motion the member for Bonner has put forward. But I have heard members of the Morrison-Joyce government call child care the 'outsourcing of parenting', and I recall one member of the LNP government, in previous years, talking about child care as if it's just about wiping noses and changing nappies. Indeed, the member for Bonner, who moved this motion, spent his five minutes on this motion talking about his own visit to a childcare centre, in which he read a book to the children at that childcare centre. Fair enough—he's free to do that. But there was no mention of the hard work that our early educators do, the conditions under which they're forced to work, the low wages and the lack of valuing of that industry that is currently exhibited by the Morrison-Joyce government. Ninety-seven per cent of people who work in early childhood education are women, and they can earn as little as $22 an hour. That's just above the minimum wage and way below the average wage. As is the case for the member for Macquarie, it's been a long time since I had to place my children in child care, as it was also called back then. But, as a single working mother, I am eternally grateful to every single one of those workers who looked after my children so that I could go back to university and get an education, go to work and put a roof over my children's heads, build up my family, and be a role model for my two young boys, who saw their mother going out and working and building a career for herself. I could not have done that without the childcare workers and the early childhood educators who helped me raise my children. That's what they did: they helped me raise my children. And they are so undervalued. They are so undervalued in terms of remuneration, and they are so undervalued by a government whose members think that early childhood education is outsourcing parenting and is nothing more than wiping snotty noses. We need to increase the pay rates for our early childhood educators, pay them what they're worth and recognise their value. That's one part of the puzzle here. If we're going to talk about a comprehensive childcare policy and a comprehensive approach to child care, that's one part of the puzzle. The other part is making it more affordable for families. I remember sitting there and doing the sums about how much it was going to cost me to put two children in child care while I went out to work and how much money would be left at the end of the day for the mortgage, for the bills and for food. And let me tell you, I know many families across Australia are doing the same thing today: working out if it's worthwhile sending their children to child care so that one of the parents—usually the female, who is the primary care giver—can go out and build a career and go to work. Right now, our childcare system locks out about 100,000 families who are making those decisions today. Right now, as we speak, parents are sitting there and working out if it's worthwhile for one of the parents to go back to work, because of the cost of childcare. It means that women, predominantly, are either not working or not able to take on more hours. A responsible government would have fixed this childcare system. It would have done that. It would have increased the pay and it would have made child care more accessible and more affordable. I know that this Morrison-Joyce government has put forward a childcare plan and a childcare policy, but they do not go far enough and do not even compare to Labor's policy, which would help four times as many families and 97 per cent of families would benefit. Only Labor can be trusted to fix a broken childcare system. 10:50 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman [by video link] It's with pride that I speak about the coalition's record in early learning. I also recognise there's similar passion on the other side of the chamber but point out to the previous speaker that the federal government isn't responsible for setting the wages in the public sector. This is done through an appropriate independent Fair Work process. I suggest that the previous speaker pay a bit more attention to the number of applications that have been made to Fair Work to increase those wage rates, something I think is very important and has widespread support. Today we're recognising how the early learning sector evolved and adapted to get through the COVID process. While every opportunity was taken by the government to have some form of continuity, the shock that was placed on the early learning sector necessitated some unique interventions. We recognise that COVID would have led to falls of well over 50 per cent of income had there not been a Commonwealth response. That response was quickly implemented, particularly where there were falls in attendance of greater than 50 per cent. The waiving of fees for families in that situation was important. It worked. It kept staffing levels as high as possible, particularly in the non-casual sector. Fee freezes, as well, made a really big difference. We can now reflect on the fact that, next year, government payments to this sector will be nearly double where they were under the Labor administration in 2013. We will see up to 1.2 million families benefiting from them, and the particular changes that we're bringing forward in the budget next year will help about a quarter of a million of those. Remember that allowing second and subsequent children able to get even more childcare subsidy than they otherwise would makes a huge affordability difference. A family which has two income earners on say, $65,000 and $45,000 respectively will be more than $100 per week better off under these changes. The annual cap of just over $10,000 for those with two children in full-time care will see significant improvements. This cap that applies to those earning over $190,000 is effectively removed. It means that all families can benefit, making sure that attending early learning, the same as attending secondary education, is affordable for everyone. Removal of the cap benefits around 18,000 families. This will have massive impacts at the marginal tax rate level for families in that situation, but don't miss the fact we're also making huge changes for those on lower incomes. Most importantly, I want to draw attention to the most vulnerable. We know that typically 15 per cent of children in the early development census are vulnerable. Another 10 per cent, on average, are at risk. In some areas it's far higher. The role of government is to get it right for this group of people. I remember debating the state health minister last year, when she was the education minister. She wasn't even aware of what proportion of her own state was vulnerable when her government was saying that only vulnerable children could attend school. It is important that we all know that one in six to one in five children need these additional supports. In some cases under this government's reform it's paying the full amount plus some to make sure that those children can attend and making sure that up to 12 hours per week are available to all families. For more early learning support than that there has to be some form of manager activity, which we think is critically important. Locally, in Bowman, under Early Learning Redlands, a fabulous local group really making a difference, we've built a considerable group of providers that can offer allied health support for these children. I want to make the observation that we've always had strong GP connections to visits in aged-care facilities. But this nation is yet to make that direct connection between holistic general practice care and visiting children in early learning centres to ensure they get the allied health they need. One of my great policy pushes was to use those EPCs, those primary care Medicare item numbers, more freely for all Australians, including children, to get coordinated allied health support, including psychology, so they could get the start they needed at school and be ready to be educated. These highly vulnerable children deserve additional support. Goodstart Early Learning is leading the way, but current providers as well need to find ways to connect with GPs and make sure that these allied health services are delivered in the centre, which would be quite revolutionary, or that these parents can at least get access to allied health, given the workforce shortages, outside that. Nothing is more important than looking after these young Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Australia-Philippines Relations: 75th Anniversary 46 10:55 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland by leave—On behalf of the member for Chifley, I move: That this House: (1) recognises that 2021 marks 75 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines; (2) celebrates the strength of the bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over those 75 years; (3) reaffirms the strong relationship between Australia and the Philippines; and (4) acknowledges the importance of effective diplomatic relations with the Philippines, which are underpinned by our shared history and deep enduring relationship. I proudly second the member for Chifley's formal motion, which goes to celebrating the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and the great nation of the Philippines. It's a testament to the work of the member for Chifley and the member for Greenway in their local communities around the Blacktown area of Sydney, which has probably the greatest concentration of Filipino Australians in Australia. I pay tribute to their fine work in that area. This motion celebrates the strength of the bilateral diplomatic relationship, reaffirms the importance of the relationship and acknowledges the shared history and deep, enduring friendship between our two countries. Diplomatic relations were established in the aftermath of a global war which cost both our nations—indeed, all the nations of the Asia-Pacific—dearly. It was a relationship forged in battle. The Leyte landings in the Philippines were one of the decisive battles of the war in the Pacific. More than 4,000 Australian soldiers took part in the landings and in the campaign to liberate the Philippines during 1944 and 1945. In several actions, escaped Australian prisoners of war fought alongside Filipino guerrilla forces on Mindanao, and, after the war, Australia opened its first diplomatic mission in Manila in May 1946—only a few weeks before the proclamation of independence for the Philippines. In Australia, the Chifley government's vision for a postwar future for Australia rested on forging new diplomatic, political and economic relationships in our emerging post-colonial society. In the Philippines, the country's leaders saw Australia as a natural partner for the Filipino people as the country became an independent nation looking to rebuild a land levelled by war. In fact, President Roxas said: 'Inalienable human rights mean the same thing in Melbourne as in Manila—democracy, free elections, a secret ballot, free speech, free press and free assembly. All of these have an identical significance for our two countries.' On the next day, the Australian Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, responded with a message congratulating President Roxas on the inauguration of Filipino independence. And so Australia and the Philippines embarked on their journey of postwar reconstruction as friends and partners. Over the decades since that moment, the relationship has flourished and expanded. Part of that is a strong development relationship. Australia will provide $79 million in development assistance to the Philippines in 2021-22. That assistance supports programs to improve the health, education and economic welfare of people in the Philippines. Of course, there are extensive people-to-people links. The richness of Australia's multicultural society has been enhanced by the presence of a large, vibrant, hardworking Filipino community in this country. As at June 2020 there were 310,000 persons born in the Philippines living in Australia, making Filipinos Australia's fifth-largest migrant community. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Filipino community in my electorate of Shortland, particularly the Filipino-Australian Society of the Hunter Valley, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. One of the highlights of my year as a member of parliament is the celebration of Philippines Independence Day. This celebration is one of the few community events that is a must-attend for myself and my wife, Keara. We always enjoy the warmth and hospitality of FASHV members at this special celebration. I'm also proud that FASHV have their headquarters in Shortland and I'm very pleased to have supported them over the years, most recently with a grant of solar panels for their hall. While our community might not be as big as the one around Blacktown in Sydney, we're proud to have the only Filipino Australian owned community hall in the country. It's a great local claim to fame. I want to spend the remaining seconds acknowledging that one of the great professions that Filipino Australians are overrepresented in is nursing and health care. They do tremendous work in our hospitals and our aged-care homes, and during the COVID pandemic they risked their lives every single day in making sure every Australian had access to quality health care. This is a testament to the commitment of Filipino Australians to this country, to making this country a better place and to helping their homeland of the Philippines as well. On the anniversary of our relationship, I want to say: thank you so much for your continued support to make these two great countries even better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Is the motion seconded? Ms Kearney LTU I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:00 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina At the outset I want to acknowledge the eloquent words of the member for Shortland. We don't always agree, but I certainly do agree on this count and agree with his remarks about what Filipinos have done in aged care particularly—specifically, as he quite correctly pointed out, saving lives, essentially putting their own lives at risk so that Australians could have quality aged care in their retirement, in their golden twilight years. This is an important debate and I am very pleased to speak on this milestone occasion. The Riverina and Central West, which I proudly represent, are home to many Filipino Australians, who I know have a great affinity to their homeland as well as their adoptive country that they now call home, Australia. Wagga Wagga, for example, is known for its vibrant Filipino community, and I can vouch for and attest to that very point, having attended a number of multicultural events over the past 11 years celebrating the Filipino culture, their food, music and dance. In 2019 I attended the celebrations of Philippines independence at Henschke Catholic Primary School. I'm familiar with the school, and I recall that great celebrations were had. In June this year, prior to the imposition of COVID restrictions, the Filipino Catholic community of Wagga Wagga diocese gathered and celebrated in style the 123rd anniversary of their country's independence. Whilst I was disappointed at not being able to attend, I know there was a carnival atmosphere of celebration, as you would expect. Wagga Wagga, where I call home, was declared a Rotary peace city on 23 February 1993, a concept conceived by Kooringal Rotarian Tony Quinlivan. It was the first peace city to be declared anywhere in the world. The second was Manila in the Philippines, being declared a peace city on 22 June 1994. This speaks volumes to me about the types of people who inhabit both places and highlights an important connection between values, between traditions and between the outlook of the world that both Australians and Filipinos certainly share—peace-loving people, people who celebrate diversity, people who celebrate democracy. Data available in 2020 showed that 9.4 per cent of the Wagga Wagga population were born overseas, with the Philippines being one of the top five countries where people born overseas originate from, the others being the United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and China. There are many more, of course. We actually fly more than 100 flags; on Australia Day we celebrate 100 different nations. Many regional communities and many metropolitan communities, such as your own, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, are cradles of multiculturalism. We are very diverse communities. The contribution Filipino workers make to local industries in the Riverina should also be very much emphasised. I know there are hundreds of Filipinos who work in all manner of local industry, with a great number employed by Teys in Wagga Wagga and by other endeavours as well. The Philippines consulate has made visits to Wagga Wagga to assist those living and working in the city. But it's not just Wagga Wagga; it's right across the vast Riverina electorate. I want to highlight a friend of mine, Irene Broad. Irene was elected to Temora Shire Council in 2004. She was re-elected in 2008. She served until 2012. What a wonderful person she is. I spoke to the mayor of Temora this morning, Councillor Rick Firman, who talked about Irene's grace and warmth. He's right, of course. Irene says she is the first Filipino migrant to be elected to Australian public life, as in local government, and the SBS confirms that she is considered to be so. She provided some wonderful input to Temora. Her contribution to Australian life is reflected by Filipinos all around our great nation. They contribute mightily. Of course, Australia's two-way goods and services trade with the Philippines was worth $5.6 billion in 2019. It's not just culture; it's also trade and friendship. The bottom line is friendship, mateship. 11:06 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Chifley. I thank him for bringing this matter before the House today and I thank the previous speakers for their wonderful comments about our very vibrant Filipino diaspora in Australia. Macarthur, my electorate, is home to a really vibrant community of Filipino Australians who enrich our society in many, many ways. We have a very multicultural community in Macarthur; around 30 per cent of our population were born overseas, and around 5,000 of those are Filipino Australians. They certainly enrich our community and help us make Macarthur a wonderful place to live, work and learn in. This is a momentous year for relations between Australia and the Philippines as we commemorate 75 years of diplomatic ties between our two nations. I take this opportunity to thank Macarthur's Filipino community for the incredible work they do. They work in a whole range of industries—in particular, the healthcare industry, of which I'm a part. Macarthur is very proud of our Filipino connections. Many Macarthur residents, particularly around Rosemeadow, Ambarvale and surrounding suburbs, will be familiar with Rizal Park, but many may not know of its connections to the Philippines. Jose Rizal is an icon to Filipinos and also to Filipino Australians. Like me, he was a doctor; he was an ophthalmologist. He was a polymath; whatever he turned his hand to he was good at. He was considered to be the national hero of the Philippines—in the Tagalog language, the pambansang bayani. He was noteworthy for his role in bringing about the political reforms which ultimately led to Philippine independence. Unfortunately he lost his life in that struggle. He is rightly recognised in Macarthur through Rizal Park, and I have been to many functions there with our very vibrant Filipino community. This park also houses an iconic monument to this historic figure. In 2012, Macarthur was pleased to welcome the former president of the Philippines, His Excellency Benigno S Aquino III, who opened the monument during his tenure in Australia. More recently, we were pleased to host the Consul-General of the Philippines to commemorate Rizal Day. As a mentioned earlier, Macarthur is home to a growing number of Filipino Australians. There are too many to mention them all, but many of them make an invaluable contribution to our society and I just want to single out a few of them—first of all, my very good friend and Campbelltown City Labor councillor Rey Manoto. Ray is a telecommunications engineer and he gave his expertise to our community in that role. Now he is a local icon of our community, a Campbelltown councillor, and has served the community well since his election in 2016. Secondly, I want to thank Dr Jimmy Lopez for his invaluable work in our community. Jimmy is a wonderful leader of our local Filipino community, and I want to thank him for his work, particularly with community organisations like the NARRA Co-op and Sedgwick Housing. Filipino Australians make invaluable contributions to our community, particularly in health care. Among them are many of our nursing staff, some of our paediatricians and many of our GPs who work in our community providing health care and have done so for many years. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, they've provided invaluable service throughout our health care, including our hospitals, our general practices, our aged care and our disability care. I want to thank in particular Ms Lynn Santiago, who's been leading in one of our disability organisations to provide care for some of our most vulnerable. In summary, our community is enriched by our Filipino Australians in Macarthur. I look forward to working with them. I thank them for the service they've given our community, particularly in health care, and I look forward to attending many more functions at the beautiful Rizal Park on top of the hill overlooking our Campbelltown community. I'm very proud to say that our Filipino Australians in Macarthur are my friends and have provided wonderful support to me throughout my time in political life. 11:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'd like to thank the member for Chifley for bringing to the House this important motion, which commemorates or recognises 75 years of the diplomatic relationship between Australia and the Philippines. I gave a speech on this in February this year as that date approached. I am the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Philippines, along with the member for Solomon, and I thank him for his support in that role. We've had a number of meetings in this place with the very gracious and well attuned ambassador of the Philippines, Madam Hellen De La Vega. In fact, she hosted the parliamentary friends group for dinner in June, and that was delightful. This has been seen as a very important day by the people of the Philippines. Australia is a longstanding and trusted friend. Perhaps that loyalty was founded in the battles of World War II, in which, of course, the Philippines was a hotly contested piece of territory which was invaded in 1941 and occupied almost until the end of the war. The final cessation of that came with the declaration of victory in the Pacific on 2 September 1945. The next year, on 4 July 1946, the Philippines was declared an independent nation—that is, independent from the US, of which it had been a colony for more than 40 years. It is interesting that that date, 4 July, which is American Independence Day as well, had been determined 10 years earlier. So there had been the agreement and then the interruption by the war, but eventually that time frame was still met. I think it was quite an achievement for the political leaders of the Philippines to hold to that time frame, even though they had had a period of over three years when they were not in control of their country. Australia was one of the very first nations to recognise the Philippines as an independent nation. In fact, we granted a diplomatic relationship on 2 May, prior to them becoming independent in a full sense. The Philippines today is a nation of 107 million people, and our relationship has grown. There are lots of reasons for that, but I think the reasons are partly based on the foundation of the Colombo Plan, which served not only Australia but so many nations in Asia and the Pacific so well for so many years. Future leaders were educated in Australia and built this strong relationship, which is the foundation on which we build our relationship today. There are 294,000 Filipinos or thereabouts resident in Australia. Thank you to the member for Riverina for pointing out the vital role they play in our caring services. When I'm speaking to Filipino groups, I often say: 'You make great Australians. You bring so many advantages to this nation: you are very conversant with English, you come from a Christian background, your nation's laws are based on the same type of democracy as ours, and you believe in democracy and in those fundamental rights of each and every human.' That makes them easier than some other ethnic groups to integrate into Australian society, and they do it seamlessly and become part of the broader church that is Australia. They are not only in the caring services, though. If I look at my own electorate, and at Whyalla and Roxby Downs in particular, they provide a lot of expertise in the engineering and mining services, and their skills and work ethic are highly valued. The member for Riverina touched on the almost $6 billion two-way trade we have now, which is the 19th largest in the world. They had a growing economy prior to COVID of about 6.3 per cent per annum. Despite the fact that it contracted by 9.6 per cent, it is anticipated that that the six per cent mark is well achievable and they are on the way back. There's $10 billion worth of Australian investment in the Philippines. That employs 44,000 Filipinos, which is good for both nations—without a doubt. The Pacific is an unsettled area of the world, and Australia seeks to deepen our relationships with all countries that share our values—countries that are democratic, that believe in freer trade, that follow the international rules that are in place and that believe in the free movement of people and respect for human rights. In the Philippines, we have a great partner. I think this relationship will continue to grow and flourish, and I thank them for their friendship. 11:16 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Magandang umaga—good morning. It's a great pleasure to propose this resolution with the member for Shortland and join members on both sides of the House who are speaking in celebrating 75 years of formal diplomatic connection with the Philippines. With enormous pride I emphasise to the House that the Filipino-Australian community constitutes one of the biggest and most vibrant in the Chifley electorate. Over 20,000 Filipino Australians live in Chifley, almost 10 per cent of the electorate. I like to think that the size and energy of the Filipino-Australian community in the Chifley electorate form a tremendous anchor point, tethering our nation to the Philippines. I'm grateful for the community's support and honoured to call many of you my friends. To every Filipino Australian in my area I make this personal, emphatic point: I admire profoundly your humility, hard work, compassion and respect for family and community—always there with a laugh and great humour. The warmth of your friendship is something to treasure. You and your fellow Filipino Australians have made, and continue to make, extraordinary contributions to the quality of life for the people of Western Sydney and beyond, whether it be through setting up small businesses that contribute to the local economy, the contribution made by so many local groups, from FILSPARC to AGAPI and from SAFSI to PASCCI, or the spiritual support provided by the Filipino chaplaincy of the diocese of Parramatta. And we cannot forget the Philippine Community Council, who are celebrating 30 years of service this year. Thank you. Never have connections across cultures been more important than now. In times of crisis, such as those that the COVID-19 pandemic presents, we must hold tight to the ties that bind us. Australia and the Philippines are inextricably connected by our shared interests and values. Australia's culture of mateship is mirrored in the Philippine's tradition of bayanihan, the civic spirit of community for which Filipino culture is known, referring to the practice of neighbours literally carrying another neighbour's house to safe ground. In many ways, this is reflected by the thousands of Filipino families who crossed oceans and land to migrate to Australia, especially since the 1980s, coming here and contributing to their new neighbourhoods while also looking after family back home. The 75 years of diplomatic relations between our nations represents one of our country's longest-standing bilateral relationships—75 years of growth, friendship and camaraderie, notably cemented during World War Two, when 4,000 Australian service personnel fought alongside Filipino forces in one of the most decisive battles of the Second World War: the Leyte landings of 1944. The Australian embassy in Manila opened in 1946. The Philippines established their first foreign mission in Sydney a year later. The next year, the first consular office was opened in Elizabeth Bay, later elevated to the status of embassy in 1956. Roberto Regala was the first to serve as Philippine Ambassador to Australia. Since then, the vigour and energy of the diplomatic relationship and its representation have been something to admire, adding so much to our friendship. I also thank the scores of members of the Australian diplomatic corps for their dedication to this special bilateral relationship. From the ambassadors to their consul generals and their teams, the Filipino representatives are among the most active of the diplomatic corps, present at so many functions. We really hoped to have the Philippines Ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Madam Hellen Barber De La Vega, present on the floor of the House, but COVID restrictions checked our ambitions here. I know she's watching today. I thank her for her hard work and effort, as I do with the other representatives past and present, with special mention to the tireless former consul-general Anne Jalando-on Louis, for whom I have deep respect and admiration. Speaking of the ambassador, we were fortunate to have Her Excellency Consul-General Melanie Rita Diano join us at the Doonside Community Centre in June to celebrate this important 75-year milestone. The day was full of great Pinoy food from Mount Druitt's Pabico and Mama Lor in Rooty Hill. We are thankful for a beautiful presentation by Benjie de Ubago which paid tribute to Australian-Filipino pioneers, along with a blessing from Reverend Father Evergisto Bernaldez and terrific performances from AGAPI, SAFSI and Jojo Sebastian. I'd be remiss to let this opportunity pass without acknowledging the work of Chifley community contributor Lina Cabaero. I spoke of Lina's contributions earlier in the year and we recently farewelled her. I hope my words today restate my respect for her service. Regardless of our politics, I think many of us here wholeheartedly believe in the relationship between Australia and the Philippines. We think this will continue to strengthen because we've seen with our own eyes the efforts of the community here, what they do and what they stand for. Thank you for your continued work. Salamat and mabuhay. 11:21 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Thank you, member for Chifley. Salamat indeed. Without doubt the most vibrant community on the Northern Beaches is the Filipino community. They are active and engaged in our local community, and, I'm happy to say—although I bear the scars—they have the best celebrations of all the people of all the community groups in our area. There are very few celebrations where you're asked to turn up for just half an hour, just drop in, and six hours later you find yourself up on the stage dancing and feeling worse for wear at the end of it. Fortunately, there is no video of this incident, and if video does emerge I will pay cash to see that it is never published! Making it worse, of course, is the fact that I was absolutely sober and have no excuse for my behaviour on that day. I'm often asked, 'Where will you find the Filipino community on the Northern Beaches?' The answer is often at St Kevin's Dee Why at 8 am on a Sunday morning. The Filipino community shares some of the great values of so many migrant groups that have come to this country. They have a love of family. As the member for Chifley mentioned, they have a love of education. They understand the importance of thrift and saving. They love this country. Their belief in fairness, justice, and reward for effort is seen in everything that they do. It is therefore not unremarkable that our two nations would find themselves celebrating today, the 75th anniversary of our diplomatic relations, because our friendship is enduring; it is based so much on shared values as opposed to shared interests. The Philippines and Australia find themselves with a sense of mutual respect and understanding. We're anchored in a shared vision of not only both nations but the region in which we find ourselves and which we share as one that is open, inclusive and therefore prosperous and resilient. The relationship has been defined by the Filipino spirit of—I apologise up-front for my pronunciation of this—bayanihan and the Australian tradition of mateship. We have stood by each other in good times and bad, beginning with Australia's support for the Philippines' campaign for liberation during World War II. Over the past 75 years, the relationship has gone from strength to strength, built on a strong foundation of people-to-people links. Our historic people-to-people links are exemplified in the following statistics; I think some of these have been mentioned in some of the previous speeches, but they're worth reiterating. Filipinos worked in the pearling industries in Broome and Thursday Island as far back at the 1870s. Filipino Colombo Plan scholars began arriving on our shores from the 1950s. Thousands of Filipinos have been educated in Australia, and their leadership has contributed to the strengthening of our ties. And 44,000 Filipinos are employed by over 300 Australian companies in the Philippines. The significant number of Filipinos who have emigrated to Australia since the 1960s now comprise the fifth-largest immigrant community in Australia. They have brought different perspectives, experiences and skills that have enriched the Australian community. Our close bilateral relationship serves us both well as we seek to tackle regional issues and the social and economic impact of the pandemic. The relationship has grown to encompass development and assistance—things like lifesaving work during the pandemic and after natural disasters, constructive engagement on human rights, support for peace-building efforts in Mindanao and collaborative law enforcement efforts to combat online sexual exploitation of children and women. Our trade and investment links are now deep and broad, resulting in a bilateral trade relationship worth over $6 billion before COVID, which made the Philippines our 19th largest trading partner. At the same time, total Australian investment was valued at over $10 billion. Cooperation and the support of rules based multilateral agencies and the system continue to grow and deepen. Our defence and security cooperation is one of the features of our relationship with the Philippines. There are few nations in our region that we have a closer, more abiding and enduring friendship with than the Philippines, and their community in our nation make a contribution that far exceeds their numbers. 11:26 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa It's a pleasure to speak on the motion moved by the members for Chifley and Shortland. This motion celebrates the strength of bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over the last 75 years and acknowledges the importance of effective diplomatic relations for both countries. Together, Australia and the Philippines have signed 120 agreements aimed at promoting political security and economic and cultural cooperation. In 1901 an early Australian census identified approximately 700 Filipinos who worked on trading ships and in the pearling industry across Australia. Not long after, and during, the Second World War the Leyte landings operation was launched as part of the Philippines campaign. Australian POWs who fought alongside Filipino guerrillas were just another foreshadowing of the shoulder-to-shoulder cooperation which is now treasured by our nations. It was not long after that the Australian and Philippine ties were formally established with diplomatic relations. These relations ensured that our two countries would always have a close relationship, and that relationship is not based on our geographical location but mainly because of our shared history and values and community. Our friendship with the Philippines is one of Australia's longest-standing bilateral relationships. Seventy-five years ago formal relations commenced with the opening of Australia's first consul general in Manilla in May 1946. More recently, in 2015, the signing of the joint declaration of the Philippines-Australia comprehensive partnership marked a new era for relations between our two great nations. The partnership acknowledged our increasing cooperation and the history of the relationship and reinforced our relationship for years to come. Australia's relationship with the Philippines has facilitated one of Australia's largest development assistance programs in our history. Over 30 years Australia has supported the delivery of quality basic education, significantly improving the lives of Filipino children. This includes assistance in the classroom, reconstruction and making education accessible for all. Australia also helps to build effective and accountable public institutions, including supporting civil and academic organisations that benefit the Filipino public in general. Not only does this support the social development of the Philippines but it also spurs economic development. The Australian Embassy in 2013 reported that the two-way trade between our countries is valued at approximately $3 billion per annum, with more than 200 Australian companies in the Philippines making a significant contribution to both economies. As a longstanding and committed partner, Australia is happy to name the people of the Philippines as friends. The theme of the 75th anniversary is mateship and bayanihan. Bayanihan is the Filipino ideal similar to the Australian tradition of mateship. It is the notion of friendship, solidarity and coming together. That mateship was personified by migration. During the 1980s, migration between the two countries increased significantly. Western Sydney is now home to 28 per cent of all Tagalog speakers in Australia. People of Filipino descent are one of my electorate's largest and fastest-growing population groups, with over 3,000 people in Werriwa born in the Philippines. Of course, this doesn't include the thousands of children born in Australia to Filipino parents, who still maintain strong links to that culture. Retaining culture and heritage is one of the many practices which make Western Sydney and my community great. The Filipino community in Australia is continuing to grow. With more than 250,000 Filipinos now calling Australia home, it is the sixth largest migrant community in Australia. Australia's deep relationship with the Philippines has delivered important cultural and community links. An example of this contribution is that of Councillor Rey Manoto, a councillor for the last five years at Campbelltown City Council. Councillor Manoto has always displayed his unwavering commitment to those in his community who are less fortunate and is a fantastic representative of Filipino Australians in South-Western Sydney. Werriwa and Western Sydney would not be the same without the contributions from Councillor Manoto and all of his community. I thank them so much for the opportunity to go to their events. They are—as a previous member said—wonderful, vibrant events. 11:31 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert It's a pleasure to speak in favour of this motion this morning, because Australia's ties with the Philippines are incredibly strong and important. That's true on a national level, but it's also true on a local level. I want to start by acknowledging my own electorate's ties with the Philippines and those of Filipino heritage who have decided to call North Queensland their home. Filipinos make up 1.2 per cent of the population of the city of Townsville, which is slightly higher than the regional Queensland average of one per cent. In fact, the first Filipinos to come to Queensland came via North Queensland: the Manila men, who worked as pearl divers in the Torres Strait Islands. Over the years, waves of migrant Filipino workers have flowed through critical industries such as mining, engineering, health services and the digital economy. Today there are more than 50,000 Filipinos in Queensland and a Filipino student population of more than 4,000. Queensland hosts the third-largest Filipino community all over Australia. Not only does the Filipino community make an important contribution to our economy but it also makes an important contribution to our community. That was evident to me personally earlier this year, in June, when I had the privilege and the pleasure of being at the official opening of the Filipino Festival day in Townsville. This fantastic event is run by the Filipino Australian Affiliation of North Queensland, which has a proud history of more than 38 years representing the community in Townsville. I want to pay tribute to Ms Hamilton, the president of the affiliation, for all her hard work on the festival, which was a great display of arts, culture and cuisine. These local community connections are the sort of things that our fantastic diplomatic relationship over the years has helped foster. There is a lot of goodwill between our countries and our people, so it's great to be able to be a part of that and mark the 75th anniversary of these relations in this place this morning. The relationship between the two countries extends right back into the Second World War, when Australians and Filipinos fought side by side in the 1944 and 1945 campaign that liberated the Philippines from Japanese occupation. The relationship was important then, as it is now. The Philippines occupies a strategically important position in South-East Asia, and we share common security interests. We established a joint declaration on the comprehensive partnership in 2015, as we share common perspectives on many regional economic and security issues. We have significant defence and security cooperation, including on counterterrorism, maritime security capability and domain awareness, as well as joint exercises and growing cooperation on cyber affairs and critical technology. We know that terrorist organisations are based in the southern Philippines, including some with links to the Islamic State East Asia. We remember, very tragically, how several militant groups joined forces to launch attacks in May 2017. This took a tragic toll. By September 2017, the conflict had displaced around 350,000 people and resulted in the deaths of more than a thousand. I've seen firsthand the effects of what terrorist organisations are capable of in the Middle East, and I know just how destructive these groups can be. So it was appropriate that we, as a nation, increase our support for counterterrorism capacity building. That is mainly delivered by Defence and the Australian Federal Police and other security agencies, and many have served in the Philippines from the 3rd Brigade based in Townsville. Our two countries have cooperation in multilateral forums, particularly through ASEAN. Most recently the relationship was further solidified through the development of the Philippines-Australia Plan of Action 2021-2022, to reflect the current dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region and more mature bilateral relationships. The plan of action identifies existing and new forms of cooperation to broaden the bilateral relationship, including Australia's support for the country's COVID-19 response and contribution to their economic recovery. This plan covers trade, industry and investment, development cooperation, education, skills and more. I want to touch on some of the defence and security cooperations. It will be important for the bilateral joint defence cooperation committee to continue to meet annually to discuss defence cooperation, mutual strategic interests and challenges, information sharing and planning, and both parties will benefit. The Australian-Philippines relationship is incredibly important. On this day, the 75th anniversary, there's a lot to celebrate and look forward to in the future. 11:36 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I too rise to speak on this motion and commend the member for Chifley for providing the opportunity to speak about the important contribution made by our vibrant Filipino community in Australia and the enduring strong ties that have existed between our two nations. The member Chifley, of course, is the joint convenor, together with the member for Grey, for the Filipino parliamentary friendship group, which I am part of and many, many members in this place are part of as well. Recently we were hosted by the Philippines Ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Ma. Hellen De La Vega, for a briefing at the embassy. It was an event where we spoke about all things Philippine, the relationship with Australia and the strong ties that we've had for many years. We know this year marks the 75th anniversary since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines. I am very lucky in my electorate. In the federal seat of Adelaide we have a wonderful Filipino community, and this community has grown from strength to strength. The last census showed that by 2016 the number of Filipinos in South Australia was 12,460. Many in our community came during a period of unrest in the 1970s. They came for a new life and, in doing so, have given so much to Australian society. Today I wish to acknowledge and commend the Filipino community, in particular the South Australian Filipino community in my electorate, for their enormous contribution. South Australia's largest Filipino organisation, the Filipino association of South Australia, is in my electorate. It was founded in 1975, and today it promotes Filipino arts and culture, language, recreation for the aged, religious and social activities and welfare assistance. It also organises a number of vibrant festivals, which I have been privileged to attend over the years. They draw large crowds from all walks of life and backgrounds. These are very important social services and initiatives that support the Filipino community through all stages of life. They also ensure that the wider community can participate and learn from this wonderful community. Just recently we had South Australia's amazing OzAsia Festival, which offers many communities the opportunity to participate and showcase their diverse cultures. One of those communities was the Filipino community. I understand that this year the plan was to commemorate 75 years of diplomatic relations with the Philippines, but obviously the pandemic meant that some of those plans were changed. However, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful OzAsia organisers for putting the show on, especially Douglas Gautier, the CEO of Adelaide Festival Centre, who does amazing work. Australia-Philippines bilateral ties are deep and far-reaching. It is, in fact, one of Australia's longest standing bilateral relationships, and we are united by the ties that we share through interests and values, through the democracies that we have. We have much in common, sharing the same geographical proximity and sharing perspectives on many regional economic and security issues. As I said, I've been fortunate to have many dealings with the Philippines embassy here in Canberra and with my community in my electorate, and I express my thanks to all the Filipino community for everything they have done in South Australia, as one of the leading communities. Of all these links that we have, the bilaterals and the signatories that we're part of et cetera, one of the most important links we have is the people-to-people links—the community that exists here in Australia that has contacts and ties with the community in the Philippines. We see many people in partnerships that thrive. This is thanks to those wonderful local Filipino communities that we all have in our electorates, as well as the tourism and cultural exchanges. These links are fostered through our many Filipino students as well, who are enrolled in our universities and vocational institutions. Like all of us here, I'll look forward to welcoming many more international students from the Philippines when the current health crisis allows. I wish to commend our Australian-Filipino community and thank them for contributing to the cultural, diversity and multiculturalism of our community and thank them for helping build the bridge that links our two nations. 11:41 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to thank the member for Chifley for putting forward this motion recognising the 75th anniversary of bilateral relations with the Philippines. I also want to acknowledge the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Philippines group, Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey. I'm proud to be a co-chair with Rowan. I'm sure I can speak for the member for Grey: we were very proud to speak at an event at the Philippines embassy about five months ago now commemorating this anniversary of our bilateral relationship. Australia and the Philippines have a strong and productive relationship, one which continues to grow stronger and closer. Our two great nations are united in our dedication to democracy and our common commitment to a safe, stable and secure region. Of course, our relationship goes back in history, as our forces fought side by side during the Second World War. We have much to be thankful to the Philippines for here in this country. Filipino Australians continue to make outstanding contributions to our national life, including in my own community back home in Darwin and Palmerston and, more broadly, across the NT. In August we had the Barrio Fiesta, and today I spoke with Emcille, the President of the Filipino Australian Association of the Northern Territory, and she asked me to invite you all to the Barrio Fiesta next year in August 2022, when hopefully we're all open and able to travel. It will be the silver jubilee of the Barrio Fiesta, so 25 years. This year I was not able to make it as I was in quarantine coming back from Canberra after the sittings, but it was a great night, and they tried something new this year with an outdoor stage, and they played a lot of traditional games, including 'itsa, itsa', which literally means 'throw, throw'. This is basically a coin toss game where the kids and anyone who wants to play get in there and throw a coin into the next square, and there are prizes. It's a traditional game, and it was a great evening. I also want to put in an ad for them in that there will be a Philippines festival in the CBD of Darwin next year in addition to the Barrio Fiesta. The Barrio Fiesta is always held at the Filipino club in Marrara, and everyone's invited to that. But also there'll be another opportunity to attend the Philippines festival in the heart of the Darwin CBD. I look forward to giving the House and everyone listening more information on that in due course. I want to thank all the members of the Filipino Australian community for the important roles that they have played and continue to play during this pandemic. They're essential to the health services that we provide to all Territorians, and they're a very valued part of our community. I want to mention a person who is important to me and to my family in particular—a Filipino Australian called Apple. We were in the choir together at St Mary's Cathedral in Darwin. She is a wonderful singer, and she's an awesomely loving person who takes my own children, gives them a hug and loves them as if they were her own grandchildren. That is indicative of the love and respect that the Filipino community have for their friends and for strangers, and we saw that during the pandemic. When we had lockdowns, the Filipino community got together and fed international students, regardless of where they'd come from. It's a good example, I think, of not only how important they are to our community but how loved they are in our community, and we want to see more Filipinos come to Australia and settle. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day for the next sitting. BILLS 54 BILLS Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 54

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

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

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021

Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Assent 54 COMMITTEES 54 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 54 Report 54 11:47 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr WALLACE 265967 by leave—Online gambling is the fastest-growing section of the gambling market. Evidence to the inquiry identified substantial harm resulting from the ability to gamble online with credit. To be clear, this harm results primarily from online wagering with credit, not using credit to purchase lottery tickets and scratchies. The use of credit cards to pay for gambling can extend the pool of money that a person can gamble beyond their savings. This can lead to extreme financial hardship, loss of employment or business failure, bankruptcy, relationship breakdown, mental illness and homelessness. As the Australian government has already recognised, close to a quarter of a million Australians already experience significant harm from online wagering. This harm is not restricted to the individual gambler. The impacts spill out and affect family, friends and the broader community. The committee acknowledges the heartbreaking personal stories contained in several organisational submissions and witness testimony. There was $225 billion gambled in Australia in 2018-19, and $25 billion of that was lost in lost gambling. The committee is recommending gathering of further data on the size and growth of the online gambling market in Australia, online gambling with credit and the extent and nature of the associated harms. The committee welcomes the fact that the industry peak body for online wagering, Responsible Wagering Australia, changed their stance during the inquiry and now in fact support a ban. The committee welcomes that, and I thank them for that change of heart. The committee also notes that Tabcorp did not oppose a ban on the use of credit for online gambling. The committee considered policy options for blocking credit cards for online gambling services: that do not affect lotteries, both for profit and not-for-profit; that do not affect debit payment mechanisms; that would minimise credit card credit passing through digital wallets; and that create consistency between the online and in-venue environments. The committee considers that legislation to require gambling service providers to block credit cards for online gambling using bank identification numbers is the most attractive option. It has formed this view because it is relatively simple to implement and limits the regulatory burden on the banking, finance and payment sectors, it's consistent with other bans on gambling with credit in physical venues and it provides a straightforward way to exempt lotteries while banning other more harmful forms of online gambling with credit. The committee recommends that the government legislate to ban online gambling service providers of wagering services but not lotteries as defined in section 4 of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. This recommendation would complement other policy measures in the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering and would simply bring online wagering into line with all other forms of in-venue gambling. I urge the government to implement these reforms. They are sensible, and they will change and save lives. I want to thank all submitters to the inquiry, I want to thank all members of the committee for the good nature with which they conducted themselves, particularly the deputy chair, and I want to thank the secretariat for their diligence, assistance and professionalism. 11:52 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide by leave—I, too, would like to say a few words, as the deputy chair, on the tabling of this timely report. Labor support and commend the report. I thank the chair and the secretariat for their conduct of this particular report. It makes a number of important recommendations to address the serious impact of the use of credit cards for online gambling and the need for urgent action. Over the period we looked at for the report, over 10, 15 and 20 years, gambling in Australia used to be traditional horse racing and perhaps a flutter on the lotteries or raffles. We've seen this growing online gambling insurgence take place, and much of our legislation hasn't kept up with it. This report is important because there is a clear disconnect between the regulations around the use of credit cards for in-venue gambling as opposed to online gambling. Today in Australia, if you're at a racetrack, in a TAB or in a casino, you cannot use a credit card to gamble. Most state and territory governments introduced such bans in the early 2000s. So this is basically keeping up with the times. But, today, anyone can log onto their favourite app from anywhere around the world and place a bet using a credit card. We've seen this disparity in legislation. At the time of banning the use of credit cards for gambling, online gambling didn't exist—at least, not as it does today. It's imperative that we as policymakers move with the times and address this disparity. Online gambling is currently the fastest-growing section of the gambling market. The 2018 national framework baseline study found that, compared to non-interactive gamblers, people who gamble online are more likely to experience higher rates of gambling related harm. Online gambling creates an environment in which people can gamble at any time, in any place and in a cashless way, which can distance the person gambling from the money which is actually being spent. For those who experience problem gambling, this can be a particularly dangerous set of circumstances. In addition, evidence provided to the inquiry identified substantial harm resulting from the ability to gamble online with credit. Credit cards make it quicker and easier to lose large sums of money when gambling online in comparison to other forms of gambling. This is an important report. We look forward to the recommendations being adopted by the government. They are very important recommendations, such as: The committee recommends the Australian Government prioritise the collection of data on online gambling in Australia— That would be a first step to see how big a problem it is— including the size and growth of the online gambling market, online gambling with credit, and the extent and nature of the associated harms. This will be an important first step to understanding the extent of the problem and identifying important areas that may have remained outside the scope of the inquiry. There are some important recommendations. We also made it clear that we did not want to see any adverse effects for the not-for-profits. Many lotteries and raffles support children's hospitals and research centres, and we didn't want to see an adverse effect for them, so we ensured that that is mentioned within the report as well. I thank the chair and the secretariat for all their good work, and the whole committee as well. This is an important area of reform, and I look forward to the government implementing these recommendations, adopting them and acting upon them quickly. 11:56 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 56 11:56 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Report 56 11:57 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr WALLACE 265967 by leave—Third party litigation funders play an important role in promoting access to justice for Australians who have been wronged. However, the agreements under which litigation funders operate have too often resulted in profits that are disproportionate to the risks and costs they bear. Returns to plaintiffs in cases involving litigation funders remain well below those received by class members in non-funded actions. This bill seeks to regulate class action litigation funders and limit the windfall profits they stand to make. It does this by ensuring funding agreements are fair and reasonable for both plaintiffs and funders. The bill also minimises interference in private contractual relationships between funders and plaintiffs by requiring that only those individuals who consent to participate in a funding scheme are bound by it. These reforms empower courts to approve or vary litigation funding arrangements, usually on the advice of an independent court appointed assessor, and introduce a rebuttable presumption that plaintiffs receive at least 70 per cent of the proceeds of a successful action. The bill thereby recognises that funders should receive an appropriate return on their investment while also strengthening the court's discretion to approve or vary the proportion of any settlement received in the interests of fairness and reasonableness. This bill also regulates the conduct of litigation funders as a new kind of managed investment scheme, a class action litigation funding scheme, and looks to establish a consistent approach to class actions across all jurisdictions. The provisions in this bill will encourage book building, deter speculative class actions and restrain windfall funder profits while ensuring a fairer return to plaintiffs involved in class actions. I want to thank all submitters, all committee members, the deputy chair and the secretariat for their work. I commend the report to the House. 12:00 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide by leave—Class actions are an important part of our judicial system. They enable victims of wrongdoing and negligence—and we've seen many cases over the years, whether it be asbestos related diseases, a whole range of things—to stand their ground against the vastly superior resources of large corporations and governments. Without class actions, such people simply wouldn't have the means to seek redress or compensation in the courts on their own. This is quite clear in evidence. When you speak to people who have gone through a class action and you speak to the funders and their lawyers and ask, 'If there were no class action, what recourse would you have had?' the answer is always, 'Zero.' We found it bizarre that people would be wanting to change this legislation. We know that such claims can be costly for people that aren't part of a class action, and the plaintiffs may not be in a position to fund the actions themselves. Litigation funding schemes are therefore an important part of ensuring that class action is fair and equitable, and it has served us. It has served us in a good way so far. The question is how to prevent third-party litigation funders from claiming a disproportionate share of a successful action relative to their costs and risks. Understanding and resolving this question is the aim of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. This is why the committee's inquiry into the bill was so important. It is vital that we get this right to ensure that we are not impeding people's access to justice, as this bill would see, but rather facilitating it. This bill and the inquiry process leave a lot to be desired. This bill is intended to protect the interests of plaintiffs in class actions, but, in actual fact, it does the exact opposite. By making it more difficult for people to bring class actions in the first place, the bill will protect the interests of powerful defendants. How can we ignore the overwhelming evidence heard by the committee that this bill would leave class action plaintiffs and defendant significantly worse off? The committee was told repeatedly that the bill does nothing to resolve the current uncertainty in relation to the availability of common fund orders, as recommended by all members of this committee in December 2020. Instead, we were overwhelmingly told that the bill promotes uncertainty, that it promotes confusion around common fund orders, to the detriment of plaintiffs and defendants in class action. In addition, the bill requires class members to agree in writing to be members of a litigation funding scheme. This, the committee heard, would lead to an increase in the number of closed class actions and possibly also multiple class actions for a given event. Then, from evidence we received, there is a question mark over whether or not this bill is actually constitutional. Clearly this is a serious problem. It is difficult to overstate the level of concern that has been expressed by submitters to this inquiry, and Labor members sincerely regret that we didn't have more time to enable us to do justice to these concerns in our dissenting report. This is because we were given less than one day to consider the majority report and respond to it. How can you do it justice? The entire process around the handling of this bill has been shambolic from the start. Members of the public were given less than a week to review a draft of this complex legislation and make a submission. Most of the feedback Treasury received from submitters was ignored, and the bill was introduced in late October. It was referred to a committee that was given less than three weeks to conduct its inquiry, and members of the public were given seven days to make a submission. I'm sure that most people would agree that these are important, complex legal matters that we are talking about and that this rushed time frame is not exactly conducive to thorough debate and investigation. The impact of not getting this legislation right could be severe. Litigation funders and plaintiff law firms provided the committee with a list of examples of class actions that would not have proceeded, as I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, or at least would have been unlikely to proceed had the measures in this bill been in place. People can see the many examples that were submitted to us in attachment A of our dissenting report. I can assure you these are important actions that would have been impeded by this legislation. But no-one, let alone the proponents of this bill, has been able to explain why this would be a good thing. Given these and numerous other problems raised in the dissenting report, Labor members have recommended that the bill not proceed in its current form and be withdrawn immediately. If, however, the government insists on proceeding with the bill, it should not do so until the bill has been subject to the proper inquiry process, whether by this committee or another parliamentary committee such as a Senate committee. Such an inquiry must also provide witnesses with sufficient time to respond to questions, which we didn't get in this report. In addition, the A-G's Department needs to comprehensively address in writing the concerns that were raised by Justin Gleeson and other legal experts about the constitutionality of the bill. That is a big question mark and a serious one. This bill should not go any further until those questions on the Constitution are answered. The matters handled in this bill could have serious ramifications on citizens' access to justice. So it begs the question: just who is this bill aiming to protect? Is it the people or big corporations? As it stands, it's clear that if this bill goes through it will only protect big corporations. That is quite clear. It's also clear that it's the people who stand to lose the most if this government has its way and introduces this bill in its current form. That is why we have tabled a dissenting report. 12:07 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN In accordance with standing order 39(e), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 57 12:07 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 58 Report 58 12:07 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, I present the committee's report entitled Australia’s child support scheme: third interim report, incorporating a dissenting report, and the final report, incorporating a dissenting report. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, I'm pleased to present the following reports: the third interim report relating to Australia's child support scheme and the committee's final report. The committee was appointed by parliament in September 2019. Since that time the committee has undertaken a comprehensive two-year inquiry into the family law and child support systems. As part of this inquiry, the committee has received over 1,700 submissions and held 13 in-camera hearings and 13 public hearings. The committee has heard from many people who have had direct experience with the family law system—advocacy groups and other organisations, academics and members of the legal profession. On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who has made a contribution. The reports presented today follow on from the committee's first interim report presented in October 2020 and its second interim report on improvements in family law proceedings presented in March 2021. The first interim report canvassed the broad range of issues that arose in the evidence provided to the committee, touching on matters such as systemic issues, including: perceptions of bias within the system; the role of family consultants and expert witnesses; whether the adversarial nature of the family law courts could be improved; misuse of systems and processes; and professional misconduct. Secondly, it looked at legal fees and other costs in the family law system. Thirdly, it looked at delays in the Family Court. Fourthly, it looked at issues in relation to family violence and the family law system. The second interim report detailed the committee's conclusions and recommendations in relation to the family law system, including current and proposed reforms, and suggested additional measures that the committee considered were needed to better support Australian families using the family law system. The 29 recommendations placed an emphasis on reducing delays and costs; improving the enforceability of orders; refining the family violence framework; amending the Family Law Act; alternative dispute resolution; and several other issues. I'm pleased to report to the House that the Australian government has responded quickly to a number of these recommendations—in particular, the government's addition of $100 million in funding over four years for the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The committee reiterates its considered opinion that recommendations relating to the proportionality of costs and the use of arbitration are significant reforms that should be adopted by the government. The committee noted in its second interim report that it did not have sufficient time to consider several issues relating to child support that were raised in the many submissions to the committee. Given this, the parliament agreed to extend the presentation of the final report until 29 October this year and subsequently to 16 December this year to finalise its views and recommendations on the child support system and, furthermore, to conclude this inquiry. Following extensive consideration of all the evidence, the third interim report makes 19 recommendations aimed at addressing systemic problems and improving the outcomes for children involved in the child support scheme. It is vital that the child support scheme is accessible to all. The committee recommends a greater allocation of resources to Services Australia to allow it to enhance its child support scheme services, particularly to assist those clients who have a disability and/or low levels of English proficiency. The committee strongly believes that ongoing community engagement is an essential feature of effective government decision-making and policy development. Therefore, the committee has recommended that regular meetings of the Child Support National Stakeholder Engagement Group should be reconvened. The courts that deal with family breakdown and the concerns of children need to be well resourced. Building on the increased presence of court liaison officers, such as state police and child protection officers as recommended previously by the committee, there is a need to have also specialised liaison officers who can provide information to parents about the child support scheme. The committee therefore recommends a 12-month pilot program that co-locates child support scheme officers as court liaison officers in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia registries. A number of witnesses to this inquiry called for improved data collection to enhance the understanding of how the child support scheme is operating and to inform how it may be improved. The committee is supportive of this approach. Finally, there have been several concerns raised by submitters regarding the child support formula. These are incredibly complex matters that the committee was not equipped to assess. Therefore, the committee has recommended that the Australian government convenes a ministerial task force, together with an expert working group including representatives of both custodial and non-custodial parents, to examine any of the issues raised regarding the child support scheme which the task force considers to have merit. Turning to the final report, it notes the government actions and Family Court initiatives since March 2021 and makes further recommendations supplementary to those made in the second and third interim reports. In particular, the committee supports the extension of the Lighthouse Project and the Priority Property Pools under $500,000 Project, two important initiatives that are underway at the moment. The committee met privately with the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Chief Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia to discuss the work of the respective courts and committees, and these discussions have informed the committee's deliberations on the final report. I'd like to thank in particular Chief Justice Alstergren and Deputy Chief Justice McClelland for their assistance to the committee during the course of this two-year inquiry. The committee would like to express its deepest gratitude to all of those who were courageous enough to provide their personal experiences by submission and the giving of testimony in hearings—many of them, as I mentioned earlier, during in camera hearings. Similarly, the committee extends its thanks to the organisations, academics, legal practitioners and community groups who provided submissions and appeared at public hearings. Throughout this inquiry, the committee has strived to understand the deficiencies in the family law and child support systems. The committee has sought to find practical solutions that are going to make a difference to the lives of many men, women, children and extended families that use this system every day. I thank my colleagues on the committee, including the member for Moreton, who's in the House as I speak, for their constructive and thoughtful consideration of often very complex issues. I thank members of the secretariat for their wonderful efforts in what has been at times a very trying process over the last two years. In tabling these two reports, we conclude the work of the committee, and therefore I commend these and the previous interim reports to the House. 12:15 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—Just as an aside, Deputy Speaker Coulton: I congratulate you on your 14th year in parliament on Wednesday—if you make it that far! The HWN We'll party on Wednesday! Mr PERRETT HVP I rise to make some comments, as one of the three Labor members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, on the tabling of the committee's third interim report and the committee's final report. This committee was appointed by the parliament in September 2019, and thus this inquiry has been running for over two years. I had concerns about this family law committee before it was commenced. I was concerned about the number of recommendations from other reports and inquiries already sitting and collecting dust in Attorney-General Porter's office. This Liberal majority government appointed a One Nation senator as deputy chair of the committee. I was concerned about comments by the deputy chair, made prior to the committee even hearing any evidence, that many women were lying to the Family Court, an assertion that was dispelled unanimously by this committee in our second interim report, a report that the deputy chair signed off on. I was concerned that the only motivation for the Morrison government commencing this inquiry was to kick this can of worms down the road, to do nothing but pretend otherwise. Despite all of these concerns, I've taken my role on this committee seriously, as have my Labor colleagues and others. The committee had the privilege of hearing the very personal stories of many people who have experienced the Family Court system firsthand. The committee received valuable evidence, and I would like to thank every submitter and every person and organisation that gave evidence to this committee. It took courage for so many to revisit trauma, heartache, disappointment and worse. The role of parliamentary committees is very important in our Westminster style democracy. It is how parliament obtains evidence about specific issues. It is how parliament informs itself. Parliamentary committees do much of the unglamorous grunt work of the executive government. It was important to hear evidence from people who are using the Family Court system. If the system is not working for them, it's not working. It was important to hear from experts in family law and family violence for their analysis of what needs to change. But the work of committees is all for naught if recommendations to parliament are ignored by the executive. This committee has made a total of 52 recommendations to improve the family law system, including the Child Support Scheme. There are some particularly good recommendations, but sadly many of these recommendations have been made in previous reports and inquiries. The chair of the committee, the member for Menzies, told us he commenced such an inquiry when he first came into parliament, more than 30 years ago, and he's now the Father of the House. I wish to place on the record my thanks to the member for Menzies for his sterling work running this large committee. He should take up herding cats when he retires, as he definitely has honed that skill since being appointed the chair of the family law committee! I thank him for his service to the parliament on this committee and those before. For the two years it took the committee to come up with another 52 recommendations to fix the family law system, what did the coalition government do? They didn't implement any of the multitude of recommendations they already had to improve the family law system. Instead, unbelievably, they abolished the Family Court of Australia. They abolished the internationally renowned Family Court without any recommendation to do so—none at all. Prime Minister Morrison chose to do this without any support from family law experts or those who actually work in the family law system. He didn't even wait for this inquiry, the one the coalition called for to help improve the family law system, to be completed and to hand down its final report. This will be the most shameful legacy of the Morrison government, abolishing the Family Court of Australia. Abolishing things is the coalition's only legacy; they build nothing. It turns out the 'I don't hold a hose, mate' Prime Minister didn't mind picking up a sledgehammer and swinging it when it came to a family court that was the envy of the world. It's a pity the Prime Minister wasn't as eager to make changes that would have actually made the legal system safer for families. There were plenty of sensible recommendations to choose from, many of which have been repeatedly recommended in report after report and have been recommended again by this committee. My private member's bill is one example. It removes a dangerous presumption in the Family Law Act that has been recommended by many reports. Women's Legal Services Australia has been calling for this change as part of their Safety First in Family Law campaign—endorsed by more than 90 organisations. I introduced this private member's bill last year. It is still before this chamber, and all the Prime Minister needs to do is to bring it on, but I would put money on him doing nothing. I first raised removing this presumption on 24 February 2020 in the parliament in response to the murder of Hannah Clarke and her young children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey. At this dispatch box, I called on the Morrison government to immediately act. After I spoke, the member for Petrie crossed over the floor of the parliament to tell me that my comments were unfair because the coalition government was doing something. The member for Petrie was personally insulted. So, what was the government doing? A year-and-a-half on, what have they done? They've abolished the specialist Family Court. I didn't realise that that's what the member for Petrie intended to do, otherwise I would have actually been a lot less polite than I was. For eight years the coalition government starved the family law system of resources. They failed to replace judges as they retired, with some judges not being replaced for more than a year. Attorney-General Porter was almost holding the family law system to ransom so he could fulfil his ideological dream of abolishing the Family Court of Australia. There is simply no other explanation. And, now that the Family Court of Australia has been abolished, the Morrison government is finally giving the family law system some much needed resources such as funding for 42 new registrars to assist the judicial process and avoid delays. Imagine what a difference 42 more bodies who can hear simple matters and assist with case management will make. If only those 42 registrars had been funded eight years ago; how many more families would have avoided harm, heartache or worse? How much misery visited on children might have been avoided? How much anger and heartache could have been prevented? As I said, there are some great recommendations to come out of this committee's report, even if many of them are not new. There is one recommendation I'd like to quickly mention. The final report contains a recommendation to expand the Lighthouse Project to all registries and all parenting, and then parenting and property, matters. Labor members strongly support this recommendation. The Lighthouse Project is a screening program for family violence. Data from the court reported on just this weekend confirms that family violence is seriously underreported. Eighty per cent of cases involve at least one risk factor of either child abuse, family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness or threats of harm or abduction. The Lighthouse Project is an innovation of the Family Court of Australia. Development of the project was commenced by Senior Register Lisa O'Neill in 2018, and the first business case was completed in the second half of 2019. To be clear, the Lighthouse Project was not a proposal put forward by the coalition government, the One Nation political party or any other political party. Instead, it was the result of hardworking professional court staff responding to the complex needs of families coming before the courts. Labor members congratulate the court for this innovative project and thank the professional staff for their expertise in designing this important screening tool. This inquiry was an excuse for the Morrison government to kick the can down the road, to avoid doing anything other than erode the specialisation in the family law system by abolishing the Family Court of Australia. Not to take anything from the great work of this committee and the wonderful secretariat who had to cope with difficult stories and some damaged people, instituting inquiries is not governing. It is a hallmark of the do-nothing Morrison government. Making real change to a system that is putting women and children at some risk, properly resourcing the family law system to keep families safe and making sure the people tasked with making crucial decisions about families have the skills and temperament and knowledge they need—that's what a real leader would do. That is governing. I commend these reports to the House. 12:24 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I thank the member for Moreton for his kind words. I move: That the House take note of each report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 61 12:24 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 61 DOCUMENTS Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement 61 Presentation 61 12:25 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright For the benefit of the House, I present the national interest analysis, or the Agreement between the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information, known as AUKUS. BILLS 61 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 61

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021

Second Reading 61 12:25 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021. Labor is opposing this bill and the attack on our democracy and our civil society that it represents. Right now Australians need and deserve a government that will stand up for our democracy in all its dimensions, a government unafraid of criticism, a government that listens instead of always seeking to shut down dissenting or even just different voices. Australians can see that this means an Albanese Labor government, because only a Labor government will defend all the fundamental pillars of our democracy, including the right of ordinary Australians to come together to share their perspectives and aspirations for our future, to speak up for the voiceless, to advocate for change. Mr Morrison, the current Prime Minister, likes his line about not telling people what to do. Of course, he listens much more attentively to focus groups than the voices of ordinary Australians. If his genuine belief is that government shouldn't be telling people what to do, he will be joining me and my Labor colleagues in voting against this bill, because that is exactly what it will do. This is yet another repressive piece of legislation telling people what they can't do—rather, telling some people what they can't do. Make no mistake: this is part of the Prime Minister's DNA. When it matters he has led a don't-do government. Whenever Australians have needed him to get to work on their behalf, he's been nowhere to be seen or has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acting, always too little, always too late. Australians know that the leader of our national government had two jobs last year. He failed on both, and the consequences of that are still being felt, in particular in my home town of Melbourne, right now. But these things are in the national interest. It is, of course, a very different story when it comes to his personal political interests, because Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, will do anything to win an election, regardless of the cost. That is what this bill tells us—and the other changes he is planning to make to our electoral laws on the very eve of an election, the changes he is planning to make to how our democracy operates. I also want to mention the changes he won't be making. More than 1,000 days after he promised Australians a national integrity commission, legislation for this is yet to appear. After so many scandals which have beset the government he leads—the car park rorts, the sports rorts, the member for Pearce's blind trust—Australians need and deserve a real anti-corruption commission at the national level to defend the integrity of our democratic institutions. What Australians don't need is desperate cynicism from our Prime Minister, a person who will do whatever it takes to cling to power, ripping up the electoral rule book as he goes. Whether it's promoting US-style voter suppression laws or trying to stop charities speaking up for vulnerable Australians on the issues that matter to their supporters and so many across our communities, he will do whatever he thinks will help him win. It's telling, though, that this doesn't include offering Australians a positive vision for our country or, indeed, defending the record of this tired, dysfunctional government into its ninth year. Our democracy is something Australians are rightly proud of, but it cannot be taken for granted, especially now. Through the pandemic, we saw a welcome increase in Australians' attitude to government and to political institutions, with trust increasing for the first time in a long time as they saw what could be done when people put their minds to it, particularly in the states and territories that took the action needed to be taken to keep communities safe. This increase in trust, though, is being squandered. Indeed, it is being undermined across our society when we see dark forces turning to violence. In echoes of the shocking insurrection at the US Capitol building in January, last week gallows and nooses were displayed on the steps of the Victorian parliament. Threats have been made to the lives of elected representatives. Dangerous conspiracy theories are being spread, and this has been met with dog whistling on the part of that person who should have been the first to stand unequivocally against this: Australia's Prime Minister. In another Trumpian echo, the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, spoke about understanding the frustrations of the people who were standing alongside neo-Nazis and people making threats of violence. And I say this: how hard is it to plainly say that this conduct is unacceptable in a democracy? How hard can it be to set this standard? But our cynic-in-chief couldn't bring himself to speak up for those who work to keep our community safe. This bill and its companions, which we will be dealing with later this week, are the opposite of what is needed right now. We must come together to reinforce our democratic institutions; lift the standard of politics; show ourselves—all of us in this place—worthy of Australians and of the trust they place in us; and recognise the damage that is being done by this coarsening and cheapening of politics. If Mr Morrison were serious about electoral integrity and public confidence in our electoral processes, he would do the following: he would support Labor's bill for real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so donations are transparent for all to see before voters cast their ballots; he would reform electoral expenditure laws; he would provide more resources to the Australian Electoral Commission to increase enrolment and voter turnout; he would do something to fight dangerous misinformation and disinformation and to support our trusted and independent public broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS; he would, of course, legislate for a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission so all Australians can have every confidence in what is done in this place and in our Commonwealth bureaucracy; he would stop the relentless pork-barrelling in marginal seats, which is so corrosive of people's trust in government; and he would make laws so people like the member for Pearce can't take secret donations through blind trusts. He would join us, in short, in taking a stand for a politics that is a genuine and respectful contest of ideas, not the crude weaponisation of fears. I've been talking about the context within which this bill is located, what's been happening to Australia's democracy, and what is proposed to be done about it. There's another context which is important too. For more than eight years, the Morrison-Joyce government and its predecessors have been at war with Australia's charities. First, they attempted to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, a body respected across the sector. When that failed, they installed as the charity commissioner longtime charity critic Gary Johns, a man who had previously said that poor women were being used as cash cows and that Australia is sucking in too many of the wrong type of immigrant—a person of that calibre. And recently the Morrison-Joyce government have attempted to give the charity commissioner the power to deregister charities because they anticipate a charity might commit a summary offence—merely anticipate. Deregistration could occur merely because a charity promotes an event, so a charity which publicises a street march on its Facebook page could be deregistered if one of the marchers commits a summary offence. So this bill is merely the latest in a consistent pattern of attacks on charities by this government—attacks which have been very effectively highlighted by my friend the member for Fenner, who has done so much work and so much hard listening with those affected, unlike the government, which has consistently tried to exclude charities from the public conversation and restrict their ability to advocate for societal change. Well, let me be clear: Labor understands the crucial role of civil society organisations in our democracy and their role in advocacy and influencing government policy across all governments. Over the last 18 months, it's been civil society organisations who've been working to address the pre-existing fault lines in our political, social and economic systems that have been exposed and deepened through the effects of COVID-19. Labor is committed to ensure that charities and other not-for-profit organisations are free to advocate on behalf of their cause without fear of being deregistered, defunded or otherwise silenced. But in the last sitting fortnight of this year—perhaps the last sitting fortnight of this parliament—the Morrison-Joyce government are rushing through electoral legislation that has the twin purpose of, on the one hand, silencing the government's critics and, on the other hand, making sure people who may not vote for them can't vote at all. The voter integrity bill will be debated later this week, and I will have much more to say on that, as will all of my Labor colleagues, I am sure. That bill has been the subject of much focus and debate in the last few weeks and rightfully so, because it is a blatant voter suppression tool. This bill hasn't received the same amount of attention, but it is just as important for the government to pass so it can make sure that the groups who might speak out against government policy can't. That is why we see a dodgy deal with Senator Hanson to introduce her voter ID laws in exchange, it would appear, for her support for this bill—because everything this Prime Minister does is about trying to win the next election. He has identified his narrow path to victory, involving a series of things: the votes of antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists, which is why he fails to denounce them, and tricks like voter suppression through voter ID laws that the AEC itself has said consistently are unnecessary and unwarranted and that respond to a problem that simply does not exist in Australia's democracy. In this case, it involves punishing those charities who might want to tell the truth about Mr Morrison's many failures. The government that won't require the former Attorney-General to tell the parliament who gave him a million dollars will impose onerous disclosure requirements on charities spending $100,000 on campaigns that might highlight the government failures or any other flaws in policies at the national level. This bill will increase the number of charities and not-for-profits that are required to be registered as political campaigners and, in the process, increase their administrative burden, prevent them from accepting foreign donations and discourage them from engaging in political debate. These are very significant changes. 'Political campaigner' is a new category of political participant that was created in 2018 through the passage and enactment of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2018. Currently, political campaigners are defined as individuals or organisations that spend at least half a million dollars a year or two-thirds of their annual income on electoral expenditure. Political campaigners have substantial disclosure obligations, reflecting their level of activity and political advocacy. The disclosure obligations for political campaigners are the same as those that apply for registered political parties. Political campaigners, as with parties and candidates, are also prevented from receiving foreign donations—which, of course, helps protect our democracy from foreign interference. This bill seeks to lower the amount of electoral expenditure that an organisation needs to spend before they fall into this category. The bill lowers that threshold from half a million a year in any of the previous three financial years, or two-thirds of annual income, to $100,000 per year in any of the three previous financial years, or one-third of annual income. By reducing the electoral expenditure threshold to this degree, the political campaigners bill will result in a number of smaller charities, not-for-profits and unions currently registered as third parties, with different and lesser disclosure obligations, being required to register as political campaigners. It doesn't take much to spend $100,000 in politics, as I'm sure a former director of the New South Wales Liberal Party would know, or indeed a former director of the WA Liberals. Only a few full-page newspaper ads on a particular policy issue and a charity whose work is not party politics but is providing services for the needy or advocating for an environmentally sustainable future for our kids suddenly has the same disclosure requirements as political parties. Organisations like the Wilderness Society, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, the Climate Action Network, Farmers for Climate Action and Greenpeace will be affected by this change—organisations that might have something important to say about this government's failure to deliver on climate policy. It will also capture groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and Christian Schools Australia, and it will capture a number of unions—and we know that this government does not want unions engaged in electoral campaigns! Currently these organisations are registered as third parties, because they spend between $14,500 and half a million on electoral expenditure. They must disclose donations they receive above the $14,500 that are for the purposes of electoral expenditure plus their total electoral expenditure. In addition to that, charities' income and expenditure are already disclosed to the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, but now these organisations will be characterised as political campaigners, should this bill be enacted, and will be required to disclose much more detailed information to the AEC—the same detail that a registered political party must provide, including: total receipts; the value of gifts in kind; details of receipts greater than the disclosure threshold, not limited to donations that were for electoral expenditure but would include all donations and receipts; total payments; total debts; details of debts greater than the disclosure threshold; total electoral expenditure; and details of discretionary benefits. This is a massive compliance burden for small charities and not-for-profits. Make no mistake: it will have a chilling effect on political participation, shutting out important perspectives and limiting the contest of ideas, which should be what our political contest and our electoral contest is all about. It will also mean that all these organisations will be unable to accept donations from foreign sources. Up to now they have been able to receive charitable donations from foreign citizens, providing these are not used for electoral expenditure. Now they won't be able to accept any money at all from anyone overseas. Not only that; they will need to verify every single donation to make sure it's not from a foreign citizen. This will be unworkable for small organisations with volunteer staff. I cast my mind back to when the member for Kooyong was the parliamentary secretary to then Prime Minister Abbott and he talked about 'the bonfire of red tape'. If ever there is evidence that that was simply a bonfire of his vanity, it's a provision like this. This, coupled with the increased disclosure obligations, will place a huge burden on these smaller organisations, which will force them into making a choice—a choice perhaps not to engage in political activity and not to publicly advocate for the causes they believe in and which so many Australians hold dear and rely on these organisations to speak to on their behalf. This is harmful for our democracy. It will have the effect of removing important perspectives, often of groups that have been marginalised or excluded from the political conversation more broadly. The current threshold was set in 2018, not that long ago, after Labor and the charity sector fought a long campaign against this government, which wished to silence charities. At that time the Hands Off Our Charities alliance of 44 charities and not-for-profits was formed, coming from a range of sectors—education, social welfare, human rights, animal welfare, the environment, health, climate change, disability rights and philanthropy. Member organisations include Anglicare Australia, Amnesty International Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Climate Council, Community Legal Centres Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, Oxfam Australia, The Pew Charitable Trusts, UnitingCare Australia and Save the Children, amongst many others. These are organisations that do such important work in our society, but they are constantly under attack through this government. They had to form this alliance to withstand these attacks, which in part began as soon as the Abbott government was elected. Earlier this year the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducted a review of the funding and disclosure reforms of 2018 and looked at whether the current thresholds were adequate. After hearing from Hands Off Our Charities and a number of other submitters, JSCEM recommended no changes to the existing threshold. Indeed, when the concept of political campaigners was first introduced, the government proposed a $100,000 threshold—a move rejected by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which considered the evidence and whose recommendation for the obligations to be proportionate to the levels of expenditure led to the half-a-billion-dollar threshold that currently stands. In its submission to the inquiry, Hands Off Our Charities said: Overwhelmingly, evidence in this area of law has been for more transparency of political parties, including reforms to introduce real time disclosure of political donations and to lower the donations disclosure threshold. Nevertheless, the Government has resisted these reforms on the grounds that it is a too high and unnecessary administrative burden for political parties. It is disappointing that the Committee is willing to ask third parties to take a substantial administrative burden for little extra transparency, while not offering support to key transparency reforms overwhelmingly supported by the Australian public. But the Morrison-Joyce government's not doing any of that. It did not listen to JSCEM and maintain the existing thresholds that JSCEM found were working well—as, indeed, they are. Instead, on the eve of an election, the Morrison-Joyce government is trying to ram this legislation through so that charities and unions that might not agree with this government can't speak out publicly against it or on the issues that concern them in the lead up to the election. This government has no shame. This government doesn't care about transparency. It doesn't care about a healthy and robust political debate. It doesn't care about democracy. If it did, it would not be attacking our charities and making it harder for people to vote, with Trump-style voter ID laws. If this government cared about democracy, it would be supporting Labor's proposals about lowering the donations threshold and requiring donations to be disclosed within seven days. This simple change would mean that voters would have this information when they go to cast their ballot and not have to wait up to 19 months to find out who is funding political parties, as they do at present. And so I'm moving a second reading amendment to do just that. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that the bill's explanatory memorandum states that the amendments are intended to enhance public confidence in Australia's political processes; (2) notes further that Labor has two bills before the Senate which would actually enhance public confidence in Australia's political processes, by lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 indexed to inflation to a fixed $1,000 and requiring real time disclosure of political donations; and (3) calls on the Coalition Government to end its attacks on groups impacted by this change, including charities and instead support Labor's political donations reforms". If this government cared about democracy, it would be fulfilling its three-year-old promise of establishing a national anticorruption commission that's powerful and independent. But it won't, because it knows that if it does members of this government will be the first to be hauled before it. If this government cared about democracy, it would stop pork-barrelling marginally held seats. But it won't, because this government has proved that it treats public money as if it's Liberal Party money. If this government cared about democracy, it would make laws to stop politicians like the member for Pearce from taking secret donations hidden in a blind trust. But it won't, because this Prime Minister can't or won't afford to lose any of his members. An Albanese Labor government, on the other hand, will act with integrity and transparency and with the aim of strengthening, not weakening, our democracy. As the shadow minister—soon to be, I hope, the Special Minister of State—Senator Farrell has made clear throughout his time in the role, demonstrating clearly the contrast each and every day, Senator Farrell and Labor will build on the reforms of the Hawke Labor government, the government that first introduced the political donations disclosure regime. We will establish a powerful anticorruption commission operating with the powers of a standing royal commission to investigate and hold to account Commonwealth ministers, parliamentarians, their staff and other Commonwealth public officials. And we will allow charities the space to participate in our democracy without unreasonable burdens, so they can advocate for those who need it the most. Labor is on the side of accountability and transparency in government. Make no mistake; here we have a don't-do government. They don't do the jobs Australians need done, they don't keep their promises and they love telling Australians what not to do, sometimes what to read and often what not to say. These sittings, and indeed this debate, speak to this. Our nation right now faces some real challenges. Of course, we are presented with some exciting opportunities as the world reopens. But, looking at the Notice Paper here, you can't see any evidence of any interest in this. The priorities of the Morrison government begin and end with the political survival of the Morrison government, and that is perhaps the most damning indictment of this tired, dysfunctional mob. Four bills seeking to amend the Electoral Act are before this House right now, when there isn't one to introduce the long promised and much needed national anticorruption commission. The legislative agenda for this fortnight, perhaps the last sittings of this parliament, is barren when it comes to proposals for substantive policy reform to improve the lives of Australians. The Morrison government has no regard for the national interest but an obsession with its political interest, with no confidence in its record; hence the determination we see here in this bill to shut out opposing and alternative viewpoints from the political debate. They have no regard for our democratic norms and institutions, nor for a vibrant and robust civil society. That is the desperation and the cynicism of the Morrison government. Australians deserve better, and all Australians deserve their voice to be heard in public affairs. That is why this bill must be rejected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Perrett HVP I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:50 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar If ever there were a speech that demonstrated the need for the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021, it is the member for Scullin's. 'Contest of ideas'—who is he kidding? This is about money. This is about the Labor Party funnelling more money into their campaigns at the cost of Australian democracy. This is about their obscene efforts to ensure that Australians don't know what they've been up to for all these years. They talk about the concern about unions being involved in campaigns. Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker Vasta—if they can point to it, I will be happy to apologise—is there a single time that a single union, a single union official, a single union leader, has ever asked their members what they want and where they want their money spent? As I recall, in the last election, active union members voted for the coalition 52 per cent to 47 per cent. But I bet not a single union gave a single dollar to the Liberal Party or the National Party or any party that represented the members they claim to represent, because they know that if there were real democracy in the union movement, if there were real democracy in any of these groups, if Australians knew what those over there want to hide, which is how their money is getting spent, they would be appalled and disgusted. That's what this bill will achieve. This bill will finally turn the rock on all the cockroaches lurking in the dark of Australian democracy. I encourage the member for Scullin and every single member on the other side to keep doing this from now to whenever the election is. Keep telling ordinary men and women of Australia, working men and women of Australia, that they're extremists because they don't believe that the Premier of Victoria should be able to put people under house arrest without any capacity of appeal. Go and tell ordinary Australians, every time they have some concern of overreach by an Australian government of any party anywhere, that they're neo-Nazis. Go and tell ordinary Australians that they're misogynist, sexist and homophobic because they committed the great crime of disagreeing with you. I encourage those opposite to keep this up. I notice, by the way, those opposite were so concerned about threats of violence at protests in Melbourne but didn't seem so concerned when people wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters 'CFMEU' were committing actual violence against law enforcement officers. I don't remember anyone on that side standing up calling them extremists or bemoaning their violence. I don't remember the member for Chifley going on the ABC and saying that the violence perpetrated by union members against police officers in Victoria has to stop. No, no, that never happened. The rank hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. This bill is about simply saying to Australians: 'This is how those who claim to be charities are actually spending the money you give to them. This is how those receiving donations from foreign actors who may or may not have Australia's best interests in mind are perpetrating these things.' They get very upset when Clive Palmer spends his own money, but they only get upset with us when we say to some of these charities, 'Hang on, if you think this is the best way to spend the hard-earned money of the working men and women of Australia who gave you their money in good faith, for you to declare it.' No, they're opposed to that. They want continuous disclosure. Continuous disclosure, I might add, is one of the best ways known to hide donations, because instead of giving $100,000 that gets reported each quarter or each half you give $1,000 for 100 days, and no-one sees what you're up to. No wonder the Labor Party want to bring that in! No wonder the Labor Party want to stop litigation funders from ripping off plaintiffs and from ripping off victims. It would have nothing to do with the fact that Maurice Blackburn gives them $100,000 every year. I'm getting angrier the more I think about the fact that those opposite have the absolute temerity and gall to lecture anyone about transparency and honesty in democracy. Those opposite are the people who took a $100,000 donation from Maurice Blackburn the same day that the Victorian Attorney-General announced that she would allow Maurice Blackburn to take contingency fees in Victoria. They have the gall to come in here and talk to anyone about transparency and honesty in Australian democracy on the very same day that a law firm gave them $100,000. That's a law firm, by the way, that has a litigation funder housed in Singapore, incorporated in Ireland and with a trust fund in the Netherlands. Oh, no, that's not about tax avoidance! No, that's a normal way that you set up a company in Australia! I'm sure that's how all those working men and women of Australia who those opposite used to represent have set up their small businesses—domiciled in Singapore, incorporated in Ireland, with a trust structure in the Netherlands and an accountant based out of London! That's how everyone does it in Australia! No, only those opposite's donors do. Only their donors do that. Their donors do it, especially so after getting a decision from the Victorian government that benefited them to the tune of God knows how much but probably millions and millions of dollars. They don't want that declared. They'd rather talk to us about real-time disclosures, which is a way of hiding how much money people are giving. So keep calling the men and women of Australia who work for a living extremists and neo-Nazis and keep telling them that they're homophobes because they've committed the great crime of disagreeing with you. I encourage you to keep doing that. Keep telling us how the ACNC is actually headed up by one of these extremists—a guy by the name of Gary Johns—and ignore the fact that he used to be a Labor member of this chamber. Ignore that fact. Ignore all the inconvenient facts you want, but Australians are on to you guys. The fact of the matter is that those opposite will support litigation funders. They will support charities that are taking donations from foreign governments, foreign agents and foreigners who don't have Australia's best interests at heart and who will then turn around and use that money for political purposes. Yes, let's keep defending them. Let's stop exposing those people to transparency. We have, at the moment, all these front groups starting up who say that they're about transparency and honesty and who have raised millions of dollars, but they won't tell us who from. They are basically being run by a group of people who had the benefit of being born to wealthy parents and now want to buy this parliament. They're openly saying it. They're openly saying, 'We want to put more people on the crossbench using millions of dollars of undeclared money.' At the end of the day, they will then use that to arbitrage and leverage decisions that benefit them and their business decisions. Those opposite do not want to expose them to the hard light of day. They do not want to make them actually front up and tell us: where did you get your money from? Then they make a big deal about the fact we're doing this in the shadow of an election. So when should we do it? On the other side of an election so all your mates can, once again, get away with funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, into campaigns to influence the outcome of this parliament and to divert public funds to ventures that benefit them? They don't benefit their members—we know that. Since the Fair Work Act passed in this chamber, real wages have pretty much stagnated. They want to blame everything except their piece of legislation, but we know it. The men and women of Australia who work for a living know it, too. They're onto you guys. They know that you represent organised capital, not organised labour. Whether it's Climate 200, whether it's the voices against Liberal Party members, whether it's the rising 'something' movement that looks more like a souffle than anything rising, whether it's the OpenAustralia Foundation that essentially—I love how the member for Scullin has done it again. Those opposite do this all the time: 'We're going to move a second reading amendment speech.' I wonder what the purpose of that was. Could it be that the purpose of it was to force those on this side to vote against what will be a nonsensical amendment so that theyvoteforyou.org.au—run by this OpenAustralia Foundation organisation, which, once again, has tax deductibility status and isn't audited by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—is allowed to go on and say, 'The member for Bass voted strongly against disclosure laws'? But she didn't. She actually voted for comprehensive transparency laws in our democracy. That's what the member for Bass did. Those opposite are the ones trying to hide the donations of their mates. Those opposite are the ones who don't want to see that actual Australians know what they and their mates are up to. They don't want Australians to see what the 'voices of' movement is up to. They don't want Australians to see what their friends are doing in the Climate 200 group, this new integrity foundation, the OpenAustralia Foundation, They Vote For You, the 'rising' movement, or the 'voices of' movement, all of which apparently are just community groups. All the independents who sit on the crossbench, who don't have to declare where they got money from until after the next election—that's what they want. That's what theyvoteforyou.org.au want. But I say to those few Australians listening to this: do not believe what they have to say. If you want to know who voted here and what they really voted for, go to Hansard, because it's not a left-wing front group trying to pretend to be a community organisation. Hansard is an Australian government publication. You will see exactly what your representative voted for, what they voted against or why they didn't vote. The They Vote For You group is a left-wing front group. They've got tax deductibility. Those opposite don't want them to have to disclose where they get their money from, because they want them to continue to campaign in the shadows, in the darkness, where no-one can see them, where no-one knows what they're up to, where no-one knows, really, who's backing them. That's what they really want. By the way, we know exactly what they're up to because they're open about it. They say to their friends at the ABC and Channel Nine newspapers, 'We want to get more people on the crossbench so we can have leverage over whoever's in government and we can make them do what we want them to do.' They want to change Australia to look more like them, but not like what the majority of Australians want. They see Australian democracy, this parliament, as an arbitrage opportunity. I don't know what those opposite think they're doing. They're making this possible. They're enabling it. It's bad for Australia. It's bad for this parliament. It's bad for Australian democracy. Instead of moving clever second reading amendments that make it look like people actually voting for honest government, for transparent government and for more disclosure are in fact voting against it—that's what theyvoteforyou.org.au will do. Who knows where they got their money from? We do know this: they're part of all these coordinated front groups. Just today we have another new group: integrity something. It's in the name. Whatever's in the name, it'll be the opposite. They admit they've been working very closely with Climate 200. So, in short, this bill is about exposing this highly coordinated group of left-wing front groups that are disseminating misinformation throughout our democracy and that see this parliament as an arbitrage opportunity and not about democracy. (Time expired) 13:05 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Since this bill is about political campaigners, I want to use this opportunity to speak about a political campaigner in the ACT who recently passed. Jilpia Nappaljari Jones died on 28 October 2021. She was a great Canberran and a great political campaigner. Jilpia was a Walmajarri native title owner from the Great Sandy Desert who was part of the stolen generations. She was taken from her family at the age of five and raised by foster parents in Queensland. She trained as a nurse and in 1971 helped to form the first Aboriginal community controlled health service in Australia, which is now known as the Aboriginal Medical Service Redfern. She worked with Fred Hollows, Gordon Briscoe and the team at the National Trachoma and Eye Health Program. She studied at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London. At the age of 50 she embarked on a new path, enrolling at the Australian National University. She graduated eight years later with majors in political science and history. In that year, 2003, she was made a Member of the Order of Australia and received an Australian Centenary Medal. She went on to work for AIATSIS, researching First Nations health, and made a gigantic contribution to the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout the continent. Jilpia was a political campaigner. She worked on the political campaign of my friend Chris Burke as well as being a strong supporter of the Labor Party here in the ACT. One of the Labor Party activists, Leah Dwyer, said that Jilpia always insisted that she call young party members—migaloos—'Bub', as we were, in Leah's words, 'all part of her family, at the same table and in the same fight for equality and justice'. Jilpia went through extraordinary hardship in her own life but turned that into energy to campaign for a more just Australia. I acknowledge her here in the parliament and recognise the immense loss that her partner, John Thompson, must be feeling. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 lowers the electoral campaign expenditure threshold for individuals required to register as 'political campaigners'. Right now, there are two categories: individuals or entities with electoral expenditure of at least half a million dollars a year, or in any one of the three previous financial years; and entities for whom electoral expenditure constitutes at least two-thirds of annual income. They have to register as political campaigners and they are responsible for more onerous reporting requirements, as they should be. They also cannot receive foreign donations. Organisations which are currently registered as political campaigners include the ACTU, GetUp, the Minerals Council, the Minderoo Foundation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Advance Australia, the CFMMEU, the AEU, the ANMF and the ASU. And then there is a category of entities which are registered as 'third parties'. Third parties are those who have a lower electoral spend. They include charities such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Bob Brown Foundation, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the RSPCA, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the SDA, the United Workers Union, the CEPU and the NUW. What this bill would do is reduce the income threshold for a political campaigner from $500,000 to $100,000 and reduce the electoral expenditure threshold from two-thirds of annual income to one-third of annual income. That's a massive impact on charities who are currently within that range of electoral expenditure between $100,000 and $500,000. It brings them into a regime which requires significantly more paperwork. For a government that's constantly talking about removing the red tape burden, this is imposing a significant red tape burden on civil society groups and advocates. Neither the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters nor the government has provided any compelling reason for reducing the thresholds which were put into place to take into account the level of advocacy provided by civil society groups and in recognition that advocacy is different from the kind of partisan political activity that the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the National Party and the Greens party engage in. There is a rightful role for charities to be part of the democratic conversation, and the democratic conversation is better for the involvement of charities in it. When the government last tried this on, last attempted to massively increase the reporting burden on charities that want to be part of the public conversation, that brought charities together. It didn't bring charities together in favour of the government; it brought charities together against the government. That is the Morrison government—uniting charities against it. Since the government came into office in 2013, there have been multiple open letters from the sector to successive prime ministers, calling on the government to back down on their attacks on charities. The Hands Off Our Charities alliance, formed in 2018, is a coalition of 44 charities and not-for-profits spanning education, human rights, animal welfare, the environment, health, climate change, disability rights and philanthropy. Its members include Anglicare Australia, Amnesty International, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Climate Council, Community Legal Centres Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, Oxfam Australia, Pew Charitable Trusts, UnitingCare Australia, and Save the Children. What does Hands Off Our Charities have to say about this proposal? They say: HOOC members are extremely concerned by this recommendation as many of the aspects of the EFDR Act, including the threshold for becoming a political campaigner, were very thoroughly consulted and considered prior to its enactment. That's talking about the way in which the thresholds are currently set. Further: Lowering the threshold for becoming a political campaigner would introduce a very significant compliance burden for many third parties and … would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy in the lead up to elections. Overwhelmingly, evidence in this area of law has been for more transparency of political parties, including reforms to introduce real time disclosure of political donations and to lower the donations disclosure threshold. Nevertheless, the Government has resisted these reforms on the grounds that it is a too high and unnecessary administrative burden for political parties. It is disappointing that the Committee is willing to ask third parties to take a substantial administrative burden for little extra transparency, while not offering support to key transparency reforms overwhelmingly supported by the Australian public. That is the Hands Off Our Charities alliance speaking on behalf of 44 charities and not-for-profits right across the ideological spectrum. This is yet another attack from the Morrison government on charities. We saw the period from 2011 until 2016, in which the formal position of the coalition was to get rid of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—a one-stop-shop body set up after multiple independent reports called for the creation of a one-stop-shop body for charities. Its role is akin to the role that ASIC plays in a corporate context, but, from the coalition's campaign against the charities commission, we see the way in which they have such disregard for charities. They've gone through some six different ministers responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, and they only finally backed down on trying to kill the charities commission when they realised they couldn't get their repeal bill through the Senate. What did they do then? In the hours after the marriage equality vote passing, when the nation was rightly focused on that important bill, the government announced that the person who would head the charities commission would be none other than Gary Johns, an appointment which is akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank or Bronwyn Bishop in charge of politicians' entitlements. We've seen under Gary Johns a divisive approach taken to charities. He's somebody who in the past had attacked respected charities such as Recognise and Beyond Blue; who had referred to Indigenous women as 'cash cows'; who had said that there was a great deal of what he called 'impure altruism' in the charities business; and who was best known not as a collaborator with charities but as a critic of charities. The fact is that the Liberals don't want an independent charity sector. They don't want independent voices contributing to the public conversation. We've seen that time and again, with attempts to gag social service charities, to get environmental charities out of the public debate and to say to legal aid bodies that they should not have a say on issues of law reform. The coalition's view on charities is that it's alright for social services charities to run a soup kitchen but they shouldn't talk about inequality. They think it's alright for environmental charities to plant trees but they shouldn't talk about climate change. They think it's alright for legal aid workers to help an individual defendant in court but they shouldn't talk about the root causes of the rise in Indigenous incarceration. The coalition have a view that charities should be seen and not heard. That's why we have this continued spate of attacks on charities. We're seeing it again at the moment, with an attempt to increase the powers of the charities commissioner to deregister charities for summary offences, which could include something in the order of trespassing or blocking a footpath. We've had religious charities speaking out about this, including Catholic charities, who sometimes organise Palm Sunday rallies for refugees, an activity which, if someone blocked a footpath, could see the responsible charity deregistered. Now we have the extraordinary spectacle of Minister Sukkar not withdrawing his attempted regulation but propagating a new regulation. So he now believes that the power for charities to be deregistered if they engage in trespassing or blocking a footpath should remain but that it should no longer be possible to deregister them for causing emotional harm. I will leave it to Minister Sukkar to explain why the category of a charity that causes emotional harm is the sole category that he's decided to withdraw. But that change in no way addresses the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, whose bipartisan report has made clear that the government's regulation should be disallowed. I credit Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and her coalition colleagues, who have gone against Minister Sukkar and said that this regulation should be disallowed by the Senate, and I commend the work that those senators have done—along with my colleague Kim Carr, the deputy chair of that committee—to carefully scrutinise the government's proposals to make it easier for charities to be deregistered. The simplest thing right now would be for Minister Sukkar to back down; to recognise that his own party room colleagues have said that his attempt to make it easier for Gary Johns to deregister a charity should be rejected; and not to play political games with One Nation with this new change, which doesn't go to any of the substantive concerns that charities and his own coalition colleagues have raised. Minister Sukkar is engaged in another fight against charities. Charities have had nothing but war waged upon them under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. It's been more than eight years of war being waged on charities. Labor will do things differently. Labor will ensure we work with charities, not against them, respecting charities and respecting the valuable role that they play in public advocacy and in strengthening Australia's democracy. 13:20 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to speak briefly on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021. I do so because it introduces a number of important reforms to help enhance transparency and accountability in our democracy. It ensures that significant political actors, and political actors that incur electoral expenditure representing a significant component of the organisation's activity, are subject to requirements that more closely align with existing duties for candidates, parliamentarians and political parties. These new requirements will require individuals and organisations to register with the Australian Electoral Commission as political campaigners if they incur over $100,000 in electoral expenditure in a financial year. They will also apply if electoral expenditure is in excess of $14,500 in a financial year where it is more than a third of that individual's or organisation's annual revenue. These measures do not place an unreasonable regulatory or administrative burden on those affected, as they're already subject to mandatory disclosure obligations as a third party under the electoral act or are required to make such disclosures if similar electoral expenditure is incurred. The amendments are in response to recommendation 18 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the conduct of the 2019 election. This report found that Australia's electoral system remained in good health but identified room for improvement in some areas of the voting process. The Australian Electoral Commission gave evidence that it administers a voting service that is one of the fairest, most open and accessible in the world, and that the election was participated in by a record number of Australians, with 96.8 per cent enrolled to vote. This indicates a very high level of confidence in the health of our voting system. However, without continued reform, the system can quickly become outdated and fail to meet the needs of a modern democracy. Certainly, over the last couple of election cycles that I've been involved in as a candidate and member, I have seen the need for emerging reforms such as these. That need is why this bill calls for enhanced transparency and accountability that will help level the playing field so that organisations established to campaign for or in conjunction with political parties are not exempt from public scrutiny. These organisations are entitled to communicate views and to support whoever they wish. In fact, it's important that they contribute to public debate and is an important part of enriching our democracy with varying views and perspectives. At the same time, if they're going to campaign in a way that is similar to political parties, they should be subject to some level of reporting and disclosure requirements. Without this, there is a two-tiered system of accountability. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report also highlighted numerous incidences of abusive and unacceptable behaviour throughout the election campaign period which put workers, volunteers and those intending to vote at risk. It outlined that some members of parliament experienced some pretty horrific and obscene personal abuse, including stalking and harassment of a female candidate and anti-Semitic vandalism. This simply is not good enough. We really should be able to disagree respectfully and without resorting to violence or abuse or threats. I'm speaking on this legislation because, although I haven't spoken publicly about my experiences as a marginal seat candidate, I have had a number of personal experiences dealing with some members of organisations, affiliated with my opponents, that campaigned very strongly—and in many instances personally—against me. While I welcome democracy, there really is a fundamental fine line between healthy campaigning and the contest of ideas and personal abuse and insults. The seat of Robertson is a marginal seat and it's one that my team and I and my volunteers expect will be hotly contested at a federal election. Political parties and many affiliated organisations devote a significant amount of resources to compete, and my volunteers, supporters and I have become very accustomed to seeing large numbers of individuals from many different organisations, including the unions, GetUp!, other political campaigns and of course some supporters of independent candidates on polling booths. We appreciate that supporters of the opposition have a right to express their views and campaign for their chosen candidate. However, there has been some behaviour by those affiliated with opponents in my electorate that, quite frankly, has been disgusting and unacceptable. I can recall many, many instances of this, most of which are not fit to put on the public record, so vile and abhorrent were the actions and the behaviour of some of these individuals. But one that I can recall which is perhaps a little less offensive is an individual in a red shirt standing at Woy Woy pre-poll during the last federal election campaign in 2019 who began calling me a number of highly derogatory, offensive and very personal names and began using very inappropriate language in front of a whole range of people on the street. Even after being asked to stop, this individual continued a verbal tirade of abuse against me in front of a number of local stakeholders, including the prominent president of a local community group, who also stepped in and asked that he stop. He sneered when called out. He said he had a right to do this and that I had no right to be respected and I deserved no dignity or protection from verbal abuse, because of my beliefs. That is not democracy. That is absolutely not something that anyone in this parliament should condone or accept. What may have been dismissed as poor behaviour by one individual became more significant given that, when it was called out, several opposition organising representatives were present but said nothing, did nothing and looked the other way—which has become all too common an occurrence time after time after time. In doing so, they were actually condoning this behaviour and they sent a clear message that volunteers were free to treat my volunteers and me in whatever way they chose, simply because they did not agree with what we were putting forward for the election. That is one example of many that I can recall from the election. Many are, frankly, too graphic or vile to raise in this chamber, as I've said before, and I will not be doing so. I do believe that, in this country, we have a right to freedom of speech, but I also believe that we ought to have accountability and responsibilities as well. As representatives of political parties in a democracy like Australia, we really must hold ourselves to a very high standard and demonstrate respect for each other, be that in polling booths, at other events in the electorate or, indeed, in the parliament. Without this basic respect, our society can quickly become divided, and we as leaders have an obligation to ensure that this does not happen. The bill before the House introduces a number of reforms to enhance transparency and accountability in our electoral system. These amendments help ensure that those involved in the political processes are subject to public scrutiny and accountability—the hallmarks of a healthy democracy. I certainly hope that this bill goes some way towards improving some of the horrendous behaviour that we unfortunately experienced personally in my electorate and that was experienced in many other electorates in the 2019 election. We must continue the process of reform to ensure a fair and just electoral system for generations to come. It is on that basis that I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 71 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Nundah Community Enterprise Cooperative 71 13:29 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Last week I had the pleasure of welcoming the shadow Treasurer, the member for Rankin, to the superior side of the Brisbane River to chat and meet with workers at the Nundah Community Enterprise Cooperative on Station Street. Richard and his team at the Nundah co-op do fantastic work in our community, training and employing refugees, immigrants and people living with disability. Their motto is, 'We don't employ people to work; we work to employ people.' Every year the co-op creates more than 11,000 hours of long-term employment for Lilley locals, empowering marginalised northsiders to create a better life for themselves and showing that social and environmental responsibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. Kirsty, manager of Espresso Train, who has been there for nine years, graciously showed me and the member for Rankin how to make a latte. I would like to thank Nundah local Lauren, who graciously agreed to act as my guinea pig and try my first cup. We also met Merolyn and her fantastic team of landscape gardeners and trainees, who work every day to keep our local community clean and beautiful. Merolyn, who immigrated to Australia from Papua New Guinea, said she feels very lucky to be welcomed into our northside community; but the reality is that we are lucky to have Merolyn. Thank you, Richard, Merolyn, Taury, Kirsty, Alistair, Ian and all the workers at the Nundah Community Enterprise Cooperative for welcoming the member for Rankin and me and letting us walk a mile in your shoes. You've got nearly 31 years of proud service now, and we wouldn't be anything here in Nundah without you. Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 71 13:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay This Friday the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide will begin, shedding light on the ingrained problems in how Australia cares for our Defence personnel. For many veterans and their families, giving evidence will be a distressing time. I welcome the legal and financial assistance scheme for those called as witnesses, as well as counselling and support for those digging deep to find the courage to speak. Thank you to the groups and individuals who have made more than 555 submissions to the commission. While the royal commission will provide an interim report next August and a final report in June 2023, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Andrew Gee, has given me his word that he will not wait for the final report and will get cracking on change immediately. This is a moment that our veterans worked for and that I advocated for and was prepared to cross the floor for. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics show 1,062 veterans and 211 serving Defence Force personnel took their own life between 2001 and 2019. The systemic issue behind this mental health crisis will be examined. It's time to have your voices heard, and I know that we are listening. The McEwen Award for Outstanding School Citizenship 71 Centenary of St John's Anglican Church, Asquith 72 13:34 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I want to talk about St John's Church, Asquith, which is celebrating its centenary. St John's has a rich history in our community. From the early years of the twentieth century, Anglicans living in Asquith, Mount Colah and Mount Ku-ring-gai had to make the trip to St Peter's in Hornsby if they wished to worship together in a church building. In 1919, as the population continued to grow, the people of the area decided it was time they had their own building where they could hold services and start a Sunday school. Two blocks of land on which the church stands were purchased with 90 pounds raised locally, and the original church was constructed entirely by volunteer labour. The current church is the third to stand on the site. On 23 July 1921 the foundation stone was laid for the first church at Asquith. The completed church was dedicated by Archbishop Wright in April 1923. The first Sunday school was held at St John's on 1 May 1923 with 50 students attending. To celebrate the centenary, St John's has released a book titled 100Stories and More to God's Glory. From the devastation of a life fleeing civil war in Sudan to the ordinary parishioner who meets the demands of living a Christian life in Australia today, the rich history of St John's is beautifully recounted in this book. I'd like to acknowledge the ministers Brian Heath and Tim Thambyrajah, children's minister Laura Bardell and Jenny Clarke in the office, as well as churchwardens Andrew Kingsmill, Denis Wright and Nicki Bispham, for their leadership and dedicated work for the church and the community. Happy birthday, St John's. Here's to a hundred more! Petition: Save Newcastle's After Hours GP Service 72 13:35 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Last Friday I stood with my Labor colleagues from across the Hunter and local GPs in a fight to save, yet again, our GP-access after-hours service. This is a vital frontline health service, yet the Morrison Liberal government is standing by, doing nothing to prevent families from the Hunter region receiving the worst possible Christmas present ever. From Christmas Eve, the after-hours GP clinic in the Calvary Mater hospital in my electorate will be closing permanently and the operating hours at all the remaining clinics—John Hunter Hospital, Maitland Hospital, Belmont Hospital and Toronto Polyclinic—will be reduced significantly. This petition, signed by more than 11,100 people in the last three weeks alone, tells the stories of loss, disbelief and anger at the Morrison government that it would even contemplate cutting this essential frontline health service. But this is not a one-off. This Liberal government has a long history of cuts to bulk-billing incentives and of freezing Medicare rebates, undermining our universal healthcare system time and time again. Today, I seek leave to table this petition, which will be presented to the Petitions Committee on behalf of the 11,100 people from across the Hunter who say: 'Hands off our GP-access after-hours service. Prime Minister, it's time you take responsibility to restore funding to our vital service immediately. Newcastle and Hunter families deserve nothing less.' (Time expired) Leave granted. The document read as follows— Save Newcastle's After Hours GP Service! The Morrison Government's continuous cuts and freezes to Medicare has forced Hunter Primary Care (HPC) to make the difficult decision to close the GP Access After Hours Service (GPAAH) at the Calvary Mater Hospital from Christmas Eve and reduce opening hours at the remaining four clinics across the region. This reduction in services will be devastating news for up to 15,000 people who will be left without access to vital medical care. The GPAAH Service reduces unnecessary emergency department presentations and hospitalisations, saving the health system approximately $21.7 million every year. But, these changes will dramatically increase pressure on our already over stretched and under resourced emergency departments. After six long years of Medicare rebate freezes and recent cuts to bulk-billing incentives by the Morrison Government, HPC has been forced to make the impossible decision to reduce their services to families across the Newcastle Hunter region. In August, HPC pleaded with the Morrison Government to provide the funding needed to retain the full operation of their services, but the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt simply gave them the cold shoulder and said no. This has been an essential service for tens of thousands of Newcastle families who rely upon bulk-billing GP services to access the healthcare they need, when they need it. With so few bulk-billing doctors in Newcastle, any further loss of services with have a huge impact on these families already faced with high out-of-pocket costs. Not only is the Morrison Government's lack of support unacceptable, it is grossly irresponsible in the middle of a global pandemic. At a time when the Federal Government should be investing in Medicare and increasing health services to regional Australia, the Morrison Government is doing the exact opposite. Newcastle deserves better than a government determined to undermine our world-class healthcare system. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders. Eddy, Mr Trevor 73 13:37 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Today I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate an outstanding Chisholm local and one of the 2021 Victorian Senior of the Year award recipients, Mr Trevor Eddy. Trevor has worked with and led so many community organisations that just one speech can't do him justice. Trevor is the president and chairman of the Burke & Beyond Association, where he helps fight for a better deal for Victorians with a disability. He is also the treasurer and public officer of Greenlink Box Hill, a local group which does incredible work propagating indigenous flora. Trevor is, perhaps more than any other individual, responsible for the continuing existence of Clota Cottage Neighbourhood House in Box Hill, a local organisation which provides a sanctuary for the elderly, disabled and isolated in our community. I was proud to back Trevor in from the very beginning for this award, and I congratulate him again for all that he has done and will continue to do for the Chisholm community. Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021 73 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Today the Morrison government, in the Senate, had the opportunity to debate the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill, put forward by NT senator Sam McMahon. They deliberately, purposefully decided not to allow debate on that bill to continue. First they tried to get rid of one of our Northern Territory seats in this place, and we fought hard for fair representation for the Northern Territory. Now, through the voter ID laws, they're making it harder for Territorians and people all around Australia to vote. Today, they had the chance to back Territory rights, but they did not take it. Those opposite do not support full rights for Northern Territorians and for people of the Australian Capital Territory. Senator McMahon's bill follows attempts in the previous parliament by me and the member for Fenner to overturn the Andrews bill. It was designed to reinstate full territory rights, but it was stopped by those opposite. Senator McMahon's bill was not perfect, not having included the ACT, but it at least tried to get a debate happening in our nation. Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a petition by Territorians wanting full rights as members of this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 Leave is granted. The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders. Reid Electorate: Small Business 73 13:40 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid Small business is the lifeblood of our community and the key to our economic recovery. As a former small-business owner, I know what it's like to own and run a small business. COVID and repeated lockdowns were very tough on our small-business owners, but our small businesses are resilient, and I was so impressed with how quickly Reid businesses adapted. Whether it was online orders, takeaways, home deliveries, picnic baskets in the park, they pivoted; but they also needed our help, especially the self-care industry, and we had their back. We will always support small and family businesses, and businesses in Reid told me the government assistance measures, through JobKeeper and JobSaver, cash flow boosts and 50 per cent wage subsidies for apprentices, were all a lifeline. But recovery is in full motion now, and we are looking forward. Businesses have opened up. Reid is open for business. Consumer spending is up. Jobs are coming back. Our borders are opening up. We have over 26,000 small and family businesses in Reid, and every one of them is important in our community. Whether it's Homebush Village shops; Auburn or Lidcombe; Sydney Olympic Park; Rhodes; Strathfield; Five Dock; Drummoyne; or Majors Bay Road, Concord, they all matter, and we've got their back. Climate Change 73 13:42 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah As the dust settles on COP26 it's clear Australia is still the global laggard. We were awarded 'colossal fossil' at the conference. According to the International Energy Agency, global pledges and commitments would limit warming to 1.8 degrees if backed by sufficient policies, but the Morrison government failed to sign up to many of the global pledges and did much to deny and delay action. We were singled out as the only developed nation to not take significantly updated 2030 targets. We did not sign the global methane pledge and the zero emissions vehicle pledge, which committed to phasing out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2040. Within a few days of COP26, it was clear the Morrison government was not serious about action when Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce walked back the government's commitment to the Glasgow climate pact, saying the Nationals had not signed on. The modelling released by the government also reveals they have no intention of aiming to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, instead intending to increase gas exports to 2050. The Prime Minister has a climate policy problem. He has the same 2030 target that Tony Abbott signed up to in 2015. We have a big job ahead of us for COP27 in Egypt to repair the damage. With an election coming, we need to commit to 2030 targets of 50 to 60 per cent emission reductions. Wyangala Dam 74 13:43 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Wyangala Dam wall needs to be raised! What is required at the end of that sentence is not just a full stop but an exclamation mark. Increasing the dam wall by the proposed 10 metres would provide additional capacity of 650 gigalitres. Sydney Harbour holds about 500 gigalitres. Imagine the new agricultural opportunities that would be possible with all of that water. Friday was National Agriculture Day, a day to celebrate our nation's most important workforce—farmers. After all, they feed us and they clothe us. On that very day, water from the flooded Lachlan River was flowing through and past Forbes. Since 1887, that town has experienced major flood events, on average, every seven years. This one has peaked so far at 10.55 metres, with 660 state emergency service requests for assistance, including five rescues. Roads have been damaged, crops ruined, fences washed over and stock drowned. The damage bill and indeed loss of potential by not having the ability to use this water productively will run into the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, yet the Greens at the New South Wales upper house level and academic professor Jamie Pittock have denounced the dam wall raising initiative. I say this to them: you are wrong and Forbes knows it. Once the mud settles, the New South Wales government needs to do proper costing and get back to the Commonwealth, and we'll get on with it. Prime Minister, COVID-19: Vaccination 74 13:45 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara It has been pretty ugly to see the Prime Minister of Australia chase the votes of those people who brought gallows to the steps of the Victorian parliament, especially because more than 90 per cent of Victorians have rolled up their sleeves and got the vaccination to protect themselves, their family, their community and their country. But there is a noisy minority that needs to be called out. People marching in the streets of Melbourne with gallows and nooses need to be called out unequivocally, with strength and by all members of this place, but sadly we did not see that from the Prime Minister. This week, I got a call from a nurse who works at a hospital. Her identity needs to be kept anonymous. On the way to work on the weekend, crossing by those protesters, wearing her scrubs, she was spat on, abused and yelled at by the people who were in the so-called freedom rallies this weekend. We on this side of the House understand that vaccinations are important to opening up our country and getting on with our lives. We need to see leadership from all sides of this House to protect people like that nurse so it doesn't happen again. Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton)Airport 74 13:47 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Western Sydney is a powerhouse. We make stuff and we build things. We're building our future, headlined by Australia's biggest infrastructure project, Western Sydney international airport. Construction of the passenger terminal has begun. I was so delighted to welcome the Prime Minister to mark the occasion. It is the best in the country and will make travelling to and from Western Sydney a seamless experience. I'm so excited that we've reached this important milestone because I know what it means for local families and local businesses. Much like Nancy Bird Walton, this project is a pioneer that will change the game for generations ahead, charting a new path and opening new opportunities. The airport will harness the hard work and aspiration of people in my community and turn it into more local jobs, more markets and more opportunities for small business, showcasing the very best of Western Sydney to the world. For people, families and businesses in my electorate, this means more local jobs for local people, now and for generations to come. The airport has smashed its local employment targets through the construction phase, employing people in my community and injecting more than $100 million into our local economy. Around 11,000 jobs will be created in the construction phase alone. I look forward to seeing this trajectory continue, including when it opens in 2026. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 74 13:48 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Australians trust the ABC. The ABC tells our stories and provides us with accurate, independent information. In a pandemic where misinformation is putting lives at risk and creating divisions in our society, the role the ABC plays in providing independent, accurate information has never been more important. But it's in this environment that the Morrison government has launched its latest attack on the ABC, with Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg's proposed Senate inquiry into the ABC's complaints process. This is an absolute overreach by this government, and one can only assume it's about political control over what the ABC covers. As Ita Buttrose said: Any incursion of this kind into the ABC's independence should be seen by Australians for what it is: an attempt to weaken the community's trust in the public broadcaster. …   …   … If politicians determine the operation of the national broadcaster's complaints system, they can influence what is reported by the ABC. This government has form when it comes to the ABC, with $84 million budget cuts and hundreds of jobs lost. I have worked at the ABC both in regional Victoria and in metropolitan Melbourne. I know how important it is that local, independent stories get told and that they get told accurately, without political interference. Labor will restore funding for the ABC and we will protect its integrity and its independence, because we know how important it is. DiDi Station 75 13:50 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn This weekend the Duff family will be celebrating 100 years at DiDi Station and the launch of their book. DiDi Station is located near Durong and near the Boondooma Homestead in South Burnett in my electorate. Back in 2010, I met Michael Gavin Duff. We had an immediate rapport, possibly because we were both Irish. Mick invited me to visit his home at DiDi Station, where he had spent his entire life. Mick's father was Irish and his mother was English. He was one of six children. In 1959, Mick married his lovely wife, Lorna, better known as 'Sip', and together they had five children—Stephen, Kathy, Susan, Toni and Michael. So DiDi had three generations of Duffs. After Mick's passing in 2019, his children Kathy and Michael became the owners of DiDi. Kathy, like her father, has spent her entire life at DiDi. Congratulations to the Duff family on 100 years at DiDi and for their contribution to the cattle and timber industries, their local community and the Catholic Church. Well done, Duffs. Morrison Government 75 13:51 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Our nation is suffering a failure of leadership, a lack of real leadership at all. Through this pandemic, the Morrison government has been no friend to Western Australia, continually attacking Premier Mark McGowan at every opportunity. He backed Clive Palmer in order to bring down the WA border and then he tried to deny it. This is the Prime Minister for New South Wales, not a Prime Minister for our entire nation. The Prime Minister even called Western Australians cave people for living safely without COVID. Now the Prime Minister can't even bring himself to lead against attempts to undermine our democracy. After the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess in the UK, after insurrection at the US Capitol, also not called out by the Prime Minister, and after he and his Treasurer have spent the last 18 months attacking state premiers who are doing the right thing to protect their communities, Prime Minister Morrison has failed to show the leadership that our nation needs. In the face of threats of violence towards premiers, MPs and their families, and death and rape threats to the WA Premier's staff, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to unreservedly condemn such behaviour. WA needs a federal government that will work with it. Australia needs a federal government that will stand up for our democracy and keep us safe and secure. Only an Albanese Labor government will be the partner that WA needs here in Canberra. Only Labor will stand up for WA. Environment: Feral Deer 75 13:53 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The presence of feral deer is a growing issue around our country. These deer cause significant economic and environmental damage. Their consumption of and damage to crops, pastures and saplings cost our primary producers many millions of dollars every year. In fact, a feral deer can eat twice as much as a sheep. They also ruin fences and damage other infrastructure. Environmentally, deer have a profound impact on the composition of plant species in our natural environment. They predate on young trees and damage or destroy mature trees by ringbarking and are also responsible for spreading noxious weeds. They also contribute to erosion and degrade the water quality of our creeks and river systems. Feral deer also pose significant biosecurity risks as carriers of disease. In South Australia feral deer numbers have reached a tipping point, and we now need to ramp up efforts to reduce their numbers. The aerial abatement program is the most effective way to remove large numbers of deer from our landscape. Since aerial abatement programs began on the Limestone Coast in 2009, more than 12,000 deer have been removed. We need to increase these abatement efforts to see numbers reduced adequately. I am fighting to see this funding program boosted on the Limestone Coast so we can get on top of this noxious problem. Macquarie Electorate: Broadband 76 13:54 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie There are small businesses in the Upper Blue Mountains who successfully operate in spite of the NBN. These are people with fibre to the node like Aaron from Bethany Manor B&B in Leura. He relies on copper for connection, as do homes and businesses from Lawson to Mount Victoria and in McGraths Hill, Mulgrave, Vineyard and parts of Pitt Town, Kurrajong Heights, Windsor Downs and Wilberforce. This copper doesn't provide them with a fast or reliable connection, which means that Aaron's almost perfect scores from guests are marred by poor wi-fi connection. Ron runs Blazon in Bullaburra, doing lighting, sound and video. When it rains, his FTTN disappears and people phoning him hear that his number doesn't exist. He has no idea how much business this has cost him. He and Aaron spent hours on the phone trying to improve the connections. Children's film and TV producer Keaton has given up on the NBN. Instead of being able to work from home, he has to keep his production in Sydney and commute. Keaton can see the short-sightedness of the current policies, especially how they're failing young people. Jon has switched to Starlink because FTTN isn't up to the job. These people have been ignored by the Liberals and denied upgrades to their fibre to the node. Labor will fix that. If we win the next election, we'll connect homes to fibre for free if people want it. That will give these businesses a boost, give students reliability and make things safer when disaster strikes. Tasmania: Economy 76 13:56 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon [by video link] I'm pleased to report that, according to recent ABS advice, Tasmania has continued to outperform the national economy. It records the second-highest economic growth in any jurisdiction in Australia, and our private sector investment has grown by 6.9 per cent. This is confirmation that the Morrison government's approach of lower taxes for both individuals and businesses and investment in job-creating infrastructure and school development is working. One just needs to get out and about and see the positive results. Last week, I dropped in to a couple of local businesses. Britton Brothers Pty Ltd in Somerset produce top-quality classic Tasmanian veneer panel products. Mead Con, a family owned and operated construction company, is currently building the new classroom blocks at Devonport Christian School. During my catch-up with Shawn Britton and Tim Mead, they both agreed with the ABS data. Their businesses are going well. They have plenty of work in front of them, and they're hiring. To everyone I met at Britton Brother and Mead Con last week: thanks for your hospitality. I appreciate your honest feedback. To all our businesses big and small: congratulations. The work that you do every day is the reason that Tasmania remains the nation's best-performing economy. Coalition Government 76 13:57 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand As we begin this final sitting block of 2021, it is clear that the clapped-out jalopy of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has finally broken down. For eight long years, parts have been spraying off this government as it has careened from scandal to scandal, from failure to failure and from bungle to bungle. But today it all came apart, with coalition senators voting against their own government en masse, withholding their votes from government legislation en masse and issuing media releases condemning their own government. This isn't a government anymore; it's a pile of debris left on a junkyard floor. In response, we see a Prime Minister in full market-testing mode, casting about for a new reason for his government to exist, a new marketing slogan. We saw the most extraordinary one yet last week. After being in power for eight long years, the Morrison government now says it's interested in cost-of-living pressures. After doing nothing about record low wage growth for eight long years, now they want to campaign on cost of living. I say 'campaign' because they're not actually proposing to do anything about it. As usual, this Prime Minister has his marketing strategy and has someone else to blame, but he has no actual plan for what he will do himself. The PM thinks he can just say it's all Labor's fault and—bang!—job done. That's what we're left with in the lead-up to the next federal election: a government that can't run on its record because its bungling of quarantine and the vaccination campaign cost a lost year for Australians. All it has left is lies. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 76 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Privilege and Members' Interests 76 13:59 The SPEAKER 00APG We've got about 30 seconds before question time. In this free time I might make a quick statement, just to get some business out of the way. Members will recall the resolution of the House on 27 October this year, relating to legal action taken in the Federal Court of Australia by ClubsNSW against Mr Troy Stolz, which authorised the Speaker to take steps to ensure that the interests of the House are represented in this matter such that parliamentary proceedings are appropriately protected. I want to advise members that, pursuant to this resolution, as an initial step, upon my instruction our solicitor has written to the parties about the interests of the House and potential issues of parliamentary privilege. I thank the House. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 77 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19: Vaccination 77 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, good luck on your last day in the chair! My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister claim he is opposed to mandatory vaccinations when he has imposed mandatory vaccinations on aged-care workers, Australians returning home, quarantine workers and even journalists attending his own press conferences? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He is completely wrong. The government doesn't oppose mandatory vaccinations for health workers, aged-care workers and disability workers. In particular, I can advise the Leader of the Opposition that it was as Prime Minister that I took the proposal, supported by the AHPPC, the medical expert panel and the Chief Medical Officer, that it was essential that we mandate vaccines for aged-care workers. That was done in November, and it was not until mid- to late August that all states and territories had followed through on the commitment to put that in place. Mandatory vaccines for health workers, for aged-care workers, for those who are working with vulnerable people, was the clear medical advice. That was supported by the Chief Medical Officer and that's what the government acted on, and we sought to have those arrangements put in place through the states, which they have done. Over the course of these past few years, it has been essential to take a series of decisions to protect Australians. The national plan that was agreed, that was pulled together by the government and supported on two occasions by all premiers and chief ministers, provides the pathway forward to ensure that governments can step back and Australians can step forward. There is a time and a place for controls and restrictions to be in place, and there is a time for governments to step back. And the government has always been clear in acting on the advice and listening carefully to the advice of the medical experts that have informed the positions the government has taken. The government have not supported the campaigns of anti-vaxxers; we have not done that. We have supported the sensible balanced approach, listening carefully to the medical advice and commissioning the Doherty institute to provide the specific scientific hurdles for vaccination rates to be reached that would enable Australians to be given their lives back and those restrictions to be lifted. I won't be verballed by the Leader of the Opposition. If he doesn't think Australians should have their lives back, he can make that case to them. COVID-19: Economy 77 14:03 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is working to secure our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and provide more opportunities for Australian businesses and Australian families? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. Whether in Wentworth or anywhere else in the country, Australians are looking forward. They are looking forward to Christmas. They are looking forward to New Year's. They are looking forward to coming together all around this country. And they are able to do that by the great achievements they have achieved over these last few years. Australians are looking forward to next year, and they have the confidence to look forward because of what they have been able to achieve together, in particular under the policies we have been able to put in place to support them through one of the biggest challenges this country has faced since the Second World War. As a result of that, we have one of the lowest fatality rates from COVID in the world. We have one of the strongest, particularly advanced economies coming through this pandemic in the world. We also have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. Australians have been keeping their side of the deal, and I am determined to make sure governments, including my own, keep our part of the deal as well. The national plan is about securing Australia's economic recovery. We cannot take Australia's economic recovery for granted. The national plan provides that way forward. It means that we can open safely so we can stay safely open. It means governments stepping back so Australians can step forward. Australians have had to sacrifice much, and they have earned being able to regain the many liberties that they had to forfeit over these past few years. The next step forward in that plan we've announced today with the Minister for Home Affairs. Skilled migrants and students will be coming back to Australia on 1 December, and they will be joined by all visitors from the Republic of Korea and Japan, joining those visitors from Singapore. That's further evidence that our government is keeping our side of the deal. Australians are keeping their side of the deal by getting vaccinated at record rates, with 85 per cent double-dose vaccinations around the country. Our economic recovery plan is also securing that recovery with lower taxes and affordable and reliable energy, supporting our manufacturing and resources industries and ensuring that we're building the economic infrastructure that Australians need, particularly where I was last week, at Western Sydney International (Nancy Bird Walton) Airport—a project that went nowhere under Labor but has been a reality under the Liberal-National government. Under six years of Labor, they talked a lot, and they did absolutely nothing. We're boosting apprentices. We have a record number of apprentices now in trade training. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 78 14:06 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister claim to oppose mandates on hospitality venues in Queensland but support the exact same restrictions in New South Wales? 14:07 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Again, the member who puts forward the question is misrepresenting. Let me be very, very clear. The government supports mandatory vaccines of health workers, aged-care workers and disability workers. That's what the government supports for all other venues and employers. You don't like the answer? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will either raise his point of order or not. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 The question very clearly went to hospitality venues in Queensland. The Prime Minister says it's a problem you can't get a cup of coffee without showing your vaccination certificate— The SPEAKER 00APG We don't need the explanation. Mr Albanese R36 in Brisbane. It's the same in Sydney. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L If venues, businesses, airlines and other places of work seek to require their employees to be vaccinated, they have that right under the law. They have that right under the law, but it is not the Commonwealth government's policy that they should be told to do that. Wherever that is in the country, that is not the government's policy. We couldn't be clearer. We support mandatory vaccines for health workers, aged-care workers, disability workers—those who are working with vulnerable people. But when it comes to what happens in somebody's business, we believe businesses should make that decision and shouldn't be told by the government what they should be doing. Infrastructure 78 14:08 M HWN Parkes r COULTON () (): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is delivering critical infrastructure, such as the Inland Rail, which will support regional communities and economies, including my electorate of Parkes. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:09 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Mr Speaker, I too join in hoping you enjoy your last days in one of the touchiest times of the year in one of the most difficult jobs in Australia. I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question and note his political lifetime of work in supporting the Inland Rail and how important that is for our nation. The Inland Rail, of course, is a clear icon of how the Nationals and the coalition are driving the growth of inland Australia with policies that will double the size of Parkes in the member for Riverina's seat and double the size of Narrabri in the member for Parkes's seat. This is a clear indication of how it will reach forward to places like Toowoomba, down to Albury and also into Melbourne, Brisbane and Goondiwindi. This is a policy that clearly describes to the Australian people how this side of the House has a vision for the future, a vision for the future that drives areas ahead and that gives the infrastructure for growth. This side of the House can clearly state that the billions of dollars that were required for this project came from the Expenditure Review Committee and the deliberations of cabinet, something that the Labor Party left behind. They do not have a vision for regional Australia. That vision on this side of the House continues on with such projects as the Outback Way, making sure that we progress the process of sealing the third road across our great nation. That is an item that shows vision. The member for Parkes also asked about alternative policies. It's very hard to define a policy for regional Australia from the other side, from the Labor side, from the Labor and Greens side. They don't have one, or they might have one but they won't tell us about it. We've seen of late that they've become rather sneaky, charmingly sneaky, about not telling us about their legislation, such as the legislation they intend to bring forward with regard to climate policy. Opposition members interje cting— Mr JOYCE e5d I don't know, but I know that they're very charming but they're very sneaky. This is very important for our side of the House, because we are the ones coming forward with the policies, whether it's for dams—we're actually building dams. The Labor Party— Opposition members interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d Rookwood Weir, the expansion of Chaffey Dam, Scottsdale Irrigation District—you don't even follow what we're doing, but we could take you to the Scottsdale Irrigation District in Tasmania and Rookwood Weir in Queensland. We could take you to Chaffey Dam, and the process goes on. For us to keep delivering, we must make sure it's a coalition government that leads the way. COVID-19: Vaccination 79 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his comments last week where he said that people should be allowed to get a cup of coffee in Brisbane without showing their vaccination certificate, which is required by the Queensland health orders. Is the Prime Minister aware that the exact same health orders apply in Sydney: if people want to get a cup of coffee they have to show their vaccination certificate. Does he also support them? 14:12 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will refer the member to my previous answer. I have set out the government's policies very clearly. It applies right across the country. Federal Election 79 14:13 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah To the Prime Minister: in Australia, trust in government and politicians is at an all-time low. With a federal election now looming, voters will yet again be bombarded with fake news, misleading claims and outright lies. Will you prohibit misleading— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Warringah will resume her seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Warringah will begin her question again. Ms STEGGALL 175696 To the Prime Minister: in Australia, trust in government and politicians is at an all-time low. With a federal election now looming, voters will yet again be bombarded with fake news, misleading claims and outright lies. Will you prohibit misleading and deceptive political advertising by supporting the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill before the next election? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'll ask the Special Minister of State to add further to my answer, but I note the member's preamble to the question about the misleading and deceptive information that comes forward in campaigns. I think she's just given us a preview of the Labor Party's campaign at the next election, because they have form. They have form. We remember the 'Mediscare' misrepresentations and untruths. We remember the calls to pensioners in the night, seeking to frighten people in the middle of the election campaign. We remember all of that, and we know they're doing it again. They're out there trying to frighten pensioners on a daily basis. They're trying to operate underneath the radar. It's very sneaky from Labor. That's what we get used to, and we know that, when the Leader of the Opposition can't make the points himself, he gets premiers to make them for him. That's what he does. We can get used to that. Ms Steggall 175696 A point of order on relevance: I didn't ask about alternative policies. I asked whether he would support prohibiting misleading and deceptive advertising. The SPEAKER 00APG That's right. The question had a preamble with a number of statements about fake news and misleading claims. As I've said, preambles can be responded to. If you wanted a specific answer to whether the government would support a bill, it would've been better to simply ask that and nothing else. I'm listening to the Prime Minister. I am going to say that he's been able to compare and contrast because of it, but the question was not about the Australian Labor Party. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm very happy for the Special Minister of State to add further to that answer. But the preview that the member has offered in her question, of misrepresentations and deceit, is, of course, a risk. And it comes from the Labor Party, who'd do it in every single election. 14:16 Mr MORT 265931 Tangney ON (—) (): I thank the member for her question. The government does not support the AEC playing a role in relation to political advertisements. The AEC has committed to a Stop and Consider awareness campaign, which will be further implemented in the next election, as it has been implemented in previous by-elections in Eden-Monaro and Groom. Federal elections are a contest of ideas, and the 2016 joint standing committee report into the 2016 election considered these provisions. It recommended that further amendments be made to the authorisation provisions. That has occurred, and this government has delivered upon them so that voters can clearly identify the source of the political information that they are receiving in electoral contexts. Those opposite, and the member for Warringah, want to pursue a piece of legislation that will politically involve the Australian Electoral Commission in being an arbiter in relation to electoral advertising. That is an inappropriate role for the Australian Electoral Commission, and this government does not support that. Taxation 80 14:17 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan My question is to the Treasurer. As well as substantial tax cuts for individuals and families, will the Treasurer please remind the House how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan builds on our proven track record of delivering tax cuts for Australian businesses, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Ryan for his question and acknowledge his experience as a Brisbane city councillor—indeed, as the Treasurer of the Brisbane City Council. In his electorate, 60,000 taxpayers are getting a tax cut as a result of policies that we on this side of the House have supported. In every electorate represented across this chamber, small businesses are the lifeblood of local communities. They are also the engine room of local economies, with 3.6 million small businesses across Australia employing eight million Australians. That's more than half the workforce being supported by small businesses. We have supported small businesses throughout this crisis, whether through JobKeeper, the cash flow boost or the most recent business support payments in those states that went into lockdown. Today, we released new Treasury analysis and ATO data that showed, as a result of the tax cuts that we on this side of the House have supported, small businesses are getting $5 billion of tax relief this year and next. So, if you're a small business with a $500,000 turnover, you're going to be around $50,000 better off. What is also important to acknowledge in this new data is that small and medium-sized businesses created 600,000 jobs between April last year and September this year. That's 1,300 jobs a day being created by small business. You would think with that track record of creating jobs and supporting economic activity that those opposite would support small business. But we know that the only thing that they've got for small business is a sledgehammer—higher taxes for small businesses. We know that the member for Rankin recently took to his shadow cabinet a plan to put a new tax on family small businesses. What would that do? It would put a tax on 300,000 small businesses. So a mum-and-dad cafe that earns $150,000 a year will pay an extra $14,000 of tax as a result of Labor's higher taxes on small business. So, while we're supporting small businesses with JobKeeper, the cashflow boost and other COVID support payments, those opposite want to put a higher tax on small businesses. Taxation 80 14:21 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Treasurer. How can the Treasurer make the sorts of claims he just did in that answer when the two highest-taxing governments of the last 30 years have both been Liberal governments, including his? 14:21 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Rankin and welcome him back to the parliament—the part-time shadow of a shadow Treasurer. That was a dorothy dixer, because at the last election we were proposing lower taxes for Australians and Labor were proposing $387 billion of higher taxes. Do you know who said they were 'proud and pleased' of the housing tax and the retirees' tax? It was the member for Rankin, the co-architect with the member for McMahon. And do you know what the member for McMahon told the Australian people about Labor's high-taxing agenda? He said, 'If you don't like it, don't vote for it.' The member for Rankin has the hide to come to the dispatch box knowing that he took to the Australian people a superannuation tax, he took to the Australian people a higher tax on housing, he took to the Australian people a retirees' tax, he took to the Australian people higher taxes on their income and he took to the Australian people higher taxes on small business. A leopard doesn't change their spots. The Australian people know what the member for Rankin is all about—higher taxes on all Australians. Taxation 80 14:22 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of the Morrison government's strong record of cutting taxes for Australian families and workers so that they can keep more of what they earn? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:23 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Robertson for her question and acknowledge that she's a strong advocate for lower taxes for the people across her electorate, with more than 50,000 taxpayers in her electorate getting a tax cut as a result of policies supported and implemented by the Morrison government. When we got elected, we said to the Australian people that we would grow the economy, we said to the Australian people that we would cut their taxes and we said to the Australian people that we would create more jobs. After the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression, the Australian economy today is $300 billion bigger than when we came to government. We have legislated, through the parliament, $300 billion of tax cuts for households. We've introduced the biggest business investment incentives Australia has ever seen and we've reduced small business company tax rates down to the lowest level in 50 years. That's our record. And, when it comes to jobs, there are 1.4 million additional Australians in work today than when we came to government. That is our record. Our economic plan helped put Australia in a strong position going into this crisis, our economic plan helped get Australia through this crisis and our economic plan will help ensure our economy is stronger on the other side of this crisis. I'm asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' Well, we know what the Labor Party's plan is because they showed us at the last election. On the weekend, the member for Rankin went on the program Insiders and David Speers asked the member for Rankin a very simple question: 'Would you increase taxes for ordinary Australians at all?' It was a simple yes/no question. What did the member for Rankin say? 'It makes sense to maintain some flexibility'—some flexibility to increase taxes on income earners, some flexibility to increase taxes on superannuation, some flexibility to increase taxes on retirees, some flexibility to increase taxes on housing and, of course, some flexibility to increase taxes on family businesses. A leopard doesn't change its spots. The member for Rankin and the Leader of the Opposition are only interested in one thing: more spending. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 81 14:26 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister, when posting a video of his media conference to Facebook, delete any criticism of the Melbourne protests and only include the sections where he criticised vaccine mandates? Why did the Prime Minister claim he denounced the violent protests when, in fact, he was determined to give comfort to extremists? 14:26 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I completely reject that assertion. At the first opportunity, when I appeared before the press, I denounced those things. I very clearly denounced that violence. I said it had no place in Australia. It does have no place in Australia, and that is something there should be bipartisan support for. The opposition said the same thing, but they choose to try and play some political games with violent protesters. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance. The Prime Minister needs to explain why he deleted the sections that were critical of the protests. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. We don't have supplementary questions. The Prime Minister is in order. Mr MORRISON E3L I've been very clear in denouncing those things, and the suggestion that I haven't is a complete falsehood. And I know that the Leader of the Opposition was desperately trying to make this point this morning. Rather than us being on a unity ticket denouncing violence, he seeks to play politics with violent protests in Victoria. I find that absolutely appalling. We have the very strong view that violence of that nature and the intimidatory threats that are made as part of any protest, on whatever topic it might be, are deplorable and should not be done in this country. I could not be clearer than that. My government stands for the national plan that we took forward. We need to ensure that all Australians can look forward with confidence, and that's what we're focusing on. It's about the positives of the future, about where we're heading as a country, so we can ensure that, as a result of the outstanding work done by Australians right across the country, particularly in Victoria—they have had to put up with more in their daily lives than any other people in this country during the course of this pandemic. They have had to put up with more lockdowns, more deaths and more impact than any other part of this country—the longest lockdown of any city in the world. Victorians have put up with a lot and they have pushed through. And I commend them for the outstanding work they have done. What is important is that we now harness that and ensure that they can look forward to the Boxing Day Test and coming together around the Christmas table. That is what has been made possible by them going forward and ensuring they've got vaccines at record levels. That's what our national plan provides for. The pathetic attempts by the Labor Party to try and drive a wedge between Australians and suggest that there is no bipartisan support for denouncing violence in this country—it's been our government that have funded the Australian Federal Police to crack down on violent extremism. It's our government that have actually supported the Federal Police. When the Labor Party were in power, they cut their funding. They didn't give them the powers they needed. Even now, over the course of this parliament, the Labor Party have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this— (Time expired) International Travel 82 14:30 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison's government's national plan to reopen Australia is helping restore the freedom of Australians to travel and how safely reopening our international borders to visa holders will create more economic growth and drive the creation of new Australian jobs? 14:30 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Mr Speaker, I thank you for your service to the parliament, particularly in your role as Speaker. You have been outstanding. I thank the member for his question and for his very consistent advocacy on behalf of those in his electorate to make sure that Australia's borders are opened as soon as it is safe to do so. Australians have certainly kept their side of the deal by getting vaccinated. Currently, the vaccination status that we have in Australia is that more than 85 per cent of Australians over 16 have received two doses of the vaccination and over 90 per cent have received their first dose. That ranks amongst the highest in the world. So now, in line with the national plan, we are keeping our side of the deal by opening our borders in a safe and very carefully managed way as soon as we possibly can. We have already made some very important steps forward together. From the start of this month, fully vaccinated Australians have had the freedom to travel internationally once again, and fully vaccinated parents of Australian citizens and permanent residents are free to come here. So families can be reunited on our shores and grandparents can see their grandkids again. That's happening now. But it is important that we take the next step forward. So, from 1 December, we will be lifting the exemption requirements for a range of economic visa holders who are fully vaccinated so that our businesses can bring in the workers that they need to keep growing and creating even more jobs. That is so important for our economic recovery as we come through COVID. We will also be welcoming back fully vaccinated international students to support our universities and schools and those who work and study here in Australia. Importantly, those fully vaccinated eligible visa holders who are in Australia who have worked with us throughout the pandemic and who have contributed to our communities will now be able to reunite with their families overseas and return to their jobs and studies here in Australia. We'll welcome a range of family and humanitarian visa holders. On top of that, from 1 December, we will also be extending the quarantine-free travel safe zone for citizens in Japan and South Korea, much like the system that's already underway for Singapore. This is safe, it's important and it's fair that we go through this process of reopening our borders, and we need to take this step by step. It is so important that we open up our borders as it is safe to do so. We committed to this, and this is exactly what the Morrison government are doing. We are taking it one very important step at a time. COVID-19: Vaccination 82 14:33 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claimed that Australia was at the front of the queue for COVID vaccines. Given that more than half of the Australian population endured months-long lockdowns this year because the Prime Minister did not order enough vaccines when it counted, why did the Prime Minister say we are at the front of the queue when it wasn't true? 14:34 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Australia has one of the highest double-dose vaccination rates in the world. In fact, when we set out in late February and early March we said that all those who wanted to have the vaccine would be able to have it in October, and that's exactly what happened. In fact, despite the challenges that we had early on, we turned that around and ensured that that timetable was actually met, and the vaccination rates that we have now achieved—that Australians have achieved—are amongst some of the highest in the world. Our vaccination rates are higher than the United Kingdom, even higher, on a first dose basis, than the Netherlands, higher than Germany and higher than Israel—all of those that had some early success. And now we go into next year with those high vaccination rates, which enable us to back in Australia's incredible achievement to have one of the lowest fatality rates of COVID of anywhere in the world and, on top of that, one of the strongest advanced economies in the world. Only the Labor Party would want to talk that down. Only the Labor Party would want to talk down the achievements of the Australian people of having one of the lowest fatality rates, one of best economies and the highest vaccination rates in the world. What that speaks to is an opposition that have been so intent on playing politics with the pandemic that they cannot see the achievements of the Australian people and they cannot understand how much the Australian people are looking forward to the hope that is ahead of us. Our government has a plan for that. It was also set out in last year's budget and the budget before that: securing that economic recovery, investing in apprentices and the trades and skills that ensure that they are equipped, investing in our digital economy— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Butler HWK On direct relevance: the question was clearly about the vaccine rollout strategy. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has the call. I'm listening closely. It was a specific question, though. Mr MORRISON E3L The reality is that the vaccine rollout, which has achieved those record rates of countries all around the world, means that we can look forward with confidence. The Labor Party want to dwell and look in the rear vision mirror. What we want to do is look forward, like most Australians who are looking forward to Christmas, looking forward to next year, looking forward to opening their business, looking forward to welcoming tourists back, welcoming students back and getting skilled workers back into the country so they can drive their businesses forward. Our investments in the digital economy alone have had a— The SPEAKER 00APG I will just say that the Prime Minister is straying from a very specific question about the vaccines. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that our vaccination rate is enabling our economic recovery. No better confirmation of that is the $1 billion Google is investing in our digital economy strategy. We are securing the economic recovery. It's off the back of record rates of vaccination, one of the strongest economies through the pandemic and one of the lowest rates of fatality to COVID in the world. COVID-19 83 14:37 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government has kept Australians safe through the COVID pandemic, especially when compared to the rest of the world? Will the minister also advise the House on how the government will continue to keep Australians safe? 14:38 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Sturt, who has been one of the greatest advocates for his state opening up tomorrow, of Australians returning to South Australia and engaging with the rest of the country. It is a signature moment, and it comes at the time that we see around the world another wave of COVID, a continuing pandemic, in particular ravaging Europe—and we think of those in Europe and pray for them. At this moment, 257 million cases around the world have been diagnosed since the pandemic began and over 5.15 million people—5,150,000 people—have lost their lives to COVID officially, with the real number inevitably vastly higher. Indeed, there have been over 500,000 cases a day over the last week. There are now almost 7,000 lives lost a day around the world. Against that background, as the Prime Minister has just said, our great and abiding national achievement is to have one of the lowest death rates in the world, to have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and to have one of the strongest economic recoveries in the world. If we had imagined and envisaged over five million lives lost 20 months ago—and inevitably vastly higher beyond the official figures—and then compared it with where Australia is now we would have taken that. Albeit it has been hard, difficult and challenging and lives have been lost and so many people have struggled, Australia has been magnificent. What that means is that we now have a vaccination rate of 91.5 per cent first dose and 85.1 per cent second dose, and over 99 per cent of our over-70s have come forward to be vaccinated and protected in numbers beyond imagination. And we will continue to do this. We will continue with that vaccination program, now with one of the world's earliest whole-of-nation booster programs. We've already had 330,000 boosters, well ahead of expectations and schedule at this time. But now we move forward as well with our treatments, with sotrovimab and ronapreve—the monoclonal antibodies that can and have been saving lives—with molnupiravir and the Pfizer protein inhibitor as they come forward with 300,000 and 500,000 units. As they are approved, they will be made available. All of these things come together to save lives, protect lives and give us a chance to regain our lives. Federal Election 83 14:41 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claimed he didn't ridicule electric vehicle technology. Given the Prime Minister said electric vehicles would end the weekend, would not tow a trailer and would stop Australians from going camping, why did he claim he did not ridicule the technology when he made these statements on TV? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I've made patently clear on numerous occasions, whether here in this place or in other places, what I opposed at the last election was the Labor Party's policy. We had our own policy on electric vehicles, and most recently I've announced what our policy is, as part of our broader lower emissions technology and future fuels program, to ensure we meet the commitments we've set out most recently at COP26. We know what our targets are. We know what our plans to achieve those targets are. When we were last in this place a few weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition thought the election was going to be on 11 December. In fact, he told everybody on his backbench that that is when it was going to be. Yet he still can't even tell them what their 2030 target is. He still can't tell them what all the sneaky taxes are that they're going to put on the Australian people. He thought the election was about to happen, and he still couldn't tell anybody what was going to be going on. There's one thing that's pretty bad, and that's when Labor tells you what they are going to do; what's even worse is when they don't tell you. Australian Defence Force 84 14:42 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working with international partners to keep Australians safe and secure amidst a challenging international environment? 14:42 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for her question, for her support of Defence personnel in her electorate and for her committee work here as well. She brings a wealth of experience to this parliament. Everybody on our side of the House is absolutely committed to making sure that we properly invest into the Australian Defence Force. When Labor was in government, they took money away from defence. We've put money back into defence. We've done that because we are not weak on defence and we are providing support to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force to keep us safe—a very important contrast between that side of the House and this side of the House. One of the very significant ways that we will keep our country safe and keep our population safe into the decades to come is the AUKUS agreement that we've entered into with the United States and the United Kingdom, our two most important partners. Our collaboration spans decades. We've fought alongside each other. We've invested in each other. The agreement we sign today between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia will allow for a formal transfer of the information that is required for us to commence our nuclear propulsion program for our submarines. It is an incredibly important program. We have put ourselves in a position of trust with the US and with the UK. There was a bilateral agreement between the United States and United Kingdom entered into in the 1950s, where the US shared their technology and information with the UK. For the first time ever a third partner has been able to join that collaboration, and that is, of course, our country. There has been a lot of work already that has been undertaken that has allowed a conversation to take place about how we can train up our submariners and our engineers in the program, and we'll have more to say in that regard. The Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force has carried out a lot of work under the guidance of Admiral Jonathan Mead. I really commend him and his team for working in our country's name. And, in an uncertain time in the Indo-Pacific, Australians want certainty for their government, and we are providing certainty to Australians when it comes to national security and our response to the threats in our region today and into the future. People understand; they've seen Labor operating in the past. They understand that Labor is weak on national security. They've demonstrated it day in, day out, year in, year out, and the reality is it doesn't get any weaker than this Leader of the Opposition. Electric Vehicles 84 14:46 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claims he changed his mind on electric vehicles because of 'massive changes to technology since 2019'. The CEO of the Electric Vehicle Council says he has no idea what the Prime Minister is talking about. Why did the Prime Minister make this claim when it simply isn't true? 14:46 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook If the opposition spokesman doesn't think there have been advances in technology since 2019, then he's clearly not keeping up to pace. What I do know is our government is not going to put up the pressure on petrol prices by changing emissions standards on fuels. We're not going to do that. It's important that the Labor Party come clean on that, otherwise that's just another sneaky tactic— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my left! Member for Sydney, I'm trying to give the Manager of Opposition Business the call. Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance: the only issue relevant in this question is the massive changes to technology since 2019 that the Prime Minister has claimed exist, and he has to be relevant to that. The SPEAKER 00APG Yes; it was a very tight question, so the Prime Minister can't talk about alternative policies. Mr MORRISON E3L In particular, where I was on that day at Toyota, the advance in technologies that has occurred with hydrogen powered vehicles, particularly consumer vehicles, and in heavy industry in heavy vehicles has come forward in leaps and bounds. Now, the Leader of the Opposition says hydrogen vehicles are not EV. I just heard him say it. What does he think hydrogen does in an electric vehicle? It converts it into electricity which drives the battery. That's what an electric vehicle is. It can be powered by a charger. It can be powered by hydrogen. The Leader of the Opposition has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to these vehicles. This might come as a bit of a shock to the Leader of the Opposition, but, in Australia, there are very large distances over which Australians travel, and, if he thinks you can have charging stations along the Outback Way, good luck to him! But what I know from talking to the transport industry, what I know from talking to the vehicle manufacturers and people like Dr Alan Finkel is that here, in Australia, hydrogen powered electric vehicles is an Australian solution. It's a solution for Australian transport. Now, that might not go down so well in the cafes of Marrickville. That might not go down so well when he's spinning the discs there pretending to be a DJ. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order, other than relevance, because there's already been one taken. Mr Albanese R36 Oh, it was going to be that. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the call. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, no. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. If he's going to say any more, he needs to be specific to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L The CSIRO makes it very clear that hydrogen-powered vehicles power the electricity of those vehicles. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't agree with the former Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel— Honourable members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I know that there are electric vehicles that you use in inner suburban areas, and that's very important. That's fine when people want to make those choices. We're not going to force people to buy those cars by putting up petrol prices by changing the fuel emissions standards, which is nothing more than a sneaky tax on petrol. We're not going to do that. We will ensure that we're supporting it, through the incentives and the initiatives we're putting in place. But one of the things we're particularly focusing on is hydrogen powered electric vehicles, because those are the things that can transport heavy vehicles and consumer vehicles over long distances, which is what Australia needs. Our approach is following the Australian way. The Leader of the Opposition might want to just go down the path of heavily populated cities in Europe and think that's the solution for Australia. (Time expired) COVID-19: Domestic Travel 85 14:50 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister claim not to have supported Clive Palmer's High Court case to tear down state borders when we know he spent $1 million doing just that? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Yes. Could you repeat the question? Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 I certainly can, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister claim not to have supported Clive Palmer's High Court case to tear down state borders when we know he spent $1 million doing just that? 14:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook We pulled the case. We didn't pursue the case. We didn't support it, and I didn't support it, based on the strong representation made to me by Premier McGowan, and I agreed with him. Agriculture Industry 85 14:51 Mr DRUM 56430 Nicholls My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government has responded to labour challenges posed to agricultural industries and how the government will secure the industry's future by providing access to a long-term, reliable workforce. 14:52 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Nicholls for his question and acknowledge the challenges his electorate faced as a result of COVID-19 and the fact that agriculture has historically had to rely on overseas labour for its seasonal requirements. In fact, we have gone from just under 140,000 backpackers before COVID-19 to under 30,000 now. Of those, around 30 per cent worked in agriculture. So we saw quite quickly that there was a need for government to get involved in trying to keep the men and women here by giving them the opportunity to stay for another 12 months if they worked in agriculture, because we identified agriculture as an essential service as far back as March last year. But we haven't forgotten Australians. Every one of these jobs must be market tested. Australians get first crack at these jobs. We've tried to incentivise Australians to take these jobs. We've created over $60 million worth of incentives to try to get Australians to move around the country and to pick the fruit and be part of agriculture. We've provided up to $6,000 in reimbursement costs to travel from one end of the country to the other. We've also tried to get young people to go out there and, in fact, given them an accelerated pathway to Abstudy and Austudy if they go and work in agriculture, to give them that independence, away from their parents, to be able to qualify for that to go back to uni. In fact, last week we announced another $5.1 million in a program to incentivise young Australians who are leaving school, as we speak, to get into agriculture and think about agriculture—not just from a seasonal perspective but also in terms of a long-term career. We've also worked to ensure that those foreign programs have been reopened as quickly as they can be. We did that in August-September last year, when we reopened the Pacific schemes. There were over 25,000 men and women, from 10 Pacific nations, that we pre-vetted so they would be ready to come in. In December, the Prime Minister accelerated the process and removed the red tape to allow those men and women to come in. At national cabinet, he made it clear to the premiers and to the chief health officers that, if they gave the health orders by which, subject to quarantine, those men and women could come in, in addition to their caps, we would sign the visas. So we made it clear that we were going to get out of the way of that. I'm proud to say that, from June this year, we've now started an agricultural visa in which we are in bilaterals with four nations, of which one, Indonesia, has made it clear that it is very keen to work through the process to sign up to provide an agricultural workforce, which is transformational. This is bringing in the next generation of migrants, because we are giving a pathway to permanent residency. This builds regional Australia. It brings the next generation of migrants to Australia to build regional Australia and agriculture. But we're also working to ensure there are protections, and the immigration minister is bringing in legislation to protect workers from being exploited not only in the agricultural sector but right across the economy. We're also working with states, through the Attorney-General, on tighter regulations for labour hire companies. So we are working to put the environment and infrastructure around our farmers to continue to grow their industry to $100 billion by 2030. Prime Minister's Office 86 14:55 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister. When my electorate was burning, the Prime Minister's office told journalists he was not on holiday in Hawaii. Why did the Prime Minister's office say that when it wasn't true? The SPEAKER 00APG I've got some difficulty with the question, because it doesn't relate directly to the Prime Minister. You're asking about his office. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'm happy to hear a point of order on it. I said I had some difficulty with it. It didn't, to be blunt, seem to link the accusation to the Prime Minister himself. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Whoever was interjecting up there, please cease. It's never the member for Makin, so thank you. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, we've had many questions over the years about the actions of the Prime Minister's office or where a series of ministers have been asked about actions of their offices. This is a question where their office took an action in answering something about the Prime Minister himself. The SPEAKER 00APG I just make the point that that's certainly the case, but my recollection is that more often than not they've specifically then asked the Prime Minister about action he's taken himself. But I will allow the question. We'll see how we go. 14:56 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I can only speak to what I have said, as the Leader of the Opposition will know, because I texted him from the plane when I was going on that leave and told him where I was going, and he was fully aware of where I was travelling with my family. COVID-19: International Students 86 14:57 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister! Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, the member for Reid is seeking to ask her question. Dr MARTIN 282982 My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the return of international students under the Morrison government's plan to reopen Australia and the opportunities this will create for Australian businesses and workers so we can strengthen our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:58 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Reid for her question. She is a tremendous advocate for the university sector generally and particularly for Western Sydney University, along with Melissa McIntosh. Today the Prime Minister announced that, from 1 December, fully vaccinated international students will be able to come into Australia and continue their studies or begin their studies at the beginning of next year. There are presently about 160,000 international students abroad who are waiting to do exactly that. This is good news. It's good news for the economy, it's good news for workforce shortages and it's good news for the education institutions themselves. It's good news for the economy because international education is typically our third-biggest export market, constituting about $40 billion per year, about half of which is in fees and the other half is in expenditure from international students on local businesses, on accommodation, on restaurants and cafes, and on tourism. There's barely a small business in the CBDs of our cities that doesn't benefit from international students. Overall, as many know, 250,000 Australian jobs are supported by the international student market. So it's good for the economy to have these international students back. It's good for workforce shortages because those international students fill many of the jobs which are vacant and otherwise wouldn't be filled. International students are typically allowed to do 20 hours per week of work when they're here, and when they're not studying they can work full time. We have very significant workforce shortages across this country, particularly in the services area, and they will be able to come back and immediately fill some of those shortages so that those services can be open and remain open for Australians to benefit from and enjoy as they're used to. Of course this decision is good for the education institutions themselves. It's good for the institutions because international students can support the social fabric of those institutions and, importantly, provide a significant source of revenue. This has been broadly supported by people already, including the Business Council of Australia, which says it will be a 'massive boost to Australia's economic recovery' and it is making sure skills shortages don't hold Australia back. Catriona Jackson from Universities Australia has also warmly welcomed this. It was a tough decision for this government to close the borders back in March of last year, first to China and then to the rest of the world, but it's the right decision now to reopen them, consistent with the national plan and consistent with Australians getting vaccinated. They have done their side of the bargain, and we are doing ours. COVID-19: Vaccination 87 15:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning, five members of the government voted for Senator Pauline Hanson's extreme bill to abolish public health orders on vaccine certificates that keep people safe and keep businesses open. Didn't the Prime Minister allow this to happen because the Prime Minister failed to show leadership and gave comfort to extremists instead of backing the 90 per cent of Australians who have done the right thing and gotten vaccinated? 15:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook No. Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport 87 15:01 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on the news that construction of a world-class passenger terminal is underway at Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport and how the delivery of this project by the Morrison government is delivering jobs for Western Sydney and backing our economic recovery? 15:02 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the member for Lindsay for the question. She is a passionate champion of Western Sydney and, of course, Western Sydney airport. She brings a strong background in community housing in Western Sydney. Last Friday, she and I were able to join the Prime Minister, the Premier of New South Wales and others at Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport to announce the start of construction on the terminal. This will be a bold and confident building, reflecting the confidence and aspirations of Western Sydney. Western Sydney, of course, would be the third-largest economy and the fourth-largest city in Australia if it were a standalone city. This Western Sydney airport project is almost one-quarter complete. Twenty-two of 26 million cubic metres of earth have now been moved. Contracts have been signed for the terminal and for the airside civil engineering, including the runway and taxiway, and shortly the landside civils contract will be signed. This project means jobs for Western Sydney—over 11,000 direct and indirect construction jobs through the life of this project, with half of the current workforce coming from Western Sydney. By 2031, the airport will deliver 28,000 direct and indirect jobs. Airports around the world are proven job generators. The Commonwealth government—the Morrison government, the Liberal-National government—is working with the Perrottet government, the Liberal-National government in New South Wales, with an integrated plan to leverage Western Sydney airport to attract businesses and jobs and to create the third city, the Western Parkland City. It has transport connections like the $11 billion WSA metro, with six stations, 23 kilometres and 14,000 jobs; the M12, a $2 billion project; the Northern Road, for $1.6 billion; and the planning vision for a liveable city where people can live close to jobs, the Aerotropolis. Western Parkland City Authority and the Western Sydney City Deal are bringing together the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments and eight local councils. We are backing Western Sydney. The Western Sydney airport was in the too-hard basket for the six long years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, but, when we came to government in 2013, we took a decision in 2014 to proceed with this airport. Not for us the meandering between Wilton and RAAF Base Richmond and the various other possibilities; the Liberal-National governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales are backing Western Sydney. Labor took Western Sydney for granted. We are backing Western Sydney. (Time expired) Assistant Treasurer 88 15:05 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Why did the Assistant Treasurer say the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume, was being 'indulgent and, quite frankly, bizarre' when she wrote about the difficulties of juggling work and motherhood? 15:05 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I thank the member for her question. I unreservedly apologised to Senator Hume, both privately and publicly, in relation to private messages that were made public. Senator Hume and I have worked very closely together for many years. We have worked very closely together as members of the Treasury team, very cooperatively. She is an outstanding minister, as I have relayed publicly on many occasions. As I said, I made very clearly my regret for those comments being made public. They were incorrect. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The member for Shortland! The minister has the call. Mr SUKKAR 242515 I don't think that's surprising; they were incorrect. It was unfair. Senator Hume is an outstanding minister, and I have apologised to her privately and publicly. COVID-19: Women's Economic Security 88 15:06 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is committed to supporting women's economic participation and security, particularly as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic? 15:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Chisholm for her question, and for her keen interest in recycling. I was with the member for Chisholm at the Burwood Brickworks, where we launched a national battery recycling scheme, which is incredibly important. I thank her for her leadership. We know that women have been disproportionately impacted by this pandemic, from making up the majority of the casual and part-time workforce to working in the industries that are hardest hit by the lockdowns. However, the economy is making a comeback, and Australian women are very much a part of that comeback. I saw that confidence earlier this month when I visited the production room of Australian fashion industry leader Cue, a family owned business, to talk about sustainability and the Morrison government's million-dollar grant to help the industry recycle textile and clothing waste. Nearly 80 per cent of the 489,000 people who work in Australia's fashion industry, from product to retail, are women. It's an industry that has a physical presence in every local shopping centre in every town across the country. Fashion is one of the few professionally led industries dominated by women along every step of the supply chain, but it doesn't have to be the only one. As the Treasurer reminds us, there are more women in work now than there were before the pandemic began—a positive trend that I know members on all sides of the chamber acknowledge. I am confident that Australian women will continue to lead the economic recovery, especially as we hit our vaccination target rates and start to reopen. That recovery depends on jobs, and the Morrison government supports women's participation in the workforce in ways that suit their family, suit their circumstances and suit the pathways they choose for their lives and their vocations. The women's budget this year saw us announce measures from education to training, mentoring, entrepreneurship and child care that removed barriers, invited participation and supported women at every age and every stage of work, family and retirement. The Morrison government will continue to back the choices women make and the economic security they create for themselves and for the nation. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 89 DOCUMENTS Presentation 89 15:10 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. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Reference 89 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I present a schedule showing the allocation to committees of annual reports of government departments and agencies. A copy of the schedule will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows— 46th PARLIAMENT Speaker's Schedule Allocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Government Departments and Agencies, November 2021 Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority) Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Bureau of Meteorology Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Cotton Research and Development Corporation Dairy Australia Limited Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Director of National Parks Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Food Standards Australia New Zealand Forest and Wood Products Council (FWPC) Grains Research and Development Corporation Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Murray-Darling Basin Authority National Environment Protection Council National Rural Advisory Council Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority Regional Investment Corporation Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (trading as AgriFutures Australia) Safemeat Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority Wine Australia Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Tourism Australia Health Portfolio Gene Technology Regulator Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Australian Renewable Energy Agency Clean Energy Finance Corporation Clean Energy Regulator Climate Change Authority Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines Innovation and Science Australia IP Australia Snowy Hydro Ltd Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Workplace Gender Equality Agency Standing Commit tee on Communications and the Arts Attorney-General's Portfolio Commonwealth Ombudsman National Archives of Australia Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) (Export Finance Australia) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio Australia Council for the Arts Australian Broadcasting Corporation Australian Communications and Media Authority Australian Film, Television and Radio School Australian Maritime Safety Authority Australian National Maritime Museum Australian Postal Corporation Bundanon Trust Classification Board and the Classification Review Board Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications National Film and Sound Archive of Australia National Gallery of Australia National Library of Australia National Museum of Australia National Portrait Gallery of Australia NBN Co Limited Office of the eSafety Commissioner Public Lending Right Committee Prime Minister and Cab inet Portfolio Old Parliament House Standing Committee on Economics Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Attorney-General's Portfolio Commonwealth Ombudsman National Archives of Australia Fi nance Portfolio Australian Political Exchange Council Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme Department of Finance Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan Public Sector Superannuation Scheme Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Tourism Australia Health Portfolio Department of Health Home Affairs Portfolio Department of Home Affairs Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Australian National Audit Office Australian Public Service Commission National Australia Day Council Limited Social Services Portfolio Department of Social Services Treasury Portfolio Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Australian Energy Regulator Australian Office of Financial Management Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation Australian Securities and Investments Commission Australian Statistics Advisory Council Australian Taxation Office Commonwealth Grants Commission Department of the Treasury Foreign Investment Review Board National Competition Council Payments System Board Productivity Commission Reserve Bank of Australia Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Takeovers Panel Standing Committee on Employment, Educa tion and Training Attorney-General's Portfolio Attorney-General's Department (Federal Safety Commissioner) Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Australian Building and Construction Commission Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Comcare (incorporates Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission) Commonwealth Ombudsman Fair Work Commission Fair Work Ombudsman and Registered Organisations Commission Entity National Archives of Australia Safe Work Australia Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited Australian National University Australian Research Council Department of Education, Skills and Employment Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Finance Portfolio Future Fund Management Agency Health Portfolio Department of Health Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio Australian Film, Television and Radio School Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Australian Public Service Commission Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Indigenous Business Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation Remuneration Tribunal Workplace Gender Equality Agency Social Services Portfolio Department of Social Services Services Australia Standing Committee on Environment and Energy Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority) Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Murray-Darling Basin Authority National Environment Protection Council Wet Tropics Management Authority Attorney-General's Portfolio Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Tourism Australia Health Portfolio Gene Technology Regulator Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Australian Renewable Energy Agency Clean Energy Finance Corporation Clean Energy Regulator Geoscience Australia National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority Board National Wind Farm Commissioner Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Treasury Portfolio Australian Energy Regulator Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport Attorney-General's Portfolio Safe Work Australia Commonwealth Ombudsman Defence Portfolio Department of Veterans' Affairs Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Australian National University Australian Research Council Health Portfolio Aged Care Pricing Commissioner Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Australian Digital Health Agency Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Australian National Preventive Health Agency Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Australian Sports Commission Australian Sports Foundation Limited Cancer Australia Department of Health Food Standards Australia New Zealand Gene Technology Regulator Independent Hospital Pricing Authority Independent Hospital Pricing Authority Clinical Advisory Committee National Blood Authority National Health and Medical Research Council National Health Funding Body National Mental Health Commission Organ and Tissue Authority Professional Services Review Sport Integrity Australia Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio Indian Ocean Territories Health Service Community Advisory Committee Social Services Portfolio Australian Institute of Family Studies Department of Social Services Hearing Australia National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency (National Disability Insurance Agency) NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Services Australia Treasury Portfolio Australian Bureau of Statistics Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Attorney-General's Portfolio Administrative Appeals Tribunal Attorney-General's Department Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) Australian Financial Security Authority Australian Human Rights Commission Australian Law Reform Commission Commonwealth Ombudsman Fair Work Commission Family Law Council Federal Court of Australia National Archives of Australia Office of Parliamentary Counsel Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Health Portfolio Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Gene Technology Regulator Home Affairs Portfolio Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Australian Federal Police Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Institute of Police Management Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio Classification Board and the Classification Review Board Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office of National Intelligence Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General Workplace Gender Equality Agency Social Services Portfolio Australian Institute of Family Studies Department of Social Services Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority) Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Cotton Research and Development Corporation Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Director of National Parks Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Grains Research and Development Corporation Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Murray-Darling Basin Authority Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority Regional Investment Corporation Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (trading as AgriFutures Australia) Wine Australia Attorney-General's Portfolio Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Federal Court of Australia (National Native Title Tribunal) Defence Portfolio Defence Housing Australia Department of Defence Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Australian Skills Quality Authority (National Vocational Education and Training Regulator) Department of Education, Skills and Employment Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) (Export Finance Australia) Tourism Australia Health Portfolio Australian Digital Health Agency Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Department of Health Food Standards Australia New Zealand Home Affairs Portfolio Australian Federal Police Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Renewable Energy Agency Geoscience Australia National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority Board Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio Airservices Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited Australian Transport Safety Bureau Civil Aviation Safety Authority Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Indian Ocean Territories Health Service Community Advisory Committee Infrastructure Australia National Faster Rail Agency NBN Co Limited Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Aboriginal Hostels Limited Anindilyakwa Land Council Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Central Land Council Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Indigenous Business Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency National Indigenous Australians Agency Northern Land Council Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner Outback Stores Pty Ltd Tiwi Land Council Torres Strait Regional Authority Soci al Services Portfolio Department of Social Services Treasury Portfolio Australian Energy Regulator Foreign Investment Review Board Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority) Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority Attorney-General's Por tfolio Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Department of Education, Skills and Employment Health Portfolio Department of Health Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Aboriginal Hostels Limited Anindilyakwa Land Council Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Central Land Council Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Indigenous Business Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation National Indigenous Australians Agency Northern Land Council Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner Outback Stores Pty Ltd Tiwi Land Council Torres Strait Regional Authority Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council S ocial Services Portfolio Department of Social Services Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio Bureau of Meteorology Cotton Research and Development Corporation Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Grains Research and Development Corporation Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Murray-Darling Basin Authority Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (trading as AgriFutures Australia) Defence Portfolio Department of Defence Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Australian National University Australian Research Council Australian Skills Quality Authority (National Vocational Education and Training Regulator) Department of Education, Skills and Employment Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Health Portfolio Australian Digital Health Agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand Gene Technology Regulator National Health and Medical Research Council Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Australian Renewable Energy Agency Clean Energy Finance Corporation Clean Energy Regulator Climate Change Authority Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Geoscience Australia Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines Innovation and Science Australia IP Australia National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority Board National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator National Wind Farm Commissioner Snowy Hydro Ltd Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Finance Portfolio Australian Electoral Commission Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Attorney-General's Portfolio Attorney-General's Department Australian Human Rights Commission Commonwealth Ombudsman Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Defence Portfolio Army Amenities Fund Company (Trustee of Army Amenities Fund and Messes Trust Fund) Army and Air Force Canteen Service Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited Australian War Memorial Defence Housing Australia Defence Services Homes Insurance Scheme Department of Defence Department of Veterans' Affairs Director of Military Prosecutions Inspector-General ADF Office of the Judge Advocate General and Deputy Judge Advocate Generals Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Welfare Recreational Company Royal Australian Air Force (RAFF) Veterans Residences Trust Fund Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Board (incorporates Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund) Veterans' Review Board Finance Portfolio ASC Pty Ltd (Australian Submarine Corporation) Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme Department of Finance Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office Australian Secret Intelligence Service Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) (Export Finance Australia) Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development Advisory Board Tourism Australia Home Affairs Portfolio Australian Federal Police Department of Home Affairs Office of the Special Investigator Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Joint Standing Committee on Migration Attorney-General's Portfolio Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration and Refugee Division) Commonwealth Ombudsman Defence Portfolio Department of Defence Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio Department of Education, Skills and Employment Finance Portfolio Department of Finance Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Health Portfolio Department of Health Home Affairs Portfolio Australian Federal Police Department of Home Affairs National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters Social Services Portfolio Department of Social Services Treasury Portfolio Department of the Treasury Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital & External Territories Agriculture, Water and the Environment portfolio Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment Director of National Parks Bureau of Meteorology Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio Indian Ocean Territories Health Service Community Advisory Committee National Capital Authority Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Geoscience Australia Joint Standing Committee on Trade & Investment Growth Attorney-General's Portfolio Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Finance Portfolio Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Department of Finance Future Fund Management Agency Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) (Export Finance Australia) Tourism Australia Treasury Portfolio Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Australian Office of Financial Management Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Australian Securities and Investments Commission Australian Taxation Office Commonwealth Grants Commission Department of the Treasury Foreign Investment Review Board National Competition Council Productivity Commission Reserve Bank of Australia Takeovers Panel Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Finance Portfolio Future Fund Management Agency Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) (Export Finance Australia) Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Portfolio Innovation and Science Australia Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Developm ent and Communications Portfolio Airservices Australia Australian Maritime Safety Authority Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited Australian Transport Safety Bureau Civil Aviation Safety Authority Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Infrastructure Australia Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited National Capital Authority National Faster Rail Agency National Transport Commission WSA Co Limited Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Treasury Portfolio Australian Energy Regulator Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue Finance Portfolio Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Department of Finance Future Fund Management Agency Treasury Portfolio Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Office of Financial Management Australian Taxation Office Commonwealth Grants Commission Department of the Treasury Inspector-General of Taxation Productivity Commission Committee acronyms   DOCUMENTS 106 DOCUMENTS Australian National Audit Office 106 Presentation 106 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the corrigendum to the Australian National Audit Office annual report for 2020-21. Auditor-General 106 Presentation 106 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the corrigenda to the Auditor-General's information report No. 7 of 2021-22, entitled Australian governments grants reporting; and Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 8 of 2021-22, entitled Use and administration of wage subsidies: Department of Education, Skills and Employment. STATEMENTS 106 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 106 15:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I wish to give a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 I do. The SPEAKER 00APG You may proceed. Mr ALBANESE R36 In question time today, the Prime Minister said: … I texted him from the plane when I was going on that leave and told him where I was going … Mr Speaker, that is not true. On 15 December 2019 at 9.44 pm, the Prime Minister did text me saying he was going on leave. He did not tell me where he was going. He said he was going with his family. I kept that text message confidential, as you do with private text messages between private phones. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition needs to show where he has been misrepresented. Mr ALBANESE R36 On the Friday, he disclosed in an interview with 2GB that he had texted me, and that was the first time that that became public. But at no stage did he tell me where he was going. 15:12 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook on indulgence—Where I was going was on leave. That was the importance of the text message sent to the Leader of the Opposition. He knew I was taking leave. I told him I was taking leave. He chose to politicise that and has done so ever since. The SPEAKER 00APG We now have another personal explanation—hopefully my last personal explanation! Personal Explanation 106 15:12 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Hughes claim to have been misrepresented? Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Too many times to mention, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hughes has the call. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Last week on 17 November the radio station 2GB, during their news bulletin broadcast, issued the following statement: 'Former federal MP Craig Kelly will spend the night in custody. He will face court tomorrow, charged over an alleged migration fraud racket.' This is untrue. I can confirm that I did not spend the night in custody. I confirm that I did not face court over an alleged migration fraud racket. It appears somehow that 2GB have substituted my name multiple times for that of the former, disgraced Labor MP Craig Thomson. Secondly, on the same day, Business News from Western Australia published the following statement online: 'Former Labor MP Craig Kelly could face time in jail after being charged as the primary facilitator of "migration fraud scheme"'. This is false. In addition to the personal explanation I've given above in regard to 2GB's broadcast, I've never been a Labor MP. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 107 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Speaker of the House of Representatives 107 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I just want to make a few brief remarks to you all while you're here. Just over six years and three months ago, I had the honour of being elected the 30th Speaker of this House of Representatives. As you know from my announcement when we last sat, today will be my last day in the chair before I rejoin you on the floor as the government member for Casey. As such, my statement today, here, from the Speaker's chair, is not a valedictory. I'll do that separately from the floor of the House in the parliamentary months ahead. For this reason, I'll confine my remarks today to thanking a number of people here in Parliament House who have performed critical roles during my speakership. Without them and their great support and advice, I couldn't have done the job that I've done. I thank the former Clerk, David Elder, who was there when I was first elected in sudden and unexpected circumstances and for everything else that followed, from lost votes to tied votes leading to casting votes; to the by-elections due to section 44 of the Constitution, including, as many of you would recall, a record five on one day. I thank the Clerk, Claressa Surtees, who's worked with me the entire time of my speakership. I thank her for her equally wise counsel. She has led a hardworking and dedicated team that's ensured that this House of Representatives kept sitting during this pandemic for you and through you for the Australian people. Can I thank all of the House staff, including the Serjeant, the Deputy Clerk and the attendants who have worked directly with me and my office. I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their friendship and support. I think it's helped the House that we've known each other a long time. In the case of the Prime Minister, we became great mates when I was first running for election in 2001 and—we can both now reveal—when I wanted some alternative campaigning advice from him because I didn't quite trust some of the advice I was getting. You know how nervous candidates get! In the case of Leader of the Opposition, we met shortly after that election. From memory, it started with him saying he thought the only thing we had in common was the fact that we were both named Anthony. But we built a strong friendship from there. I thank the Treasurer for his longstanding friendship from our time as advisers, now as colleagues and, as always—as he reminds me regularly—as Carlton supporters. I can tell you he is as loud at the football as he is here, but unfortunately I'm powerless to do anything about that. Can I also say I simply don't have another friend on the planet who texts or apps me so frequently. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG It sounds like you're contesting it! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has known me for 35 years. We've always been opponents, but we've always been mates. Can I say to all of you—being a friend with someone who holds a different political view does not mean you dilute your views or your values. Can I thank the Leader of the House, who I have worked closely with in recent months and who I've been a friend and colleague with for 20 years. I want to thank my friend the Manager of Opposition Business, who I've also worked closely with for the benefit of the House through my entire speakership. He's been the one constant over the six years and three months. We got to know each other really well and worked on a basis of trust, and I want to thank him for the role he played in ensuring the cooperation and the procedures and processes that helped to put in place the bipartisan nature to ensure that we were able to keep sitting through COVID. I thank the Deputy Speaker. I thank the former deputy speakers. I worked closely with you all. I want to thank the Whips, Bert and Chris, and your teams for all the work you've done during this difficult and trying period with the COVID pandemic. I thank former presidents of the Senate Parry and Ryan. Both are great friends—in the case of the latter, for more than 25 years. I thank the President of the Senate, Slade Brockman, who's been President, of course, only for a few weeks. I also thank the Department of Parliamentary Services, led by Rob Stefanic, with whom I've worked very closely for the entire time of my speakership. The department has overseen massive building and security upgrades, and embarked on a range of necessary reforms. Of course, I want to thank my Liberal Party colleagues here in the House for their support in nominating me for this role, particularly the Prime Minister, who supported me so strongly when I first put up my hand. Finally, I thank my own staff, led by the incredible Cate Clunies-Ross. We met many years ago and worked together in the Howard government. When I appointed her my chief of staff, I told her that I wanted her to be frank and blunt with me about my performance and approach. She did not ponder this. She's never wavered, and that's been to my benefit and, can I say, to the benefit of the House. Cate, over those six years and three months, has fostered a magnificent Speaker's office team. You'd appreciate there were many staff over that period of time, but I just want to mention some long-standing advisors: Claudine Wedgwood-Gills, Stewart Woodley, Belinda McInnes and Raymond Knight. I knew that Cate could be as impartial as I wanted to be and have sought to be, and she has. She and my office have worked closely with all members on both sides of the House. Can I say—it might surprise you—that Cate and all of the staff have also dealt with some difficult people in this building at times, including some in this House, but always with great professionalism. Colleagues, I've at all times sought to operate fairly, consistently and predictably. Of course, today is my last sitting day. Tomorrow morning, I will visit the Governor-General to tender my resignation first thing in the morning. Thank you. See you on the floor tomorrow. 15:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Mr Speaker, I know you don't want us to make a fuss, so I will seek to respect that wish, as I'm sure others will. You are the longest serving Speaker of my generation, and I suspect we have seen the finest Speaker that this parliament has had the great opportunity to witness in action. That may be a contested proposition; I suspect it will be, but it's certainly my view. Mr Speaker, you have demonstrated that any member in this place can make a difference, and you have sought, through your carriage of that important chair, to do everything you can to facilitate members making that contribution. We all come here with hopes and aspirations. We all come here full of energy and belief and ambition for the things that we want to achieve for our country. In this place, there is an opportunity to give expression to that, both in what we say in this place but also in how we act and vote in this place. You have ensured at all times, as you said you would, that you would give a fair go to all on the floor of this chamber. That's what you said when you were first coming into this role in August of 2015. You said, 'I'll bring to this place, to the best of my ability, a better parliament'. I believe you've achieved that, and I could not be prouder, as one of those, together with Christopher Pyne and many others many years ago, who came together and supported your candidacy in the way that that occurred. I'm sure they would join me in saying: we got that one absolutely right. It was well supported across the government party room, Mr Speaker. Ultimately, as history has gone on to prove, you are the only Speaker, other than Sir Frederick Holder, who was elected unopposed three times in a row. The last time that happened was 1909. I think that says a lot, Mr Speaker, about the way that you have carried yourself in this place. It says a lot about your meticulous attention to detail. It says a lot about your understanding of the motivations and good faith that have been brought, I believe, into this chamber each day, as we each come in here and seek to discharge our duties as we best see fit. You've been a great servant and enabler of that. You've understood that role. This has not been a place from which you've sought to look down on this chamber and lord it over this chamber. You've engaged with this chamber as one of equals, coming here with all the same motivations, and seeking to ensure that other members of this place could realise what you've always hoped to achieve in your presence here and why you first put your hand up to be a member of this place. So on behalf of all the members here I want to thank you for that. I want to thank you for the way you saw the role, for the way that you engaged with the role and for the way that you engaged with all of us in enabling that to be the outcome. I believe that's why you've been so successful, and that's why you have earnt the respect of not just the people in this chamber but also those who look on this chamber. In many ways, I think they've seen you as their advocate in this place and that you are acting on their behalf to ensure this chamber operates in the way that they would hope it would. So, while one of us, you've also been one with them, I think, over that period of time that you have been Speaker. So I want to thank you for that. I also want to thank you and, through you, all of those who've assisted you—as you've named them and thanked them yourself personally. This has not been an ordinary time to be Speaker. And I look around this very table now, with the perspex here and the masked members of this place—and, thankfully, far more of them who have been here for most of the last two years are now back in this chamber. You have had to navigate that and lead that. I know how closely you've worked with the President of the Senate, the Chief Medical Officer of the ACT and the Chief Medical Officer and ensured that this place continued to function as best it possibly could while still respecting the very important principles of presence in this place. The parliament is a public place and should be a public place. With what we say, on what side of the aisle we cross and where we sit and where we vote, there is a transparency which is inherent in the Westminster system. You ensured that during this difficult period we retained all of that tradition and all of those principles while adapting to some very difficult circumstances, and I want to thank you on behalf of all members for achieving that. Mr Speaker, I want to wish you and Pam and the boys all the very best. But the time for that will come a little later, because I'm looking forward to welcoming you back into the government party room tomorrow and to see you there sitting amongst us where you began. And I'm looking forward to you sharing your views on debates, as I know you're very keen to do, particularly as we go forward into next year's election, and working closely with the party in seeking to ensure that the seat you've so ably represented over all these years will continue to be represented by a Liberal member. I want to thank you for your dedication to party. I want to thank you for your dedication to the parliament. I want to thank you for your dedication to each and every member of this House and for the way that you have engaged with us and the dedication and professionalism with which you've applied yourself to this task. You have set a very, very high bar, I think, for those who will follow you. I know they will look to that standard and will be challenged by it, but I think they will equally be encouraged by it. That's what we should all do: seek those high standards and ensure that we continue to work ably each and every day that we have the opportunity to achieve them. So well done on great service to our country. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 15:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, this is a bittersweet moment. The respect and affection in which you are held on both sides of the House is as rare as it is earned, and with good reason. Some decisions made in this place fall into what Gareth Evans once called the 'streaker's defence'—in other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Your election unopposed as Speaker, though, was a good idea that has looked even better over time, which is why you've achieved that honour three times. You have not so much redefined the role as restored it. As you put it that day, once you'd settled into that very high chair: I make that point because often people say parliament shouldn't be robust. It should but it need not be rude and it need not be loud. That is something I would like to see improve. And then you said something that encapsulated your approach. You said: I cannot do that, but together we all can. A good Speaker is a bit like a good ref: you don't want to watch them; you want to watch the play. And you have been an outstanding Speaker. Like other leadership positions, the role of Speaker is to bring parliament together, rather than divide it. You followed a divisive Speaker—that's the truth—which only made your determination to lift the standard of the parliament even more important, and unity is always better than division. Whoever follows you will have a difficult task because of the quality of your performance. The job of Speaker is a demanding one. The first speaker, Frederick Holder, actually died in the chamber, making an exit worthy of Heart of Darkness as he uttered his final words, 'Dreadful, dreadful.' The Canberra Times called it Australia's shortest prominent political speech. So there are worse ways to leave than the way that you are, Mr Speaker! Your title may be 'Speaker', but you have been a careful listener. You have weighed up what is before you with great care and thought, with dry humour, with wisdom and, importantly, with authority. You are, in the best sense of the word, a parliamentarian. I believe that's an honourable title. Not everyone who is elected to this place does love the parliament. Your love for Australia is expressed by that love for this parliament. You understand how at its best it represents the aspirations of Australians. You've always sought to ensure that it turns those aspirations into reality as best it can—a parliament that debates, a parliament that legislates, a parliament that gets things done, because that is our best way of bringing about positive, lasting change in this country. I've always thought that a good Speaker helps the government of the day, because it's about order and about getting things done, and that helps the government of the day. So it is an irony, I think, that partisanship actually hurts the government of the day, and I think in all of your decisions, Mr Speaker—most of which I've agreed with, but 100 per cent of which I have understood—there has never been any question whatsoever that you have taken those decisions with integrity and without partisanship. It is to your great credit, Mr Speaker, that you have done that, because it is a hard thing to do. You believe in the Westminster system that we inherited and made into something that is truly ours. We can't take for granted our democracy, our voting rights, our universal suffrage. Whole parts of the world do not enjoy what we enjoy in this country—the fact that we'll have an election, like we have them, which will determine the way forward. We have one vote, one value. It's precious. It must be strengthened and protected, and a core part of that is respect, not to treat it as an imposition on the people but to cherish it as one of the greatest means we have of achieving our full potential as a nation. It's worth turning back to 13 February 2002, to your first speech in parliament. You said: We will have differences about the best means to tackle the inevitable problems which all parliaments confront, but we should have no difference at all on the proposition that, in our short history, Australians have created a truly special nation that is the envy of the world. That's an important idea. While we have our differences, it is important to find our common points and to make more of them. There's so much that happens here more quietly: the cooperation, the shared desire to find a better way. You were determined that, in spite of a pandemic, this parliament would meet, and the respective leaders of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business cooperated with you to make sure that that was able to occur. Not all parliaments around the world met. Some of them shut down, including here in Australia, for longer than is healthy in a democracy, in my view. You were determined to make sure that it happened. That spirit isn't just contained within the walls of this building but is spread throughout every electorate across our continent. Throughout it all, you have kept your feet on the ground, as befits a Carlton supporter. A few months after you became Speaker, you reminisced about what it was like being a humble MP at the other end of the boot, and I hope you don't have to revisit this. As you put it: 'I hope Mum does not mind me saying this, but she used to get terribly upset when I got kicked out. She'd ring me up and tell me off.' I only hope the phone calls got better after that! You never wanted to be a conspicuous Speaker, but your absence from the chair will be felt very keenly. I must say the only positive thing that I thought when you informed me of the decision that you were about to announce was, 'Oh, well, we'll have a crack now at your seat,' because I am sure that we would never have beaten you in that electorate because of the regard in which you have been held. I thank you as well, Mr Speaker, for visiting my electorate, including Birchgrove Public School to talk to the students there with me in a friendly way so that those students walked away from that day thinking, 'Hey, people from different sides of the fence can get on and can talk about our democracy and our processes.' You were very welcome and you will always be welcome in my electorate or, indeed, in my home as a friend. Whoever follows you will have considerable shoes to fill. They will feel the expectations of the Australian people to uphold the standing orders and to act in the interests of the whole parliament and all it represents, just as you have done. So, on behalf of all of us on this side of the House, thank you. 15:36 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Thank you, Mr Speaker; I genuinely mean that. As you have stated, this is not a requiem but a return to the seat of Casey, and that in itself is a statement of your character—that you would spend the remainder of your political career going back to serve the people who gave you the incredible honour of representing them here. Some of the advice I always give to people when they come here is that you play rugby in the chamber and you play rugby on 7.30, but you don't play rugby in the corridor. Everybody, once they leave here, should work in a collegiate way; otherwise, this place really would be a nasty place to live and work. Nonetheless, you have to manage the rugby in the chamber, and it is an adversarial chamber by its very nature. We have to walk that fine line between being boorish and boring. One you do not want to listen to and the other one you can't be bothered listening to. No doubt on 94(a) you've worn out the manual there, but there are other interesting standing orders which we have tested you with, 14(a) being one of them. Your capacity, your acute mind and your adroit and insightful process of looking over the standing orders, understanding them, being across them and giving articulate reference to them have given you the capacity to be held in great stead throughout this building because people respected your decisions. Alongside understanding the standing orders also came a discerning capacity to hear the calls of the wild and to understand who was making an interjection without necessarily having to see them do it. We have all had occasions when you have managed to call us out even when we've had masks on, which gave us some form of protection. But, nonetheless, you can still find us! You returned the place from being a crazy jungle back to a more genteel wood, and I think people by reason of their respect for you have respected your rulings and your orders. That has held our parliament up in a better light. You set a standard that you are now offering as a legacy for who you are and also an adornment, hopefully, for what comes after you. No doubt people will be referring back to and using your time as a juxtaposition to their efforts. No doubt that will be a very high bar to jump. This parliament is watched by so many. One evening I once made the fatal mistake here of saying, 'If anybody's watching this, please ring my office,' and they did. In fact, the phone just about rang off the hook. What that means, of course, is that our actions in here are relayed far and wide. Our nation is defined by many things, and it is defined by the actions within this parliament. Therefore, it's vitally important that the actions of this parliament reflect Australia: its colour and the capacity for the great debaters and the great people who are powerful in the art of rhetoric—from Keating to Costello. That is part of the colour of parliament, and a speaker has to find that line between it so that people find the process something more palatable and something they can get through. Mr Speaker, you have presided over how we have been seen here, and, I believe, in your time in the seat, you have shown Australia a better side of all of our nation. 15:41 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Tony, as you observed, we've known each other for 35 years, which is a pretty confronting number. I would like to assert it's because we went to preschool together, but, sadly, that would be misleading the House! When I first arrived at Melbourne University on the first day of O-week in 1986, I was naive. I tended to see things in black and white, good and bad. I perhaps hadn't yet seen the whole world in its full colour. But at least that provided me, in my sense of the world of politics, with a set of simple, comforting truths. Those of us who were lined up at the Labor club desk obviously believed in fairness, compassion and justice. We were selfless and virtuous. Those who were lining up at the Liberal club desk were obviously in it for themselves. They were only about the money. They were completely selfish. Then I met Tony Smith, who was a confusing proposition. To start with, I remember saying to Tony: 'Mate, you are a Liberal. You're driving a red Monaro and you've got a mullet. What the hell!' I remember speaking to some friends afterwards and saying, 'I think I just met a nice Liberal.' They said: 'Are you sure? A nice Liberal? I mean, how would that even work?' From the very outset, the concept of Tony Smith has been challenging me throughout my political life. To be clear: virtue does live on this side of the House. But if he can be a good bloke, then maybe there are some others of you over there who are actually decent people. As it turns out, Tony and I have a lot in common. We were born four months apart. Our fathers taught at the schools that we both attended. Tony's dad was a chemistry teacher. My dad was a maths teacher. We were both the youngest in our families, with older sisters who both thought we were spoiled. We both attended Melbourne University, starting in exactly the same year. And we even passionately support footy teams which share the same colours. Maybe that does explain why his politics is a bit more benign than the rest of your lot's! But Tony is no stranger to the partisan contest. That's important because in a democratic two-party system it matters that the parties compete, and, over the last 20 years, that's exactly what Tony has done in a seat which the Liberals cannot take for granted but which Tony Smith has made his own. Tony sat on John Howard's front bench. He was a shadow minister during the Rudd and Gillard years. He knows all about the partisan contest and how it is practised. But, in a larger sense, as we engage in our partisan activities we do so in the service of a greater democracy, which is embodied by this parliament and by the idea of being an Australian parliamentarian in the service of the whole nation. That idea, in my humble opinion, comes closest to capturing the spirit of Tony Smith. That is why, when in 2015 Tony became Mr Speaker, it was as if he were made for the job. Mr Speaker's intelligence had him across the standing orders and the procedures in no time. But much more importantly than that, Speaker, your integrity, your honour and the fundamental decency that characterises who you are meant that, almost immediately, you had the confidence of this entire House in a way that I had never seen before. When I think about you and me sitting back there at the Melbourne uni SRC back in 1988, and when I look at you sitting there right now, I feel so proud of you, because you have risen, truly, to be a giant. The fact that on three separate occasions you have been elected unopposed to the speakership of this House is just one sign of why you stand apart in modern times as perhaps being the greatest Speaker of them all. And so, Mr Speaker, in this role we will miss you very much. Good luck in the future. I know that you have a few more months as the member for Casey, but farewell, my friend. You leave this seat with the rarest of achievements, because you genuinely go with the heartfelt goodwill and best wishes of every single member of this place. 15:46 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Mr Speaker, it's a great honour to follow in the footsteps of the previous speakers. Some fine words have been spoken about you, Mr Speaker, and rightly so. Many of us have known you for a long period of time, and it will come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the Speaker has gone around individually to us and given specific writing instructions about the length of these speeches and their composition—'Don't overdo it and don't speak for too long.' He's been very dedicated to this place right to his last moment in that chair. Mr Speaker, you and I came into the parliament in 2001, 20 years ago, and I can give somewhat of a rare insight to follow on from the member for Corio's personal reflection on his time having known the Speaker. As flatmates, Mr Speaker, you, Steven Ciobo and I started out in this place, and I can say for the benefit of those members here that there were two rowdy people in that household and you were not one of them. Steven Ciobo and I and others—as I look across, I can implicate some on the other side as well—used to, on occasion, go to the Holy Grail on a Wednesday night. There are some people smiling and some looking down. But, on our return to the unit, you weren't flustered. We didn't disturb you, and it did not make you miss a beat on your regimented scheme and life. You departed our unit at the same time every morning to come up to the House to embark on your exercise program and apply yourself in a disciplined way to this vocation. I think that, Mr Speaker, demonstrates your great capacity. I think there is an enormous amount to be said of your sense of history and intellect, which have been referred to before—your sense of political history, particularly American political history, and your sense of belief and of adherence to beliefs and a structure that is rarely seen in public life. Mr Speaker, there is a lot that's been said today that reflects on this being a one-in-100-year event. We talk about those events, but this is a one-in-100-year event. The way in which you have been selected by this parliament and honoured by this parliament is a reflection on your own character. I want to mention, very quickly, your friendship with Peter Costello. I know that that has been a significant influence on your time in this place, and that friendship endures to this day. He is a dear friend and mentor of yours, and you've honoured that relationship, and I know that he values that very much also. He has a lot to be proud of as well. I worked with Peter Costello, as many of us did over a long period of time. He doesn't suffer fools. He insisted on a staff body of people of the highest calibre—those with a great intellect, those with a great political capacity—and the capacity and capability that he desired, you delivered. There are many others from that office that have gone on to great things as well. He was well served by you, Mr Speaker, and in turn we have, by your service here, a lot to owe you and a lot to owe him and your staff. I also want to pay tribute to your staff, with whom Tony Burke and I work very closely, and pay respect to them, because they have provided you with support on this journey as well. It's not an easy job. Many people have made reference to that. Without good staff, none of us can perform within our individual roles. The most compelling element to your service has been the way in which you have honoured our Westminster system. There is a lot that's been written and a lot that's been said in Australian public life about politicians and how we're regarded by the public. I believe that this is an incredibly noble profession. We have sometimes not put our best foot forward or have not displayed the best qualities of this place during question time, but we live in one of the greatest countries in the world. You have approached your job in a way that has lifted the standard in this House and has reflected favourably upon us and our generation with the Australian people. I think that is a great credit to you and your values and, as I say, your sense of history and the character that you've brought to this job. I wish you very well in your remaining hours in this role and I wish you well in your continuing months as the member for Casey. You've been a fine local member, and there will be a lot more said about that in due course. Thank you for the way in which you've approached your office, for the way in which you've engaged with us and for the service that you have undertaken in your country's name. 15:51 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I know you don't want this moment terribly, and a few people have reflected on that. But this parliament's not really good at moments of grace, and we're getting one now, and it's only because of you. And that needs to be noted. From the moment you took that chair, that chair that is seated above the rest of us, you never looked down on the parliament that you have presided over. There are many people here who pay attention to the parliament in different ways; there are a few people who really value parliamentary debate and the parliament itself. Whenever some people have tried to stifle parliamentary debate or wreck it in different ways, you have been a handbrake on that and a handbrake on making sure that this place, as close as possible and within your power, was able to function as a parliament. Speaker Holder was elected three times unopposed. There is another record that hasn't been referred to but is yours as well: nominated by a government backbencher, seconded by an opposition backbencher. It's only happened twice; it happened with Speaker Holder and it happened with you. It's because you have been a Speaker who has not belonged to one side of the politics when you have been in the chair; you've belonged to the House. And that's been appreciated and acknowledged. It doesn't mean that everybody has liked every decision that you've made. You have used 94(a) on 730 occasions— The SPEAKER 00APG There's still time yet! Mr BURKE DYW 37 government and 693 opposition, with Graham Perrett on 49. If you'd punted him today, he would have made his 50! I will say that you haven't been afraid to throw out ministers—the minister for communications twice; the minister for government services and the Assistant Treasurer each kicked out once; and former minister Michael Keenan was kicked out and then eventually decided to not come back. You punted me once, and you were right to. It was after I took a point of order on the Deputy Prime Minister, not for the purposes of raising anything procedurally but because I thought he needed to take a breath. And it was fair to kick me out for that. There have been a series of changes during COVID where, be in no doubt, had someone else been in the chair, we might not have been able to bring the sides together. Had someone else been in the chair, the parliament might not have been able to sit. That is a fundamental change to what democracy would have been over the last two years. At different points, where one party or the other was being difficult, you did bring us together. As a result, the democracy has been the better for it. I do want to acknowledge just a couple of other moments. First of all, when the medevac legislation came before the House, you were put in a very difficult position. You were given legal advice and decided to table it not at the moment the debate occurred but at the beginning of the MPI and then to allow the House to make its decisions as to how it would handle that. I know you didn't do that for the purposes of the legislation—it did make a fundamental difference to people's lives that you did that—but the purpose for which you did it was the purpose that the Speaker is meant to be accountable for; you did it to allow the House to make its own decision, and it did. Similarly, you were in the chair for three glorious hours on 1 September 2016 during a magnificent moment of democracy where we debated whether or not there should be a banking royal commission when the opposition temporarily had the numbers on the floor, a moment we cherish and reflect back on as often as we can. Similarly, when the surprise happened, the moment Mr Llew O'Brien left the room—I nominated him—it put you in a situation of setting some new precedents, and you did so fairly. We're terribly grateful to your staff. We've relied on your staff and worked with your staff closely over the years. Very few members would be aware as to how many decisions are made about members' welfare and protecting people in different ways and protecting staff in different ways. Your office has been a huge part of that. The last time I can remember someone voluntarily choosing to leave six months prior to the end of a term was Bob Halverson. The position for the remaining six months went to the National Party as a reflection on the coalition government of the importance of the National Party on that occasion. We'll see what happens tomorrow. I will say, Mr Speaker, the respect that you have around the House is rare, and it is earned. If, on your way to Government House tomorrow, you discover that the COMCARs can't get through and there is a blockade, it'll be 150 of us. 15:56 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne A lot has been said about your fairness in applying rulings. Can I say, as a member of the crossbench, I certainly felt at every stage that applied to us as well and it applied to me. I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it's intended: I felt that, when you did me over, I always understood why. And, if I didn't, you'd explain it to me. There certainly has been a strong sense, speaking on my own behalf, that we could rely on you acting predictably and following the rules. In the context of a growing crossbench and tied votes and votes that have gone against the way that governments have wanted—and that might happen more often from time to time—being able to rely on that was critical. I think, if I can say it in this speech, perhaps not enough has been said of your wit, and it has certainly made time go faster here on those days when it has dragged. I've seen some speakers before, and we've had some speakers that were funny. I'm not sure they were trying to be. But I think you have always managed to make the debate more robust through your humour and through your wit, and I just wanted to acknowledge that. One other matter that certainly made a difference to me as a local member has been your commitment to education and parliamentary education, especially amongst schools. I know that a couple of schools in my electorate have benefited greatly from your intervention and your office's willingness to come and help and support them while they were up here or to get them up here. If you've done that for me, I suspect you've done that for many others across the chamber as well. I think there are a lot of people across this country who are very, very grateful for you extending your support on that. Lastly, if I could ask a final question of you, Mr Speaker, I ask you to convey to your staff, certainly on behalf of me and, I expect, on behalf of many members of the crossbench as well, thanks for their willingness and openness to engage with us, especially in the context, as I said, where parliaments are used to operating in a certain way. With a growing crossbench, I know that throws up questions that speakers in particular and others have to deal with. They've always been open and willing to engage and they've allowed us to have access to you, and that has, I think, made this place operate far better and far more democratically. So could I ask you to convey to your staff our sincere thanks for all their work over the years. The SPEAKER 00APG Thank you to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all other speakers. It's very humbling. I'll be in the chair for the adjournment debate tonight. As I said, we'll go to Yarralumla first thing in the morning, and I'll see you back here at 12 noon tomorrow. Thank you. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 113 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Prime Minister's Office 113 16:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I wish to add to an answer. I want to confirm what the Leader of the Opposition said—that, in that text, I did not tell him the destination of where I was going on leave with my family; I simply communicated to him that I was taking leave. When I referred to him knowing where I was going and being fully aware I was travelling with my family, what I meant was that we were going on leave together. I know I didn't tell him where we were going, because where members take leave is a private matter. I know I didn't tell him the destination, nor would I, and nor would he expect me to have told him where I was going. I simply told him that I was taking leave with my family, and he was aware of that at that time. COMMITTEES 114 COMMITTEES Human Rights Committee 114 Report 114 16:01 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 13 of 2021. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr WEBSTER 281688 by leave—I am pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 13th scrutiny report of 2021, which was tabled out of session on 10 November. As usual, this report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In this report the committee has considered 37 new bills and 79 new legislative instruments, and commented on two bills and two legislative instruments. As I've previously noted, this committee has continued its important scrutiny work through the COVID-19 pandemic, including by regularly meeting remotely via teleconference, tabling scrutiny reports out of session—as was done with this report—and continuing to scrutinise the many legislative measures which have been introduced to address the unprecedented health crisis. In this report, for example, the committee considered the Biosecurity (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Amendment (No. 2) Determination 2021, which provides an exemption from the overseas travel ban for persons who have completed a course of COVID-19 vaccination at least seven days prior to travelling and can provide evidence of this. By adding an automatic exemption from the travel ban for vaccinated travellers, the committee considers the measure promotes the right to freedom of movement and the right to a private life. However, as there are those who are currently ineligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, namely children aged under 12 and a small number of people with recognised medical contraindications to the vaccines, not providing an automatic exemption from the travel ban for these groups may constitute indirect discrimination on the basis of age or disability. As such, the committee is seeking further information as to the compatibility of the measure with the right to equality and non-discrimination. The committee also commented on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021. This bill imposes additional requirements before a person can cast their vote, including presenting identification documents. The committee notes that, as a matter of law, no voter will be denied a vote for not having appropriate identification. However, these additional requirements engage and may limit the right to take part in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. I note that the bill introduces some important safeguards—for example, a number of identity documents are accepted and no voter is denied a vote for not having an acceptable form of identification. However, while this measure seeks to protect against voter fraud, reduce inadvertent mistakes and ensure public confidence in the federal electoral system, the committee considers it is unclear whether it addresses a pressing and substantial concern, such that it amounts to a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law, and whether it is proportionate. The committee has not yet concluded its assessment of this bill and is seeking further information regarding these questions. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis. With these comments, I commend this report to the chambers. 16:05 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton by leave—I rise to make some comments, as deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Human rights scrutiny report: Report 13 of 2021. I thank the very capable chair, the member for Mallee, for her contribution. As stated by the member for Mallee, this report makes some preliminary remarks and seeks further information about two bills and two legislative instruments. I will make some remarks on these bills and one of these instruments. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 seeks to introduce voter identification requirements at elections. This would require a person voting at prepoll or on polling day to have proof of identification before they are allowed to exercise their democratic right to vote. If they cannot provide the required proof of identity, and there is no-one to attest to their identity, they will be unable to cast their vote. We are one of the oldest continuous democracies on earth. In a healthy democracy like Australia, any rules that will make it more difficult for citizens to cast their votes—voting is compulsory—are troubling and deserve the keen scrutiny of parliament through the committee process. The preliminary legal advice this committee has received confirms that the proposed measure: … engages and may limit the right to take part in public affairs and the right to equality and non-discrimination. In particular, it says: The right to take part in public affairs includes guarantees of the right of citizens to vote in elections … and is an essential part of democratic government that is accountable to the people. That right is subject only to reasonable restrictions, such as a minimum age for voting. The right to take part in public affairs may be permissibly limited where a measure seeks to achieve a legitimate objective, is rationally connected to … that objective, and is a proportionate means by which to achieve it. The committee has also been advised that this measure 'may limit the right to equality and non-discrimination' by disproportionately disadvantaging certain groups who are unable to confirm their identity. For instance, a 2014 report prepared for the New South Wales Electoral Commission on multiple voting and voter identification identified numerous challenges that certain groups may face in providing documentation, including people with no fixed address, people with disability, people of low socio-economic status, people from non-English backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, significantly, women escaping domestic violence. It is questionable that this measure addresses a legitimate objective. The Australian Electoral Commissioner recently stated that the level of multiple voting is 'vanishingly small'. There is a real concern that this measure may in fact reduce public confidence in the electoral system and discourage some voters from voting because of the idea that they cannot vote if they do not possess adequate identification documents. The committee has requested further advice from the minister, including: evidence that there is a problem that warrants limiting the rights of Australians; what modelling has been done to assess how this measure would affect voter turnout; and whether this measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on certain groups. The committee cannot form a conclusive view on this bill until the minister provides answers to the six requests for further information. I look forward to receiving the minister's advice before the parliament is asked to vote on this bill. The second bill is the NDIS Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill will allow the plan of a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme to be varied or reassessed. This could occur on the chief executive officer's own initiative or on request of the participant. The legal advice to the committee is that this measure may engage and limit a number of rights, including the right to health and an adequate standard of living as well as the rights of persons with disability, including the right to live independently and be included in the community. The committee has noted: … the matters to which the CEO must have regard in deciding whether to vary a plan on their own initiative are to be set out in the NDIS rules. The committee has not formed a concluded view on this bill but has asked the minister for further information, including: (a) what is the specific objective being pursued by enabling the CEO to vary or reassess a participant's NDIS plan on their own initiative, and how does this promote general welfare; (b) why is the CEO's power to vary a participant's plan not limited to changes that would benefit the participant; (c) why is the participant's consent not required for a plan variation or reassessment … I look forward to the minister's advice on these important matters of concern to the committee. The committee has also made some preliminary comments on some legislative instruments. I will just make some remarks about one of these instruments. The Biosecurity (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Amendment (No. 2) Determination 2021 'establishes an automatic exemption for fully vaccinated Australian citizens and permanent residents to depart Australian territory, provided they meet the specified criteria, from 1 November 2021'. On 25 March last year, the Morrison government placed a ban on Australian citizens departing Australia unless they had an exemption. This legislative instrument 'sets out an exemption from the ban from 1 November 2021 for persons who have completed a course of a COVID-19 vaccination at least seven days prior to travelling, and can show evidence of this'. So the effect of this measure is that only Australians who are fully vaccinated will be allowed to leave Australia without obtaining such an exemption. The preliminary human rights advice to the committee said: … an automatic exemption from the travel ban for vaccinated travellers … promotes the right to freedom of movement and the right to a private life, by allowing a greater number of people to leave Australia without the need to apply for an exemption. The right to freedom of movement encompasses the right to move freely within a country, and the right to leave any country, including a person's own country. …   …   … Discrimination occurs if a measure is directed towards, or exclusively or disproportionately affects, people with a particular protected attribute … Vaccination status is not one of these protected attributes, so treating unvaccinated persons differently, by only exempting vaccinated travellers from the travel ban, does not constitute direct discrimination under international human rights law. That might be news for some of the crossbenchers in this place. The committee has not formed a concluded view on this instrument but has requested further information to fully assess the human rights compatibility of this measure, as there is no statement of compatibility accompanying this determination. The committee again notes: Given the human rights implications of legislative instruments dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic … it would be appropriate for all such legislative instruments to be accompanied by a detailed statement of compatibility. Lastly, I again thank the secretariat and chair for their work in this committee and commend this report to the House. BILLS 116 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 116

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021

Second Reading 116 16:13 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This government loves to punch down. They will hang out with billionaires and big corporations, take their money and let billionaires buy elections for them, but, if a charity, an advocacy group or a non-government organisation dares speak up, they come after them and change the law to stop them from speaking out. We have a government that was elected because a billionaire, Clive Palmer, decided to purchase more political advertising than anyone else could afford and use it all to attack the government's opponents and back the government, delivering an election off the back of unlimited spending the likes of which we hadn't seen in this country. That is a threat to democracy. Billionaires and big corporations being able to buy elections is a threat to democracy. But what does the government do? Does it say, 'Well, we could change the electoral laws to stop people being able to buy elections by perhaps limiting the amount they could donate to political parties to $1,000 a year so we start to get some of the big money out of politics'? Does it say, 'Let's have a look at limiting the amount political parties can spend during elections to put everyone on a level playing field'? Does it say, 'Let's look at having a federal anticorruption watchdog to stop the revolving door of ministers and politicians and big corporations so that we can have some semblance of guarantee that decisions were being made in this place in the public interest rather than being made for big corporate interests'? No. It does none of those things that would go some way to making this place serve the people instead of serving the billionaires and the big corporations. But what it does find time to do—when it can't bring an anticorruption watchdog bill, when it can't bring donations reform to the parliament—is come and attack charities and organisations who have spoken out. This bill is about organisations in civil society, in our democracy, who have the right to speak out about policy issues and say, 'Hang on, if party X puts this law in, it's going to affect the people that we are representing and that we're advocating on behalf of.' The government says, 'Those people at the moment are already highly regulated, but we are now going to put additional onerous requirements on them and treat them as political campaigners because they've said something that could be seen as remotely critical of our government.' As a result, there will be a whole lot of new regulations and requirements that these people will have to abide by. Many of them can't afford to do it. So this bill is actually about silencing civil society and democratic groups in an already very highly regulated sector in the lead-up to an election. Why is the government scared of what groups in civil society might have to say? Is it because the government has kept people in this rich country of ours living below the poverty line for so long and forced people who haven't got a job to go without the essentials and live a life without dignity? Is it because sometimes groups who have to deal with the systemic poverty the government has chosen to put people into speak up and say, 'Hey, hang on, we've got to treat people better in this country'? Is it because the government is worried that they went off to Glasgow with the Prime Minister and the energy minister like cigarette salesman in a cancer ward, saying, 'We're coming here, to this international conference that's meant to be about tackling climate change, to tell you how great gas and coal are'? Is it because the government is worried there will be some groups that say, 'Hang on, we think that, when you look at the people we're dealing with who are dealing with the impacts of the climate crisis already, we should be doing more and getting out of coal and gas'? The government is so fearful of people speaking up and saying, 'Hey, hang on, we can do things better in this country.' But instead of coming into this place with a law to lift people out of poverty or a law to reform our political system so that big money can't buy decisions or a law that says, 'Let's tackle the climate crisis', it decides to shoot the messenger. As we head towards an election, we are seeing now a government that is becoming increasingly desperate. It is behind in the polls because it has failed to take action on the climate crisis and made inequality worse. If there were an election today, looking at the polls and looking at the history, the governments would be turfed out and the Greens would be in balance of power. It terrifies this government that it might lose power. So what does the government do? It comes here with a suite of measures that are about shutting people up or, in some instances, taking them off the electoral roll. We have this bill that is aimed at saying: 'If you are an organisation that looks after people but you're not about making a profit, you're no longer able to speak up and say anything political. If you do, we will have to make you comply with a whole series of regulations and requirements you don't have the money to do.' Our worry is that many organisations are going to say, 'I better shut up then because it's not worth the risk of falling foul of this law.' That is what this government is trying to do. It's not just this bill. The government is also trying to stop people from voting: young people who move from house to house and don't always have the most up-to-date records; First Nations people, who we know are underenrolled for voting at the moment; and other vulnerable people who may have issues with language or documentation. The government is trying to push them off the electoral roll through restrictive voter suppression laws the likes of which you'd expect from the United States, not from a democracy with universal suffrage like Australia. There is a pattern emerging. The pattern is that this government is so worried about losing the election that, on the one hand, it is trying to shut people up who might vote against it, or push them off the electoral roll; and, on the other hand, the government is courting Clive Palmer again, saying, 'Please, Mr Palmer, we hope you'll write us just as big a cheque as you did last time and buy us the election again.' We saw that from the Prime Minister over the last couple of days when he talked about my area of Melbourne, where we have people marching through the streets with nooses and gallows. The Prime Minister said, 'I can understand their frustrations.' We are coming out of lockdown in Melbourne and Victoria—finally—because people have gotten vaccinated. The Prime Minister then says of a rally full of antivaxxers as well as a number of Neo-Nazis, 'It's alright, I can understand where they're coming from.' The Prime Minister isn't just giving succour to the far right; he's also making it harder for us to deal with the pandemic, by slowing down the rate of vaccination which is going to get us to the point where we can live something close to COVID normal. But it's part of the pattern that this bill is part of: an increasingly desperate government that can see an election where they're going to be turfed out and the Greens are going to be put in balance of power is saying, 'We'll lop people off the electoral roll on the one side, and on the other side we'll go courting the likes of Clive Palmer and the fringe groups that associate themselves with Neo-Nazis in the hope that Clive might ride to the rescue and buy us the election in Queensland again.' That is the threat to democracy that we should be dealing with. For a government that prides itself on free speech, why are you trying to restrict what groups in our society are able to say on behalf of the people that they're looking after? You should have nothing to fear from what welfare groups, charities, churches or environment groups have to say. You should be able to deal with it, take it on the chin. But, as we've seen as recently as today, the Prime Minister can't take something on the chin, because he's got a glass jaw. So, instead of just engaging in robust debate, you try and shut it down. That's what this government is doing. It is trying to shut the debate down. These bills are bad bills. We will be seeking to amend them or join in amendments that are made in the Senate. It's worth reflecting on one final point. Groups in the non-government sector—charities, churches and environment groups—don't engage in political debate just for their own ends. They're not political participants standing for office. They do it because they are at the cutting edge of dealing with people who are in strife, or areas or lands that are in strife, because of government decisions. They are the ones who have to step up and hand out the food parcels when people can't afford to eat, because the government has kept social security below the poverty line. They should be entitled to stand up and say, 'In a rich country like Australia there should be no poverty.' That should be an uncontroversial statement. In a democracy like ours, we should welcome those contributions. They are making those contributions because of the lived experience of dealing with people who are doing it tough. There are two ways of dealing with that. One is to listen to the churches and the charities and the other groups who are saying, 'Hey, hang on; things need to be fixed in our society.' You could listen and do something about it. But this government is taking the alternative road, which is trying to shut them up. Again, these are people who are just giving voice to the effect of government decisions. This government is running scared because it doesn't want to hear them, because it knows the decisions that it is making are wrong. I'll come back to what I said at the start: the government shuts down debate and tries to push people off the electoral roll when it thinks they're going to be critical of them, and it says, 'Oh we have to have greater requirements and regulations over who can participate in the political process,' but it turns a blind eye to Clive Palmer spending millions of dollars on advertisements designed to help it and it alone. If you're looking for a problem to be fixed, that has to be addressed, because something is wrong when billionaires can buy elections in this country. Yes, we need changes to our laws to ensure that democracy prevails in this place and that decisions are made for people, not for billionaires and big corporations. But we're not going to get that by silencing the charities and the non-government organisations, who are just speaking out and letting us know the problems that they're dealing with as a result of government decisions every day. If we were serious and the government really wanted reform, we'd come back here and look at how to stop the billionaires and big corporations having so much power, how to make them pay their fair share of tax, and how to get their money out of politics so the decisions in this place are made in the public interest, not for corporate investor interests. 16:27 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in favour of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021. I happen to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and this bill sees us implement one of the recommendations from our report into the 2019 election, amongst other elements of that report which are being implemented via other bills that are at various stages of moving through the parliament. We, as we do after every election, undertook a thorough round of public hearings inquiring into the conduct of the 2019 election. The intention was to do that physically around the country, but with COVID restrictions that wasn't possible. But I still think we gave excellent access to a whole range of relevant parties that wished to submit their views and experiences with regard to the 2019 election. I think all members of that committee—on which all parties are represented and which is a joint committee of this House and the Senate—would agree that very broad access was provided and we held hearings day by day, although online, on a geographic basis so that people from all the different states and territories had a consolidated period of time to put their perspectives. Clearly, different issues arise in different parts of the country, as well as different issues being raised based on what your political persuasion is or what your activism might be in politics. The recommendation that we're putting in place now, I think, is a particularly important one. It is important that we always review our democracy and look for ways of continuing to respond to things that develop. In every election, there are going to be new things that occur and come along, and we've got to make changes to respond to those so that the principles of protecting our democracy and having a fair playing field for all in the great contest of ideas continue to be protected. When it comes to electoral funding, fundraising and expenditure, this is an area that's very important. There are very high standards, particularly for the formal players in election campaigns—obviously, political parties and other more established actors in that space. We in this chamber all know the rules. It would be a surprise to me if anyone who had made their way into the federal parliament had not had experience in ensuring that they comply with the various pieces of legislation that we have to comply with when it comes to elections, particularly when it comes to donations and finance. It is very important that we have standards in place. We want to have a robust democracy, but we also want to make sure that it is a fair system and that there is transparency over the way in which finance is provided to support people in politics, which is why the member for Melbourne's contribution was so bizarre to me, given his purported interest in some other areas of policy and transparency. To apparently not think that it is a good thing to have standards in place for all participants in the democratic political process, whether or not they be formal political parties or other people with particular interests, and the fact that he doesn't believe—and it seems the Greens don't believe—that those high standards should apply to everyone participating in a democracy is spectacularly hypocritical and perhaps raises more questions than answers around the motivation of some of the rhetoric that he and the Greens use at times when they campaign for transparency in other areas of public policy. Under the Electorate Act, all political parties have requirements that they have to follow insofar as the declaration of donations received over a certain value. And, of course, there is this double challenge if you operate in the state jurisdictions, where they have rules in place which govern state campaigns. There is a lot of complexity around determining how you are making sure that both your federal and state compliance is adequately occurring, particularly when you operate in multiple jurisdictions where there are different regimes in different states as well as the Commonwealth regime. So I think it would be fair to say that political parties all have very robust accountability mechanisms in place and requirements upon them. I hope that it is not the case that those aren't properly observed by all the parties in this country. I do not make that accusation; I assume that it is not the case and that we have that transparency in place. So why would we not think that other people who engage in political activities, political campaigning activities, shouldn't have the same requirements in place? If we think that political parties should disclose when they receive a donation over a certain value from someone—if that should be the standard for a political party—why shouldn't that be the standard for anyone who is engaging in political activity? Just because they are not a political party—just because they don't meet some of those triggers in the Electoral Act—they are still seeking to do the exact same thing as political parties seek to do, which is engage in the process and effect an outcome. And, if they are seeking to do that, whether it is supporting a particular person or a particular position, for the exact same reasons that we want to know where the political parties get their money from, we want to know where the money is ultimately coming from that might be supporting some of those causes. That's the exact sort of transparency that we should expect to be in place across all actors in our democratic process, not just those that are formal political parties. I would be surprised that anyone would find fault with that principle or have a concern with it. When people want to have debates about other issues to do with transparency, I can't understand how anyone could not believe that the concept in this bill of bringing more transparency to other participants in the process is a good and valuable thing for our democracy. It is also very important that we are wary of foreign influence in our elections and our democracy. That, again, is an area that we need to pay closer attention to. This bill will go some way towards ensuring that we are closing some potential loopholes that could be exploited. It is a reality that we are seeing nefarious activities in terms of supporting and trying to influence the democratic outcomes of elections in jurisdictions worldwide. We have had testimony at the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters about a potential risk in our system for people, particularly foreign participants, to influence our democracy. Clearly, the online and fake news and websites and activity on social media et cetera is a very high-risk area, and we have agencies in our country as part of our government that are doing what they can to identify those bad actors, but it's also very high risk that activity in our campaigns is financed from overseas sources. Of course, as political parties we can't receive money from overseas sources. That's a black-and-white situation when it comes to the rules around our funding and disclosure regime, as it well and truly should be. But there is a risk that other shadowy organisations could receive financing from overseas sources and could use that to influence our democracy. If we don't have a robust regime in place to make sure that anyone who is a participant in our democracy, anyone that is seeking to influence the outcome of an election or a particular policy objective being adopted by a political party or a parliament or a government, anyone seeking to push an agenda—we must make sure that any people in those categories are meeting the same high standards that we expect for the formal political actors in our system, being the political parties. Foreign interference and the risk of that can be reduced by having a clearer regime in place for accountability, transparency and reporting, which this bill will bring about. Also, for people who are seeking to influence our political outcomes from within the country, clearly the requirement of disclosure of where that money is coming from is going to go some way to reducing the risk of that happening. So I'm a very strong supporter of this bill. I actually agree with the member for Melbourne that it needs to be viewed within the context of other electoral reforms that we are undertaking, and, as I mentioned at the start of my contribution, they are moving at various different stages through the parliament as we speak, but they are all in response to the lessons that we learnt from the 2019 election. There were things that happened in that campaign that I hope never to see happen again in politics in this country, particularly the intimidation of candidates, particularly female candidates, who were targeted and vilified and attacked. In my home state the member for Boothby had some awful experiences that nobody should have to go through who's seeking to participate in our democracy. At the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, we were able to hear about experiences like that and many others, which we are seeking to address so that people feel comfortable and attracted to participating in our democracy. No matter what our ideological perspective or what our views are on the important debates of the day, we're all the better for more and more people wanting to participate in our democracy. The worst thing we can have is apathy, where there isn't engagement or interest from not only the broad population but also people who are thinking about and considering participating in a more committed way, perhaps by joining a political party, by becoming a volunteer, by donating to a political party and, most importantly, considering running as a candidate, whether it's for a political party or as an Independent. We should not have a situation where people have apprehension about participating in our democracy because they think they potentially won't be safe or they'll potentially have experiences that no person that's seeking to serve their community and wants to make a contribution to the debates of our time should have to go through. So this is part of those reforms that we are undertaking. I was very interested and honoured to be a part of the process of reviewing the election and identifying opportunities like this to strengthen and make our democracy more robust. With that, I commend the bill to the House. 16:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi Last night, when I was carefully reviewing the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 one more time ahead of the parliamentary sitting, I supported this bill. It included a simple provision to reduce the amount of electoral expenditure an individual or organisation can spend before they are required to register as a political campaigner from $500,000 to $100,000. These provisions would also apply where the amount of the electoral expenditure spent during a financial year is at least $14,500 and one-third of their revenue for the previous financial year. If this threshold is met, more stringent disclosure rules apply—the individual or organisation must register and be searchable on the AEC's Transparency Register, submit an annual disclosure of gifts and electoral expenditure to the AEC and comply with foreign donations rules. These are, in my opinion, sensible reforms which I can support. As an Independent, transparency and integrity are at the heart of what I do. I believe Australians deserve to know who's spending money to influence the outcome of an election. I also believe in good governance and proper process when it comes to democratic reform, and that's why I was so furious and very disappointed to discover only a few short hours ago that the minister responsible for this bill tabled a substantial number of additional provisions to the bill without any notice at all—35, in fact. The bill has effectively tripled in size. Within a matter of hours, the government has added 35 new provisions to this bill. No consultation. No prior warning. No briefings offered. Nothing. Just a document handed to the Table Office and quietly uploaded onto the parliamentary website. This is not the way this parliament should operate. It's an accepted rule in this place that a bill cannot be introduced and passed on the same day. What the minister has done here is try and circumvent this rule by introducing complex new provisions, which are effectively a new bill, as a series of amendments. You can see from the time stamp of these amendments that the government finished drafting them on the morning of 27 October. That is almost four weeks ago, yet the minister has given us about four hours to consider them. What's even more egregious is that I even met with the minister 2½ weeks ago, on 5 November, and he would have been well aware of these detailed amendments but said nothing of them. This bill is also listed for the Senate this evening. It's clear that the government wants to ram the entire bill through the parliament in one day, without due consultation. For me, that's not on. When I met with the minister, I was frank and honest with him and I expected him to be so with me. I said that I'd welcome any new law reform proposals that would increase overall transparency in our political donations system to a level playing field. I really believe in that. In the last sitting, for example, I introduced a bill to require donations above $14,500 to be disclosed within five days and donations above $1,000 to be disclosed quarterly, including cumulative donations. That's what I'd do. Will the government level the playing field and do the same? I think not. As a community Independent, I don't take millions from corporate donors and vested interests like the majors do. I'm proud of that and wish the major parties would do the same. The major parties will also tell you that it's too resource intensive to disclose their donations in real time. But if I can do it, surely they could do it too. This is the standard of transparency and accountability we should expect from our political electoral system, and I urge the government to truly, seriously, level the playing field and do the same for themselves. There could be serious compliance burdens for the associated entities the minister envisages he will capture under the extended definition in schedule 2. It would have been really useful to talk to him about that, especially for these associated entities if they operate small budgets of only a few thousand dollars. But I want to be really clear here. I had absolutely supported the premise of this bill. I'm in favour of one set of rules for all, and the minister knows that, but I simply can't support a law that the government hasn't given the crossbench any time to review or contemplate in detail. That would be poor governance, and it is on this basis that I move the following amendment: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:   ."noting the importance of this reform, the House:   .(1) notes the Government broke with convention and introduced a significant addition to this bill, tripling it in size within a matter of hours, and preventing the crossbench from having an opportunity to review, contemplate or be briefed on the amended bill;   .(2) notes that if the Government wanted to truly level the playing field when it comes to political donations, it could lower the AEC disclosure threshold from the current rate of $14,500 to $1,000; and   .(3) calls on the Government to postpone the second reading vote on this bill until another sitting day, as is the convention with new bills". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Is the amendment seconded? 16:44 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I second the motion moved by the member for Indi and offer a couple of brief remarks. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Indi that it is very bad practice for so many amendments to be brought in unexpectedly with not nearly enough time to scrutinise those amendments, to consider them and to debate them. This is woeful public policymaking and it should be condemned. For that reason, I fully support the member for Indi's amendment. And I agree with the member for Indi that, if the government was fair dinkum about the reform of political donations, then it would do just that—it would reform political donations with reforms such as a $1,000 threshold for the disclosure of political donations. There should also be real-time reporting of political donations, effective caps on the amount that any one donor can donate during an electoral cycle and a cap on how much can be spent by candidates and political parties during election campaigns. They're the sorts of effective reforms that are required for political donations in this country. At the moment, we have enormous sums of money sloshing around and, to some degree, in secret. And let's not forget that no political donor makes a big political donation without expecting a return on that investment. These aren't gifts just for the sake of a gift to candidates in political parties; these are investments by big political donors. A donation of $10,000, $11,000, $12,000, $13,000, $14,000 is big money, and that's why I make a point of declaring in virtual real time any political donation over $1,000 on my website. That's what the community demands. That's what the community needs, not the changes at the heart of this bill, which are really a clamp down on small organisations and community groups, which are often single-issue focused, often to do with the environment, I would add. This is where I diverge from the member for Indi: I don't think the original bill is a good bill, nor is it worth supporting. I think the original bill is a very blatant ideological attack on small community organisations, small activist organisations, often environmentally focused organisations. So I don't like the original bill, and I certainly condemn this attempt by the government to ram through a large number of changes which will never be properly scrutinised by the crossbench before a vote. They certainly won't be considered. They won't be debated in full. They'll be shot up to the Senate and be out of the Australian parliament much too quickly for the community's best interests. So it's a delight to second this well-considered amendment by the member for Indi. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Indi has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'Whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Indi to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Scullin be disagreed to. 16:48 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021. Let's be clear what this bill does: the bill reduces the thresholds for electoral expenditure that can be incurred by an individual or organisation before they are required to register as a political campaigner. The bill would change the thresholds at which a third-party campaigner becomes a political campaigner from $100,000 on electoral matters being spent in any one of the previous three financial years—down from $500,000; spending the disclosure threshold, currently $14,500, on electoral expenditure in that financial year—down from $100,000; and spending at least one-third of the revenue during the previous financial year—down from two-thirds—on electoral expenditure. According to the government, the amendments are intended to enhance public confidence in Australia's political process by aligning transparency requirements for political actors who seek to influence the outcome of an election to more closely resemble those for political parties, candidates and members of the Australian parliament. However, what they don't say is that the groups of people that are most likely to be impacted by this are charities and small political players and community organisations just starting to get off the ground. For these groups the changes represent a significant shift in compliance activities, and, more importantly, they're retrospective. The irony is that, in many discussions around federal integrity commissions, one of the biggest sticking points is retrospectivity—that one should not be able to look at government behaviour retrospectively. Yet here we are with amendments in legislation seeking to retrospectively change the rules for small community organisations. What does it mean—the shift to political campaigner? Changing from a third party campaigner to a political campaigner means that you must disclose your donors. That is a good thing; I don't have any issue with disclosure—if only disclosure rules were fairly applied, from Independents to major political parties and all involved; if only we didn't have such major gaps in our political donations system that enabled millions in political donations to the major parties to go unreported and unaccounted for. Political campaigners have annual reporting obligations in relation to donations received, debts, and total income and expenditure that are essentially the same as for political parties. Political campaigners will also have restrictions on receiving donations from foreign donors, which are, again, essentially identical to restrictions on political parties. Again, I find the hypocrisy just staggering when I think of the debate we've had in relation to blind trusts in this place and the disclosure of where donations and financial support has come from. Finally, political campaigners also need to disclose all foreign donations and ensure that any money received is not from a foreign national. The change in classification will have a chilling effect on the charities sector in their ability to engage with the political process as a third party campaigner. It's misleading. They will be defined as a 'political campaigner', and that category misleadingly defines independent, issue based advocacy, which the charity sector needs to do to take good care and try to advance policy on the issue they represent. It is now going to be misleadingly interpreted as advocacy that is political, or partisan campaigning. It also subjects organisations to rigorous administrative and reporting requirements and harsh penalties, similar to those of political parties, even when an organisation's advocacy is issue based and nonpartisan. So small charities who are already feeling the brunt of lockdown and COVID, who have really reduced revenue, may now find themselves hit with a retrospective legislation that will ask them to go back and incur significant compliance costs, to go back and look at a campaign that they may have run in the last two years. How that is of benefit is beyond me. The consequences of this move are perhaps best summed up in the following statement from People with Disability Australia: 'If this bill were passed and we were to risk being labelled a political campaigner, we would feel significantly restricted in the level and kind of advocacy we could engage in, in key moments.' That is People with Disability Australia. This is not political. This is arguing and advocating on behalf of issues. There is a push from the charities sector to change the name of this grouping from 'political campaigner' to 'large third party'. This shift would be more representative of the charities sector. By law, charities are permitted to advocate for their charitable purpose but are not permitted to be politically partisan. At this point I want to point out that incurring electoral expenditure does not mean that an organisation has spent money on partisan activities. However, classifying organisations as political campaigners, which is what the bill does—this is what the government is seeking to do—gives the false impression that they are political. It exposes them to reputational and regulatory risk. Laws should be made on the basis of how charities advocate, not on how much they spend. The net result will be that charities will do less advocacy to avoid spending over the threshold. As stated by Edwina MacDonald, the deputy CEO of ACOSS: 'We regularly see community and social services organisations that struggle to understand what rules apply to them and what it means for their critical systemic advocacy work.' This confusion and the lack of resources to work through the complex regulatory framework can result in community groups shying away from doing systemic advocacy altogether. This bill will make this risk much worse. So, as a result, you will have a less-informed conversation on issues and on policy, and that is a weakening of democracy. The amendments that have been brought on by the minister at the eleventh hour I can only see as a cynical attack on community groups that are rising around Australia, tired of the dysfunction and the poor level of politics coming out of major parties. These amendments are absolutely deliberately targeting community groups that are shaking up the status quo. These groups, the 'voices of' groups, are community led movements aiming to support representatives that actually represent the views of their communities. They've become fed up with state political parties and the domination of the duopoly that we have at the moment. Significantly, with these amendments, the government is expanding the circumstances in which a person or entity is required to register as a political campaigner or associated entity and to provide a return to the AEC in relation to the financial year prior to their registration. This would mean all donors from that year would need to be disclosed, as would total expenditure for that year. I don't object to an increase in transparency of funding in politics. We need much, much stronger laws around clearing up transparency. But I do have to wonder at the lack of consultation that has been taken in the approach to these amendments and their last-minute introduction to the House. The raft of organisations that this will capture remains to be seen, but imposing retrospective reporting requirements on many relatively immature bodies is a grave concern. The additional compliance and administration costs may also impact on independent 'voices of' groups aspiring to establish themselves and others in the charity sector. Reducing the threshold means that legal and administrative costs for the smaller entity will rise as they seek to manage their ability to comply with the new legislation. The lower threshold poses a very real risk of reducing participation in the democratic process by smaller groups for fear of legal repercussions. Increasing compliance costs is a key tool for those in power to reduce competition for those aspiring to challenge the status quo. That, I have no doubt, is what we're seeing today. The penalties are significant. Not registering as a political campaigner within 90 days of meeting the threshold will incur a civil penalty. Groups will need to be more careful about their expenditure under this new model, whereas previously they would have needed to be a significant size to breach the $500,000 limit. An amount of $100,000 is not significant in today's political landscape. Let's put that into perspective for a moment, especially when we have major players like the United Australia Party planning to spend in excess of $80 million. The ALP and the Liberal and National parties are spending over $20 million each, but we're not seeing laws or regulations being introduced to clean that up. We're not seeing anything introduced to in any way curb the spending by the UAP or the misleading information that they are bombarding Australian voters with. An attack that will make it harder for small players and charities is what the government is choosing to spend its time on. It's a move designed to reduce the influence of smaller players. On vague definitions, it's so frustrating to have these pieces of legislation that will impact on so many lives come before the House when they are badly drafted. They are vague. The definitions matter. Precision in the wording matters in legislation. These pieces of legislation are badly drafted. The definition of 'electoral matter' is vague. The definition of 'electoral expenditure' is within the act. 'Electoral matter' is defined as: … matter communicated or intended to be communicated for the dominant purpose of influencing the way electors vote in … (a federal election) … 'Electoral expenditure' is defined as: … expenditure incurred for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating electoral matter … So who will benefit? Lawyers and experts in the field might be adept at navigating the lines drawn by these definitions, but smaller community groups and charities may not have the expertise to interpret these provisions, and thus their compliance costs will increase. The fact that this bill is being applied retrospectively means that those who were careful to stay under the $500,000 cap in previous years may now have to go back and register as political campaigners and complete the relevant disclosures for the past three financial years if they had spent over $100,000. This is an unnecessary burden, and it's an example of moving the goalposts after the fact. If this were done fairly across a number of areas, I might understand, but I can't help but be cynical and think that it is always about keeping others out of the status quo. It is about maintaining the status quo. It is about preventing competition. This bill before us does provide for some increase in transparency of money in politics. However, the last-minute introduction of the amendments which deliberately target emerging community groups speaks to a political motivation by the government. Targeting charities with legitimate policy concerns and turning them into political campaigners is underhanded and an attempt by the government to reduce scrutiny. It will weaken participation in our democracy, reserving the ability to participate only for those in the major parties with established administrative and legal resources to comply with the legislation. The bill shows the desperation of those in power to preserve the status quo that they benefit from. Rather than introducing this bill and its last-minute amendments, in the time that is left for this parliament the government should look at the multitude of other recommendations to increase the transparency of the system. We could reduce donation disclosure thresholds; we could increase the timeliness of donation disclosure and fairly apply it, from Independents to parties; we could prohibit misleading and deceptive advertising, as I asked the Prime Minister about in question time today; and we could establish a federal integrity commission with teeth, with real powers and certainly with retrospective powers. It's clear that the government has no real desire to increase transparency—only a desire to maintain the status quo. 17:02 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Here we go again, witnessing a government and a Prime Minister that will do absolutely anything to win an election, whether it's silencing the ABC or silencing anyone who speaks out against its policies. This government now wants charities silenced, and this cannot be good for our democracy. Charities do a lot of good work throughout our nation: helping those who are needy and assisting people with everything from food banks right through to educating the public on important issues. They have an absolute right to campaign—regardless of what colour the government is, whether it's on our side or their side—when they see something that's going wrong in their area. What this government wants to do is silence charities with this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021, on the eve of a federal election. As I said, we have a government that wants to silence charities. They constantly speak out against the ABC. They want to silence the independent broadcaster, and now they also want to suppress votes through another bill that will be before this House very soon, making it harder for people to vote. This has been the way this government has operated from day one. If the Prime Minister were serious about electoral integrity and public confidence in our electoral processes, he would support Labor's bill for the real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so political donations are transparent for all to see. That's what they would do if they were serious about disclosures. They would provide more resources to the AEC for it to be able to investigate and also to do a really important thing: to increase the enrolment and turnover of voters. But we've seen no funding to the AEC, no increase in resources to assist them to educate the public about our voting system and getting people on the electoral roll. All we've seen is this government wanting to silence charities through this bill. This is a dangerous bill. It prevents our charities and not-for-profit organisations from participating in our political process. These aren't people who are seeking high office. These aren't people who are wanting individual positions or to be elected in this parliament on behalf of a political party. They are people who see something very wrong being done through the political process, through democracy, and want to speak out and educate the public. There is nothing wrong with that. We should welcome debate and we should welcome outside groups, especially not-for-profit groups, participating in our democracy and campaigning strongly when they see something that they disagree with, when they see that people on the lower echelon of our economy are basically doing it really tough and when they see a government that make more cuts to those people, affecting those people even more. They have every right to campaign, to raise funds, to advertise and to donate to whatever political party they wish and see as fit for their needs. As I said, we have seen lots of people speaking out against this. Earlier in the year, a group called Hands Off Our Charities was formed in response to the controversial changes earlier proposed by this government. Hands Off Our Charities comprises 100 leading charities. They have strongly campaigned against the rules, and earlier in the year released modelling that showed it would cost charities $150 million in compliance costs. Hands Off Our Charities spokesperson Ray Yoshida said the regulations were unnecessary, would stifle free speech and would affect vital services. He said: This [modelling] outlines the extraordinary red-tape burden the Morrison government is imposing on charities that provide vital services to vulnerable people, including emergency food relief, family violence support and mental health assistance. This is a group of Australian charities, not-for-profit agencies, that got together to form this coalition and this is what they are saying. So in no way will this assist anyone. All it will do is assist in stifling our democracy and free speech. If the government were serious about this, they would support Labor's bill and lower the threshold to $1,000 so people are donating in real-time and everyone can know exactly who is donating and to what political party. But to make it harder for not-for-profit groups that have an interest in all sorts of areas is wrong. This bill is going to change the system dramatically. Currently, individuals or entities that spend over the disclosure threshold, which is currently $14,500, and up to $500,000 on electoral expenditure are registered as third parties. The government wants anyone who spends over $500,000 a year on electoral expenditure to be registered as a political campaigner. This bill will lower that threshold to $100,000 or one-third of the annual income so the reporting obligations are more onerous for the people in the second group than they are for third parties. It is just wrong that we are stifling democracy through a bill that will do absolutely nothing to assist our parliamentary process, our electoral process and our processes that make it fairer for people to speak out, as we should in a fair democracy. It makes you wonder why this bill is happening on the eve of a federal election which should be held early next year. And we will have another bill coming before the House in a few more days which will make it harder for people to participate and vote—through the voter ID program—when we know that not a single charge was laid against anyone for voting two or more times in the last federal election. The few people who were found to have voted in two to three different places were mainly elderly people who had forgotten that they had already made a postal vote. I mentioned that the Hands Off Our Charities alliance was formed when the government tried this back in 2018. That was a coalition of many charities and not-for-profits from a range of sectors, including education. With education, we're talking about schools. We're talking about primary schools, secondary schools and universities. That sector, or people who are interested in that sector, has a right to advocate for good policy in this area for the next generation of Australians. What this will do is make it more difficult to spend money. It gives them more red tape which will be bound up in all sorts of forms and make it harder for these people to advocate on issues such as education. I spoke briefly about the welfare sector but there are other sectors as well—for example, the Conservation Foundation. This is a group of people who have an interest in our environment, who believe that we need a good environment that is sustainable and that we can hand over to the next generation. They have been campaigning long and hard on environmental issues for many, many decades. It is their right to be able to donate where they wish to donate, to a political party that basically fits their policy. It allows that political party to advocate but also implement policies that are best suited to them. They're not seeking a political office. They're not seeking to be elected. They're not seeking to be part of this process that we have in this place. They're a not-for-profit organisation that deals in a particular issue, and they normally have the best advice possible that suits their agenda. There is no reason why we should be afraid of people's agendas. That's what democracy is all about. There are hundreds of agendas out there. It's all about people having the right to support political parties or anyone running for high office or advertising in any way that they want to support that particular idea. Other charitable groups that are members of this particular organisation that was formed last year include Anglicare Australia, Amnesty International, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Council of Social Service, Climate Council, Community Legal Centres Australia, Human Rights Law Centre, Oxfam Australia, Pew Charitable Trusts, Uniting Care Australia and Save The Children. These are organisations that do important work in our society and run on the smell of an oily rag. They are constantly under attack by this government because this government doesn't like it when they speak out. They also made a compelling submission on the recent Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act in relation to the proposal to reduce the electoral expenditure threshold for political campaigners to $100,000. The submission said the members: … are extremely concerned by this recommendation as many of the aspects of the EFDR Act, including the threshold for becoming a political campaigner, were very thoroughly consulted and considered prior to its enactment. So lowering the threshold for becoming a political campaigner would introduce a very significant compliance burden for many third parties and would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy in the lead-up to elections. I will repeat that: it would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy in the lead-up to elections. Here we are, on the eve of an election, and here is this government trying to shut the voices of charitable organisations. We've seen a continual war on charities by this government. The ongoing attacks have prompted open letters to successive prime ministers from the charity sector. A great deal of energy from Australia's great charities and not-for-profits has been chewed up in fighting against the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's war on their work. We've seen the coalition go through six different ministers responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission. From 2011 to 2016, the coalition parties fought against the existence of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission, a one-stop shop for charities which was supported by a dozen reports before its creation but opposed by the coalition tooth and nail. They only backed down on trying to axe the ACNC when they realised they couldn't get the bill through the Senate. We've had bill after bill attack charities continuously. We want to see the voices of charities as enriching the public debate. We need those voices to have ideas and views. We're not saying everyone has to agree with their voices, but they have an absolute right to participate in the public debate that's taking place. But this government doesn't want people challenging its policies. It doesn't want people challenging its policies or its plans, and that's what this bill is all about. This government believes that social service charities should serve soup in a soup kitchen but shouldn't talk about poverty, that they should take clothes to homeless people who can't buy a jumper or a blanket to wear to keep warm in winter but not speak out against poverty. That's what this bill is all about. Public policy debates are enriched through the voices of charity, and by stifling their voices we're doing democracy a great disfavour. This bill should not be supported. I am pleased to hear the crossbenchers speak out against it. This bill should be dropped immediately by the government because it does nothing for the debate of public policy in Australia. Instead of attacking charities, the government should be looking at genuine political donation reform. Lower the threshold to $1,000, if you're serious about it. Lower it to $1,000 in real time. Or, if you're even more serious about it, come up with a threshold for every Senate candidate and every House of Representatives candidate. But, of course, we know they're not serious about it. We know that this is all about silencing voices that are not on the same wavelength as this government. That's the history we have seen in the years they have been in government, always. When someone speaks out they don't like it, whether it be the ABC, whether it be charities or whether it be a group of workers, unions et cetera. To have a true democracy and true debate, we need all voices. I would even advocate on behalf of the ones I disagree with to have their voices heard, not to stifle their voices. 17:17 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I'm quite pleased to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 today, although I have very serious problems with it. In many ways, the issue the bill is trying to solve is a really interesting one and a really important one. We need a far more transparent process in our democracy. We need to know where money is coming from. We need to lower donation thresholds. We need to do a whole range of things so that members of the public who are voting can see where the money that is flowing through election campaigns comes from—no doubt. But this bill is a really bad answer and an absolute demonstration of this government's seeming inability to look at a problem, pull it apart and investigate what the actual question is, and, through broad consultation, come up with an answer that actually works. It's a government that doesn't consult, and, time after time after time, comes up with answers that are simply bad ones. I would also argue in this case that the government is even trying to solve the wrong problem. They seem to believe there's a whole range of left-wing organisations raising money from the community to campaign against them. I come from a marginal seat, and I can tell them that a lot of the people donating to the climate change advocates and the conservation foundations are actually Liberal voters. If the problem is that a whole stack of Liberal voters are donating to charities that are campaigning against the Liberal Party, then perhaps the Liberal Party should consider their own policies. If their own supporters are putting money into defeating them at the election, perhaps they should look at themselves. Perhaps they are looking at the wrong problem. Let's go back to the issue that we need more transparency, and have a look at what this bill does. I'll explain why I think it's a rather bad bill, and why it would have incredibly detrimental effects to some organisations in my community that do extraordinary local work in fighting for things the local community cares for. In the field of our democracy there is a group of people that spend money on campaigns and advocacy, and they're called political campaigners. At the moment, individuals or entities that spend at least $500,000 during the year or in any one of the three previous financial years—in other words, are spending a lot of money—or electoral expenditure of two-thirds their annual income must register as a political campaigner. If they do that, they can't accept foreign donations and they have a whole range of information they have to give to the AEC, like total receipts, value of gifts in kind, details of receipts greater than the disclosure threshold et cetera. So there's an incredible amount of red tape that lands, quite rightly, on people that spend more than $500,000 during the year on what might be seen as political campaigning but sometimes is just advocacy for a position or if they spend more than two-thirds of their annual income. This bill lowers the threshold to $100,000 or one-third of their annual income. My first thing when I'm given a number, because I'm a numbers person, is to actually figure out what the number is. Can I just point out that $100,000 wouldn't pay for many full-page ads in the major papers, so it doesn't actually buy very much. It's also, per electorate, $666.66, so this bill lowers the threshold to any advocacy or charitable organisation that is spending on average more than $666 per electorate. They now become what is known as a political campaigner and are faced with an extraordinary level of red tape—something that I know the government hate, but in this case they seem to be prepared to impose it on a whole group of organisations that are not particularly wealthy and are not necessarily spending very much, because the bill lowers the threshold to $100,000 or one-third of annual income—'or' one-third of annual income. So, according to this bill, as long as what you spend is more than $14,500 and more than a third of your annual income, you are captured by this political campaigners' tag and you face the full reporting requirements including vetting every single person that donates to you, making sure they're not a foreign entity, making sure they can make a donation. It's an incredible amount of red tape on a daily basis to meet the requirements of a political campaigner. In my electorate there are a number of organisations that I think do an extraordinary job. They don't always agree with me, by the way! Sometimes they campaign against me, but they are people from genuine local organisations that have a passion about something. They come together to make a difference and to persuade people on one point of view or another. One of them, for example, is Save Willow Grove, a campaign run by the North Parramatta Residents Action Group with its wonderful secretary, Suzette Meade. They worked incredibly hard over a number of years to save a heritage property called Willow Grove. They actually lost that argument, but I would be very surprised if through their crowdfunding they didn't spend more than $14,500, which would take them over the lower threshold of disclosure, and they would have spent far more than a third of what they raised. In fact, they probably spent all of it on advocacy. That's a local community organisation of volunteers, a mum with her kid, basically at home, working—when she's not at work—getting the community together to do something that they care about, and they will be potentially quite likely captured by this bill. I wonder about how many of the others might be too—Parramatta Park, for example. The New South Wales government has been moving ahead with a plan to move several parks in the Sydney Basin into a centrally managed Greater Sydney Parklands and take away the local control. There's a whole group of people who have come together and formed an organisation to fight that. Again, it's extremely unlikely that their fundraising would raise less than $14,500, so they'll be over the disclosure threshold, and they will spend all of it or close to all of it, so they will be captured by the political campaigners bill and they will be required to undergo an extraordinary amount of red tape. Again, these are little local organisations that come together because there's something they care about. That's a good thing. Our job in this place and our job in our communities is to make our communities stronger. I sometimes say our job is to make ourselves redundant in as many areas as we can, empower people, give them a voice and make it possible for communities to talk to each other to come to shared views, to argue things out in the community to work out what their common view is. That's our job, and a lot of these organisations, which will be severely hampered and many of which will disappear altogether, will be caught by this bad answer to a very real problem. There has to be another way to make sure we have transparency, without loading the full weight of the red tape of large political campaigners on small organisations that either spend relatively small amounts locally or spend, on average, $666 per electorate. That is what $100,000 is: $666.66 per electorate. They will be caught by this bill. With the Parramatta Female Factory, the campaigners there have ensured that we've actually kept the female factory. A number of times governments of various persuasions have tried to get rid of that extraordinary piece of heritage—the most intact female convict factory and the oldest in Australia. The campaigners have fought for years to keep the factory. Again, with their crowdfunding, the idea that their expenditure would be less than $14,500 or that they would have spent less than a third of their expenditure on making a case in the community that that venue should be kept—that's not going to be the case. It's quite likely they would be captured by this bill, as would, possibly, even Westmead Push for Palliative Care. This is an extraordinary organisation that realised that Westmead doesn't have a palliative care ward. They have campaigned for a considerable time with great effect. Again, this is a really important local organisation fighting for something really important locally and doing the job that we all want them to do: caring about something, getting involved, making a difference, making their case and engaging the community. That is the art of persuasion, which is the absolute definition of what politics is supposed to be. That's what they are doing. They are getting involved in a very real and valuable way, and it's hard to imagine that they also wouldn't suddenly find themselves, under these definitions, as political campaigners, subject to extraordinary levels of red tape: details of debts greater than the disclosure threshold and values of gifts in kind. Tell local organisations—that works with volunteers, that goes out and campaigns and hands out pamphlets and all the rest of the things, that gets on the phone, that letterboxes, that does all the things that volunteers do—that suddenly they will have to record all the value of the gifts in kind. Their total turnover through their fundraising might be $20,000 and if they spend it all on a local campaign that puts them over the disclosure limit. Surely that's not what this government intended? If it is, then, really, the entire country should vote against them. If they actually want to shut down small local organisations that care about the local park, that care about more trees in a suburb, that care about the number of birds, that care about the heritage in their area, that care about building a new childcare centre, that care about the things that we in this place want our communities to care about and get involved in, surely it's not the government's intention to shut down those organisations or bury them in red tape to the extent that they won't be able to do what we all want them to do, which is to build strong local community networks and put their efforts into building those systems and structures within our community that support good lives in our local community? I'm going to go back to that $100,000 threshold. If you're not used to campaigning, you might think $100,000 is a lot of money. Again, if it's a national campaign, it's a couple of full-page ads and not much more. If it's spent on the ground, it's $666 per electorate. I can tell the government, I'm not afraid of $666 flowing into my electorate from a national charity. I'm not afraid of that. In fact, I welcome the views in my electorate. I'm in a marginal seat. There are many of them. I don't always agree with the different voices, but what we need to be doing in this place is finding a way to balance the need for strong community voices and people getting involved in things they care about and building relationships and helping to persuade the community members around them and ensuring that our democratic system is transparent. There will be ways to do that through proper consultation over a proper period of time—talking it through with people who do donate, not just the charities that receive donations. Who is donating and why? What is going on out there? What do we need to address to make sure that this is transparent? What technology can be used? Donation thresholds, truth in advertising, caps on how much can be spent—all of those things would improve our democracy. This will not. It's a very bad answer to a very serious question. I would urge the government to rethink it. I know they won't, because they're not very good with answers. This government are not very good at all. They're certainly not very good at consulting. But this is an incredibly bad answer. 17:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I too rise to speak against the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 and in support of what the member for Scullin moved earlier. Let's just be frank about what we've got before us here. In a time when people are calling out for truth in a democracy, and in a time when people are really questioning and challenging how healthy our democracy is, what do we have as an answer from this government? We have a bill that attacks the very people who are challenging them, their ideas and values and what they are doing as a government. Who does this bill target? It targets the smaller charities. It targets the people who have been active in our democracy previously and who now would be limited in the way in which they can participate. Here are just a few of the organisations—and it's no coincidence when you hear the organisations that this government is targeting in this bill and their motivations behind it. It is organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Bob Brown Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature and the RSPCA. We know that a senator in the other place is particularly opposed to this organisation, even petitioning for them to drop the 'Royal' in RSPCA because they believed that it did no longer represent the views of the royal family. That is how absurd some of the arguments have been on their side towards organisations on this list. Organisations that would also be disenfranchised by this bill are organisations like St Vincent de Paul and organisations that are involved in a lot of advocacy around food support, welfare and community support. Several unions would also be disadvantaged by this bill, like the United Workers Union, the NUW, the STA and the CEPU. These are the organisations: unions, environmental organisations and not-for-profit welfare charities—the very organisations that are third parties campaigning in our democracy about core values and issues. This government doesn't like democracy. They're a bit of: 'We're in the club. We're here now. You can't be.' This government is becoming more authoritarian by the day, and that is what is in this bill. They will pretend it is about disclosure. They'll pretend that it's about encouraging more honesty and transparency. But it is not. It is about raising the bar so high for some of our organisations who are so actively involved in our democracy in a good way. I don't always agree with what some of these organisations say. I have the Australian Conservation Foundation protesting at the front of my office on a regular basis, but I don't shoo them away. They have a right to be there. It is a democracy. As long as they are not being violent, as long as they are letting people come in and out of my office and as long as they are doing it in a peaceful way, it is something that we encourage in our Australian democracy. We are home to some of the most ugly protests right now. Those protests, when they become violent and make threats against people, are not democracy. That is not something that we should be embracing. That is something which this government has, ironically, not been able to condemn. It is a government that just likes to pretend one thing but do another. I find it extraordinary that we're here saying that we want to exclude groups from participating in our democracy. They are registered groups that have a legitimate say, have raised an issue that they campaign on and have a membership that is behind them. We have no doubt about what the Australian Conservation Foundation campaign on. They are there to campaign around the environment. That is what they are passionate about, that is what their membership is passionate about, that is what they bring to us as parliamentarians, and that is their right to do so. In a healthy democracy, we create the space for them to do that, but this bill seeks to set the bar even higher. This is coming from a government that says it's okay to be a bigot. This is from a government who will say that people have a right to protest and make threats against a premier and have gallows at the front of parliament house. But, if you want to be an organised environmental group or if you want to be a trade union that is raising the matter, they are going to set the bar really high so you can't actually participate in an election process. It is a government that does not live by its rhetoric. It is a government that also, too, will say it's okay for politicians to have blind trusts. And that's the thing that I find quite extraordinary. Here we are lowering the threshold for organisations who might want to participate in an election process, making it harder for organisations to participate in our democratic process, yet at the same time saying that their own can have blind trusts set up where people can just throw money in; we don't know where it came from and we just have to trust the person that received it. Well, where is the trust for these organisations? Where's the trust for these membership based organisations who are out there campaigning on an issue? In a free democracy, you should not be afraid of them. In a free democracy, where we embrace and encourage people to engage in a safe, peaceful way, we should not be afraid of them. This is also, too, the government of sports rorts. This is the government who will use whatever language they can to try and disguise, to try and hide, what they are doing. This is a government where we have a prime minister who will say one thing and then try and rewrite history, even though it's quite clear, in the age of technology, that that's not what he said. This is a government who believes that, once you're in the club, if you're here, 'This is our club and no-one else is welcome.' This bill, the political campaigners bill, has been designed to target a certain kind of organisation, to set the bar so incredibly high for them that they choose not to participate in our democracy, because that's essentially what will happen. Organisations like St Vincent de Paul, organisations that do so much community based work—they do the drug and alcohol work in our communities; they do the food hampers in our communities; they help people who have fallen down—will say, 'Okay, I guess that means we just can't raise our concerns about these issues.' That's what has happened year after year, reform after reform with this government. Another area where this legislation is linked so clearly to the government's entire agenda is the gag clauses they put in funding agreements. Organisations who are very concerned with how people in their care are being treated feel really nervous about speaking out. Employees of these organisations privately disclose how they're very worried about how legislation may affect them, but they are too scared to speak out on the record because they're worried that they might lose their funding agreement. This bill is in that same vein. It's about silencing dissent. It's about silencing people who speak up about issues. You wouldn't be so upset with the government if they were true to their rhetoric and said to be protesters in Melbourne and said to the antivaxxers and said to the far Right, 'No, you don't actually get to have a say'—if they were consistent, but they're not. The Prime Minister comes in here and stands up and says, 'Everyone has the right to a have say; we live in a free democracy,' but then puts bills like this before us and says, 'This is about ensuring transparency and accountability,' when it's not. It's a government of hypocrisy. It's a government about protecting themselves and protecting their position here in power. They do not want an active democracy. They do not want people speaking up about these issues. When you look at the organisations that this bill will target, the government definitely don't want the Australian Conservation Foundation campaigning in the seat of Higgins, campaigning in the seat of Goldstein. Let's be real about what we're seeing in this bill. This is about stopping organisations that may hand out how-to-votes against them. In my electorate of Bendigo we have always had a very active democracy. We have people from the far Left and the far Right involved as well as major parties. It's unusual for us, come federal elections, to have fewer than nine candidates. In my first election, it was 13; years after, it was 11 and 12. And there are lots of different groups. Now, granted, when it comes to polling day, I am quite relieved that most of the people in the electorate get behind one of the two major political parties. But you don't go and say to them, 'You can't participate.' It's our democracy; it's what makes us stronger. And of course we have disagreements of views, but, with a lot of the groups that are involved and that participate in these elections, there's material I don't like; there's material which gets reported to the AEC. We don't see a bill before us about truth in advertising. That's what Australians really care about. They really want to see some truth in advertising. We don't see that. We can make complaints about material, we can make complaints about the texts we get, but we don't see any bill that's dealing with that side of the issues we're having with our democracy. What we have instead is a bill that is about protecting themselves. We have a bill that's about silencing legitimate campaigning—people who do it properly, people who are willing and wanting to follow the rules. The government is trying to be sneaky in the way it has introduced this bill—at the end of the year, right before an election, without having full and proper consultation. It's another demonstration of how this government is really keen to change the rules to suit itself. Whether it be this bill or the bill about voter ID and disenfranchising people in remote communities in Australia, in vulnerable communities, what we see is a government all about protecting their own jobs and protecting themselves. They're not really interested in a healthy democracy, which is why they side with antivaxxers, which is why they side with far Right extremists. They actually don't really want to engage in a proper dialogue and contest of ideas. What they really want to do is just protect themselves. And it's disappointing. When our democracy is under such a microscope and we've had three years to look at it—in fact, quite a while to look at it—what we see from the government, at the very end, in the legislation they've put forward about how they're going to improve the health of our democracy, is not about truth in advertising. It's not a bill that looks at that. It's not about genuine donation reform and disclosure. It's not about an integrity bill that will look at people and blind trusts in this place. What we have is this bill and another bill, a bill which is about disenfranchising people from participating in our democracy. That's a really sad state of affairs. It really demonstrates the selfishness and the individuality of those in this government. It demonstrates that it's really all about the Prime Minister and about the Prime Minister keeping his own job. How a Prime Minister could stand alongside the protesters in Melbourne after what they did at the front of parliament house is beyond me. And I hope that, when it comes to election day, people in Melbourne remember that we have a Prime Minister who said that it's okay to stand out the front of the Victorian parliament with a gallows, that it's okay to walk down the streets with— Mr Tim Wilson IMW Point of order: the member is misleading the House. No such remarks were ever made by the Prime Minister, and it's despicable to suggest so. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 There is no point of order. Mr Giles 243609 On the point of order: reflecting on a member, as the member just did, is disorderly, unlike his ridiculous point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 Thank you. I call the member. Ms CHESTERS 249710 Maybe I have just touched on a nerve with the member for Goldstein, because many in his electorate would have objected to what they saw happening in the streets of Melbourne. We have really high vaccination rates across our country and it's something we should all be embracing. There are some who've chosen not to get vaccinated, and how does that relate to this bill? They will be politically active in this campaign. We are already having discussions in my electorate about how we can keep people safe during the election period. We've not seen any focus whatsoever from this government about how we can ensure people are safe when they're voting, how they won't get harassed if they're voting. We've not had any genuine discussion from this government about how we can improve our election processes. What we've had instead is this bill and another bill, a bill which is all about disenfranchising people from participating. That is what really disappoints me about what we're seeing. This is at a time when we want people to be encouraged to be positive about our democracy, to know that their vote can make a difference. It is at a time when we want to encourage civil society to participate—organisations like the RSPCA, like St Vincent de Paul, like our unions. We stood side by side with our unions and said: 'Your members are essential workers. Thank you for what you've done. Nobody deserves a serve.' Members of the United Workers Union ran hotel quarantine and put themselves at risk. Because this government didn't do anything about hotel quarantine, the states picked it up. Our security guards and our cleaners—some of our lowest paid workers—kept the virus out of our community; they did everything they could. Now this government is saying that their union needs to meet a new, higher threshold when it comes to political campaigning. If anybody deserves an opportunity to have a voice in this election about how this government has participated, about the kind of government that they want, and an opportunity to organise collectively, it's the workers in those unions, who really stood up and kept Australia safe. It drives me bonkers that we have a Prime Minister who pretends he did the job. He did not. In his absence, these organisations stepped up. I strongly encourage the government to drop this bill. This is the wrong time to be looking at something like this. What we want is a bill that talks about truth in advertising and truth in political campaigning. What we want is a bill that talks about donations and disclosures—real-time donation disclosures. What we want is a bill which is about genuinely engaging and encouraging people to participate in our democracy. What we want is a bill that ensures people are safe. There is a real threat happening out there right now in our democracy. There are some really huge concerns that are going on, and all we have from this government is game playing. 17:45 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Firstly, I would like to thank all those in this chamber who have contributed to this debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 truthfully. I also take the opportunity to recognise and thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their continued consideration of matters relating to electoral laws and practices. The Commonwealth Electoral Act is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in Australia and requires continual review to harmonise law and administration with the evolving environment. The bill strengthens Australia's elections by providing for further consistency and funding disclosure requirements for political actors, presenting voters with more transparent information on those who seek to influence their voting decisions. There is a comprehensive need to continue to modernise the way in which democracy is delivered, with an ongoing commitment to reviewing our electoral system. There is potential risk to Australians engaging with the electoral process in an informed and appropriate way. That is the basis of this legislation. I speak to the electors of Goldstein. What they want is elections on the basis of integrity, and I am sure that is true and consistent across the whole of the community. More to the point, they want to be free and able to engage in electoral behaviour without being misled or engaging in conduct which makes it difficult for them to exercise their democratic duty, responsibility and opportunity. Once again, I thank colleagues for their contributions. I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 198084 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Scullin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Indi has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Indi be disagreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Indi be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [17:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Christensen, G. R. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 63 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. 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. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:57 The 00APG SPEAKER (): The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Scullin be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [17:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Christensen, G. R. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 63 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. 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. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:59 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a second time.    

The House divided. [17:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Christensen, G. R. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 63 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. 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. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 133 18:01 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move the government amendment as circulated: (1) Page 3 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 1 Section 286A Before "or third parties must not be made by foreign donors", insert ", associated entities". 2 Subsection 287AB(3) After "political entity,", insert "a person or entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a political campaigner or an associated entity,". 3 After paragraph 287F(1)(b) Insert: ; or (c) during that financial year the person or entity operates for the dominant purpose of fundraising amounts: (i) the aggregate of which is at least equal to the disclosure threshold; and (ii) that are for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure or that are to be gifted to another person or entity for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure. 4 Subsection 287F(3) Omit "must not incur further electoral expenditure in that financial year if the person or entity is not registered as a political campaigner", substitute: must not: (a) incur any, or any further, electoral expenditure; or (b) fundraise any, or any further, amounts for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure; in that financial year, after becoming required to be so registered, if the person or entity is not registered as a political campaigner. 5 Subsection 287F(3) (paragraph (b) of the penalty) After "this subsection", insert "(if any), or the amount, or an estimate of the amount, fundraised in contravention of this subsection (if any), or both". 6 At the end of subsection 287H(1) Add: ; (g) the entity operates wholly, or to a significant extent, for the benefit of one or more disclosure entities and the benefit relates to one or more electoral activities (whether or not the electoral activities are undertaken during an election period). Note: For the meaning of disclosure entity, see subsection (4). 7 At the end of section 287H Add: (4) The reference in paragraph (1)(g) to a disclosure entity is a reference to a person or entity that is covered by paragraph (aa) or any of paragraphs (c) to (f) of the definition of disclosure entity in section 321B. (5) To avoid doubt, the reference in paragraph (1)(g) to a benefit that relates to an electoral activity includes: (a) fundraising amounts, of at least equal to the disclosure threshold, for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure; and (b) assisting in the creation or communication of electoral matter; and (c) otherwise facilitating the interests of a disclosure entity with respect to preparing for, or participating in, an election. 8 Subparagraph 287K(2)(b)(ii) After "registered political party", insert ", and any disclosure entity referred to in paragraph 287H(1)(g),". 9 Paragraph 287N(2)(c) After "registered political parties", insert ", and any disclosure entities referred to in paragraph 287H(1)(g),". 10 Subparagraph 287S(1)(c)(v) After "registered political party" (wherever occurring), insert "or a disclosure entity referred to in paragraph 287H(1)(g)". 11 Subparagraph 287S(1)(c)(v) Omit "; and", substitute "; or". 12 At the end of paragraph 287S(1)(c) Add: (vi) the relevant person does not operate wholly, or to a significant extent, for the dominant purpose of fundraising amounts that are for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure or that are to be gifted to another person or entity for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure; and 13 Section 302A Omit "political campaigners and third parties", substitute "political campaigners, associated entities and third parties". 14 Section 302A Omit "or political campaigners", substitute ", political campaigners or associated entities". 15 Section 302A Omit "political campaigner or third party", substitute "political campaigner, associated entity or third party". 16 Section 302D (heading) Omit "and political campaigners", substitute ", political campaigners and associated entities". 17 Subparagraph 302D(1)(a)(ii) After "political campaigner", insert "or an associated entity". 18 Paragraph 302D(1A)(a) Omit "or political campaigner", substitute ", political campaigner or associated entity". 19 Subparagraph 302F(1)(a)(ii) After "political campaigner", insert "or an associated entity". 20 Paragraph 302F(1)(b) After "political campaigner", insert ", associated entity". 21 After subparagraph 302F(2)(c)(ii) Insert: (iia) an associated entity; or 22 Paragraphs 302H(1)(b) and (c) After "political campaigner" (wherever occurring), insert ", associated entity". 23 Subsection 314AB(1) (paragraph (b) of the penalty) Omit "subparagraph (2)(b)(ii)", substitute "(b)". 24 After subsection 314AB(3) Insert: (3A) If: (a) a person or entity is registered as a political campaigner for a financial year (the current financial year); and (b) the person or entity was not required to be registered as a political campaigner for the previous financial year; the financial controller of the political campaigner must provide a return, that complies with subsection (2) and is in an approved form, for the previous financial year by the end of the period of 30 days after the person or entity is registered as a political campaigner for the current financial year. Civil penalty: The higher of the following: (a) 120 penalty units; (b) if an amount is not disclosed under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) and there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, not disclosed—3 times that amount. (3B) If, in complying with subsection (2), a return that is required to be provided under subsection (3A) would include no amounts or details, the return provided must include a statement to the effect that there are no amounts or details to be included. (3C) Despite anything in this section, a return provided under this section in respect of a political campaigner who is an individual is not required to include the following: (a) any amounts, or the details of any discretionary benefits, received by, or on behalf of, the campaigner in a purely personal capacity; (b) any amounts paid by, or on behalf of, the campaigner for personal purposes and not solely or substantially for a purpose related to an election; (c) the amount, or other details, of any debt incurred by, or on behalf of, the campaigner in a purely personal capacity. 25 Subsection 314AB(4) After "subsection (1)", insert "or (3A)". 26 Subsection 314AEA(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) Subject to subsection (6), if: (a) an entity is registered as an associated entity for a financial year (the current financial year); and (b) the entity was not required to be registered as an associated entity for the previous financial year; the financial controller of the associated entity must provide a return to the Electoral Commission, in the approved form, by the end of the period of 30 days after the entity is registered as an associated entity for the current financial year, setting out: (c) the total amount received by, or on behalf of, the entity during the previous financial year, together with the details required by section 314AC; and (d) the total amount paid by, or on behalf of, the entity during the previous financial year; and (e) the total outstanding amount, as at the end of the previous financial year, of all debts incurred by or on behalf of the entity, together with the details required by section 314AE; and (f) details of any discretionary benefits (however described) received by, or on behalf of, the entity from the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory during the previous financial year. Civil penalty: The higher of the following: (a) 60 penalty units; (b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, not disclosed in accordance with subsection (2)—3 times that amount. 27 Subsection 314AEA(3) Omit "If any", substitute "For a return under subsection (1) or (2), if any". 28 Subsection 314AEA(3) After "paragraph (1)(b)", insert "or (2)(d) (as the case may be)". 29 Subsection 314AEA(4) Omit "this section", substitute "subsection (1) or (2)". 30 Subsection 314AEA(5) After "paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c)", insert "and (2)(c), (d) and (e)". 31 Subsection 314AEA(6) After "subsection (1)", insert "or (2)". 32 After subsection 314AEA(6) Insert: (6A) If a return that is required to be provided under subsection (2) would include no amounts or details, the return provided must include a statement to the effect that there are no amounts or details to be included. 33 Subsection 314AEA(7) After "subsection (1)", insert "or (2)". 34 After subsection 316(2A) Insert: (2AB) The period specified in a notice for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c) must be no longer than 30 days after the date of the notice. 35 Application of amendments (1) For the purposes of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, references to financial years, in subsections 287F(1) and 287H(1) of that Act as amended by this Schedule, include references to financial years beginning before this item commences. Note: The effect of this subitem is that a person or entity may be required to be registered as a political campaigner or associated entity before the end of 90 days after the commencement of this item (see subsections 287F(2) and 287H(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918). (2) Subject to subitem (3), subsection 314AB(3A) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a political campaigner for the financial year in which this item commences and later financial years. (3) If a person or entity is a political campaigner immediately before the commencement of this item, subsection 314AB(3A) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as inserted by this Schedule, has effect in relation to that political campaigner as if "30 days after the person or entity is registered as a political campaigner for the current financial year" were omitted and "30 days after the commencement of this subsection" were substituted. (4) Subject to subitem (5), subsection 314AEA(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as substituted by this Schedule, applies in relation to an associated entity for the financial year in which this item commences and later financial years. (5) If a person or entity is an associated entity immediately before the commencement of this item, subsection 314AEA(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as substituted by this Schedule, has effect in relation to that associated entity as if "30 days after the entity is registered as an associated entity for the current financial year" were omitted and "30 days after the commencement of this subsection" were substituted. 18:02 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin We see here a government so bereft of ideas that it has filled the legislative agenda with one thing: bills designed to rort the next election to their benefit—including this bill, which is designed to silence any critics. I outlined Labor's position on this bill only four hours ago, and since then the government has put before the House 35 amendments. Those are 35 amendments that we have not had the chance to consider. Those are 35 amendments that civil society, those organisations directly affected and those organisations sought to be silenced by this rotten, dysfunctional government, have not had the chance to consider. Who knows what grubby deal animates these amendments? Who knows what substantive effect these amendments are going to have? All we know is the government isn't very proud of them. Look at the member for Goldstein walking away from the dispatch box. Where's the Special Minister of State, the minister who clearly crafted these and has not given the House the courtesy to sum up the bill nor to speak to these amendments. He's more concerned with dealing with Pauline Hanson's One Nation than dealing with matters on the floor of the House of Representatives as he should. That says just about everything that needs to be said about this government and its agenda. I hope the member for Tangney, the minister, will speak to these amendments and perhaps share his thinking about the effect that they will have on the conduct of an election that could take place at the very start of next year. All four bills the government has introduced in these sitting weeks will have a significant impact on the conduct of the next election. The most egregious one, of course, is the voter suppression proposal, which we may be debating tomorrow. The voter suppression proposal sees us, if the government gets its way, introduce the very worst aspects of the United States's democracy into Australia. But we can't overlook this bill and its potential effect. For more than eight years, members of this government have sought to shut down dissenting voices. Indeed, they have sought to shut down any voice that is not unequivocally on their side. That really goes to the heart of what is before us now: a government that won't listen, a government that won't engage and a government that cannot see the national interest beyond its short-term political interest. In my view, on my brief consideration of them, these amendments will make a bad bill worse. It may be that some of these amendments serve some useful purpose. But we, who are about to be asked to vote on all of them, have no basis to make that determination. We all heard the member for Goldstein. One thing I think we can all agree on about the member for Goldstein is that he generally likes his time at the dispatch box; it took him a long time to get there! How striking was it that he did not take the opportunity to lecture us about freedom? This bill is not about freedom; it's about cracking down on the freedoms enjoyed by Australians who don't have the privilege of being in this place, by Australians who don't have the privilege of being part of a registered political party that takes its place in these processes. Any reasonable view of democracy requires us to ensure that all voices are heard. Indeed, that is something that most Australians are proud of when it comes to our democracy—a system of compulsory voting based also on compulsory enrolment and on making sure that everyone gets their say and that everyone's perspective is brought to this place. But everyone's perspective, even in this place, cannot be properly applied to these amendments, because Labor and the crossbench have not had the chance to consider them. Labor and the crossbench have not heard any argument in support of them. But we, I think, can be assured in our suspicions of the motivations of members opposite, because there has been a consistent approach here by this government, which won't run on its record at the next election because it has no record to run on. It won't run on a positive vision for Australia because it does not have one. In fact, the government's contempt for the Australian people is summed up in this bill and in the other bills they are putting forward because they know they have no persuasive case to make at the next election. They know they won't be listened to and their only path to victory is to cuddle up to the far Right on the one hand and to deny other voices a chance to speak and, indeed, as we will see later this week, a chance to vote. This is disgraceful legislation. These amendments make it worse. They need to be opposed. 18:06 Mr BAN M3C Melbourne DT (—) (): You know something is going on when the government comes in to move amendments to its own legislation, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021, and no-one even speaks in favour of them—the minister doesn't speak, the assistant minister does not speak and the member who talks about freedom at every opportunity he can doesn't even speak! Instead, we are given 35 amendments and asked to vote on them straightaway without anyone from the government even speaking to them. Why? Even on the most cursory reading of them, you can see that there are problems. Just in the short time that we've had available to look at these, amendments (2) and (24), for example, when looked at together not only add to a bill that restricts freedom of speech, because the government does not like what organisations, charities and people working with people who are doing it tough say from time to time, but actually make some of it retrospective. That's on our quick reading from having had a look at them. These organisations not only are going to be placed under restrictions about what they can say from now on but are going to have to go back, if we've read these correctly in the short time we've had, and look at their books and account for their expenditure over previous years when this law was not even in place. So during an election time, when everyone from charities to organisations to welfare groups should have the right to say, 'Hey, hang on; we are a rich country in Australia and we need laws that look after everyone,' they are now going to be tied up with bookkeeping and requirements for previous years before the law even came into effect. As the previous speaker said, the strategy from the government is crystal clear. They haven't come in here with laws to stop Clive Palmer buying an election. In fact, they are doing the opposite. They have turned a blind eye to billionaires who write checks for amounts of money that no-one else in the country could afford, the billionaires who come in and seem to buy elections. They are fine with that. But when charities or organisations who work with people doing it tough dare to speak out and say, 'Maybe we should improve things a little bit in our country,' the government come down on them like a tonne of bricks. So the government's strategy is very clear: stop some people from speaking out and stop some people from even voting and then, on the other hand, run over and suck up to Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson and all the far Right and everyone else and say, 'Can you please come and do the same again for us? Can you please write out a huge cheque to ensure the re-election of the Liberal government—please, please, please? We'll do everything we can to support you'—even if it means standing up and saying in Queensland, 'Oh, it's okay; people should be able to go and have a cup of coffee without being double vaxxed,' when, at the same time, that is exactly what has been put out in Victoria and New South Wales and the government doesn't seem to have a problem with it. So enough pandering to the far Right as a re-election strategy. If you were serious about ensuring that there are the kinds of restrictions on political campaigners that most people in this country would like, you would stop billionaires from buying elections. You would come in here with amendments that say, 'Perhaps we should have a cap on how much corporations and billionaires can donate to political parties.' But, no, you don't do that. The government comes in here with a bill that says, 'Let's shut down some people who are speaking out, because we don't like what they are saying,' and then, at the last minute, come in with 35 amendments which, on the face of them, on a quick read, mean that some of these laws will potentially apply retrospectively and then turn a blind eye to everything else. Oh, by the way, forget about that promise of an independent corruption commission; that's never going to happen at all. This is a terrible process. We should not be supporting amendments that get lobbed on us at the last minute, particularly when on a quick read it looks like some are going to have retrospective application. This is all about the government trying to silence people it does not like. A government that was proud of what it did wouldn't be scared when people spoke up and spoke out; it would engage in the debate. But, instead, this government says: 'We're going to shut you down. We're going to use the power of the law to let the billionaires keep getting away with buying elections while we shut down charities and other groups.' Well, no; we should stand up to the government and say no. And any amendments that come in, when you don't even have the decency to speak to them and put an argument as to why they are good, should be opposed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment be agreed to.    

The House divided. [18:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Christensen, G. R. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 61 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. 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. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:20 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.    

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

 68 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Christensen, G. R. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 61 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. 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. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 140 18:21 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be read a third time.    

The House divided. [18:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 68 AYES Alexander, J. G. Allen, K. J. Andrews, K. J. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Christensen, G. R. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. Drum, D. K. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Evans, T. M. Falinski, J. G. Fletcher, P. W. Flint, N. J. Frydenberg, J. A. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hammond, C. M. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Hunt, G. A. Joyce, B. T. G. Kelly, C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Liu, G. Marino, N. B. Martin, F. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. Morton, B O'Brien, L. S. O'Dowd, K. D. Pasin, A. Pitt, K. J. Porter, C. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharma, D. N. Simmonds, J. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Wyatt, K. G. Young, T. J. Zimmerman, T. M. 61 NOES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Bandt, A. P. Bird, S. L. Bowen, C. E. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Champion, N. D. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Conroy, P. M. Elliot, M. J. Freelander, M. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hayes, C. P. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Katter, R. C. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Leigh, A. K. Marles, R. D. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Owens, J. A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. 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. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 141

Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading 141 18:25 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 concerns the Future Fund, which is a fund of some provenance. It's probably worthwhile, for the benefit of members of this place, to go through some of the history of the establishment of the Future Fund. It was established in 2006-07 to fund the defined benefits liabilities of public servants, parliamentarians, judges and others who were the beneficiaries of a defined benefits superannuation fund. There was some controversy as to whether this was the best use of capital holdings of the Commonwealth. Many took the view that it was unnecessary and that the capacity of the Commonwealth to fund these liabilities through consolidated revenue was sufficient to meet current and future risks, a debate which continues today. And the fact that the fund still hasn't made a disbursement from its assets to fund the superannuation liability of the Commonwealth probably speaks to that underlying truth. That being the case, it's now well established as a part of the architecture of the financing of the Commonwealth, and it has been added to by both sides of parliament since its establishment in 2006-07. For example, in 2000, in the period of the Rudd and Gillard governments, we established an education fund and a health and hospital fund to fund the Commonwealth's contribution to school, university and tertiary education as well as to the hospital system, including medical research. In 2014-15 the then Abbott government decided to close down Labor's health and hospital fund and fold the remaining proceeds of that fund into the newly established Medical Research Future Fund, so the assets of the health and hospital fund became the assets of the Medical Research Future Fund. In 2014 the Abbott government also established the Disability Care Australia Fund with the intention of funding, in part, the National Disability Insurance Scheme out of the earnings of that fund. In 2018 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund was established to assist the Commonwealth to make contributions to the Indigenous Land Corporation. And in 2019, quite famously, the Emergency Response Fund was established, together with the Future Drought Fund, to provide capacity for the Commonwealth to make disbursements in response to national emergencies and natural disasters and, more importantly, to help state and local authorities, together with the Commonwealth, to build the infrastructure which would help mitigate infirm economic assets to assist them in withstanding the damage of natural disasters. It has become a matter of some controversy in those drought and fire affected communities. I see that the member for Eden-Monaro is in the House. She has been quite outspoken on the fact that no moneys have been disbursed out of this fund to assist those fire affected communities. If you look at the member for Eden-Monaro together with the member for Gilmore, there would not be two electorates in the country that have seen more devastation over the last three years due to the impact of fires than theirs. It is a matter of deep concern, if not boiling, seething anger, that the government has not lived up to its promise to assist those communities in their hour of deepest and darkest need. I'm quite certain we will hear more from the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Gilmore over the course of this debate, and probably over the course of the next six months, advocating as they always do for the community and advocating that the Commonwealth do what it promised to do and ensure that this fund is used for its intended purpose. The fund has not been established as a vanity project; it's been established to assist communities in need that have been or are at threat of future devastation because of natural disasters. This is the context, the background, the land upon which the amendments before the House today are being debated. It is a matter of quite some national importance. Look at the subject matter of them: medical research; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land purchases—we can assist our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities on their project of self-determination and control of land and assets, with the economic and cultural benefits that come with that; drought resilience; emergency resilience; and the funding of Labor's National Disability Insurance Scheme. There are some four or five amendments before the House today that I will speak to. Firstly, the bill creates a new employment framework for the Future Fund Management Agency. This is the agency which has the statutory responsibility for managing not just the Future Fund but the other five funds which I have outlined in my address this afternoon. The Future Fund Management Agency employs staff, and it is the responsibility of those staff to supervise the fund managers and ensure that all the statutory requirements of the fund are complied with. The provision of the first schedule of the bill will exempt it from the standard requirements of the Australian Public Service, like other specialised agencies such as: ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission; APRA, the prudential regulator; and the Reserve Bank of Australia. We are not opposed to this change; we recognise the unique charter of the Future Fund and the employment market in which it operates. Many of the employees in funds management and the managers of funds earn many multiples of the salaries that even the most senior public servants would earn. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that public employees engaged by the Future Fund Management Agency are able to be engaged and retained; that is very important. I want to take this opportunity, given that the bill goes to Public Service employment, to say a few things about the contribution public servants have made to our response to the COVID pandemic during these most difficult two years. I am sure not a member in this place would object to me paying tribute to the contribution that public servants have made. Government takes the glory but public servants do the vast amount of the work in this area. They have worked hard on the ground in airports, in our regions and in call centres around Australia to ensure that Australians have had the support they have needed throughout this pandemic. I ask you to cast your mind back to that period between March and June of 2020, when, in a few short weeks, we saw nearly half a million people queue up at Centrelink offices around the country. Many of those people were approaching a Centrelink office for the first time in their lives, in a desperate situation, not knowing how they would pay for food, rent, mortgages or any of the other requirements in what they thought would be a protracted period of emergency lockdown. It was way beyond the capacity of the systems, let alone the people who worked in Centrelink, to process that in the way that was needed. Public servants came from every corner of the Public Service and every corner of the country. They picked themselves up from one agency and were relocated to another agency, often virtually, and did the job of processing those claims. That was just in one agency. It was repeated in many others. The Australian Taxation Office, for example, was responsible when the government was dragged kicking and screaming into introducing the JobKeeper arrangements. It was also responsible for administering the superannuation early release scheme. The Australian Taxation Office managed a similar job of work, remarkably, from remote locations around the country. So I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, to thank those public servants, because I don't think the government has done that. I want to thank those public servants for the work that they've done through a trying and difficult period. At times, I was incredibly critical of the work that the government had done. During the various review committees—whether it was the COVID review committee chaired by Senator Gallagher, the various Senate estimates processes or the House committees—and even in the adversarial forum of this chamber, I had some harsh things to say of the government, and it was warranted and necessary. I would hate for those public servants to feel that those harsh words were directed at them. They most certainly were not. They are doing the bidding of their masters, as they do, as an apolitical public service is charged with doing. So we simply thank them for their service. The second schedule in this bill provides a partial exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the Future Fund Management Agency in relation to investment documents. I want to say something about this, because this provision has a fascinating progeny. When it first burst onto the legislative scene, it had a younger sister, and that younger sister was a provision intended to be made by the Treasurer which would have applied to all of the APRA regulated superannuation funds. That provision did exactly the opposite of what this provision, which applies to the government regulated Future Fund, does. Let me explain. Schedule 2 will protect, in part, the Future Fund, its board of guardians and the management agency from freedom of information applications in relation to investment documents. What will those investment documents be? It may be a document which has been provided by an investment adviser about the valuation of an asset. It may be a more recent audited valuation of a holding document. This is a perfectly commercial arrangement, because it would be perverse in the extreme—because superannuation funds do not buy assets; they sell them as well—if the government, representing the taxpayers of Australia, were proposing to sell an asset that it owned and the counterparty to that transaction could lodge a freedom of information request in the midst of that commercial transaction and have access to a whole heap of commercial documents which prejudiced the Future Fund in its part in a sell-side transaction. It would be perverse in the extreme if the act worked in that way. So this is perfectly commercial for the Future Fund and its board of guardians, and it's perfectly sensible for the government to bring legislation to this effect to the House today. What is extraordinary is that, at the same time that they were moving this provision into the parliament, they were doing the exact opposite and proposing to create a requirement upon every APRA regulated superannuation fund in the country to disclose the details, including the book valuation, of every asset in their portfolio. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar—and hasn't the currency of a Rhodes scholar been devalued over the life of this government and its predecessor?—to understand what is going to happen in those circumstances. In exactly the same way that the Future Fund would have been prejudiced in a sell-side transaction, so would every APRA regulated fund in the country. Deputy Speaker, you would know, because you'd have a close eye to these matters, that that's you and me, that's every member of this parliament and that's every Australian employee who has their money in an APRA regulated super fund. This was going to cost them billions of dollars. An ideological obsession, driven by the Treasurer and those who advise him, was going to cost Australian retirees and those saving for their retirement billions and billions of dollars. It was Labor's position that what was good for the goose was going to be good for the gander. If they didn't fix it, we wouldn't be supporting this. Thankfully, after exhausting every other option, the government has decided to do the right thing with the APRA regulated funds, and it's Labor's happy duty to advise the House that we'll be supporting this provision in this schedule in this bill. A dawning of common sense comes upon the government, not before due time. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Medical Research Future Fund Act 2015 to provide for the administration of the Medical Research Future Fund grants program and to provide a new disbursements framework. I want to pause and repeat that: a new disbursements framework. It should be noted that this legislation provides for a maximum of $650 million to be annually disbursed from the Medical Research Future Fund. This represents something that has become all too common over the life of the Morrison government. This represents a direct breach of promise to the Australian people. We have become so accustomed to the Prime Minister promising one thing and doing another, to the Prime Minister saying one thing and hours later denying that he ever said it, to the Prime Minister telling one group of people one thing and another group of people something completely different, and to the Prime Minister saying to some of our most trusted allies that we have a commercial arrangement with them, all the while knowing full well that he's proposing to do the exact opposite. Is it any wonder that everybody, from our international allies to members of the Prime Minister's own government to those of us on this side of the House and every member of the Australian public, now knows that you cannot trust a thing that the Prime Minister says? An opposition member interjecting— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Yes, he 'sent a text'—we saw it in question time today. You could have knocked me over with a feather. You get this bloke who stands up in defence of his own sorry track record of deserting the country in its hour of deepest need and tells a completely fictitious fable that he sent the Leader of the Opposition a text message telling him that he was going to be in Hawaii. The only problem with this story is it wasn't true, like so many of the stories and tall tales—I cannot use the unparliamentary word. They're simply not true, and they're— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I call the minister on a point of order. Mr Wood E0F On relevance: I'm just wondering where this is going. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I'm happy to inform the member. What I'm telling members of this House—and they need to know it—is that schedule 3 of this bill follows a long line of broken promises, untruths, misdeeds and double-dealing. So, whether it's our international allies, his own colleagues, this parliament or the Australian people, this Prime Minister cannot be trusted because he cannot tell the truth. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member will resume his seat. The member for Mackellar? Mr Falinski G86 The member is not speaking to the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member will be relevant to the question before the chair. Mr STEPHE A9B If the Prime Minister was going to tell the truth, he would be coming forward in this debate today and saying: 'I know that I promised that the disbursements from the Medical Research Future Fund would be $1 billion a year, and I have brought a bill to the House which is a backflip on that promise. The fund will now only disperse $650 million a year. I did not tell the truth. I misled the Australian people once again. I have treated the Australian people like I've treated the French president, because I am incapable of telling the truth, whether it's an international deal around submarines or the Medical Research Future Fund.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member will resume his seat. I call the member for La Trobe. Mr Wood E0F Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B He's congenitally incapable of telling the truth! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Could you please be relevant to the question? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I don't know how I can be any more relevant to the bill before the House. He promised to deliver $1 billion and he's come up with $650 million. I know they do not like it, but they voted for the guy. I didn't. Your leader is congenitally incapable of telling the truth. He cannot tell the truth, whether it is about medical research or submarines. He cannot tell the truth. Mr Wood E0F He keeps reflecting on the member. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Yes, could you please direct your remarks to the bill? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Thank you, Deputy Speaker. This is another broken promise from the failed Morrison government. Evidence provided to the Senate says that the lost $350 million per year is nearly $1.2 billion in lost health and productivity gains per year across the medical sector. This is the cost of a Prime Minister who cannot tell the truth—$1.2 billion in lost health and productivity gains per year across the medical sector. They may try and defend their bloke who cannot tell the truth, but this is the cost to Australians—$1.2 billion in lost health and productivity gains per year across the medical sector. So whether it's Neil Mitchell asking him if he's ever told a lie or if it's the Australian people asking, 'What is the cost of you not telling us the truth?' we have it here in black and white in this bill; it's $1.2 billion a year and Australian lives at risk. We've seen this story before. The fourth schedule of the bill amends the Emergency Response Fund Act 2019 to transfer responsibility for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund to the newly established National Recovery and Resilience Agency. Labor wants to see more funding going out to the communities affected by bushfires and floods. We are very keen to ensure that those communities receive the support that the Prime Minister promised to deliver but about which he has once again misled them. He did not tell the truth. We all remember that forced handshake: in the midst of community firefighters and volunteers who'd put their bodies and communities on the line, who didn't know if they would return home, all the Prime Minister was interested in was a photoshoot of him shaking hands with someone in orange overalls. Against that background, the very least that they are entitled to is some funding from these funds before the House today. The government has failed repeatedly to support bushfire affected communities across Australia, including in the Southern Highlands and the South Coast of New South Wales, all the way down to the Victorian border. These are devastated communities, but the Prime Minister only turns up when it's election time for a photo-op. He'll probably try to shovel some money out the door on the eve of the election, but local communities won't buy it. They want a government that's on their side for the long term, and they're certainly not getting it with this mob. They're waiting for their houses to be rebuilt. They're waiting for their community centres to be rebuilt. They're waiting for their services to be re-engineered so they'll be more resilient in the future. We've got a lot to oppose with the Morrison-Joyce government. Australians are sick and tired of being told one thing only to find out that it's not true. We won't be opposing this bill. It does more good than bad. But we will be moving a second reading amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B The member for Mackellar seems to have something stuck in his throat. It's probably shame. I can understand why. If I had to sit behind that bloke, I'd be ashamed as well. He has a lot to be ashamed of. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! Please return to the debate. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B With these contributions in mind, the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name— Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B I'm sure if the member for Mackellar wants to get himself on the speaking list he'll have the opportunity to do that. He should wait for his turn. Lord knows he likes the sound of his own voice, and there are not very many opportunities on the legislative agenda this week for a member of the government to speak, because there's not much legislation before the House. It's the second-last sitting week of the year, and least of all is there a bill to deal with a federal ICAC. It's nowhere to be seen. We are—what?—1,015 days in and it's nowhere to be seen. Mr Falinski G86 Has there been any part of this speech that's been relevant? Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B This has been hurtful to the member for Mackellar. Hard truths are hurtful, but sometimes hard truths need to be told. With those contributions in mind, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the Coalition Governments continued diminution of the Australian Public Service, including through its arbitrary staffing cap policy and growing reliance on private consultants, contractors and labour-hire to perform core public sector work; (b) the complete aversion to transparency and scrutiny, and degradation of the Freedom of Information regime, experienced over the Government's time in office; (c) the Medical Research Future Fund was credited with savings from Health despite former Prime Minister Tony Abbott repeatedly saying there would be 'no cuts to health' and when established was promised by the government to provide $1 billion in annual medical research funding, which is a promise this bill explicitly breaks by setting a $650 million annual research funding limit; and (d) the Government has consistently left communities behind through its failures in emergency management and disaster relief, particularly in relation to the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires". I commit to a courtesy that the member for Mackellar never showed me in my contribution and that is to remain silent throughout all of his contribution. I'm sure that will be a Herculean effort. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Watts 193430 As the Australian people know, they vote for you. I'm happy to second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. 18:52 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar It is with a heavy heart that I speak against the member for Wollongong's amendments to this bill. Between him sticking up for industry super and the left-wing front groups that they're trying to protect by opposing electoral funding reform that makes it more transparent to the Australian people, what are those opposite up to? This is another second reading amendment. Let me guess what it's designed for. Is it designed for policy? No. Is it designed to help their donors? Yes. Is it designed to actually put out more misinformation, more untruths and more astroturfing from those opposite? Absolutely. I say to those opposite: keep calling ordinary Australians extremists, keep supporting your left-wing front groups and keep opposing transparent electoral laws that call some of your mates to account. The Australian people aren't stupid; they will see right through you. And they will see right through that second reading amendment, like they will see right through all the second reading amendments those opposite have put up today. They complain about there not been enough debate or enough bills in front of this chamber. Maybe if those opposite only spoke when they had something useful to say that would clear about half the parliamentary calendar. Maybe if, instead of playing games for the benefit of open foundations and theyvoteforyou.org, they came in here and served the interests of the Australian people rather than the interests of organised capital in the form of industry super and the left-wing front groups that now represent so much of what they do in this chamber and so much of what they want to inflict on the Australian people, all of us would be better off. But they can't help themselves. They are now so bereft of ideas, so bereft of policy and so bereft of anything to do in the interests of Australia or the Australian people, that they can't help themselves. The member for Whitlam, on a bill that concerns the management of the Future Fund, had to introduce extraneous material around the French president's reaction to having a $90 billion submarine contract cancelled or not renewed. Does he really think that, when the election comes around, the working men and women of Australia who they used to represent—but they haven't met them for about two generations—will honestly sit there and say that they want to vote for a political party that, when they had their chance to stand up for Australia or for the French, chose to stand up for the French? But that seems to be the tactic of the Labor Party these days. Those of you listening might be interested to know that this bill is called the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. It is not the 'they vote for us bill', the 'left-wing front group bill', the 'organised capital bill', the 'Industry Super bill' or the 'we back the French over our own countrymen bill'; it's the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. This bill is designed to give effect to a range of amendments to improve the operation of the Australian government investment funds and enhance the ability of the Future Fund Board of Guardians—which I imagine is about 13 owls—and the Future Fund Management Agency to continue investing for the benefit of future generations of Australians, which is something that their mates in Industry Super should try for a change. This bill provides a new employment framework for the Future Fund Management Agency to remove staff from the Australian Public Service and provide better paid jobs with more flexibility, more meaningful roles and appropriate employment models. It gives a partial exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for the Future Fund's investment activities; establishes a new disbursements framework for the Medical Research Future Fund to bring greater certainty to funding—something the member for Whitlam apparently thinks makes the Prime Minister dishonest; provides for the transfer of administrative responsibility for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund to the National Recovery and Resilience Agency; and introduces a range of administrative amendments to improve the operation of the MRFF and the ERF. The Future Fund was established by the Howard government in 2006. Since then, the Future Fund has grown by over $136 billion, and the board has become responsible for the management of five other Australian government investment funds, with total funds under management of more than $245 billion as of 30 June 2021. The Future Fund, unlike so many of the donors of those opposite, has a proven track record of managing investments. It doesn't hide it in unlisted vehicles, whose valuations are mysterious—and now Industry Super don't want to reveal how they're doing it. It actually has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government and the Australian people and maximising returns over the long-term—as of 30 June 2021, delivering for the Future Fund a return since the beginning of 1.4 per cent per annum verses a target of 6.6 per cent. I bet that there are a lot of ordinary Australians, a lot of hardworking men and women of this country, who would love to give their superannuation, their retirement savings, to a fund like this as opposed to Industry Super, who they're forced to give their money to just because they donate money to the Labor Party. Wouldn't it be good to have real choice in retirement incomes for ordinary Australians? This bill makes important amendments to the employment framework of the FFMA to reflect its unique operating environment within global financial and investment markets, while still ensuring the agency remains subject to appropriate controls, in line with community expectations. The new employment framework will enhance the Future Fund's independence from government, improve its recruitment and retention of specialised staff, and allow it to continue to maximise investment outcomes on behalf of the Australian people. The partial exemption under the FOI Act for documents relating to investment activities will provide an appropriate balance between maximising investment returns and ensuring appropriate transparency. The Future Fund regularly produces, negotiates and receives documents from third-party fund managers that include confidential, competitive and commercially sensitive information. The risk of disclosing highly sensitive commercial and proprietary material has led to investment managers withholding information or reducing their engagement with the fund. This presents an investment and governance risk. In particular, it can result in reduced access to investment opportunities and negatively effect investment outcomes, and that directly impacts the Australian people and is not an outcome that this government wishes to encourage. The exemption will provide certainty to the Future Fund and its investment partners that sensitive investment information is automatically excluded from release under FOI laws. The FOI Act will continue to apply to documents concerning the Future Fund's non-investment activities. In addition, the Future Fund will still publish details of its actual investments and will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The removal of FFMA staff from the Australian Public Service and the partial FOI exemption for Future Fund investment activities are consistent with the arrangements in place for other government entities including the NBN, Australia Post, Export Finance Australia and others that regularly deal with commercially sensitive information and require more market orientated employment practices. These are sensible amendments. No wonder those opposite want to move amendments to them that will improve the operation and performance of the Future Fund. Indeed, Labor's former finance minister, the Hon. Lindsay Tanner, dedicated an entire 2009 National Press Club speech to extolling the virtues of both of these changes. In that speech, Mr Tanner argued that an employment framework outside of the APS would aim to reinforce the independence of the board but still provide values and standards for the agency, particularly with respect to its responsibilities relating to public money. On the partial FOI exemption for investment activities, Mr Tanner observed that announcing the removal of certain activities from FOI laws at the Press Club is akin to announcing a reduction in judicial discretion at a meeting of lawyers. But I would assure you that this will not impinge in any significant way upon the documents that the Future Fund will continue to release under the FOI Act. The new disbursement framework for the MRFF will provide certainty of funding to meet the government's MRFF 10-year investment plan and support significant disbursements over the long term to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. The medical research fund is one of the great innovations of this parliament. It has led to hundreds of thousands of Australians' lives being made better and being elongated. And who knows, in the decades ahead, it will probably have that impact not just here but around the world. Under the current framework, the disbursements from the MRFF are determined annually by the Future Fund board. The board's calculations are largely based on the benchmark rate of return for the fund, which is linked to the RBA cash rate. This framework creates uncertain and volatile disbursements, which affects the orderly planning of grants programs from the fund. With the fund now exceeding its target balance of $20 billion by over $2 billion, the government is implementing a new disbursement framework that will provide a fixed maximum annual disbursement of $650 million from 2022-23, something the member for Whitlam is not happy about. This will allow investment returns above this level to accrue to the fund corpus, which can be accessed in later years when investment markets are more challenging. The reduction in distribution volatility will provide greater certainty of funding for the health and medical research sector and will allow the important commitments under the MRFF 10-year investment plan to be met. The amendments will also enable the government to issue a new investment mandate for the MRFF with a higher and more suitable benchmark rate of return aligned to other risk-seeking funds managed by the Future Fund, including the Future Drought Fund, the Emergency Response Fund, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. A new investment mandate will increase expected earnings over the medium term and protect the level of disbursement over the long term, helping to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. The transfer of responsibility for the administration of expenditure from the ERF to the NRRA implements the government's decision to establish the NRRA with a clear mandate to enhance national preparedness for, and recovery from, natural disasters. I would've thought this was a good thing. I would've thought those opposite would not only support this but be urging the government to pass this sooner rather than later. Instead, they move second reading amendments. Why? So left-wing front groups can misrepresent the voting pattern of members of this House. Is that really the kind of party that should be put in charge of government? That's what we're faced with at the next election. In response to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, the government announced in the 2021 budget the establishment of the NRRA to help support local communities to respond to large-scale natural disasters and undertake new initiatives to manage the impact of future events and the changing climate. Finally, I would say these amendments to the Emergency Response Fund Act will ensure that legislative and administrative processes are in place for payments from the ERF to be administered by the NRRA. I reiterate my disappointment at the behaviour of those opposite with their tactics to constantly attempt to work with outside left-wing front groups, who, this very day, they have tried to protect from greater scrutiny in order to misrepresent the voting records of those in this House. (Time expired) 19:08 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 returns to the House following the completion of a Senate inquiry. Three key issues were raised in that inquiry that relate to this bill: firstly, the proposed partial FOI exemption for documents of the Future Fund and Future Fund Management Agency with respect to their investment activities; secondly, the removal of the Future Fund Management Agency staff from the Public Service Act; and, thirdly, the $650 million maximum disbursement from the Medical Research Future Fund, which amounts to a cut to a commitment that was made by the Abbott government in respect of the Medical Research Future Fund and its disbursements. On the partial FOI exemption, two main points were raised during the Senate inquiry. The first one is, on the one hand, the inconsistency from this government when it comes to this particular partial FOI exemption, and, on the other hand, making industry superannuation funds disclose particular financial information, including internal valuations of unlisted assets, and values and positions taken in derivative markets at regular intervals. Thankfully, the government has backed off on that issue. It was part of the government's Your Future, Your Super reforms and it was scheduled to commence on 31 December this year. It would have put industry superannuation funds in particular, but others as well, at a disadvantage to funds like the Future Fund which weren't required to disclose their investments. This particular regulation would have required industry superannuation funds, in respect of derivatives, to disclose the precise value and percentage of the holding. That is counterintuitive. It limits the ability of those funds to work within derivative markets and get the best deals on those derivatives. And, in doing so, you are only reducing the returns that come to members of those superannuation funds. That would have been the result. Requiring those funds to list those holdings when other funds wouldn't have had to means they are at a competitive disadvantage, and, ultimately, that lowers the returns from industry superannuation funds to members. Thankfully, the government has seen sense. Thankfully, the government has backed off on that reform because all those who work in the industry, and even the Financial Services Council, weren't supportive of this reform. This is yet another demonstration of this government's ideological obsession with trying to punish people who are in industry superannuation funds—for no reason other than they can't get over the fact that workers and employers working together, through the management of an industry superannuation fund, do a better job of managing those funds and acting in the best interest of those members than their mates in the financial planning sector that operate the big retail and commercial funds for profit. The breadth of the proposed exemption in conjunction with the Morrison-Joyce government's appalling track record on scrutiny, transparency and accountability is another issue. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry demonstrated that even our largest, most trusted banks, with multiple levels of regulation already, had engaged in widespread financial fraud and other criminal conduct at the expense of their clients and their customers. While secrecy has a crucial role to play in commercial operations, the findings of the banking royal commission demonstrated that a degree of transparency and accountability is also important. The compulsion of this government to throw a cloak of secrecy over the operations of the Future Fund, compared to the operation of industry superannuation funds, was even more concerning, particularly given that it is entirely public money that is being invested by a public authority. The proposed FOI exemption provides blanket secrecy without any need to assess, let alone demonstrate, the commercial need for secrecy in relation to particular information and, therefore, it would have failed to strike the right balance had the government proceeded with that reform to industry superannuation funds. The second point in the Senate inquiry that is of importance to this House is the removal of the Future Fund Management Agency from the Public Service Act. We recognise that there is some unique work done by staff at the FFMA that is different from most other Australian Public Service entities, and there are examples within other Public Service agencies where staff are employed under separate legislation. But there are existing issues with pay and conditions in the APS due to the Morrison-Joyce government's bargaining policy. As the CPSU has observed, it's a policy which has delivered real wage cuts, wage freezes, pay rise deferrals and caps to wages growth. All of these have impacted the capacity to recruit, to retain and to reward staff. That's what the CPSU has said about this government's wages policy. And, according to the government, they want to import the norms of the financial services industry into the future fund through this proposed change. But just what norms of the industry are they trying to incorporate into the future fund after what's been uncovered in the financial services industry over the course of the last decade, particularly through the banking and financial services royal commission? Over eight long years, the coalition government has attacked the Public Service, imposing an artificial staffing cap and job cuts resulting in a significant decrease in the capability within the APS and an overreliance on consultants and contractors. We've all seen the ridiculous amounts of taxpayers' money that has been spent by this government on reports, on consultants and on contracting out the role that was previously played by well educated, well informed, experienced public servants who knew how the Public Service worked and, more importantly, ensured that the disbursement of public funds on work performed by the Public Service was done more efficiently and got better outcomes. So a more fundamental change to the way APS is governed is required to improve the conditions and setting for all staff in the APS, not just those that are proposed to move into the FFMA. The final point I want to make is in respect of maximum disbursements from the Medical Research Future Fund. Legislating for a maximum of $650 million to be annually disbursed to the MRFF represents yet another broken promise from this government. When MRFF was first established and announced in the 2014-15 budget, the budget papers clearly stated a commitment to funding: The MRFF will provide a sustained funding stream for medical research, with payments from the MRFF expected to reach around $1.0 billion per year from 2022-23. But a 35 per cent reduction in the funding available for any purpose would have a significant impact, let alone in the field of medical research. Remember when this government came to office? Remember what the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in the lead-up to that election? No cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC and SBS, and no cuts to health. No cuts to health—that went out the window in their first budget in 2014. But, again, we see this government cutting funding and commitments made when it comes to health care in Australia, and, in this case, it's the Medical Research Future Fund, which provides a steady stream of income to ensure that researchers have the necessary public backing to do work that ultimately, hopefully—and very successfully in Australia, I might add—results in some of the greatest technological and medical advancements that save lives and improve the lives of many Australians. You would have thought, after the couple of years that we've just been through with the coronavirus pandemic and just how well medical researchers throughout the world have responded to that pandemic in the development in record times of workable vaccines that have ensured not only lives have been saved but that economies can open up again—businesses can start trading, workers can go back to work and Australians and people throughout the world can resume their normal lives—the last thing that a government would be interested in doing would be cutting funding for medical research into the future. But, as the inquiry heard, it doesn't make sense to cap something and then have a more aggressive investment mandate to return more funds from your investments if you're not going to make the disbursements. The fact the Morrison-Joyce government is now proposing to have a maximum annual disbursement limit that is $350 million less than their initial promise—reiterated in 2017, I might add—represents a betrayal of the medical research community, it represents a broken promise to the Australian people and it represents yet again an opportunity lost for medical advancement in a country that has prided itself on some of the world's most innovative and groundbreaking research in medical science. It's yet another example of a broken promise from a government that is failing to deliver in so many areas. It has become tired and divided. It is no longer acting in the best interests of Australians but making decisions just to get through particular difficult periods. This two-week sitting of parliament is one of those difficult periods for it. 19:20 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I rise to speak on the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. It effects a range of amendments to improve the operation of Australian government investment funds and enhances the ability of the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the Future Fund Management Agency, known as the FFMA, to continue investing for the benefit of future generations of Australians. The Board of Guardians is responsible for deciding how to invest the assets of each fund. The board consists of a chair and five other members. Members are appointed by the responsible ministers, in accordance with legislation, and are selected for their expertise in investing in financial assets, managing investments and corporate governance. The board invests the assets of the Future Fund, the Medical Research Future Fund, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, the Future Drought Fund and the Emergency Response Fund—I thought it was important to break all this down, in speaking on this bill, for Australians who may be listening. They operate independently of government and tailor the management of each fund to its unique investment mandate. For those who take an interest, the total funds currently under management are $245.8 billion, with $196.8 billion for the Future Fund, $22 billion for the Medical Research Future Fund, $2.2 billion for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, $4.6 billion for the Future Drought Fund, $4.7 billion for the Emergency Response Fund and $15.5 billion for the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. All the funds have an absolute return objective, and the board keeps the investment objectives and focuses on growing and protecting Australia's capital in the long term. There's a diverse portfolio that is, as far as possible, robust to an uncertain future. This bill provides: a new employment framework for the Future Fund Management Agency to remove staff from the Public Service and provide a more flexible, updated and appropriate employment model; a partial exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 1982—or the FOI Act, as it's known—for the Future Fund's investment activities; a new disbursements framework for the Medical Research Future Fund to bring greater certainty to funding; the transfer of administrative responsibility for expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund to the National Recovery and Resilience Agency; and a range of administrative amendments to improve the operation of the Medical Research Future Fund and the Emergency Response Fund. The Future Fund was established under John Howard in 2006. Since then, it has grown by over $136 billion and the board has become responsible for managing five other Australian government investment funds. The Future Fund has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government and maximising returns over the long-term. As of June 2021 it has delivered a return since inception of 8.4 per cent per annum, exceeding the target of 6.6 per cent—a good result for all Australians thus far and a promising trend for the future economic position of the Future Fund. The bill makes important amendments to the employment framework for the FFMA to reflect its unique operating environment within global, financial and investment markets whilst still ensuring the agency remains subject to appropriate controls in line with community expectations. The new employment framework will enhance the Future Fund's independence further from government, improve its recruitment and retention of specialised staff, and allow it to continue maximising investment outcomes on behalf of the government. The partial exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for documents relating to investment activities will provide an appropriate balance between maximising investment returns and ensuring appropriate transparency. The Future Fund regularly produces, negotiates and receives documents from third-party fund managers that include confidential, competitive and commercially sensitive information. The risk of disclosing highly sensitive commercial and proprietary material has led to investment managers withholding information or reducing their engagement with the fund. This presents an investment and governance risk. It can result in reduced access to investment opportunities and negatively affect investment outcomes. The exemption will provide certainty to the Future Fund and their investment partners that sensitive investment information is automatically excluded from release under FOI laws. The FOI Act will continue to apply to documents concerning the Future Fund's non-investment activities, and, in addition, the Future Fund will still publish details of its actual investments and will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The removal of Future Fund Management Agency staff from the Public Service and the partial FOI exemption from the Future Fund's investment activities are consistent with arrangements in place for other government entities, including NBN Co, Australia Post and Export Finance Australia, that regularly deal with commercially sensitive information and require more market oriented employment practices. These are sensible amendments that will improve the operation and performance of the Future Fund. Indeed, those on the other side should agree with these amendments, as their own finance minister in 2009 espoused these very changes. He spruiked that these amendments before the House: … would aim to reinforce the independence of the board, but still provide values and standards for the agency, particularly with respect to its responsibilities relating to public money. The new disbursements framework for the Medical Research Future Fund will provide certainty of funding to meet the government's 10-year investment plan and support significant disbursements over the long term to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. Under the current framework, disbursements from the MRFF are determined annually by the Future Fund's board. The board's calculation is largely based on the benchmark rate of return for the fund, which is linked to the RBA cash rate. This framework creates uncertain and volatile disbursements, which affects the orderly planning of grants programming from the fund. With the fund now exceeding its target balance of $20 billion by over $2 billion, the government is implementing a new disbursements framework which will provide a fixed maximum annual disbursement of $650 million from 2022-23. This will allow investment returns above this level to accrue to the fund corpus, which can be accessed in later years when investment markets are more challenging. We can access it when we need it as a nation. That's very important for the future of our country. The reduction in distribution volatility will provide greater certainty of funding for the health and medical research sector and will allow the important commitments under the Medical Research Future Fund 10-year investment plan to be met. The amendments will also enable the government to issue a new investment mandate for the MRFF, with a higher and more suitable benchmark rate of return aligned to other risk-seeking funds managed by the Future Fund board, including the Future Drought Fund, the Emergency Response Fund and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. A new investment mandate will increase expected earnings over the medium term and protect the level of disbursements over the long term, and this will help to fund vital medical research and medical innovation projects. I'm certain that most Australians would agree with these amendments. The transfer of responsibility for the administration of expenditure from the Emergency Response Fund to the National Recovery and Resilience Agency implements the government's decision to establish the agency with a clear mandate to enhance national preparedness for and recovery from natural disasters. In response to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, the government announced in the 2021-22 budget the establishment by our Prime Minister of the National Recovery and Resilience Agency to help support local communities to respond to large-scale natural disasters and undertake new initiatives to manage the impact of future events and the changing climate. The agency is headed up by a coordinator-general, Shane Stone AC, QC, who is well placed, due to his vast experience, working as the former coordinator-general of the National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency following the devastating floods of January 2019 in my home state of Queensland. The agency and the fund will ensure that those impacted by natural disasters and drought have access to the support they need for their recovery, while delivering initiatives that reduce the risk and lessen the impact of future events on those communities. The amendments to the Emergency Response Fund Act 2019 will ensure that the legislative and administrative processes are in place for payments from the Emergency Relief Fund to be administered by the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. To finish, these amendments will strengthen Australia's financial position for all Australians and our nation's ability to respond quickly to whatever changes our future holds for us. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 151 ADJOURNMENT Lyons Electorate: Roads 151 19:30 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] Mr Speaker, before you go, I would like to pass on my best regards to you in your position and wish you the best in your final week. Last week, I met with a group of local residents at Mount Seymour, in the Southern Midlands in my electorate. They were meeting on the Tunnack Road to voice their concerns over the unsafe and unacceptable state of the road surface. This was not your standard 2021 protest, as we have come to understand them; this was a protest in Lyons style. Good, polite, well-meaning people, many of whom have never been in a protest in their lives before, turned up on the roadside at Tunnack Road to make their concerns known. It was a local issue raised by local folk at a really local level. The organiser, Sue Scott, kicked off proceedings by stating the gathering was not a protest against the road users—specifically, the freight trucks and their drivers—but rather it was an opportunity for people to air their concerns to decision-makers about how badly this local road, the main arterial route between Oatlands and Tunnack, had deteriorated over the last couple of years in particular, and the implications for all users of that road, which includes a number of school buses. It's a busy road with every kind of vehicle—log trucks, school buses, farm machinery, big trucks and ambulances. Indeed, on the day of our protest, an ambulance was stuck on the side of the road and had to be carted out. Every person who attended the protest had a story to tell. People told of damage to their vehicles, including punctures, broken windscreens and near misses on the narrow tarmac. I'm familiar with the road in question. At the end of the day, the consensus was simple: everyone who stopped by that Tuesday morning just wanted a safer road for people to enjoy. It does not seem like too much to ask for, yet we have seen so many times under the Liberal government federally and at the state level that regional roads are left behind, particularly when it comes to Tasmania. The Liberal government has a track record of over-promising and under-delivering on road infrastructure. You need only look back six months, when a horde of blue-and-white chequered shirts flew down to trumpet the so-called new funding for the Bass and Midland highways. The Midland Highway was touted as receiving a $37.8 million upgrade with a focus on Ross, Oatlands and Campbell Town, but a little digging revealed the truth: it was not new funding; it was simply repackaged and reheated promises from previous budgets that had been spun into a new story. Eight years—that is how long the Liberals have had to finish the Midland Highway. What of the Bass Highway, a very busy highway in the north of the state? It took some sharp work from my Labor colleague Helen Polley in the Senate to reveal that touted upgrades to the Bass Highway between Deloraine and Devonport will not even start until late 2023 and are not expected to be completed until late 2025. In response to questions on notice asked by Senator Polley, it was revealed that the contracts for the upgrades between Deloraine and Devonport would not even be awarded until mid-2023. It's just not good enough. This is critical infrastructure work. The Bass Highway is in dire need of more overtaking lanes and dual lanes. It just is not safe in its current form. We need a government that cares about regional roads. We need a government that listens to regional constituents. After eight long years, it is clear the regions do not benefit from another three years under those opposite. Mr Speaker, in the minute I have got left, I would just like to again pass on my best regards to you. I know we perhaps haven't seen eye to eye—you've probably seen more of the back of me as you've marched me out under 94(a)! You have been an exceptional Speaker. It's been a great honour to be a member of parliament, let alone on the opposite side of the chamber to you. You've carried out your duties in that chair with great diligence. I've never doubted for a minute your absolute commitment to being a fair and even-handed Speaker, and I think history will treat you very kindly. You go with my best wishes. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Lyons, and I'm glad I haven't had to use 94(a) with him down there in Tasmania! I now call the member for Sturt. COVID-19: South Australia 152 19:35 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Thank you, Mr Speaker, for never using 94(a) against me! Can I give you my very best wishes and also thank you very much. As a new member, it's been a pleasure to be in this chamber and to learn so much from you and the leadership you provide to this chamber. I look forward to maybe even sitting with you from tomorrow up in this long, long corner of the chamber and continuing to benefit from your wisdom. Thank you very much. Tomorrow is a very significant day for my home state of South Australia because, on some measures, we will be the first government in the world to actively open our borders and bring the COVID-19 virus into a jurisdiction that has kept it out. We are doing this at a point where we have made all best efforts and endeavours to provide vaccination to every eligible South Australian that wants to be vaccinated. We are almost at the 80 per cent double vaccination rate—I think it was 77.6 per cent as at today's update—and the single vaccination rate is towards 90 per cent, at about 86 per cent. So the time is right to make this very significant decision. We don't know how long it will take but, at some point, inevitably, we will have community transmission of the COVID-19 virus within South Australia, having decided that it is important to open our borders and to move to the next phase of managing the threat of COVID in South Australia with very high levels of vaccination. There will be uncertainty and apprehension. I understand that, and I expect that many of my constituents will be wary in the coming days and weeks of what we have in store because, as we have community transmission, it is regretfully the case that in some cases—hopefully, a very small number of cases—that will lead to hospitalisation, and, unfortunately, there probably will be deaths from COVID as well in South Australia. We hope they will be in the fewest number possible. Nonetheless, that is the consequence of this decision. Equally, it's very important to turn this corner. In my humble opinion as a South Australian member of parliament, 'Team South Australia' has done so well up until now, and I think we'll continue to do well into the future. We have kept COVID out of South Australia. We have only had four deaths in South Australia since the COVID pandemic began. On any metric across the planet, this is close to the best result we could have asked for. Health professionals and our emergency services professionals, particularly those on the front line, have been exceptional in their dedication and selfless commitment to the arduous task of protecting all South Australians. We've had some scary moments when we have had outbreaks that we could have lost control of. Difficult decisions were taken, including lockdowns, to stamp that out so that we would be in charge of our own destiny and open up the South Australian community to COVID when it was at the safest point we could get it to, which was when a vaccine was available and, equally, when all South Australians who wanted the vaccine and could safely receive the vaccine had the opportunity to get the vaccine. What will this mean in the weeks and months to come? There will be apprehension and risk from a health point of view once we have community transmission, and I'm confident that we have the measures in place to manage that and to protect the people of South Australia. But it also allows many good things to occur, such as for those of us that have family and loved ones interstate to be able to be together again without restriction. It means that businesses that rely on engaging across the states and even internationally are now in a much stronger position to re-engage with their suppliers, their customers and their markets around the world. It is important that we keep the faith that we have always had with the people of South Australia, like this Commonwealth government has had with the people of Australia, that we would do what we needed to do to manage and protect Australians, but there was also a light at the end of the tunnel and that restrictions and measures that we put in place would come to an end. It is an enormous milestone in my home state of South Australia. My thoughts and prayers are with us all as we confront this new challenge and meet it together. Cybersecurity 153 19:40 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Mr Speaker, like those who have spoken before me, I want to take this opportunity—fortuitously given to me by having the adjournment spot tonight—to thank you for your outstanding service as Speaker and to personally thank you for the support and advice you gave me around the time of my first speech, which, as you know, was a difficult time. I will always be incredibly grateful for your kindness to me at that time. I want to speak today about the really troubling explosion of scams being perpetrated against vulnerable people in my community and across the country which seems to have occurred during COVID. Of course, there were scams that were occurring before then, but it would seem that this pandemic, which should have been bringing the community closer together and perhaps making people pause about exploitation of vulnerable people, has instead been used by people, who I do not think have any morals or ethics, to scam vulnerable people. I want to tell the House about a constituent of mine who I met with last week and is so ashamed at having fallen for a scam and having had $45,500 stolen from him that he was reluctant for me to even use his first name in the chamber because he does not want people to know that he fell for it. I don't think he should be ashamed; I think he should be angry. I think he should be angry at the people who perpetrated the scam that I will explain, and I think he should be angry at how he has been let down by federal government agencies and processes that were not good enough. My constituent is in his late 70s. He is a pensioner with limited assets, most of which he is using to support his wife, who is in poor health and in an aged-care facility. He had been saving up because he knows he will outlive his wife and he had a dream of going to Iceland. That's something he had been thinking about his whole life, and that is what he was going to do when he no longer was in the position of having his wife around to care for. He lives alone. He had a good career in the past and he uses his computer a lot and had an IT consultant to fix IT problems, like many of us are familiar with, who would access his computer to do it remotely. So, when he received a text message saying that Telstra was going to update the NBN, followed by a phone call saying that Telstra needed to update the NBN to his place but they needed to get remote access to his computer to do it, he did not really think that it was unusual, having been used to that practice. Sadly, it was not Telstra. What ended up happening was people got access to his bank account details and, in the course of four different transactions over a couple of days, transferred $45,500—his savings for that long-planned trip—out of his bank account. It would seem that, because the first leg of the transactions went to an Australian account before going to wherever it ended up, it didn't trigger any anti-money-laundering provisions, even though the transfers were just under $10,000 each. While his bank has given him some of the money back, it is a small fraction of what he lost. He called Scamwatch and ACORN. He said to me, 'After I contacted the government bodies Scamwatch and ACORN to report my experience, neither indicated particular interest in my case nor offered assistance, so I'm relying solely on the bank paying me something back.' It is just not good enough. That's why I am very pleased that Labor has an antiscam policy that we will take to the next election to establish a national antiscams centre to fund identification recovery services and to make it easier to help people recover their money. It won't help my constituent, but it will help so many other vulnerable people who shouldn't be targeted in this way. The SPEAKER 00APG I call the member for Herbert. Herbert Electorate: Public Liability Insurance 153 19:45 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Thank you, Speaker. I too want to pay my respects and tributes to you. Thank you for your help, guidance and knowledge, from when I was a baby MP in this place, for some nice calm direction and sometimes for a kick in the backside. I'm a little different from the member for Sturt; I have been kicked out under 94(a), and probably rightly so! You embody this place. This place would be a rabble without your guiding hand. I appreciate everything that you have done. Many have now taken an interest in the Speaker's panel and want to be involved and learn. That is because of you in that chair and the way you handled yourself here and handled the many personalities that are here. Thank you for everything you have done in your service to the parliament and nation, and I look forward to catching up with you while you sit with me on the backbench until you retire. Thank you. It would be an understatement to say that Townsville tourism and hospitality businesses have endured some of the toughest couple of years. Border closures, restrictions, snap lockdowns and uncertainty have all taken their toll. Businesses have downsized, laid off staff and even closed their doors for good. This year, another enemy has reared its head, in the form of public liability insurance. Adventure businesses and food trucks have been affected, some having to suspend operations. There are many reasons why businesses might obtain public liability. In many cases, it's to protect them against legal action from someone who may sue due to injury or death arising from activities conducted by that business. For the most part, it is a result of government requirements from local councils and state governments to obtain a permit to operate in the field or location they are in. Recently, there have been massive increases in the cost of premiums charged by public liability insurers, especially in North Queensland. Insurers have decided that the risks are too high and have either priced themselves out of the market or refused to cover businesses at all. One business in the electorate of Herbert affected by this is Horseshoe Bay Water Sports on Magnetic Island. Dom and Kristen Spataro spent hours of their time, which they could have spent investing in their successful business, looking for public liability insurance. Their efforts came to nothing, and they were struggling a few weeks ago. They had no other choice but to stop operating. I went over to Magnetic Island to visit Dom and Kristen after they contacted me for help. I already knew this was an issue that has been faced by many in the community, but it was clear it was having a deeper impact. What became clear as I spoke to them was that it wasn't just the availability or willingness of insurance companies to cover their water sport business; it was the level of coverage that was being demanded by the Townsville City Council to operate at Horseshoe Bay. This level of coverage was double the amount required by similar businesses in other Queensland local government areas. Townsville City Council requires $20 million worth of coverage for Horseshoe Bay Water Sports. However, in Airlie Beach and on the Gold Coast it's only $10 million. Dom and Kristen were able to find coverage for that amount, but when they contacted the Townsville City Council to ask for the required coverage to be lowered, they were met with 'no'—no other option, no discussion, just 'no'. Since then I've written to the mayor requesting that this situation be reviewed. I don't understand why Townsville businesses should be required to cover themselves at a level double the amount required for similar businesses in the south-east. This issue is not contained to one business in one location; there have been a significant number in the electorate of Herbert who have contacted us for help. This is an issue which needs to be sorted out, and all three levels of government need to be involved. In general terms, the federal government doesn't mandate businesses to have public liability insurance; however, state and local governments do, and they have a responsibility to ensure their requirement levels are appropriate and achievable by businesses. We are seeing clear market failure when it comes to public liability insurance. We've seen the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman working with the industry nationwide to find a solution. They're looking at a discretionary mutual fund, which will most likely be that solution. I do believe that there is a requirement for the federal government to step in, because it's been failed by the state and local government. People's livelihoods should not be destroyed because of public liability insurance. Apprenticeships, Vocational Education and Training 154 19:50 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Mr Speaker, I believe I may be the last member of the opposition who has the privilege to speak in the House while you are our Speaker—unless there is a motorcade at Government House tomorrow! I would like to add my personal gratitude, Mr Speaker, to that of so many others for your dignity, your humour and your humanity. Thank you and good luck. The community I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales is home to some 24,000 small businesses, half of which are sole traders. These businesses are the heart of our community and the lifeblood of our local economy. But they're also in the middle of a skills crisis. On the north end of the Central Coast there has been a significant drop in the number of apprentices and trainees since this government came to power. There are now 231 fewer apprentices in my community than there were eight years ago—that's a drop of close to 10 per cent—and it's having an impact on local businesses. Eight years ago there were 20 apprentice butchers on the north end of the coach; now there are only seven. This decline is being felt in many industries across the entire Central Coast that many of us rely on each and every day. In regions like the Central Coast, two out of three businesses are struggling to find staff with the right skills and qualifications to fill vacancies. Ultimately, this means the coast doesn't have the skilled workers it needs right now and for the future. The coalition have been in government for close to a decade now and they've talked a big game when it comes to creating jobs. But that's not what we're seeing in places in the outer suburbs and regions of Australia. Instead of seeing a rise in jobs, numbers have gone backwards under this government, particularly in permanent work. That's because the coalition have cut more than $3 billion from vocational education and training over the past eight years, leaving us with a serious skills shortage. Last week I joined a manufacturing roundtable at the business incubator at the University of Newcastle's Ourimbah campus, alongside the deputy Labor leader, the member for Corio, where we met with local businesses across a range of industries. We were hosted by Frank Sammut from Central Coast Industry Connect and joined by Andrew from TrendPac, Ian from Herbie's Spices, Joel from The Marshmallow Co., Eric from McConaghy Boats, Kristina from FMC, Bob from Colonial Foods, Nathan from Crossmuller, Grant from Borg Group and Michael Bowyer from the university. They all run very different businesses, but the message from all of them was clear: we don't need to prepare for the jobs of the future, because there are jobs here right now. They told me that what we need is skilled workers to fill them. They told me the main problem is that manufacturing isn't being promoted as a good career anymore. They said schools aren't encouraging their students to think about taking up a trade as an alternative to university. They also said there's a bias against certain trades which is stopping people from getting into their industries. As Nathan from Crossmuller put it, we need to encourage more people to get into the non-sexy trades like boilermaking, fitting machinists and other metal trades. He told me that if it's not on reality TV then people don't seem to be taking up those trades. Grant from the Borg group told me they currently have 75 apprentices across 10 trades, but they're struggling to fill positions in trades like industrial painting. Kristina from FMC, an agricultural sciences company, told me they're looking to take on 11 school leavers next year. These are good jobs, mostly full time. They're local jobs leading to steady careers. I am told there is plenty of work available, but without the right skills and training locals are missing out. We have a strong manufacturing industry on the Central Coast. There are over 900 manufacturers in our region, who employ close to 9,000 people. Collectively, they add some $3 billion to our local economy. But they're facing significant challenges. What they need is skilled workers and a government that will support people to gain these skills, particularly for people living outside of big cities. We need to invest in skills, training and education to help people find work in the manufacturing sector. We need to back local businesses and invest in local manufacturing projects. Australia used to be a country that made things, but, after years of cuts under this government, critical manufacturing projects are being sent overseas. We should make trains in Australia. We should make buses in Australia. We should make solar panels in Australia. My community on the Central Coast of New South Wales has the potential to be a powerhouse of manufacturing. We've got local people who want to take up these jobs. What they need is the support to gain the skills to be in a position to do them. But, if we want this to happen, we need things to change. If we want to change things in our community, we need to fix the skills crisis on the Central Coast so young people starting out in my community know that they can get a good local job, that they can get the training they need to have a steady career, that they can live close to where they work and that they can contribute to our local economy and to that of our community. That's what they need on the Central Coast. Australian Women's Soccer, Speaker of the House of Representatives 155 19:55 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Mr Speaker, as many have observed, this is your last day, but I thought I might cover off my contribution first and save my final remarks for thanks to you and the friendship we've had over the past 10 or 11 years. On 24 September, we celebrated an extremely important milestone in Australian sport: 100 years of women's football. On this anniversary, we reflected on the very first public game of football played by women in Australia 100 years ago on 24 September 1921. This historic game was played at the Gabba between the North Brisbane Reds and the Blues of South Brisbane. Sixteen-year-old Jean Campbell, the captain of the Reds, played a key role not only in organising the match but in scoring one of the goals that led the Reds of North Brisbane to a two-nil victory over the Blues of South Brisbane. The iconic game was attended by a crowd of over 10,000 people with the Queensland Times reporting that the players showed considerable skill, stamina and 'evidence of keen training'. Before this, the game of football was traditionally considered a men's sport. This event was vital to raising awareness not only of women in football but of all women in sport. Unfortunately, it was not until another 50 years had passed that the next major milestone occurred in Australian women's football, when our national teams were formed to compete in their first international tournaments. In 1974, the South Queensland Women's Soccer Association was formed alongside the Australian Women's Soccer Association. The South Queensland Women's Soccer Association opened in 1981 at Atlanta Field in Geebung, the first home of women's football in Australia. The following year, they hosted the national championships for the first time in the newly built Atlanta Field. The South Queensland Women's Soccer Association representative team, the South Queensland Taipans, were victorious in the grand final, another record of success for women's football in Queensland. Fast-forward to 2008. The Queensland Roar, in partnership with the Queensland Academy of Sport, won the inaugural W-League Premiership and grand final. Now known as the Brisbane Roar, the club remains one of the most successful in the W-League, having won three premierships and two championships. For more than two decades, Australian female footballers have aspired to represent their great country at the Olympic Games and at the FIFA Women's World Cup. The Matildas first qualified for the World Cup in 1995 and competed in their first ever Olympic Games in 2000 as the host nation. Australia has never failed to qualify for the World Cup since 1995. This year, the Matildas achieved their best ever Olympic placing, finishing fourth in the Tokyo Olympic Games. The Women's World Cup in 2023 will be co-hosted with New Zealand. We will see that tournament brought to the Southern Hemisphere for the first time, and this is the first time Australia will host a senior FIFA tournament. With the Brisbane 2032 Olympics on the horizon, it's another opportunity for women's football in Australia to show its capabilities. As Fiona Crawford and Lee McGowan say in Never Say Die: The Hundred-Year Overnight Success of Australian Women's Football: At every level, the story of Australian women's football is one of heartbreak, adversity, and obstacles … but also of tremendous courage and perseverance. It is my hope that this courage and perseverance demonstrated by our pioneering players will continue to inspire our talented women footballers for years to come. In the time left to me, Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for your friendship and advice over the past 11 years that I've served in this place, including since you've become Speaker and in my time as the Chief Government Whip and also as the deputy whip prior to that, and for your willingness to provide advice, guidance and interaction with the work of my team in my office—and to Cate, Claudine and your whole office as well. Thank you so very much for the efforts that you have put in over the past six and a bit years to lift the standard of debate and the standard of this place, for the benefit of our whole country. I greatly appreciate your friendship and look forward, after your time in this place, to continuing that friendship. Thank you so very much for your service to this House. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Forde and other members who have spoken in this adjournment debate. For my last words as Speaker of the House: it being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 12 noon tomorrow. House adjourned at 2 0:0 0 NOTICES 156 NOTICES

Monday, 22 November 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr R Mitchell ) took the chair at 10:32.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 159 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Ebert, Mr Russell Frank, OAM 159 10:32 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Today I honour a great Australian, a loving family man, a tireless charity identity, an idolised mentor, an exceptional role model and a legendary Australian Rules footballer. I speak of the late Russell Ebert, who passed away on 5 November after his battle with acute myeloid leukaemia. He was farewelled by more than 4,000 people at a state funeral service held last week on the grounds of his old stomping ground, the Port Adelaide Football Club. Russell's football career was extraordinary. His highlights include 392 games with Port Adelaide, including three premiership games, and 25 with North Melbourne. He represented South Australia 29 times, three times as captain. He's the only winner of four Magarey medals. He was six times Port Adelaide's best and fairest. He was the first winner of the Jack Oatey medal. And he was inducted into the Australian Football Hall of Fame in 1996. He is one of only four South Australian footballers to have his statue at Adelaide Oval. And, finally, he was inducted into the South Australian Sport Hall of Fame. When his playing days ended, Russell went on to coach Port Adelaide, Woodville and the South Australian state team. In 2003, his son Brett won the Magarey medal—uniquely, making Russell and Brett the only father-son duo to do so that I know of. Football was not the only focus of Russell's public life. He immersed himself in the work of several charities, particularly supporting young people. I personally came to know Russell when I was mayor of Salisbury and we jointly spoke at drug awareness forums at high schools in the Salisbury area. It became very clear from the many beautiful tributes at his farewell service, and in the media, that Russell lived by the standards that he mentored and guided others with. He reached out, made time and lent a hand to anyone in need—but he never lost sight of his own family, to whom he was devoted and for whom his passing will be felt the most. To his wife, Dian; to his children, Tammy, Ben and Brett; and to all of his other family members, I offer my personal condolences and respect for Russell. In a very fitting public gesture, Russell's South Australian sporting hall of fame award was presented to him shortly before his passing by his on-field adversary but off-field close friend, and also a legendary South Australian footballer, Barrie Robran, with whom Russell is so often compared. I do not believe that we will see the likes of Russell Ebert again, but for those who came to know him and who had the opportunity to watch him play football, Russell Ebert will not be forgotten. Coull, Ms Erin 159 10:35 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Though only in year 9, Riverside High School student Erin Coull has been perfecting the craft of poetry for a number of years. 'After first attempting to write a novel, I lowered my sites but not my ambitions and I'm currently developing my craft. I enjoy experimenting with new styles, themes and genres,' Erin says. 'Poetry is a way for me to express and develop my opinions, emotions and ideas in a clear yet challenging way. I enjoy writing about current events, history, mythology, nature and duality, yet I'm still figuring out how to write about myself.' After joining Write Here Launceston, Erin was fortunate to meet and be mentored by established and renowned poets Yvonne Gluyas and Joy Elizabeth, and Erin has been offered a place at the 2022 Tasmanian Poetry Festival. The following poem, 'The Year the Sirens Sang', is an original poem and is a reflection on the year 2020. It was short-listed for the Liffey Youth Poetry Prize as part of the Ten Days on the Island festival in 2020, and it's my honour to read it here today. When the keeper rises to meet the new year The dawn is yet to break But the waves—they never stopped They lurk around the island, Around the hulls of boats, Hide swathes of snares— Spears of stone, ridges of reef And then, as icy wind picks up, Those waves rise to meet the blooming clouds, Hurtling through the driving sleet And so the Keeper rises His duty is to seaborne souls, caught in this storm His duty is to guide us, day in and day out To sound horn in fog and Shine light by night He shepherds us toward the shore, Steers us to the truth in this tumult of terror Those red stripes on white, That sweeping beam of light That is what we turn to As the storm begins to rage But as thunder begins to roar, There come yawns from scarlet lips, A flex of glinting talons Then a preening of feathers and voice And a woman's shriek from feathered breast This is the year they woke and took to the skies This is the year they drew breath as one This is the year of lie after lie, Laced with melodic malice This is the year the sirens sang At the sound of the choir, the sailors turn, bemused, For suddenly the thunder sounds like a foghorn And the lightning looks like lantern shine In the year the sirens sang Whilst some shut out the silky screams Some abandon the wheel, blind with panic Some fear the truth or ignore it all And then there are those who revel in the dark Black wings bloom from their backs and they take to the skies, Up above the wrecks of both rowboats and cruise ships And the storm, in approval, thunders and pours In the year the sirens sang Cashless Debit Card 160 10:38 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Today I want to raise the issue that is worrying many people in my electorate—that is, the Morrison government's plan to put pensioners on a cashless debit card. I can hear protests from the other side saying: 'This is a Labor scare campaign. We don't want to put pensioners on the card. Labor is making it all up.' I would like to say that I do not believe that Labor is making this all up, and there is evidence to prove it. We are not making it up. They do have a plan to force pensioners onto a cashless debit card. There is evidence. Labor will fight the cashless welfare card for pensioners. Labor will scrap the cashless welfare card. Labor will not let pensioners have 80 per cent of their money put on a card so the government can say how they can spend it. This is not an ordinary bank debit card; it's a privatised, cashless card that can be used only in shops that the government approves. You may even have to use a special payment method—a special cash register, if you like—for this card. As we know, this card is already being used in communities across Queensland and in South Australia, WA and the Northern Territory. I've met with people using this card. It was supposed to help communities but, largely, the card has failed these communities terribly. It has cost a fortune—it's up to $80 million now—there have been incredible stuff-ups, such as people's rent not going through, and it has lined the pockets of the government's mates, Indue. The government has forced pensioners onto this card, saying, 'We don't trust you with your money.' That's what the government is really saying to people with this card: 'We don't trust you to spend your money the way you want to.' How humiliating! How degrading! Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, most pensioners I know know where every cent goes, because they have to. When pensioners are paying between $2 and $5 for an iceberg lettuce—let me tell you—they know. They study the specials guide at the supermarket because they make every cent go all the way. And all for what? This card won't help them one bit, just like this government hasn't helped pensioners one little bit. The vast majority of pensioners have served this country and have paid their taxes, and now they're being told how to spend their money. It isn't good enough. If the government was really worried about these communities, it would improve their health by boosting Medicare. It would create jobs. It would create education and business opportunities. It would create apprenticeships. It would get to the root causes of the problems. But, no, its answer is just to control people and their spending. (Time expired) Wieland, Mr Ned 161 10:41 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I want to inform the Chamber about a young man by the name of Ned Wieland, who lives in my electorate of Wentworth and was a student at Waverley College. Two weeks ago, on a Saturday, he undertook the extraordinary feat of swimming 62 laps of Bondi Beach. Ned first rose to fame in 2017 when, at the ripe old age of 16, he became the youngest Australian male to swim the English channel. In doing so, he raised over $30,000 for the mental health charity R U OK?. Ned had to wait until he was 16 years and 10 days old to complete that swim in the English Channel because the rules at the time—and they're still in effect—didn't let you participate if you were under 16. Four years later, Ned is still hard at it. Every year, he sets himself the challenge of doing a big swim to raise money for R U OK? and raise awareness of the important issue of mental health. This year, because of the challenges of COVID and not being able to travel, he decided to stay local and swim at his own beach. He set up a course from Ben Buckler, at the north end of Bondi, to 'the Boot'. The distance from that part of North Bondi to South Bondi, as a straight line, makes about an 800-metre lap. The previous record for this was 60 laps. Ned managed 62 laps, which is almost 48 kilometres. That's like swimming the English Channel and halfway back again. It took him around 10 hours. In doing so, as I said, he raised money for the important mental health charity R U OK?. Ned lost one of his swimming mentors when he was young. That memory has stuck with him and has made it important to him, as a cause, to keep highlighting the issue of mental ill health and what we all need to do to help address it. Before Ned set out for the swim he said: Swimming is really good for your mental health. Probably not good for your mental health when you're going for bloody 20 hours, but if I can get people down there and get them swimming … you see with the older generation as well as the little ones, the ocean is such therapy for people. You let your thoughts flow and lose yourself in there. Ned is setting us all a great example. He's an active member of North Bondi surf club, a local within my electorate of Wentworth and someone who, in the short space of his life—he's only 20 years old—has done a huge amount to raise funds and raise awareness of a cause that is close to the hearts of all of us in here. Thank you, Ned, and well done. Furber, Mr Harold 161 10:43 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Harold Furber, an important and respected Aboriginal leader, passed away peacefully, surrounded by his family, on the afternoon of Friday 5 November in the palliative care unit at the Alice Springs Hospital. He had been in the intensive care unit all week following complications stemming from long-term problems with his heart. Harold's funeral service was held in Alice Springs last Friday. Harold was the son of Emily Furber, who's deceased; father to Melanie Marron, Patricia Marron and Declan Further Gillick; and brother to Margaret Furber, Trish Kiessler and Toni Arundel. Harold's numerous family and kinship connections, of which he was most proud, stretched far and wide throughout Alice Springs and across Central Australia, the Northern Territory and beyond. He was considered an uncle, grandfather and father to many. He was widely known and respected as a deeply principled community organiser and intercultural leader. He was a proud Arrente man and a member of the stolen generations who determinedly found his way back to his family and homelands in Central Australia and committed the better part of his life to the pursuit of justice, collaboration, truth-telling and the self-determined social, economic and political development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at grassroots, local, state, national and global levels. His contributions to community organisations were numerous and widespread. He worked for many years to establish and/or contribute to the development of organisations such as the Central Land Council where I worked with Harold many years ago and where he was for a time their deputy director; Central Australian Aboriginal congress; Yipirinya School; Northern Territory Stolen Generations Corporation; and the Australian Labor Party where he was twice a candidate for the Centralian seat in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly—in 1990 in the division of Sadadeen as it was then named; and in 2001 in the division of MacDonnell, now known as Namatjira. Harold also travelled internationally to learn from and work with First Nations representatives and community leaders, including in Canada, the Philippines, the United States and Aotearoa. His final passion and greatest pride was his determination and tenacious leadership in the establishment of the Desert Knowledge Precinct, an intercultural knowledge-sharing initiative south of Heavitree Gap in Alice Springs. Harold held the position of Intercultural Elder-in-Residence of the precinct and he continued to work there to provide advice to the consultancy right up until his passing. He was a well-known Aussie rules footballer, representing Pioneers, North Adelaide, Buffaloes football club in Darwin. He played in several premiership seasons and was a very good sportsman. Stolen from his family and homelands as a small boy in 1957, Harold found his way back to his own country and remained there as a tireless fighter for his people and contributed to the many causes and organisations in Darwin and Central Australia. Taken too soon, he will be deeply missed. Harold's legacy lives in the memory and in the hearts and minds of family and friends. May he rest in peace. Ryan Electorate: Salvation Army Food Drive 162 10:46 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise today to speak about a special young lady in the electorate of Ryan. Emma MacDonald is a year 5 student at Brookfield State School who dedicates her time each year to collecting donations for the Salvation Army food drive. It was my great pleasure to meet Emma last year when she was nominated by her teachers to receive one of my local Young Community Leader Awards. This award recognises our talented young leaders of the future who are making an important contribution to our wider community. The award is given to students who have shown an ongoing commitment to positive change and supporting those around us. No time has been more important than during the COVID-19 pandemic when Emma saw the extra stress it was putting on people and families who were finding it hard to make ends meet. She promoted the Salvation Army food drive within the Brookfield State School community and managed to collect an incredible 1,000 items to donate to local families. The Salvation Army provides an incredible service to people doing it tough throughout the year, including during the Christmas period. Last Christmas the Salvation Army provided around 64,000 hampers as well as 26,000 gifts to individuals and families in need. Earlier this year Emma reached out to me to see if we could brainstorm a way for her to reach her new goal of donating over 2,000 items, so she's planning to double her incredible efforts of the previous year. To reach her target, Emma and her very supportive mum, Nicola, letterbox dropped flyers, put signs up around the community and contacted our local newspaper to advertise her food drive. She's had some fantastic local businesses who've got on board with supporting her and who are providing drop-off locations for her donations. I would encourage all members of the Ryan community who are interested to get involved and to donate things such as non-perishable food items, toiletries, gift vouchers and cleaning products. Next time you're down at your local Coles or Woolworths picking up your groceries, get a couple of extra things, a few non-perishables, that you can donate. If you need any further information on ideas, please get in touch with my office. Once you've got your donation ready to go, you can drop it off at the Pullenvale IGA, Brookfield State School, Brookfield Produce Store, Moggill Village post office or under the Christmas tree in the reception of my own office in Taringa. Every donation counts, and if we pull together as a community we can help this incredible young lady, Emma, reach her goal of having over 2,000 bits of non-perishable food and other items that we can donate to help make local families' Christmas special when they're doing it tough. I really want to congratulate Emma again on her outstanding efforts on behalf of our community. Broadband 162 10:50 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga Over the last couple of years we've been working from home and we've been learning from home. To be able to do this we need decent, reliable, good internet. But for too many of my constituents decent, reliable, good internet is still a dream. In recent weeks my office has been working with residents from several neighbouring homes on the urban edge of Eltham who've experienced significant issues with their NBN service for months. These properties currently only receive fibre-to-the-node service, and residents have spent countless hours on the phone, sending emails or waiting for technicians to turn up to try to resolve the problems, only to be left with bandaid fixes that mean that they have to do the whole thing all over again. I know this isn't a unique experience in any way, but it just should not be the case. One of these residents works in the health sector. They've had to contend with constant internet dropouts, and this has affected their ability to manage and access their workplace's IT systems and to be able to review patient test results and management plans. In the middle of a pandemic this is what is happening to healthcare workers in my community. Another reports woeful service with repeated outages and slow speeds. They've had to turn off notifications about the service dropping out because it happens so often. As with many of these cases that come to my office, NBN Co and service providers end up in a finger-pointing exercise. No-one's actually fixing the problem, and my constituents are left frustrated because they just want a decent internet service that works properly. I am hearing loud and clear from people in Jagajaga that we need a better NBN so that we have access to the reliable service that we should have in a developed country and when we are relying on using this technology from our homes. And that is why I am so excited by last week's announcement of Labor's NBN plan from Anthony Albanese and Michelle Rowland. It's a critically important one for my community as the plan will enable full fibre access to one and a half million homes that are currently in the fibre-to-the-node footprint. Households in this footprint who want an NBN speed greater than the copper wire can deliver will be able to choose to have fibre connected to their premises at no cost under Labor's plan. Nearly seven in eight premises in the fibre-to-the-node footprint will have full fibre access by 2025. Labor's plan will keep the NBN in public ownership so that prices remain affordable and improvements to the network can be made and will continue to be made. It's a plan that's focused on delivering great access and opportunity to people who know they need and want a better service to do all those daily things that we do from our homes. The minister for communications suggested just last week that Labor's plan was more wasteful government spending, but this isn't a waste. Fixing our NBN is fixing an essential service. It is a fix that Labor will make. It is one that this government can't achieve. Sturt Electorate: Community Gardens 163 10:53 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It was my pleasure to attend the opening last Friday of the Laurel Avenue Community Garden in Linden Park in my electorate. Before I talk a little bit about that project I want to pay tribute to the Stronger Communities Program, which gives us the opportunity to provide support to so many worthwhile community organisations in our electorates. In my brief time as a member of parliament there have been three or four rounds of this program, with another one coming up. I start by shouting out to all the community organisations in my electorate that the round that closed recently will be another opportunity for us to invest in our local community groups and achieve the kinds of outcomes that I was able to see firsthand at the opening on Friday. Luckily for me, but unluckily for them, the initially planned grand opening of the community garden had to be postponed. That was lucky for me because at the time of the initial opening I was unfortunately in home isolation for two weeks having returned from the last sittings of parliament. The postponement meant that on Friday I could be there to see the excellent work and the outcome of that hard work in what's been achieved at the community garden. We were able to be supportive through the Burnside Rotary, which put in an application to Stronger Communities to get federal funding to support some infrastructure to go on the site. I'm proud of that but, of course, in no way do I suggest that that was the difference between this project going ahead and it not going ahead, because it's the local community in the area that have come together, identified the opportunity and put their own volunteer hours into transforming that site. It's a suburban block of land that once had a home on it that's now been redeveloped by the community, with the support of the local Burnside council. Many of us would have these community gardens in our electorates. They do so many worthwhile things for the community, including bringing people together; obviously, allowing them to grow vegetables and other produce for their homes; and doing it together, in that community environment. It's great to see people working together on these things. If someone goes away on holiday for a few weeks, there's always someone else in the team ready to back up and support them and look after their lettuces and carrots or whatever they might be growing while they're away. Indeed, I planted some carrots—which probably died within half an hour of me putting them into the soil, given my history when it comes to growing fruits and vegetables at home. Nonetheless, I was thrilled to be there because it was great to see people coming together in an initiative like this. I've got five community gardens in my electorate. They're nicely dispersed, geographically, so most people now have, somewhere close to their home, the opportunity to communally grow produce and to eat more healthily because they're eating what they grow. But they're also coming together as a community to work together and support each other. I hope to keep supporting groups like the Laurel Avenue community garden well into the future. Kingsford Smith Electorate: Environment 163 10:56 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Our community says no to the eastern suburbs incinerator. We say no to plans to build a towering vent stack just 130 metres from people's home in Matraville. We say no to an incinerator operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, discharging air pollutants across Sydney's eastern suburbs. The New South Wales Liberal government recently released their Energy from waste infrastructure plan. This plan aims to ban waste incinerators in the Sydney Basin, but it does allow the New South Wales government to grant exemptions to replace certain fuels to power industrial and manufacturing processes onsite. One of Sydney's biggest waste disposal companies, in a proposal to burn their rubbish at Matraville, is seeking such an exemption. An exemption will allow consideration of the proposal by SUEZ, with Opal, for the construction of a huge incinerator right next door to residential housing and to schools. In 2019 SUEZ teamed up Opal paper, formerly Orora, on Botany Road and lodged a proposal with the New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to build their incinerator. Their plan is to burn at least 165,000 tonnes of waste a year at the Matraville paper mill—waste trucked in from Western Sydney tips—to create energy to power their mill. The proposal is classified as 'state significant', meaning it's been taken out of the hands of Randwick City Council and will be determined by the New South Wales state government. The Liberal government must not allow an exemption to the ban on incinerators in the Sydney Basin. In releasing the infrastructure plan in September, the government highlighted the need to provide certainty for communities and industry. The plan makes clear where new thermal waste-to-energy facilities can and cannot proceed. The plan makes clear that a key principle should be 'to adhere to the precautionary principle where there is a greater risk of harm to human health due to proximity to high population areas' and 'in areas where there are regular exceedances to air quality standards from existing sources'. Matraville and the nearby Botany Bay area are already among the most polluted areas of Australia's capital cities, according to data from the National Pollutant Inventory. The former New South Wales energy minister, now the Treasurer, Matt Keane, was right when he said that any concerns of local communities should be respected and that incinerators should be 'kept away from high-density residential areas'. I completely agree with the Treasurer, and that is why his government must not grant an exemption to Opal and SUEZ to allow them to apply to have the development application assessed by the New South Wales government. Our community has had enough of the pollution in the area. They must say no to the eastern suburbs incinerator. (Time expired) National Agriculture Day 164 10:59 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Last week we celebrated National Agriculture Day. This is a day when we celebrate our world-class biosecurity systems and the world-class agriculture that our country produces. The theme of this year's National Agriculture Day was 'agventures', encouraging Australians to consider career opportunities in the agricultural industry. This year I had the privilege of joining Calvary Christian College, AgForce and AgForce Young Producers Council for their National Agriculture Day event, at Calvary Christian College. The agricultural program at Calvary has been an integral part of the learning experience of the college since it opened its campus at Carbrook, in my electorate. The students are offered several agricultural pathways, both as curricular and co-curricular offerings. These include childcare farm visits in the early years; junior ag club, known as JAG, and class visits in the junior years; as well as opportunities for show team involvement. The middle and senior school also have the opportunity to participate in From Paddock to Plate and agricultural science. Having a farm onsite at the college allows them to bring the learning to life, offering a full, interactive, practical experience for their students. The passion the students show for the agricultural industry is part of why AgForce established their School to Industry Partnership Program. They have successfully been the stream between Queensland's primary producing agribusinesses and schools. The SIP Program has not only been successful, but is now also considered the benchmark for school to industry engagement. The AgForce School to Industry Partnership Program delivers a range of events and programs throughout the year for primary students, secondary students and teachers, and these programs educate students about the origins of their food and fibre, engage them with a wealth of primary production and agricultural sector knowledge, and raise the profile of careers in agribusiness and increase the awareness in the variety of career paths on offer. Their events include AgConnect, and this event provides schools with opportunities to engage with the relevant industry partnerships and presentations. AgForce have also established their own young producers' council, an energetic, forward-thinking, commercially minded group of 18- to 40-year-olds who are passionate about the industry in Queensland. The council's goal is to raise awareness within AgForce of what matters to young producers. My electorate has a rich agricultural history and, alongside Calvary Christian College, two other local schools, Beenleigh State High School and Loganlea State High School, have outstanding agricultural programs. I commend everybody for the work that they do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 193 the time for member's constituency statements has concluded. MOTIONS 165 MOTIONS International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People 165 11:02 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise today to speak in recognition of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. I want to thank the member for Fowler for bringing this motion to the House and for his important advocacy on this issue, as well as for his longstanding advocacy on all other human rights issues. This day of solidarity with the Palestinian people is important. It not only affirms the principles of justice and international law; it also serves to hold a mirror to the world and to the institutions of the United Nations. It is a day which holds member states to account on progress towards their commitments to the inalienable rights of the Palestinians, including their right to self-determination and a future built on peace, dignity, justice and security. Earlier this year I noted the international community must not absolve itself of the responsibility it has to ratify its own resolutions. This year alone, we've seen this reality tested and come out short on all the benchmarks of humanitarian and international law. Instead of implementing resolutions that form the basis of a future built on the principles we serve to uphold, we instead continue to see Palestinians suffer the indignities and violence of occupation and conflict. I also said then that Australia has a long history of engagement in multilateral institutions as a middle power, with a pragmatic problem-solving ethos that gives priority to our diplomatic engagements. What framework do countries such as ours have to speak of if not the resolutions of the United Nations and the principles of international law? When it comes to the question of Palestine and, indeed, to all of our international obligations, we can't simply refer to charters and principles without any enforcement during times of deceptive calm while doing away with them in their entirety during times of heated attacks. The irony is that doing so doesn't just absolve us of responsibility; it has the unintended consequences of denying us the ability to hold others to account in the international arena—not just on this question, but on issues within our own regional sphere. I emphasise this because we're not here today to memorialise. The member for Fowler's motion stands to affirm an issue that not only remains alive and impactful but also, in fact, has a major impact on a significant number of matters affecting our world today. Action means ending the crippling military occupation, the world's longest in modern history, and addressing matters that the United Nations identifies as critical—namely, Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, security and water. This day of solidarity reaffirms the saying that, where there is no justice, there is no peace to be found and, ultimately, no security for all sides. It's not just solely an international issue; its context finds itself here, which, as this motion recognises, is very important to many across the Australian community—including in my own community. Today I want to reference Hisham, my constituent, who spoke to me about his late father, Hayel, who was also my constituent and a member of our local Palestinian community. I want to quote Hisham: My father was born in Safad, in the north of what was Palestine. Very early on he became a refugee, forced to live stateless. My grandmother carried my father and his brother in her arms to the point of exhaustion as they made their way across the border into neighbouring Lebanon, forced to split from my grandfather along the way. What was meant to be temporary refuge became permanent exile. All the while, Safad become inaccessible to him. Jerusalem became inaccessible to him. The waters and land of what was once home became foreign. And my father, like the hundreds of thousands of others who shared his fate, were forced to live as stateless refugees, without peace and security and without a place to call home. Hisham goes on to say: That's how this tragedy continues—because everything stems from a lack of resolution brought about by a lack of resolve. At what point does the international community say 'let's live up to our own values'—at what point does the world recognise that Charters, resolutions and laws are there to be actually implemented? These words are poignant because, with each aspect of the conflict that needs to be addressed, there remains an internationally recognised and agreed-upon mechanism from which to refer to. These are the resolutions of the United Nations itself. Today not only affirms our solidarity with the Palestinian people; it is a day which serves to reaffirm our commitment to international law. 11:07 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I speak today in support of the motion of the member for Fowler in solidarity with the people of Palestine. Until a number of years ago, I was blissfully unaware of the intricacies of what was going on in that part of the world. I would see the news reports that were coming through about issues in Gaza and the West Bank and would not really take much notice. But, after spending eight days in the West Bank, you cannot unsee what you see. What I saw during those eight days were a people who are under military rule, who are suppressed and who have no rights. In some ways, where it's espoused that they do have rights, they don't have rights. Under the Palestinian Authority, which has control over the major cities in the West Bank, the Israeli army can come and go as it pleases under whatever circumstances it wishes. The debate in this place sometimes becomes, 'Are you for or against it?' and, if you're for Palestine, somehow you're supposed to be anti-Semitic. I'd like to think that I've been around long enough for people to know that I'm not a radical in any event. But when I see an injustice, it needs to be called out. I ask people, 'How would you manage if you had a business that relied on water supply, like a brewery, but for days on end the water supply gets cut off, because it's not under your control?' The electricity supply can be cut off for days on end, because it's not under your control. You can go away for a weekend and come back and find that someone has moved into your home, and, when you call the police, they arrest you—not the people that are in your home. I saw that with my own eyes in Hebron, where the centre of the town had been overtaken illegally by settlers. I saw settlements. The image of some temporary buildings on top of a hill in the West Bank does not describe the settlements. There are 620,000 Israelis living illegally in the West Bank. These are cities with shopping centres, swimming pools, movie theatres and substantial, solid homes. These are permanent settlements. The access to the settlements is on roads that only Israeli citizens can use, not Palestinians. How would you like to live in a land where not only is your access cut off by roads that you're not allowed to use but, at times during the year, military activities mean certain parts of your country are no-go zones? How would you like to be a farmer and know that all the lowlands and the Jericho valley, the highly productive lands, have been taken from your control and you have to eke out a living on a bare, bony ridge? The policy of the Australian people and our government is to look to a two-state solution. I think that we're beyond that. I think we have a level of apartheid, with a suppressed people, and the West Bank has been cut up to such an extent that I don't know how that would work. As the member for Calwell says, I think it's going to require a lot of effort from the world to actually come up with a solution that's relevant to now. One of the most tragic things I saw was interviews with university students in Bethlehem; realistically, their future was very bleak. As the member for Calwell did, I would like to recognise one of my constituents—the mayor of Coonamble, in western New South Wales, Al Karanouh. Al's family were from Jaffa and in 1948 were moved out, initially to Lebanon and then to the four corners of the globe. He has relatives living all over the globe. One of his family members still carries the key to the house in Jaffa around their neck, as a permanent reminder of what they have lost. Al turned up in Coonamble with basically the clothes on his back. He built a successful business, became the mayor and is driving that community with the same passion as Palestinians are all over the globe. I support the Palestinian people. The globe needs to act. World leaders need to act. (Time expired) 11:13 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak on the motion moved by the member for Fowler and I'd like to acknowledge his ongoing advocacy for the Palestinian people. The motion, of course, is in recognition of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, on 29 November. Israel has a right to exist and Israelis should be afforded the right to live in peace without any fear of attack from either beyond their borders or within. But Palestinians should also have these same rights to live in peace. The establishment of Israel resulted in more than 700,000 Palestinians being forcibly removed from their homes and lands to become internally displaced or refugees in neighbouring countries. In 1967, 300,000 more Palestinians became refugees, some for the second time. To this day, they and their families are under the UN refugee charter and resolutions and have the right to return to their homes. Many of these refugees are in the West Bank and Gaza, stateless in neighbouring countries or spread throughout the world. Palestinians make up 21 per cent of the global refugee population. In the West Bank, Palestinian families and communities have lived under Israeli military occupation for over 50 years. All aspects of their lives are controlled by Israel. Movement is restricted, building permits are denied; access to land and water, and trade with other countries, is severely limited. People living in the West Bank should have the right to live in their own homes without a looming threat of being forcibly removed. Gazans should have the right to live without the fear that a bomb will level the building they occupy, and they should not be subject to a blockade. They should be allowed to come and go from the Gaza Strip whenever they like. Palestinians should have the right to live in a state of their own. Too often, these rights are violated. The violence we saw earlier this year claimed the lives of over 200 Palestinians, including at least 65 children. The world watched as the fighting unfolded. What we saw was absolutely unthinkable. We also saw the lives of 12 Israelis, including two children, lost. This must be condemned in the strongest of terms. We saw the bombing of a building housing the very little media that exists in the Gaza Strip, crippling the world's access to on-the-ground reporting. We saw the anger of oppressed people and the heartbreak of children who had lost their parents and of parents who had lost their children. Today, Palestinians are in a terrifying position. Under the Oslo agreements of 1993, Israel controls almost all the region's water resources. Eighty per cent of the water goes to Israel and only 20 per cent to Palestinians. Palestine is forced to buy back this water, of which up to a third is lost to leakage. As a result, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have water consumption levels far below the World Health Organization recommended level. This is what happens when a group of people aren't afforded the basic human right of self-determination. One example of the oppression faced by Palestinians is the story of jailed World Vision Gaza program manager Mohammed El Halabi. In 2016, Mr El Halabi was arrested while crossing the border between Israel and Gaza. He was accused of redirecting more than $50 million in aid money to Hamas and other militant groups. He was interrogated for 50 days and has spent the last five years in jail, despite investigations by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, independent auditors and World Vision finding no evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, World Vision said that its entire Gaza budget during the time frame was half the alleged money that was taken. Mr El Halabi still has not faced trial. His legal defence has been restricted, and he has attended more than 150 court appearances. No substantial evidence to support the allegations against him have been produced in this time. Mr El Halabi is so respected that, in 2014, he was named a humanitarian hero by the United Nations. He was offered a plea deal but refused, maintaining his innocence. So he continues to languish behind bars. How has Australia reacted to this and many other injustices? Tim Costello, the former CEO of World Vision Australia, said that the Australian government has responded by cutting aid through the World Bank to Palestine, halving our commitment through UN bodies and axing an NGO partnership supporting farmers throughout Palestine. Further, he said, 'Australia's silence makes us complicit.' It falls to countries like Australia to engage in a process that will peacefully create a Palestinian state while ensuring the security of a Jewish homeland. I call on the government to ensure that Australia constructively uses our voice to support peace and security. 11:17 Mr O 139441 Flynn ' DOWD (—) (): I support the member for Fowler and the previous speakers. They were spot on. Anyone who's been to that part of the world, Palestine and Israel, knows exactly what they're talking about. The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is on 29 November. We shouldn't have this day. The Palestinian people should have equal rights. That's not asking too much. I've never met a Palestinian who doesn't want to be on equal terms. The days of conflict between Israel and Palestine have disappeared. Now all they're seeking is peace in that land. They should have their basic rights returned to them. At the moment, they have very few rights. Their rights to safety and self-determination don't exist. I've seen firsthand what it's like to live under apartheid rule. At a mosque in Hebron, a line going into the mosque had Israelis on one side and Palestinians on the other side. If that's not apartheid, I'd like to know what apartheid is. All they seek is fairness, equality and democratic rights for all parties who live in that one stretch of land. I went to Palestine and saw firsthand the injustices done to the Palestinian people on a day-to-day basis. It was evident everywhere I went. Anyone who goes to Palestine knows this. A Palestinian man said to me: 'Ken, you might think you know a little bit about our problems over here, but, until you live it day to day, you do not understand. You're only getting a slight insight into what's going on.' Take the Jordan River. It's running dry. The Dead Sea—it's a good name for it, actually—is getting deader and deader. As the Palestinians lose water from the Jordan River to Israeli farmers, the salt content in the Dead Sea is increasing and the level of the Dead Sea is dropping. There were once resorts around the top of the Dead Sea where you had water views. Now, the water views are some 200 metres away from those resorts. That's how much the Dead Sea is shrinking. Water is a big issue for the Palestinians. They don't know when they've got it from one day to the next. Those black tanks on top of their roofs—you can always tell a Palestinian house when it's got black tanks—are Palestinian tanks, and they are only allowed to pump water into those tanks on a certain day of the week or the month, depending how much the Israelis want to give them. These are the real things that happen in Palestine. I call for the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. It's called theft of the land. As the member for Parkes said, you can be in your house one day and the next day you get told: 'You're leaving. Please remove yourself from the house, because tomorrow the bulldozers will come in and it will be gone. Where will you go? Who knows? There are Israelis coming back from all parts of the world, and they need houses.' This is the issue. This is why you get the new settlements controlled by the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians. They keep on expanding. The West Bank was for Palestinians, under the 1948 agreement. Now, it's a hotchpotch of Palestinians and Israelis living in walled cities. Big, high concrete walls have been erected around these new territories. If a Palestinian happens to be working in a location inside those walls, he now has to get permission to go inside that wall to work where his family has worked for hundreds of years. There are still people and refugees in camps. There have been since 1948. These people have got no future. The Gaza Strip should be abolished. Let the people be free to move outside those borders. I went to a university in Palestine, in Hebron, and they said the numbers are down because the Gaza people cannot move out of Gaza and come back into their universities. It's a crying shame what's happening over there, and we should do everything we can as Australia and everything we can with the United Nations to get rid of these inequities that are affecting the people of Palestine. (Time expired) 11:23 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin For the last 18 months, our world has seemed much smaller. The pandemic and the restrictions on movement have meant our focus has been close to home, so it's been very easy to overlook events and issues beyond our borders—too easy. With 29 November fast approaching, I thank my friend the member for Fowler for putting forward this motion, which acknowledges the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People and their inalienable rights. I acknowledge also the previous speakers in the debate: the member for Flynn, who spoke so movingly about his lived experience and his concerns; the member for Parkes, who made a very powerful contribution that I found very affecting; and my colleagues, the member for Canberra and my neighbour and friend the member for Calwell, who has been such a longstanding advocate for justice in this space. That we are having this debate matters to me. That we are demonstrating this sense of solidarity matters to me, and it matters to the people I represent in this place—Palestinian Australians and many others in Melbourne's northern suburbs, from a very diverse range of backgrounds, who want to see peace, justice and an enduring two-state solution and who too often despair at the lack of progress towards this and the terrible human cost that has been borne through these longstanding failures. Those costs are felt here in Australia as well as—much more obviously—in Palestine. One of the reasons I was so keen to speak to this motion was to acknowledge the force of contributions made to me by constituents this year when I was able to hold street-corner meetings and street stalls in May, when our TV screens were filled with terrible images attesting to the deaths of 200 Palestinians and 12 Israelis—all deaths which we mourn. People urged me then not to look away. People sought reassurance that Australia would take on a constructive leadership role in standing up for human rights wherever they are threatened and standing up for international law. Labor has, of course, long supported an enduring and just two-state solution to this conflict, reflecting the aspirations of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security in their own state and the right of Israelis to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed between the parties. I'm proud that Labor's platform supports recognition of the right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states with secure, recognised borders and, in government, to progress towards self-determination and recognition. This is as it should be. The member for Fowler, in his contribution, set out very articulately concerns that I share in relation to human rights, including access to the basic necessities of life; the many obstacles that have stood in the way of the peace process, including settlement building and the blockade; and, of course, the desperate and irresponsible politicking by the Morrison government around the unilateral recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, putting Australia out of step with the international community and at risk of undermining the prospect of a durable solution. From as far away as we are, it's easy to look away. But we can't, because everyone deserves the prospect of a future built on peace, dignity, justice and security. That this today, as we stand here, seems so remote for the Palestinian people doesn't mean it can be ignored. We all need to work harder to support an enduring solution, to put in place whatever tangible steps we can to advance a peaceful future for the people of Palestine and the people of Israel; in doing so, to call out any actions, by any party, which undermine the journey to such a peace; to speak up in this place, in our communities and internationally in support of human rights and in accordance with international law; and to recognise, as the member for Calwell did, that Australia has a proud record, as a middle power, of being an effective presence in support of a world governed in accordance with law, not in accordance with the dictates of power. That's a call that should be recognised. In the lead-up to 29 November, I want to put on the record my solidarity, my hopes and my determination to do what I can in this place to stand up for the enduring values of human rights and to see those rights and a peaceful future extended to all of those in need of them. 11:28 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman [by video link] The piecemeal approach on the economic and security challenges in the occupied Palestinian territories, which we've seen not just for years but for decades, really does look like being perpetuated, particularly in recent events. I want to summarise the work of the relevant UN report but I also want to make it fairly obvious that many of us have travelled to this part of the world—and we deeply thank our hosts for making that possible—but we all have to be very cautious that we don't develop a political view on this complex part of the world based on whoever funded our last delegation to the region. We have to acknowledge that unravelling this is highly complicated and it goes back well over 70 years. The point I want to make pretty clearly is that short-term fixes aren't going to be the answer. Picking out isolated anecdotes and fixating on them as representing some form of horrific injustice is not going to help fix the problem or the additional crises, led by COVID; nor is the respective parties failing to work together and failing to focus on the economic elements of this tragedy. They are the means through which we can one day have a political solution. If we keep putting the politics of all this first, at the expense of economic opportunity, that's where we will see the suffering. The UNSCO were right to point out this month that the economic and fiscal situation there is 'dire', and their report says that we've got to take this head on. Every hour of every day that I was in that country, I was reminded of a famous quote: if you stay for a day in Palestine, you can write a novel; if you stay for a year, you can barely fill a page. The reality is that the longer you stay there the more you appreciate the complexity. We've had years of economic stagnation in the West Bank, which has seen a further collapse during COVID. The situation in the Gaza Strip has resulted from a multidecade decline, which is not something that can be turned around overnight, particularly given the high unemployment and the status of women in the country. It's increasingly difficult for the Palestinian Authority to even deliver on its mandate let alone cover its minimum expenditures or make any form of critical investment in the economy. That's what our clear and present challenge is right now—to not devalue, diminish or ignore the political challenges. Both parties, not just the PA, are responsible for the economic elements. It's not just of the water supply. We have to make sure that we are constantly focused on vocational training, getting more graduates and addressing unemployment and making small and micro business opportunities possible in the Palestinian-run areas. The longstanding shortage of public funds is a concern, but we can't continue to expect the international community, 70 years on, to be primarily responsible for the support. Neighbouring Islamic economies need to be playing not just an increased role but almost the complete role in supporting the Palestinian territories both in finding a diplomatic solution to this but also driving the economic possibilities for this generation right now. There's no need for the international community to be running the schools and childcare centres. It's patronising. The Palestinian Authority, despite its lack of funds, needs to be making sure that this is done with international bilateral partnerships, where local countries with a stake in the reality on the ground are pulling their weight and not relying on this becoming a persistent global effort. It does not need to be that. Israel, too, can do far more in releasing clearance revenues, which they're unilaterally equating as the amount paid by Palestinians to its prisoners and their families or the families of those that are killed or injured during attacks. This is a severe crisis. We don't want unilateral action. We need to be working on an integrated response. The report this month has called for that. In the last couple of days the chair's summary of the meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee that met in Oslo on 17 November was released. It was virtually supported. But all met at that high level. They're trying to promote some form of cooperation between the parties but with an economic focus. We're identifying the next step. There's an IMF report. The destabilisation we're seeing at the moment, the high friction created in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, breakdowns in ceasefires—all of that is ultimately being spawned by political obsession in the absence of any economic development. Both parties need to be focusing on that or having a second track that explicitly looks at economic development opportunities and overcoming structural constraints for the sustained development of the Palestinian territories. Against that backdrop, I'm calling for both parties to continue that renewed focus and to support the next step as we try and get economic development in the Palestinian state. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Sitting suspended from 11:33 to 11:34 Road Safety Program 169 11:34 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I move: That this House: (1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving road safety through the establishment of the Road Safety Program (RSP); (2) recognises that the RSP supports the fast roll out of lifesaving road safety treatments on rural and regional roads and greater protection for vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, in urban areas; (3) commends the Government for its funding in the recent budget to provide $3 billion over three years from 2020-21; and (4) acknowledges the 'use it or lose it' provision as part of the funding, requiring states and territories to use their funding within each six month tranche in order to receive their full allocation of funding for the next tranche, unless exceptional circumstances exist. It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion that talks about the Road Safety Program that this government that has rolled out. The government recognises the importance of this rollout to improving road safety treatments across rural and regional roads, giving greater protection for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians in urban areas. When we look at the funding envelope of some $3 billion over three years from 2021, we're not just talking about the importance of road safety; we're actually putting in place the necessary dollars to deliver it. Importantly, we are also putting in place a requirement for the state governments to get on with the job of delivering these safety projects. This commitment is part of our $110 billion 10-year infrastructure pipeline, and across my electorate of Forde it has been very, very well received. As we look at these infrastructure projects, particularly on roads like Beaudesert-Beenleigh Road and Beenleigh-Redland Bay Road in my electorate of Forde, we see that the importance of road safety can never be understated. With both of those roads, I know that over the years there have been many, many very serious accidents, which have cost lives. But also, importantly, these accidents have permanently damaged people's lives—they might not have died but might have had lifelong injuries and may have needed to recover from these. We saw only recently, not on one of these roads but on one of the smaller side roads, a very sad accident in difficult conditions where a family lost their mother. Julia May was a very well-respected member of the community at one of our local schools, and that has had an impact on the school and on the broader community. Each and every day we see the importance of road safety. I can say, quite safely, that anyone in this House would agree with the importance of that. Between them, these two particular roads in my electorate of Forde are seeing investments in the order of approximately $30 million. In addition, Tamborine-Oxenford Road is getting an update at Howard Creek that will lift the bridge and change the profile of the corner on what's an increasingly busy road. This will reduce the flooding impact on that road. More importantly, it will increase the safety. Also, through some of the heavy vehicle safety improvements in the Yatala Enterprise Area, we're seeing upgrades to Darlington Road and Computer Road. These are part of a growing industrial area. It is important not only to get freight in and out of the area safely but also that people are able to get to work safely. These projects are happening together with the big infrastructure projects that we're completing at exit 41 and exit 49, the M1 upgrades from the Logan Motorway all the way through to the Gateway Motorway, and the upgrades to the Mount Lindesay Highway, a $75 million investment jointly funded by the commonwealth and state governments. Across the electorate of Forde, these road safety programs are making a real, tangible difference to people's lives. Equally, across the country we are seeing these upgrades make a difference, whether it's shoulder sealing, audiotactile line marking, improvements to shoulders for cyclists who use those roads, wider centre line treatments that keep cars and trucks physically more separated on the road or improvements to our road barriers—rather than having just the Armco barrier with the railing at the top, having a panel underneath so that, if a motorcyclist has an accident, they're not sliding underneath the Armco railing and getting more severely injured. All of these might appear to be small things, but they make a big, big difference in the event of an accident. Also, we're seeing in many parts the removal of vegetation that is in dangerous places along the sides of roads. In a number of places along these roads, we have seen additional Armco safety barriers put in place. Making our roads safer is a critical component in reducing deaths and serious injuries. I commend the government for the work that it's doing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Mr Zimmerman 203092 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:40 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah This is such an important motion. Road safety is so important for many. Yesterday was the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, a shocking reminder that each year 1.2 million to 1.3 million people lose their lives to traffic accidents globally. In Australia road trauma stubbornly persists as the leading cause of death for people aged one to 14, despite various efforts from government and community groups to shift the dial. As we come to the end of the parliamentary sitting calendar, we are also approaching holiday season. With international travel opportunities still limited, our roads are likely to be busier than ever, with people taking their holidays domestically and enjoying long-awaited trips. It means that we all need to be especially careful when it comes to road safety. While vast improvements have been made to the safety of our roads, through investments in upgrades and changes to speed limits, especially around schools, we need to be mindful of where schoolchildren go and play when they are not in school, when they are on holidays. In my electorate of Warringah, two of my constituents have launched an organisation, Little Blue Dinosaur, that targets precisely that issue. The Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation was launched following the tragic death of their four-year-old son Tom in a pedestrian road accident on the Central Coast in 2014. The message 'Slow down; kids around' is an essential one that must be heard on every street, in every city and town. It's especially important in holiday time to remember where kids are likely to be playing. The Holiday Time campaign led by Little Blue Dinosaur is an important initiative, and it's great to see that over 63 local government areas, including the Northern Beaches Council in my electorate, have signed up to the initiative. The signs are bright and colourful to encourage conversations with children about road safety. There are also media and educational campaigns along with the signage. We need to be hypervigilant, especially with children 10 years and under. Little Blue Dinosaur have found that the cognitive development of children 10 years and under is still growing, and, when you call them to stop, their reflexes aren't there to stop immediately. Little Blue Dinosaur were recently awarded a grant to collaborate with the University of New South Wales to analyse data on road accidents and develop a pilot program to be rolled out across seven local government areas. More needs to be done to promote safety on our roads. Between January 2014 and July 2021, 430 young people were killed in road trauma incidents. I encourage all councils, especially those in holiday destinations, to sign up to the Holiday Time initiative and promote the brightly coloured signs alerting drivers to the presence of children near beaches, parks and campgrounds. I would also like to highlight the important work to improve active transport and pedestrian safety around schools in Warringah. Nearly $3 million has been spent on upgrading pedestrian safety and active transport links around schools in the Northern Beaches Council area alone. It's great to see the completion of work around the Mackellar girls high school, and I look forward to seeing the improvements around the future site of Forest High School, Harbord Public School, St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School, Curl Curl North Public School and Manly selective high school. It's a huge benefit to our community, making roads and transport safer for pedestrians and cyclists. It's key to building a greater sense of community and encouraging active lifestyles. To promote active travel and public transport has both environmental and health benefits due to increased physical activity. The Centre for Urban Research has found the number of Australian children walking or cycling to school has halved over the past 40 years, with less than a third now regularly walking or cycling to school. So we need to improve road safety, build walkable neighbourhoods, increase investment in cycling infrastructure and education and coordinate active transport and public transport provisions to turn this around. I thank the member for Forde for bringing forward this important and timely motion. I urge all Australians, especially now, as we come out of many months of lockdown, as you travel around the country this holiday season, please be mindful of who you're sharing the roads with. Think about walking or riding rather than driving. Look out for children and remember Tom's words: 'Slow down; kids around.' Road safety is something that we need to keep working on. There are many aspects to road safety, whether it's in regional areas or in urban areas, but all need to have the attention of government and need more development. 11:45 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm The Morrison government is continuing to deliver safer and better roads and infrastructure across Australia. Nation-building extensive infrastructure projects have been a constant of Liberal-National governments over the last eight years and a hallmark of our vision of a connected Australia that really works. This has continued in the past two budgets through the global COVID-19 pandemic, creating more jobs, while boosting aggregate demand and locking in our economic recovery. In the most recent budget, an additional $1.1 billion has been committed to continue road safety upgrades through the Road Safety Program in 2022-23, bringing the fund to a total of $3 billion. This will mean an increase of more than $500 million in funding for my home state of Victoria to be provided on a use-it-or-lose-it basis and directly tied to the outcome of improving road safety. Across the country this significant program is applying life-saving road treatments where they are needed most. The first tranche of works under the program, which is now underway, is upgrading more than 6,000 kilometres of road around the nation—that's nearly the distance between Melbourne and Hong Kong where I am from—and is expected to support more than 13,000 jobs. Works include shoulder sealing, audio tactile line marking, central line treatments and barriers to protect against roadside hazards on high-risk state highways and arterial roads. Any death or serious injury from a road crash is one too many. The Road Safety Program is just one part of this picture, delivering life-saving road safety treatments on rural and regional roads, and providing better protections for vulnerable road users. But our government is also supporting local councils across the country to deliver safer local roads and better local infrastructure through other important initiatives like the Roads to Recovery Program, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program and the Black Spot Program. In my electorate of Chisholm this funding has resulted in many major wins for local communities. For example, in Blackburn, the Morrison government has provided $1.5 million in funding to replace the Main Street bridge. In Box Hill, we have provided financial backing so that council can carry out important safety improvements to the Station Street and Harold Street intersection. In Glen Waverley, we are fixing the Kingsway and Railway Parade North black spot and also funding major pedestrian safety improvements on the Kingsway. In Mount Waverley, we are addressing the concerns of locals on Lawrence Road and funding important safety upgrades to reduce local traffic speed. This will result in a safer neighbourhood for locals and local families, and a reduction in traffic noise, significantly improving residents' quality of life. There are many more projects going on, but it's all about making Chisholm community, as well as communities across the country, safer and better places to live. It's all part of the Morrison government's record $110 billion, 10-year infrastructure pipeline to support locals and secure jobs, drive growth and help rebuild Australia's economy from the COVID-19 pandemic. I have no doubt that these investments will help to secure Australia's world-leading economic recovery and set us on the course for growth and prosperity for years to come. 11:50 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to speak on road safety, and I do so as someone who represents an electorate whose roads are deadly. The Bells Line of Road and the Great Western Highway present challenges for residents and visitors alike, partly because of the heavy truck and vehicle usage they have as they take people to and from the Central West. In the space of a few days our region recently saw the loss of three lives on our roads, and our hearts have gone out to the families of all three. One was a gentleman in his 70s who was killed at Mount Tomah in a truck accident as he was heading out to visit family as lockdown lifted. The others were young women going to or from work. Gemma Thompson, a science teacher, was travelling from her Blaxland home to the school she taught at, Bede Polding College in South Windsor. It was an accident involving a truck. The truck driver has been charged with dangerous driving. I didn't know Gemma, but my son did, as did one of my staff, so I've learned a little about her. Her principal, Mark Compton, echoed the devastation of the school community and described her as 'a generous, vibrant and dynamic young woman'. My son got to know Gemma and her fiance, Max, through a flatmate, and apparently Gemma, when she visited, couldn't work out how a Bede Polding breadboard had ended up in a house in the inner west. My son filled her in on the fact that Bede Polding breadboards are highly prized in our family, and Gemma was always amused when she saw that as she visited. Her loss just before her wedding is why we can never stop trying to make our roads and the people on them safer. Another loss was Mackenzie Blake who was just 21. Mackenzie was walking home from work at Macca's in Blaxland when she was hit by a truck driven by a disqualified driver. He too has been charged with dangerous driving and several other charges. Mackenzie was Blue Mountains-born, and I knew her as Jordan's much-loved little sister at the soccer matches he and my son played. They lived around the corner and their mum, Tracy, and I would hang out on the sidelines. She, Jordan and older brother Rowan, who both went on to join the Defence Force, are devastated at her loss. Tracy says, 'Mackenzie had her heart set on working with animals, which she loved.' And she wants her to be remembered for the impact that she made on people during her short life. She was known by everyone to be kind and caring, and her loss is really felt. On the day of her funeral I joined Peter Frazer, who established the SARAH Group to champion road safety after the death of his daughter, Sarah, who was killed by a truck driver nearly 10 years ago. We stood on the side of the Great Western Highway to pay tribute to Mackenzie, along with Mayor Mark Greenhill and Councillor Brendan Christie and many dozens of others wearing yellow or bearing yellow flowers. Peter Frazer has worked tirelessly since Sarah's death to make sure roads are built the way they should be, and every government has a responsibility to support and fund that. He also says that driver behaviour needs more focus. He wants to see road fatalities talked about not as statistics but as people, which is what I've tried to do today. I want them to be remembered. Peter feels the best way to honour those who've been killed is to stand in solidarity, put yellow ribbons on vehicles and in workplaces, get people to be road safety champions and get people to tell their stories. As he says, 'Everyone has the right to get home safely to their loved ones every single day.' When it comes to building infrastructure so that it does save lives, we actually have an opportunity to do that in Medlow Bath in the Blue Mountains. The plan for the proposed tunnel underneath Blackheath has drivers suddenly emerging above ground to travel through the hamlet of Medlow Bath. It's beyond me why the federal and state governments refuse to consider the community's calls for the tunnel to be extended. If they were serious about protecting lives, this is a place where staying underground could really make a difference. On long weekends—particularly in cooler months, when the traffic is high—accidents, too often resulting in a tragic loss of life, are reported really regularly on this stretch. Here's where the federal government could put its words into action and support the Medlow Bath community and all those who travel through it. 11:55 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Any death from a road crash is one too many. We've seen too many families left shattered and devastated by the death of a loved one as a result of a road accident. We also cannot forget those who are suffering from long-term and life-changing injuries because of a road crash that should not have happened. Road crashes destroy lives. Every one of us—each level of government, every Australian—plays a vital role in ensuring the safety of people on our roads. That is why the establishment of the Morrison government's Road Safety Program will be a vital step towards ensuring the safety of all Australians who use our roads, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to protecting those on Australia's roads by increasing our investment in infrastructure and the effective monitoring of interventions. The Morrison government is making greater protection possible for rural and regional roads and for vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, in urban areas in leaps and bounds because of the Road Safety Program, which is also expected to support around 13,500 jobs. Our country is a better place thanks to these sorts of essential government programs. Millions of Australians use our roads every day—going to and from work, home to their family or to the beach for a day out on the weekends. We have truck drivers delivering necessary supplies from state to state, police patrolling our roads to keep the community safe, paramedics heading out in the ambulance to help sick patients, essential workers going about their daily commute, business owners opening their businesses for the day, Australian Defence Force personnel using the roads to go to and from training exercises, cyclists going for a ride on their bikes and pedestrians walking across the road for a cup of coffee or to get to work. They all deserve to be able to navigate around our roads and go about their day safely so that they can go home to their family safe and sound every day. In this budget, an additional $1 billion has been committed to continue road safety upgrades through the Road Safety Program in 2022-23. This brings the fund to a total of $3 billion, which means $783 million for the state of Queensland, where my electorate is based. I have long been fighting for upgraded infrastructure and safer roads for my electorate of Longman because I know that the community will greatly benefit from some of the Road Safety Program funding—especially in the case of Bribie Island Road, which is used by many people every day and is currently undergoing upgrades. I would like to see more funding for the electorate of Longman for the life-saving road treatments where they are needed most, which includes shoulder sealing and audio tactile line marking, centre line treatments and barriers to protect against roadside hazards on high-risk state highways and arterial roads. In addition to the Road Safety Program, the government's record $110 billion 10-year infrastructure pipeline will support and secure jobs, drive growth and help rebuild Australia's economy from the COVID-19 pandemic. These investments form part of the Australian government's economic recovery plan and will secure Australia's world-leading economic recovery by delivering nation-building infrastructure projects, providing water security to inland Australia, meeting our national freight challenge and getting Australians home sooner and safer. I'm glad to see that the Road Safety Program's funding is provided on a 'use it or lose it' basis and that it's directly tied to the outcome of improving road safety, requiring states and territories to use their funding within each six-month tranche in order to receive their full allocation of funding for the next tranche, unless exceptional circumstances exist. I believe that this will prevent long delays when it comes to getting on with building road infrastructure and ensure that road maintenance is carried out in a more timely fashion. I know that many people in Longman were left disappointed and dismayed by the amount of time it took to get started on the Bribie Island Road upgrade, which quite frankly wasn't acceptable. It was the same with the overpass at Narangba and Deception Bay, which, again, was delayed by a couple of years. The first tranche of works under the program, which is currently underway now, is upgrading more than 6,000 kilometres of road around the nation, and, with our additional investment, this is a step in the right direction when it comes to protecting motorists and pedestrians who use our roads on a daily basis. We can only go up from here when it comes to making our roads safe. We do all this to aspire to achieve our ultimate goal—to never lose another life on our roads again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Infrastructure Funding 173 12:00 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that: (a) over the past eight years of this Government, infrastructure funding to areas of growth has been neglected; (b) as revealed in September's Final Budget Outcome there has been another 12 months of broken infrastructure promises from the Government, with infrastructure spending totalling $656.5 million less than was promised; and (c) over eight long years of this Government, its infrastructure broken promises now total an incredible $7.4 billion; (2) recognises that this lack of funding has resulted in fewer roads, fewer public transport upgrades, longer commutes, less time at home and fewer jobs for Australians who need them; and (3) calls on the Government to provide adequate funding to infrastructure projects and build the roads and rail that Australians actually need. I'm moving this motion today because nowhere can the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's neglect on infrastructure funding be seen more than in the area I represent, the federal seat of Lalor. For eight long years, the people I represent have been ignored by members opposite, and our local infrastructure is struggling to keep up with population growth. But this story is not confined to Lalor and is repeated nationwide for growth areas. I'm sure there will be many other examples to come from the speakers following me today. In the last 12 months alone, the Morrison government has failed to deliver over half a billion dollars in infrastructure funding, and, over the eight long years of this government, its broken infrastructure promises now total an incredible $7.4 billion. These broken promises result in fewer road programs, fewer public transport options and longer commutes. In Wyndham, that is not just about time on the M1; it's also about time crossing our city for school, for child care, for shopping, for sport, to visit family, to care for the elderly. Meanwhile, media reports tell us the Morrison government has been using taxpayer funds to shore up Liberal and National seats with projects that don't stack up on need or, indeed, on value for money. Wyndham, the centre of the seat of Lalor, is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia and the fastest growing region in Victoria. Wyndham's population has increased by 75,000 since 2016 and is forecast to hit 300,000 at the end of this year. While this population growth has been phenomenal to see—as someone who has lived in Werribee my entire life, I've watched it go from a country town between Melbourne and Geelong to a large city in the outer suburbs—our local infrastructure is struggling to keep up with federal funding for local projects. From what I can find, the only major road or rail infrastructure project this government has funded that will benefit my community is a $150 million upgrade for the M80—and that was when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister. This stands in stark contrast to when Labor was last in office, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and when over $4.1 billion was invested in major projects that benefited locals that I represent. It's because only Labor invests in the west. This is shown by the commitment to our local community from the Victorian Labor government, who are investing in better public transport options, removing level crossings and improving intersections. They invested $1.2 billion in improving local roads, and they're building the West Gate tunnel, giving people from the west alternatives to the West Gate Bridge. As I previously explained, Wyndham's growth has been phenomenal, with an increase of around six per cent a year, year on year on year. Some forecasts suggest Wyndham will hit half a million residents in the next 20 years. Seventy per cent of this growth is happening in the suburbs of Tarneit, Truganina, Wyndham Vale and Werribee. We need to build the infrastructure now to support the new residents already living in Wyndham and those who will be joining us, and the best way to do this is for the federal government to fund the Wyndham Westlink. There are currently three road river crossings in Wyndham. One, by the way, was closed last week due to flooding. They're all within two kilometres of one another. This project would provide a fourth, vital crossing of the Werribee River, linking Armstrong Road in Wyndham Vale and Sayers Road in Tarneit. A trip between Tarneit and Wyndham Vale on Labor's Regional Rail Link takes seven minutes, but locals have reported to me that the same trip by car can take 45 minutes in peak hour and bring thousands of cars onto the Shaws Road bridge. The Wyndham Westlink will also build an overpass over the railway at Ison Road, connecting the fast-growing Wyndham Vale, Manor Lakes and Werribee suburbs to the Princes Freeway. This will help locals living in these growth suburbs and travelling into the heart of our city to gain access to the freeway. This project is vital. It will connect our growing suburbs and ease congestion in the heart of our city. I urge all locals who want their fair share from the Morrison government to head to my website and sign the petition. In just a few days it has had great uptake, and social media posts have shown great support and discussion amongst locals. This project is vital. It's time for the Morrison government to get on board with it. It's time for the Morrison Liberal government to stop playing politics on infrastructure funding and deliver where it's needed, not where it's politically convenient. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Mr Rob M3E I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:05 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan When I first read this motion, I had to read it a couple of times. Originally, I thought the member was referring to the Queensland Labor state government. It describes them to an absolute T. We're very keen on this side of the chamber to stand by our record on delivering infrastructure. We hope that Labor will continue to take up the issue of infrastructure right up until the election so that we can spend a lot of time explaining to Australians just how much this government has delivered in new infrastructure and nation-building projects over the term. Queenslanders, particularly in my electorate of Ryan, see the stark contrast between what the Morrison coalition government is delivering in terms of projects on the ground, money and getting them home sooner and safer and what the Queensland Labor government has failed to deliver over decades in the western suburbs of Brisbane. Since 2013-14, the coalition government has committed $175 billion in infrastructure funding across our nation. We know that maths isn't a strong point of those Labor members opposite. But I am certain they couldn't have missed an investment of that significance in our nation's infrastructure to create jobs and get people home to their families sooner and safer. In the 2020-21 financial year, the Australian government achieved over 95 per cent of what was a historically ambitious infrastructure investment for our nation, and we did it at a time when we had incredible challenges relating not only to the natural environment of floods and bushfires but also to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nowhere is it starker in contrast to the electorate of Ryan and how this government is rolling out infrastructure versus how Labor, particularly at the state level, is holding it up. It ends up falling to the federal government and other LNP administrations to do the heavy lifting. Since the last election, in the electorate of Ryan in the western suburbs of Brisbane, I have secured for my community $230 million in infrastructure funding to upgrade local roads to get you home to your families sooner and safer. I know there is nothing more frustrating than sitting in traffic when you would rather be home with your family. It is an issue that is raised with me most consistently in the community. People want to see the infrastructure problems that we have in the western suburbs tackled after decades of neglect by the state Labor government. Right across the electorate of Ryan, because of that $230 million commitment, we are seeing hoarding and fencing going up and construction underway. The residents in the gap are seeing the new Gresham Street bridge being built, with upgraded traffic lights, wider and safer pedestrian access and improved flood resilience. This is a connection that is used by over 2,850 vehicles a day. It was put in the too-hard basket for a long time. But, again, it's federal funding that has allowed the LNP local council to kickstart this project. Our Black Spot Program is delivering important safety upgrades right around the electorate. The Sir Fred Schonell Drive and Coldridge Street project in St Lucia, which is a project that I announced alongside the member for Riverina, is now underway and almost complete. Of course, the notorious Indooroopilly roundabout is well underway, with demolition having occurred to the car dealership onsite, the asbestos being removed, and the contract for significant construction works to commence early in the new year. We got through all the consultation on that. We got through all the community discussions. We got through awarding contracts and going out to tender, and we're now starting construction, just a few short years after we promised the funding at the last election, despite COVID and despite everything else. The common factor in all of that is funding from the Morrison coalition government, combined with the LNP led Brisbane City Council, who are keen to take our money and put it into action to yield positive results for residents on the ground. Contrast that with the other project that we've got in the area, which is the Kenmore roundabout. At the same time when we promised money for the Indooroopilly roundabout, we promised money for this, but it's in the hands of the state Labor government. It's been over 750 days since the Queensland state government matched our funding, and they've done nothing. It's been 190 days since they finished the community consultation, and we've heard nothing. What we really need to deliver infrastructure in the western suburbs is for Labor to get on and get with the program. 12:10 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I thank the member for Lalor for moving this important motion, and I'm proud to speak in support of it. In the last days of the 2019 federal election, a desperate Prime Minister announced that a re-elected Morrison government would invest in Melbourne's west through a city deal with the region. Now, nearly 1,000 days later, with the next federal election imminent, he still hasn't delivered. This Prime Minister has an announcement for every occasion, but he always goes missing when it comes time to deliver. He's the travelling salesman Prime Minister: he pops up, makes an announcement and then moves on. He's like the bloke you meet on the beach in Bali offering to sell you a genuine Rolex and promising that he'll send the warranty in the mail. This Prime Minister isn't a PM for all Australians. He's only interested in Australians who have something to offer him. If you live in a Liberal electorate or in a marginal seat, this Prime Minister has billions of dollars of pork-barrelling and rorts for you, but when it comes to the growth areas in electorates like mine in Melbourne's west, the Morrison government just doesn't care. Those areas don't show up in the Prime Minister for Sydney's political priorities. The Andrews Labor government in Victoria is doing its bit to fund and deliver infrastructure for the people in Melbourne's west. I see it in my electorate every day, with $1.5 billion for the biggest investment in health infrastructure in Victoria's history, the new Footscray Hospital; the multibillion-dollar West Gate Tunnel project; and new schools being built and level crossings being removed across the electorate. When Labor was last in power federally, we worked with the Victorian government to deliver new infrastructure for Melbourne's west. The Regional Rail Link project, a $4.7 billion project, and the $11 billion Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel were transformative investments in the public transport infrastructure of Melbourne's west. When the Morrison-Joyce government is refusing to work with the Victorian government to deliver the city deal that it promised Melbourne's west during the last federal election, media announcements from the Morrison government aren't worth the paper they are written on. My constituents can't use a media conference to get to work. They can't use a press release to get to school. They need real infrastructure. They need a PM who delivers, not just announces. Yet the Prime Minister asks my constituents who they trust to deliver for them! The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have abandoned Melbourne's west. Under this government, we've seen manufacturing jobs in my community decimated. We lost 2½ thousand manufacturing jobs when Toyota closed manufacturing after the Abbott government dared the car industry to leave Australia. We lost 1,500 jobs at the Williamstown shipyards, which closed under this government. Earlier this year, we lost over 300 jobs when the Altona refinery closed, despite the incompetent Minister Taylor saying that he would save refinery jobs in Australia. In May, more than 150 jobs were lost at Qenos. In spite of this, underlining how arrogant and out of touch this PM is, two weeks ago, he chose the Toyota Altona site for a desperate media announcement, attempting to distance himself from his own ridiculous scare campaign on electric vehicles during the 2019 election. Melbourne's west is sick of being taken for granted by this Prime Minister for Sydney. It won't forget how it was abandoned by this government during the pandemic and it won't forget how it was abandoned by the policies of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments for eight long years. For my constituents, 2021 was a lost year, because of this government's failures on vaccines and quarantine. The eight long years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have been wasted years for Melbourne's west, through the neglect of this government. The people of Melbourne's west deserve a government that's on their side. They need an Albanese Labor government to deliver roads and rail investment, not just announce it. They need an Albanese Labor government to secure jobs and a future made in Australia. Only Labor understands how vital it is to build a diverse economy and ensure that we generate secure, permanent, full-time jobs for Australians to make things here. Only Labor will provide a $15 billion national reconstruction fund to rebuild manufacturing capacity in Australia that has been lost over the last eight years, because Labor believes that the next decade should be the one where we make things at home here again, with Australian workers, Australian resources and Australian ingenuity. An Albanese Labor government will ensure that the transport infrastructure of the future will feature more Australian jobs in the supply chain. It will be an incredible opportunity to rejuvenate the manufacturing sector and the manufacturing jobs of Melbourne's west. We will create a national rail manufacturing plan to identify and optimise the opportunities to build trains here. We'll train thousands of workers by ensuring that one in 10 workers on major government projects is an apprentice, a trainee or a cadet—skills for Australian workers of the next generation—and we'll ensure that the working families in Melbourne's west have a better life by making child care cheaper, tackling wage growth and helping to close the gender pay gap. The next federal election can't come soon enough for my constituents. 12:15 M E0D Bonner r VASTA () (): I rise today to bust the myths of this motion and to speak on the infrastructure investment commitments our government has made and is making right across our country. Our government hears the needs of Australians, and we respond. That is why, during this year's budget, we made it clear that we were building the infrastructure our country needs for the future, with our 10-year, $110 billion investment pipeline for better roads, faster commutes and, most importantly, making sure Australians can get home sooner and more safely. We've also invested a further $1 billion in road safety upgrades to save lives and a further $1 billion in local road infrastructure projects. In my electorate of Bonner, our government is delivering for locals. In September I went to see the upgrades to the M1 between Sports Drive and the Gateway Motorway, thanks to the $110 billion investment pipeline. This is a 3.5-kilometre upgrade which is part of the broader $750 million, eight-kilometre M1 Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill project. By alleviating congestion along critical sections of roads like this one, we're helping freight more and more between our cities and we're generating jobs across the country. I'm especially proud of my ongoing partnership with the Brisbane City Council and Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner. Working together for our community, we have a strong track record of upgrading local roads and building a better Brisbane. Last month the lord mayor and I visited some of the works currently underway. My electorate is home to Newnham Road and Wecker Road, whose intersection is rated by the RACQ as the fifth most dangerous in Queensland. There is great urgency within the community to fix this problem area, and I was proud to secure $12 million in funding for this project, which will be delivered by the Brisbane City Council. It will involve the construction of new turning lanes, signalised pedestrian crossings, improved footpaths and the coordination of traffic lights. Our government, with the Brisbane City Council, is also contributing to the Brisbane Metro project. This is a major project, and one that is strongly aligned with our plan to reduce emissions. We are contributing $300 million to this vital project, with construction of a new depot facility currently underway at School Road in Rochedale in my electorate. The depot will provide storage for the new battery electric Brisbane Metro fleet, advanced charging infrastructure, maintenance and staff facilities. Brisbane Metro will have four stops in Bonner. With transport being one of the major sources of carbon emissions, this project demonstrates the importance of working with all levels of government to reduce our footprint across the country. It is fantastic to see our government leading these initiatives and forging the way for a cleaner and greener public transport system. The last time I spoke on the Lindum crossing in this House, I was pleased to share the long-awaited upgrades that were getting underway. I've been fighting for this upgrade since 2017, when over 7,000 locals in Bonner signed my petition to fix the Lindum crossing. We were successful in 2019, with the federal government committing $85 million to this worthy project. Brisbane City Council have also come to the table, with $40 million to fix the Lindum crossing. This month we commenced the first stages of the immediate safety upgrades to the crossing, thanks to $1 million from our federal funds. These works will include the installation of new and extended median islands, as well as new on-road line markings and resurfacing. This weekend there are scheduled upgrades to the rail corridor. This first stage is critical to ensuring the crossing is safe for all our community while more extensive planning can be undertaken for the long-term grade separation of Lindum crossing. We are monitoring this vital project and we're fixing Lindum once and for all. What is more important is working alongside Brisbane City Council, because we've also started construction on the Chelsea Road and Rickertt Road intersection upgrade and the Wakerley bikeway project in Ransome. I was very pleased to secure $6 million in funding for this vital project. Our government has also allocated $14 million towards fixing the notorious Rochedale roundabout, which will improve the intersection safety for all commuters and cater for future traffic demands in this fast-growing suburb. I've spoken about many projects today that are underway in Bonner, and with this funding delivered by the Morrison government to benefit our local roads and address the needs of commuters our commitment to infrastructure funding could not be stronger. 12:20 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I thank the member for Lalor for bringing forward this very important motion. The member has perfectly summarised what we know all too well about this very tired Liberal government. They simply cannot be trusted to keep their promises. Over the past eight years Australians have been served a banquet of neglect from this government with course after course of empty promises and empty pledges, leaving Australians hungry and disappointed. This has been most keenly felt across infrastructure. The Liberal government, the self-proclaimed economic managers and trusted leaders of the nation's finances, have been stinging the Australian public to the tune of $7.4 billion over their term in office so far. How do we know this? As revealed in September's final budget outcome, we now know that over the past 12 months alone this government has underspent on its own infrastructure promises to the tune of $656 million just in the past 12 months. In the eight years of scandal-ridden listless Liberal governments through six iterations of leadership and backstabbing, Australians have missed out on $7.4 billion worth of promises. That's $7.4 billion that was guaranteed by this government that Australians voted on that has not been delivered. That's money that should have gone to electorates like mine which are in dire need of infrastructure upgrades. It's more announcements, no delivery. That's the legacy of this Liberal government, particularly when it comes to Tasmania where it has a history of overpromising and underdelivering on road infrastructure. The $25 million Urban Congestion Fund promised in 2019 is still untouched. The so-called new funding for the Bass and Midlands highways announced this year has been repackaged from previous years. Under eight years of Liberal government, the Midland Highway project still isn't finished and what they have done is completely substandard, thanks to the Liberal government in Tasmania failing to manage the project. And the $461 million Bridgewater Bridge in my electorate promised in 2018 still hasn't been built. That's part of the fantasy that is the Hobart City Deal—again: announced, not delivered. If this government actually cared about Tasmanian roads they'd be offering support for the Tasman Highway on the east coast and to fix Arthur Highway like Labor did at the last election. But they won't, and the reason is simple: the Liberal government does not care about infrastructure in Tasmania. They will fudge the numbers. They will rort and pork-barrel and repackage old promises, but when push comes to shove we know they are just not up to the job. They have spectacularly failed to deliver their promises. We can just go to the bushfire disaster fund, a $4 billion fund that the Prime Minister announced nearly two years ago—not touched. We can go to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, a $5 billion fund. Hardly any of that money's been touched at all. In fact, reports show $334,000 in separations and redundancies and that eight of the fund's 28 staff are paid more than $230,000—plenty of money for the back end of the administration, but no money for infrastructure. Australians deserve a government that is true to its word. Instead, we've got a PM who can't be trusted, who can't be believed; a PM who announces but doesn't deliver, who takes credit but never takes responsibility. We need a government that is committed to building back stronger, and we need a Prime Minister with the resolve and the passion to make it a reality. An Anthony Albanese Labor government will restore public faith in leadership and in politics by doing just that: delivering on Labor promises like our housing future fund to deliver 20,000 homes to those in need, like our Australian skills guarantee to ensure one in 10 workers on major government projects are cadets, apprentices or trainees and like our plan to rewire the nation and upgrade the Liberal's mangled NBN so that Australians everywhere can access the internet. Labor's vision is for a future made in Australia and infrastructure for all Australians. 12:25 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I thank the member for Lalor for bringing this motion forward because I love talking about what we've done to deliver for infrastructure across our great nation. It is our government that has delivered critical infrastructure across urban and rural communities throughout Australia and that continues to invest in the future of our country. Since 2013-14 we've committed a total of $175 billion in infrastructure, with over 700 projects delivered or under construction, and investment across our infrastructure pipeline has averaged over $8 billion a year since 2013-14, a significant investment in infrastructure across Australia. The government has spent over $12 billion on land transport infrastructure investment in the 2020-21 financial year alone. In 2021 the government achieved over 95 per cent of this historic and ambitious infrastructure investment. The Morrison government has delivered a $126.6 million funding boost for stage 3 of the Gold Coast light rail, the project which is bringing the government's total investment for stage 3 to $395.6 million and is boosting local jobs, investment and transport connections across my electorate of Moncrieff, with six kilometres from Broadbeach to Burleigh. It is the federal government that is funding the majority of that project. Ten years ago jumping on a tram on the Smith Street motorway at Griffith University, my own alma mater, and hopping off in the heart of Surfers Paradise was simply a pipedream, but today the Morrison government has made it fact. It's made it happen; it's made the impossible possible. The light rail will benefit many generations to come and those tourists who will soon be back on the Gold Coast—I won't go into that argument here in the Federation Chamber now but I'll save that for later in the day. I want to stick to infrastructure, not the failings of the Queensland government. This is an extraordinary achievement in a year with a challenging delivery environment, including natural disasters such as floods and bushfires, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. This represents the biggest spend on land transport infrastructure investment in Australia's history and is over $2 billion more than the previous high, set by the LNP of course in 2016-17, of $9.3 billion. It's our government, the Morrison government, that will continue to invest $110 billion over the next decade in the land transport infrastructure investment pipeline. Expenditure this year is forecast to be even higher, at more than $14 billion. These investments form part of the government's economic recovery plan and will secure Australia's world-leading economic recovery by delivering nation-building infrastructure projects, meeting our challenge of increased road usage on our highways and getting Australians home sooner and safer. As the former Deputy Prime Minister used to say, instead of sitting in the traffic looking at the bumpers in front of you, you'll get home safely to play with your family after work. Kids will get home from school, and you'll be there sooner and safer thanks to our government. I want to talk about the Coomera Connector stage 1, the upgrade of the M1, which is currently appalling. The M1 will be receiving $750 million in federal government assistance to build that connector to make sure that Gold Coasters get back to Moncrieff sooner and safer. It's currently in the planning with development phase activities having been approved, and an enabling works contract was awarded just this month, November 2021. The Morrison government is committed to delivering a future driven infrastructure plan to cope with Australia's growing population, and nowhere is it growing more than on the Gold Coast. We've had 100,000 southerners move up to the Gold Coast for the beautiful weather, the beautiful water and the beautiful sunshine— An opposition member: And you. Ms BELL 282981 Thank you. I'll take that interjection from those opposite. They have moved up to Queensland for all of the reasons I just outlined. We need to make sure that we deliver the infrastructure that we need for a growing city, and that's what the federal government has been focused on. Some other upgrades include the Bruce Highway, Cooroy to Curra, section D. As a Queensland MP, I'm excited that Queenslanders will reap the benefit of that. There's also the upgrade between Daisy Hill and the Logan Motorway. For those who are driving from Brisbane to my electorate of Moncrieff, it's the federal government who are paying for that upgrade, near IKEA at Logan, to make sure you get home sooner and safer. 12:30 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce It's that time of year again, isn't it? Isn't it terrific? During the last couple of weeks we've seen that we're at that point in the cycle. The Prime Minister's out and about. He's got his little fluoro vests on. He gets the yellow one, the orange one, the little hard hat. Sometimes you even get treated to the silly goggles. He pops up at building sites and construction sites. In fact, they don't actually have to be construction sites. You just need a bit of big, heavy machinery so it looks like you might be doing something. He trots around the country. He's announcing things again. Photo ops—that's what he's chasing. It's even caused a number of hashtags to trend on Twitter: #ScottieFromMarketing, #ScottieFromPhotoOps, and a few others that are not parliamentary, so we won't be mentioning them. I'm mindful, as always, of the standing orders, and I'm not allowed to call the Prime Minister a liar here in the parliament. It sounds like 'flyer', so I'll choose my words carefully. It would be hard to pick the biggest untruth out of this government's promises. But, if we're going for a medal, infrastructure might not win the gold medal, but it's certainly a medal contender. They're in their ninth year. Every year you get the same rubbish spin, budget after budget. Their budgets are full of untruths about infrastructure. We get the big announcements every budget: 'We're going to spend five trillion, bazillion, gazillion, jillion, gajillion dollars on infrastructure! It's going to be terrific.' Then you get the questions in question time. Up they pop, the National Party ministers—because, really, the Prime Minister sees infrastructure as a plaything for the National Party—announcing things. But, when the cameras are away, when people aren't looking, what happens? Not much. After eight years, in their ninth year, $7.4 billion of the infrastructure they announced was not delivered on time. That means fewer roads, fewer public transport upgrades, longer commutes and productivity impacts that impact the real economy of the country. That's because the government announce stuff, but they don't build it. Last financial year—a $656 million underspend. When called out the Prime Minister does two things. He denies it. He pretends it's not true. He just keeps saying the same old stuff—never mind those pesky things called budget papers, where they publish the numbers and you can get them out, line them up and add them up with a calculator and work out what they've actually done. Never let the facts get in the way of the Prime Minister's spin. He also blames someone else. He famously blamed international students, remember? If you couldn't get a spot on the freeway or get a seat on the train, it wasn't because the government over there failed to invest in the infrastructure that Australians needed; it was somehow because of the international students—the same students that he told the universities to go and recruit after he cut $2.2 billion from their funding. But then apparently they got too many. The other thing he does is he always blames state governments. When caught out down in Frankston recently, 'Why haven't you built the rail line you promised?' he said, 'It's the state government's fault.' 'But you promised it.' 'No, it's the state government's fault.' It's only Labor state governments, of course. But Australians suffer the consequences, and it has real economic impacts. The only thing worse than underspends and doing nothing is when they actually do things. They see infrastructure as an opportunity to rort and pork-barrel. 'How good's infrastructure! Billions of dollars of taxpayer money we can shovel off to Liberal party marginal seats.' The Urban Congestion Fund—they announced $4.8 billion three years ago. They've only spent $550 million. It's another mirage of an announcement. But, goodness me, they've rorted it. Eighty-three per cent went to Liberal Party seats or target seats. The Commuter Car Park Fund—87 per cent went to coalition or target seats. Not one of the 47 projects was listed or recommended by the department, and the project selection process only involved canvassing Liberal MPs and candidates. Rort, rort, rort. I presume it's unparliamentary to snort like a pig to make the point about pork-barrelling, so I won't do that either. Ten commuter carparks were not even attached to a train station, such is their marginal-seat-pork-barrelling brilliance. But nowhere suffers more than Victoria. The Prime Minister hates Victoria. He never misses a chance to bag us. He took our vaccines in the pandemic. He abandoned our businesses. He discriminated against us. And now it's infrastructure. Every capital city in Australia has a City Deal, except Victoria. Melbourne has no City Deal. Every other capital city does. Before the last election though, he was down in south-east Melbourne like a serial pest promising things, sucking up to people, 'You'll have a City Deal!' What's happened in the 2½ years since? Nothing. He hasn't been seen since. That means 1½ million to two million people in south-east Melbourne suffer longer commutes, our employment centres are not getting the road upgrades they need, there's no planning for the future south-east Melbourne airport and agricultural industries are not getting recycled water. This guy is a scammer! 12:35 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Thank you to the member for Lalor for bringing this motion to the chamber. We're colleagues on the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, and I know we share a real interest in this area. The member would know from the hearings she has attended with me that I have serious concerns about how infrastructure is funded and planned. We missed the opportunity to look at it long term and to provide certainty to industry and the community. More regrettably, we allow speculators and camp followers to make away with millions of dollars in uplift that should, by rights, belong to the taxpayer who funded the infrastructure that gave them this uplift. There were many concerns that I had in 2010 and, as I look to leave this place, these concerns, unfortunately, remain. So while I have concerns that we are not reaching our full potential in providing as much transformational infrastructure as we should, I can't agree entirely with the idea that infrastructure has been neglected. The numbers are pretty staggering. Since 2013-14, we have committed a total of $175 billion in infrastructure across our nation, with over 700 projects delivered or under construction. Investment across our infrastructure pipeline has averaged over $8 billion per year since 2013-14. The Australian government have spent over $12 billion on land transport infrastructure investment in the 2020-21 financial year. We are investing $110 billion over 10 years into the land transport infrastructure investment pipeline. The expenditure this year is forecast to be even higher, at more than $14 billion. Together, these investments form part of the Australian government's economic recovery plan and will secure Australia's world-leading economic recovery by delivering nation-building infrastructure projects, meeting our national freight challenge, and getting Australians home sooner and safer. Areas of growth need jobs to make them sustainable, and infrastructure provision is a great way to create these jobs, as well as improving liveability and viability of growth areas. The new and additional funding in the 2021-22 budget for projects and initiatives will support over 30,000 direct and indirect jobs over the life of these projects. This, in turn, builds on around 100,000 jobs supported through our existing pipeline of projects under construction. So it is clear that this government is investing in growth areas. Indeed, with an election coming up, the season for local infrastructure approaches. In Bennelong, we know all about the cost of unfulfilled election promises, as the proposed Epping to Parramatta train line promised, and apparently funded, by Labor back in 2010 never saw the light of day. With the excellent Sydney Metro now flying through Epping station, the opportunity missed by Labor a decade ago is an opportunity that now will be lost forever, unfortunately. But, if anything, this is an example of a larger problem. As are the issues that have led to the member for Lalor bringing this motion forward today. On the larger issue, both parties are equally culpable. A lack of vision exists. The attractiveness of a big cash splash at every election contest belies the truth that infrastructure spending needs to last longer than three years and needs constant support between the excited peaks of election mania. Good infrastructure is planned, created and expanded over many years and decades, across parliaments and changes in government. It must be bipartisan; otherwise it will not survive. Unfortunately, the arguments about who has built what and who has not built what demonstrate that infrastructure is being used—by both sides—only as a tool for campaigning, not as a tool for improving our suburbs and making our cities and regions more livable, let alone as a national plan of settlement. When the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built it wasn't quickly announced to make the best media release. The plans weren't rushed out to ensure that it could be used as part of an election; no, it was planned, tested and invested in soundly. Nearly 100 years on, we're still using it and benefiting from the way it has fundamentally shaped our city. That is what good infrastructure does. We currently have three-year plans, but we need to have 50- and 100-year plans if we want to ensure we have infrastructure that will stand the test of time, not just the test of the ballot box. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. HIV/AIDS 180 12:41 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia is continuing to display international leadership on the issue of HIV/AIDS by co-facilitating the 2021 United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on HIV and AIDS; (b) this meeting took place from 8 to 10 June and covered the progress which had been made in reducing the impact of HIV since the last High-Level Meeting in 2016; (c) the High-Level Meeting coincides with a meeting of public health and political leaders in Australia on 17 June to discuss Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia; (d) testing and treatment services combined with successful leadership from governments and civil society mean that progression from HIV to AIDS is now relatively rare in Australia; (e) action is still needed to address rising HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people, and other emerging high-risk population groups; (f) gay and bisexual men continue to bear the burden of Australia's HIV epidemic and ongoing health education among this population group is needed; and (g) further bipartisan political action and leadership is required to meet our national target of ending HIV transmission in Australia; and (2) recognises and acknowledges the: (a) Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia strategy outlines the commitments needed to make Australia one of the first countries to eliminate HIV; (b) journey that people have made through their diagnosis, treatment and experiences of living with HIV; (c) tremendous efforts of peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists in developing treatment and prevention regimes that have improved the lives of people living with HIV; (d) success of a bipartisan approach in Australia's health response; and (e) tireless community advocates, civil society organisations and support groups that actively tackle stigma associated with HIV. I proudly rise to move this motion to help destigmatise HIV/AIDS and raise awareness of the efforts Australia is making to end HIV transmission. Many people may be unaware that Australia is actually leading the way on ending HIV, not just locally but internationally. As a result of our leadership we were privileged to be asked to co-facilitate the 2021 United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on AIDS in New York in June earlier this year. In fact, in 2019 we became one of only a handful of countries to achieve the 2020 HIV elimination targets set out by UNAIDS. The meeting welcomed the recent scientific evidence that sexual transmission of HIV between adult couples does not occur when the HIV-positive partner is on effective and sustained antiretroviral treatment. The report also noted that, thanks to the increased access to antiretroviral therapy, more people are living longer with HIV. Decades of research and committed health care mean HIV/AIDS no longer is the death sentence it once was. I remember witnessing, as a young medical student, the introduction of this scourge to the world and how frightening it was not just for people in the community but even for medical practitioners. We've come a long way since the early eighties when this was an unknown epidemic. The UN high-level meeting coincided with a meeting of public health and political leaders in Australia in June this year to discuss Agenda 2025: Ending HIV Transmission in Australia. This national strategy outlines the commitments needed to make Australia one of the first countries to eliminate HIV transmission. It's a fully costed plan which draws upon evidence based research and is backed by top researchers, leaders and clinicians in Australia's community-led HIV response. With additional investment and renewed policy settings, HIV transmission within Australia could be ended by as early as 2025. That's within the next term of government. Such an outcome provides much-needed hope and leadership that the world is on track to end AIDS by 2030. This is momentous, and we are so close. It has not been an easy journey but it is thanks to the tremendous efforts of so many—peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists. All have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of people living with HIV. All are providing hope that AIDS elimination is just around the corner. We know that here in Australia testing and treatment services combined with successful leadership from governments and civil society mean that progression from HIV to AIDS is now relatively rare. But there is still more to do to end transmission. HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people and other, emerging high-risk population groups does remain problematic. Gay and bisexual men continue to bear the burden of Australia's HIV epidemic, and ongoing health education among this population group remains a priority. My electorate of Higgins is vibrant and diverse, and it has a large, thriving LGBTIQ+ community. I'm proud of the work my community does to ensure that stigma around HIV is diminished and that access to medicines is widened. I'm proud to be a member of Liberal Pride. Higgins is also home to world-leading HIV/AIDS research at the Burnet Institute and Alfred Health, and great advocacy groups like Thorn Harbour Health. My community campaigned, and is proud that the Commonwealth moved, to list pre-exposure prophylaxis, commonly known as PrEP, on the PBS, making it affordable and therefore more accessible—accessible by all, no matter what your means. As some of you are all too aware, COVID changed our lives in many ways. Australians delayed health check-ups and stopped taking vital medicines. This can be seen in delayed preventative health checks, even with PrEP. We know, unfortunately, that 42 per cent of gay and bisexual men stopped taking PrEP during a short period of time early in the COVID crisis. We know this has been reversed, which is wonderful. But we need to remain vigilant. We want people to go out and make sure they take up their healthcare checks and their preventative healthcare checks. We all have a responsibility to educate others about HIV, to remove the stigma, because, when we work together, we can help end HIV transmission here in Australia and around the world. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Is the motion seconded? Ms Bell 282981 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:46 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I'm pleased today to speak on this motion moved by the member for Higgins. It is vital that members in this place continue to talk about HIV until its transmission is ended in Australia and around the world. I've been lucky enough to work with the team from the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, or the AFAO, in looking at what can be done to reach this goal. Australia has a proud history of strong, bipartisan action on HIV. The HIV crisis was an horrific time for all of us in Australia, but, of course, most particularly for our gay and bisexual communities. I know as someone who was a nurse during this time just how bad it was—the confusion, the hysteria caused by the media, which fuelled terrible instances of homophobia and violence. I remember the isolation felt by so many of my patients during that time. The lack of understanding and the fear from healthcare staff furthered that isolation. For far too many people with HIV, nursing and health staff were the only people in the room at the end of their lives. But then we saw the wonderful mobilisation of the LGBTIQ+ community. Community and political activists pulled together and demanded action. They demanded an end to the vilification and homophobia, and they worked with health professionals and governments to make a change—to act on the epidemic in ways that were appropriate and effective. And it worked. Government came together with the community and took decisive action. There are wonderful stories of the bipartisanship shown at this time. Under the Hawke government, which was in power through the crisis, the then Labor health minister, Neal Blewitt, set up a bipartisan committee to ensure unity on the response to the crisis. Imagine that. During such an important time for Australia, on such a vital health issue, which had divided much of the Australian community, there was political unity. This is a story all of us in this place can learn a lot from, and it should inspire the way we approach HIV policy into the future, because, while Australia has seen incredible success in its approaches to stemming HIV transmission, we aren't there yet. I spoke earlier of my work with the AFAO. Their plan, Agenda 2025, which is mentioned in this motion, outlines steps that can be taken to eliminate transmission of HIV in Australia by 2025. I applaud them for this work. What their plan shows clearly is there's still work to be done. We know that, here in Australia, gay and bisexual men remain the key population where HIV transmission is occurring. We are at the pointy end of the fight against HIV. That stubborn amount of transmission that requires that bit more innovation to get to it is our last piece of the puzzle. But, at their core, the same answers we found during the crisis in the eighties will be the answers to ending HIV transmission in Australia once and for all: access and information. This includes access to preventative measures, detection services and effective treatments, and information on how transmission works and how to access prevention and treatment measures—information that is culturally appropriate and accessible to all. Over the last few decades, we have seen innovative prevention and treatment strategies come online. PrEP has changed the game on the transmission of HIV, and effective HIV treatments mean those who are diagnosed can go on to lead healthy, full lives and many can reach the point of having undetectable levels of HIV. These medications and treatments are incredible. If we utilise the technology we have before us now and invest in the technology which is still coming online, we can end HIV transmission here and go on to ending it around the world. We just need to invest in informing people and giving them fair and equitable access. I look forward to continuing to work with AFAO on their plan and to hearing more about how we can reach this huge milestone. I encourage everybody, especially those opposite, to learn from our past, from the incredible bipartisan efforts of the Hawke Labor government, on this important issue. There's no reason at all that we can't come together again—why we can't sit down as one, in a true bipartisan nature, and discuss this issue end to end—to stop HIV transmission once and for all. My door is always open if you'd like to discuss it, and I know there wouldn't be a member on this side of the House that would close a door to such a process. 12:51 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I'd firstly like to thank the member for Higgins for bringing this motion before the chamber to be highlighted for those living with HIV/AIDS in Australia. Her proactive approach to representing her electorate, the broader community and the medical profession is evident through her output of work and her continued dedication to deliver better medical outcomes for all Australians, as a government member. Australia continues to be a world leader in the elimination of HIV and, in 2019, it became one of only a handful of countries to achieve the 2020 HIV elimination targets set by UNAIDS. Overall, HIV transmissions continue their long-term trend of decreasing in Australia. In 2019, 90 per cent of the 29,045 people suspected to be living with HIV in Australia had been tested and diagnosed with HIV. Of those diagnosed, 91 per cent were on treatment, and, of those on treatment, 97 per cent had an undetectable viral load, which is great news for all Australians and for those who are suffering from this disease. The Australian government continues to work towards the important goal of eliminating HIV altogether in Australia and of supporting international efforts to do just that. In my own electorate, researchers at the Menzies Health Institute Queensland, located within the Griffith University Southport campus in my electorate—my alma mater—have developed a novel anti-HIV protein which suppressed HIV levels in the bone marrow, spleens and brains of mice and prevented the virus from replicating in those areas. The federal government announced in 2019 a significant investment in the Australian HIV response by way of a funding boost of $45.4 million over four years. Griffith University on the Gold Coast has received more than $3 million in funding for health and science initiatives. Under the Morrison government, Australia has beat the 2020 HIV elimination targets set by UNAIDS, and we are confident in Australia's progress to achieve the 2025 UNAIDS targets. These are ambitious targets, and we still have work to do in this area. The government continues to support efforts to eliminate HIV and to support people living with HIV, working closely with the sector. In February 2021 this year, the TGA registered the first prolonged-release injectable HIV treatment for use in Australia. Injectable HIV treatments have several benefits for the patient, including removing the need for daily tablets. Under the Morrison government, Australians are able to access affordable HIV prevention medication and protect themselves and others from possible transmission. We're committed to supporting all Australians—including those at higher risk of HIV, the LGBTIQ community—to ensure their safety and prosperity so they can live free and long lives. In addition, pre-exposure prophylaxis was listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme on 1 April 2018. As at March this year, 44,798 people had been dispensed PBS-subsidised PrEP. The number of HIV notifications in Australian-born men with male-to-male sex as an exposure risk has decreased since this PBS listing, which is great news again. This has been attributed to the introduction of PrEP on the PBS. So it's going in the right direction; it's going down. As we approach World AIDS Day, on 1 December this year, it's important to acknowledge the efforts of those working in this sector and ensure that we all remain committed to supporting the elimination of HIV and AIDS in Australia. Agenda 2025 was launched on 17 June 2021 at Parliament House in Canberra. It will cost $53 million per annum and proposes a range of activities for community campaigns, peer education, and HIV stigma education and media programs. Campaigns and peer education support the implementation of the National Blood-Borne Viruses and Sexually Transmissible Infections Research Strategy. Australia is working towards achieving the targets that I outlined. In 2019, 90 per cent of the 29,045 people living with HIV had been diagnosed. As I said, of those, 91 per cent were on treatment. Of those, 97 per cent had an undetectable viral load. We're certainly making headway with HIV-AIDS in Australia, and I commend the Australian government for the work that we are doing to eliminate it across our great nation. 12:56 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I thank the member for Higgins for her motion. This is a very important one, and it again demonstrates that we work best when we all work together. I'm going to demonstrate my age a little bit here. I was a registrar, and then a very young consultant, at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in Australia. I remember how frightened we all were. Then we didn't call it HIV, because the virus hadn't been identified. We called it 'acquired immunodeficiency syndrome'. I remember when we had the first child with AIDS at the children's hospital, and a very good consultant, Dr Kamath, who was a gastroenterologist, was asked to see this child in intensive care. He said, 'The symptoms are very similar to something I've just read about that is happening in the United States.' In fact, this child did have full-blown AIDS and had returned from the United States. The child ultimately succumbed to AIDS, as did, I believe, his parents. That was the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I think people do not quite understand how frightened we all were about this. We were frightened because, at that stage in the United States, many people were dying. There was vertical spread from mother to infant. We were very frightened that it would get into our disadvantaged groups such as our Indigenous population—and there was absolutely no treatment. We were seeing children dying from this disease. I, for one, cared for a little girl called Eve van Grafhorst, who ultimately developed AIDS from a blood transfusion given to her as a premature infant. We saw the terrible way she was ostracised and her family was treated. It really was a very frightening time for all of us. I remember speaking to my immunologist friend, then working at Liverpool in south-west Sydney, and he was very scared about transmission among intravenous-drug-using people, and we were very frightened about what that was going to mean in our communities. It was only when two people—Neal Blewett, the Minister for Health, and Peter Baume, the shadow minister for health—came together and agreed to work together in a completely apolitical, bipartisan way that we were able to work towards Australia becoming the leading nation in the world in combating this scourge of AIDS, ultimately found to be HIV. Even today, when I was speaking to a younger member of my staff, he didn't know what the word 'AIDS' meant, and this was something that could've taken over our community. Yet, by working together, we managed to get on top of the epidemic and reach a point where, now, Australia leads the world. The PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis, treatment, which was trialled initially by the New South Wales Liberal government, has been a fantastic effort. Now available around Australia, it has led to much-decreased rates of transmission. We now have intravenous preparations, which are a very effective way of providing treatment without the need to use prolonged oral treatments. We are now able to provide this in a non-judgemental, non-partisan way throughout Australia, which has been dramatic. We are now seeking to be able to eradicate HIV by human-to-human transmission from Australia. It is an achievable fact that many years ago we believed would never be possible. We still have areas of need. We still have disadvantaged populations. We still have populations in countries around us, such as Papua New Guinea and some of the Pacific islands, where it is still a huge risk and a huge problem. I want to pay tribute to AFAO and the organisations that are part of it and the work they have done to develop a very non-judgemental, apolitical way of approaching HIV in Australia as we look towards eradicating it and being one of the first countries in the world to be able to do that. That's a tribute to politicians on both sides and to people in the community, in the LGBTI community and in the medical community who have worked towards this aim. 13:01 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I thank the member for Higgins for bringing forward this debate today. I speak about medical marvels a lot in this chamber. Representing the innovation capital of Australia makes that an easy thing to do. Local companies are vaccinating us against COVID and other diseases, curing heart conditions and consigning many deadly diseases to history. It's an incredibly exciting time to be alive, and it's the best part of Australia to represent. One of the areas we have had stupendous improvements in is the area of AIDS. Not long ago HIV/AIDS was terrifying. It seemed to strike without warning, taking healthy young people rapidly. There was no cure. The grim reaper ads are still a vivid reminder of the fear of those days. It was all the more shocking because its victims—young people, healthy people, people with their whole lives ahead of them—were taken by this insidious disease. Everybody knew someone who was affected. Tackling this disease took incredible resources, vigilance and teamwork. By working together, the world dragged this disease into the light. In 30 years it has gone from a disease that people will die from to one you might die with in many years time. Looking at where we were with it in the eighties, it is miraculous that we have come this far this quickly. Now, in Australia, we have the results to show for all our hard work. Overall HIV transmissions continue their long-term trend of decrease in Australia. In 2019, 90 per cent of the 29,045 people suspected to be living with HIV in Australia have been tested and diagnosed with HIV. Of those diagnosed, 91 per cent were on treatment and, of those on treatment, 97 per cent had an undetectable viral load. Because working on this requires a global push, the UN has become involved and set ambitious targets to fight HIV. They have created a high-level task force which has set the following targets to reduce annual new HIV infections to under 370,000 and annual AIDS related deaths to under 250,000 by 2025, ending paediatric AIDS and eliminating all forms of AIDS related stigma and discrimination and to achieve the 95-95-95 testing, treatment and viral suppression targets within all demographic groups and geographic settings. I'm proud to say Australia continues to be a world leader in the elimination of HIV. Australia has achieved the 2020 HIV limitation targets set by UNAIDS and we are working hard to meet the 2025 UNAIDS targets. These are ambitious targets, and we still have work to do in this area. In particular, the overall reduction of HIV has not been seen in many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and for overseas-born gay and bisexual men there was a three per cent increase in HIV notification. The government continues to support efforts to eliminate HIV and to support people living with HIV and working closely with the sector. Australia's role in this global push is highly commendable. This year Australia, together with Namibia, cofacilitated the United Nations meeting and we have been strong in ensuring that critical issues like comprehensive education of sexual and reproductive health and rights for adolescents and young people are addressed. We have got there through hard work and diligence but also through technology and testing, and tracing and treatment medications have all been game changers over the past two decades. We have come a long, long way on this front. But it's exciting to note that there are still improvements being made to these treatments. Just in February the Therapeutic Goods Administration registered the first prolonged release injectable HIV treatment for use in Australia. Injectable HIV treatments have several benefits for the patient, removing the need for daily tablets—the bright present leading to an even brighter future for everyone diagnosed with HIV. I'm still amazed by the turnaround in fortunes for people with this condition. The defining feature of HIV in the eighties was fear and uncertainty. Now it's optimism. This change cannot be understated. It also shows that we can do whatever we set our minds to fixing when we work together towards a common goal. We're seeing it today with COVID as well. When we work together with focus, we can achieve anything that we set our minds to. 13:07 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very pleased to rise to speak on this motion today moved by the member for Higgins, highlighting the vital role that Australia continues to play in the fight to combat HIV/AIDS. As you noted in your contributions, member for Macarthur, this year marks 40 years since the first reported case of HIV. As we look back over the last couple of decades, we can see how radical policy changes to our public health response has produced utterly extraordinary progress across the globe. According to the Global Fund 2021 Results Report, last year 27.5 million of the 37.7 million people living with HIV were on life-saving antiretroviral therapy globally. That is up from a very small by comparison 7.8 million people who were in that situation back in 2010. So, globally AIDS related deaths have fallen 47 per cent since 2010. Whilst this milestone is absolutely worth celebrating, it is critical that we also acknowledge that we are facing a very new and sobering reality. COVID-19 is reversing many of the hard-fought gains in the fight against HIV and other blood-borne diseases like TB and malaria not just here in Australia but globally. Because of the disruptions and restrictions imposed as a result of COVID-19, communities at greater risk of HIV infection have been unable to access the tools and information needed to protect themselves. COVID-19 has disrupted the supply chains, limited access to prevention tools such as condoms, lubricants and ARVs. The number of people reached by HIV prevention programs and services declined by 11 per cent and programs aimed at reaching young people declined by 12 per cent. Above all the global pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that make people more susceptible to HIV, and to end HIV and to confront new threats like COVID-19 we must renew our commitment to vulnerable communities and ensure that no-one is left behind, regardless of where you live on this planet. Since the beginning of the HIV-AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s there have been strong partnerships between governments and oppositions, with the affected communities, people living with HIV, researchers and the health profession always being at the heart of Australia's response. Those kinds of collaborative partnerships have always been strong in Australia. As a senior adviser to the then Australian health minister, Bill Bowtell played a very significant role in the development and the introduction of Medicare and our universal health system back in 1984. At the very same time he was overseeing an enormously successful and well regarded Australian response to HIV and AIDS. To this day Bill maintains a very close interest in the potential impact of the HIV-AIDS epidemic and other communicable diseases on the social, economic and political development of the Asia-Pacific region via his work now with the HIV-AIDS project at the Lowy Institute for international policy and he leads the Pacific Friends of the Global Fund. Likewise, the work of the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales has been pivotal to Australia's most recent efforts to tackle HIV. In 2016 Professor Andrew Grulich and his team from the UNSW led the first large-scale trial of the groundbreaking HIV-prevention medication called PrEP. In recent years the PrEP pill has ushered in a sexual, social and political revolution amongst those most affected by HIV. It's contributed to the unprecedented reductions in new HIV infections, although, as the member for Bennelong noted, that is not the case in First Nations communities, and that remains a really huge issue for us and a gross inequality in this nation. But PrEP has the potential to significantly impact Australia's response to the HIV epidemic. It's an important new option in a suite of HIV strategies and responses to help end HIV transmission. Certainly, in June this year the global community adopted new targets, through the political declaration at the UN, to get us back on track to stop an AIDS epidemic. The COVID-19 pandemic, as I mentioned, has had a catastrophic impact on the most vulnerable communities around the world and threatens to roll back progress on HIV, TB and malaria. As a global community we've got to unite to fight against them all. This is a time for us to step up and replenish the global fund. The government has done so in the past. I'm calling on them today to make sure that there is a generous replenishment in the global fund again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:13 to 16:0 3 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 185 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Lalor Electorate: Osman Family 185 16:03 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today with a heavy heart, in condolence, representing a community in deep mourning. Yesterday, my community, like many people across Melbourne and the nation, woke heartbroken, shocked and unable to comprehend the tragic news of a house fire in Werribee which claimed the lives of four children. There are really no words that can sum up the sorrow or that can explain how something like this, something so cruel, could happen to a beautiful family. I want to pass my condolences to the Osman family, who have gone through this unimaginable tragedy, and wish a speedy recovery to Najm, Khadjah and Ibrahim in their time of grief. We lost Musrah, aged 10; Icen, aged six; Nadeer, aged three; and Ileen, aged just 12 months. My thoughts are also with their friends and neighbours, who, too, have been affected by this horrific event; the Manor Lakes College community; and the worshippers at Virgin Mary and Al-Taqwa mosques, who share this grief. I want to thank the Wyndham Vale, Werribee and Hoppers Crossing CFA Brigades who answered the call in the middle of the night. I want to thank the ambulance officers and the police who attended. They too are in the thoughts of our nation today. May these four precious children who were taken from us far too early rest in peace. Beyond the incomprehension, the shock and grief, I know that my community will wrap their arms around this family and support them and all those who are left to heal. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sure on behalf of all the House here, we pass our condolences to the school too. I give the call to the member for Grey. Whyalla Airport 186 16:05 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I too echo those comments. On a brighter note, last Friday I was given the opportunity, along with Mayor Clare McLaughlin, to open the new Whyalla airport terminal, a $12 million expansion or upgrade of the existing facilities. It came about as a result of the mandatory implementation of passenger screening at Whyalla airport. It was something that I was quite concerned about when we first announced it as a government and the implications of it on an airport like Whyalla with its throughput. I was very pleased to work with them to secure $4.3 million from the Regional Airport Security Screening Fund for the installation of the scanners, and the expansion and changes to the terminal, and also another $2.45 million from the Regional Airports Program for runway extensions and tarmac upgrades. So it was quite a significant contribution to the City of Whyalla. I'd like to congratulate the council on actually taking the initiative on what is an impediment, if you like, of taking that money and using it as leverage to bring about this wonderful new airport gateway to Whyalla. When you come in or out, you'll be able to get yourself a decent cup of coffee, relax in beautiful surroundings and enjoy some of the local artwork. It's a great gateway to Whyalla and the Eyre Peninsula generally. I congratulate them all. Workplace Relations 186 16:07 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson This morning I proudly seconded a bill by the Leader of the Opposition, the Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021. I did so because I believe that the Morrison government's continued failings need to be called out. It's about time hardworking Australians got the same pay for the same work. We have staggering inequality in industries such as nursing, hospitality, mining and construction, just to name a few. This is a consequence of shonky operators exploiting workers and not paying fair wages for fair work. The Morrison government has let that happen. Labor believes that workers doing the same job at the same mine, factory, site or hospital should get the same pay. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the Australian way. Well, same job, same pay is the Australian way, and Labor wants the true Australian way. I speak to many workers in my electorate, such as miners, who tell me, 'Meryl, we don't want to be casual.' One bloke I spoke to had been working at the same pit with the same crew for six years and still hadn't got a look-in at a full-time job. He was on $50,000 less than the blokes next to him who are permanent. That has cost his family more than $300,000 in lost wages and that's not including lost super and lost leave entitlements. Labor has one message to the workers in industry and this country: Labor will make sure you get equal pay for equal work. Migration 186 16:08 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth In positive news for small businesses, families and some critical industries that have been suffering from worker shortages, the government announced that from 1 December large numbers of visas holders will now be able to enter Australia. Our borders are in the process of reopening. From 1 December, if you are double vaccinated with a recognised vaccine you'll be able to enter Australia without an exemption if you are a skilled migrant, international student, working holiday maker, provisional family visa holder, or a tourist or business traveller from Japan, Korea or Singapore. This will address what has been looming as one of our biggest economic challenges, which is an existing workforce shortage. Although this is a challenge for the economy, in the context of things this is a good problem to have. We're in this position now, because we've got very high vaccination rates: over 85 per cent of the over-16 population are double vaccinated and well on track to probably exceed a figure of 90 per cent, which will be one of the highest in the OECD. We've shown that we've got a strong and robust public health system which has been able to manage outbreaks and treat the disease effectively. And we've got an economy that is larger coming out of the pandemic than it was going into the pandemic. We expect around 200,000 new arrivals to come in between December and January. For people in the tourist industry, in the restaurant industry, in the hospitality business, on farms and in agriculture and in any number of businesses, this is welcome news indeed. Jagajaga Resilience Awards 186 16:10 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I want to say congratulations to all the school students in my electorate who are winners of this year's Jagajaga Resilience Award. We have asked so much of our school students over the past couple of years. They have had to move to remote learning. They've missed out on so many of those opportunities and occasions that come with the final years of school, that come with being with their friends and in the classroom with their teachers, and they have all done remarkably well. I want to acknowledge that. The quality that I think has been particularly important in helping the students get through all of this is resilience. So I asked each of these schools in my electorate to select a student that set an example through their capacity to adapt to the challenges that we've been seeing, to overcome personal difficulty or hardship and to support others in their community to do that and to be resilient. The nominations I got have been just fantastic. I wish I had time to speak about every single one of those students, but they have truly led and they have shown amazing resilience. I want to say congratulations to all of them. It's been wonderful to be able to visit some schools to give awards in person and to do some virtually. I hope that I'll be able to give out more of those awards in person, but congratulations to all of those students. A big thankyou also to all of our schools and their teachers, principals and support staff. I know it's been a really difficult time. You have done an amazing job. Have a Conscience Campaign 187 16:11 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan Worryingly, the amount of illicit drugs being consumed in Australia continues to increase and continues to have significant impacts on Australians' health and economic outcomes. Recently the committee I chair, the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, completed an inquiry into public communication campaigns targeting drug abuse. Serious harms are caused by organised criminal elements that traffic illicit drugs, and these harms are felt right throughout our community and by individual drug users. The inquiry found that a confronting public awareness campaign is effective to educate and decrease overall drug use and harm. We found that, to maximise that effectiveness, you need to tackle these campaigns from both the health and law enforcement angles and increase the awareness of the consequences for anyone who chooses to take illicit drugs. So I'm delighted that, since the inquiry, the AFP have launched a social media campaign—they launched it on Halloween—highlighting the real horror of illicit drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Unlike previous campaigns, this targeted approach has sought to challenge the perceptions that some of these drugs, like cocaine, are harmless. It shows the lesser-known health dangers of chronic cocaine use such as lowering the sperm count amongst males. The Have a Conscience campaign also outlines how Australian drug users could be unknowingly bankrolling serious overseas crime. I highly commend the exceptional work done by the AFP on this campaign and encourage Australians, if they haven't already, to share this important public awareness campaign so that, together as a community, we can decrease illicit drug use. Kamban Vizha: 15th Anniversary 187 16:30 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I rise to celebrate the 15th anniversary of Kamban Vizha, the Kamban Tamil literary festival, which was held virtually from 29 to 31 October. I want to congratulate Kamban Kazhagam on staging this virtual celebration of one of the oldest languages in the world in a tough pandemic year, when so many other important cultural festivals have been cancelled. In particular, thanks to founder and chairman Jeiram Jegathesan, president Mr Shanjievan Gunaratnam and vice-president Ms Poorvaja Nirmaleswara Kurukka. Thanks so much for your dedication to the development of the three components of Tamil literature, in prose and verse, music and drama, through classes, workshops, competitions and events, including this fantastic festival. Thousands of people have attended over the years, to celebrate Tamil language and culture, including the works of the organisation's namesake, the legendary Tamil poet Kambar, author of the epic Ramavataram, also known as Kamba Ramayanam. I once again congratulate Kamban Kazhagam Australia on this significant milestone and on putting together such an extraordinary program of speeches, debates and performances. I have enjoyed them over the years. You do a great job. Newton, Ms Patricia 187 16:14 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Patricia Newton of Dee Why was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for services to surf lifesaving in the 2018 Queen's Birthday Honours List. Patricia is a founding member of and heads the Traumatic Incident Peer Support team for Surf Life Saving Sydney Northern Beaches branch which provides a debriefing and support service to all surf lifesaving members involved in a critical incident. Her work has been invaluable in the field of peer support. Over many years she has been instrumental in ensuring the welfare and mental wellbeing of members. The team has supported a number of lifesavers who have suffered post-traumatic stress after a dangerous rescue or unsuccessful resuscitation. In 1998 Patricia made Australian history by becoming the first female president of a surf lifesaving club in Australia when she was voted president of the Dee Why Surf Life Saving Club. She has been a member of the club since 1983, also serving as junior president, deputy president from 1997 to 1998, member of the rules and regulations committee and a member of the life membership subcommittee from 2009 to 2010. I'm proud to acknowledge all that Patricia has done in this field and the tremendous effort she has made to helping those in need when they most needed someone's help. Pampel, Mrs Margot 188 16:16 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable Australian migrant and Holocaust survivor. Margot Pampel nee Reinhardt was born in Jena in Germany in 1922. Although they were not religious, their family had been forced to flee, firstly, Russia and then Poland due to anti-Semitic threats and pogroms. But, as the Nazi regime took hold in Germany, their new home was to become their worst nightmare. She was expelled from school, and their family lost their home because they were Jewish. Margot's mother was sent to Auschwitz where she died but Margot was able to hide and eventually flee Nazi Germany before making her way back to West Germany where she met her husband Horst. In 1954 they sailed to Australia landing in Station Pier in Port Melbourne in my electorate with their firstborn son Michael. Settling in working-class Fitzroy, they gave birth to a daughter Felicity and scraped and saved to have a comfortable middle-class life in the welcoming multicultural city of Melbourne. Margot documented her experience as a Holocaust survivor and postwar migrant with the help of Makor at the Lamm library of Australia in my electorate and released a book. As Chance Would Have It.From Jenato Melbourne, copies of which now sit in the State Library of Victoria and the Yad Vashem Holocaust centre in Jerusalem. She made it back to Germany several times, even telling her story at her old school in Jena at the age of 94. She passed away in June at aged 98, survived by her two children; five grandchildren, including my good friend Sebastian Zwalf; and seven great grandchildren. May her memory be a blessing. Herbert Electorate: Resilient Australia Awards 188 16:17 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I want to take this opportunity to congratulate two organisations in the Herbert electorate who've been nominated as finalists in the Resilient Australia Awards. These awards celebrate and promote initiatives that build whole-of-community resilience to disasters and emergencies as well as images, capturing resilience in action. Many in this place would know the devastation that hit Townsville in 2019 in the form of the monsoonal flood event. In the direct aftermath and through the recovery, the Townsville Community Rebuild Project was integral in helping to make a house a home again. This group was made up of representatives from the Salvation Army, Uniting Church, Community Information Centre and many more and worked to help residents repair their flood affected properties to a safe condition so they could move in again. That is why they've been nominated as finalists for the national community awards section. It was a privilege to meet with them last week as they shared some of their stories. They've already been successful at the state level, and we're hoping for a win at the national level too. Also nominated is Pimlico State High School for a national school award. They did some great work through the COVID-19 pandemic, partnering with charities to distribute computers to students to make sure no-one missed out on online learning. Congratulations to both organisations. Good luck for the awards in December, but in our minds you're already winners. Macquarie Electorate: Family Violence 188 16:19 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I had a chance to say thank you to some of the organisations that have helped people at possibly their lowest point in the last 18 months. The statistics are well known: an increase in domestic violence with service providers around the country seeing a surge in demand and nearly half saying their clients report an increase in controlling behaviours. That's certainly the case in Macquarie I wanted the shadow assistant minister responsible for family violence, Senator Jenny McAllister; and the shadow housing and homelessness minister, Jason Clare, to hear the human stories, and they joined me to meet with domestic violence workers in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. We met first with the Women's Cottage, which does extraordinary work and sees increasing demand. They look after the whole of the Hawkesbury—one place for that whole region. In the mountains, we met with DV West, who had to turn women and their children away from their refuges because they simply had no room. Our domestic violence interagency included BANC, MCRN, Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre, Link Wentworth and the Older Women's Network, who all shared their stories of the challenges they see women face. Then we crossed the road to Junction 142 in Katoomba. In October they handed out 235 hampers, provided 220 hot meals, provided hot showers to 73 people, and ran 165 cycles of their washing machines—really practical things that absolutely make a difference. I want to thank them. Forde Electorate: Citizenship 188 16:20 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde One of the privileges of this role is that we get to attend citizenship ceremonies in our electorates, whether run by us, our local councils or other groups. Many of the people you talk to at these citizenship ceremonies share with us what a wonderful country they have come to live in—a country that values things like freedom, equality, fairness and justice, which many of our newer citizens have very rarely, if ever, experienced in their lives. They recognise the privilege that it is to become an Australian citizen. I go back to my parents coming to Australia in 1964, and what a privilege it was for them. Many of our newer citizens, who have come from the four corners of the world, are from areas of conflict and they have never known the peace and the wonderful lifestyle we have here. Last week I had the privilege of welcoming 188 new Australian citizens from 41 different cultural backgrounds to the community of Logan City. Logan City is a vibrant multicultural community, with people from over 217 different cultural backgrounds. It is my hope for all of our new citizens that they settle into our country, take advantage of the opportunities that are before them and use this opportunity to build a better future for their families and for their children. I thank them for the contribution they will make in the years to come. Prime Minister 189 16:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In his book on BS, Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt distinguished between three kinds of people. The honest care that their statements are true. The liars care that theirs are false. The BS artist doesn't care. He is on the side of neither truth nor falsehood. He peddles hokum, balderdash, humbug, claptrap. On the vaccine rollout, the Prime Minister said it wasn't a race, then falsely claimed he'd been talking about vaccine regulation. After being accused of mendacity by Macron, he wrongly accused journalists of taking selfies with the French leader, then falsely pretended the criticism was an attack on Australia. When he didn't like a question from a Sky News journalist, he falsely smeared Sky News, saying a harassment claim was underway. After incorrectly characterising Australia's policy towards Taiwan as 'one country, two systems', he pretended he'd been talking about Hong Kong. He ridiculed electric vehicles, then claimed he hadn't. He claimed Labor had an electric vehicle mandate, which we didn't. He denied saying 'Shanghai Sam', when he had. To top it off, he said this month he has never told a lie in office. The Prime Minister doesn't care about the truth. His messaging strategy is like a car thief flicking random doorhandles till he finds one that opens. He slings BS everywhere, hoping some sticks. Pearl Beach Arboretum 189 16:23 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Local volunteers at the Pearl Beach arboretum are making a magnificent impact on our local environment, and over the weekend I had the great pleasure of visiting the arboretum to open their new propagation shed, funded by a $20,000 grant under the federal government's Communities Environment Program. This new shed is going to enable the arboretum to continue the really important work that they do in preserving over 40 threatened plant and tree species, including the Central Coast's very own Gosford wattle. The arboretum was also successful in obtaining a $20,000 grant for their koala project, which, with the University of Sydney and the Central Coast Council, is investigating the possibility of introducing koalas to the Pearl Beach region. This project may see koalas return to Pearl Beach, like the colony that once existed in the earlier 1990s, prior to the bushfires. The president of the arboretum, Victoria Crawford, said that the funding has led to greater environmental awareness in their community and has allowed the arboretum to become part of the broader koala project, which has long-term impacts for the region and Australia. She said the new propagation shed, which I visited on Sunday, enables volunteers to plant more koala-friendly trees, while also ensuring rare and endangered species are conserved and restored for future generations. This place and its volunteers hold a very special place in my heart and the hearts of many across the Central Coast, and I really want to thank them all for the work they do in conserving our environment. Fraser Electorate: We Are Brimbank Awards 189 16:25 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I would like to extend my congratulations to the winners of this year's We Are Brimbank Awards, which acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of so many people and organisations to my local community. The awards were a powerful reminder that, even in the face of all the challenges of the global pandemic that we have dealt with, the people in Fraser do so much every day to serve our community. The Friends of the HV McKay Memorial Gardens were recognised for their outstanding contribution to restoring and preserving the beauty of these historic gardens. The Utsav Melbourne Association worked tirelessly to support their community, raising money and sharing food and resources with those most in need. Cafe Sunshine & Salama Tea support asylum seekers and migrants to find employment, while delivering delicious Persian food to our plates. Inspire Hope work to ensure that no-one in the community is left behind, by providing food, shelter and connections where they're most needed. The Little Litter Project helps keep our community rubbish free and educates residents about the importance of waste management. And the Inclusion Training team supports and empowers students with intellectual disabilities and other challenges. I'd like to thank every We Are Brimbank Award winner and the many worthy nominees for their selflessness, compassion, innovation and commitment to the people of Fraser and to the broader community of Melbourne's west. Bonner Electorate: Bonner Christmas Appeal 190 16:26 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner We're officially entering the festive season. This is a time of celebration and joy, but, for some, it can be isolating, stressful and costly. Today I rise to encourage locals in my electorate of Bonner to give the gift of giving by donating to our annual Bonner Christmas Appeal. This year I will be collecting donations of non-perishable food items until Wednesday 15 December. I've already heard from local not-for-profit groups that there is an immense need for donations in the lead-up to Christmas. Donations to the Bonner Christmas Appeal will be spread across these not-for-profit groups, which include the Mount Gravatt Community Centre; Access Street Vans, in Mansfield; Rosies; Beyond DV; and church groups, like St Peter's Anglican Church, in Wynnum, and Citipointe Church, in Carindale. These organisations go above and beyond to provide a helping hand to those who need it most, making an invaluable difference to our community. It is a privilege to be involved in our entire community and supporting them once again this year. While we're out shopping for our loved ones this year, making a difference to someone's Christmas is as simple as adding a few items like canned goods to our trolley. Together, let's spread the Christmas spirit right across Bonner. Macarthur Electorate: Cost of Living 190 16:28 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Under eight long years of this Liberal-National government, it's become harder for residents in my community to get ahead. With the Morrison government deliberately keeping wages stagnant, while at the same time allowing the cost of living and housing to skyrocket, residents of my community are feeling the pinch. Macarthur residents deserve a government that's on their side—a government that will invest in their community to support local jobs, families and businesses. Instead, the Morrison government deliberately funnels taxpayers' money into very questionable projects and schemes. The cost of living is on the rise, and Macarthur residents are really struggling. While the cost of buying a home in Australia has jumped by 22 per cent in the last 12 months, in parts of Macarthur it's over 30 per cent. For thousands of young families living in my community, the dream of owning their own home is increasingly becoming a mirage. The median house price in the suburb of Airds, for example, has jumped by 30 per cent this year, to $620,000. Harrington Park's median price now sits at $1.2 million. The rising cost of living, low wages growth, the increasing cost of petrol and the increasing cost of transport means that my residents are finding it harder and harder to get ahead. We have some of the highest levels of mortgage stress and rental stress in the country. The government blows millions of dollars on questionable schemes—on pork-barrelling—yet it does nothing for Macarthur residents. The wealthy elite are the ones getting ahead. My residents are falling further behind. Mallee Electorate: Banking and Financial Services 190 16:29 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee For many years, regional communities in Mallee have lived through the frustration of bank closures in their town. In the four years leading up to June 2021, the number of bank branches fell by 25 per cent in regional and remote Australia. These closures and, in some cases, reduced hours are incredibly frustrating for locals, particularly for those who are unable to use online services to conduct their banking. Once again, we see regional and rural communities bearing the brunt of big commercial decisions. I have been contacted by many constituents who have borne the impacts of the bank exodus. Unfortunately, making the switch to internet banking is not simple for many older constituents, and often their access to these services can be hindered by poor connectivity. I'm proud to say that this issue is being targeted by this side of the House. The Morrison-Joyce Regional Banking Taskforce will bring together key stakeholders, including banks, Australia Post, local government associations and other peak bodies, to combat the impacts of bank branch closures. This is a solutions based task force working towards pragmatic outcomes to benefit regional people. We want to improve and safeguard existing bank services and accessibility where branches have closed. This government listens to the needs of regional Australians and delivers real and practical support for regional communities. Covid-19: Vaccination 190 16:31 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Congratulations to my local community on the amazing achievement of reaching an almost complete vaccination rate of over 95 per cent. I'm proud of our success, and today is a tribute to the local grassroots effort against what was an incredibly high rate of infection. My office worked closely with local communities throughout this time to establish vaccination hubs in familiar local settings. There are lots of amazing people and organisations to thank. Today I want to thank those who helped drive some of the local hubs. Thank you to Dirk Schirmer, Aspen Medical's regional clinical coordinator, for his work and the effortless approach to which we were able to work with his team to establish targeted vaccination hubs in record time. A big thank you to Kerim Buday and the ICMG, Islamic Community Milli Gorus, for their impressive lead; Councillor Sam Misho; Walid Hanna; the St George Chaldean Catholic Parish, for their incredible drive; and Nader Hanna and the team at the Meadow Heights Education Centre. I also extend this appreciation to the team at DPV Health and its CEO, Don Tidbury, for their exceptional work. I especially want to thank each and every person in my community who came forward to be vaccinated. They did so for the welfare and safety of their families, their friends and their neighbours. It is this effort that I want to commend today. I thank them for their incredible contribution to our local community's safety. Fisher Electorate: Montville Memorial Gates 191 16:32 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The Montville Memorial Gates is a First World War memorial with a difference. The gates honour not only the six individuals from Montville who fell during the war and the 33 young men from Montville who served but also the six who tried to join up and were rejected for medical or occupational reasons. It is a sign of how close-knit the Montville community has always been and, I'm proud to say, still is. In 1929, the memorial was unveiled by local woman Jane Smith, who had no fewer than six sons who went to war. At the ceremony, schoolchildren sang 'God Save the King' and were provided with a bag of lollies, an apple and a cake for their troubles. Last week, I had the privilege to take part in a ceremony that was not so different, despite the 100-year separation, to officially open the gate's extensive renovations. These renovations were supported with a grant of $10,000 from the Morrison government saluting their service and some money from the local council. I was proud to join Michael Bradley, the president of the Montville Village Association, Councillor Winston Johnston and local schoolchildren to tell of many of the stories mentioned on the gates, particularly the story of one of the six men from Montville who died a century ago, and to celebrate the fact that, thanks to the Morrison government's support, their renovated memorial can now continue to stand to honour them for another 100 years to come. Whitlam Electorate: Employment 191 16:34 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The holidays are coming, so's summer, and people would normally be flocking to the Illawarra and Southern Highlands—and we want them to. But we need workers. We desperately need workers in the hotel and hospitality industry, which is why I've been organising with our local RDA Illawarra and jobs coordinator a jobs drive, which opens today and culminates in an event on 7 December at Osborne Park. The message to locals, whether you're a school leaver or a university student just about to finish is: come in, sign up, local employers want to give you a job. Whether it's a job in the kitchen or a job behind the bar, whether it's working in the rooms or working on the tables, we need you. We don't want to see half the tables being unavailable for service because we don't have the staff. We don't want to see half the rooms being unavailable for people to stay in because we don't have the staff. I welcome the fact that immigration is going to open up again. But it won't come soon enough to help with the many hospitality job shortages that we have. We want to work with industry and work with employers to ensure that we can match locals up with jobs, and we need to ensure that we're never in this situation again. That requires working with the local TAFE and working with local employers to ensure that we have a pipeline of skilled staff who are able to work in our hospitality industry—good for jobs, good for the industry. Goldfields Rehabilitation Service Inc. 191 16:35 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Last week I officially opened the Goldfields Rehabilitation Service Inc. detoxification unit. Back in 2019 the federal government provided $1.5 million to help fight the war on drugs and alcohol in the Goldfields after a damning 2017 report found Kalgoorlie-Boulder had the highest rate of methamphetamine use in WA. Seven hundred and seventy thousand dollars of this federal funding immediately activated seven unused beds, enabling the 18-bed residential rehabilitation facility to become fully operational. The remaining $785,000 kick-started the GRSI four-bed medical detoxification facility, which now provides medically supervised withdrawal from alcohol and other drugs. Over the years I've watched GRSI evolve into a state-of-the-art medical detoxification and residential rehabilitation facility. I'm so very proud of executive manager Jane Fajardo and her team, and I was thrilled to catch up with them last week to congratulate them on their terrific efforts. It was also an opportunity to meet some of the program participants and hear their glowing endorsements of how this program is helping them to turn their lives around. Whilst COVID-19 has delayed the opening of the medical detoxification facility, it has not stopped the hardworking GRSI folk from supporting patients through up to 14 days of medical detox, up to 15 weeks of residential rehab and outreach services. Again, my congratulations to Jane and her GRSI team for their terrific work supporting the journey out of addiction for residents of the Goldfields and beyond. National Disability Insurance Scheme 191 16:37 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell People living with a disability in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales are being left behind by this government. After years of cuts to the NDIS, coasties with a disability are struggling to get the basic support they need to get by—people like Andrew from Shelly Beach. Andrew is 54. He was born with spina bifida hydrocephalus. He's a wheelchair user and he's had a kidney transplant. His mum, Daphne, and dad are his full-time carers. They're both in their 80s. Andrew has been trying to move into supported independent living accommodation, but his application was recently knocked back by the NDIA. His family lodged an appeal last December, which was also knocked back because, they were told, the NDIA doesn't accept digital signatures. They lodged an appeal of the appeal earlier this year, and that's also been knocked back. Now, Andrew, who is relying on a disability support pension, is expected to find private accommodation when rents on the Central Coast have gone up by about $3,600 a year. His mum, Daphne, told me last week her son needs proper support. She said: 'People in Canberra have rocks in their head. They're sitting around glossy tables making decisions about our lives without ever meeting us.' Daphne's right. She's cared for her son all of her life, and the NDIS should be there to support her and her family. Instead, the Morrison government is cutting funding and making it harder for people living with a disability in my community who are also fearful of any expansion of the NDIA CEO's powers. It's not good enough. Andrew deserves better. West Perth Football Club 192 16:39 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The West Perth Football Club, based at HBF Arena in my electorate, is the oldest WAFL club, with 130 years of history. Club president Neale Fong and CEO Joe McCarthy have contacted me to express concerns that the existing lighting facilities at the oval are inadequate and in need of a major upgrade. The current towers, lights and infrastructure at the ground are 27 years old and require replacement. The average lighting intensity lux reading across the ground is 65, which is only just bright enough for the club's teams to train on. It does not meet the minimum requirement for night football competition. The club has a total of eight teams competing for premium green space on the oval, and not being able to play night football is proving to be a huge issue for the club. The club has obtained a quote that puts the total cost of a lighting upgrade at $1.2 million. West Perth Football Club has obtained an initial commitment of a 10 per cent contribution from the AFL and is seeking a federal funding contribution in the order of a million dollars to complete the project. Upgraded lighting would allow the club to play night football, with a capacity in the future for televised night AFL. I am pleased to add my strong support in parliament for the lighting upgrade to be considered as part of the budget process. Shortland Electorate: Health 192 16:40 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland The people of the Shortland electorate and the broader Hunter and Central Coast regions are suffering because of the Liberals' ongoing attacks on our health system. My constituents already have difficulty in finding a GP and getting an appointment. Bulk-billing has become a thing of the past for many of them because of the Liberals' classification of Shortland as 'metropolitan'. Now, our much-loved GP after-hours service is being severely cut. GP access after hours is just that: it provides after-hours appointments to people requiring medical attention but not emergency treatment. Of the 70,000 interactions each year, only 45,000 require an appointment, because of the excellent triage service offered through registered nurses. This is fundamentally important in taking pressure off our region's already overworked EDs. Because of funding cuts from the Liberals, GP access will close at the Calvary Mater at Waratah on Christmas Eve, and the service at Belmont Hospital is being halved on weekends. This means 15,000 clinic appointments will be lost. This will have a real-world, tangible impact on the people of Shortland. If they are sick on a weekend, instead of having a consultation with a GP they will have to go to the emergency department. Instead of having to wait a couple of hours to see a doctor, they'll have to wait five or six hours. The Hunter Labor MPs are committed to fighting this. We're calling on the Morrison Liberal government to reverse these draconian cuts that will have a dramatic impact on the health of Hunter families. Stryder Community Transport Services 192 16:42 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong It was an absolute pleasure to visit local Bennelong community transport provider Stryder last Friday. Stryder has just purchased a new Toyota commuter van through a Stronger Communities Program round 6 grant. It was gratifying to see the benefit this grant has created. I sat in the driver's seat, inhaled the brand-new-car smell we're all familiar with and love, and nearly drove the van right out of the depot to give it a little test drive. It took Stryder board member Craig Chung and CEO Virginia Coy all their creative nous to talk me out of the van. It hadn't been run in and couldn't be taken to full revs, so what the— Craig and Virginia said COVID had impacted the organisation severely, as vulnerable people were not able to use community transport services, and this made them even more isolated and vulnerable. It has been a difficult time. Now that most people are vaccinated and being COVID-safe, Stryder are as busy as ever. Without the new van, they may not have been able to satisfy demand. Stryder is named after the City of Ryde and 'striding'—to go forward with purpose. It's a wonderfully apt name. Well done, Stryder—from Craig Chung and the board to Virginia Coy and her staff and their generous volunteers. Thank you for your service. Werriwa Electorate: Health, Tadros, Dr Victor 193 16:43 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The last two years have shown my community just how important their health is to them. Almost 3,000 people have contacted my office to express their concern about the state of health care and Medicare in our community, and they all want Medicare protected. They've raised out-of-pocket expenses and the cost and time it takes to get in to see a GP or a specialist, even for children. To ensure that the entire healthcare system works for the people it supports, Medicare must be supported and funded. Finding a GP in my area can also be difficult. While most bulk-bill, many have closed their books due to workload or have long waiting times for appointments, sometimes up to two weeks. Primary health care is important in preventing long-term, chronic illnesses that place a further burden on the health dollar and have adverse consequences in my community. I'd like to remind everyone who's missed an appointment with BreastScreen or another type of cancer screening that they should make that appointment now and get their health checked. I'd also like to pay tribute to each and every health professional who's supported our community in the last two years. One of our longest-serving general practitioners, Dr Victor Tadros, is retiring next month. He started his practice in 1975 and has looked after generations of people in my community—and four generations of my family. On behalf of my family and the community of Werriwa, who you've served for so very long, have a happy and wonderful retirement, Dr Tadros. Menzies Electorate: Bushfires 193 16:45 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies With summer approaching, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind my constituents in Menzies—and indeed the constituents of other electorates around the country where it's relevant—about bushfires. We've had a very wet winter and a very wet spring, and we can be complacent about the consequences that can have for bushfires. But, with all the growth that we have in many parts of Australia, the dry winds and the hot days, when we get them, can dry out the undergrowth, and that can be the fuel on the forest floor, so to speak, for bushfires. I remind residents, particularly those in Warrandyte, Wonga Park, Eltham, Research and surrounding areas where bushfires have occurred in the past—I remember the bushfires of 1983, which swept into Warrandyte—to prepare their bushfire plan now. If they go to the cfa.vic.gov.au website, there are plans there. On that note, I also take this opportunity, briefly, to commend all the voluntary firefighters from the CFA, not just in my electorate but throughout Victoria, for the wonderful work they do in helping us to preserve our communities. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 193 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS First 1,000 Days Initiative 193 16:46 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I move: That this House: (1) recognises that the early years are some of the most important in a child's life, in terms of their cognitive and social development; (2) notes that a child's health outcomes can be heavily influenced from the period of preconception, and the lives and lifestyles of both biological parents; (3) commends the work of Australian medical professionals who champion the First 1000 Days framework, a model that is aimed at improving the physical and mental health of parents from pre-pregnancy and up until a child reaches two years of age; and (4) implores the Government to adopt a national approach to the First 1000 Days initiative, to improve health outcomes in our future generations. To paraphrase the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's children are generally doing well; most are safe and healthy; however, we could do better. The early years are a period of vulnerability, in which a child's 'outcomes'—their word—can vary depending on where they live and their family's circumstances, both social and economic. I'm a paediatrician—I'm not a career politician—and my colleagues in this chamber would be well versed in the myriad of issues affecting our collective public health, particularly during the pandemic. I often rise, however, and speak about the social determinants of health and about how they affect the child in particular. When we consider a child's health outcomes, it's critical that we consider not only their experiences and environment in their early years but also the antenatal period from preconception onwards. When she was Secretary of State in America, Hillary Clinton introduced the 'first 1,000 days' initiative as a way of trying to ensure that the health of American children was as good as it possibly could be, because it was increasingly becoming recognised that investment in health in those early times, from preconception to the second birthday, could have a huge influence on health outcomes throughout life—and, increasingly, that's what we're finding. That's why it's crucial that we consider the entire period from preconception to conception, the antenatal period and birth through to the second birthday, as the best time to invest in a child's life. The men of Australia have a strong role to play in this as well. A great deal of the rhetoric around the First 1,000 Days initiative focuses on maternal health, but men should not get off scot-free. Evidence suggests that paternal obesity and paternal health can have strong outcomes on a child's initial health and long-term health. As the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stated in their study on Australian children, most of our kids and grandchildren are doing okay today, but that does not mean we should be complacent nor that we can't do better. On census night 2016, almost 20,000 children under the age of 14 were homeless. One in four children aged under five were obese or overweight, and 96 per cent of children in the five- to 14-year-old cohort do not eat enough healthy food. These are the changes we can make early on in children's lives that will change their health trajectory throughout their lives. We still have neonatal deaths, unfortunately—3.3 per 1,000 births. This could be halved if we invested more in early child health. We experience shortages in intervention services such as hearing assessments, vision assessments and developmental assessments. In my own electorate of Macarthur, the waiting time in the public health system for developmental assessments is now measured in years, not months. The Shepherd Centre, who provide world's-best-practice assessment of hearing in childhood, are a world-leading institute that offers supports to children. They feel that only about two-thirds of the children who they should be seeing for assessment under two years of age are being seen. There are over 400 children in South Western Sydney with hearing loss as their primary disability who are struggling to get local support services. I had to fight tooth and nail to get any form of government to support critical services in my rapidly growing community for simple things like breastfeeding support or growth and development assessments of children under age two. The state health minister in New South Wales, Brad Hazzard, understood my request for greater supports for early childhood development and child health, and he acted. We're finally getting our long-awaited Shepherd Centre in the Macarthur electorate to support children with hearing loss. There are so many ways we can support a child's development and their health in that early time. Yet our rates of breastfeeding in early childhood are very, very poor in South Western Sydney; children are not getting the development assessments that they should be; and vision assessments are poor. Recently, I was contacted by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists to say that children were presenting very late with strabismus, or squint—too late for them to develop proper binocular vision—because of a lack of vision assessments. We must do better. It's about improving our children's health by working through families to support them and making sure children are getting the right assessments. The First 1,000 Days is certainly the policy that governments should be introducing across Australia. We should have a national newborn screening program that's uniform across all states. We must do better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is there a seconder for the motion? 16:51 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16:52 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I rise to thank the member for Macarthur for moving this motion and providing me with this opportunity to speak on this very important issue. A child's health and cognitive and social development begins at preconception, with the help of parents during pregnancy, which affects the health of the baby at birth, through their early years and well into their adulthood. That's a known fact. The Morrison government recognises this in the National Action Plan for the Health of Children and Young People 2020-2030. This plan aims to ensure that Australian children and young people from all backgrounds and all walks of life have the same opportunities to fulfil their health potential and are healthy, safe and thriving. The road map will guide collaborative approaches to improving health outcomes for all children and young people, particularly those at greatest risk of poor health. This includes programs to empower parents and caregivers to maximise healthy development, from mental health to addressing chronic conditions and particularly preventive health, which is a particular passion of mine. I'm like the member for Macarthur—as paediatricians, we have prevention in our DNA. We know that there are many factors that need to be considered for a comprehensive, effective system of care for children. The consultation draft of Australia's Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan 2022-2032 highlights the importance of reform through primary care to support pregnant women and young families to improve health in the first 2,000 days of life. I welcome the implementation of the former COAG Health Council's 2019 Woman-centred care: strategic directions for Australian maternity services. From this comes targeted programs and initiatives that provide access to information, guidance and support for women, partners and their families—as well as for healthcare professionals providing care to pregnant women—through providing evidence based and education initiatives. Importantly, I'm proud the government is also investing in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families through activities that seek to improve health outcomes during pregnancy and the early years. The programs focus on mothers, babies and children of greatest need in rural, remote and very remote communities around Australia. These are difficult issues, however, and, having worked up there 30 years ago, I know that it's very difficult to make strides to close the gap for the health of our Indigenous friends. Building on this strategic approach, it's very important particularly to look at children's mental health and wellbeing, and I'm very proud that the government has launched the National Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. This is recognised as a world first, as this is the first time a national government has developed a strategy that considers mental health and wellbeing outcomes for children from birth to 12 years of age as well as their families and the communities who nurture them. The co-chairs of the strategy, Professor Frank Oberklaid AM and Professor Christel Middeldorp, in the foreword to the report Thenational children's mental health and wellbeing strategy, say: We were interested in looking broadly at the system as a whole, from parent mental health literacy and reducing stigma through to the management of complex problems in expert settings and everything in between. Given the complexity of the current system, we did not want to simply argue for new services to be added. Rather, we aimed to develop a roadmap to effectively restructure and improve what was already in place and to support the many thousands of committed professionals working in this area. It's about getting people to work better together, not in silos. They continue: We are aware that a major restructure is more difficult than adding new services, but are convinced that this is the best way forward. As a former paediatrician and colleague of Professor Frank Oberklaid, one of the co-chairs, I'm proud this government has a commitment to funding the strategy. The $317 million in funding includes $54 million to work in partnership with states and territories to create a network of Head to Health Kids mental health centres, to be based on the headspace mental health service, which is highly effective and has been rolled out for young adults. These Head to Health Kids mental health and wellbeing hubs are specifically for children aged zero to 12 years, as we recognise the increased anxiety, depression, ADHD and other mental health issues in that age group. There is $42 million to support access to parenting education and support and $47 million for perinatal mental health initiatives to support the mental health and wellbeing of new and expectant parents, including funding for the Perinatal Anxiety & Depression Australia group, PANDA,which is a very important group that supports mums and dads in those very difficult and anxiety-provoking early weeks, days and months. The Morrison government understands that the future success of our country depends on the next generation. 16:57 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Macarthur and acknowledge his strong interest in and advocacy for the 'first 1,000 days' framework. This framework aims to improve the physical and mental health of Australian children as well as the health and wellbeing of their parents. Children under the age of two are some of the most vulnerable in our community. The first few years of a child's life are critical to their development and wellbeing. As the member for Macarthur has said, most Australian children are safe and healthy but unfortunately this is not every child's experience, depending on where they live and their family's circumstances. As a pharmacist of 20 years who worked in mental health, I know how important a child's wellbeing and mental health are. I also know how important it is to support the mental health and wellbeing of new parents. When we consider a child's health, we must consider where they were born, where they live and where they are growing up, and we must consider the health of their parents, including their mental health and wellbeing. According to the Productivity Commission's 2020 report into mental health, the mental health of parents has a strong influence on the wellbeing of infants and young children, including their emotional, social, physical and cognitive development. The report found there is a strong need to support parents during major life transitions such as the perinatal period. Sadly, in Australia today one in five new mums experiences perinatal depression or anxiety, and one in 10 new dads will also be affected. On Friday I spoke to a friend of mine who shared her own experience of mental ill health during pregnancy, which had led to a long hospitalisation when she was six months into her pregnancy. She told me that when she was discharged she was very grateful to be linked in with a perinatal mental health team, who checked in on her every week. She had planned a natural birth but was induced and then required an emergency caesarean. She told me that because of medicines, hormonal changes and disrupted sleep she required two months of follow-up care at two different facilities, including a stay at St John of God Burwood Hospital, which she tells me is one of the only inpatient perinatal mental health units in New South Wales. Fortunately, she had private health insurance to cover her care, and her son is two and is now thriving. But there aren't enough dedicated perinatal mental health beds in the public system to care for pregnant women and new mums. This is why early intervention is key for new parents, children and their families. While I welcome the government's recent strategy for young people's mental health and wellbeing, what we need to see is some urgency and a proper implementation plan, because we know from organisations like the Black Dog Institute that half of all lifetime mental health disorders emerge by the age of 14. We also know that the rates of psychological distress in young people jumped from one in five in 2012 to over a quarter in 2020. According to the Productivity Commission's report, some children face a much higher risk of mental ill health from a very young age. This includes children who are exposed to trauma, children affected by entrenched disadvantage and children in the out-of-home care system. Given the large jump in the number of young people experiencing mental ill health, this is urgent. The government's announcement of a new national mental health and wellbeing strategy for children under the age of 14, which I mentioned earlier, was only recently announced. While this policy is welcome, it is overdue, it doesn't go far enough and it lacks urgency in implementation. There is an urgent need to have more support measures in place now, not just for young children but also for new and expecting parents. There are so many ways in which we can support a child's mental health and wellbeing and their social, cognitive and emotional development. That's why I support the motion moved by the member for Macarthur and his strong advocacy, as its champion, of the First 1,000 Days framework. When I first met the now member for Macarthur—as he said, he's not a career politician, he's a career paediatrician; he's a father and a grandfather—this is what he told me: 'I don't want to end my medical career the way it started, without Medicare.' That is what the member for Macarthur said to me. It is why he is here and why he is moving motions like this in this chamber. We need to have the best supports in place to look after the wellbeing of all children, wherever they are born, wherever they grow up, wherever they live and whatever their parents earn. It is especially important to those children and young people who grow up outside of big cities. We know the further you live outside of a big city the shorter your life will be and the worse your quality of life will be. This is true. In a wealthy country like Australia this should not happen. We also need to help reduce the stigma around perinatal mental health and other mental health care and to offer early intervention services for new mums and dads. This will give every Australian child the best start in life. 17:02 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I thank the member for Macarthur for raising this important motion. The health and wellbeing of children is a very important issue to me and to other members of the LNP team and the Morrison government. We are committed to continuously improving standards for Australian families. Rightly, the member for Macarthur's motion speaks about the first 1000 days and the absolutely pivotal influence they play on our children, from preconception right through early childhood. It matters what we as adults do, even before we might be thinking about being parents. As is the case for many MPs, I know that for me the big driver in entering this place was my own family: my wife, Maddie, my four-year-old son, Theo, and my one-year-old daughter, Izzie. They're the most important part of my life, and what I strife for, as do all parents, is the betterment of the future of my children. Above all, we want them healthy and safe, and that's what we devote a lot of our work in this place to. Any parent will tell you just how amazing it is to watch your kids grow up and learn, but just how quickly it goes and how quickly they pick up new skills. Even the difference in their development from the time I leave for a sitting fortnight to the time I return amazes me. The health of our children starts even before birth, with preconception and during pregnancy. This is a time that can be incredibly stressful and uneasy for many couples as they navigate it. I'm proud to be part of a government that continues to invest more in support services for pregnant women and their partners and families, and for those who are trying to conceive. Trying to conceive isn't easy for every couple. It doesn't just happen. My wife and I know this firsthand, and we've spoken about this. Often this journey can be a tough one for couples, and many experience early pregnancy loss, which is why we have been working with the Pink Elephants Support Network to get two days of paid leave into law for those who experience early pregnancy loss. That has now occurred, and that's an achievement that this parliament can be proud of. It builds on many important initiatives, including the YourIVFSuccess website, the development of pregnancy care guidelines and national help lines, videos and website services for women through pregnancy to birth and baby. We believe it is critically important to support pregnant women and their partners to improve health in that first 1,000 days. We know that raising happy, healthy children means fewer chronic conditions later on in life. Conditions like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and mental health conditions that develop in adulthood can be linked back to experience in early childhood. We want to empower parents to maximise healthy development and to make the best choices for their own family that allow them to do that. We want to tackle mental health and identify risky behaviours as soon as possible so that we can assist parents to address this for themselves so that they can in turn help with the development of their kids. Our National Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy is prevention focused. It promotes wellbeing of all children, from birth, and enables access to early intervention. We're making it easier for more children and families to get help when they need it most, particularly in this early period. We believe it takes a village to raise a child, so we're also aware of the importance of school and early learning settings and how we can better use these environments to support our kids as a community, together. There are many stakeholders in a kid's life—their parents, their family, their friends, their teachers, their doctors and their peers—and we all have a responsibility to our Aussie kids to ensure their development in the first 1,000 days is as positive as possible. Also important to me is the safety of our kids and Australian families. We need to do everything we possibly can to keep our kids safe, and that includes being safe online and safe navigating the world of technology. Even in that first 1,000 days, it is not unusual for a child to be introduced to technology in one way, shape or form, and the education around safe use of technology starts in those early days and is important as children go through, particularly up to the age of 12. The Morrison government recognises the dangerous impacts on mental health that can come online and the need to make sure that our kids have the opportunity to protect themselves and that parents have the opportunity to protect their kids from sinister online intentions. The threat is a very real one. That's why we commissioned the eSafety Commissioner, and she provides a vast array of resources that parents can access to help ensure that their kids and their family are safe online. 17:07 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The first 1,000 days from conception to a child's second birthday offer a unique window of opportunity—of tremendous potential but enormous vulnerability—to build a healthier and more prosperous future. My interest in this area comes not just from being the father of two young children, one almost one year old, but from having worked in this policy area with the WA state government nearly two decades ago as well as seeing the need and programs in my own community. Broadly, Australia's children are doing well, and most are safe and healthy. However, the first 1,000 days are critical. In fact, before that a future parent's health, prior to conception, is also very important. That 1,000 days is when a child's brain begins to grow and develop and when the foundations for their lifelong health are built. There is a great deal of research in this space ultimately making similar findings. Countries that fail to invest in the wellbeing of women and children in the first 1,000 days lose billions of dollars to lower economic productivity and higher health costs. Leading economists across the globe are calling for greater investment in nutrition and wellbeing of mothers, babies and toddlers as a way to create brighter and more prosperous futures for us all. In 2020 UNICEF ranked Australia 32nd out of 41 nations for child wellbeing, noting that we are 'falling short in delivering consistently good health, education and social outcomes for children'. For a rich, privileged country like ours, that is completely unacceptable. Across the country, 41 per cent of Australia's most disadvantaged zero- to five-year-olds live in the top 20 per cent of the most disadvantaged suburbs. Children from socially and economically disadvantaged areas typically have poorer physical health, have less access to learning materials and are less likely to access materials they need. It's communities like mine that need extra intervention. In the electorate of Burt, which I represent, the Challis Community Primary School integrated early childhood and family support service and parenting centre aims to prevent early disadvantage from becoming an ongoing drag on a child's chances of success in life as well as those of their family. The catchment area for the Challis community school has a SEIFA rating of 965.9, which is well below the 1,000 score average—indeed, materially below. The origins of the parenting centre at Challis are quite interesting. The school was looking to improve the outcomes for its students graduating year 7, and then year 6, and found that its student cohort entering school were entering at a lower level of capability than the average cohort across Perth and across Western Australia. When looking at what they could do to affect this for the better, they decided to work with local health services and develop parenting training services to work with child health nurses and integrate directly with new parents exiting hospital to create that connection with the school. It is indeed troubling to find there is a need to teach parents that feeding very young children on the bread from a hamburger is a terrible idea, due to the sugar content of that food. But it's important that we don't blame the parents because there are many intergenerational problems that have arisen over time. Indeed, most of our learning about parenting comes from that which we saw our own parents do. And if you have not been fortunate enough to grow up with parents who have known how to provide correct nutrition and developmental support for children, or you were removed from your parents at an early age, as many of the parents of students in my community were, we lose these benefits of passed down knowledge and information. The parenting centre at Challis, and programs like it, seek to intervene to make sure we don't have this as an ongoing problem. Changes such as making sure we have continuity of midwifery care would also help a great deal in improving outcomes for children by improving their lives in those first 1,000 days. More child health nurses, and ensuring they are available and able to meet frequently with new mothers, are also very important. Unfortunately, many child health nurse services have been negatively affected by COVID. Family centres around Western Australia that used to provide such capacity-building facilities, as Challis does now, need additional funding to continue to do that great work. And, of course, providing better access to child care is a core part of the policy platform that Labor takes forward to the next election. Ensuring that more families have access to child care that is affordable and available to them is so very important for ensuring the future of our children in our communities. It's in the best interest of our communities that we have these services available to support all families. It takes a village to raise a family, but if you don't have a village available to you then you need these supports. We need to support these families and our communities to get the best outcomes. 17:12 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm With the nationwide vaccine rollout ensuring a safe return of children to child care and school, kids in my electorate of Chisholm, from Box Hill to Glen Waverley, are now back where they should be, and that is in the classroom preparing for the challenges of tomorrow. The flurry of activity that always accompanies the end of the school year serves as a reminder, if ever we needed one, of the need to secure the future of our younger generations. This means ensuring that the economy is robust and primed for growth, which, as sensible economic managers, a Liberal government will always be best placed to do. It means putting together, as I know the Minister for Education and Youth is doing, a national curriculum that prepares our kids for working life and instils pride in our nation while continuing to promote a balanced and realistic view of our history. It also means constantly working to improve the health outcomes of Australian children. In that sense, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the member for Macarthur's motion. As a mother of two children, I'm proud that the Morrison government has always been committed to improving the health and wellbeing of our kids and recognises the critical importance of doing so in not just the first 1,000 days, but the first 2,000 days of life. We know that many chronic health problems in adulthood, such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes and mental health issues begin in early childhood. We also know that the health of a child starts even before birth, with the health of parents pre conception and during pregnancy affecting the health of the baby at birth, and through their early years. Support for parents and children in the early years is recognised in all four pillars of the government's Long Term National Health Plan. In particular, just last month we launched the National Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Recognised as a world first, the strategy considers mental health and wellbeing outcomes for children from birth to 12 years of age. Additionally, the consultation draft of Australia's Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan 2022-2032 highlights the importance of reform through primary care to support pregnant women and young families to improve health in the first 2,000 days. Furthermore, the government is developing the National Preventive Health Strategy, which outlines the overarching long-term approach to prevention in Australia over the next 10 years. The strategy recognises the value of health and wellbeing at all stages of life and emphasises the significance of prevention from the preconception period through to the early years of life. It includes an overarching aim that focuses on providing children with the best start in life. In my electorate of Chisholm we have young people from all backgrounds, and that's why I have a particular interest in another of our government's key initiatives, the 2020-2030 National Action Plan for the Health of Children and Young People. The action plan aims to ensure that Australian children and young people from all walks of life have the same opportunities to fulfil their potential and the same chance of achieving a healthy life. The health of children and young people in Australia is of fundamental importance to all Australians, and this government is committed to ensuring that all our young people have a safe, certain and healthy future. 17:17 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Like my colleagues who have spoken before me, I want to thank the member for Macarthur for moving this important motion. Anyone who has met or spent any time with the member for Macarthur knows of his genuine, deep commitment to all things health and, in particular, to this First 1,000 Days initiative. It's a privilege to be in the Labor caucus with him. It's incredibly disturbing to know that more than 1.2 million Australian children live in poverty, that, on census night in 2016, almost 20,000 children aged nought to 14 were homeless and that almost 22 per cent of Australian children enter primary school developmentally delayed. We are a rich and prosperous country, as contributors before me in this debate have said, and most children in Australia do very well. But there are far too many who don't, and there are far too many children from lower socio-economic communities who are condemned to intergenerational poverty that research suggests starts before birth. That's why the First 1,000 Days initiative is so important. In my state of Victoria, at the Royal Children's Hospital, the Strong Foundations: Getting it Right in the First 1000 Days partnership put out the research paper in 2019 which was a collaboration between the Centre for Community Child Health at Murdoch Children's Research Institute, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, BUPA Australia, the BUPA Health Foundation and PwC Australia. You can find that report on the Royal Children's Hospital website. The objectives of Strong Foundations were to raise awareness among government, policymakers and the public about the importance of the first 1,000 days, because, as that report found in 2019, 'New knowledge that has been unveiled has served to increase experts' views of the significance of the first thousand days, and of the urgent need to reform our policies, practices and systems in response to the evidence'; to ensure decisions that affect children and families are based on the best available evidence; and to ensure that all steps that can be taken to improve early life for Australian children are identified and implemented as soon as possible. As I stand here in November 2021, one has to question whether those objectives have been answered. The report synthesised current Australian and international evidence as of 2019 on the biological, social, global and environmental influences on development. The report showcased the economic benefits to society of investing in the first 1,000 days. I have to say I think that the moral and ethical arguments for doing so should be enough to convince anyone, but, for those who need further convincing, the economic arguments are also strong. The modelling showed significant potential benefits to society of improving outcomes for children for the first thousand days. Looking at the impacts of antenatal care and homeownership on that period, using smoking during pregnancy and housing stability as measures, the report revealed that, if every child in Australia grew up in a stable housing situation, the potential annual benefit to Australia would be an estimated $3 billion. The key findings included that the age, health and wellbeing of both mother and father prior to the child's conception affect the integrity of the embryo from the very beginning. The fetus uses cues provided by their mother's physical and mental states to 'predict' the kind of world they will be born into, and adapt accordingly. So what happens in the first thousand days affects the whole body, with potentially profound consequences in the course of life. The report found that disadvantage can be passed down through generations at a cellular level. These changes can be passed on to children from their parents and grandparents. Our biology changes in response to stress, poverty and other prolonged adverse experiences, and these changes can be passed on to children from their parents and grandparents. In addition to loving caregivers, children need safe communities, secure housing, access to green parklands, environments free of toxins and access to affordable nutritional foods—exactly what a good federal government would be focusing on. I'm proud of Labor's policies on child care and on supporting Medicare and our detailed policy about a housing future fund. If we don't invest in our communities, and in our children for the first 1,000 days, we are condemning too many people to the cycle of intergenerational poverty and disadvantage, and we can't do that. 17:22 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee A child's early years are foundational to cognitive, physical and social development. It is well known that the first thousand days are critical to physical growth and development, cognitive capacity and emotional development. In fact, the Australian government is committed to improving health outcomes for children in the first 2,000 days of life. The government recognises that many chronic health problems in adulthood, such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes and mental health issues, begin in early childhood. This motion highlights the preconception period, which is critically important in shaping our children's future. I commend the member for Macarthur for his initiative to have this important period in a child's life recognised by the House. This is an issue that I've been passionate about for a long time and invested in extensively prior to being elected. It is imperative that little ones and young parents are supported to reach their potential. Zoe Support is a not-for-profit that I founded in 2012 for young mums, to support them to re-engage in education as they raise their children. Zoe Support continues to thrive, and has a big heart to see these little ones thrive from prebirth through the first years of life. Zoe Support continues its work in Mildura, targeting issues of social isolation, poverty, ill health, destitution and distress for expecting young mums. Zoe Support knows that connection and community are fundamental foundations for the health and wellbeing of young families. The adage 'it takes a village to raise a child' is certainly upheld for young families in Mildura through the work of Zoe Support and other organisations. Our children deserve the best support and care, and this requires a holistic approach. Last month the government launched the National Children's Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy, recognised as a world first. This is the first time a national government has developed a strategy that considers mental health and wellbeing outcomes for children from birth to 12 years of age, as well as their families and the communities that nurture them. The government is developing the National Preventive Health Strategy outlining the overarching long-term approach to prevention in Australia over the next 10 years. The strategy recognises the value of health and wellbeing at all stages of life and emphasises the significance of prevention from the preconception period through to the early years of life. It includes an overarching aim that focuses on providing children with the best start to life. The Morrison and Joyce government has been working for families with young children to provide critical supports that seek to address the wellbeing of young children both now and into the future. Through the Liberal-Nationals Community Child Care Fund 14 childcare centres in my electorate of Mallee have received funding to deliver critical services to families. This helps boost workforce participation as well and reduces barriers to service provision. In regional and rural towns like Rupanyup, Dimboola and Warracknabeal workforce participation is a common struggle due to a lack of child care. The CCCF helps early learning centres who are experiencing viability issues to continue opening their doors and providing places for children across the region. Earlier this year I had the privilege of opening Wycheproof's first early learning centre, which was partly funded under this government's Drought Communities Program. This was a fantastic outcome for the community, providing an educational hub which is on site at the Wycheproof P-12 College. Wycheproof's young families are now benefitting from this centre, which also delivers maternal and child health programs. For some new parents the opening of Wycheproof Early Learning Centre means the ability to return to work as well. The draft of Australia's primary healthcare 10-year plan 2022 to 2032 highlights the importance of reform to support pregnant women and young families to improve health in the first 2,000 days. This government is also investing in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families through activities that seek to improve health outcomes during pregnancy and the early years, focusing on mothers, babies and children of greatest need in rural, remote and very remote communities in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Iran: Human Rights 200 17:27 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I move: That this House: (1) notes with concern the long standing religious persecution of members of the Baha'i Faith in Iran; (2) expresses alarm at the raids on Baha'i homes and businesses and the increase in court cases against Baha'is since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic; (3) calls on the Iranian Government to ensure that Baha'is enjoy the same rights as other citizens and that their belief and practice are not criminalised; (4) supports the 16 December 2020 resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which called on the Islamic Republic of Iran to uphold the human rights of all its citizens; (5) condemns the recent Iranian court judgments upholding the confiscation of homes and lands belonging to 27 Baha'is in the village of Ivel; and (6) further calls on the Iranian judicial authorities to ensure that these lands and homes are restored to their rightful owners, and that no other Baha'i citizens have their properties confiscated due to their religion. On behalf of the Baha'i community in Australia I move this private member's motion calling for an end to the systematic persecution of Baha'is in Iran. The freedom to practise one's chosen religion is a fundamental right that forms the core of our democratic beliefs in Australia. As we speak a bill guaranteeing religious freedom is about to be introduced into this parliament during the current session. Our society allows freedom of religion, free from persecution, intimidation and harassment. It is our sincere hope that international religious tolerance will spread like a light throughout the world. It is incumbent upon us as elected representatives in a free society to call upon foreign governments around the world, including in countries such as Iran, to respect freedom of religion and to allow their citizens to worship freely and peaceably with tolerance. In raising public awareness of this issue, it is hoped that world attention will be focused on addressing this grave injustice. Baha'is have remained peaceful and active members of Iranian society. They pose no threat to the government. They are not aligned with any political ideology or opposition movement, nor do they engage in subversive activity or violence. Baha'is have turned to those legal recourses available to them and sought to create their own opportunities for education and economic growth despite efforts by authorities to deny their rights. Their response to persecution has been characterised as 'constructive resilience'. Baha'is in Iran are frequently subjected to raids on their homes or workplaces, confiscation of property, arrests and long periods of solitary confinement and interrogation. They are tried on spurious charges—such as membership of an illegal organisation, acting against national security or propaganda against the regime—and sentenced to prison terms of up to 10 years. Under the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, the Baha'i International Community documented at least 676 arrests of Baha'is and summons to prison. In the past year alone, there have been over 47 arrests. The law is being used to forcibly confiscate and sell the lands owned by Baha'is. Lands belonging to Baha'is in the provinces of Semnan, Roshankooh and Ivel have been confiscated. Additionally, since 2016 at least 491 Baha'i owned shops have been closed. In moving this motion for an end to the systematic persecution of Baha'is by the government of Iran and, more broadly, an end to persecution of Baha'is by governments across the world, I urge all governments to consider the potential contributions that can be made to society by allowing Baha'is to freely practise their religion—free from persecution, intimidation and harassment. International monitoring constitutes a vital safeguard for the protection of Baha'is in the community. Whenever this issue is publicised, discussed in parliaments or raised with Iranian officials, it sends a signal to the Iranian government that it is being held to account for its actions. We call upon the Iranian government, specifically, to allow Baha'is to freely practise their faith, to not be subjected to arrests and imprisonment for their beliefs, to earn a livelihood, to access higher education and to not be subjected to hatred and discrimination as a result of misinformation about their beliefs. There is a strong Baha'i community in Western Australia, in particular in the northern suburbs of Perth. I have been fortunate enough to meet many Baha'is living in my electorate and the surrounding suburbs. Through my association with the local Baha'i community over a number of years, I have observed its members as being peaceful, tolerant and family orientated. The religion could not be described as fundamentalist or extremist in nature. Rather, it is very moderate in its nature. As I have become more familiar with individual members and their local spiritual assembly, what greatly impresses me, generally, about the Baha'i community in Australia is the ability of its members to integrate and assimilate into Australian society. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the motion seconded? 17:33 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I second the motion. I thank the member for Moore for bringing this motion to the House to highlight the, unfortunately, ongoing persecution of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran. The people of the Baha'i faith in my electorate of Wills and across Australia are deeply concerned about their brothers and sisters in faith in Iran—as they should be. Since 1979, the government of Iran has made it official policy to discriminate against and persecute members of the Baha'i community, Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority. In 2016, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, described the Baha'i as 'the most severely persecuted religious minority' in Iran. The Australian parliament, in 2012 and 2015, condemned the persecution and treatment of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran. Last year, the Baha'i people in Iran faced new and increased oppression through Iran's national ID program. The national ID card now requires people to identify with one of four religions—Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Zoroastrianism. Anyone who does not, including the Baha'i people, are denied an ID card, effectively rendering them a nonperson, at least in the administrative sense. Without this card, a person in Iran can't get a drivers licence, passport or work permit, open and use a bank account or enter into a contract. These are basic rights, which are being denied to a group of people based on their religious faith. This change has forced Iranian Baha'i to either lie about their religious identity or be blocked from essential services. I'm also extremely concerned about the reports of violent home raids, of being barred from education, of Baha'i homes being set on fire, of relatives being detained in crowded prisons rife with coronavirus or, worst of all, of arbitrary executions by the authorities. And then to have loved ones' graves desecrated adds a further level of pain to the Baha'i people. Australia is a democracy, and I believe it has a responsibility to call out these types of human rights abuses across the world whenever we see it. I, along with some of my colleagues last year, wrote to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, to express our concern about the ongoing persecution of the Baha'i. I've also met with the Iranian ambassador and expressed to him the Australian Baha'i community's deep concerns. In December last year Australia at the UN General Assembly co-sponsored a resolution which highlighted the human rights situation in Iran and the situation of the Baha'i community. We, as elected leaders in a pluralist democracy that holds the value of equality before the law high, regardless of one's ethnicity, faith or gender, must speak up for people around the world who are being denied their rights on the basis of ethnicity, faith or gender. The Baha'i community has been a part of our diverse nation for a century, for 100 years. We have a duty to the community here in Australia and to the Baha'i in Iran. Whether we are speaking in support of democracy in Myanmar or Hong Kong, speaking out against the persecution of the Uighurs, speaking up for the rights of self-determination for Palestinians or the Rohingya people who have been forced into IDP camps, or the Kurdish community in northern Syria, it's something that I've tried to do as an elected representative since I was elected back in 2016. I've always tried to do this as part of our democracy and as part of our responsibilities and obligations in this place. Because, frankly, what we say in this place has real meaning, real impact. We are representatives in a democracy—one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world—and that comes with a degree of responsibility for all of us, regardless of our political persuasion. As such, and alongside many of my colleagues who are speaking on this motion today, I join the member for Moore and my colleagues across the aisle who've spoken up about this issue, the persecution of the Baha'i people, many, many times in this chamber, in this place. We will continue to do so because what we say is a matter of solidarity and we are standing in solidarity with the people of the Baha'i faith who are suffering persecution in Iran. I know that it might not change things overnight, but what we say here does give the people of the Baha'i faith in our Australian community some solace that we are standing side by side with them in their time of need. We will continue to do so for as long it takes. 17:37 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I don't get to say this enough in this chamber and other places, but I agree with the member for Wills when he says these things. I want to thank the member for Moore for bringing this to the attention of this parliament and the member for Wills for his contribution because what he says is absolutely 100 per cent right. This nation, if it is to exist or have any purpose in the world in which we live, must demand not just equality for those of us who happen to live here but equality and justice for all people, no matter where they may be. Sometimes that is easier said than done. Sometimes it means that we find ourselves in conflict with what we would like to do versus what we have to do. But allow me to be clear: this is not one of those instances. The members of the Baha'i community who live in Iran have been persecuted for too long, for too often by an atrocious and authoritarian regime for no other reason than the fact that they fear them. They fear what they stand for. They fear their ideas. They fear their belief. And this world should not have a single person, wherever they may live, persecuted because of who they are, what they believe or what they stand for. I am incredibly privileged to have one of the houses of worship of the Baha'i faith in the area that I have the honour to represent. To say that the Baha'i faith is one of the great faiths of this world is no exaggeration, with its belief in unity, peace, love and harmony. During the COVID lockdown, so many of us were worried about what it meant for ourselves and our families. The Baha'i faith undertook a project to understand what it meant for the entire community, not just for the members of their community but for our entire nation. It would be inappropriate for me to go through this speech without recognising Natalie Mobini, the director of the Office of External Affairs; Shephalie Williams, one of the managers of the Office of External Affairs; Dr Fiona Scott, the national secretary of the Baha'i association; and Mr Chris Heggie of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'i of Australia. These people, along with so many others in their community, put together a program that ensured that not only their community were kept together, but so many other members of the Australian community were able to make it through isolation and the challenges of lockdowns and the pandemic. What would the Iranian regime have to fear from such a belief and such actions? Deputy Speaker, both you and I know the answer to that. Authoritarians hate people who show that peace and love have a place in this world. It has always been, and thus will it always end up being. That is why what the member for Wills said is true--what we say here matters; what we do here matters even more. We must make it clear that we will not allow people in Iran or any other part of the world to be persecuted simply for who they are. Religion should never be used by any country as a tool of isolation, as a tool to persecute or demonise someone or justify the unjustifiable treatment before the law. The right to freedom of religion, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression are universal human rights that cannot be selectively observed or used by different governments when it suits them. It is part of the millennial program that all members of the United Nations signed up to, that we as a nation signed up to and that the Iranian regime signed up to. They must be true to their agreements. The Morrison government, the Australian government, continues to have a strong stand in support of a just, fair and legal treatment of all faiths in Iran, including the Baha'i community but especially the Baha'i community, for they have been singled out too often. 17:42 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very pleased to rise to contribute to this motion recognising the people of the Baha'i faith and acknowledging their ongoing contributions to our society. Thank you to the member for Moore for moving this motion and to all members who have spoken on this motion today. I would also like to recognise the people of the Baha'i faith who aren't able to join us in the chamber today. Ordinarily, this chamber would be full for such an occasion. But I know that many of those people will be watching from their homes. I want to acknowledge you today. I note that this month marks the centenary of the death Abdu'l Baha. People the world over are remembering his life and work and all those amazing people who came to know him. The Baha'i faith is one of peace and inclusion, as we've heard from many of my colleagues today. It recognises the value and worth of all religions and sees the inherent unity of all people. It actively rejects the damaging scourge of racism, prejudice and discrimination. At a time when we see communities and countries across the globe splinter, fracture and fragment through hatred and division, it is clear that there is much to learn from the Baha'i faith and the belief system they have. The people in the Baha'i faith come from all walks of life and represent many sectors of our community. In my electorate of Newcastle, there is a vibrant and deeply committed Baha'i community. It's a welcoming group of wonderful people. I particularly want to take time today to acknowledge the contribution of Tom Jones, who, sadly, passed last year, from the Baha'i community. Tom was a long-time volunteer Baha'i chaplain at the University of Newcastle. He led the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'i in Newcastle. He was an incredibly determined advocate and stood up, always, to be counted in the face of intolerance, discrimination, prejudice and, indeed, the persecution of Baha'i people overseas. I'm so grateful for Tom's advocacy for and efforts with the Baha'i community both in Newcastle and on an international level. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the current secretary of the Newcastle Baha'i community, Joanne Tonkin, for her incredible hard work and dedication and that of the team that she leads. I'm glad that Australia is a place where all people can practise their faith freely. Regrettably, this isn't the case everywhere. Last time I rose in this place to speak on the Baha'i, I reflected on the appalling treatment of Iran's 300,000 Baha'i followers. Despite the economic and health crisis afflicting Iran, the systemic program of persecution against the entire Baha'i community has increased in its intensity over the past year. The number of pending court cases against the Baha'i has steadily increased during the coronavirus pandemic. Hundreds of Baha'i owned shops remain sealed by authorities, depriving thousands of a viable income. The entire public sector and numerous professions remain blocked to the Baha'i. University studies remain inaccessible. The authorities have leveraged the internet to spread hate speech about the Baha'i, their faith and their beliefs to various segments of the society. A recent alarming development which occurred in late 2020 was the final and binding court decision which determined Baha'is' ownership of their own homes and farmlands in the village of Ivel to be illegitimate. Numerous Baha'i families who had farmed their land for generations in this village in the province of Mazandaran had their homes destroyed and their property confiscated for sale to other villages. In recent months, the Iranian government's decades-long campaign of hate speech and propaganda against the Baha'i in Iran has reached new levels, increasing in both sophistication and scale. Australia must always— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:47 to 18:03 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Notwithstanding the vile ongoing campaign I was referring to against the Baha'i in Iran, Australia must continue to robustly defend the human rights of the Baha'i wherever they face persecution across the world. That is our responsibility and that is the job we must do. 18:04 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Can I start by commending the member for Moore, who is my neighbour in the northern suburbs of Perth, for bringing this motion forward. I'm sure that the member for Moore, like me, has been warmly welcomed by the local Baha'i community in the northern suburbs and has experienced their hospitality and their warmth, as I have. I have stood in this place several times now to speak about the Baha'i faith and the beauty of the Baha'i faith and many times I have quoted or selected quotes from the founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah. It's getting to the point where I'm struggling to find new quotes, although there are many. I found this wonderful quote that I thought I would read in the chamber today. It is from the Tablets of the Divine Plan: Consider the flowers of a garden. Though differing in kind, color, form, and shape, yet, inasmuch as they are refreshed by the waters of one spring, revived by the breath of one wind, invigorated by the rays of one sun, this diversity increaseth their charm, and addeth unto their beauty. How unpleasing to the eye if all the flowers and plants, the leaves and blossoms, the fruits, the branches and the trees of that garden were all of the same shape and color! Diversity of hues, form and shape, enricheth and adorneth the garden, and heighteneth the effect thereof. It's such a beautiful quote, and I thought it a very apt quote for the topic that I wish to speak on this evening and the motion that the member for Moore has brought forward. I chose this quote because it represents the wonderful people of Cowan and the wonderful diversity that exists within the Cowan community and, indeed, within Australia and, certainly, within the world. But it also expresses the wonderful diversity that I have found among members of the Baha'i faith. I first came across the Baha'i faith from a fellow student studying with me at the American University in Cairo, when I was at university there, and learnt then, all those years ago, about the Baha'i faith and about the ongoing persecution of people of Baha'i faith in Iran. Pluralism and diversity—of culture, of thought, of political leanings and, of course, of faith—are the hallmarks of Australian democracy. Pluralism and diversity are valued within the Baha'i faith. There are many, many more quotes that I could have chosen that express the peace, the love, the harmony and the unity that are core tenets of the Baha'i faith, as many of the previous speakers have also alluded to. Considering the love of diversity, the openness of the Baha'i faith, the openness with which members of the Baha'i faith community have welcomed me, as a Muslim, and other members of parliament of different faiths, it is quite astounding that we are standing here today to speak about their persecution in Iran and the inability of such a gentle and peaceful people of faith to practise their faith in Iran. Like other members who have spoken today, I welcome the 16 December resolution by the United Nations calling on Iran to uphold the rights of all its citizens. Recognising and accepting different faiths and the plurality of faith—and not just accepting but going beyond acceptance, going beyond tolerance, to respecting different faiths and the plurality of faith—is a basis of universal human rights. It is a cornerstone of Australian democracy. Freedom of faith, freedom to practise one's faith, freedom to choose what you want to believe in, is, of course, a basic human right. Like other members here, I call on the Iranian regime to end its continued discrimination against and persecution of people of Baha'i faith and I lend my support to the Baha'i community in Australia. 18:09 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I'm so pleased to rise to speak in support of this motion today. I thank the member for Moore for his initiative and acknowledge the work of many others in this place, including the member for Wills and the member for Newcastle. I'm proud to represent a strong Baha'i community on the border, in Albury-Wodonga. Recently I met with local leaders Ben Metagi and Vita Bayani to hear how the Baha'i community has fared during the COVID pandemic, and I was inspired by efforts throughout their community to come together and support one another. The community held weekly and fortnightly Zoom meetings to keep in touch, share prayers, offer support and honour the idea of family and friendship, which is so fundamental to their lives. Ben and Vita also spoke of the timely publication of Light & Mercy, a compilation of Baha'i texts about mental health and resilience during difficult times. When restrictions eased, the community also organised day trips across the region to museums and other social events so families and friends could connect again. Ben also told me proudly that nearly 100 per cent of the Baha'i community on the border had been vaccinated. That is just a remarkable effort. The principles of the Baha'i faith were central to this accomplishment, particularly the idea of unity and the importance of placing the community ahead of oneself. What a beautiful message to convey to this Chamber. I also had the opportunity to speak with Ben and Vita about this motion and the desperate situation the Baha'i community in Iran finds itself in. Baha'is, who are Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority, are routinely arrested, detained and imprisoned in Iran. The Baha'i are barred from holding government jobs, and their shops and businesses are routinely closed or discriminated against. Many are unable to attend schooling, and those who try to organise education for the Baha'i informally are often arrested and detained too. A division having been called in the House of Representatives — Sitting suspended from 18:11 to 18:26 Dr HAINES 282335 The persecution and human rights abuses are countless. Since the formation of the Islamic republic in Iran in 1979, tens of thousands of Iranian Baha'is have lost homes, jobs, pensions, savings and businesses, and they've seen their shrines and cemeteries desecrated. It's difficult to imagine the true impact of this persecution, and it was heartbreaking to hear Ben and Vita convey the situation in Iran. Earlier this year I was pleased to co-sign an open letter from members of this place to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, calling out the treatment of the Baha'is in Iran, particularly the rise in violence against farmers at the village level. The global Baha'i community have also led powerful campaigns to have the situation in Iran exposed in the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council and have worked with other international human rights NGOs on advocacy campaigns, speaking on behalf of their sisters and brothers in Iran who cannot speak up without fear of reprisal. The Baha'i are peaceful and non-violent. In Iran the Baha'i work tirelessly for the betterment of their society, despite ongoing persecution. This faith and resilience is powerful, and I respect it deeply. Ben shared this passage with me to read in parliament: 'The Iranian Baha'i deeply love their homeland despite all the suffering they have endured. Regardless of the restrictions imposed upon them, they fulfil their spiritual and social responsibilities. Through participation in constructive discourse with neighbours, co-workers, friends and acquaintances, they nonetheless continue to contribute to the advancement of their nation and their people.' What a powerful message to convey to this House. I want to thank Ben and Vita once again for sharing these messages from the Baha'i community in Albury-Wodonga with me and this parliament. I also want to acknowledge Dr Hamid Golshan, who was unable to attend our meeting due to work commitments as a doctor at Albury-Wodonga hospital. He felt the full brunt of the local COVID outbreak only weeks ago. The Baha'i give so much to our border communities, and it is my pleasure and honour to recognise their contributions and their message on behalf of the Baha'i community in Iran. I commend this motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Telecommunications 204 18:29 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) a delegation from the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition (RRRCC) has approached Members of the 46th Parliament via a virtual delegation to highlight priorities for improving regional telecommunications; (b) the RRRCC is a group of 21 like-minded organisations and advocacy bodies which have joined together to highlight their collective concern about the lack of equitable access to reliable and quality telecommunication in regional Australia; (c) telecommunications is an essential service in a modern world, supporting social connectivity, business activity, and the delivery of health and education services; (d) every Australian, irrespective of where they live or work, should have access to quality, reliable, and affordable voice and data services with customer support guarantees; and (e) there is ongoing inequity in the access to telecommunications experienced by Australians living in regional, rural, and remote areas, compared to their urban counterparts; and (2) calls upon the Government to ensure that regional, rural, and remote Australia is best positioned to retain people and grow in the long term, by: (a) establishing a rural, regional and remote communications fund to resource ongoing investment in regional telecommunications through the Mobile Black Spot Program, Regional Connectivity Program and through state and territory co-investment programs; (b) continuing its commitment to expanding the mobile network in regional Australia through the Mobile Black Spot Program or a similar program (such programs must continue to promote competition by requiring open access for all networks and the criteria for such programs reflect changing technologies and commercial circumstances); (c) ensuring no mobile network user is disadvantaged by the switching off of the 3G network; (d) having the Australian Communications and Media Authority investigate and monitor widespread mobile outages in regional and remote Australia, and the reliability of mobile infrastructure; (e) ensuring there are adequate upgrade plans and pathways for regional Australians using ADSL services that provide access to higher quality or equivalent fixed broadband services; (f) bringing about further enhancements to NBN Sky Muster in order to reflect consumer and small business needs, including more affordable plans, and a mobility product; (g) legislating telecommunications as an essential service in all states and territories, recognising telecommunications providers as 'essential users' in natural disaster areas, and ensuring the rollout of NBN Disaster Satellite Services appropriately complement MBSP 5A upgrades to power supplies at base stations; (h) ensuring any alternative technologies for voice service delivery be proven to have greater reliability and performance quality for regional, rural, and remote consumers; (i) creating appropriate minimum service guarantees and performance benchmarks for connection, fault repair and appointment keeping timeframes for NBN and other statutory infrastructure providers (these obligations and timeframes must support maximum connectivity during natural disaster events and customers must be adequately compensated when baseline timeframes are exceeded); (j) introducing adequate performance quality metrics for all services, including NBN Sky Muster, monitored against independent benchmarks; (k) committing to funding the regional tech hub service beyond the current one-year funding period, and working with the RRRCC and state and local governments to identify and deliver digital capacity building needs beyond the remit of the regional tech hub project; (l) creating a targeted, concessional NBN broadband service to support low-income residents in regional, rural and remote areas, and reconfiguring the existing telecommunication allowance to meet the needs of low-income, mobile-only consumers; (m) supporting remote communities, in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities, to have access to affordable telecommunications equipment so they can maximise access to services such as medical services; and (n) requiring retail service providers to be transparent about the limitations of the more affordable services they provide to low-income consumers. I was recently invited to participate in an online meeting with the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition. This group is made up of 22 volunteer-run organisations and advocacy bodies that have joined together to amplify their voice and to improve telecommunications for regional Australia. I was in Canberra when we met, and my team member's NBN connection was so slow that, when she tried to join the meeting, she couldn't participate. This experience is, sadly, all too familiar in regional Australia, and it is why I'm moving this motion to highlight the priorities of the coalition. These goals are not grandiose or radical. Regional Australia just wants equitable access to reliable, quality telecommunications. Telecommunications is an essential service in the modern world. It should be managed and regulated as such, not left to market forces. Urban based public and private sector organisations cannot continue to roll out services to rural Australia based on urban experiences. The coalition has five goals: guaranteed access to voice and data services always, including during natural disasters; updated telecommunication service guarantees and adequate service performance standards; the continuation of programs to expand mobile coverage; the building of digital capacity through the provision of independent, trustworthy technical support; and affordable communications services for regional, rural and remote Australia. I recently hosted positive ageing forums in my electorate. One issue that was raised was how expensive mobile phone plans are for those on fixed incomes, and the need for an NBN satellite service and how expensive it is. In my submission to the 2021 Regional Telecommunications Review, I have called on the government to assist low-income households, particularly pensioners, whether that be through the NBN wholesale broadband package, an annual telecommunications payment or a requirement on all statutory infrastructure providers to offer minimum internet packages to assist low-income households. I'm also of the view that regional Australia should be prioritised for NBN technology upgrades. The focus should be on need rather than profitability. Mayo has too many premises allocated to NBN satellite. South Australia is the state with not only the highest percentage of satellite connections—around five per cent, compared to the national average of three per cent—but the highest number of Sky Muster connections within a 25-kilometre radius of the city GPO. The number of potential NBN satellite services in that radius is 2,773 premises. Nearly 88 per cent of those premises cannot upgrade via technology choice. Available figures from last year show Hobart, which came a very distant second to Adelaide, had 264 Sky Muster connections within their 25-kilometre radius. Sydney had just 28. Upgrading is expensive. I have constituents who can drive to Adelaide from their home, but they have to pay $30,000 to $100,000 for fibre. We need to do better for regional Australia. A good place to start is the mobile network. It needs expansion and it needs better performance standards. Mobile is not guaranteed under the Universal Service Guarantee, a fact that continues to surprise so many, as mobile connectivity is an essential service, particularly in high-risk bushfire areas. The Black Summer bushfires that we all experienced in 2019-20 on Kangaroo Island and the Adelaide Hills in my electorate highlighted our community's reliance on the mobile network to receive timely information. This is about protecting life and property. On Kangaroo Island, mobile black spots caused so much concern. The lack of mobile coverage hampered the efforts of emergency services. This government and future governments need to prioritise the delivery of reliable and affordable telecommunications for regional Australia. This is critical for our regions. This is about life and death for us. We need to have healthy, economic and sustainable communities, and telecommunications is a very big part of that. I now seek leave to table the goals document of the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition. Leave granted. Ms SHARKIE 265980 We need to make sure that regional Australia gets put front and centre with respect to telecommunications. It is too terrifying driving for long stretches where there is no mobile coverage. We can do better in this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 Is the motion seconded? 18:34 Mr 109556 Berowra LEESER () (): I second the motion. I want to applaud the work of the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition. Many of the issues they face are also issues that we face in peri-urban areas, and I have the privilege of meeting the coalition members in the context of the private member's bill exposure draft that I released backed by18 of my government colleagues back in September. What I thought I would do today is take this opportunity to provide the House with some feedback, as a result of the exposure draft we've received, not just from the Regional, Rural and Remote Communications Coalition whose work is so good and important but from ordinary citizens across the country who face terrible communications technology difficulties both in regional and peri-urban settings. Jennifer from Beachport in South Australia has said in her submission: I'm a falls risk and I'm a Telstra customer. Often my service is only one bar on 3G instead of a minimum 4G. If I fall and can't get up and can't ring out, there's a good chance I'd be there until 1 pm Friday when a carer arrives, possibly up to one week. Frightening. I battle with Telstra internet and if the town is in holiday mode quite often I can't connect. I pay my bills and buy my groceries online, and I experience a high level of frustration. It can be 10 pm at night before I'm able to access internet on wifi mobile. Issues can take five days to resolve. This is simply not good enough, especially for vulnerable Australians. In Tasmania, Damien from Wilburville says lives have already been lost in his community. He says: For over 11 years now we lost our Telstra Mobile Phone Reception here in Wilburville and Arthurs Lake. I have complained to Telstra for many times over the years and as a retired Volunteer Ambulance Officer we've sadly lost lives that may have been preventable if we'd had Telstra's mobile phone service. Telstra has profited billions over the years and surely funds can be found to address this issue here in the very rural, remote and isolated central highlands of Tasmania. Hear, hear, Damien! You're absolutely right. In my own electorate, Margaret from Glenorie wrote: Recently Telstra wanted to upgrade my plan and charge me more. They can't even give me what's in my present contract. I can't imagine how contact tracing worked in my area with the dodgy mobile communications. As an elderly widow, I find it very scary having no guaranteed means of communication. The only way is to have my mobile phone on a rubbish bin outside my garage and run backwards and forwards to my computer inside. This all has to be done at 3 am to 4 am when there's reception. I could tell you many sad tales about when my husband had a terminal illness—he has now passed away—and I could not contact the outside world because of low/unreliable communications. I went to the Telstra store to try and get help and was treated very badly and not helped at all. It was like I had crept out of a garbage pile, very. Will not be doing that again. Just try and imagine how scary it can be when you have no means of communication with anyone and you live in Sydney. The service from the telcos like Margaret has experienced is absolutely appalling. And those telco executives are absolutely reprehensible. They've got the same problems in Cedar Creek in Queensland. Louise wrote in her submission: We have no mobile reception at our home. This causes constant problems. My husband and I are doctors. We struggle to do on-call from home because we've got no mobile reception and very poor ADSL internet. Our children were unable to homeschool due to poor phone and internet service. The lack of mobile reception is dangerous and leaves us at a serious disadvantage to our peers. Medical specialists are being affected in my electorate as well. Jodie, a psychologist from Dangar Island, wrote: I'm a psychologist and I had to go 100 per cent telehealth for all my clients during lockdown. It was so difficult to maintain connection in a very stressful time with very stressed clients. It was near impossible—very poor service. Christie from South Australia says: Telecommunications coverage in our area is progressively getting worse. With all the upgrades to towers, we've seen zero capacity. I sit here in my kitchen with call after call after call dropping out. I run my business from satellite NBN and hope for the best with the phones. I've had to reconnect an old copper phone line because our service is regressing. I live in an already isolated environment made even worse by having limited communications power. Mental health in regional areas is at an all-time high, and it's not hard to see why. I feel unsafe during summer, particularly on fire ban days when I can't update the alerts or get phone service. Telcos are quick to tell me what funds I can spend to get better services, but they don't seem to be willing to spend some of that to help me. It's time the telcos took their heads out of the sand and started to deal with the real problems Australians face every single day. The appalling customer service, the outright lies they tell about connectivity, and the fact that at times of natural disaster, they are missing in action and unaccountable for failing to provide these services. Phone and internet are essential services Australians rely on. It's time we did better. Go to telcoreform.com.au 18:39 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] I thank the member for Mayo for raising this important issue of regional communications. Before I get to the body of my speech, I want to make a short comment on the contribution made by the previous speaker, the member for Berowra. I'm sure he's very earnest in all of his views, but let's not forget that he is a member of a government that has allowed this state of affairs to manifest. He's also a member of the political party that we can lay this at the feet of. The cause of all this began with the privatisation of Telstra, so many years ago, under the party that he represents. So if the member for Berowra is serious about the issues he's raising, he needs to do a lot more to get his colleagues in the government on board. The member for Mayo understands, as I do, the vital role that is played by telecommunications in a regional electorate. We share a vision of equitable access to reliable and quality telecommunications across regional Australia. We both know that our constituents, the people that we represent, are not being looked after by this government. Making a call and jumping online should not be this hard, yet, just 20 minutes from my office here in southern Tasmania, driving down Back Tea Tree Road on my way home, the signal drops out. It's a very busy road. Further down the Tasman Highway, towards stunning Port Arthur, one of the busiest tourist destinations in the country, you'll find the same issue. There's no connectivity. Conara, in the Northern Midlands, just off our busy Midland Highway and barely half an hour south of Launceston has the same story. Not only no mobile connectivity, but this is a small township that is on satellite. I was pleased to hear the member for Mayo draw attention to this issue, as there are far too many places that are on satellite that should not be. Satellite should be a last resort for remote homes that can't get any other service. Conara and the town of Fingal, in the municipality of Break O'Day in my electorate, are both townships that use satellite. They should be on fixed wireless at the very least. In far too many places across my electorate, no bars, no internet, nothing. I once met with a constituent from Interlaken in our Central Highlands who was mobility impaired. She could barely walk, let alone safely drive. Yet she still had to drag herself into a car and head east for 45 minutes just to find a signal so that she could call her family for assistance. Not good enough! Throughout my electorate there are black spots, and not just on isolated country roads: the back blocks of Bicheno and a section north of Triabunna, swathes of the Central Highlands—it shouldn't be this way. There are black spots even in fairly well populated areas—as I say, Conara, Fingal. Telecommunication is not a luxury anymore. It is an essential service to modern society. Smartphone technology and internet access support social connectivity, business activity and help deliver health and education services. Every Australian, no matter their postcode, should have access to quality, reliable and affordable telecommunications. It is laughable that a government hell-bent on moving services online—My Aged Care, all the Centrelink services—can also fail to make connectivity a priority for their voters and for Australians. There must be equitable access to these services. We must close the digital divide between country and city, but under this Liberal government we are seeing a growing inequity. We've seen Australians, and Tasmanians in particular, who live in rural, regional and remote areas left behind. A recent survey conducted by my office found almost 80 per cent of the 400 respondents had experienced issues with their internet connection: poor speeds, service dropouts, limited assistance from operators—the list goes on. Reliable quality, high-speed reception and internet is not a luxury or a 'nice to have'; it is essential 21st century infrastructure. We've wasted 20 years of this century. Let's get serious about it now. It's clear that this tired Liberal government cannot be trusted to deliver to regional Tasmanians. But Labor does have a plan to tackle this growing issue. An Albanese Labor government will secure quality high-speed internet for more Australian families and businesses by expanding full fibre NBN access to 1.5 million premises. 18:45 Dr 281688 Mallee WEBSTER () (): In my electorate of Mallee, poor connectivity continues to be a significant issue. The last time I counted, there were 520 black spots—a cause for great frustration for many people. Over the last two years in my office, many constituents have told me about the ongoing challenges that they experience. Fred Siciliano is a stone fruit grower from Woorinen. He continues to put up with slow, unreliable and sometimes non-existent mobile coverage. As a small-business owner, Fred has invested vast sums of money in attempting to resolve the issues. Sadly, it has resulted in little improvement. Living in between two major phone towers, he frequently must leave his property to be able to conduct a virtual meeting with overseas clients. At times, he's had to stand on a chair or climb on a roof—I hear it over and over again—in order to get a signal. He's not alone. Many across Mallee endure the same thing. It is simply not good enough. The pandemic highlighted students learning from home issues, disrupted in virtual classrooms because their internet would drop out. Teachers, too, were struggling to conduct online classes because they couldn't get reliable reception at their homes. I recently supported the member for Berowra's private member's bill that seeks to make telecommunications companies accountable for their poor coverage. The bill argued for telco executives to be personally liable for poor customer service and failure to meet the needs of customers. While the coalition government has invested $15 million to address poor connectivity in Mallee, many people remain disadvantaged with deficient services. Rural residents in Mallee often live long distances from towns and, when an emergency occurs, they cannot afford to be unable to access connectivity to call emergency services. Under the proposed bill prepared by the member for Berowra, telco executives and companies would also be financially liable for preventable deaths caused through their inaction. Under this legislation, negligence will no longer be tolerated. We still have a long way to go to ensure every Australian has access to reliable connectivity wherever they are. But this government is working to deliver vital measures to make sure that we get there. The Liberal-National government has been on the front foot to address issues of coverage. This funding has seen 1,270 new base stations across Australia through the Mobile Black Spots Program. In Mallee alone, this program has delivered $9.5 million towards greater coverage across the electorate. Regional communities need strong, reliable connectivity to do the simple things that urban residents are able to do consistently and have been able to for some time, things like connecting with family over the phone, working from home, using online business platforms and accessing emergency services. Each new mobile tower connects regional communities across Mallee to online services, increasing productivity and generating economic growth, which is why the government continues to invest in the Mobile Black Spot Program. The government is also committed to bringing rural and regional communities up to speed in their access to telecommunications services. In this last week, almost 4,000 households in Mildura and Irymple became eligible for NBN upgrades so that they can access broadband internet with speeds consistent with residents in capital cities. These premises will now be able to access plans of up to one gigabyte per second—something we only dream of— using fibre-to-the-premises connections. These are internet plans they have previously not had access to. This rollout will create jobs in the community, ensure local businesses can access the speeds they need to thrive and improve connectivity for families across the entire region. I met with NBN Co last week. They assure me that they continue to invest in products and technologies to meet connectivity needs and are committed to meeting the current and future broadband needs of households and businesses across regional Australia. This announcement shines a light on the broad work this government is doing to reach rural and regional communities with faster speed NBN connections that have a real and measurable impact on local communities. Improving telecommunications access and coverage is a priority for this side of the House. We will continue to work to address the concerns of Australians who endure inferior connectivity. The Morrison-Joyce government is committed to reducing the gap in telecommunications access for regional Australians. 18:49 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Mayo for raising this motion. There is no doubt that reliable telecommunications are essential in a modern world. Every Australian, irrespective of where they live or work, should have access to quality, reliable and affordable voice and data services. Unfortunately, there is an ongoing inequality in the access to telecommunications experienced by Australians living in regional, rural and remote areas, compared to our urban counterparts. Wherever I go in my electorate, better mobile phone and internet connectivity is high on the list of priorities. I know that, everyone knows that, and the Morrison government knew that during the Eden-Monaro by-election when it made the Strengthening Telecommunications Against Natural Disasters funding commitment. The communities of Eden-Monaro found themselves cut off from the world during the darkest days of our Black Summer bushfires. That sense of isolation is now a deep part of our communities' trauma. I recently conducted an online survey to encourage Eden-Monaro residents to get in touch and tell me their experiences with telecommunications. I wish I could say that I was surprised by the results. But, as my office started mapping the hundreds of responses we received, we were left wondering if it would be easier to map out the areas where we could get constant reception. When families were plunged into learning from home earlier this year, the issues with connectivity were further exacerbated. Some families were only able to access the internet for an hour or two a day, which is simply not good enough. Individuals and families who have been struggling with connectivity for far too long have spent huge amounts of money installing mobile boosters in the hope that that would improve their telecommunications access. Unfortunately, for many this was money wasted. When people in the cities think about mobile black spots, they expect them to be in rural areas hours away from the closest town. But in Eden-Monaro black spots can be found in the middle of town, or within five minutes of the town centre. Just last week I was driving from Queanbeyan to Bungendore, and less than five minutes out of Queanbeyan, where I could still see the main street in my rear-view mirror, I was completely out of reception. Carwoola, Talbingo, Numeralla, Dalmeny and Mystery Bay are just some of the areas where I've recently held telecommunications meetings because the situation is so dire, and the story is always the same. People have no mobile phone reception or internet connectivity at their homes, and they've spent hours trying to find a solution to no avail. Richard, who lives in the Yass Valley, responded to my survey and explained that he's only 30 minutes away from where we are right now—30 minutes away from Parliament House—and mobile reception is best described as 'patchy'. Last year Richard had a neighbour who nearly died from a heart attack because his wife had difficulty calling triple 0. She had to get her husband into a car and drive him part of the way to Canberra just so she could call an ambulance. Countless people responded to my survey to recount their experiences during the Black Summer bushfires and their expectation that the government would address connectivity issues as part of the bushfire recovery efforts. This is what the government promised. Annette from Nerriga told me that her property was impacted by fires, and they had no landline or mobile service for over three months. Debbie from Peak View said she had no mobile service whatsoever at her home, and this made the Black Summer bushfires all the more difficult. They were surrounded by fires for six weeks with no landline and no mobile service. They were cut off from their community and they were cut off from vital information. We're almost two years on from these fires, and these communities still face an unknown situation, because connectivity hasn't improved. Mark lives near the Victorian border and explained that huge stretches of the Monaro Highway are complete black spots. He regularly comes across people pulled over on the side of the road because they have broken down or hit a kangaroo, and they are stuck without any way to call for help. This is a main highway and travel route between New South Wales and Victoria, and people are regularly left stranded due to a lack of mobile phone reception. This government is moving more and more services online. Unfortunately, this just increases the divide between people living in the city and those in regional areas. Every day Services Australia are forcing more and more people to apply for and manage their payments online. This year, with more COVID lockdowns and thousands of people unable to work, government support was a lifeline for millions. But accessing the support was also a nightmare for many in my communities, with local service centres and libraries closed and people unable to go to family members' or friends' houses to access the internet. People were left feeling that the government's support was only available for those in the cities, not for those in regional areas. Alan from Wamboin told me that all the houses in his street have no mobile phone reception. At the peak of the pandemic, he was unable to access myGov from his house. This government needs to do better for regional communities, and reliable telecommunications is the bare minimum they deserve. (Time expired) 18:55 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I'd like to thank the member for Mayo for bringing this motion to the parliament. I'm sure members in this place know that I don't often miss an opportunity to raise the salience of this issue, in particular when it comes to mobile phone service reception. A functional mobile phone service was once a luxury, but it is now a necessary business tool. In the case of regional communities, particularly for the farming sector, it's a key part of their safety toolkit. The official statistics tell us that 99.5 per cent of the population and 33 per cent of Australia's landmass is covered. These aren't the statistics I focus on. I'm focused on the 399 community-identified black spots in my electorate of Barker alone. A recent survey conducted by the Wattle Range Council on this issue showed that residents of that local government region rated their phone service two out of five, and 70 per cent of respondents said they would regularly operate at two bars or less. That's just not good enough for an area of roughly 4,000 square kilometres with a population of 12,000 people. That might be rural and it might be regional, but it's absolutely not remote. It's just not good enough. Every three years, there's an independent Regional Telecommunications Review, under law, to examine and report on the adequacy of telecommunications in rural, regional and remote Australia. The 2021 review is due to be reported on next month. The review has consulted widely. It has held 24 online consultation sessions. There have been over 500 participants, and the review has received a record number of submissions, at 656. But I suspect the review will discover much of what the RRRCC and this motion are saying. I suspect this because it's what I hear, day to day, from my constituents. There's not a day that goes by when I'm in the community when I don't hear people speak about this issue or complain about it directly to me. They're paying for a mobile service that they're unable to use much of the time. I can confidently say it's the No. 1 issue that's raised with me, with daylight second. For example, I want to read an excerpt from a letter written to Telstra by one such constituent. The constituent writes: The Peebinga area has grain and sheep producers and two Major irrigators with a large work force. They say of Peebinga businesses: At Peebinga we are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to being competitive in the grain, wool and lamb markets, not being able to contact agents or traders on time can be extremely costly, this is a real issue for us, not being able to use mobile phone or data services puts us at a disadvantage when we can't make or receive phone calls, text messages or emails when we are at work on the property, waiting for someone to call you back on our landline is so non-productive. When we have a break down or an emergency situation we have to make a dash for one of our land lines so we can make the appropriate calls to get the issue attended too. This is unproductive for modern farming enterprises and is certainly unproductive for our farm which supports several families. Luckily for the good people of Peebinga, the region received a commitment for a mobile phone tower from round 5 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. I believe this Optus tower is due to be switched on by the end of the year. While the government's Mobile Black Spot Program has addressed the issue for Peebinga, there are many, many stories around my electorate—indeed, around this country—just like the one I've read out to you. The government is also committed to improving telecommunications services through its connectivity programs in regional Australia, and I commend the government for its action on this issue. Our government has taken action through the Mobile Black Spot Program. There's more work to be done, but it is taking that action, which is in stark contrast to the zero towers erected during the period between 2007 and 2013. The member for Berowra has taken up the charge, and I'm pleased for him to be on our side in this fight. I'm fully supportive of what he's doing via his private member's bill. He obviously alluded to that earlier in his contribution. In particular, it does four things. I just want to reiterate them: it creates a universal mobile service obligation; it forces telecommunications companies to improve customer service; it forces telcos to be more responsible in the provision of maintenance and services to disaster-prone areas; and it bolsters competition. It's about time the telcos got serious. It's not just at marketing time that they should worry about regional and rural constituents. 19:00 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I want to thank the member for Mayo for putting this motion forward. It's a comprehensive look at the various telecommunications issues that rural and regional communities face. My community faces all those issues and needs the same kinds of solutions that are being put forward. I do think, though, that it's a bit rich for the member for Berowra and the member for Barker to stand here and talk about a private member's bill that the member for Berowra is putting forward with regard to mobile communication when they have been part of a government that has been in power for nearly a decade. They have had nearly a decade to fix the flawed Mobile Back Spot Program and to think more about peri-urban areas. We're coming to the finish line of their third term of government—I hope it will be their last term of government—and they just stumble to the finish line with something that may or may not make any difference for peri-urban communities. It's been such an ineffective response from the government. They seem to think they have nothing to do with it. They say: 'Oh, it's Telstra. Oh, it's Optus or Vodafone. Let's blame somebody else for it.' That side of the parliament sets the rules under which everybody operates. They set the rules for landline. Why don't we have a universal service provision already required for internet? These are the sorts of issues that should have been addressed. They're not new. Let me tell you, in 2013, when my house burnt down in the bushfire and all I could do was occasionally send text messages to my son in the hope that we'd be able to communicate enough for him to escape from what soon turned into an inferno, that was a big wake-up call. The Blue Mountains telecommunications showed its fragility at that point, yet here we are, eight years on, and nothing has changed. It isn't just mobile communications; it's also NBN communications. I'm sorry the member for Barker isn't in the chamber right now, because he is the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, of which I am deputy chair. We have a whole report ready to go, which has not yet been signed off. I confess that I was the person who held it up in March when my community was underwater. I could not attend a meeting in order to have that report finalised. But for eight months now, since the end of March, the member for Indi and I have worked collaboratively to try and get this report finalised with the chair. Yet here we are, in the last two weeks of parliament, and there is no sign of a meeting being scheduled for the NBN committee to release the report, which will deal with a bunch of the issues that are raised in this motion—the quality of NBN coverage and the challenges that people face. This is a government that goes slow on telecommunications. They gave the Blue Mountains a tower, at Mount Tomah. Great—mobile phone communication was all set for Mount Tomah. Then it was all a bit too hard, and a year or two later they pulled the tower away and sent it out somewhere further west. That's the sort of care and concern that's been given to a community that only two years ago went up in smoke. It's a community that is subjected to the worst natural disasters you can see, yet our telecommunications system is just as it was—not much better than two years ago or seven years ago. What we have is a government that has no sense of urgency on these issues. These are life-and-death issues. If Mountain Lagoon can't get a phone call through on their landline, they could miss finding out that they are surrounded by fire. The same applies to floods. The Macdonald Valley faces floods and fires. They describe their telecommunications as 'wholly inadequate', and they have worked assiduously with Optus to try and resolve the issue of getting the tower that they have been awarded. I can't even tell you how many years ago it was now. It just isn't happening. And it won't happen in the immediate future. Then you've got people like Nathan and Peter and Phil, from Blaxlands Ridge who say: 'We had Telstra but no coverage. We went to Optus, not much better, and you're lucky to get one bar. The internet is a joke.' They tell me that they've spent more than a thousand dollars on mobile reception boosters and that barely gives them enough coverage. They certainly can't hotspot. This is what people are living with, and the people who are responsible and could have fixed this are sitting on that side. It's just not good enough. The DEPUTY SPEAKER IPZ There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Australian Defence Force Careers 211 19:05 Mr LEE 109556 Berowra SER () (): by leave—At the request of the member for Stirling, I move: That this House: (1) recognises the benefits a career in the Australian Defence Force provides through skills, education, training and experience; (2) notes: (a) the Australian Defence Force’s objective to protect Australia and that those recruited to deliver on this objective put their lives on the line for our country; and (b) that Defence recruits the best and brightest and offers varying pathways for individuals to join and serve our nation; and (3) acknowledges the sacrifice our personnel and their families make for a career in the Australian Defence Force and our nation’s eternal gratitude for all those who have served past and present. As the great-grandson of a Gallipoli ANZAC who also took part in the charge of the light horse at Beersheba and the grandson of a Changi POW who served on the Burma railway, I'm pleased to speak about the contribution of Australia's Defence personnel. Australia's military tradition predates the Australian nation: claim your forces fought in the Boxer Rebellion, the Sudan and at the Boer War. The Australian Defence Force is one of the iconic institutions in our national life. Australians salute and respect the ADF, its personnel and its veterans. Some of the most important defining moments in our national life and our culture relate to the service exploits and victories and, yes, defeats, of the Australian Defence Force—places like Gallipoli, Beersheba, the Somme, Ypres, Passchendaele, Bullecourt, Fromelles, Pozieres, Villers Bretonneux, Tobruk, Benghazi, El Alamein, Greece, Crete, Kokoda, Rabaul, Darwin, the Coral Sea, Milne Bay, Borneo, Korea, Malaya, Long Tan, Nui Dat, Kuwait, Somalia, Bougainville, East Timor, Kandahar, Uruzgan and Tarin Kowt, are etched on our nation's consciousness. Great commanders like Sir John Monash, Sir Thomas Blamey and Sir Peter Cosgrove became national heroes and household names. A hundred and one Australians have been awarded Victoria Crosses, including people like Sir Roden Cutler, Albert Jacka, Keith Payne and Mark Donaldson. Around 102,000 Australians have made the supreme sacrifice in all wars and 226,000 have been wounded. Over 34,000 have been taken prisoners. At the last Defence census, around 60,000 people were serving in the ADF and about 17,000 in the reserves. Latest figures reveal that 19.7 per cent of ADF personnel are women and about 25 per cent of Navy and Air Force and 15 per cent in the Army, although the Army has the largest number of women in real terms. These people carry on the tradition of their forebears and their service represents the highest ideals of Australian citizenship. Every country needs a defence force of people who are prepared to lay down their lives for their fellow citizens. Defence service is a huge ask of any country of its citizens. Therefore as civilians we must be grateful to those prepared to serve and respect their service and sacrifice. Given the recent withdrawal from Afghanistan, I wanted to acknowledge over the last 20 years some 39,000 men and women of the ADF who have served along with diplomats, police officers, aid workers, civil officials and, of course, Afghan coalition military partners from more than 50 countries. I also want to acknowledge the 41 ADF members who made the supreme sacrifice, including Trooper Jason Brown from my electorate. The mission of the ADF today is to defend Australia and its national interests and to advance Australia's security and prosperity. Every day ADF personnel defend our values and the Australian way of life, supporting humanitarian assistance and disaster response efforts, and assisting in recovery efforts. In that regard, I want to place on record my thanks to ADF personnel who came to the aid of communities on the Hawkesbury River earlier this year following the floods. The presence of the ADF brought confidence and hope to communities whose homes and livelihoods had been decimated. Let me again thank the personnel from the 5th Brigade Infantry Company of the ADF, led by Major Mark Whitfield, for their leadership of the rescue and recovery effort. The ADF officers' extensive training to its members is essential to a modern defence force. The ADF offers nationally recognised qualifications and varying entry options like the Australian Defence Force Academy and Defence university scholarships. Reservists also receive world-class training in leadership, communication, problem-solving, combined with great benefits, including a tax-free salary. Military service has significant differences from civilian employment, and there are unique demands and sacrifices required both of ADF members and of their families. I want to acknowledge not only the service of ADF personnel but also the sacrifice by their families. Family relocations are regular, sometimes with limited notice, and they can be stressful. Partners' careers may be interrupted, with a commensurate loss of income, and with impacts on child care and schooling. These factors are perhaps too rarely acknowledged, and I'm pleased to be able to salute defence family members as well. I wanted to conclude with some words about current Australian defence policy. In September the Prime Minister, the President of the United States and Prime Minister Johnson of the United Kingdom announced the new AUKUS trilateral security partnership. AUKUS will see Australia and the other nations share more information in intelligence; foster greater integration of security and defence-related science technology, industrial bases and supply chains; and strengthen our cooperation in advanced and critical technologies. The first major initiative of AUKUS is to support Australia's acquisition of nuclear powered subs. Our trilateral efforts will enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability, with an initial focus on cybercapabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities. We are living in increasingly uncertain times both at home and abroad, and I want to thank the ADF for their service in such challenging times: we salute what you do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER IPZ Is the motion seconded? Mr Simmonds 282983 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER IPZ The question is that the motion be agreed to. 19:11 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise to speak in support of the member for Stirling's motion, which recognises the benefits of a career in the Australian Defence Force; the importance of recruiting the best and the brightest to serve our country; and the sacrifice—sometimes the ultimate sacrifice—made by those who do serve and have served our country. RAAF Base Williamtown is in my electorate of Paterson. I've visited it many times over the last nearly six years since I was elected and, indeed, I lived on the base for the ADF parliamentary program for a week, and last week the shadow minister for defence, Brendan O'Connor, came to visit and inspect the Williamtown RAAF base. I've also had the honour of visiting my local defence cadet squadron, the Maitland squadron, and I've been really impressed when I've been invited to inspect the parade and seen the skill of the fine young people that enrol and enlist in cadets. The ADF Cadets program is a wonderful personal development program for our young people, and there are more than 28,000 cadets Australia-wide across Navy, Air Force and Army units. In undertaking challenging and disciplined activities and programs in the cadets, these young people develop the capacity to contribute to society as individuals, as members of a team and, importantly, as leaders. They also develop a spirit of civic participation, and they develop the character that comes from service, which is really vital in today's world. Importantly, cadets also fosters an interest in defence careers, and it is vital that we do attract our best and brightest to a career in defence. On the world stage, when we are moving to shore up our defence capabilities, I want to highlight some of the things that stand in steep contrast to the wonderful work and leadership of our best and brightest young cadets, and they are, most sadly, our Prime Minister's diplomatic failures, particularly and most recently with the French. Young people often get into trouble for breaking up with someone, or leaving a job, via text. How about one of the most important diplomatic messages being sent by text? That was certainly clumsy. It was certainly costly. But, most importantly, to many Australians it was incredibly deceitful, coming from a prime minister. He further embarrassed the nation in Glasgow. Then there's China—another relationship the government must work hard to repair. In our region, we face the most difficult strategic circumstances since the end of World War II. Our region is being reshaped, in large part by the strategic competition between the US and China. We have a role to play in that reshaping, one that requires diplomacy and strategy far beyond the bungling of our present Prime Minister. We need to work with the US, the UK and our regional partners to demonstrate that we are serious about regional stability, and that is not just about military power but also about economic power and the health of our region, including the timely access to vaccines and the charting of a course out of this pandemic. At home, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide is about to get underway. After dragging its heels for two years, the Morrison government finally agreed in July to hold this royal commission. The very need for a royal commission is an admission that, as a nation, we are letting down our defence personnel and our veterans. Labor has long campaigned for this royal commission, and it is vital that the commissioners hear from the people who are central to this issue: serving personnel, veterans and, really importantly, their families, who've lived it all. Alarmingly, rates of suicide among veterans are higher than among the general population. Among male veterans, who make up the vast majority, the rate is 22 per cent higher. Among female veterans, who are in a minority, the rate is a staggering 127 per cent higher. While the royal commission is long overdue and welcome, the government should not wait for it to conclude to make these long overdue reforms. 17:16 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan I rise in strong support of the member for Stirling's motion and acknowledge his distinguished service to this nation in uniform before entering the parliament. Serving in our country's Defence Force is a selfless act, and we ought to acknowledge those among us who have dedicated themselves and continue to dedicate themselves to our nation as part of the ADF, whether that be through full-time service or in the local reserves. My electorate of Ryan has a strong military presence, as I've spoken about often in this place. It's home to the Australian Army's Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera, and there are many families across Australia that relocate to the Ryan electorate as a result of being posted to the Gallipoli Barracks during their years of service, which can be a difficult move for many. It's quite a sought-after posting, I have to say, because you don't get too many large Army barracks centrally located in a major city, and many choose to remain there with their families. As so many defence families would attest, it is a great place to live, work and raise a family, and I'm humbled as I hear many stories from defence families who feel so welcome in our community. Australia has a proud military heritage and it continues to attract the best and brightest among us, as it should, to serve the nation and contribute to the rich military history that we share with our region. Our unique defence pathways continue to attract young men and women from across Australia who want to go above and beyond in serving our nation. The Morrison government will continue to back our defence pathways and encourage young Australians to get involved. Recently, the Morrison government committed $11.5 million to upgrade the Enoggera Health Centre within the Gallipoli Barracks in my electorate of Ryan. This will develop the existing facilities and provide service men and women with the care that they need. It is these kinds of practical upgrades that support our defence men and women and ensure they are prepared to defend our nation. I also want to acknowledge, as did the contributor before me in this debate, the Australian Defence Force Cadets and the pivotal role they play in developing our young men and women and encouraging them to join the ADF. Earlier in the year I had the privilege of being joined by Assistant Minister Hastie, who is, of course, a former member of the Defence Force, to launch the Brookfield cadet unit in the electorate. There has been strong interest from my local community in developing another cadet unit. There's already one located at the Enoggera Barracks, but it has a significant number of young people on the waiting list. The Morrison government's commitment of $100,000 a year to start the new Brookfield cadet unit will mean more local families on the other side of the electorate will have an opportunity to join the cadets. The cadets, of course, play a vital role in teaching young people leadership and resilience, skills that are useful and important not only in the ADF but in life. Being home to the Gallipoli Barracks and to a number of military families, my electorate of Ryan also has many veterans support groups and RSLs located within it. These play a vital role in supporting local veterans and their families. Many of us in this House would understand the difficulties of being away from family and friends for prolonged periods of time, and it is much the same for our veterans—albeit worse if you're on operations. Whether they are posted overseas or across Australia, members of our ADF are often away from their families for extended periods of time. The other night I was speaking to a senior naval officer, who mentioned that their two years of shore leave had been cut short. They had had one year of shore leave, and now they're back out on operations. It's a story that's repeated many times across the ADF. As their skills are in demand, they're sent out again away from their families to serve our nation. But they do it with great fortitude. I want to particularly pay tribute to the Picabeen Community Association in Mitchelton, who last year were awarded nearly $270,000, as part of the Morrison government's Family Support Funding Program, to help with their targeted programs in engaging with the local defence community and their families. It's a wonderful program that I'd like to see more funding go towards, and I'll continue to advocate for them. Recently the Gaythorne RSL was awarded over $45,000 to upgrade their facility and further enhance the valuable role they have in the local community, serving as advocates to support our veterans. The BEST grants have also enabled the Moggill Historical Society in my electorate to publish their very own book, bringing to life stories of Moggill's World War II heroes. I had the privilege contributing to the forward of the book, and I wish the Moggill Historical Society the best of luck with its publication. 19:21 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the wonderful tradition defence plays in my electorate of Gilmore. I'm proud to say the New South Wales South Coast is home to HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell. HMAS Albatross, based at Nowra, is the Royal Australian Navy's air station, home to the Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm. HMAS Creswell is the Navy's officer training school, on the shores of Jervis Bay. HMAS Albatross has been an integral part of the Nowra community for nearly 75 years. With around 1,300 personnel on base, its local importance cannot be overstated. I am committed to working with the government and the Navy to grow defence jobs in our local area: jobs that have opportunities within aviation, joining a team that includes pilots, ground support crew or the engineers and technicians that keep our technologically-advanced aircraft safe and air worthy; jobs that look after the wellbeing of ADF personnel, such as doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists, scientists or chaplains; jobs that provide choices from a wide variety of trades, ranging from electronics, mechanics and carpentry to cooking and plumbing—all with good pay, mateship and job security in what could be the most rewarding job a young or mature Australian could ever undertake. I mention young Australians especially with regard to the gap year opportunity that is also available. I encourage all year 12 graduates, perhaps still pondering their next step, to consider spending an exciting 12 months in the Navy, Army or Air Force. You'll get paid for a gap year of meaningful work, while travelling around Australia gaining skills and making lifelong friends. Proudly, in current times, are the equal opportunities provided across all roles—promotion and recognition based on your personal abilities and attributes. The Australian Defence Force offers excellent career opportunities for women. When we talk about the outstanding contribution of women to the Australian Defence Force, I can't help but talk again of HMAS Albatross. The commanding officer of the base is Captain Robyn Phillips. Captain Phillips was appointed to the role in December 2019, having joined the Royal Australian Navy as a seaman officer in 1990 and graduating from the Australian Defence Force Academy in 1992. Preceding Captain Phillips in 2017, HMAS Albatross made history with its first-ever female commanding officer, Captain Fiona Sneath. Within any conversation regarding personnel, however, we need to also speak of the spouses and families and the less visible sacrifices that are made when supporting a career in the Australian Defence Force. Go to top click save turn I would like to bring to the attention of the House the name of Beck Rayner, a Nowra woman and presenter of the Military Wife Life podcast. Her webpage reads: I've been living this oh-so-complicated but beautiful life for 19 years. Yep, you heard me. 19 years of packing and unpacking, leaving friends and making friends, living with my military guy and living apart. 19 years of all the ups and downs and crazy turns that is military life. What a journey! The podcast celebrates, empowers and embraces the spouses behind the military members. Beck is passionate about building connections with Defence families in the Shoalhaven region and around the country. Podcast episodes talk to matters of support—spouses supporting spouses in their mutual military life. I recommend the podcast and the insights it provides. For Australian Defence Force personnel especially, you will be reassured you are not alone when dealing with matters of support. The benefit of having HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell in the Gilmore community is profound. Defence personnel and their families and children are totally embedded in our community. I am committed to working with the government and the Navy to grow Defence jobs in our local area. 19:26 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Along the Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea, on the memorial at Isurava, at the summit overlooking the valley below, there are four values inscribed on the pillars: courage, endurance, mateship and sacrifice. These are the four values of leadership entrenched by the Anzacs, embodied by the heroes of Kokoda, which live on in the men and women of the Australian Defence Force today. There is a long and proud history of service in the ADF that is felt in communities and families across our country, including in my electorate of Lindsay. A few weeks ago we marked Remembrance Day, a solemn day of reflection for our country, as we remember the service and sacrifice of the 102,000 Australians who have lost their lives in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping missions. We also recognise those who returned home to Australia, from theatres of war all around the world, bearing physical and emotional burdens. I commemorated Remembrance Day with our community at Memory Park in Penrith. One name marked on the memorial is that of Private William Starling. Private Starling was born in Penrith. He went to the local public school, was a member of the local rifle club and worked at the Penrith Post Office. He enlisted in 1915 and sailed to Egypt for training before his battalion was deployed to Pozieres, on the Western Front, in France. Pozieres was a strategically important position due to the advantage of the high ground to launch offensives. Australians captured Pozieres on 23 July 1916 and were subjected to relentless artillery bombardment. Private Starling was wounded the following day and died from his injuries, at 19 years of age. Private Starling was one of 6,800 Australians who were killed at or died of wounds from the Battle of Pozieres. Like so many others and so many to follow, Private Starling exhibited the values marked on the Kokoda Trail: the courage to travel to distant lands in conflict and fight for Australia; the endurance to be pushed to the limits and to keep going; the mateship, the spirit of camaraderie, that defined the Anzacs; and the sacrifice for our country. The Prime Minister recently joined me at the St Mary's Vietnam Veterans Outpost for a community morning tea with some of our local veterans and members of our community. A big part of the St Mary's outpost and why it means so much to local people and families is how it keeps people connected. Overcoming restrictions and lockdowns has been incredibly challenging, but they have continued to provide extraordinary advocacy and, importantly, mental health services for their members, to ensure they're getting the best support, particularly when many people felt very alone. It was wonderful to see people gathering together in person again at the St Mary's outpost, a testament to the hard work of our community going out and getting vaccinated. I send a special shout-out to the president of the outpost, Sam Vecchio, who works so hard for every single veteran in our community. It was a wonderful barbecue that we put on for the PM, with lots of sausages, eggs and bacon, which he enjoyed very much as he had breakfast with our community just last week. From our veterans to our local cadets, Lindsay has a strong, proud and ongoing commitment to the service of our nation and respect for our ADF. The ADF's contribution to shaping our environment— The DEPUTY SPEAKER IPZ Order! It being 7.30, I regret to inform the Federation Chamber that the time allotted for this debate has expired. I thank the member for Lindsay. I acknowledge that the member for Solomon was about to speak, and I thank him for his service to our nation. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. 19:30 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30