2021-11-23 1 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 23 November 2021

The House met at 12:00.

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker 1 12:01 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I move: That the honourable member for Fisher do take the chair of this House as Speaker. It's an honour and a privilege to speak in favour of my friend the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace. The member for Fisher is the son of Ian and Fay Wallace, a motor mechanic and a fabric importer. He was a trainee priest who became a carpenter and then a builder for 10 years before going to the bar and becoming Queensland's leading construction lawyer, practising for 16 years at the bar. He is husband to Leonie and the father of four adult daughters: Emma, Caroline, Rebecca and Sarah. One of the many things that COVID has robbed us of is the opportunity for family to be present on an occasion such as this, but I know his family will be watching these proceedings with justifiable pride. The member for Fisher is a great advocate for his electorate, bringing the concerns of veterans, businesspeople, commuters and retirees to the attention of this House. Since his election in 2016, the member for Fisher has been a significant contributor to the business of the House. In the 45th and 46th parliaments, he has been among the most frequent contributors to debates in this place. He has served on many committees and represented the parliament in interparliamentary fora. He is an experienced committee chair. He's served as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, Chair of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Mental Health, where he has been a significant thought leader and change agent. And he is the chair of so many international parliamentary friendship groups that I once asked him if it was true that he is the chair of the parliament friends of Burkina Faso. In his committee work, the member for Fisher has a reputation for being collegiate and very hardworking, with a good sense of humour and an almost endless supply of dad jokes. He has been a member of the Speaker's panel for the last two years, and in this role he has demonstrated a good knowledge of the standing orders and has developed a reputation for being firm but fair. The speakership is an ancient office dating back at least to 1377—a once-dangerous role. Seven Speakers lost their heads between 1394 and 1535. I can assure the House that, with his innate humility, the member for Fisher will not let the office go to his head. The Practice suggests that a Speaker should be a 'person of the highest calibre' with 'a deep-seated reverence for the institution of parliament' and 'a faith in democratic government'. The member for Fisher's reverence for and faith in parliament is evident in his maiden speech, where he reflected: It is testament to our Australian egalitarian way of life that a once-carpenter and the son of a motor mechanic and fabric importer can come to serve the community in this place. In Australia, there are no class structures; there are no hereditary entitlements to sit in this place; there are business people, farmers, bankers, tradesmen, unionists and labourers, among many others, who are privileged to take their seats in this chamber. That is a privilege I hope I will never take for granted during the time that the people of Fisher trust me to represent them. Andrew Wallace is a thoroughly clean-living man. He doesn't drink and he's against gambling. I have once, perhaps unkindly, referred to him in this place as 'the wowser-in-chief'! He is good fun, though. Like the member for Casey, he's also a revhead, albeit of a different sort. He can be seen riding his motorbike around Canberra and has ridden with the member for Wide Bay on more than one occasion from the Sunshine Coast to Parliament House. The member for Fisher is very much his own man. He is a deep thinker and a true parliamentarian. In my view, he is one of the most decent people ever to set foot in this place. He has never lost that pastoral concern for his colleagues, and he is known for randomly calling people to do a mental health check-in. The member for Casey has set a very high standard as Speaker of the House. He is a tough act to follow, but I believe the member for Fisher will serve this House with dignity, with good humour and with distinction in accordance with the traditions fostered by the member for Casey. It is with great pleasure that I nominate Andrew Wallace, the member for Fisher, to be the 31st Speaker of the House. The Clerk: Is the motion seconded? 12:05 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff It's a great honour to second the nomination of the member for Fisher for Speaker of the House. I remember more than one instance since meeting the honourable member in 2017 when he lent an ear to me as LNP Women state president, having been elected himself for only two years. He supported, he guided, he reasoned and he patiently offered no advice—just counsel and friendship. The honourable member listened, and, as we heard yesterday from many members in this place, that is the most revered attribute for a Speaker. Since I joined the honourable member for Fisher in this place in 2019, our friendship and respect for one another has grown. I have had the privilege of working with the member on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which he has ably chaired with confidence, grace, fairness, firmness, respect and dignity—and no shenanigans allowed! My fellow Queenslander is a good man, and there is no better member in this House to take the Speaker's chair. He is well respected across the chamber and eminently qualified and experienced as chair of three House committees, a member of the Speaker's panel and a former barrister. The member for Fisher has produced a flurry of substantial reports over the past two years into homelessness, age verification, Pacific defence cooperation, credit cards and gambling, domestic and family violence, litigation funding and more. He is calm, measured, respectful and intelligent. He is a stickler for solid building engineering. He is never seen around this place without a highlighter pen, and, sadly, he does love his bike lycra outfit! In his own region, he led public campaigns against his local council to stop a lucrative casino development and an inappropriate light rail project because he believed both were wrong for the good people of the Sunshine Coast. He has proven himself as a passionate local member in his community. The honourable member simply loves this place and this parliament. He reveres its tradition and revels in the standing orders. He has the fearless wherewithal required to keep us all in check to be the best we can be. There is no doubt that the member for Fisher will preserve the integrity and the dignity of the House of Representatives for the remainder of the 46th Parliament, and, hopefully, with the support of the Australian people and God willing, as the Speaker into the 47th Parliament. Some would say that the member and I are unlikely friends, but we always seem to find a place where we can agree to disagree in the most democratic of ways. That is why we are mates. He has all the right attributes for Speaker of the House, and, simply put, I'm sure you'll all agree he's simply a great bloke who will do the right thing by Australians and every parliamentarian in this place. I commend this nomination to the House. The Clerk: Does the honourable member for Fisher accept the nomination? Mr Wallace 265967 I do accept. The Clerk: Is there any further proposal? 12:09 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I move: That the honourable member for McEwen do take the chair of this House as Speaker. I firmly believe that there is no more experienced member of this House to take the chair than my friend the member for McEwen. We have heard much about the next chair of this House to follow the member for Casey. I think my colleagues would agree that the member for McEwen would be the best person to follow the member for Casey. Not only is he a fine local member of a periurban-cum-regional-cum-growth area seat, which gives him a breadth of experience of the Australian life; the member for McEwen has also served in this parliament in various roles. He has been a whip, and we know that is the most important job in the House. He has been a member of the Speaker's panel since 2012. He has also been the Second Deputy Speaker for the entire term of this government. No-one has been closer to observe the member for Casey than the member for McEwen over the eight years of this government. He is clearly the most experienced member of this House to take on the role. Having joined the parliament in 2013, I have witnessed personally a number of times that the member for McEwen has sat with individuals in this chamber to talk to them about procedure, to explain the Practice or to give advice about what is parliamentary and what is not parliamentary. He is a great source of advice to parliamentarians. I only have one hesitation, and that is that it would put another Carlton supporter in that chair! But I am sure the member for Casey thinks that's a grand idea. I believe the member for McEwen has served as a great Second Deputy Speaker for eight years in this place while I have been here, and I know my colleagues agree. I think he has a level of experience and a level of parliamentary maturity, which includes time in the Victorian parliament, which gives him an insight into other parliaments as well as our own. I think it is time that this House had a truly unique experience of having someone from this side of the House serve in that chair. As a friend and colleague of the member for McEwen, I am honoured to nominate him as Speaker for this House. The Clerk: Is the motion seconded? 12:12 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Yes, I second the motion and support the nomination for the member for McEwen for the chair to replace the much-respected member for Casey, who I am sure will be missed. I am a very new member of parliament; I have only been here three years. When I first came here, I had the honour of being sat next to the member for McEwen here in this chamber. At times, it was highly amusing, but mostly I came to rely on his advice and his help. It became clear to me very early on that the member for McEwen had an intimate knowledge of the rules of this House and how it operated. He knew that inside out and he was able to advise me, a brand-new member, in a way that was clear, easy to understand and really fair and reasonable—no bullying, no antics; just, 'This is how it is.' That is something to be admired and something we need in a position as important as the chair of this House. I think it's well known that the member for McEwen quite enjoys the antics of question time in this House, but when he is in that chair as Deputy Speaker—when he is sitting there, higher than all of us, presiding over this room—nobody can deny that he does that role with absolute respect, with fairness and with firmness. He brings to that role everything that that chair needs. There's no doubt about that. The member for Lalor mentioned that his seat is particularly unique. It is part rural, part metropolitan. He understands the breadth of the electorates represented here in this House, and he will have a good understanding of what is coming from each and every individual member as they rise to speak here. I know that he would give every single member in this House the respect that they are due. He is a good family man. I have met his wife. I know he loves his family, he loves his cars and he loves his food. That's all fine. Being a good family man and being the person that he is, we know, he has enduring patience and an amazing sense of humour, and he will bring to that role everything that we expect in a good chair. I do not for a minute hesitate to nominate someone I call a good friend, a good colleague, an experienced man and somebody who will do that position proud. The Clerk: Does the honourable member for McEwen accept the nomination? Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I do. The Clerk: Is there any further proposal? There being none, the time for proposals has expired. In accordance with standing order 11, the bells will be rung and a ballot taken. The bells having been rung and a ballot having been taken— The Clerk: The result of the ballot is: Mr R G Mitchell, 59 votes; Mr Wallace, 70 votes. Mr Wallace is declared elected as Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG I wish to express my grateful thanks for the high honour the House has been pleased to confer upon me. The Speaker having seated himself in the chair— 12:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Mr Speaker, congratulations! Congratulations on being elected by this great House to this great honour. I have known the member for some time, since he came into this place in 2016. He knows how to connect with people, this Speaker. He has demonstrated that to his colleagues but also, more importantly, to those he has connected with over his entire life. We can speak of his achievements, as others have in making the nomination, and I thank my colleagues for their recommendation to this House, but I want to talk a bit, and briefly, about the man I know who now occupies this chair. One of the things I've always admired about the now Speaker is the broad experience that he has brought to this place. He began working life as an apprentice carpenter and joiner, completing his apprenticeship, becoming a builder and starting his own business. Later, well into his 20s, with three young children—four daughters now—he completed a law degree at the Queensland University of Technology, becoming a construction lawyer and a barrister. Then he came here to this place as a member and now as the Speaker. He brings a life experience that I think will aid him much in the responsibility that he now holds. Of all the qualities that I know of the Speaker, he is a considered man, he is a very intelligent man, he has a keen attention to detail—we all know—he's passionate and he has a compassion in his heart and in his soul which so many of us who know him well have been touched by. He has known difficult times, tragic times and hardships in his life. He has also enjoyed success. I think this enables him to connect with people through all manners of their life experience. He has a sensitivity to it. He is a good man, he is a very decent man and he is a very experienced person. When asked to nominate one quality for why it's so important that he now occupies this chair, it's that the Speaker is a very fair man. He has a great sense of fairness about him. It is born of all those other qualities. That's why I think it has been right for this House to give him this opportunity to succeed. Of course, we all recognised the member for Casey yesterday for his fine work, but you, Mr Speaker, as you shared with us earlier today, are not Tony Smith mark 2; you're Andrew Wallace mark 1. I think you will bring your own values and your own experience to this chair and be able to ensure that you can continue that work of enabling all the members of this place to be able to realise through this place their aspirations for the people they've come here to represent. Mr Speaker, I know you're a man of very strong faith—we share that together, and we have on many, many occasions—but I also know you're a man very dedicated to reason. I think that you will blend these two things extremely well in this place, and I think you will move quickly to establish the confidence of this place as it's been invested in you here today. I could not be more pleased for you personally. I am looking forward to your stewardship of this House in that chair. I think it will set a new mark and I look forward, with all of the ministers and members of the government, to working closely with you. I know you will engage with all members on both sides of this House and in all sections of this House and, indeed, with the clerks and others you'll work closely with to ensure the good management of this place. So I'm pleased that you have ascended to this high office this day, and may God bless you in that role. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 12:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I rise to congratulate you on your election on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. Of course, we had a different candidate, but I do note that in this ballot there was no voter ID shown by anyone before we had to cast the vote! I said to your distinguished predecessor yesterday that whoever followed him would have considerable shoes to fill—and indeed you do, Mr Speaker. In just your second term it is a credit to you that, having been here for such a short period of time, you have risen to the highest office in terms of the parliament, the speakership. With that high office comes a responsibility to represent the interests of all members of this chamber. Of course, that is something your predecessor distinguished himself on—very much so. This is a place where we can make a true difference, where we can anticipate and shape a better future for the nation, where we can turn into reality the aspirations of the Australian people that we represent. Mr Speaker, you arrive at an interesting time in the history of the speakership. After today, we have another six days of sitting this year, and we will see what happens next year. It will be an important time for you to demonstrate the qualities which led your party to nominate you for this position. We will respect that decision and we respect the position of the speakership. It is important that you receive the cooperation of all in this chamber. On behalf of the Labor Party, we will endeavour to do that whilst seeking to hold the government to account, which is the job that we have. I said yesterday that the Speaker is like a good ref in any sporting contest: you want to watch the play, not watch the ref. It has got to be said that your predecessor was very good at getting the balance between being in control of the chamber at all times—which can be difficult—and ensuring that it was about nothing other than the capacity of this chamber and members to fully participate in debate. We wish you well, Mr Speaker. We don't know each other well, it has got to be said. I think we've said hello. I'm not sure we've had a conversation, but I'm sure that we will have. On behalf of myself, the Manager of Opposition Business, the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business and others, my door is always open and I'm always available to talk at any time, as previous Speakers have. I've spoken to your predecessor. We're going to be able to catch up for a beer, without any business, as a result of him leaving the chair. We wish you well, sincerely, Mr Speaker and, again, congratulations on behalf of this side of the House. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 12:44 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I want to begin by paying tribute to the service of the former Speaker the honourable member for Casey. The former Speaker is acknowledged by all of us to have been one of the very best to ever have taken this chair. His firmness, his fairness and his excellence in this role over more than six years is an example to all parliamentarians. Without a doubt, he is a tough act to follow. I look forward to hearing him speak in this place on behalf of his community once again in the months to come. I thank all honourable members on all sides for their comments, and I thank the House for its confidence in me. The responsibilities that you have laid on me today have a history that stretches back some eight centuries. Across all of those years, the heart of what it means to be a Speaker has not changed. To be an effective Speaker is to enforce our standing orders fairly, to manage the administration of the House in the interests of all and to represent this place and the will of its members in the world outside. I intend to give my all in pursuit of those ancient duties. I will respect the independence of the chair and seek to enforce the standing orders without fear or favour. I will do my best to manage the parliament's day-to-day operations alongside the President of the Senate, in the interests of all of us. I will strive to give members on all sides of the House a fair go. That is what pre-World War I Speaker McDonald described as the golden rule. When it comes to the evolution of the Westminster parliamentary system, many things have changed over the past 800 years, as the members for Leichhardt and Lingiari could no doubt attest. Unlike Speakers of the past, I have no need to fear imprisonment or worse for standing up for the will of this House. I can certainly promise all members that I will do my best not to lose my head. Most importantly, since 1901 this House and the 30 Speakers before me have developed a uniquely Australian approach to filling this chair. Unlike those in other countries, our Speakers do not resign from their political party. Outside this chamber, they do not withdraw from prosecuting the case for their communities or their vision for this country, albeit in a more measured way. I intend to be no different. I'm humbled by the faith the people of Fisher have twice placed in me. I want to assure them today that I will continue to stand up for them. In taking this chair, I want to thank my wife, Leonie, for the tireless support she has shown me over the past 32 years and, in particular, the last six. We have had our ups and downs like every family, but Leonie has been our glue through thick and thin. I want to thank Leonie, our four daughters—Emma, Caroline, Rebecca and Sarah—and our wider families, especially my parents, Ian and Fay, for their patience, for their patience in the busy months to come, and for their constant love and support. Regrettably, due to COVID restrictions, my family aren't able to be here today. I also wish to thank my long-suffering electorate staff, past and present, who've laboured so hard for the good people of Fisher. Where would any of us be without our electorate staff? The answer, of course, is: quite likely not here. I want to thank members on both sides of the House and the hardworking members of the various secretariats for working so constructively with me as chair of four parliamentary committees, and I would humbly ask that you show me the same goodwill and forbearance in this new role. I can't promise you that I won't make mistakes. What I can promise you is that I will execute my responsibilities fairly. It is important for whoever sits in this chair to not only be fair and independent but be seen to be so. After much deliberation and consultation with many of my colleagues, I have decided, at least for the life of this parliament, not to sit in the Liberal party room, in keeping with the practice of my predecessors. That was not an easy decision for me. I should also take this opportunity to thank the countless Liberal Party members who have helped put me in this House in the first place. Needless to say, the remaining period of this 46th Parliament is an incredibly important time for the people of Australia and for the institution that is the Australian parliament. At a time when many Australians have done it very tough over the past two years during this pandemic, emotions are understandably high, and that is never more true than as we inch closer to an election. Today, when social media is awash with misinformation, fake news and thoughtless vitriol, the responsibility lies more heavily than ever on us as parliamentarians to embody the very best of political debate. This House is our people's house. We give all Australians a voice and we have the power to choose how that voice is heard. We represent, but we must also lead. It is up to each of us to show that, whatever the global crisis or the political pressures that are brought to bear, we can discuss the challenges we face rationally and calmly. This place must represent conviction, but it must also represent respect, humility and kindness. As I take the chair, I commit to making it my mission as your Speaker to uphold all of these qualities in our debates across the vital months that remain to us. This is our debating chamber. I want Australians to be proud of our democracy and those that serve them. The competition of ideas is necessarily robust. I do not expect this House to be like a monastical library, but we owe it to the people of Australia that it does not descend into a political colosseum. The first two and half years of this parliament have brought unexpected challenges. I have no doubt that the remaining period of this term will have its own surprises in store. Once again, I think you all for the honour of being your Speaker, and I pray for wisdom and fortitude in serving you, whatever the future may bring. Presentation to the Governor-General 5 12:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Mr Speaker, I have been advised that the Governor-General will set a time for receiving you as Speaker of the House. The 00APG I thank the Prime Minister. The chair will be resumed at the ringing of the bills. Sitting suspended from 1 2 : 5 2 to 13:30 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 6 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS COVID-19: Vaccination 6 13:30 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Last week I met with pharmacists in my electorate and spoke to the Pharmacy Guild about the COVID vaccine rollout that pharmacists are now assisting with and the impact that this is having on pharmacists, as some of the core frontline workers responsible for COVID vaccinations. One of the pharmacists I met with, which was at TerryWhite Chemmart in North Adelaide, was doing her part to save lives, working very hard in administering as many vaccines as possible. At the meeting there were some serious concerns raised regarding current practices and requirements by the Department of Health, which imposed time-consuming procedures for the minimum amount of remuneration. Pharmacists only receive $16 for the first vaccination. If they're lucky and the person goes back for their second vaccination, they'll get $26. For the upcoming boosters they've been told they'll only be given $16. This is an enormous amount of work. They're facing lots of pressure. If we're serious about rolling out the booster vaccinations, we should look at remunerating pharmacists accordingly. General practitioners currently receive anything from $42 to $74 for a vaccination. It's my understanding that the COVID vaccination distribution has proven to be excessively demanding. I've been told it is laborious and overwhelming, which is not reflected in a mere $16. Speaker 6 13:32 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I must say, Deputy Speaker O'Brien, I was expecting someone else to be in your chair when I rose to speak, because I did want to speak about my good friend the new Speaker, Andrew Wallace. I didn't know this man before 2016, and that's not unusual in this place, but I have worked with him on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. In that time, we have produced three reports: Protecting the age of innocence, on online pornography; Shelter in the storm, on homelessness; and Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. I'd have to say his ability to absorb information, to listen to people—and I mean all people—and to give people a very fair and respectful hearing is exemplary. I identified him, in my own mind at least, quite early when I heard the member for Casey was stepping down from the Speakership, and I spoke to him at that time—I don't know whether I'm the first one who did. I'm so pleased that he has taken up the challenge and put his name forward as the Speaker. As somebody who worked in the building industry; has been a barrister and a lawyer; has raised a family; and has a child with profound disabilities, I think it gives him a very insightful and understanding view into the lives and challenges of others. I think he will be an exceptional Speaker. I wish him well. COVID-19: New South Wales 6 13:33 Ms 265990 Werriwa STANLEY (—) (): In the last six months, my community followed health orders to the letter. They lined up for hours to get tested because they were asked to on health advice. Now we find out it wasn't the health advice at all. Yesterday it was revealed the key advice from the Chief Health Officer of New South Wales was ignored on multiple occasions by the former Premier and the current health minister. My community has a right to feel aggrieved with these revelations. We were consistently singled out, as we had police on horseback and the Army brought in. It was clear at the time that measures should be consistent across all of greater Sydney. There was always a problem with the ridiculousness of determining risk based on lines on a map. Since June, more than 22,000 people in my community have contracted COVID and there were 175 deaths. My community lost loved ones, were in lockdown for 107 days, lost jobs and businesses and have increased anxiety. HSC exams were postponed and families' and friends' lives were turned upside down. We can only imagine how much quicker that outbreak might have been resolved if there were clear and reasonable orders that did not divide communities. How many people would be alive today? The tale of two Sydney's must come to an end. There is only one way forward for my community. Everybody has to be treated the same no matter what their postcode is. Domestic and Family Violence 6 13:35 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth Like many in this chamber and elsewhere, I'm looking forward to a restful 2021 holiday season. It's been a testing 2021 for many people—for small businesses, for year 12 students and for people with families and loved ones overseas. It has been an especially tough year for women who have been fleeing situations of domestic or family violence. The incidence of domestic and family violence has gone up measurably in the past 12 months, including in my electorate of Wentworth. I want to commend three local organisations who have done a huge amount of work in the past 12 months to help women leave their situations and find and start new lives, often with their children. There's Lou's Place, a community based refuge for women founded in 1999; there's the Women's and Girls' Emergency Centre, which every night supports almost 200 women impacted by violence and domestic violence; and there's the Run for Good Project, which supports 10 to 15 families to find a new home every week with furniture and other essential home items. That is why, this year, my Wentworth Christmas Appeal is asking for items to help these centres help women fleeing situations of great danger and great distress. So please drop off some items to my electorate office in Edgecliff, anything that will help people leaving those situations, and we'll get it to those centres. Electric Vehicles 7 13:36 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Yesterday the Prime Minister excused this government's woeful record on sustainable transport by claiming that hydrogen was a new technology. Well, I've got a newsflash for you. The Western Australian Labor government ran a hydrogen bus trial in 2004 as part of an international collaboration. Three buses covered more than 260,000 kilometres carrying more than 330,000 passengers. The truth is that there have been electric and hydrogen alternatives in transport for years and years and years. Technology hasn't changed. With this government, it's the falsehoods that come thick and fast. In 2019 the Prime Minister ridiculed electric vehicles; now he pretends that hydrogen only happened yesterday. The truth is that the man who, with every passing day, piles untruth upon untruth in a kind of dishonest lasagne is trying to bury the falsehood from 2019 with a brand-new falsehood. Thanks to eight years of coalition ignorance and inaction, we have a woefully low uptake of electric vehicles, which means we've achieved no emissions reductions in transport. It means we'll be a dumping ground for the motor vehicle dregs of the future. It means we'll continue to be vulnerable because of our liquid fuel security. And Australians will have no choice but to suffer from petrol price spikes. These are big, serious risks about which this government has done nothing. The urgent climate and energy challenge has not changed, but if you want to end the dishonesty and incompetence, you have to change this awful government. Defence 7 13:38 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan We are in a volatile global environment, and Australians want to know that our sovereignty is protected and that we are safe and secure from global threats. Yesterday the defence minister signed the AUKUS agreement, a historic agreement between the UK and the US that will build our defence capability and help us meet our global obligations. You would hope that keeping Australians safe would be a priority for anyone who comes to this place. Paul Keating is one of the most celebrated former Labor prime ministers. Those on the other side love him. They put him on a pedestal. He is a god of the Left. He recently made comments that outed Labor's global defence strategy—that is, 'It's not our problem'. Taiwan is not a vital Australian interest, he said. 'Why should we care about a nation of 25 million people?' is the Labor policy. What an unbelievable statement for the Labor Party to make! If we do not care about a democracy of 25 million people under threat, why would anyone care about our democracy of 25 million people when it comes under threat? It's reckless. Consider what they will do in a power-sharing government with the Greens—the recklessness escalates. The Greens released their defence policy and it was pretty simple: they'd cut the defence budget in half. The Greens in the balance of power, enabled by Labor, would halve the defence spend and leave Australians vulnerable. Well, not under the coalition government. The defence of our nation is important, you as Australians are important and we will always defend our nation and our way of life. Paterson Electorate: Newcastle Airport 7 13:39 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I am delighted today to congratulate Newcastle Airport, which has been named Major Airport of the Year by the Australian Airports Association for 2021. But this is the third time our airport has won this award—such an incredible achievement. I'm privileged to have Newcastle Airport housed in my electorate of Paterson. I want to acknowledge the terrific team that make up the airport, led by Dr Peter Cock, CEO of Newcastle Airport. Peter oversees the safe and more than satisfactory travel of more than half a million passengers a year. Peter and I have a long history, having worked tirelessly in campaigning for the Turnbull and Morrison governments to take note of the opportunities in the Hunter and support investment in our region, as is so often overlooked by those opposite. As many in this place know, I've made no secret of my support for the Code E upgrade for the Newcastle Airport. Well, we have delivered, and that will see many thousands of jobs—in fact, over 4,000 jobs—come to the Hunter, specifically through the Newcastle Airport. It is thanks to the airport, their staff and our hardworking community that we will create the jobs in the Hunter region. Thanks, Newcastle Airport, and continue to fly high! Sturt Electorate: Magill Village Precinct Redevelopment 7 13:41 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of joining members of two local governments in my electorate and members of state government at the launch, the opening, the sod turning, of the Magill Village precinct redevelopment. This is the final stage in this redevelopment. The first was undergrounding the powerlines, which all occurred about two years ago. Thanks to funding from the Commonwealth, state and local governments, we are now seeing the completion of that project with the $8 million street re-scaping along that precinct. I start by paying tribute and thanking the Burnside council and the Campbell town council. Mayors Anne Monceaux and Jill Whittaker were there, as well as the CEOs, Chris Cowley and Paul Di Iulio; and elected members and staff who have been very supportive of that project for a very long time. I'm pleased that at a Commonwealth level we've been able to contribute to it and that, more recently, the state government, through some of their COVID stimulus response funding, have put money in as well. It's going to be a great outcome for local businesses in the area and, most importantly, for residents and local families. The streetscaping and the improved amenity that that will bring to the area is going to be transformative for people that live nearby. It will change the way families can enjoy themselves locally on the weekends. I'm very pleased to be a part of a government that has contributed to delivering this excellent local project in my electorate. Mayo Electorate: Kinexus 8 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I recently visited Kinexus, a business operating in the seaside town of Middleton in my electorate. Kinexus is a national recruitment and workforce consultancy firm, connecting employees with employers in defence industry organisations across Australia. Basing Kinexus in Middleton not only is a wonderful success story for regional Australia but also demonstrates that, in today's highly connected world, location is not a deterrent in establishing a business with a national footprint. I toured the new office and had wonderful conversations with Toby and Tristan, who are Royal Australian Navy veterans; Mel, Andrew and Lee, who are Australian Army veterans; and Kelly and Kylie. The office has grown from a one-person enterprise, with Toby operating out of a house, to an office with seven on the main street. Kinexus is one of an increasing number of specialist businesses that are creating incredibly important jobs that encourage people to live outside of city centres. I have no doubt that the future of Kinexus is bright. South Australia is the defence state of the nation, employing 11,348 people and exporting $2 billion per annum, and is home to seven of the world's top defence companies. I thank Toby and his team for their warm welcome and wish Kinexus every success. Emergency Services and Australian Defence Force Sunset Showcase 8 13:44 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert It was a great honour of mine to attend last Friday night's Emergency Services and ADF Sunset Showcase at the Riverway Stadium. Troops from 1RAR and detachments, with emergency services personnel, paraded in front of their local community, putting on a display for the crowd of a proud garrison city. This was a welcome home and tribute event for our brave men and women who went to Afghanistan on that rescue mission just recently. This was probably one of the most dangerous missions that we've sent our soldiers into in recent times. So young, so proud and so dedicated these soldiers are. We sent them into the belly of the beast, a place where there was no rule of law and there were no support elements. There were not patrol bases or big FOBs anywhere. They went in to do a job, and they did it extremely well. They served alongside US marines, and 13 of those US marines were killed by an ISIS attack. Just hours before, soldiers from Townsville was standing side by side with them. This affected a lot of them, as it would, and they have missed their mates. They know that going into places like Afghanistan is tough, working so close to where the Taliban are, just in front of them. I want to say thank you for their service and thank you to them, and also happy birthday to the Royal Australian Regiment. Toomey, Mr Clive Raymond 8 13:45 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise today to speak about Clive Raymond Toomey and his family. Clive passed away on 26 September due to COVID. He was only 43, and his funeral was in Dubbo on 29 October. He was a dearly loved husband of Anna; a much-loved father of Clive, Monique, Jasmin and Lachlan; and a grandfather. I visited and spoke with the family last Monday. They were kind and gracious and gave me a mask with Clive's initials on it, which I am wearing here in the parliament today and all this week. Clive's family had to fight to be able to see their husband and father in hospital for the last time and to say goodbye after he passed. The government promised Indigenous people would be vaccinated first, but that did not happen. Clive was unvaccinated, but not by choice. The vaccines his community were to have were diverted away. Clive's family are strong. They took every step they could to get vaccinated. This government let Clive and his family down, just as it has let down communities around this country. Goodbye, Clive, a highly respected man in the western part of New South Wales. Forde Electorate: Spirits of the Red Sand 8 13:47 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's with great pleasure that I stand here today to announce that Spirits of the Red Sand, an immersive cultural experience in my electorate of Forde, has taken home gold for the best Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism experience at the 2021 Queensland Tourism Awards. Spirits of the Red Sand is still a relatively new addition to the Queensland tourism offerings. Launched at the Beenleigh Historical Village in 2017, it's a first-of-its-kind experience that provides a cultural awakening that aims to open our eyes to the history, beauty and vibrancy of the Aboriginal people. Over this short period, they have had some incredible success. In 2019 they won bronze at the Queensland Tourism Awards. In 2020 they were awarded Travellers' Choice by Tripadvisor and were voted the No. 1 must-do Queensland experience by RACQ. Since their win, plans are already underway for upgraded and enhanced sound and lighting facilities and a recording studio to create music tracks as part of the new retail gift gallery, featuring 100 per cent authentic Indigenous arts and crafts. Additionally, new signage and new experiences are also underway, with a focus on creating new food tours that incorporate their extensive bush tucker garden. I commend Spirits of the Red Sand for their ongoing efforts in sharing Indigenous culture with the wider community. Telecommunications: Scams 9 13:48 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Yesterday the minister responsible for consumer affairs, the Assistant Treasurer, stood in this place and apologised for the abusive text that he sent about his colleague the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy. It's good that the minister apologised for one abusive text, but he should also be apologising for the millions of texts that Australian consumers are receiving every day, as well as the phone calls and emails—the scams—that they are receiving on his watch and that the government are doing absolutely nothing about. On the government's watch, Australia has shot to No. 5 as the fifth-most-scammed country in the world. They are doing nothing about it. The atrocious thing about all of this is that none of it was necessary. Twelve months ago, a bipartisan committee recommended to the government the actions that needed to be taken and warned them what would happen if they didn't take these actions. Their inaction is costing Australians $33 billion a year. That is right—$33 billion a year. The Prime Minister is uninterested. The minister responsible is uninterested. In Scams Awareness Week he didn't even issue a tweet on it. The Prime Minister says he wants to get the government out of people's lives; he should get scammers off their phones. Bonner Electorate: Mental Health 9 13:50 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I am pleased to update the House that we are keeping up the momentum with my plan to deliver more mental health services on the bayside of my electorate of Bonner. The last time I spoke on this subject was in July after convening the Bayside Mental Health Working Group, which was attended by local mental health and community providers. My aim was to bring these important voices together and start a conversation around the services that locals are calling for. Since then, meaningful progress has been made, and I've met with the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the Hon. David Coleman, who has provided his support. I have also been meeting regularly with Brisbane South PHN to determine how we can fill the gaps. After being made aware of a mental health plan, they have been working alongside Feros Care. With the intention for it to be tailored to the youth of the bayside, last week I reconvened the working group. Over 20 local mental health experts and community providers heard from Brisbane South PHN and Feros Care, who presented this early intervention and prevention approach. Young people are the largest cohort of Australians experiencing problematic loneliness. Social connections are the greatest protection against depression and are proven to reduce suicidal behaviour. That's why responding to it by delivering accessible support services is of great urgency. The mental health of our community cannot be underestimated. I look forward to continuing to work with Brisbane South PHN and Brisbane's Bayside Mental Health Working Group. National Disability Insurance Scheme 9 13:51 Ms 133646 Dunkley MURPHY () (): Hannah Maynard is 18 years old. She lives in Mount Eliza with her mother, sister and grandparents. Hannah requires 24/7 care to maintain her airways, nutrition and hygiene. She has spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. She's nonverbal. She lives in a wheelchair. But Hannah's home is not suitable for her needs and it's not a safe workplace, so she can't get the support she needs from workers or use the equipment she needs to be safe. The house has an outdoor lift, which is the wheelchair access to the first floor. It cannot be used in the dark, in the cold, in the rain, in the wind or in bad weather, which we do have quite a bit of in Melbourne. So Hannah's mother carries her and her wheelchair up and down the stairs, at serious risk to Hannah and her mum, Karen. Hannah's bathroom is not adequate and it's not safe. Hannah deserves the dignity and the respect of being provided with what she needs to be safe, supported and included, and yet her request for her NDIS plan to include home modifications has been denied four times over the last five years and, most recently, one month ago. The Morrison government sees the NDIS as a drain on the budget. Well, my Labor colleagues and I see it as a way for the fundamental rights of vulnerable Australians like Hannah to be delivered. That's why I'll keep fighting for Hannah and everyone else who needs the NDIS to deliver what it was intended to. Remembrance Day 10 13:53 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Remembrance Day is a sacred and solemn day, a day for Australians to pause, to honour and to pay our respects to those brave people who served, suffered and died in war and armed conflict. This year I had the honour to attend two very moving local services in Higgins. It was an honour to lay a wreath at the service run by the Prahran RSL and to join my community in paying my respects. I say thank you to the president of the Prahran RSL, Rod Coote, and his committee, including Noel Sanderson, and those who attended the commemoration of Remembrance Day, providing our community with this important time to reflect. I also want to acknowledge the 13th Malvern Scouts and their very moving ceremony, which I also had the privilege of attending. Originally known as Armistice Day, on 11 November 1918, at 11 am, the guns of the Western front fell silent and the most destructive war the world had seen was over. In the four years of the First World War, more than 330,000 Australians served overseas and more than 60,000 died. Just over 20 years later, Australia would again be at war, and some 990,000 Australians served, of whom 40,000 died in conflict. This is a toll we should never have to pay again. As we have faced COVID, we know how important it has been for Australians to work together to defend ourselves against our enemies. Lest we forget. COVID-19: Vaccination 10 13:54 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On 18 November, the Prime Minister demanded that states drop COVID-19 vaccination mandates. Now it's time for governments to step back and for Australians to take their lives back, the Prime Minister said. Quite possibly the dumbest and most irresponsible thing that this Prime Minister has said, and that's saying something! Since the Prime Minister made his comments, vaccination rates in Australia have fallen off a cliff. On November 17, 136,434 Australians were vaccinated. Yesterday, that number dropped to 23,360. The Prime Minister's comments were aimed at the Queensland government. What's been the effect on vaccination rates in Queensland? The day before the Prime Minister's comments, 47,346 Queenslanders were vaccinated. Yesterday, a mere 5,956. The Prime Minister's irresponsible comments have resulted in dramatic falls in Australia's vaccination rates. The Prime Minister's comments will result in further delays of state borders being opened. The Prime Minister's comments also risk the health and safety of Australians. So those Australians that are looking forward to a holiday in the coming months or a family reunion, if it's delayed, if the borders remain closed, there's one person they can thank for that, and that's their Prime Minister. Best's Great Western 10 13:56 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I say congratulations. Last week I had the privilege to explore the Great Western wine region in Victoria. At the coming election, my electorate of Mallee will welcome Great Western into its constituency, along with the towns of Halls Gap and Stawell. Those who know Great Western will certainly be familiar with Best's wines. Ben Thomson, who is the fifth-generation owner, and his wife, Nicole, now run Best's wines and welcomed me to their vineyard to tour the historical cellars and gain a snapshot into the history of the region. Best's Great Western boasts a legacy beginning in 1866 and continues to this day, producing some of Australia's best wines. In this beautiful pocket of Victoria, Ben tends to some of Victoria's oldest vines, which were planted in the 1860s. They are among the oldest and rarest pre-phylloxera plantings in the world. They have earned themselves numerous accolades and awards, including Best Value Winery of the Year 2021 in the James Halliday wine competition. I'm proud to showcase some of their products in my parliamentary office here in Canberra, and I look forward to showcasing their wine, along with many other notable products from Mallee, at my magnificent Mallee events next year. Broadband 10 13:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Those opposite want to talk about technology. They've opposed electric vehicles, which they said would 'end the weekend'. They've opposed renewable energy. They don't understand the importance of batteries when it comes to storing renewable energy. But you don't just have to take those issues. Those opposite stopped the rollout of fibre to homes and businesses and replaced it with copper. During this COVID pandemic, we have seen how important reliable, quality high-speed internet is. It's not about downloading videos, as those opposite thought. It's about delivering health services. It's about delivering education services. It's about students being able to participate, as we've seen. And it's about businesses being able to have access to markets both domestic and global. Now, as it stands, Australia ranks 59th in the world for broadband speeds and 32nd out of 37 nations in the OECD. If Labor is elected, we'll expand and give access to fibre to up to 1.5 million additional homes and small businesses, 660,000 of them in the regions and 840,000 in the suburbs. We should always have done it right, done it once and done it with fibre. The SPEAKER 265967 In accordance with standing order 43, it almost being 2 o'clock, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 11 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE COVID-19: Vaccination 11 13:59 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm he introduced no-jab, no-pay legislation in 2015 and denied payments to families who refused to get their children vaccinated? Why does the Prime Minister pretend he is opposed to vaccine mandates when he imposed some of the strongest vaccine mandates in the country on children? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As I set out very clearly in this House yesterday, as Prime Minister I took the proposal for mandatory vaccines for aged-care workers to the premiers and chief ministers in June, and it was not until mid to late August that those mandates were put in place by those state and territory administrations around the country. The government's policy on vaccines in relation to mandates has not been a binary one. It has been a carefully considered one based on the best possible medical advice—on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, in fact. Indeed, a unified position was taken on mandates by the AHPPC, the medical expert panel which has guided us all the way through this pandemic. It has only had unanimous positions on mandated vaccines in relation to health workers, aged-care workers and disability workers. That is the policy of the Commonwealth government. Indeed, other states and territories around the country have gone further, on the basis, I assume, of advice received from their own chief health officers. But, I stress, the position the Commonwealth has taken on mandatory vaccines has been based on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and, indeed, was based on the advice of the expert medical panel, which comprises all the chief health officers of the states and territories and the Chief Medical Officer. For those opposite to falsely suggest that the government somehow has any truck with anti-vaxxing—it is false. In fact, we as a government—it is the policy of our government—have supported those mandates in very specific circumstances, with people working with very vulnerable people. It has also been our policy to allow the law of this land, under our courts, to enable businesses—where they wish to, exercising their rights—to exercise judgements about their own staff and those who consume their services. That is their right. We believe those decisions should be taken by those businesses, and that's the position we've adopted as a government. In relation to no jab, no pay: that is true—we removed an entitlement to a benefit for those who did not vaccinate their children who are going into childcare facilities. We have one of the highest rates of child immunisation in the world. So that is a good policy. We didn't pay them to do it. We didn't offer them cash. We understood that if people are receiving a benefit from the government, it is only reasonable to expect that individuals would comply— (Time expired) COVID-19: Economy 11 14:03 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Mr Speaker, my sincere congratulations on your election. My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are emerging from restrictions with increasing confidence about our economic recovery. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is driving that confidence by delivering on its plan to secure the economy and create more jobs for Australians? 14:03 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question. The member for Boothby and all South Australians in this House—indeed, I'm sure, all Australians—will be welcoming the fact that today South Australia is opening up under the national plan. The national plan continues to ensure we are building confidence in the reopening of Australia—a reopening that, from 1 December, will see students coming back to Australia. It will see skilled migrants, much needed in this country, coming back to Australia, particularly to South Australia. In addition to that, people and visitors coming from Singapore—already—and Japan and the Republic of Korea will be added to that very shortly on 1 December. Australia is opening up. Australians are looking forward. I am confident about Australia's economic future, but I am not naive to the threats that are present in the global economy and, indeed, that we're confronting here in Australia. And I know that we have to work hard to secure this economic recovery. It cannot be taken for granted. That's why economic management has never been more important, as Australians have worked so hard through this pandemic to secure one of the lowest fatality rates in the world, one of the strongest economies coming through the pandemic, and also one of the highest rates of vaccination to protect Australians going into the post-COVID recovery phase. We must ensure we secure that economic recovery, and that's why we are the party not just of lower taxes but of lower taxes that are legislated. And in just the last three months some $10 billion and more of tax relief has been provided and delivered to Australians, and particularly supporting small businesses with lower taxes, at 25 per cent. More jobs—there are 250,000 jobs right now out there, advertised for Australians to go and get those jobs and fire up that economic recovery that is underway. And, in particular, we're seeing more women in those jobs, and we've been seeing record levels of women's economic participation in the workforce. Skills—there are 217,400 Australians are in training right now for trade apprentices in this country. That is the highest level since 1963, before I was even born. And we have seen more people in training for those trade apprentices now, which will be supporting our manufacturing industries, which we're also backing in. We're backing in those manufacturing industries. We have a million people now, on the most recent figures, back working in the manufacturing industry. Under Labor, one in eight manufacturing jobs went. We have turned that around with our economic policies. This is the economic recovery plan that Australians need, that they depend on. It cannot be taken for granted. Economic management matters, and we will secure that recovery. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 12 14:07 Mr ALBAN R36 Grayndler ESE (—) (): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister in his last answer say that he didn't pay parents to vaccinate their children when that is exactly what his government did? 14:07 Mr E3L Cook MORRISON (—) (): The entitlement which is provided to Australians, which the member refers to, was not being made to those who weren't getting their children vaccinated to attend child care. That is the policy. That is the withdrawing of a payment, not the paying of it. The Leader of the Opposition seems confused about this. I know what the Leader of the Opposition's policy was over these last months. He wanted to pay people with a cash bribe to get vaccinated. That was the Leader of the Opposition's policy. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. This went to the Prime Minister's No Jab, No Pay policy and the fact that he, once again, before the chamber, misled the parliament in saying that he didn't pay people. That's why it was called 'No Jab, No Pay', because you were paying people. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, there are many occasions where the Leader of the Opposition comes to the dispatch box under the guise of making a point of order. It doesn't happen. He makes a political statement from the dispatch box, and he should be ruled out of order. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order and he is being relevant. Mr MORRISON E3L The Leader of the Opposition wanted to be the $6 billion man, by paying people for vaccines they'd already had. That was his policy—economic recklessness. Mr Burke DYW Point of order. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business would know that there is one point of order on relevance. What's the point of order? Mr Burke DYW On the order of the House, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 265967 Manager of Opposition Business, there is one opportunity to raise a point of order on relevance. What's the point of order? Mr Burke DYW The point of order is with respect to the ruling that you made, where you ruled that the Prime Minister was in order on the basis that he was being relevant to the question. That's what you ruled. And, to that ruling, I'm saying: how can it be, when a question has nothing to do with Labor policy, that you're now going to allow an answer like this? How does that happen? The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and the Prime Minister is relevant. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. The policies that we've put in place have ensured that we have had record levels not only of child immunisation; the policies we have pursued through the pandemic were not to pay people cash bribes, as the Labor leader wished to do, but we— Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— Mr MORRISON E3L He is very precious today, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister finished his answer? The Leader of the Opposition? Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister just made a very specific allegation, which was unparliamentary, against a member of parliament. If he wants to accuse people of that, he needs to withdraw. It cannot be allowed to stand. If that's allowed to stand then it will be a free-for-all. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It shouldn't come as any great surprise that the level of interjections was so great that I actually didn't hear what the Prime Minister said. Did the Prime Minister make an unparliamentary comment? An opposition member: Yes, he did. The SPEAKER 265967 Well, I'm not in a position—if the Leader of the Opposition would just resume his seat for a moment. If the level of interjections was so high that I simply could not hear what the Prime Minister was saying then it shouldn't come as any great surprise that I can't rule on that. The Prime Minister has indicated—the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat for a moment. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 265967 Are you making another point of order? What's the point of order? Mr Burke DYW In what you dealt with just then, you asked the Prime Minister whether or not he believed he'd said something unparliamentary. What I am putting to you, so that you know what was said, is that it was an accusation using a term that is a criminal offence. If you're going to allow that to stand, that is a very significant shift, a very significant shift. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business— Mr Burke DYW The use of the word 'bribe' has not been allowed in this House. If you're now going to shift that ruling and make that as a formal ruling, then do it upfront but not— The SPEAKER 265967 Manager of Opposition Business, as I indicated just a moment ago, I didn't hear what the Prime Minister had said. Mr Burke DYW That's why I'm letting you know what was said. The SPEAKER 265967 If the Prime Minister used an allegation of bribery, the Prime Minister should withdraw it. Mr MORRISON E3L I make no such accusation against any individual member. An opposition member: You did! Mr MORRISON E3L I said I make none now. I make none now, Mr Speaker. I was talking about his policy, and what a dud— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! The level of interjections is too high. If I can't hear what's being said— Mr E3L Mr Speaker, I'm happy to withdraw if it assists the House. The SPEAKER 265967 I thank the Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, let me be clear about what the Labor policy was. This Leader of the Opposition wanted to pay people to get vaccinations; he wanted to pay people cash. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one moment. I just want to make very clear that, if members of this House are wanting me to be able to rule on issues, I need to be able to hear them. So the level of interjections is far too high, and I would appreciate if those honourable members would conduct themselves appropriately. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L That is the Labor policy—to pay people who'd already had vaccinations. I can understand why the Leader of the Labor Party is so embarrassed about this policy. It was a fiscally reckless policy and it's why he can't be trusted with the nation's finances. The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question didn't refer to Labor Party policies, Prime Minister, and I'd ask you to be relevant to the question, please. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, if the question were about Labor Party policies it would be a very short answer, because there are not many out there, I've got to tell you. There's only one thing worse than Australians knowing what Labor would do; it is them not knowing what Labor would do, because they're trying to sneak their way into government. This is a very sneaky Leader of— The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister completed his answer? Yes. The member for Flynn has the call. Regional Australia 14 14:15 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is providing critical infrastructure which supports the economic growth of regional Australia, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW And one which I expect you'd be anticipating, Mr Speaker. Different Speakers have a rule as to whether alternative policies are to be allowed in questions. Standing orders make clear that ministers are to be asked about their ministerial responsibility. There is no way that they can be responsible for the policies of another political party. They are responsible for the policies of a government. I ask that the last part of the question be ruled out of order, as a number of previous Speakers have done. The SPEAKER 265967 In accordance with the precedent of, at the very least, the previous speaker, ministers can be asked about alternative policies. The question is in order. 14:16 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Speaker, it seems that you're having another quiet day in the office! Welcome to the job. One always acknowledges the work that the member for Flynn has done in promoting and fighting for such things as the extension of the Inland Rail from Toowoomba down to Gladstone. We know that is so vitally important to the people of the great city of Gladstone and also to the people in the seat of Flynn—as well as Capricornia and Dawson. This is vital infrastructure and it's the sort of thing the member for Flynn has stood behind—just like other infrastructure that is so vitally important, such as mobile phone towers. This side of the House has been paramount in making sure these people get vital communications infrastructure in so many areas. And then there is the Bridges Renewal Program to make sure we have a load limit that allows transport operators to get their product across the bridges to get them to markets to earn money for our nation. There is the Roads to Recovery Program—the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway—and rail infrastructure from Inland Rail to other rail across our nation. There are the dams—from Scottsdale to Rookwood Weir. This is vital infrastructure that builds our nation. There is Inland Rail. There is the Outback Way connecting Western Australia to the Northern Territory, through the seat of Lingiari, and into western Queensland. There is the Western Sydney airport. These are all vital components of what this side of the House has been able to deliver to our nation and give a real vision of. But it is also important to understand that sometimes there are people who believe they're above the law with the protests that have been happening lately against the export of some of our crucial minerals, especially the 200 coal trains that were delayed in the last two weeks in the Hunter. These people believe they're above the law and can stand in the way of the royalties that are earned by the state to pay for the hospitals, to pay for the police and to pay for the schools. The tax revenue that pays for the NDIS pays for so much of that social infrastructure that we take for granted and underpins the value of our currency. By underpinning the value of our currency, it makes sure we get terms of trade that do not start inspiring inflation. It is so important. I am absolutely pleased to see that a coalition government at a state level has made a dramatic stand against these people and said there is no longer going to be a $200 slap on the wrist—that some of them, by reason of these dangerous actions, are putting at risk not only our economy but the lives of people who work on the railway lines, and this may involve a term of incarceration. Infrastructure Australia 14 14:19 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the first chair of Infrastructure Australia was Sir Rod Eddington, who led Cathay Pacific and British Airways and was director of JPMorgan and News Corp? Can he also confirm that the government has decided, but not yet announced, that the new chair of Infrastructure Australia will be the retiring mayor of Tamworth, Col Murray, who has described himself as 'a fairly solid Barnaby supporter'? 14:19 Mr JOYCE e5d New England What is wrong with the former mayor of Tamworth? Does he not have quite enough letters after his name to be considered worthy by the Labor Party—a person who has been in the construction industry for 25 years; a person who was one of the leading mayors in New South Wales; a person who has underpinned the growth of one of our great regional cities? But, of course, what we see on the Labor Party side is that, once we start having someone from a regional area, the Labor Party doesn't like that. They are not quite good enough for the Labor Party. That goes to show in grand form how the Labor Party does not believe in regional Australia. The Labor Party doesn't want representation from regional Australia at a prominent level. In fact, the member for Ballarat, of all people, came and absolutely back slammed a regional person. Opposition members interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d What would you have said about Chifley—that his train wasn't big enough? What has happened to the Labor Party? Unless you are endowed with more letters after your name than the alphabet, they say that you are not good enough. The academic snobs now reside on the other side. Once we had a problem with them just being sneaky; now they are sneaky snobs. This is what we are getting. It's a new world order. So we can say to the people of regional Australia: if you get yourself a Labor government, get ready to get sacked, because they don't believe in regional people. They don't believe in the coalminers. They don't believe in people who've done an honest day's work standing in a private business, building it up and then going into community service as a senior mayor of a senior regional city in Australia. It's not good enough for the Labor Party: 'Oh, no; you've got to live in Grayndler if you want a job in this joint; you've got to come from Grayndler.' How am I going—alright? The S 265967 You've got 40 seconds. Mr JOYCE e5d I like this bloke more than the last fellow! What you are going to have if you get a Labor government is— The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, on a point of order, given that he gave himself up that he wasn't being relevant. He is not being relevant to the question. This is about the qualifications for a serious job, the chair of Infrastructure Australia. From a government that promised to reappoint Sir Rod Eddington to that job prior— The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is being relevant. Mr JOYCE e5d Completely relevant, Mr Speaker. We go back to the conceit of those people on the other side, who believe 'sandstone Sandy' is the only person who could possibly lead Infrastructure Australia. The Labor Party believes that a person who did an honest job— Mr JOYCE e5d You've already had one point of order. You can't have two. You should know that. The SPEAKER 265967 The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 265967 What's the point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, the point of order goes to the minister defying your ruling. He continues to just rave on about the Labor Party. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 The question was about the qualifications of the person that he has appointed, his mate, to chair Infrastructure Australia. The SPEAKER 265967 The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. The Deputy Prime Minister is being relevant. Mr JOYCE e5d I would just like to say that we will stand behind honest people; you look after the sneaky snobs. (Time expired) Drought Communities Small Business Support Program 15 14:24 Ms SHARKIE ( 265980 Mayo ) ( ): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management and— The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Mayo will resume her seat. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition: I can't hear the question being asked. The member for Mayo has the call, and I'll get you to start your question again. Ms SHARKIE 265980 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience. The Drought Communities Small Business Support Program has helped many off-farm rural businesses in my electorate who've experienced hardship caused by drought, bushfires, hail damage and COVID. This program is doing a power of good for rural businesses right across Australia, so why is the government ending this funding at Christmas? 14:25 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for her question and acknowledge the hard work that she has undertaken during last year's Black Summer events and the impact it has had on her communities. The government isn't ending these programs. In fact, we've put it as part of the new Recovery and Resilience Agency, led by Shane Stone. We're working through those contracts not just with respect to small business but also with the Rural Financial Counselling Service. We've gone out to those particular providers to make sure that the support that is provided to them is adequate in understanding the demand that will be required moving forward and understanding that the recovery time for these communities is different. Every community heals differently. We are working with them, through Shane Stone and his agency, and the Rural Financial Counselling Service, who have led this process for us because they have the experience and the corporate knowledge with which to run out to farmers but now also into small businesses. The agency will be making further announcements soon with respect to furthering those contracts and the resourcing, working across the nation, understanding that the demand shifts in some regions are different to others and how we can move some of those people into the regions where there is still demand. This is being handled as delicately and openly as we possibly can. I know that Shane Stone is working with people on the ground. We've tried to make sure that this has been a locally led recovery, of having boots on the ground and having people from his agency sitting around kitchen tables understanding exactly what you have been able to articulate: the demands that are out there for these people to get back up on their feet. I'm happy to make sure that I can provide you with further details specific to your counselling area. If there are inadequacies, I'm happy to make sure that we can facilitate that with Mr Stone. Taxation 16 14:26 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House of the Morrison government's clear and established record of cutting taxes for families and businesses and how this delivers more jobs for all Australians? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:27 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Bass for her question. Firstly, can I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to this very important position. The member for Bass has been a local mayor in her local area, a farmer and someone who's dedicated to the people across her community. There are more than 40,000 constituents across the member's electorate who are getting tax relief as a result of policies passed by this side of the House. I can confirm to the parliament that consumer confidence was up again today. In nine out of the last 11 weeks consumer confidence has risen. Business confidence today is higher than pre-pandemic levels. The number of job ads is more than 30 per cent higher than it was going into the pandemic. Female workforce participation today, despite the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression, is higher than when we came to government. The gender pay gap is lower than when we came to government. The unemployment rate is lower than when we came to government. One of the reasons why the Australian economy has proven to be so resilient and now has the momentum of the economic recovery is that this government has been cutting taxes for Australian families and businesses. The small-business company tax rate is down to 25 per cent, the lowest in 50 years. Business investment incentives have seen machinery and equipment sales at the highest level in 20 years. Income tax cuts have made someone on $60,000—a tradie, a truckie, a teacher or a nurse—$6,480 better off. I'm asked whether there are any alternative policies. We know that the Labor Party promised $387 billion of higher taxes at the last election. At the next election, they will again deliver higher taxes for the Australian people. The Labor Party, this time, will be a lot more cagey. This time, they will have to sneak into government. They won't come clean with the Australian people about their tax plans. But we know that the shadow Treasurer, the member for Rankin, took a $27 billion tax increase on family businesses to his shadow cabinet earlier this year, and we know that, when it came to the stage 3 legislated tax cuts, he did not support them. Only this side of the House will deliver lower taxes for all Australians. Prime Minister 17 14:30 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claimed he'd never used the phrase 'Shanghai Sam' in relation to former senator Sam Dastyari. Given he used that exact phrase 17 times on 11 occasions, why did the Prime Minister claim he had never used the term when that simply wasn't true? 14:30 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm not aware of the claim that you're referring to, and I'm not going to take it at face value from those opposite. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! I'll get the Prime Minister to start again. I couldn't hear that. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm not aware of the claim that the member is making, and I'm not about to accept claims at face value from those opposite. I'm not about to accept that from those opposite. The Labor Party thinks sledging, whining and whinging is a policy. That's not how you actually run a government. They have no alternative plans and they have no alternative policies, so they come here every day and engage in personal attacks on me as the Prime Minister. That's okay. Bring it on. If you want to engage in personal sledging and have a crack at where I go for holidays and if I go home and spend Father's Day with my family, bring it on. Bring it on if that's what you're on about. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! If I can't hear the Prime Minister, I can't rule on points of order. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance: there is no way that this is relevant to any of the 17 times that he used the term that he's being asked about. The SPEAKER 265967 I would ask the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L On the topic of former Labor Senator Dastyari, I remember those issues very well because it was former Labor Senator Dastyari who stood up with an official— The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Wills! Mr MORRISON E3L Sorry? The SPEAKER 265967 I was correcting the member for Wills and cautioning him. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. I remember it was former Labor Senator Dastyari who disgraced himself by undermining Australia's sovereignty in relation to a foreign country. That's what former Senator Dastyari did, and he had to leave this place in disgrace. We have seen so many other Labor members, whether at a state level or former Labor members of this place, up on charges, off to jail. They've got enough people in Silverwater prison now to start a branch of the Labor Party there. That's what's going on with the Labor Party, and you can't trust Labor with money, because they're always after yours. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Order! Once again, the level of interjections is too high. Taxation 17 14:33 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's substantial tax-cutting agenda supporting Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic, and how is it strengthening the Australian economy's capacity to rebound from its economic effects? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:34 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Longman for his question and acknowledge his experience running his own small business. Across his electorate, 65,000 people are getting tax relief as a result of policies supported by this side of the House, and there are 14,000 small businesses in the electorate of Longman that are eligible for the expanded instant asset write-off. One of those businesses is Taipan hoses, an irrigation company in Caboolture, which has used the expanded instant asset write-off to buy forklifts, stackers and hydraulic hose-testing equipment. That is just one example of thousands of examples across electorates in this country of businesses growing and investing in themselves in order to employ more Australians and to capitalise on the investment incentives that we have provided. This side of the House believes in lower taxes. It is a key policy and philosophy of the coalition to encourage aspiration and reward efforts and allow Australians to keep more of what they earn. That includes the $300 billion of legislated income tax cuts that we have moved through this parliament, including a significant structural reform, abolishing a whole tax bracket for 37c in the dollar and the small-business tax cuts that now see a company tax cut of 25c in the dollar for businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million, at the lowest level in 50 years. That has seen these small businesses able to weather the storm of the pandemic. There is $5 billion of tax relief for small businesses this year and next. Small and medium-sized businesses employed an additional 600,000 people between April last year and September this year. That is 1,300 a day. Our business investment incentives have helped see an increase in machinery and equipment sales, to be the strongest in 20 years. This is what lower taxes are helping to do across the Australian economy: create jobs, reward effort and encourage aspiration. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, because those opposite don't believe in lower taxes. Those opposite only promise higher taxes. That's what they took to the Australian people—higher taxes on your superannuation, higher taxes on your retirement savings, higher taxes on your income and higher taxes on housing. That is what the Labor Party took to the Australian people. They said to the Australian people, 'If you don't like our policies, don't vote for us.' This time around, the Labor Party are being a lot more cagey. They are not coming clean with the Australian people. They are being a lot sneakier. The reality is— (Time expired) Prime Minister 18 14:37 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said reports that he had tried to invite Brian Houston to the White House were gossip. Why would the Prime Minister say that when it just wasn't true? 14:37 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I've corrected all those matters on the record, as those opposite are fully aware. Australian Defence Force 18 14:37 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's international partnerships will provide the Australian Defence Force with the capability and edge to protect Australians in the changing geostrategic environment? Is the minister aware of any alternatives? 14:38 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his service to our country and his very strong support of those Defence Force personnel who are resident and working within the Lavarack Barracks and the Townsville community. He's a staunch advocate for our veterans and he should be proud of that advocacy. This government has taken decisions over the course of the last few years which will stand our country in the best possible stead in a very changing and uncertain Indo-Pacific region. This has been described as a period not dissimilar to the 1930s. We are worried about the build-up of military power and might by others in the region. We know that there has been a very significant change in the stance of China in the Indo-Pacific towards partners and in the East China Sea and the South China Sea as well. This government has taken a decision in relation to AUKUS which is more significant than any military decision taken by this country since the end of the Second World War. This decision stands our country in good stead and gives us the best ability to keep our country safe today and into the decades ahead. At the time of the AUKUS announcement 68 days ago, the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition rushed out, and the Leader of the Opposition could not have been any stronger in his support, at least at that time, for the AUKUS announcement. So it's taken 68 days, and now we see Senator Wong sent out today with a speech that could have been written by Paul Keating. It could have been written by Paul Keating. It was a sop to old kooky Keating. The reality is that Labor has always been weak on national security and border protection. Mr Speaker, if you want to look at what they would do in government, look at what they did in opposition. This guy was the architect, along with Kevin Rudd, of the unsuccessful boat policy that resulted in people dying and children going into detention. When it comes to the defence of our country, I can assure this weak Leader of the Opposition that you don't deter an adversary and you don't maintain peace in our region from a position of weakness. That is what he is advocating. The Australian public know him very well. They know him to be weak on national security. I note the Chinese acting ambassador has been attacking Australian values, and Senator Wong today doesn't stand up for those values; instead, she folds in a fit of weakness. This Leader of the Opposition is leaving no Australian uncertain as to what their view is of him. He is weak when it comes to national security. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 19 14:41 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's government has set up a system with bipartisan support to share individual vaccination records with the states to make COVID passports work. Why does the Prime Minister then claim to oppose state vaccine mandates when his government provides a system for states to enforce them? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I would have thought the shadow minister would be familiar with the national plan. The national plan provided, as vaccination levels were rising—indeed, when they were below 80 per cent—that there is a need for restrictions to be in place. We work closely with the states and territories to ensure the vaccination records that we keep at a federal level could support state government policy, particularly that which was being done in accordance with the national plan. We have been working together with states and territories to implement that plan, which today means that South Australia is opening. It means that in New South Wales, in Victoria and here in the ACT people can come and they do not have to quarantine for two weeks. It has enabled us to bring students and skilled migrants back. We're opening up to Japan, Korea and Singapore. We are implementing the national plan and we have worked with the states to help the implementation of that national plan. I am puzzled, therefore, why the shadow minister is unaware of those elements. Manufacturing 19 14:42 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Can the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is securing our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic by backing our local manufacturers? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:43 Mr TA 231027 Hume YLOR (—) (): Mr Speaker, congratulations. Thank you to the member for Robertson for her question. She knows how important manufacturing is to the economy and to her economy on the Central Coast, where there are 550 manufacturers employing 4,000 people across the Central Coast. She also understands how important manufacturing is to the recovery from COVID. That is why we committed $1.3 billion to the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. We are backing our manufacturing sector in a number of areas. One of those is clean energy and recycling. Just last week we committed $44 million to support manufacturers to develop initiatives and facilities that will give them a real competitive advantage in the coming years. That includes $20 million for Pact Group, which has a site—one of 13 sites across Australia—at Somersby on the Central Coast. Just last week, I was lucky enough to visit one of their other sites, at Villawood, where they are converting and recycling plastics into high-quality products. This project will provide 900 jobs and recycle 125,000 tonnes of plastics into high-quality projects. This is all about taking new technologies and working to scale up operations to provide great products for all Australians. There are now 80,000 more people working in manufacturing than at the beginning of the pandemic. That is a million Australians working in manufacturing. But I am asked about alternatives. The alternative is what we saw when those opposite were in power: one in eight manufacturing workers lost their jobs. That was 128,000 Australians who lost their livelihoods. And, of that 128,000, 110,000 were apprentices. One in five apprentices lost their jobs, and that was a result that followed on from those opposite putting in place a carbon tax. We saw decimation of places like Kurri Kurri—450 Australians lost their jobs at Kurri Kurri. Now we are building a gas generator there, and those opposite cannot decide whether or not they are in favour of it. Some are; some aren't. Who knows which way the Leader of the Opposition goes? With 'each-way Albo', we never know where he stands. The SPEAKER 265967 Order! The minister will withdraw that. Mr TAYLOR 231027 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. We never know which way they're going to go, but one thing we can be sure of is that they're always going to love a carbon tax that destroys jobs. We will support manufacturing in this country every day of the week. Workplace Relations 19 14:46 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Does the minister believe that two workers in regional Australia who do exactly the same job should get the same pay? The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the House, on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, I just query whether or not that really is a question to the Minister for Industrial Relations, as opposed to the minister for regional development. It goes to pay and conditions that don't apply just to regional areas but to awards that would apply to workers regardless of where they are in the country. That question should be directed to a different minister. The SPEAKER 265967 I'll just get you to pause for a moment there. I ask members on my left, particularly when I am being asked on a point of order, if they could give me an opportunity to actually hear the points that are being raised—I would appreciate that. Would you mind stating that again, please, Leader of the House? Mr Dutton 00AKI It's a great pleasure, Mr Speaker. That was a question in relation to industrial relations matters, and it should be directed to the appropriate minister. It wasn't a question about a specific award within a regional area; it was in relation to an award that would apply economy wide and worker wide across the economy. It was a cute way of dressing up that element, but that's really what the question went to, and it hasn't been appropriately directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business—when I can hear! Order! Mr Burke DYW Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the point of order, the implications of this ruling are huge. What the Leader of the House is effectively saying— Government members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW Careful what you wish for. Just listen to this.What the Leader of the House is saying is that when there is a trade deal, only the minister representing the minister for trade will be allowed to answer the question. Where there is something resulting from an international agreement, only the minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be allowed to make a response. And there are all the answers that we have previously had on the relevance of a trade agreement, from the minister for education, the minister for agriculture and all the other people who come with a stakeholder interest, even though they don't have policy carriage. If that is all going to be ruled out—that's what the Leader of the House is asking for—I am recommending that the wiser course is to allow the question to stand. The SPEAKER 265967 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I am going to allow the question, because it does refer to workers in regional Australia, and I call upon the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. 14:49 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the honourable member for his question. It was, let's just say, lacking detail. To try to give the proper respect to an answer, I am only too happy to refer it to the appropriate minister who deals with that category within this House, and that is Minister Fletcher. 14:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for referring the question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations in this House, who is, after all, the right person to ask a question about Labor's same job, same pay bill, and Labor's policy, which, interestingly, is an amendment to the policy that was introduced in the Fair Work Act under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. The enterprise bargaining framework set out in that act does not require that every person in a workplace be paid exactly the same. What it instead requires, if there is to be an enterprise agreement, is that persons who are covered by that agreement are better off than they would be if they were under the award. But we've heard highly misleading claims from the Labor Party. Their explanatory memorandum for this bill says, 'There is a new business model based on a labour hire service provider that has distorted the labour market and undermined the enterprise bargaining system.' That sounds very serious, doesn't it? That sounds extremely serious. The only problem is that it's just factually wrong. This claim that there is a growth in labour hire is not true. The statistics are very clear. The facts are that the percentage of Australians who are employed through a labour hire firm is less than two per cent and has been so for a decade. The fundamental premise of Labor's bill is absolutely misplaced. Why are they doing it? Because, of course, every one of their preselections depends upon the approval of the union bosses. So, when the union bosses click their fingers, this lot jump to attention. The fact is that just 14.3 per cent of Australians are members of a union. That's down from 40 per cent in 1992. The SPEAKER 265967 The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW A point of order on direct relevance: this question— The SPEAKER 265967 Has the minister finished his answer? Mr L6B I have indeed. The SPEAKER 265967 Thank you. The Action Plan for Critical Technologies 21 14:52 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Science and Technology. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's investment in our critical technologies plan is creating jobs and supporting our economic recovery as we come back from the COVID-19 recession? 14:52 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to the speakership. And can I thank the member for Curtin for her question and acknowledge her tremendous support for our tech industry in Western Australia and also across Australia. Last week the Prime Minister released our Blueprint for critical technologies. This blueprint sets out our vision for protecting and promoting critical technologies that are in our national interest, and the economic opportunities for our industries. The four goals set out under the blueprint are pretty straightforward. Firstly, we must ensure that we have access to and choice in critical technologies and systems that are secure, reliable and cost-effective. Secondly, we must promote Australia as a trusted and secure partner for investment, research, innovation and adoption of critical technologies. Thirdly, it's essential we maintain the integrity of our research, science, ideas, information and capabilities to enable Australian industries to thrive and maximise our sovereign IP. And, fourthly, we must support regional resilience and shape an international environment that enables open, diverse and competitive markets, and secure and trusted technological innovation. As part of our plan, the Prime Minister, Minister Hume and I announced our government would be investing over $110 million to secure Australia's quantum future. Our government is committed to supporting the commercialisation, adoption and use of this incredibly important technology to create jobs, support Australian business and keep Australians safe. It is estimated that the development of quantum technologies in Australia can deliver Australia up to $4 billion in economic value and create some 16,000 new jobs by 2040. Proudly, the Australian technology industry has emerged as one of our country's most significant employers, creating $167 billion in economic output per year and employing more than 860,000 Australians, according to new research released by the Tech Council of Australia. Looking now to a new jobs frontier, space technologies are relied upon by Australians each and every day when navigating the systems in their cars and on their phones, by farmers identifying the health of their crops, and also by emergency workers for planning and responding to bushfires. We have a national mission to triple the size of the space sector in Australia to $12 billion and create up to 20,000 new jobs by 2030, and we are up to that mission. Workplace Relations 21 14:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. These two payslips are from two train drivers at Pacific National's coalmine in the Bowen Basin who do the same job. One is employed by Pacific National and one by a labour hire firm. The train driver employed by the labour hire firm is a casual but still earns around $300 less than his colleague every week. What action will the government take to stop this, which is hurting workers in regional Australia and is one of the measures leading to the reduction in real wages across the economy? 14:56 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I thank the honourable member for his question. Yet again, it's very sneaky. He should really address the question to the appropriate minister with carriage of this. I invite Minister Fletcher to— The SPEAKER 265967 The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Sydney! Members on my left! The minister representing the minister for industry has the call. 14:56 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for referring this question to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations in the House. We are asked: what are we going to do about employment in regional Australia? We are going to boost economic growth and make it easier for people to be employed. That's what we are going to do. The SPEAKER 265967 The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 This was a specific question with a real-world example about a labour hire worker doing the same job as someone else at Pacific National being paid $300 less— The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will state the point of order. Mr Albanese R36 My point of order is that the minister doesn't get to ask himself a question and then answer it. That's what he did. Government members int erjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Just a moment, Leader of the Opposition. It's not helpful for those on my right to be yelling in my ear. The minister will resume his seat for a moment. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, if he wants to take a point of order he needs to state the point of order. Mr Albanese R36 My point of order is: is it in order for the minister, when he came to the dispatch box— Mr Albanese R36 Well, when I do—sit down! It's a point of order. Sit down! The 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House is raising a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 I had the call! The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's clear that the Leader of the Opposition is making a point of order on relevance, even though he doesn't want to say that. Mr Albanese R36 No! Mr Dutton 00AKI Well, he refuses to state, in that case, what standing order he is referring to, in which case he is out of order. He should be ruled out of order because the minister has made a statement which is completely in order. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition, it would assist the chair, when you want to raise a point of order, if you state the point of order. Mr Albanese R36 The point of order goes to standing order provisions for questions without notice, standing order 99. In which case, I asked the question and what occurred was the minister stood up and then asked himself a question and then proceeded to answer the question that he'd asked himself. That is not in order. The SPEAKER 265967 The minister is in order. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER L6B I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for referring this question to me, because it goes to a very important issue about the completely fallacious presentation we are hearing from the other side of the House about this so-called 'same job, same pay' issue, which is essentially a made-up issue. There is no barrier under Labor's own Fair Work Act to an enterprise agreement. The requirement under Labor's own Fair Work Act is that you can be employed under an enterprise agreement as long as you are better off than under an award. If that was good enough for Labor under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, we need to understand what has changed. The fact is that the percentage of people employed on a labour hire basis is less than two per cent, but the people who are really unhappy about it are the union bosses. Only 14 per cent of Australians are now union members, down from 40 per cent. What we on this side of the House care about— The SPEAKER 265967 The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? No, the minister has completed his answer. Apprenticeships 22 15:01 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Congratulations, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's economic plan is supporting Australian apprentices today to get into the high-quality, well-paying jobs of tomorrow? Why is it so important that we invest in the skills of young Australians, and how does this contrast with previous approaches? 15:02 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and recognise all the hard work she's doing to support the apprentices in her area, noting there are 1,750 apprentices right now working in Lindsay, the highest number ever. That's what the member for Lindsay is delivering for her area. Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting many of them at Baker & Provan earlier in the year. Prime Minister, I believe you may have also had that opportunity. It is a great achievement for the Penrith community, but it is also a great achievement for the member for Lindsay in what she is doing. It is important to the nation, especially as we build out the Western Sydney airport or help manufacture the mining equipment so urgently needed in the Hunter. But Western Sydney is not the only area that is enjoying a golden era of trade apprentices. I am pleased to advise the House that the Morrison government's economic plan has now delivered the highest number of Australian trade apprentices on record—217,400 trade apprentices right now. In fact, the numbers from July of those training right now are the highest since records began in 1963. The Morrison government is the best friend that apprentices have ever had. Indeed, in the face of the greatest shock since the Great Depression, the Morrison government has secured a generation of Australian trade apprentices, with $6.4 billion in funding this year, on top of $5.9 billion last year. Our supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy provided $1.9 billion to over 74,000 employers. Our $3.9 billion Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage support has surged commencements to these highest levels. In fact, over 79,000 Australians have commenced an apprenticeship or a traineeship in the last 12 months alone. And we're not done there yet. We're backing it in with our $716 million completing apprenticeship commencements wage support. Commonwealth funding to the states is at the highest level ever to back in the skills work the states are doing, whether it's funding their TAFEs or their other RTOs. Mr Speaker, you know how important apprenticeships are. You started as an apprentice after your monastic sojourn. But compare that to the $1.2 billion ripped out by those opposite between 2011 and 2013 in nine separate cuts. Compare that to 111,000 people dropping out of traineeships and apprentices, the drops in numbers from 2012 to 2013 because of the decisions those opposite made. Australian apprentices will always have a far better deal under the Morrison government. Cost of Living 23 15:05 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Petrol prices have increased by as much as $900 for a typical family driving a standard car in a year, while real wages have fallen by $700. Can the Prime Minister confirm it has become harder for Australian families to make ends meet under his almost decade-old government? 15:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Headline inflation under our government has increased by 1.8 per cent over the time we have been in government. Under the Labor Party it was 2.7 per cent. Electricity prices under our government have risen on an annual average basis by 0.3 per cent. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one moment. I'd just ask members of the House to please keep the level of interjections down. Thank you. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L As I said, electricity prices under our government, since we were elected, have risen on average by 0.3 per cent a year. Under the Labor Party, they rose by 12.9 per cent over their time. In most recent years, over the last three years, electricity prices have fallen by 3.2 per cent on average each year. Under the Labor Party, in their last three years, they were rising, as I said, by around 12.9 per cent each and every year. On fuel prices, in the last three years, they have increased by 1.2 per cent on average per year. Under the Labor Party, they increased by 2.6 per cent each and every year. And on average, over our term of government, they have increased by 0.4 per cent, and, under the Labor Party, as I said, by 2.6 per cent. What I know about petrol prices is this: the Labor Party want to change the fuel emissions standards, which is an increase in the petrol price for consumers. The Labor Party has a sneaky petrol tax, a sneaky petrol tax where they want to jack up the price of petrol— The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker; it goes to relevance. The question asked about petrol prices going up by $900 in the last year. It didn't invite the Prime Minister to make up policies from those on this side of the House. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. I would ask the Prime Minister to remain relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm talking about what the impacts on petrol prices might be—what they might be—and what I can tell the House and what I can tell Australians is that our policies will not be changing the fuel emissions standards that will put a sneaky petrol tax on Australians. Our policies will not do that. The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Yes, Mr Speaker. He is now defying your ruling. The SPEAKER 265967 No. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is on point. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition, with his constant interjections and coming to the dispatch box, is sensitive on the issue of sneaky taxes. I can understand why he's sensitive. The carbon tax—no, it wouldn't happen under a Labor government, would it? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will return to the question at hand. Mr MORRISON E3L Under our government, with the economic policy settings that we have put in place—the excellent fuel security initiatives that have been put in place by the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction and the excellent policies to secure the refinery operations that we have up in Queensland and securing those down in Victoria as well—we are protecting jobs in refineries, in aluminium smelters, in the resources industry and in manufacturing. They are policies that we are putting in place. (Time expired) Waste and Recycling Sector 24 15:10 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House how the coalition government is backing in Australian jobs, protecting our environment and helping our economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic through our unprecedented recycling agenda? 15:10 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Congratulations to you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a question from my friend the member for Parkes. We share a boundary several hundred kilometres long in western New South Wales, and I was pleased to join the member for Parkes to look at some recycling infrastructure a couple of weeks ago. Recycling and the investment it brings are very much a part of the Morrison government's economic recovery. Our recycling revolution is delivering new jobs, new manufacturing processes, and, most importantly, it is protecting the environment. This billion-dollar transformation of the waste and recycling sector is diverting over 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill and creating more than 10,000 new Australian jobs over the next 10 years. Right now, we are seeing new recycling plants being built; new optical sorters being installed to reduce contamination; glass-washing facilities creating crushed glass sand that can be used again in asphalt, bricks and buildings; microfactories being piloted to remanufacture glass into green ceramics; and mobile crushers collecting single-use polypropylene waste from hospitals, granulating them on site and turning them into new plastic containers. Through our Recycling Modernisation Fund, the Commonwealth has co-funded 78 projects to date, including 23 that are in regional and remote Australia, because we understand the important role that regional and rural Australia plays in our economic recovery. The member for Parkes knows this well. We saw firsthand fantastic examples of the innovation that comes from regional communities. The Australian Recycled Plastics facility in Narrabri is actually unique, because it is one of the few facilities that can simultaneously sort HDPE, PET and coloured plastic. It is supporting 35 new local jobs in Narrabri. It was also great to see work being done at the Gilgandra Material Recovery Facility, providing additional processing capacity for five tonnes of plastic, 20 tonnes of glass and 313 tonnes of paper and cardboard each year. These are amazing examples of regional development in important regional towns. And we have no intention of slowing down. Waste and recycling projects supporting regional and remote New South Wales are now eligible for grants of between $10,000 and $1 million for projects that improve waste management processing and sorting. The Morrison government is backing rural and regional jobs. We are backing our unprecedented recycling agenda and we are backing our environment. Economy 24 15:13 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. Petrol prices have gone up by as much as $900 a year for a typical family driving a standard car while real wages have fallen $700. On top of this, median rents in Windsor, in my electorate, have increased by almost $3,000 a year. Hasn't it become harder and harder for working families to make ends meet under this decade-old government? 15:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Our government has taken numerous initiatives to take the pressure off the cost of living, as the data reveals very clearly, particularly when it comes to petrol prices. When it comes to petrol prices, in the last three years alone, what we have seen is a 1.2 per cent increase on average per year. That compares to a 2.6 per cent increase that occurred under the Labor years. Reference was also made to housing costs, which I know is a great challenge, particularly for younger people who want to buy into their first home. Since we came to government, housing costs have increased, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, an average of 1.7 per cent each year and, in the last three years, they have increased by 0.6 per cent. That compares to 5.1 per cent under the Labor years. And I know that the Minister for Housing will be able to tell you this: at the last election, I said we were going to take action to help people get into their first home. Under the policies we've introduced since the last election, we have helped 320,000 Australians into home ownership. That's what we took to the election. The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Macquarie on a point of order. Ms Templeman 181810 Mr Speaker, my question was about rentals, not purchasing. The SPEAKER 265967 Yes, but the question was also about making it harder for working families to make ends meet. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. Do you know who's been buying those houses? People who are renting. And we have given them that opportunity through the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and the Family Home Guarantee, a scheme that is helping single mums buy their first home. That is what our policies are doing. They're giving Australians who have the aspiration to buy a home the opportunity to achieve that—and 320,000 Australians have been helped into home ownership since we were elected three years ago. That's what I call a promise delivered—commitment given, promise delivered. And this government will continue to do that. With the sound economic management that is being delivered by this government, which has seen Australia through one of the greatest economic challenges since the Great Depression and which has seen Australia coming through this pandemic and the economic recovery underway, Australians can have confidence in the future. They can plan for their future with confidence. They can plan to buy their first home. They can plan to get skilled and get a job. They can plan to open and run a small business. They can plan to invest in new equipment that sees them get an advantage and be able to sell their products at a better price and be able to grow their business. They can do that in regional Australia in manufacturing and recycling and in the services industry. They'll be able to do it as we're getting the students back in December. That is a plan that is securing our economic recovery. Those opposite have no such plans, and no such experience and no such credibility. You can't trust Labor with your money. (Time expired) Energy 25 15:17 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Will the minister provide an update on the progress of important job and wealth-creating resource projects in Western Australia and outline what this will mean for the community I represent and for our economy as it recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 15:17 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. The member for O'Connor has already got the super pit but now the west is going to get the super pipe—the super pipe delivering gas from the Scarborough gas field all the way across to the coast. Yesterday, Woodside made an incredibly important decision, which is to bring on the Scarborough gas field and deliver the Pluto 2 project. The super pipe will deliver gas but it will also deliver jobs. This is an investment of some $16½ billion by Woodside. We should consider that for a moment—$16½ billion invested by Woodside in this project. That is a vote of confidence not only in their company but also in the gas sector itself. That is a vote of confidence in the policies of the government. That is a vote of confidence in the supply of gas to customers who are willing buyers out there in the world and, of course, right across Australia. Woodside is targeting first gas from this project in 2026. It is a low-CO2 gas first discovered in 1979—would you believe it?—and we now have a final investment decision which is going to drive jobs out into the 2050s. We expect the supply to run out into the 2050s. This is an incredibly important role. It will create 3,200 local construction jobs—can you believe that?—for the west, 600 of which are ongoing. I will say it again: this is a vote of confidence in the sector, it's a vote of confidence in the west and it' s a vote of confidence in Woodside. We will continue to support the resources sector because this is how we pay for schools and roads and hospitals. The amount of money that will be delivered over the lifetime of this project—some $33 billion in direct and indirect taxation—pays for roads, schools and hospitals. This is how governments pay for the essential services that Australians rely on. I am asked about alternatives. We know there are some alternatives. We know that those opposite quite simply can't stick with anything. They are always each way. You never know what you will get with those opposite. If we look at what has been put forward by the Labor Environment Action Network, they want to get rid of gas stoves and gas heaters. They want to get rid of gas water heaters in particular. The SPEAKER 265967 The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. Mr Burke DYW He is not going to alternative policies at all. He is going to wild fantasies that he is making up. It has to be anchored in something. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr PITT 148150 Labor Environment Action Network. It's not the policy of our side; it's Labor's environmental action network. On this side, we want to continue to ensure these jobs are delivered and we want to continue to provide confidence to the resources sector, and we will do that. We want to see Australians take up these opportunities and we want to ensure that when it comes to the post-pandemic economic recovery, projects like this go ahead because they are good for our nation. Cost of Living 26 15:21 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Prime Minister. Petrol prices have gone up as much as $900 for a typical family driving a standard car in a year, while real wages have fallen by $700. On top of this, childcare fees have gone up by $390 in a year. Hasn't it become harder and harder for working families to make ends meet under this decade-old government? 15:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The reason the government focuses so much—this is our absolute focus—on securing a strong economy is for the very issues the member has raised in the question. You don't make people's lives easier by increasing their taxes. You don't make their lives easier by preventing small businesses from growing and gumming them up in more regulation. You don't increase the ability of government to support people through their pensions and other services that they rely on by talking down the Australian economy and trying to shut down the Australian resources industry. That's not what you do. That's why our government has reversed those sorts of policies that were in place under the Labor Party—they would like to go there again, I have no doubt. That will be particularly the case as we go into this next election, because I understand that the Greens these days are now referring to themselves as shadow ministers in what would be a Labor-Greens government. They are talking it up, and the Labor Party have been pretty sneaky by not telling us what their policies are. The SPEAKER 265967 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is not even pretending to be directly relevant. There is no attempt being made. He is completely defying the standing orders and he is smirking about it. The SPEAKER 265967 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call, and I would ask the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L Our policies on reducing taxes, on affordable and reliable energy, on getting Australians into skills—we have record levels of Australians in trade apprenticeships right now—are what support businesses to be able to support their employees, grow their businesses, increase their wages, enable them to buy a house and secure the economic recovery. That is what our policies are doing. They are building the congestion-busting infrastructure in our cities and job-making infrastructure in our regions that enables product to get from paddock to plate to port, to ensure that our agricultural and regional industries have got the opportunities they need to support the standard of living that people in Australia deserve and expect. We will continue to toil hard every day to ensure that we do everything we can to support them in that. But do you know who we believe in most to deliver those things? We believe most in those Australians who go out there every day and work hard, run businesses, look after their kids, make decisions and work in their communities. We believe that Australians are at the centre of our economic plan. Those opposite think the government is at the centre of the plan and that the government should tax you more so they can try and increase your standard of living. Not us on this side of the House. We believe you are the answer, not the government. We think government should be getting more out of people's way as we secure this economic recovery, not cling onto those powers, which we know Labor always want to do. Once they get their hands on power, as Australians know, they can't release it. COVID-19: International Travel 26 15:25 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister advise the House about the return of international students under the Morrison government's plan to reopen Australia and what opportunities it will create for Australians as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic? 15:26 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Berowra for his question. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker. The member for Berowra is a fantastic advocate for the tertiary sector, and that includes the private higher education sector, which adds so much diversity to the educational landscape. All of us, at least on the side of the House, are pleased that the borders are reopening on 1 December, which means international students will be able to come back to complete their studies or to start new courses early next year. That's clearly beneficial for the education institutions themselves as well as those individual students. That's why the Chair of Universities Australia has said he was thrilled by the Prime Minister's decision earlier this week. As the member for Berowra knows, international students also create enormous opportunities for Australians. It's little known that typically the international education market is actually our third-biggest export industry, constituting about $40 billion in revenue for Australia, about half of which is in fees. The other half is actually in expenditure from those international students on accommodation, restaurants, other small businesses and tourism opportunities. Indeed, through that expenditure they support 250,000 Australians in work, about one-third of which are in the member's home state of New South Wales. They also support Australians in other ways, and that is by filling many of those job vacancies that we presently have. International students not only come here to study but also are able to do some part-time work. As all members of this House would know, we have critical shortages of labour at the moment, and so bringing back those international students enables more of those students to be able to fulfil those jobs and, in doing so, keep the cafes open, keep the restaurants open and keep those other businesses open that we enjoy and expect to be open. This is why the business community has so warmly welcomed international students coming back from 1 December, with the Business Council of Australia saying that international education is responsible for creating thousands of jobs and that getting students back is crucial. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry say that this will accelerate Australia's recovery. This was always part of our plan; phase D of our national plan. We're delivering on it. We said we'd do it. From 1 December, international students will start to come back, and that's good for Australia. Budget 27 15:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. His decade-old government had doubled government debt before COVID, and now it's approaching a record of $1 trillion. According to reports today, budget repair won't begin until after the election. Why won't the Prime Minister reveal his secret budget cuts before the election? 15:29 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I was pleased to have question time extended today, just so that the shadow Treasurer would be able to get a question. If I had to extend question time to allow the member for Maribyrnong to get a question, we'd be here till midnight, I suspect. I'm very happy to have the shadow Treasurer's question addressed by the Treasurer. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 Order. I don't particularly want to exercise 94(a) on my first day in the chair. Please; I would call upon members of the House to keep the level of interjections— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 265967 I would call upon members to restrain themselves. The Treasurer has the call. 15:30 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the 12th man of politics for his question. He's barely here, and he barely gets a question. The reality is the way we repair the budget is to grow the Australian economy. It's to see more people in jobs. It's to cut taxes to provide more incentive for work and to encourage aspiration and reward effort. Based on the figures in the budget announced in October of last year and then the final budget outcome for 2021, there was an $80 billion improvement as a result of a stronger labour market. Of course, there were other factors at play, but the stronger labour market was a primary factor. The fact that today unemployment is lower than when we came to government after the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression is a sign that our economic plan is working. There are more women in work today than when we came to government, the gender pay gap has narrowed since we've come to government, and business investment in machinery and equipment is now at the highest level in 20 years, even despite the recession, as a result of those business investment incentives. So we'll continue to do what is required to help the Australian economy recover from this economic shock. We had to take some very difficult but necessary actions. Programs like JobKeeper helped save 700,000 jobs. The cash flow boost helped support small business. Business investment incentives and the $750 payments to pensioners and carers and millions on income support were all designed to help Australia through this economic shock. Now we're continuing to cut taxes, unlike those opposite. Taxes are being cut to reward effort and encourage aspiration, to allow small businesses to prosper and to allow Australian families to spend more of their hard-earned money on things that are important to them. Yes, the last two years have been difficult, but we've taken the necessary decisions to put the Australian economy on the road to recovery. There's only one thing that risks that recovery, and that's the Labor Party. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper, and I congratulate you on completing your first question time. DOCUMENTS 28 DOCUMENTS Presentation 28 15:33 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to the chair and wish you every success in your role. 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. STATEMENTS 28 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 28 15:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I seek leave to give a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 265967 Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALBANESE R36 Yes, I do, most grievously. The SPEAKER 265967 The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Today, during question time, the Minister for Defence said that I did not support the AUKUS arrangement with the UK and the US. This is not true. Australia has a long relationship with the United Kingdom, which has enjoyed bipartisan support since federation. The alliance with the United States originated from John Curtin in 1942, when Australia turned to Labor in our hour of greatest need to defend our nation, and has been supported by Labor ever since. PRIVILEGE 28 PRIVILEGE Member for Pearce 28 15:34 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The matter concerns the member for Pearce and whether his failure to comply with the resolution of the House regarding the registration of members' interests constitutes a contempt of parliament. I wish to raise this matter now due to new information that has come to light this morning. This is the earliest available opportunity I've had to raise this matter. As the House is aware, I originally raised this matter on Monday 18 October. The former Speaker, the member for Casey, deliberated for a number of days and returned to the House with the decision to grant precedence to a motion and refer the member for Pearce to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The former Speaker granted precedence to this motion on the basis that he was 'satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out'. He did not indicate a view on whether a referral itself should proceed. The government then proceeded to vote down a referral motion to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests for the first time since Federation. This morning the former Speaker, the member for Casey, conducted an interview on ABC Radio Melbourne. In that interview, interviewer Virginia Trioli asked the member for Casey what he would have done if he had the power to directly refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests rather than simply grant the motion precedence. The question was: I mean, if you had that referral power, given the base of what you had looked at and your consideration of what the parliamentary role was, you would have referred it? To which the member for Casey responded, 'Sure.' He then went on to explain the role that he had at the time. The SPEAKER 265967 The member for Casey said what? Mr BURKE DYW 'Sure.' The SPEAKER 265967 'Sure'? Mr BURKE DYW Yes; he agreed with that statement that he would have. This is new information which we have not had previously in terms of the deliberations that he conducted over those days prior to granting the motion of precedence. Members on both sides of this House have spent the last two days praising the member for Casey and the deep integrity he brought to the role of Speaker. Now we have, for the first time on record, that the member for Casey himself believes the member for Pearce should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. This is the strongest statement in this matter we have had to date, which is why I believe this House deserves another opportunity to consider this matter given this new information. I remind the House why, in the first instance, the matter should be given precedence by our new Speaker. If this matter is allowed to stand, we might as well not have a Register of Members' Interests at all. The facts are these. On 1 June, it was announced that the member the Pearce would withdraw a defamation case against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. His costs are undisclosed. The member for Pearce has stated: 'My lawyers, whilst they are very good, are very, very expensive.' And I will table that transcript. On 13 September, the member for Pearce updated his register, addressing payments related to his defamation case, and I will table that document. The member for Pearce lists: Part contribution to the payment of my fees by a blind trust known as the Legal Services Trust. As a potential beneficiary I have no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust. But what the member for Pearce describes as a blind trust is in fact nothing like the blind trusts which have previously been registered. In every other blind trust which has appeared on the register, it has been clear whose money was being managed. On this occasion we have no idea. A central purpose of the register is to manage and disclose interests and potential conflicts. It beggars belief that the member for Pearce has no idea who donated to this trust. It is incomprehensible that there is a new breed of philanthropists who could donate to any cause or charity in the world but would choose this otherwise secret trust to pay legal bills in a private defamation case and then have no desire for the member for Pearce to know that they had helped them. Let's think about what this means. If what the member for Pearce has done is allowed to stand, it means any MP can set up a trust and instruct the trustee to accept donations on a confidential basis only, and then rake in the cash from any source, all the while saying, 'I couldn't possibly tell you where my donations are coming from, because they were given on the basis of confidentiality.' What the member for Pearce has done renders the Register of Members' Interests completely worthless. If permitted, this behaviour empowers other MPs to create such a trust as a means of escaping their disclosure obligations as an elected member of the House. At its worst, it provides a means for MPs to get around laws that prohibit foreign donations. In fact, the only assurance we have that the member for Pearce has not done this is because he tells us he hasn't. In a statement by the member for Pearce on 19 September, which I will also table, we learn two things. The first is that, despite the member for Pearce's statement on his register, he actually was able to uncover information regarding the donors to his trust. His statement says: … on my request the Trustee provided me an assurance that none of the contributors were lobbyists or prohibited foreign entities. The second thing revealed is that the member for Pearce has made a choice not to uncover further information about the identities of the donors. I quote: Ultimately, I decided that if I have to make a choice between seeking to pressure the Trust to break individuals' confidentiality in order to remain in Cabinet, or alternatively forego my Cabinet position, there is only one choice I could, in all conscience, make. He also states: I could not assist any process that would ultimately allow people who have done nothing wrong to become targets of the social media mob and I would continue to respect their position. So either the member for Pearce does know who the donors to his legal trust are but is refusing to disclose them or he has chosen not to take steps which are available to him to determine their identities. Either conclusion raises doubts as to whether the member has committed a serious contempt under part (5)(c) of the additional resolution adopted on 13 February 1986 regarding members' interests, which I will table. That resolution provides: (5) any Member of the House of Representatives who …   …   … (c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly. This is a serious allegation that must be investigated by the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. This is not a case of an MP making an honest mistake. This is not a case of carelessness. This is a deliberate and calculated attempt to evade the entire purpose of the register, and we now know the results of the careful and deliberate consideration of the former Speaker. Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider granting precedence to a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests regarding whether the precedent the member for Pearce has set threatens the integrity of the Register of Members' Interests, whether the member for Pearce has wilfully refused to take reasonable steps available to him to identify donors to a trust which has part-paid his legal fees; whether this constitutes a breach of part (5)(c) of the additional resolution on the registration of members' interests; and whether members receiving anonymous gifts beyond the threshold set in (2)(k) of the House resolution on the registration of members' interests constitutes a contempt of the House. I thank you for your consideration and table the documents that I referred to. The S 265967 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. As is customary—and, in fact, under standing order 51—I will take the matter under consideration and I will reserve my decision on that point. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 30 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 30 15:42 The 265967 SPEAKER (): The Acting Speaker received letters from the honourable member for Rankin and the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, the Acting Speaker selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Rankin, namely: The Government's failures on wages and the costs of living. I therefore call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:42 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin That was a very wise decision, Mr Speaker. You're one for one already! I congratulate you on your election to that office. You're going to need a little dustpan and brush to clean up the shattered shards of the Prime Minister's glass jaw and the last remnants of the Treasurer's credibility on the floor over there. We saw once again today from the Prime Minister the same shouting, dishonesty and desperation which increasingly characterise his public commentary on the economy. You can draw a straight line between the blundering and bullying bulldust from question time and this Prime Minister and his failures on the economy for some time now, because, if this Prime Minister won't tell the truth about a trip to Hawaii, about correspondence with the member for Grayndler or about the submarines deal or electric vehicles or vaccine mandates, he can't be trusted with the economic recovery as well. This is too important to the life chances and prospects of the working families of middle Australia to be left in the hands of a Prime Minister who simply cannot be believed. He was at it again during the course of the last week on petrol, on interest rates, on industrial relations and on tax—each pathetic scare campaign more ridiculous than the one before. The scare campaign on petrol couldn't last from Monday to Wednesday when it was pointed out to him that petrol prices have skyrocketed 24 per cent over the last year on his watch. Petrol prices have gone up for the average family in an average car $900 over the last year at the same time as real wages have gone backwards $700. So then he moved to a scare campaign about interest rates, and that collapsed under the weight of the Reserve Bank Governor's commentary about interest rates. He said don't expect an interest rate next year. He didn't say under one government or another. He made it very clear that the Prime Minister was, once again, making it up for political purposes. And he was reminded that the last time that those opposite ran a dishonest scare campaign about interest rates, when they got through that election, interest rates went up six consecutive times under the Liberals and Nationals immediately after making those ridiculous claims. By Saturday, the scare campaign on petrol had fallen over. The wheels had come off the scare campaign on interests rates by Saturday. It was the old industrial relations scare, wasn't it? And it was about unions. Unions have got a legitimate role to play as the voice of working people in our workplaces, and the truth is that the union movement and the employer groups have raised issues about enterprise bargaining, and those views should be taken seriously. So that scare campaign only lasted a day or so, and then we got this ridiculous scare campaign on tax, which has collapsed under the weight of the knowledge that this is the second highest taxing government in the last 30 years, and the highest taxing government was John Howard's. The two highest taxing governments in recent history of both been Liberal and National governments. We'll see more of this in the lead-up to the campaign as the Prime Minister tries to distract from his failures on the economy and his lack of a plan for the future. He gets no help from the hapless and hopeless Treasurer, who lurches from one preselection humiliation to another, like he did on the weekend. We've got a Prime Minister you can't trust and a Treasurer who can't count. What could go wrong! On the numbers alone, this Treasurer is the worst performing in memory on wages, on growth, on business investment. He's got two million Australians either underemployed or unemployed at the same time as he's got rampant skills and labour shortages in the economy. The past two years of this pandemic do not excuse eight long years of economic mismanagement. He says it is all about COVID and he says it's happening to everyone around the world. Consider these facts: in the OECD, we've gone from eighth in the world when it comes to average economic growth under the last Labor government to now 17th. We were ninth on unemployment under the last Labor government and now we're 15th. We were sixth in the OECD when it came to wages and now we're 21st in the OECD. Under this government, we've dropped nine places on growth, six places on unemployment and 15 places on wages—all of this despite $1 trillion in debt, because we have this budget which is absolutely riddled with rorts and weighed down with waste. We've got the subs debacle, the robodebt debacle, the sports rorts and land rorts and regional rorts—the list goes on and on, yet we have this dishonesty and desperation from a Prime Minister desperate to distract from his own failures. That means, I think, that, of all the lies that have been told about the economy, the biggest lie is that those opposite have done a good job managing that economy. The defining example of this is the JobKeeper debacle. JobKeeper was a great idea. Frydenberg, the butterfingers of Australian politics, got his hands on it and he turned a good program into a program that wasted tens of billions of dollars, and that's why the Financial Review wrote an article headlined 'Frydenberg fires JobKeeper missile at himself'. If you look at that piece in the Financial Review, I think the key conclusion is that they describe the current Treasurer as 'lighter than helium'. Those in this chamber know that helium is colourless. They know it's inert. They know it's lightweight. And this Treasurer is the helium man of Australian politics. Helium balloons are shiny and superficial, and when they become untethered and untied, as he has, they lose touch with what's happening on the ground. They end up washed up on a beach inconveniencing the seagulls, and that's the type of career trajectory that we're seeing from the current Treasurer. One of the member for Kooyong's predecessors was described from the dispatch box as a 'souffle that wouldn't rise twice'. This Treasurer could only dream of being nicknamed something as substantial as a souffle! He is more like the little can of whipped cream that goes on the top; it makes a lot of noise and there is a lot of fizzle, but, give it 10 seconds, and it's melted away—that's the helium man of Australian politics. Under this Treasurer and under this government, rorts and waste have gone from an embarrassing aberration to a shameful norm. Wasting money is not a bug in this government; it is a feature of this government. No wonder they don't want an anticorruption commission. Former generations of the Liberal Party described themselves as born to rule. This generation of Liberals were born to rort. But you cannot rort and lie and spin your way to the economic recovery that this country desperately needs. Those opposite have learnt absolutely nothing from what Australians have done to get through the worst of this pandemic. They cannot understand that Australians got through this together, and we will only succeed together in the recovery by working together, not dividing and diminishing each other, not playing footsie with extreme elements making violent threats, and not playing politics with people's lives and with the economy that working people rely on. They don't understand that this recovery in the economy is Australia's big chance and we have to take it. They don't understand that this is our chance to build an economy and a society that is stronger after COVID-19 than it was before COVID-19. This is our big chance, and the country has a big choice to make. We don't know when the election will be, but we do know what it will be about. It will be about whether we can be stronger together after COVID than we were before. It will be whether or not we can genuinely unite the country behind our goals, whether they be in the economy or in the society. We can't afford another wasted decade of missed opportunities that has seen jobs and investment go begging and working families left behind. We can't afford another three years like the last eight years, with all of the wage stagnation and job insecurity and all of the rest of it—all of the attacks on wages, all of the attacks on working people and working families and Medicare, all of the attacks that have been so characteristic of those opposite. There are the sneaky cuts that are in the paper today that they won't tell us about before the election, but they will be laying in wait for the Australian people after the election. We can't afford another three years like the last eight. Working families in this country cannot risk another three years of the blundering and bullying bulldust that we hear from this Prime Minister in question time. We can be stronger after COVID than before, but not under those opposite. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 I call the Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. 15:53 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was wishing to congratulate the new Speaker sitting in that chair, but, Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to be able to congratulate you on your recovery and your health and that you have returned to that important chair. We are equally happy to see you there. You've got to give it to the member for Rankin. He is slick as he auditions for the job of Leader of the Opposition after the next election. Of course, his so-called matter of public importance is part of that critical strategy. When those on the opposition front bench fall, he plans to snare the prize by trying to build an argument and a narrative that he is the one who is interested in the future of the Australian economy. But the reality is Labor has had nothing of value to say over the past 12 months—in fact, over the past two years—of the COVID-19 pandemic. They most certainly have no agenda on how they want to build the future of the Australian economy and not just back Australians through the difficult time but back them to build the future so that they can realise their ambitions, their dreams and their hopes for themselves and their families as part of the success of the future of Australia. The reality is members on the opposition side have always preferred that Australia fails rather than a coalition government succeeds. They give no quarter and no recognition of the incredible achievements of not just government—although obviously that is a critical part of the conversation—but how Australians have risen to the challenge of the past two years. If we look back to two years ago at the situation facing not just Australia but the world, we saw a situation where people were looking into the abyss, into the great unknown, not sure about where we were going to head. People were deeply worried about their future not just for themselves but also, of course, for their families, for their small businesses, for their standard of living and for their future. Working with the government, Australians have risen to that challenge on an epic scale across the entire continent, where we face a considerable outcome. We're going to have one of the highest vaccination rates—if not the highest vaccination rates—of any nation in the world. I remember when members of the opposition said that whether we could deliver vaccines was a critical test of our job. I hate to break it to them, but we've not just met that benchmark; we've smashed it, with one of the highest vaccination rates anywhere in the world—and we've done that without the considerable number of deaths that have occurred in many other countries. In addition, we've come out of the COVID-19 pandemic with a level of low unemployment. We've done it because we have understood that the success of Australia doesn't come from Canberra down; it's because we have backed Australians through this critical time. You just need to look at the challenges that people, particularly those in the great states of Victoria and New South Wales, have faced. We've faced considerable challenges around lockdowns, where small businesses have struggled to get back onto their feet because of the punitive measures introduced by state governments, often called upon even more obsessively by members of the Labor Party on the opposition benches, who want to see small businesses being trashed as a consequence of harsher measures. We've turned around and said, 'What can we do to back the small businesses of our country?' They're the chief employers of our country, so they're in the best position to be able to keep Australians standing on their own two feet. The situation, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, has been very clear. The number of new hires is up 25 per cent in New South Wales, while in Victoria new hires are up 15 per cent as we come out of this period. It's meant that Australians are in a position to be able to back themselves, back their families and, of course, back their communities as the foundation of the success of the great Australian recovery. But it's not just in that space. We've seen the hard data. This matter of public importance is about the underlying strength of the economy and, particularly, wages. You set the benchmark, just like the vaccine rollout; so let's go with it. The latest ABS data shows wages grew by 2.2 per cent throughout the year, higher than the 1.5 per cent forecast in the budget. Wages growth of 2.2 per cent in the September quarter is the strongest since the start of the pandemic. The benchmark was set for wages growth. The benchmark was not just met or beaten but smashed by this government, because we have continued to back Australians as a consequence. We know that this is in direct contrast with the proposals put forward by the Labor Party. You just need to look at their position in the lead-up to the last election. We see the member for Maribyrnong here. I'm sure the member for McMahon has legitimately left because he wouldn't want to be reminded of his contribution to their train wreck election outcome—let alone the member for Rankin, who was the co-author of their $387 billion taxes plan which would've hit households, would have hit Australian retirees, would have hit jobs and would have hit the interests of everyday Australians. For the past decade, every single time that the Labor Party have confronted a challenge, they have had one solution: to impose a new tax. If they've run out of money, they've imposed a new tax—because they see your money, the Australian people's money, as their own. When it comes to the challenges of fiscal discipline, it's, 'Let's hit retirees and push them below the poverty line by imposing an up to 30 per cent income tax on their interests.' Let's look at what they want to do with households. Whereas we want to promote housing affordability in this country—and this government has a very proud record of getting first homeowners into homes—Labor's solution was to add more taxes to increase rents. Let's go to the portfolio for which I'm partly responsible. Labor wanted to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What was their solution? It was to impose a new tax along the way. In fact, at every single point they have found a new tax. When they've come up with a proposition before an election and they've been asked about their new taxes, they've said one of two things: either that there will not be one—and then they've broken their promise after their election; or they have said, 'We are absolutely doing it, and you're perfectly welcome to vote against us.' And that's what the Australian people have done every step of the way. When we come up to the next election, Australians are going to face a choice about the future of our country, and it is going to come down to who they trust to be able to deliver economic growth and opportunity so they and their children have the best chance and best wicket at life. And they know the consequences of what happens with the Labor Party—and we've seen this before: they want to impose more taxes on households, on income earners, on retirees and on houses themselves to make sure they can get as much of your money under their control. The solution from the Labor Party is always, 'How do we empower Canberra to impose and conform?' and the solution from a Liberal government is always, 'How do we empower Australians and get out of their way?' This is going to be one of the biggest challenges that are going to face the Australian people at the next election. I know that members of the Labor Party hate us talking about it, but the reality is that, throughout this entire pandemic period, they have consistently argued why the government should spend billions of dollars of more money, on the basis of them complaining that they want money to be funnelled to certain interests or certain benefits. And this government has, at every point, been prudent and responsible in how it has spent money to make sure that there has not been needless waste and, of course, needless debt. That is an indicator of where this discussion is going to go in the future in the lead-up to the next election. Labor will spend more money and incur more debt and, as sure as night follows day, it will put pressure on interest rates and we will see those many Australians out there who have mortgages pay higher prices under a future Labor government. They will face more costs in debt refinancing, more challenges about their capacity to be able to afford their mortgage and, of course, will face a big challenge about whether they are going to be able to maintain their standards of living. When it comes down to it, Labor always goes after Australians' hip pockets, because that is the only solution that they have to any problem. They always see the solutions for the country through themselves, not through the success of the millions of Australian households and how they can stand on their own two feet. But, more critically, this government is making sure that we map out a plan for the future development of the Australian economy in a globally challenging environment towards carbon neutrality. In the last sitting of this parliament, we outlined Australia's first comprehensive, economy-wide plan, not just to get Australia to be carbon neutral but also to make sure that we can thrive in that environment and lay the foundations for the future economy and future export industries that Australians are going to come to rely upon; make sure that we can back those industries that are going to have to adjust, so they reach a soft landing; make sure that we can back those Australians to be able to secure their job so their communities can survive and thrive; and make sure that we build that future that Australians so desperately want. We want a future where every Australian can realise their ambition and their dreams. Labor want one where their solution is more tax. 16:03 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In the Melbourne Cup field of economic duds, Scott Morrison's government has come first, second and third. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member will resume his seat. Mr IMW On a point of order: the member referred to Scott Morrison, and he should refer to members by their proper titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265991 The member for Whitlam will continue. There is no point of order. Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Let me repeat: In the Melbourne Cup field of economic duds, Scott Morrison's government has come first, second and third, with the biggest government debt in our nation's 121 years of history—$1 trillion worth of debt. I am going to say that again—it's a big number: $1 trillion worth of debt. They were going to bring the budget back into balance. Remember the red coffee cups? They are good at producing marketing material, but they are not very good at reducing debt or bringing the budget deficit down. They have produced the two biggest deficits in 121 years of Australian Commonwealth history. They are the second-highest taxing government, as the member for Rankin has set out—coming in a narrow second, beaten by a nose by the record of the Fraser government under the treasurership of John Howard and the government of John Howard himself. They have overseen the biggest government waste of taxpayer money in our nation's history, hands down, with $20 billion—in fact, probably more than $20 billion—in taxpayers' money squandered on a program that was supposed to help businesses that were making a loss. These jokers over here gave it to companies that were making bumper profits and sending it on to their directors. The member for Fenner has done a magnificent job of exposing the government's incompetence on this issue. I want to make a point about the $20 billion. It's almost as much as we spend on Medicare and twice as much as we spend on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These are not small amounts of money—$1 trillion worth of debt, $20 billion squandered. Tell us again how this mob are so good at managing money. You wouldn't leave them alone with your pocket money! This comes off the back of the sports rorts affair, the car park rorts affair and the infamous community development grants which somehow only go to government-held community electorates. This mob are the champions of rorts. I thought a former senator from Western Australia hit the low-water mark when he described the government's wages policy suppressing wages as 'a deliberate design feature'. Is there any surprise that, under this government, workers' wages are going backwards? They are going backwards at a rate of knots. We've had the lowest wages growth in over 50 years. We used to think it was a design feature, but today we had the spokesman for industrial relations in the House tell us that anybody who complained about the fact their wages were going down was making it up—anybody who complains about wages problems is making it up! When these guys talk about coalminers, they don't have in mind the people who go down and run the longwalls or the people who come back from work dirty. When they think about coalminers, they think about Marius Kloppers and Gina Rinehart; they're the people they have in mind. If you work in a mine, you know the biggest threat to your wages and job security is the fact that employers are using labour hire to undermine job security and drive down wages. It's not just in the mining industry; it's rife in the Hunter. We saw the Deputy Prime Minister duck the question, but it's rife in the Hunter and he would not acknowledge that issue. And these blokes reckon we're making it up! I'd welcome their coming out to my electorate or any other electorate to talk about the made-up issue of labour hire. They are so out of touch— (Time expired) 16:08 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman There's a common expression in Australia: 'There are only two certainties in life—death and taxes.' I would like to add a third certainty to that—that the Australian economy will always be better off under a Liberal-National government. Every government faces challenges during its term, and this Morrison-led coalition government has certainly had its fair share. A one-in-100-year global pandemic springs to mind. We are now approaching two years since the COVID-19 virus first came to Australian shores and we are still feeling its economic and social impacts. This government acted decisively, and, through an unprecedented $291 billion in economic support, we are better placed than most other nations around the world in terms of economic recovery. In my electorate of Longman, there are many local businesses thriving. We have seen here and in other parts of Australia that employers simply can't find enough staff to fill vacant positions both skilled and unskilled. Even in the hard-hit hospitality sector, I recently heard from a local cafe owner in Morayfield that, for some time now, they have been unable to find anyone to work in their newly established cafe. We have seen that the end of the extended lockdowns has kickstarted a spending spree and emboldened employers to hire more workers. The Australian Taxation Office data also shows that the number of new workers hired by businesses leapt by 13 per cent nationwide in the fortnight to 24 October Yet I still have employers in construction, agriculture, manufacturing and other industries screaming for staff. This is a great indicator of how strong our economy really is. With online job ads reaching 250,000 and increasing by almost eight per cent in October, there is good reason to be optimistic about the jobs market. This increased demand for employees is a result of an increase in consumer spending, with Australians spending an extra $1 billion in the first week in November compared to the same time in 2019, before the pandemic even began. Recent Treasury analysis of bank data has found that spending at the start of November was 20 per cent above the corresponding week two years ago. On top of this, wages are bouncing back in line with underlying strength in the economy and labour market. The latest ABS data revealed that wages have grown by 2.2 per cent so far in 2021, higher than the 1.5 per cent forecast in the budget. Private sector wages are 2.5 per cent higher over the year, the strongest growth rate since the start of the pandemic. The RBA has also recently revised up its forecast for wages and now sees the unemployment rate reaching four per cent by the end of 2023. This is very positive news, and I'm proud to be part of a government that understands the importance of getting people into work. Not only is it good for the economy as a whole but it is good for our local communities when we have lower unemployment rates. Crime levels decrease and people's mental wellbeing is generally improved when they have a job to go to. This government also understands the importance of keeping taxes low. Lower taxes help secure our economic recovery and create even more jobs. Around 64,800 taxpayers in Longman will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. Since the pandemic hit, wages are up 2.2 per cent, record tax cuts are flowing to households and total wages per capita are growing at 6.6 per cent. This is in stark contrast to before the coalition came into government, when real wages were falling and the unemployment rate was at 5.7 per cent and rising. Small business has been at the heart of our economic recovery plan. JobKeeper, the cash flow boost, tax cuts and record investment incentives have allowed small business to play a key role in Australia's economic and jobs recovery. As a small-business owner myself, I well know the challenges businesses have faced during the pandemic. I have heard from other local business owners who've told me how JobKeeper saved their staff from being let go. It's as simple as that. This fantastic initiative by the Morrison government has helped support 4,671 businesses in my electorate of Longman, employing 22,924 staff. On top of this, an extended and expanded JobTrainer Fund will support more than 450,000 new places to upskill jobseekers and young people. We already have 1,300 apprentices in Longman, and these new measures will lead to more opportunities for apprentices and trainees, with expanded wage subsidies. The Morrison government has delivered the highest number of Australians in trade apprenticeships on record. The new department program data demonstrates that the number of Australians in trade-training apprenticeships reached 217,400 in July 2021, the highest number since records began in 1963. As the country opens up and the jobs come back, Australians have much to look forward to this summer. 16:13 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Once again I rise to talk about this government's absolute failure, this time on wages and the cost of living. I want to say on the record that our public service workers are the best—our nurses, pathologists and health teams; the work our firefighters do; and our amazing teachers and administration workers. There is not one sector in our economy that does not have some form of public sector engagement. If you think about it, to serve the public would have to be one of the most honourable and noble things to do. In the last two years—I know I'm not alone in saying this—people have truly appreciated what serving the public and the community really means, just what it is and the people who do it. Just the other day I joined with public sector workers and the South Coast Labour Council to help launch the groundbreaking report by Associate Professor Martin O'Brien from the University of Wollongong about how important our public sector workers are to our region. Public sector workers spend locally and support our local shops and jobs, and that's something I am happy to support. I will always fight for fair wages and fair pay for the public sector. However, saying thanks doesn't get you another nurse on the ward, though we need more of these workers to do more of the good work. But this government believes it needs to be fiscally responsible. What does that mean? It means this government will thank them but it won't pay them. According to the ACTU, millions of workers in Australia are in some form of non-standard, insecure working arrangements, including 2.3 million casuals. There are over a million so-called independent contracts and over 400,000 fixed-term contracts. Our nation now ranks No. 1 for the highest level of insecure work in the OECD. That is shameful. The Morrison government has made middle Australia more vulnerable, not less, with eight long years of wage stagnation in this country. All the while, there's the soaring cost of housing, the flow-on effect with the cost of rentals, and the dreadful reality that is next—homelessness. Within Gilmore, I'm on the Shoalhaven Homelessness Taskforce. Locally, the Shoalhaven Homeless Hub, one of our prized local hubs, has been providing homelessness services from its central Nowra address for over 20 years. They have a growing demand for their homelessness walk-in service supporting men, women and children. Fifty-five new clients a month are requiring assistance. An increasing number of people who have never encountered homelessness before are now becoming homeless for the first time. Why? Because of the soaring cost of rent, the soaring cost of living. They have good tenancy history, they pay their rent on time, they're good tenants, but their property is being sold and they cannot find alternative accommodation in the time frame provided. It is impacting on mental health. It is impacting on our local communities. Words actually failed me when learning firsthand from the manager of the Supported Accommodation and Homelessness Services Shoalhaven, SAHSSI, that the homeless hub was itself about to become homeless. The tenancy on the property, to expire on 26 January, Australia Day next year, will not be renewed. The funding program cannot match local commercial rent, compounded by a lack of available stock. This is a vicious cycle that is playing out across the country. The failure of this Morrison government is lack of leadership. If you're going to make housing more affordable, then you need the federal government to play an active part. But at the moment this government doesn't even meet with the state governments to talk about this. And when you ask the government if they're prepared to invest money in building more affordable homes for Australians, they say, 'It's not our job.' Well, that's just wrong. A Labour government would establish the Housing Australia Future Fund to invest in affordable and social housing, build more social and affordable housing to fix our housing crisis, and put tradies to work immediately to repair and maintain existing social housing. This coalition government has racked up a trillion dollars in debt and has nothing to show for it. 16:18 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, it is great to have you back in the chair and looking in very good health. Normally, as part of these speeches, I devote some portion of it to rebuttal. But there wasn't much in the shadow Treasurer's speech that we could rebut. The main portion of it— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Well, for the reason that there wasn't a lot of substance. The main portion of it was devoted to a convoluted metaphor about helium. It's obviously a line that he'd workshopped long and hard in the mirror. He's had a lot of time on the bench to be able to practise it, though he still didn't quite nail the delivery. But I thought to myself: 'Why would he spend so much time talking about helium? How is he so familiar with it?' It's because he spends so much of his time acting the clown so often in this place, because only a clown would bring on a debate about the cost of living when he sits on that side of the chamber and spends his entire time trying to take more taxes out of the pockets of everyday Australians—$387 billion worth of extra taxes out of the pockets. And you've got on that side of the chamber, sitting right there, two of the major architects of it—the shadow Treasurer and the member for McMahon. If we just had the former Leader of the Opposition, we'd have a full set of the people behind the $387 billion worth of taxes to take out of the pockets of everyday Australians. I'm pleased the member for McMahon is here because he likes to be reminded of his lines at the last election—his excellent advice that he gave to everyday Australians, which I hope he will repeat this time, which is: 'If you don't like Labor Party policy, don't vote for it.' And didn't they just! Didn't they just not vote for it! They were very happy to reject the Labor Party's $387 billion worth of taxes, which would have been such an incredible impost on the costs of living for everyday families. On this side of the chamber, we have lowered taxes, we've provided structural reform to make small businesses keep more of what they earn, we've put more medicines on the PBS, we've helped with out-of-pocket costs on X-rays and other diagnostic scans, we've helped make child care more affordable, and we've supported more Australians to get into their first home, all while facing a global pandemic. It's interesting that, in the same 48 hours that the Treasurer and the Morrison government were able to release new ATO modelling showing that small businesses, at a time of great need and at a time when they need to get on with the economic recovery and are reopening their doors, have an extra $5 billion in their pockets of their own money to spend on their business, hire new employees and get new equipment so that they can gear up and help with the economic recovery, we had the shadow Treasurer on his beloved ABC saying he was still considering the full suite of tax policies that he could put on the Australian people. Such are their secret policies over there. They won't let us know what they are, and they won't let the Australian people know what their policies are. Such are they that, right up until the election, they will need to consider in great detail the full suite of taxes that they're going to impose on the Australian people. As the Prime Minister has said, the only thing more scary than knowing the new taxes that Labor is going to impose on the Australian people is not knowing them, because they like to keep their policies secret. It was just yesterday that we were hearing from other Labor members about the great moral challenge of climate change. Yet here they are sitting on the other side of the chamber, refusing to detail what their policy is. They won't detail their policy on new taxes. They won't detail their policy on the economic recovery. It's clear. It's clear that they are simply trying to trip and fall into government on the basis that they won't tell the Australian people what they'll do; they'll tell the Australian people as little as possible and hope they just trip and fall into government. We won't allow it to happen. We will simply put to the Australian people that they will always have lower taxes under a Liberal-National coalition government. They will always have a stronger economy under a Liberal-National coalition government than under the Labor members opposite. The Labor members opposite simply cannot be trusted to run an economy. They simply cannot be trusted with your money because they think it's their money. They want to take as much money out of your pockets as possible because they believe they can tell you how to spend it better. On this side of the chamber, we believe in empowering Australian families to spend their money in the best way that suits them and their families and suits the Australian economy. 16:23 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Deputy Speaker, I'm not going to tell you how good you look because I already told you that in the hallway the other day. I'm a bit sad that I've only got five minutes to talk about this, because I could talk about this all day. You know what they say: give the girl a microphone, and she'll never shut up. But, particularly around the issues of stagnant wages and rising costs of living, I could talk all day, Deputy Prime Minister. Ms Murphy 133646 Prime Minister? Dr ALY 13050 Sorry, Deputy Speaker, I correct that. I could talk all day about it, Deputy Speaker, because every time I go doorknocking, every time I have a Meet your Member event, and every time I pick up the phone in my office, the issue that is front of mind for the people in my community in Cowan is the rising cost of living and stagnant wages. These are real issues and they are live issues for the people of Cowan. I could give you a whole list of different examples, but given the limited time I'm going to limit myself to two examples just to demonstrate what is happening in the community in Cowan and how this issue raised in this MPI around the cost of living and stagnant wages is having a real impact on the Cowan community. Currently, my office has been assisting a single mother in Cowan. She has escaped domestic violence. She is caring for her child on her own at the same time as studying at university to get an education—and I don't have to tell the House that I can relate to her situation. In March of this year, her landlord increased her rent. Her rent went up from $240 a week to $300 a week—that's 25 per cent—with a six-month only lease. Her real estate agent has now foreshadowed a further rise of $60, which will take her rent up to $360. She's not the only one who has come into my office absolutely in despair and in fear of being left homeless because of rising rents throughout the northern suburbs, in particular, of Western Australia. Another example is Derek, from Girrawheen, who last month contacted me. Derek said, 'I'd like federal and state governments of the near future to look at recognising that access to low-cost water, electricity, gas, internet, automotive fuels and basic food and accommodation should be seen as necessary staples of modern life.' He's not wrong. Derek also mentioned, 'Prices are quick to rise when oil does but slow to drop when oil drops in price,' which brings me to the cost of petrol and the cost of maintaining a car. This Prime Minister happens to be a big fan of pork. Can't say I share his affection for that particular brand of meat, but he does like a little bit of pork-barrelling. He does like to tell a few porky pies. Just last week the Prime Minister tried to claim that petrol prices would go up if the coalition lost the next election. I was quite baffled by this claim because obviously the government cannot control petrol prices; there are a whole range of other factors that come into play. But that claim was even more ludicrous because just this year petrol prices in Perth have gone up by 25 per cent. On Tuesday afternoon, when the prices are at their lowest, on a fortnightly cycle in Perth, Wanneroo Road in the northern suburbs is banked up a kilometre as cars line up to fill up on cheaper petrol. We here in this place are in a very privileged position. We have drivers to drive us around Canberra and we get a car allowance when we're at home. We don't have to worry about the price of petrol—we really don't—and it's important that we acknowledge that and that privilege that we have here. But for the Prime Minister to absolutely ignore the fact that families are struggling with the cost of petrol—I can't even begin to fathom how an average family in Perth's north is watching this Prime Minister and trying to understand it. 16:28 Mr HWS Grey RAMSEY (—) (): Those that sit on the other side of this chamber must be the only people in Australia, it seems, that think Australia has not dodged an economic bomb. The economic management of Australia over the last two years through the pandemic has been quite extraordinary. In fact, almost any other country in the world would swap places with us. Not only has the virus been kept largely under control and not only do we now have a vaccine rollout that is in the top echelons of the world; we have kept people at work. While we're talking about wages and the cost of living, I can tell you that, if you haven't got a job, they're pretty intense—that's for sure. So the government spent $89 billion on JobKeeper, keeping people in touch, keeping them in work, keeping them in their employment stream. I've had no end of contact, like virtually every other member in this place, of businesses coming to me and saying: 'JobKeeper saved our bacon. It was the thing that kept us in business.' Since the cessation of JobKeeper, we've rolled into the COVID subsidy and wage system that has kicked into place where we've had hot spots declared. Once again, it's kept Australians employed. It's kept them at work. It delivers the check that deals with the costs of living that they deal with on a daily basis. In fact, it's been our No. 1 priority—making sure that our business sector stays strong and keeping people in a job. That is what we have done. We've even lowered the jobless rate from the beginning to this point in the pandemic. It's 5.2 per cent at the moment. It was 5.6 per cent last month and that was a bit of a kick up, but considering the lockdowns that we've had in New South Wales and Victoria that is hardly surprising. All the indicators are now that they are opening up their economies and that they will be bouncing back immediately. In fact, the jobless rate even now is still a full half a point lower than when we came into government in 2013, courtesy of the previous administration. Now the indicators are that the jobs market is running hot. There are 300,000 jobs available in Australia at the moment. The ABS data shows that in the September quarter there was a 2.2 per cent lift in growth. The economy grew by 2.2 per cent in the September quarter, and that was in a pandemic. That was in a time when two of our major states were largely locked down. So it's been quite an astonishing performance. The pandemic has been the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Private wage sectors are up 2.4 per cent for the year. While there was not much growth there, things are absolutely happening now. I report that the RBA see unemployment as low as four per cent by the end of 2023. In fact, we already have shortages right across our economy. It's not just in the skills sector but right across our economy. In my own electorate, we have shortages of doctors, nurses, mechanics, shearers, ag workers, aged-care workers and people to make coffee. We have shortages in the tourism industry. We have shortages of cleaners. We have shortages at just about every level. As sure as night follows day, something outrageous will have to happen in the economy for wages growth not to follow those shortages. We will see growth over the next 12 months. That is already being foreshadowed. That is kicking away in that area already, with the RBA predicting 2.5 per cent growth in 2022 and three per cent growth in wages in 2023. We would not want that to explode to 10 per cent or 15 per cent, would we? We were there in the 1970s and the 1980s, and it wasn't a good place to be. The jobs market is full of opportunity, and we are doing everything we can to join up those people that are unemployed with those jobs that exist. There are already 347,000 people in training apprenticeships across Australia. In my own electorate, we have over 3,000 in apprenticeship training. Today consumer confidence is up yet again, nearly 30 per cent higher than pre COVID. Business confidence is high, and why wouldn't it be? After all, across Australia, the government is expending over $10 billion in— (Time expired) 16:33 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley In Carrum Downs today, petrol hit 193.9c a litre. The median rent in Frankston has gone up $1,560 in the last year. In the last 12 months, childcare fees have gone up by $390. But real wages fell 0.8 per cent over the past year. Petrol is more expensive, child care is more expensive, rent is more expensive, the price of housing has gone up so much that buying a house is almost inconceivable for so many people in my electorate, and real wages have gone backwards. Yet we have a Morrison government that wants people to believe that they've never had it better. When you actually talk to the people who we represent, you know that that spin just isn't true. Working families in my electorate are struggling under the weight of increased living costs and flatlining wages. The average Australian is over $700 a year worse off in the last year alone than if wages had grown at the same three per cent rate as inflation. The average family is paying about $900 a year more for their petrol, and childcare fees have gone up by $3,390 a year. You add all that together and it's a significant burden on families, who are particularly struggling as they're coming out of the pandemic. Research from the McKell Institute shows that the average Australian worker would be earning $254 more each week if wage growth had continued at the rate achieved under the last Labor government. That's $13,000 a year for families already doing it tough. That would be before the 'same job, same pay' policy that the Leader of the Opposition has announced we will take to an election, which would mean that people doing the same job, working side by side, would get paid the same amount. We know that in Australia today there are almost two million people who are either looking for more work or just looking for work. We have one of the highest rates of insecure work in the OECD. Under the Morrison government we've fallen from sixth in the OECD to 21st for wages. According to the OECD, we've fallen from eighth to 17th in the world in economic growth under the Morrison government. Millions of workers in Australia are in some form of non-standard, insecure working arrangement. There are 2.3 million casuals. There are over a million so-called independent contractors, many of whom are people forced to get an ABN so they can be an Uber driver, a Deliveroo driver, a cleaner, a security guard or someone who traditionally would have been employed to do the job but is now apparently their own small business without any of the protections of employment. There are 400,000 people on fixed-term contracts. Insecure work, the fractured labour market and stagnant wages mean that people in my electorate are struggling to make ends meet. When you add to that the increased pressure of increased childcare fees, increased cost of food and increased cost of petrol, you know that the Morrison government is failing people. It's extraordinary when the Prime Minister says petrol will go up under Labor. He should look at what's happening under him. 16:38 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm Despite the challenges of the last two years, Australia's economy remains strong, its fundamentals remain sound and it continues to prove its remarkable resilience. In line with this underlying strength in our economy and labour market, wages are bouncing back. The latest ABS data shows wages grew by 2.2 per cent through last year, higher than the 1.5 per cent forecast in the budget. Wages growth of 2.2 per cent in the September quarter is the strongest since the start of the pandemic. The figure is even higher in the private sector, with wages up 2.4 per cent over the year. And it's expected to get even better. As the RBA governor said this week, wage growth is expected to pick up and is forecast to increase by 2½ per cent over 2022 and three per cent over 2023. Not only are wages rising, but the actual share that Australians get to keep in their pocket is greater, too, thanks to the Morrison Liberal government's tax cuts. Tax relief has been a big focus for us. We have tax cuts for small businesses and we have tax cuts for households. The reality is that the facts speak for themselves. Take an Australian on $60,000 a year as an example—say, a nurse or a teacher. They are $6,480 better off as a result of the tax cuts that we have been providing as part of the structural reform that I am proud to have voted on that we've been taking to our tax system. The best way to see wages grow is to get more Australians into work and to continue growing the economy. That is what our tax reforms are doing. Despite the challenges of COVID-19, small and medium businesses have created 600,000 jobs right across the country. Australians know from painful experience that the only thing they can be sure of under a Labor government is higher taxes. Higher taxes don't increase wages. Higher taxes will take away your hard-earned money. Higher taxes will shrink the economy and lead to fewer jobs. Of course, we recognise that there are challenges out there for many Australians. The fact that petrol prices are rising is concerning, to say the least, but it is insulting to the intelligence of Australians to suggest that this is anything other than a function of global supply and demand pressures. Australians know that. They see that this is a global problem, not one just affecting our country, and people see through the Labor Party spin. The Prime Minister has said, and few would disagree, that Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic must be secured by people who have a track record of economic management. So let's have a look at the Labor Party's record. With respect to the cost of living, the proof is in the pudding. Under Labor, the cost of living was up by 2.7 per cent on average during their last term in office. By comparison, under the coalition government, it has been up by 1.8 per cent. That is exactly a one-third less increase than under Labor. Interest rates are also at historic lows at the moment. What it means is that somebody with an average $500,000 mortgage over a 30-year tenure will be $600 a month better off today than they would have been under Labor, when interest rates were higher. So, if the member for Rankin wants to fight an election on the cost of living, as he says, bring it on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The discussion has concluded. BILLS 39 BILLS Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2021, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021 39

Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2021

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021

Returned from Senate 39 National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 39

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading 39 16:44 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:   ."whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes: (a) the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress; (b) as of March 2021, after almost three years of operation, the National Redress Scheme had seen only 5,275 payments made; (c) the average processing time for a claim under the Scheme is over a year; and (d) the Government has not implemented all the recommendations of the two-year review of the National Redress Scheme; and (2) calls on the Government to work with states and territories to: (a) lift the cap on Redress payments to $200,000, as recommended by the Royal Commission; (b) fix the assessment matrix so it properly takes into account the impact of abuse; and (c) provide ongoing support for survivors". The journey of the Redress Scheme goes something like this. The royal commission announcement was in 2012, made by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Then we saw the interim report in 2014, which recommended the establishment of a redress scheme. Then we had the royal commission's final report in 2017, and the Redress Scheme began in July 2018, four years after it was recommended. In October 2018, which we all remember, of course, was the apology. Throughout this journey, the government of Australia called on survivors of institutional sexual abuse to do some of the hardest things, promising it would be a journey the people and the government of Australia would support. Survivors were told that after years and decades of not being heard, Australia would listen to their stories. Survivors came forward in trust and bravery to tell their stories, often reliving the most traumatic experiences of their lives. While the Redress Scheme cannot right the wrongs of the past, it can go some way to providing a sense of justice. This was part of the pact Australia made with no survivors—that we would hear their stories, that we would do something about it and that we would believe them. Survivors deserve a scheme which acknowledges the stories they told. They deserve that scheme to be in place and working now. They have waited long enough. The scheme we have today needs changes to make sure it delivers on the promise Australia made. Access to justice through the scheme is too hard and too slow. It leaves so many survivors behind and retraumatises too many along the way. The royal commission estimated, as I indicated in my second reading amendment, that 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. The government has simply not done well enough to give people access to the scheme. As of 31 March 2021, the scheme had received 10,047 applications and 5,275 payments had been made. A Senate estimates hearing last year revealed that the average processing time was 12 to 13 months. Many take longer. The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme heard it took 17 months for one applicant to have their application finalised, and that is way too long. I have met with survivors whose applications cannot progress at all, whose institutions have still not joined the scheme or who have faced years of delay because institutions simply will not do the right thing. A redress scheme focused on helping those who need it would not make access so hard. A redress scheme focused on helping those who need it would not compound trauma and retraumatise. A redress scheme focused on helping those who need it would not take a year on average to decide on an application. Labor has listened to the recommendations of the royal commission. Labor has listened to the second-anniversary review. Most importantly, Labor has listened to survivors and what they say they need from the scheme. The government seem determined not to listen; they seem determined to put their responsibility to survivors to one side. This bill introduces two changes from the list of changes the scheme needs: firstly, it allows the government to take on the role of funder of last resort if no organisation exists to claim against or the organisation does not have the financial capacity to participate in this scheme; and, secondly, it improves the naming and shaming rules for institutions that do not join the scheme. Labor welcomes those two changes. We have been calling on them for a long time. These are changes Labor has been calling for because we have listened to survivors. They are changes the government could have made earlier. Indeed, they are changes the government should have made earlier. These changes are yet another example of the government being dragged years too late to things they could have done immediately. It doesn't need to be this way. The government could listen to Labor, to survivors, to their own reviews, and do the right thing now. They don't need to take years to come around on doing the right thing, the thing Labor and survivors have been calling for. They don't need to make the changes we're calling for months or years apart. They could do it now. This bill goes some way to being Labor's call for governments to act as a funder of last resort. The reality is that, for many survivors, there are no surviving institutions that can be held to account. People should not miss out on redress because of this. Government, on behalf of all Australians, has a moral responsibility to step up and help provide justice. This bill will not automatically make government the funders of last resort; that will remain a case-by-case decision. I implore all governments to make quick and compassionate decisions about becoming a funder of last resort. It is the right thing to do. Labor supports this change as an improvement to the scheme overall, but the government could and should go further—including by taking up Labor's suggestion that, where a recalcitrant institution refuses to join the scheme, a payment can still be made to a survivor, with the government responsible for recouping the cost from institutions through the tax system or other means. Even with the changes in this bill, there would still be thousands of people who cannot access this scheme, simply because the responsible institution has not joined the scheme. I am not arguing that institutions should be let off the hook; that would be morally wrong. But there is more the government could do to secure redress for survivors. Too many organisations are still ducking their responsibilities. Everybody in this place knows how powerful transparency is. The changes in this bill improve the operation of the public register of institutions who are not participating in the scheme—the name and shame register. That will bring the power of public opinion to bear on organisations not doing the right thing and living up to their responsibilities. These changes represent improvements to the scheme and will be supported by Labor. It is over three years since the Redress Scheme started. This is pressure that should have been brought to bear long before now. At the same time, these changes will not result in a scheme that sees Australia live up to its promise to survivors. The list of important and necessary reforms is much longer than what is addressed in this bill. From the second-anniversary review of the scheme alone, the government has failed to act on the following recommendations: face-to-face application processes for First Nations, CALD and disability communities; lifelong access to counselling for all survivors; improving the quality, scope and geographic spread of support services, including financial counselling; developing a survivor service improvement charter to set expectations around service privacy standards; changing the limit of one application so that changes in circumstances and additional information can be taken into account; allowing applications from noncitizens, non-permanent residents, prisoners, those with serious criminal convictions, and care leavers if they were abused in care between 18 and 21—21 was the age of majority until 1974; amending the standard of proof to reasonable likelihood; fixing the assessment matrix so that penetrative abuse is not the sole indicator of the severity of abuse and the existence of extreme circumstances, so that higher payments can be received by more people who have suffered abuse, something that is particularly important to survivor organisations; combined payments for the recognition of abuse and the impact of abuse—currently payments depend mostly on the type of abuse, not its impact; removing the term 'penetrative', in acknowledgement that trauma is caused in many ways; making the assessment guidelines public so survivors know how decisions are made; introducing a minimum payment of $10,000 even where a prior payment would otherwise have reduced the payment to a lesser amount—currently some people are receiving payments of $5,000 or less; ending the indexation of prior payments, another issue very important to survivor organisations; changing the internal review process so that there is more information and a simple template and an initial payment cannot be reduced by review; ensuring that government is the funder of last resort for all applications where there is no participating institution; improving the consistency of decision-making; giving both survivors and institutions input into the scheme's operation; ensuring that payments to stolen generation survivors for non-sexual abuse are not deducted from redress payments; significantly improving the redress IT system; significantly increasing the staff cap on the scheme and stopping relying on contract staff; and, of course, improving communications and outreach to different communities and building trust. I spoke just yesterday to a survivor who had been, in my view, duped by some legal firms out there who are cashing in on this, and I think it's reprehensible. Labor spent many years calling for the introduction of early payment schemes to ensure the elderly or unwell do not miss out on redress. The government finally came to the table a little earlier this year. It should not have taken years for the government to come around and do the right thing. By definition, it would have helped those very people who have died waiting for redress—such a shame—or become so ill and frail that they are limited in what they can do with any payment. How long this has taken is particularly sad because it doesn't even cost anything; it just brings forward part of people's payment. A government that had the needs of survivors at front of mind would not need years of pressure to make simple changes that don't cost anything but make a massive difference in people's lives. Survivors have also criticised the scheme for caps on payments, indexation of prior payments and the deduction of unrelated prior payments, including stolen generations payments, which I have referred to. There are concerns that this is pushing survivors to give up or seek justice outside the scheme, through more difficult, costly and lengthy civil claims. These are the very things the schemes were designed to avoid. Currently some survivors are receiving, as I said, payments of $5,000 or less. Labor is once again calling for the indexation of prior payments to cease completely, as well as to ensure that unrelated payments are not deducted. This includes, as I said, stolen generation survivors of non-sexual abuse. We are also again calling on the government to lift the cap on payments from $150,000 to $200,000 as recommended by the royal commission. The government should also build in a guarantee that a review of an offer of redress will not result in the offer being reduced. This is what survivors have been calling for, and it goes to the heart of my second reading amendment. This is what the royal commission recommended, and this is the scheme Australia should have. The government has again failed to change its assessment matrix, a change survivors have long been asking for. The government's assessment matrix sets low the arbitrary payments for the impact of abuse based on the kind of abuse, not the scale of its impact on survivors' lives. This is yet another deviation by the government from the original recommendations of the royal commission. This is why Labor has called on the minister to remake the redress assessment framework to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments. The government should also make the assessment guidelines public so that survivors know how decisions are made. The second-anniversary review has called for a change in the internal review process so that there is more information for survivors or applicants and a simpler template, as well as the provision of an additional payment that cannot be reduced by the review. It also called for the amendment to the standard of proof to 'reasonable likelihood'. The whole purpose of the scheme was to end the hurdles and high barriers to access justice that civil litigation presents. It's time the government honoured the purpose of the scheme and gave survivors access to the justice they deserve. The scheme, as it stands, fails to provide the ongoing psychological support that survivors have been calling for and the royal commission originally recommended. The changes in this bill do nothing to address the needs of survivors. In many cases, people have been provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological care. Many survivors will likely need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives or for their whole lives. A redress scheme that took the needs of survivors as its first focus would provide lifetime psychological support and counselling. That is what Labor has been calling for, because that's what survivors say they need. In conclusion, the government always claims that the changes needed to make the scheme everything it should be require agreements from the state. They're right; they do. That's not a reason to stop trying. That is a reason to take action and to show leadership. That's what Australians expect. That's what survivors deserve. If the minister has found any state government resisting doing the right thing, tell us who they are. Don't let them stand in the way of this country doing the right thing by survivors and doing it now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Conroy 249127 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I thank the honourable member for Shortland. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. 17:04 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff In September I spoke on a similar bill regarding the National Redress Scheme, and I expressed my sadness and sympathy for all victims of child sexual abuse. I stand in this place and, indeed, speak of the unspeakable tragedies that have been forced upon the innocents of our nation. Since the Morrison government introduced the National Redress Scheme, the justice that has always seemed unattainable is no longer out of reach, enabling healing and restoration of the lives of those survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. Survivors of abuse carry a deep burden which should never have come to bear. Coming to terms with the trauma of such horrific acts is not as simple as putting a bandaid on a paper cut. The pain runs so much deeper. It's endured for lifetimes, and in many cases it will never truly leave the psyche of victims who suffered at the hands of institutions and individuals with a desire to inflict their deranged harm on innocent souls. I speak directly to survivors when I acknowledge that the National Redress Scheme, for many, will not fully heal your physical and mental wounds but plays a role in beginning your healing journey. As Australians, as a nation and as a government, we support you, we hear you and we believe you. No matter how long it's taken for you to bravely come forward, mustering the courage to share your story is life-saving. It encourages other survivors to share their stories, and it creates a ripple effect of change so that we as a nation can eliminate the risk of possible perpetrators harming children and vulnerable individuals now and into the future. I speak to the victims who have not yet found their voice, have not yet seen justice, or have had justice denied, and to those who have been brave enough to stand before the law and stand before their perpetrator yet are still denied justice for the gross and callous theft of their childhoods by these evil, selfish and deranged sexual predators. There will be survivors who may be watching this, or listening, who have not yet found their voice. To those individuals, I implore you not to be discouraged. Do not be frightened. When you are ready to speak, we are ready to listen. The National Redress Scheme is not just monetary compensation. The component of the scheme which covers monetary compensation is for the purpose of rebuilding lives stolen by individuals and institutions who abused them. All of these institutions are listed on the National Redress Scheme website and, for the public's information, those institutions that have not signed up to this scheme are also listed on the website. We know there are victims who have been, and continue to be, sexually abused in non-institutional settings—for example, in the home, by a relative or in a sporting environment. It must stop. The harm is caused to children and society more broadly, and it must stop. There's no greater cause of pain than to be abused by someone who is supposed to protect you, and this affects the ability to create what are considered to be normal functioning relationships across individual lifetimes. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 reflects the next instalment of legislative change in response to the second-year review of the scheme. It expands the funder of last resort arrangements, a significant recommendation made as part of the second-year review and one which the government has been very public in its support for. The bill also strengthens the legislative basis on which institutions are publicly named as having not joined the scheme, which makes the current practice clear and administratively efficient. The bill responds to recommendation 5.2 of the second-year review and recognises that some survivors continue to be unable to access redress through the scheme. Currently, a person can only access redress under the funder of last resort arrangements where a government—state, territory or Commonwealth—is equally responsible for the abuse of the person. This bill recognises that, regardless of whether a government was involved in the abuse of the person, where the institution responsible for the abuse no longer exists or does not have the financial capacity to participate in the scheme the impacted survivors and victims should have the opportunity to access some redress. Expanding the funder of last resort arrangements will increase access to the scheme for those survivors and those victims. Survivors should also be informed about an institution's status in joining the scheme through public naming of relevant institutions so they can make informed decisions. Public naming has also proven successful in encouraging institutions to join the Redress Scheme. This bill expands the funder of last resort arrangements to allow state and territory governments to be funders of last resort, regardless of whether a government was involved in that abuse of the person, and where the institution responsible for the abuse may no longer exist. This will increase access for survivors who would otherwise be unable to access redress through the scheme and may have limited ability to pursue civil litigation. There would be very many Australians out there who have a limited ability to do that. Wherever possible, an overarching institution that is affiliated with the defunct institution will be called on to take responsibility. However, in cases where there are no such parent institutions, governments can step in and enable access to that redress. The bill provides that a government can be a funder of last resort for an institution that is unable to meet the legislative requirements to participate in the scheme. An institution cannot be declared as participating in the scheme unless there are reasonable grounds to expect that they can discharge their liabilities and obligations under the scheme. An institution that does not have the financial capacity to pay its redress liabilities would not meet this requirement. The costs of the redress in this case fall on the relevant governments, and this ensures that institutions that still exist but have no financial capacity have a role to play in working with those survivors. The amendments mean that survivors naming these institutions will now have the ability to access that redress. That's good news for Australians who are affected by this Redress Scheme or able to reach it. The government has committed more than $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget to support the implementation of recommendations of the review. This includes $22.8 million over four years from 2021-22 for the Commonwealth's share of costs for expanding funder of last resort arrangements. The costs will be shared fifty-fifty with the relevant state and territory government for applications progressed under the expanded funder of last resort arrangements. This bill builds on action already taken by the Australian government, as I mentioned before. I spoke on some of the recommendations that we implemented in the last tranche of legislation. The government introduced a range of measures, including an advance payment for elderly and terminally ill applicants through the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021, which was passed by this parliament in September this year. This bill does not represent the end of the work the Australian government—the Morrison government—is undertaking in response to the review. There is much work on the road ahead and many more recommendations to be implemented. The government, as a priority, is also progressing implementation of a range of recommendations which do not require legislative change to improve the survivor experience and the operation of the scheme more broadly. For example, work is underway, in consultation with scheme stakeholders, including through co-design processes, to improve the application form and process to better engage with survivors. Other, more complex recommendations require further development work, as well as consultation with state and territory governments and scheme stakeholders. Major changes to the design of the scheme and to legislation require agreement from state and territory governments, and decisions cannot be made in unilaterally. The government is continuing to work with states and territories on all of these matters. The staged and considered approach to responding to recommendations was outlined in the interim Australian government response to the review. The government plans to release a final response to the review in early 2022. I'm aware that some stakeholders suggest the maximum redress payment be increased from $150,000 to $200,000, consistent with the royal commission's recommendation. The maximum payment of $150,000 was the amount supported by states and territories in the establishment of the scheme some time ago. It balances the need to recognise the wrongs suffered by survivors, while encouraging institutions to participate and continue their participation in the scheme. The current average payment amount is over $85,000, which is higher than the average payment of $65,000 that was suggested by the royal commission. It's important to note that the independent review did not make a recommendation to increase the current maximum redress payment to $200,000. Robyn Kruk concluded that increasing the maximum payment could have significant negative impacts on survivors, institutions, and the scheme more broadly. This includes risks to institutions that have predicated their participation in the scheme based on the $150,000 cap—it makes sense—leaving the scheme, or refusing to join the scheme, which would be detrimental to victims-survivors, and that is the last thing we want to do. Rather than increasing the maximum payment, which was not a review recommendation, the government is of the view that energy and resources should instead be directed at changes to the scheme that will improve the integrity, fairness and access to it. The Morrison government supports, in principle, the recommendation to improve the equity, scope and quality of counselling support by ensuring all survivors have lifelong access to trauma informed redress counselling. Progressing this recommendation requires agreement by all jurisdictions, and the government will consider it in consultation with state and territory governments, service providers and of course other stakeholders. The Australian government notes recommendation 5.1b of the review—that all internal reviews of redress offers are without prejudice to the original determination. The review also recommends further changes related to internal reviews, including the ability to provide more information. The government acknowledges the benefits of allowing further information to be provided and the greater procedural fairness that this will ultimately offer. Under current arrangements, prior payments are only considered relevant if they are made by the institution in relation to the sexual abuse or nonsexual abuse covered by the scheme. Stolen generations payments, which are not made in recognition of the abuse covered by the scheme, are not considered prior payments, and I'm sure that's also welcome. The government works closely with states and territories to identify and understand the components of each stolen generation payment made. We'll continue to work with our colleagues on the issue to ensure only payments that are relevant are considered under the scheme. Following the review, the scheme has consulted survivors, advocates, institutions, state and territory governments on the government's response and implementing action on review recommendations. The Ministers Redress Scheme Governance Board, comprising of Commonwealth and state and territory ministers responsible for redress, was consulted on this bill, and in accordance with the scheme governance arrangements the board has agreed to the changes contained in this bill. The scheme is voluntary, and institutions are not mandated to participate. Redress payments are made to survivors by the Commonwealth and recouped from institutions in arrears. Without the proper legal arrangements in place between the Commonwealth and participating institutions, there's a risk that funding may not be recouped. Monetary repayments are only one part of redress. Applicants are also entitled to a direct personal response from the institutions responsible for their abuse. Often, more times than not, that would mean more than the financial payment. Without institutions signing up to the scheme, the government would not be able to offer this important part of redress to applicants, so I encourage all of those Australians who have been affected by childhood sexual abuse to come forward and apply for the redress that you are absolutely entitled to. 17:18 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm very pleased to rise to make a contribution to this debate this evening on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton earlier. As always, it is an honour to stand in this parliament and try to give voice to survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions. As members of parliament, it is our job to ensure that the processes and systems for seeking justice, like the National Redress Scheme, are implemented and operating in the way which they were intended. Labor welcome this legislation tonight because we believe that the reforms to the National Redress Scheme that are part of this legislation are absolutely essential to bring focus back to a survivor centred scheme. The process for seeking redress is, however, not at all timely, and I put this government on warning: if you think for one moment that 5,000-odd payments after three years of operating this scheme is a job well done, then you need to rethink. The process for seeking redress, as I said, has been far from timely. I will have more to say about this tomorrow, because the joint standing committee will be releasing our committee report, where we looked at a number of these matters. I put it to this government that it has been said again and again that the National Redress Scheme is not doing what it was intended to do. This bill makes two changes. They are important changes. That is why Labor is supporting making these two changes to the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse. The first bit is that it is extending the funder-of-last-resort provisions so that the states and territories or the Commonwealth government can agree to funding equally redress payments when an institution no longer exists. We now have many examples of this exact scenario, where the institution itself is defunct and there is no existing linked institution and there is no-one else you can turn to. Equally, there is an issue when an institution does exist but, even should it wish to, it is prevented from joining the National Redress Scheme because it doesn't meet the financial viability requirements. That is a statutory requirement. We do have institutions that, in all good faith, it would seem, have sought to try to join the scheme but have been unable to. These changes are important to deal with both those situations. Institutions, also, might be able to partially participate in the scheme if they don't meet the current financial viability requirement, and that's a good thing too. They can still issue a direct personal response. They can still contribute to ongoing counselling and psychological support services, perhaps. But those partly participating institutions will need to agree to a reassessment of their financial position at least annually, and that's a good thing. That is the government making sure. They might well be able to become fully participating institutions down the track should they have that financial capacity to do so. Governments can agree to equally fund redress payments for those partially participating institutions in the meantime. Secondly, this bill goes to further extensions of the public naming of institutions that refuse to join the scheme, and that is by allowing the public naming of an institution that hasn't joined the scheme but has an application before it. It would equally allow for the public naming of an institution that has not joined the scheme and is reasonably believed to be associated with abuse. These are good things in this bill. That's why Labor will be supporting this bill. But do these things go far enough? Is this the best we can do for survivors? No. There are many shortcomings in this scheme. Indeed, the government failed to bring forward legislation in a timely manner to deal with what have been known shortcomings not for one year, not for two years, but for the entire three-year operation of this scheme. I have lost count of the number of times I have reported to this parliament on these shortcomings. I will again tomorrow. But let's deal with the legislation before us now. There was a joint standing committee in the previous parliament that shone a big light on a number of these shortcomings. There is a joint committee that exists for this parliament. We have delivered two interim reports. We will be delivering the second one tomorrow. There will also be a final report. We had a statutory independent review conducted on the second anniversary. Do you know what? Each and every one of those reports has had pretty much the same thing to say. So there is a real question for this government. Why didn't you listen in 2019? Why didn't you listen in 2020? Are you going to listen in 2021? There are many people, many survivors of child sexual abuse, who currently don't have access to the National Redress Scheme. This is a matter that I will come back to in a moment. There have been many occasions when I have stood in this House to argue that the National Redress Scheme must be unswervingly focused on ensuring that every decision we make as legislators is in the best interests of survivors. It must be trauma-informed in its approach and in its practice. That is the job for us as legislators here. This parliament made a national apology and we committed ourselves to delivering justice. That is the responsibility of all of us who stand in this parliament today. There are survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions who have consistently told us about their concerns about the National Address Scheme, and its many inadequacies, since day one. So don't be telling me now that we're going to do a co-design and sit with survivors. Survivors have sat in good faith for three years now talking to this government, giving evidence in joint standing committees and public hearings, and talking to the independent statutory review. The question is: is this government prepared to listen? That is the real question at stake here. Robyn Kruk, in her second-year review of the National Redress Scheme, canvassed many of these inadequacies. On the ones that were already made and put before this parliament, she's added further weight to those inadequacies. Her report reinforced many of the issues we had already known, issues that this government had been put on notice about since 2019. There have been many reports since the royal commission and the commencement of the Redress Scheme, and many reports since the introduction of the scheme have highlighted that the scheme isn't working as planned. That's a golden opportunity to find out what is not working and to find a remedy. You don't hide things under the rug, you don't run away from those problems; you front them squarely and you find a way to deliver a just outcome for survivors. It's incumbent on all of us to acknowledge that the changes represented in this bill are good, but they should have been implemented years ago. We should not have waited until nearly the end of 2021 for this to happen. Let's remind the House that the royal commission's recommendation on the issue of funder of last resort was very clear. The royal commission said in its conclusions that there is a broader social responsibility that goes to caring for and delivering justice to institutional child sexual abuse survivors. The royal commission report says: Although the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the problems faced by many people who have been abused are the responsibility of our entire society. The broad social failure to protect children across a number of generations makes clear the pressing need to provide avenues through which survivors can obtain appropriate redress for past abuse. In addition to this broader social responsibility— And this is the part I want this house to listen to— governments may also have responsibilities as regulators and as guardians of children. Damn straight there are responsibilities for this parliament! For some time now, Labor has called on all governments to act as funders of last resort, to ensure that there are not inequities baked into this scheme for survivors. I noted at the beginning of my speech that there are many survivors today who have absolutely no access to the Redress Scheme. That is a gross inequity. If this government isn't prepared to look hard at ways in which we can deliver justice for all survivors, that will be a gross failing. It will be marked down in history as having failed to deliver and honour that apology, that commitment, that we as a parliament gave to survivors. While this bill aligns with Labor's position, it does not provide certainty for all survivors by any stretch of the imagination. Not everyone can, as I said, access this scheme as it is currently framed. Indeed, the joint standing committee heard horrific evidence from survivors of Kenja Communication, a cult-like organisation that has to date flatly refused to join the scheme and denies there is any legitimacy to the survivors' allegations of child sexual abuse. Sadly, there are currently no levers on the table that have been effective in bringing Kenja Communication into the scheme. They are not a registered charity, so that lever doesn't work for the Commonwealth. They are not receiving government funding, so you can't threaten not to deliver that funding. There is some serious thinking to be done by this government as to how to deliver justice for those brave people like Michelle Ring, who gave evidence despite all the possible ramifications that that might have had for her as an individual on her job and her life. It is a traumatic thing for survivors to repeat their stories. But to then be told by the abusing institution, 'We don't believe you, we are not joining this scheme and you will never get justice'—just imagine for one moment how that feels. It is gut wrenching and it should not be beyond this parliament to consider mechanisms with which we can deliver genuine justice for all survivors. That is the test that I put to this government today; I put them on notice. I don't hear anything yet that is going to deal and deliver justice for people like Michelle Ring and all those survivors of institutions that flatly refuse to accept responsibility for gross violations and abuses. Kenja Communication is not alone; I don't want the parliament to think it is the only one in this bracket. The CYMS Basketball Association in Victoria, Devonport Community Church in Tasmania and the Forrest Tennis Club in the ACT are all refusing to join the scheme. It is essential that this parliament consider ways in which we deliver justice to all survivors. It cannot be beyond us to do that. 17:33 Mr SHARMA 274506 Wentworth I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I expect members here would recall when the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established in 2013 by the Gillard government, and members could not fail to remember quite vividly some of the thousands of people who came forward to that royal commission to talk about the abuse they had experienced as children, the abuse they had experienced in orphanages, in children's homes, in schools, in churches, in other religious organisations, in sports clubs, in hospitals, in foster care and in many other institutions—institutions where you would expect, and we should all expect, children to be treated with care, love, courtesy and respect, not to be subject to the sorts of horrific tales and stories of abuse we heard at the royal commission. The stories we heard through that process were shocking, they were appalling, and they were heartbreaking. Since that time, we've come some way towards national healing, but there is still a very long way to go. There was of course an apology to the survivors of that institutional child sexual abuse, and there is also now the National Redress Scheme, which was set up as one of the recommendations of the royal commission partly as a means of providing recognition for the survivors but also as a means of providing, however imperfectly, a form of restitution. I believe that the National Redress Scheme, whilst it has its imperfections and needs improvements, has fulfilled an important healing role in addressing this at a national scale. The bill before us today consists of amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, the enabling act, and forms part of the government's further response to recommendations from the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. I also sit on the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, and I've heard some of these stories and been involved in some of the debates and discussions about how the scheme can be improved. I believe that some of the measures in this bill go some way towards addressing those concerns. This bill amends the act to make a major change to the scheme to allow more survivor applications to be progressed, through expanding the funder of last resort provisions. That has been a consistent theme from those who have appeared before the joint standing committee. The bill will increase survivor access by, in part, enabling the government to be a funder of last resort for applications that name institutions that no longer exist and where there is no overarching organisation to take responsibility for the institution. It's also for institutions that are unable to meet the legislative requirements to participate in the scheme as they don't have the financial capacity to pay their redress liability. This will allow more survivors to access more funder of last resort provisions. Where an institution is still operating but is unable to join the scheme, they will have the option to partly participate in the scheme, and although unable to fund their redress liability they will be able to provide a direct personal response—one of the components of redress—such as in the form of an apology. Importantly, the expanded funder of last resort arrangements contained in this bill will not cover institutions that can join the scheme but choose not to. These institutions would not only continue to be strongly encouraged to join the scheme; they will also continue to be subject to financial consequences applicable to those institutions that refuse to join. Importantly as part of those naming and shaming provisions, the bill confirms that institutions named in applications to the scheme or institutions that the scheme operator has a reasonable belief have a connection with the abuse of a person can be publicly named. The public naming of institutions already occurs, but what this change does is put this practice specifically in the legislation for the avoidance of any doubt. Public naming provides survivors who have applied for redress and those considering applying for redress with information on the institutions participating in the scheme. Public naming has also proved successful in encouraging otherwise reluctant institutions to join the scheme. The government recognises that people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse have waited too long for redress, and, in particular, those survivors of institutions that are now defunct or have been unable to join the scheme. This is part of a response to that. The government has committed to prioritising initial action on 25 of the 38 review recommendations in the second-year review undertaken by Robyn Kruk either in full or in part and is committing over $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget to support the implementation of these recommendations. Until this legislation is passed there will remain a substantial number of survivors who cannot access redress. Particularly given the vulnerable cohort of survivors, including elderly and terminally ill applicants, it's important that we pass this legislation soon. This bill components the government's continuing efforts to improve the scheme. We are committed to doing so. It's the third piece of legislation this year aimed at improving the scheme, and it's the second bill making amendments to the act in direct response to the recommendations made as part of the review. This bill, along with the previous bill, is not the full extent of the government's actions in response to the review. The government has released its interim response to the review, which provides further detail on action that will be taken in response to recommendations and notes that a staged and considered approach is needed. One important element of the review's recommendations was for substantial scheme design changes, but the way the scheme has been set up means that such changes require that there be agreement from participating state and territory governments and that the government undertake further development work in consultation with these state and territory governments and with survivors, institutions and other stakeholders. The government will continue to consider and consult on these issues over coming months. Survivor input and the often traumatic sharing of survivor experience have been critical not only to the establishment of this scheme but also to the improvements we've made to the scheme. I want to thank those many survivors who have not only participated in the royal commission but also remained engaged in the process since and who continue to share their wisdom and their own experiences. These are critically important to undertaking busier abuse and to improving the scheme. In the second review, which has just been undertaken, we had survivors contribute more than 250 submissions and participate in surveys and consultations to inform the outcomes of the review. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Redress Scheme, which governs the operation of this scheme, all state and territory governments are being consulted on the bill and have provided their agreement to the amendments. I commend this legislation to the House. 17:41 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin In speaking to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021, I speak in support of the amendments moved by the member for Barton. Ten years after the hopes of so many victims of child sexual abuse were raised, this government is still dithering. The origins of this legislation go right back to the Gillard government, under which, in December 2012, a royal commission was announced. In 2017, the final report was handed to the government. By that stage, it was the Morrison government or, at least, a coalition government. That was an inquiry that went on for nearly five years, and it handed down, I think, over 400 different recommendations in total. It seems that those recommendations are being trickled out a little at a time in a very slow way. Like so much of what the Morrison government does, it is big on headlines and announcement but very slow and very light on following through and actually delivering on those announcements. Just for the benefit of anyone following this debate, I note that what this legislation essentially does is extend the funder-of-last-resort provisions so that a state or territory and the Commonwealth can agree to equally fund redress payments when an institution no longer exists and there is no linked institution that exists, or when an institution does exist but is unable to join the scheme because it doesn't meet the financial viability requirements. Institutions will also be able to partly participate in the scheme if they don't currently meet the financial viability requirements, and partly participating institutions will need to agree to a reassessment of their financial position at least annually and become fully participating institutions if they have the financial capacity to do so. Secondly, the legislation further extends the public naming of institutions that don't join the scheme, including by allowing the public naming of an institution that has not joined the scheme and has an application against it or of an institution that has not joined the scheme and is reasonably believed to be associated with abuse. On that point, I understand that, according to the royal commission, there were some 4,000 different institutions identified where abuse may have occurred, yet I also understand that, to date, only about 526 government and non-government institutions across Australia have joined the scheme. I accept that many of those institutions that might have been named in the royal commission inquiry no longer exist, so that may account for most of them, but it's clear that there were other entities that have decided for one reason or another not to join the scheme, and because of that I think it's incumbent on governments, both state and federal, to respond by at least becoming a funder of last resort. Labor will support this legislation because it is a step in the right direction, but, clearly, it doesn't go far enough. As the member for Barton quite rightly pointed out, to date her figures were something like 5,000 payments being made, but, according to a press release that the Minister for Families and Social Services issued in September, there had in fact been 6,208 payments totalling $529 million made and some 11,835 applications received at that time. Regardless of which figures are correct, right here and now the reality is that, given that there were some 60,000 children who may have been in some way abused in the care of different entities, we are still a long way off from responding to the support that those people need. And, even worse, if in the last three years we've only been able to deal with some 5,000 or 6,000 payments, there is no hope for some of those people who were abused to have their cases or their applications dealt with for years and maybe decades to come, by which time it's very likely that they would have passed on. Indeed, on that very point, my reading of the royal commission's findings was that some 80 per cent of the people that were identified as having been in some way abused were already over the age of 40, and that was back in 2017. So I suspect that that figure is even higher now, which tells me that, if they go through the process as it is currently being handled by the government, many of those people will never ever be compensated because of the slow process that we are going through. Labor has continuously been calling for more of the recommendations of the royal commission to be adopted, and, in particular, recommendations relating to lifting the cap to $200,000 and ensuring that payments made prior are not indexed when calculating the redress payment. I am aware that in some cases some of the institutions that have now joined the scheme have previously made payments. If the payments they had made were inadequate but were indexed, it would effectively mean that the recipients would be getting less when their application to the scheme was considered. So that matter needs to be addressed as well. Labor has been calling for the government to ensure that prior payments which don't relate to institutional child sexual abuse are not deducted from redress payments—for example, payments made to children of the stolen generation. Again, given that the commission found that some 14 per cent plus of all victims were people of Indigenous background, that is an important issue, because they may also be entitled to some other support from the stolen generation report. Labor has been calling for a guarantee that the review of an offer of redress will not result in an offer being reduced. I have personally dealt with a couple of matters where applications were put in for reviews, and the last thing you would want to do is think that if you put in an application for a review that it may well be that you get even less money, because that would become a deterrent to people trying to seek the fair redress that they are looking for. Labor has also been calling for the ongoing provision of psychological counselling and other support measures to any of the victims. These are all matters important to people who have been victims of this kind of abuse. They are all matters that these people have to deal with each and every day of their life. So, apart from the financial payments that are being looked at, we need to provide these people with a lot more support. In respect to that, one of the things that Labor has been calling for along the way has also been to have face-to-face application processes for First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse, and disability communities. Again, those people form a significant number of the children that were impacted by the abuse. In fact, if you add together the First Nations, the CALD and the disability communities, we have over 20 per cent of the victims falling into that category. So it's a matter that shouldn't just be dismissed as being something that isn't that important. It is important. For many of those people, lodging applications is difficult enough. When you have to lodge an application after you have already gone through the trauma and you have to relive it is difficult enough for any person to do, let alone a person who might also have communication problems. So we need to provide whatever assistance is possible to them to ensure that they have every opportunity and every support that they need to get their applications properly considered. One of the other matters, among the many that Labor has been calling for, relates to reviewing the limit of one application so that changes in circumstances and additional information can be taken into account. Again, as things progress, new information might arise or there might be additional information that might affect what the original application payment would have been. So there should be an opportunity for every application to be reviewed, if that is the case. Another thing that I believe is sadly lacking in the scheme right now is that it does not allow for noncitizens, non-permanent residents, prisoners or those with serious criminal convictions to submit an application. In my view, that is morally wrong. Those people, regardless of where they are right now, should be entitled to apply for redress under the scheme, just like everyone else should be. The fact that they might be a noncitizen or a non-permanent resident should in no way diminish their rights as a person who was abused and should be covered by the scheme to not be able to put an application in. So I hope that the government is prepared to look at these matters as it considers other changes to the legislation. I heard government speakers talking about how the government is progressing through the recommendations. This is, I think, the third time that this matter has come before the parliament, with improvements on each occasion. That may all be well and good, but that should be done sooner rather than later. Equally, it should also be the case that, where an assessment is made, the guidelines are made public so that survivors know exactly why they received the support they did or the financial support that they did. It shouldn't be something that is hidden away as a decision that no-one is able to understand or question. Along with that part of the decision-making, it is also important that there is some consistency in the decision-making process itself. Labor has moved an amendment. The amendment goes to the heart of some of the critical issues, including to lift the payment to a $200,000 cap rather than the $150,000 cap that currently applies. The royal commission in fact recommended $200,000. It is important to note what the cap will also do—and this relates to a matter that I have spoken to on previous occasions and relates to a person in my electorate who was impacted by the $150,000 cap. The person would have been entitled to a greater amount of compensation from the institution that he had previously lodged a claim with and who had acknowledged his rights to compensation but, because of the Redress Scheme coming into effect and responsibility for payment having been transferred to the government initiated scheme, the amount of compensation that person then received was less than he otherwise would have received had the institution stayed with its own level of compensation. It's a classic case where a person has actually been disadvantaged by this scheme, and if the cap were raised to $200,000 that person may well be much better off. My view is that, while some people will say that it's not just about money, the reality is that, for many of the people that were impacted, money does make a difference because they are constantly having to pay out for health and medical bills which have resulted because of the impact that the abuse has had on them over a lifetime. As a result of that, they've had to incur costs, whether it's because from time to time they haven't been able to get secure work, or because the mental health state that they were in might have limited their employment opportunities and the like. So it is not an unreasonable ask to give them a payment that much more fairly responds to their needs The other issue that I'll touch on relates to comments that I made earlier on when I talked about the number of cases that have been dealt with and the number that are still outstanding, given that there are some 60,000 survivors possibly identified. This is a very serious issue. The member for Barton quite rightly pointed out that the processing times are well over a year, and in some cases have reached close to 18 months. That cannot continue. Under that time frame, there will be people out there who are victims who will simply not lodge applications because they know that it will put them through another 18 months or so of trauma, reminiscing and recollections about what happened to them, and so it would deter them. It is unreasonable. We need to deal with them much more speedily, and I would urge the government to increase the staffing level if they need to so that all applications can be dealt with in a very timely way. 17:56 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The National Redress Scheme For Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders Of Last Resort And Other Measures) Bill 2021 will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. The amendments form part of the government's response to recommendations from the second year review of the scheme and the government's commitment to ongoing improvement of the scheme. Some survivors of institutional child sexual abuse are unable to access redress through the scheme as the institution responsible for the abuse no longer exists or the institution cannot meet the necessary requirements to participate in the scheme. Currently, applications from these survivors cannot be progressed. This is why changes to the scheme's funder of last resort provisions are critical. This bill reflects the next legislative changes in response to the review. It expands funder of last resort arrangements, a significant recommendation made as part of the second year review and one which the government has been very public in its support for. The bill also strengthens the legislative basis on which institutions are publicly named as having not joined the scheme. The amendments in this bill complement the government's continuing efforts to improve the scheme for survivors. The SPEAKER 265967 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [18:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)

 65 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. 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. Katter, R. 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. Smith, A, D. H. Steggall, Z. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Webster, A. E. Wicks, L. E. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wyatt, K. G. Zimmerman, T. M. 59 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. Fitzgibbon, J. A. 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. 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. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rishworth, A. L. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. (Teller) Smith, D. P. B. Snowdon, W. E. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) 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.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

 Third Reading 50 18:07 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 50

Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021

Second Reading 50 18:08 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I'm pleased to be speaking on this Orwellian named bill, the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. Once again we see the experience of the government bringing a bill before the House which says it is going to do one thing but in practice does the exact opposite. The bill concerns the funding arrangements for class action litigation. It's a part of what currently amounts to a three-part assault on class action proceedings in the government's obvious attempt to frustrate, limit and minimise the capacity of litigants who would otherwise have very little access to justice and very little access to a redress arrangement from having their day in court. Ordinary Australians are pitted against much larger, deep pockets when seeking nothing more than their capacity to test the strength of their argument to get redress for their loss. The government seems to be, at every angle, taking the side of the defendants in these matters instead of the little people who do so much to deserve a better deal from this government. The bill is an attack on the capacity for matters to be brought before a court. It will do this in two ways. The first is by providing a mechanism by which the court must approve or vary the distribution of proceeds of a claim, such that the distribution is fair and reasonable. It sets, in effect, a ceiling. Where more than 30 per cent of the proceeds of an award made by a court go to non-members of a class action—that is, in costs, such as for lawyers or class action funders—the bill effectively requires the court to hear legal debate about the distribution of the funds. It has a superficial attraction to it. Thirty per cent might sound like a big number. However, the operative effect of this provision will be, quite simply, to ensure that certain matters never find their way to court. Simple, straightforward class actions can often have costs which are much less than five per cent, let alone 30 per cent. But there are some matters which are brought before the court in the form of a class action which will be much more costly. Perhaps it's a matter which requires an investigation going back several decades. Perhaps it's a matter which involves a respondent who is a well-heeled, well-represented, lawyered-up, deep-pocketed corporation—perhaps a foreign corporation—with every trick in the book, which will put plaintiffs to the test such that an artificial 30 per cent cap on the proceeds going to costs effectively means that they set a target for the defendant and they know exactly what they've got to do to ensure that the proceeding never gets on, or they know how to run up costs such that there is a forced settlement far beyond what is fair and reasonable on the part of the plaintiffs. So it has a superficial attraction, but its operative effect is going to limit the ability of ordinary Australians to have their day in court, and it will have perverse effects. The 30 per cent will not be the ceiling; it will become the target for costs. It will become the default provision by which awards are distributed between costs and benefits to the plaintiffs. So, as is so often the case with legislation proposed before this parliament, you have to look to the impact of what this legislation will do, and what we discover is that what might look superficially attractive is something which is going to have a deleterious effect on ordinary Australians. The second mechanism that the government is applying through this bill is to upend the current opt-out system for gathering plaintiffs into class action groups and turning that into an opt-in system. In other words, rather than being an automatic beneficiary of a successful class action, potential plaintiffs need to formally join the class action before it gets to court. Labor will be vigorously opposing this bill, and I foreshadow now that I will be moving a second reading amendment at the close of my contribution to this second reading debate. It's clear to us that the changes contained in this bill are part of a pattern of hostility from the coalition to those in our community who seek justice via class action lawsuits. Though the stated intent of the bill is to protect the interests of such plaintiffs, it's clear to us that they haven't thought it through. The setting of limits that I have just described will have the effect of doing the exact opposite. As one submitter to the just-completed inquiry into this bill put it: That the Government is seeking to present this reform as a consumer protection measure is Orwellian gaslighting. I could not have put it better myself. Indeed, the so-called inquiry in which those comments were made reveals much about the serious deficiencies in this bill and the government's attempts to cover them up. It gave just one week of public engagement for members of the community to make submissions. It tried to pass the inquiry off as independent despite the fact that the government had the numbers on the inquiry and used those numbers to ram through a majority but not a unanimous report. When a government engages in these sorts of clumsy attempts to hide its intentions and smother dissent, you know that something's seriously amiss, and that's indeed the case here. The government's laughably short public consultation period backfired on them, rather than stifling discontent with the changes, because the majority of submissions to the inquiry made clear that the effect of this bill is to jeopardise the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. I'll get to the defendants in a moment. Let me repeat: it will jeopardise the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, not—as the government's Orwellian title claims it will do—protect them. This was not only the view of the plaintiff lawyers, who many might say have a pecuniary interest, an economic interest, in ensuring that legislation such as this never finds its way through both houses of this parliament. You'd expect them, perhaps, to argue such a case. But it should prick up your interest when the defendant law companies have made exactly the same argument. It was the view not only of the plaintiff law firms who bring class actions but also of those who traditionally represent the defendants, the respondents, in such actions. When you have both of those groups speaking up against these changes, it gets very difficult to find a friend for this legislation. The fact that the government has an active campaign against class actions is now bleedingly obvious. It doesn't want to protect plaintiffs, and it's actually doing damage to the defendants on the way through. It wants to protect—or it purports to protect—the wealthy and powerful defendants. This will constrict the path to justice for those who have been wronged, for example, by the actions of large multinational corporations, and, where an action is successful, it will limit the financial penalty on those who have been found to be responsible for causing harm. Let me explain in detail how this is the case. The basis of the current opt-out system was a recommendation from the Australian Law Reform Commission—an exhaustive inquiry such as the ALRC always conducts in these matters. It's not an inquiry over a couple of weeks or even a couple of months. Generally, they go through an exhaustive evidence-gathering exercise and an exhaustive consultation process and then produce a report, as they did, with recommendations. They recommended the retention of the existing opt-out system. It also refers to the system as 'open class actions', which is actually a good way of talking about it because this system opens class actions to anyone who may have been on the wrong end of a particular event or action. It is commonly the case, where there are large numbers of potential plaintiffs in a class action, that identifying each individual at the outset is difficult, if not impossible. An example, and a case in point, might be the recent action that was taken on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland for the underpayment of wages. In many cases, wages were underpaid over a considerable period of time; the record-keeping of the firms, the government and the businesses—the respondents—was lacklustre; and tracking down many of those plaintiffs was difficult indeed. They did all the normal things—the advertising, the discussion through community forums, the raising through advocacy groups and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land corporations, and all the regular things that you would do for an action such as this—but it was incredibly difficult to track down all of the people who had a legitimate cause of action through underpayment of wages. It was an incredibly expensive operation to go through for those taking the action, funding it and supporting it. I don't think any member in this place could argue that it wasn't a just cause. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders working in the services industry, working in the pastoral industry, working under conditions which may often be described today as akin to slave labour—nobody in this place, whether you represent a political party or not, would argue this is not a just cause. The capacity to ensure that each and every one of those persons has access to justice and the rewards which flow through that is a good thing. Often these matters are dealt with on a pro bono basis if the action is unsuccessful, but the costs can be considerable. Under the provision that is before the House today, under the 30 per cent cap rule, that action simply would not have proceeded. It was done on the basis of a litigation funding arrangement but it would not have proceeded, because, due to the risks involved in commencing such an action, nobody would have funded it. A bank wouldn't have funded it. A litigation firm wouldn't have funded it. A litigation funding firm wouldn't have funded it. Nobody would have funded it, because nobody could have quantified at the beginning of the action whether or not the cost would accrue to more than 30 per cent of the potential award. They just wouldn't have done it. And the consequence of that is something that we look back on now as an incredibly just cause and incredibly just action. We can all be proud of the fact that our legal system facilitates the bringing of such actions and redress for intergenerational inequality and injustice. We can all rejoice in the fact that our legal system currently has the processes in place which enabled this to occur. It does not stand alone. I have in mind an action that was commenced against the Morrison government's shameful and illegal robodebt scheme. The action was made up of 430,000 members. The effect of this bill would have required each and every one of them to be identified and to physically opt in to the class action to benefit from the $1.7 billion the Morrison government has paid in restitution. I want to say something in particular to members of this place who represent regional, rural and remote constituents. These are the constituents who have the most to lose. These are the people who will, quite simply, be beyond the reach and the capacity of lawyers. Let's face it: the plaintiff law firms and the defence law firms will largely be based in large cities or large regional centres, and the costs involved in reaching out to clients and potential plaintiffs who would legitimately form part of a class action in remote and regional areas will be too prohibitive for those matters to be brought on. Members of regional and rural electorates, members who represent the interests of the poor and the under-trodden in regional and rural electorates, should take note of this bill. It will disadvantage the people that they come to this place to represent. There is a modicum of self-interest in the bill before the House. I have used the robodebt scandal as an example. The government has an immediate and direct pecuniary interest in ensuring that its wrongdoings do not seek redress, or, to the extent they have redress, that it is limited. In essence, the Prime Minister ripped off 430,000 Australians. They took him to court. They won; he lost. And he is now trying to convince us that this bill is about protecting the interests of those 430,000 people to whom the courts just made him pay $1.7 billion because of an illegal scheme he designed when he was the minister responsible. Colour me suspicious, but that's just the way he operates. This is a mean and tricky Prime Minister leading a mean and tricky government. Not everyone in the government—I'm sure there are well-meaning people, including yourself, Mr Speaker, and the minister at the bar table, who are in essence good people. But, if the minister has convinced you that this bill does what its label says it's going to do, he has done to you what he has done to so many other Australians—that is, he has misled you. And the Prime Minister has backed him up, because that's the way the Prime Minister rolls. Look at the detail: it does not do what the label says it's going to do. It actually disadvantages ordinary Australians, particularly ordinary Australians who live in regional and rural and remote Australia. I have mentioned the robodebt action. Each and every one of those involved has been the recipient of a government payment. Each and every one of them has been, or was, living on a very low income. These are the people who this bill is designed to disadvantage, many of whom not only would have been in remote communities but would have come from linguistically diverse or disadvantaged communities. Their capacity to get the sort of advice necessary to sign up to such a scheme which the government contemplates is simply nonexistent. Clearly reaching all of those 430,000 people from that spread of living circumstances to obtain their written opt-in consent would have been inefficient, unworkable and, most of all, unjust, and that's exactly what the Prime Minister intends. Let's be clear: this is not an unintended consequence. It's not an unintended consequence; it's a design feature. This is precisely what the Prime Minister intends with this legislation. Open class actions benefit defendants too. It's in their interest to defend a claim as a simple job lot. The alternative is—and let's be very clear about this—that they face a claim by one group of plaintiffs; they settle it, perhaps in court, perhaps out of court or perhaps a combination of both in the shadow of the court, as is often the case. As a former litigant myself, I know a hell of a lot of stuff gets dealt with in the minutes before the first mention comes on. But, if this matter is brought forward, a defendant in one of these big litigations now faces the prospect that they'll be doing that time and time and time again. As each group of individual plaintiffs brings their separate claim, it's going to cost defendants more as well. It's as simple as that. It will cost defendants more because the open versus the closed action is just a more expensive way of doing it—a point that the defendant law firms made in the ever-abridged inquiry. It is conceivable, if not likely, that under this system defendants will face near identical litigation multiple times over the same single tortious or negligent event. And we've got to ask ourselves: How is this in the interests of the efficient administration of justice? Is it the most efficient use of precious court time and judicial resources? Clearly, in many respects, it's going to be a windfall for both defendant law firms and plaintiff law firms. But it's not the most efficient way to get around business, and we know that. And I suspect the government knows that too. There's speculation around this place, and I can't confirm it—I certainly don't have the knowledge available; perhaps the minister will respond to these second reading remarks and be able to answer this question—but it has been said that this bill comes before the House arising out of a deal with the One Nation political party. It's been said that it didn't arise out of the Attorney-General's Department and it certainly didn't arise out of the Treasury; it arose out of an agreement between the One Nation political party and the government. God knows what the price of it was. But we do know what the cost will be to plaintiffs, and we do know what the cost will be to the judicial system. So I'd invite the minister representing the minister, when he comes back into the House, to make this clear: what's the deal they've done with One Nation? No sensible person—nobody who's thought about this for more than 30 seconds—would bring such a bill before the House, so what is the deal that they've done with One Nation? I'd encourage government speakers and other speakers in this debate to be cautious about the comments they make, because so often the deals that are made with that particular political party melt and fall apart quicker than an ice cream in the midday sun. So I'd be cautious about making brave statements in the debate about the virtue or otherwise of this particular piece of legislation, because you don't know the deal that underpins it. The one thing that we can be certain of is that it will be pretty dirty, pretty dodgy and something you don't want to put your name to. We know that it's going to disadvantage people in rural and regional Australia, we know that it's going to clog up and be a burden to our judicial system, we know that it's going to disadvantage plaintiffs and we know that it's going to cost defendants more. So, against that background, it beggars belief that somebody would want to speak in favour of the bill, and it is even more astonishing that somebody would want to vote in favour of the bill. So we encourage the government to withdraw the matter. We encourage government members of goodwill—and there are many of them—and all of the members of the crossbench to think about this: it disadvantages members in remote, rural and regional Australia; it will exclude from justice people who would otherwise have had access to justice; it will cost defendants more; it will clog up our judicial system; and it will lead to the most inefficient way of bringing a matter before the courts and adjudicating a matter. Why on God's earth is this government insisting on this bill when there is so much other important business that should be before the House? With those very brief comments, I formally move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give this bill a second reading and calls on the Government to stop its ongoing attempts to prevent Australian consumers and businesses from being able to access justice through class actions". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Butler HWK I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:32 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin I thank the member for mercifully ending his speech with brief comments. I normally enjoy listening to the member for Whitlam speak, and there were a couple of matters which I agreed with him on in his speech—namely, that there is a role to play for class actions in the Australian judicial system and that there is a role for litigation funders. But that's where the agreement between the two of us would end. Mercifully, he finished his speech with eight minutes left on the clock. I am happy to speak to the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, because this bill is designed to ensure that ordinary Australians who seek justice through class actions receive a fair and reasonable proportion of the proceeds of successful class actions supported by a litigation funder. Contrary to some statements, including that made by the previous speaker, this government is not anti class actions, nor is it anti litigation funding. This government recognises that class actions have a vital role to play in our legal system. In some cases, they are the ideal vehicle through which a group of people impacted by the actions or decisions of others can seek recompense. The use of a class action in appropriate circumstances helps both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as the court system in its entirety. When working properly, class actions can facilitate access to justice, discourage wrongdoing and promote the efficient and effective use of court resources. It's worth noting that the federal class action regime has been in place for almost three decades. In the 25 years from 1992 to 2017, 500 class actions were filed in Australia, and there is no disputing that there are many people who, through those 500 class actions, received access to justice that they wouldn't otherwise have got. Likewise, the litigation-funding mechanism may, in some instances, be the only way that plaintiffs can take their matters to court. Litigation funding provides a way for representative plaintiffs and class members to meet the costs of litigation. These costs include their own legal costs and, in the event of an unsuccessful outcome, the defendant's legal costs. When litigation funders pay lawyer fees and indemnify representative plaintiffs for adverse costs, it significantly changes the viability of class actions under Australia's loser-pays approach to civil litigation. Litigation funders also potentially close the considerable gap in financial resources between the two sides of the class action, reducing the defendant's ability to defeat the case through superior economic power. Litigation funding has become more common in recent years. The Australian Law Reform Commission found that litigation funding in class actions has increased significantly since 2008. Between 2008 and 2012, 40 per cent of finalised Federal Court class actions were third-party funded. In 2017 and 2018, 77 per cent of finalised Federal Court class actions were third-party funded. What concerns this government—and there's no major conspiracy—and what underpins this bill is that there have been numerous documented occasions in the press and in court transcripts in which the current class action litigation funding system has not worked in the interests of justice, where it has not resulted in fair and equitable outcomes. In short, there have been numerous occasions on which the returns made by litigation funders have been disproportionate to the costs they have incurred and the risks they have undertaken in the relevant proceedings. This is not spin. This is not hyperbole. In 2019, the Australian Law Reform Commission found that, when litigation funders were involved in a class action, the median return to plaintiffs was just 51 per cent. Conversely, when a funder was not involved, the median return was 85 per cent. That is a 34 per cent difference. Last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which I was a member at the time, undertook a review into class actions and litigation funding. While there were a variety of views and opinions expressed through the course of that inquiry, there was virtually unanimous agreement from all submitters and witnesses that the current regulatory arrangements for litigation funders are too light-touch and greater oversight of the industry is required. The only debate was about the nature and extent of that regulation. I would also state that at the time of undertaking this inquiry the exact number of litigation funders operating in Australia was unknown and impossible to pin down with any precision. The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia submitted that there was no research and no specific evidence with respect to that number. In 2018, the Australian Law Reform Commission indicated that approximately 25 litigation funders operated in Australia and 33 funders operated in either the UK or Australia or both jurisdictions. This number, 33, was the number that the association estimated were operating in Australia. However, it's very difficult to ascertain the number of foreign litigation funders operating in Australia. Data collected by the Parliamentary Library for the committee's review last year indicated that, as at 18 June 2020, 22 litigation funding companies were known to be operating in Australia—14 were foreign owned or based overseas, six were Australian owned or based in Australia and the information of two funders was unknown. Given the significant role that litigation funders play in the class action process, the fact that there was no clarity at all and no way of knowing exactly how many litigation funders were operating was something that I found extraordinary through the course of that proceeding. It highlighted to me and to the other committee members the lack of a sufficiently robust regulatory environment. As noted above, the inquiry of the committee concluded that the scale of litigation funding, the growth in the scale of litigation funding, the participation of international litigation funders in the Australian market and the frequency of disproportionate and sometimes windfall-level profits highlighted the need to make regulatory improvements to ensure that representative plaintiffs, class members and defendants are achieving reasonable, proportionate and fair outcomes. The committee presented its report on 21 December 2020, making 31 recommendations. This bill is actually putting in place changes responding to seven of the committee's recommendations. Perhaps the most controversial of the changes being put in place by this bill, and one to which the previous member referred, is that which responds to recommendation 20 of the committee's report. The committee made a recommendation to the government to consult on the best way to guarantee a statutory minimum return of the gross profits of a class action and whether a minimum gross return of 70 per cent to class members, as endorsed by some class action law firms and litigation funders through the course of our hearing, is the most appropriate floor. The government acted on this recommendation and, on 1 June this year, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General released a consultation paper seeking expert views on potential design elements of a guaranteed minimum rate of return to class members. Twenty three submissions were received. In response to these submissions, the government released the exposure draft legislation on 31 September, and 21 submissions were received. As a response to that consultation—not a week's consultation but two inquiries, the Law Reform Commission committee inquiry and two periods of consultation—the bill that the government is putting forward is legislating a requirement that a court approve or vary the proposed distribution of claim proceeds to ensure that members of a class action litigation funding scheme receive a fair and reasonable share. The bill is going to establish a rebuttable presumption that a distribution will not meet this statutory threshold if more than 30 per cent of the claim proceeds in total is to be paid or distributed to non-members of the scheme, such as to the funders or to the lawyers. So it is setting up a rebuttable presumption of a floor—70 per cent of the proceeds must go back to class-action members. This bill will also require the court to consider a number of factors, including the funder's commercial return compared to reasonable costs to the funder incurred for the proceedings. It has been argued by some that putting in a floor or putting in this 30 per cent figure will somehow dissuade litigation funders and/or impede class actions. To that argument, I stress that this is what is known as a rebuttable presumption, meaning that it can be challenged by a litigation funder and a court does have the opportunity to vary it if the circumstances justify it. It needs to be noted in this context—sometimes forgotten by those advocating otherwise—that it is the litigation funders who hold the position of power vis-a-vis class-action members, and it is right that they, with their superior resources, should have to justify the additional costs and returns that they seek. A class action funded by a third party litigation funder is a complex scheme which is beyond the experience, if not the understanding, of most group members. Many of the members are not legally or financially sophisticated, and they may be vulnerable depending on the subject of the class action. And let's remember that litigation funders do not do this out of the goodness of their heart; they do it for a return. And, of course—no complaints here—they want to maximise their returns. What this bill is saying is: 'Fine. You can do that. You can seek profit. You can seek to maximise your returns. But if you are going to take more than 30 per cent of any payout for your own costs and profit, then you will have to justify it.' There is nothing outrageous in that. Further, the argument that having this floor will dissuade litigation funders from perhaps endorsing or following up with supporting some claims also goes against the evidence we received throughout our committee hearings. We heard in those committee hearings that litigation funders already take a very robust risk profile to analysing whether they are going to support a particular class action. One funder admitted that 98 per cent of their cases are successful. To me, that indicates that they are pretty good judges of what they're going to fund, and what they're not going to fund, right at the outset. In support of the overriding goal of ensuring that members of a class action litigation funding scheme receive a fair and reasonable share, this bill further provides assistance to courts in navigating the complexities of legal costs and funder commissions by ensuring courts consider the reports of independent experts in the representations of people known as contradictors representing the interests of scheme members when appointed. This bill provides that the cost of these experts are borne by funders unless the court determines otherwise. There are other elements of this bill—and I'm sure my colleagues will get up and address a number of the other elements here—but the only other element that I want to pick up on is that this bill also seeks to implement a consistent approach to class actions across all jurisdictions, maximising protection for class members throughout Australia. This avoids the risk of forum-shopping, which is very real, by funders filing in courts which do not have the same level of protection for class members. By way of conclusion: there is a lot of spin and rhetoric. There will be spin and rhetoric from all sides of the argument here. We heard it through our committee hearings. We heard various parties throwing allegations that litigation funders rip people off, and then you get the other side saying that this side of the parliament was trying to shut down class action law firms and somehow harm rural and regional people, neither of which are true. The truth is that we need our legal system to deliver justice. Class actions and litigation funding have a role in there, but litigation funding needs to be regulated. It's not sufficiently regulated at the moment. It's fine for litigation funders to go out and seek to make profits—that's absolutely acceptable—but we've got to make sure that those profits, those returns that they are making, do not come to the harm of the plaintiffs, all those 430,000 people who are making a claim against the government for this or are making a claim for product liability against another company. We want to ensure that those people who are the members of the class who might suddenly find themselves signing a complex litigation funding agreement, all the details of which they might not necessarily understand, are given adequate protection. This bill is designed to do that. It's to back in our justice system. It's to ensure that people who are taking class actions are protected. On that basis, I am a friend of this bill. Even though the member for Whitlam said there'd be no members for it, I am a friend of this bill. 18:47 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The effect of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 is to make class actions beyond the reach of many Australians and therefore make access to justice beyond their reach as well. It's clear that this bill is primarily aimed at making class actions more difficult for plaintiffs and protecting the interests of wealthy and powerful defendants. It's part of a continued pattern of hostility on the part of this government to the ability of individuals to access justice through class action lawsuits. This bill is supposed to protect the interests of plaintiffs in class actions by setting limits on litigation funding schemes. The intention is to do this, firstly, by providing that the court must approve or vary the distribution of claimed proceeds as fair and reasonable and, secondly, by imposing a rebuttable presumption that a proposed distribution will not be fair and reasonable if less than 70 per cent of the proceeds go to the plaintiffs. The bill was subject to a short inquiry through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, but it was rushed and it wasn't adequate consideration of the details and the effects of this proposed law. Firstly, members of the public were given less than one week to review an exposure draft of this complex legislation and make submissions to the Treasury. Secondly, after ignoring most of the feedback Treasury received from those submitters, the government introduced the bill into parliament on 27 October and gave this government-controlled committee three weeks to conduct its inquiry. The committee gave members of the public only seven days to make submissions, citing the three-week time frame for the inquiry as the reason. The government controlled committee held one public hearing, on 12 November, and gave witnesses less than two business days to respond to questions on notice. Throughout the inquiry process the majority of submitters, including lawyers who specialise in representing plaintiffs and defendants in class actions, made it clear that the bill could jeopardise the interests of both class action plaintiffs and defendants. It would do this by discouraging plaintiffs and defendants from settling disputes, thus delaying the resolution of a particular court action and making class actions more expensive. It will also promote uncertainty around the availability of common funds orders. By requiring class action members to agree in writing to be members of a funded class action, the proposed approach would lead to increases in closed actions, potentially increasing the number of multiple class actions for any given event. It's for these reasons that Labor is strongly opposed to this bill. I have been involved in financial services for many, many years now, particularly when I started in the parliament, through the Trio Capital collapse and the inquiry that was undertaken into that particular financial scandal. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry heard some harrowing evidence from victims of financial fraud and misconduct, people who were encouraged to spend their life savings in particular managed investment schemes and, not only that, were encouraged to mortgage their homes that they had paid off already to buy further shares into these managed investment schemes, after people had retired—absolutely crazy financial advice that was given to working people—and, when the scheme collapsed, they lost the lot. Not only did they lose their life savings and their house; they also squandered their kids' inheritance. There were criminal prosecutions that came from the collapse of Trio Capital. I think one person went to jail. A number of people were disqualified and a number were suspended from providing financial advice and auditing. But there are many people who, because they had invested through a self-managed super fund and therefore were not in a regulated superannuation scheme, lost the opportunity to make a claim against the scheme that the government has set up to ensure that people who are the victims of financial fraud through the regulated superannuation system can recover in circumstances where there is misconduct and fraud, as there was in Trio Capital. Many of those people were in self-managed super funds—they weren't in the regulated superannuation industry—and they lost the lot. Sending someone to jail doesn't help them, when they lost their life savings. They can't access the regulated compensation scheme because they are not part of a regulated superannuation fund. They were the ones who were, if you like, swimming outside the flags—and they lost the lot. Why would you want to make it harder for people like that to be involved in a class action, when that's all that they have left? That is all they potentially have left to try and get some justice. When all of the other systems—ASIC, other regulators, what is now AFCA, but the preceding bodies that were set up to investigate financial fraud and look at complaints on behalf of applicants—couldn't give them justice, all that is left is the court system. But we know that the court system is quite expensive. And let's face it: taking a matter to the Federal Court around a financial fraud is not an easy thing to do. You need legal representation if you are going to be effective in recovery. The effect of this particular bill is to make it harder for those people to be involved in a class action—the only way people like that can get justice for the wrongdoings that are perpetrated on them, when all of the other government bodies that have been established to assist people in making complaints through this system have failed. The point about Trio Capital was that there was no money left, so there was nothing for them to recover. Sure, you could have gone to AFCA and AFCA could have said, 'Yes, you've been wronged. It was fraud. There's a claim that you have'—but there was no-one there to pay it. There's no money for them to recover. That is why people like that need access to the justice system and need the protection of being able to be involved in class actions and to have access to litigation funders. There's no way in the world they would be able to fund and be involved in legal matters on their own. That is why this is particularly important. I suspect that this government has an ideological bent, particularly against people who take matters to court associated with environmental issues and protection of the environment. It will be hardworking Australians who end up in situations of financial fraud and lose the lot who will be disadvantaged by this proposal and, once again, left in the lurch by this government. It won't affect big corporations or wealthy individuals, who'll be able to afford to take matters to court on a solo basis, who'll be able to pay expensive lawyers and barristers to do their work. It will be the poor Australian worker who doesn't have the financial means to support action in the court who will be disadvantaged by this proposal. That is why it is bad law. It removes access to justice for people who rely on class actions to get access to justice. In that respect this proposal is unfair; and in that respect it should be opposed by this parliament. 18:56 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Before I begin my substantive remarks on this bill I want, once again, to express my complete and utter disgust at the Labor Party's ongoing game playing in this chamber, with moving second reading amendments which are designed for one reason and one reason only—to use them with OpenAustralia Foundation and theyvoteforyou.org.au, to misrepresent and—let's be clear about this—to lie about what members of this parliament have been doing in their voting. The fact that they would partner with such dubious characters as this lot says more about them than it will ever say about anyone on this side of the chamber. I say to you, opposite: if this is the way you want to carry on; if this is the way you want to reduce Australia's democracy to the lowest common denominator, and below that; if this is the sewer you want to take Australian democracy into; don't think for a minute that Australians will not see through you and your behaviour. Don't think for a minute that they won't know that you called them extremists and neo-Nazis because they had the temerity to disagree with what Daniel Andrews wanted to do. That goes to the core of their objection to this bill. They say that they're in favour of justice. They can't even spell the word. The fact of the matter is that what they are doing is standing up for a group of people who have been making 500, 600, 700 per cent returns on equity and capital invested. It's not because they invested in a buy-now pay-later company, or Afterpay, or Atlassian, or they picked Microsoft or Amazon at the nadir and helped create value that helped millions of people around the world. No, they're making their money off the suffering and misery of their fellow Australians. They're hiding it in offshore tax havens. It always amazes me that there are some journalists who can't help but say: 'You know, BHP, they don't play their fair share of tax. Rio Tinto, they don't do not pay their fair share of tax. Atlassian, they don't pay their fair share of tax.' But they don't mind covering up the fact that Maurice Blackburn has a litigation funder that operates out of Singapore, is incorporated in Ireland, operates a trust in the Netherlands and has an accountant and lawyer based in London. As the tax commissioner said, 'Well, that's like the triple bogey, isn't it?' That ticks all the boxes for tax evasion. They just left out Cyprus along the way. The bank account in Cyprus, that's what they left out.' But those same journalists so concerned about publicly listed companies that paid billions of dollars in tax in Australia have nothing to say about Maurice Blackburn. They'll have nothing to say about the indefensible defence and support that the Labor Party is providing to these shonks. They'll have nothing to say. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that on the day that Jill Hennessy, the Victorian Attorney-General—or the then Victorian Labor Attorney-General—announced contingency fees, delivering a multimillion-dollar bonanza to these vultures of justice, she met with directors of Maurice Blackburn, according to her diary that she released, the very same day. Imagine: 'A coincidence, I tell you! Deirdre, imagine finding you here!' Clearly the meeting went very well because that very same day the directors clearly went back from the meeting with Jill Hennessy and decided to donate $100,000 to the Labor Party—mind you, not to the state Labor Party but to the federal Labor Party. That's a distinction that I'm sure most Australians understand is very important. On that very day that the Victorian Government delivers a multimillion-dollar bonanza to these bottom feeders who make money off the suffering and misery of their fellow Australians, they turn around after a meeting with the Attorney-General and give the Labor Party $100,000. I just ask you, Deputy Speaker—there's no doubt you've heard about this story because it's been on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. If BHP, Rio Tinto, Atlassian, et cetera, had done something similar with this government, you wouldn't stop reading about it. There's not been a single story. Not once. Why is the Australian media so afraid to tell the truth? They don't even have to make it up. It's all there in the public record. What are they so afraid of? We know what the Labor Party is afraid of. We know why they won't stand up for ordinary Australians. We know why they won't stand up for the hardworking men and women of this nation. It's because they are shills. They are fully captured shills of litigation funders, industry super and litigation lawyers. They don't represent organised labour anymore; they just represent organised capital. So they can come in here and they can accuse us of somehow trying to stop people from getting access to justice. But I noticed one thing they haven't done. They haven't critiqued at any point the amount of money that litigation lawyers charge their clients. If they were so concerned about people having access to justice, you'd think that they'd be critiquing the $3 million or $4 million the partners at Slater and Gordon or Maurice Blackburn take home every year—and that, by the way, is after their donations to the Labor Party. You'd think they'd be more concerned about the 500 or 600 per cent that these litigation funders get in return on invested capital when they send them off to tax havens in Singapore, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Ireland and the Netherlands. They should send all of us a postcard every time they go there. You'd think they'd be concerned about that, but not a single time have I heard a member of the Labor Party and all the people that they rely on ever once say, 'Hey, guys; do you think it's a good idea that we're charging people who are going through suffering and misery $300, $600, $800 or $900 an hour?' That's what they charge them an hour so they can take home $3 million or $4 million in their pay packets. The member for Kingsford Smith talks eloquently about the Trio disaster, and he is right and proper to talk about that, but I notice he ignores the Banksia case. The Banksia case is an incredibly interesting case. It's interesting because, in the middle of this, one of the favoured justices of the Federal Court signed off on a payout to the law firm which he understood to be 350 per cent of their return on invested capital. He thought that was a reasonable return. If the Commonwealth Bank lent money or issued a credit card where the interest rate was 350 percent, those opposite would be coming in here and calling on those executives to be sent to jail. But apparently it is okay to get returns on invested capital of over 500, 600 and 700 per cent and funnel them through a tax haven, as long as you donate to the Labor Party. In the Banksia case, fortunately—well, unfortunately for him, but fortunately for us—one of the lawyers died. Before he died he didn't have the good sense to lock his BlackBerry. It was at that point that one of the plaintiffs in the class action who had complained and been worried about some of the charges that had been coming through was able to gain access to his emails—not the emails he had handed up to the court but emails that were secretly being passed between the funder and the lawyer on Gmail. They talked about what rubes they were representing, how no-one would notice how much money they were taking from them and how they could just put more and more charges through to ensure that they kept more of the payout. These are the types of people that the Labor Party are seeking to support. The justice that oversaw that case has now literally banned four of some of Victoria's most prominent lawyers. If there is a justice system that needs a royal commission, it must be the Victorian justice system. It turns out that the QC who was involved in that case was the same QC that ASIC had been using to get corporate and legal advice from externally when they made decisions on these matters. That's the other big thing. The member for Curtin said, 'We on the committee were all shocked to find that the regulation was so light touch.' I think the member for Curtin, in one of the only examples I can think of, is guilty of understatement. It wasn't shock. It wasn't light touch. There were no regulations. Up until September of last year—and those opposite tried to have this regulation, once again, disallowed—there were literally no regulations covering off the litigation funding sector in this country—none. The reason there were none is that the member opposite, when he was the Treasurer in the dying days of the Rudd government, moved an amendment to the Corporations Act to ensure that they were in fact exempt from it. Can you imagine if the Australian financial planners association donated $100,000 to the Liberal Party and then we came into this place and the Treasurer moved a piece of law and regulation through this chamber on that day that exempted them from the Corporations Act? Can you imagine what Australians would think of us? But, fortunately for those opposite, they don't have very much to worry about, because no-one in the media seems that concerned about it. It could be that Michael West gave the game away when Senator Paterson asked him: 'We have all this evidence in front of us, Mr West, showing that all of these litigation funders are based overseas in what appear to be tax havens, but you don't seem very interested. In all of the work you do for Greenpeace, the Greens, the Labor Party and others, you don't seem to want to investigate these tax-haven-dwelling litigation funders. Is there a reason for that?' To that, Michael West said: 'Oh, yes. I don't like criticising litigation funders and litigation lawyers, because they provide me with a lot of good material that I can use in my column.' So there you have it. The ecosystem of injustice that is present at the moment in this country that is stacked against people who genuinely need justice from our justice system is so great, so manifest, it makes Mount Everest look like a molehill. I say to this parliament, I say to this chamber, the question before us is a very simple one: do you believe that the justice system should be about justice, or do you believe that it is about providing profit to offshore tax-haven-dwelling litigation funders who are already charging those people suffering loss, suffering pain, hundreds and hundreds of per cent of interest that they are demanding for their return on invested capital? The other thing, of course, that litigation funders are doing that this bill seeks to change is that it is undermining the very precepts of how our justice system is meant to work, because a lawyer has an obligation to the court and to their client, but, because of litigation funders, their client is no longer the plaintiff, is no longer that class seeking justice. It is, in fact, the funder. We have seen the Banksia case. The decision on the Banksia case used the word 'egregious' 18 times. Deputy Speaker, I don't know if you know that much about common parlance amongst lawyers and judges, but the word 'egregious' is used rarely and judiciously. For it to be used 18 times in one judgement I suspect is a new record. To have four senior lawyers on the Victorian bar given lifetime bans is pretty serious. That is what our current regulations have ended up providing, and those opposite wish to defend these people, wish to allow this to continue, to keep going on while they move their silly and stupid second reading amendment speeches designed to— (Time expired) 19:11 M 86256 Bruce r HILL () (): I'll finish with about five seconds of agreement with the previous speaker: that Banksia case was a disgrace. That was discussed in the hearing, was ventilated extensively, and what happened there was utterly unacceptable. As all the lawyers who presented said, it was also the only case that anyone can point to out of the hundreds of class action cases where that kind of conduct was found to occur. The court system did pick it up, and it underscores the role of contradictors and cost assessors that they can play. So, I will start with that. Let's be clear: what the government wants the parliament to do today, in the last two weeks of this year, is to rush through a manifestly apparently unconstitutional bill to deny millions of Australians in the future their ability to sue big corporations and rich and powerful individuals. There are serious concerns that have been raised about the constitutionality, by the Law Council of Australia, by QCs who practise in this area and, indeed, by Justin Gleeson SC, the former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth. One of the nation's leading constitutional lawyers has given advice publicly to the committee about the number of ways in which this bill is almost certainly unconstitutional. That means, in plain English, the parliament doesn't even have the power to pass these laws, yet the government, pig-headed, wants to rush them through in the last two weeks of parliament as a favour to their corporate mates. This is a dog of a bill. It would be difficult to overstate how truly bad it is, both in its aims to deny justice in the courts to everyday Australians, harmed in their ability to fight big corporations, and also in its execution; it's not even executed competently. I mean, they want to help their big corporate mates, but they can't even do it properly. It's also appalling in its dishonesty in the spin from the government. The stated objective, which we agree with, is to protect the interests of plaintiffs—that's victims—in class actions. It's real objective is to protect the interests of powerful defendants by making it harder for people to bring class actions. What are class actions? In plain English, they're lawsuits where everyday Australians can come together to take on big corporations and powerful defendants who've done wrong. Think robodebt, where the government was found to have acted illegally. But this is a testament to the government's monumental incompetence that they've failed to achieve either objective, to help victims or to protect their mates. I'll quote from one of the submitters: That the Government is seeking to present this reform as a consumer protection measure is Orwellian gaslighting. Further highlighting the idiocy of this legislation is that it is opposed by leading class action defendant lawyers from Herbert Smith Freehills. So the people who represent the big end of town are saying this is bad law. Superficially it sounds nice: the government is professing concern to get more money out of the judgements to go to victims, instead of those nasty old lawyers charging too much and the greedy litigation funders about which we heard in the previous unhinged rants. So what are litigation funders? We heard that they are bottom feeders and people who make money from human misery. They're private businesses that fund the cost of big lawsuits. That's what they do: they assess the risks and they offer to fund litigation. If the case is successful, they get a percentage return. If they lose, they pay all the legal costs, possibly the other side's costs, and victims pay nothing. That's what they do. The government pretends to be concerned that litigation funders take too much. In some instances, yes, but you've got two competing objectives. The policy question is: how do we maximise the return to victims and maximise access to justice while driving down legal costs and litigation costs and funding costs? You've got to try and do those together. The answer, clearly, is competition. That's what the ALRC has said. That's what every sensible expert has said. That's what the evidence and experience show. If you get competition, you drive down funding costs, and that's what we've seen in the last few years. New entrants come to Australia—they're all evil and overseas according to the previous speaker. They're businesses prepared to lend and take risks. They come to Australia, and we've seen the average cost of funding already decrease in the last few years from about 30 per cent down to close to 20 per cent. Competition is working. What's the government's response? A rebuttable presumption is they say it will cap returns to litigation funders and lawyers at 30 per cent. The sting in that is that that includes the legal fees. It means that victims pursuing justice would have their legal fees effectively capped by the government. Victims couldn't hire the best QCs. They'd be down the road looking for cheaper lawyers like Dennis Denuto—although, poor Dennis Denuto did actually do a reasonable job in the movie. But big corporations would have no limit on the amount they could spend on their lawyers. They could have the top QCs. They could bleed the victims dry by playing games in the court, and that's exactly what would happen. That's what all the lawyers told us would happen. It's what any basic sense of economic principles tells you would happen, and it won't be a fair fight. The evidence we heard in the committee was absolutely clear: this 70-30 notional formula will drive up litigation costs. It will discourage plaintiffs from settling, providing perverse incentives for litigations to just roll on and on. It will make the law 'worse for everyone,' said John Emmerig QC, of the Law Council of Australia. It will raise the risks for funders. There would be fewer dollars around for many meritorious claims where people have been harmed, and the costs for all claims are likely to be higher. That's the evidence which the committee received all day, with a couple of exceptions. With the new rules about sign ups—this is astounding—everyone admitted that there would be an increase in the number of lawsuits lodged because there would be multiple closed class actions, so the big companies that the government is trying to help would actually have them subjected to more lawsuits. That's why even the top end of town lawyers who help the big corporations have said this is a stupid idea. They cannot even help their mates properly—face palm emoji, if we could insert that into Hansard. So let's be clear: to deal with the costs, this government, the free marketeers over there, are choosing regulation, not competition—Soviet style price caps, as one of the submitters said. So much for market forces! The hypocrisy is astounding coming from this mob of free enterprise. The rush process was also a clue. Even the Financial Review—you know, that left-wing socialist rag—published an article yesterday analysing the whole thing, saying that this is rushed and should not proceed. The members of the public were given one week—less than one week actually; it was four working days when you take out the public holiday across most of the country—to comment on the exposure draft. The government ignored the feedback and introduced the bill pretty much the same. The government controlled committee had three weeks. The public had seven days to put in their submissions. There was one public hearing, two business days to get back to us, and the only people who didn't get back to us were the government's own departments, who didn't meet the time lines. If only the government felt the same sense of urgency about—I don't know—responding to the banking royal commission or— An honourable member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 Yes, the federal ICAC. Whatever happened to the corruption commission? Anyone? We still have no corruption commission. It's been over three years, 1,000 days. There's no urgency about that. Yet this bill to deny access to justice to millions of Australians is suddenly the most urgent thing on the agenda and we've got to shove it through before the election. The inquiry showed the bill is a deeply flawed bill in every respect. The overwhelming evidence, even from the people who support some of the propositions, is that it's badly drafted. The report, frankly, is pathetic. To be fair, it's probably the best you can do in a few days; I feel for the secretariat! Labor members had less than 24 hours to respond to the report and deal with it on this most complex of issues. The government struggled to find anyone to submit in support of the bill. The Australian Industry Group loyally turned up—I suppose they had to!—and said some stuff, but they couldn't really engage in the detail. The Business Council hadn't put in a submission when they appeared, and they couldn't engage in the detail. The poor AICD didn't put in a submission; they seemed almost embarrassed to be there. To their credit they put in a supplementary submission after the hearing reversing their position on some aspects, which was good. The funniest moment, the moment of levity, was the Rule of Law Institute. They had no submission but they turned up; the government invited them. They had no ability to engage in the bill; it was kind of the vibe of the thing. The presenter had no expertise. He was unwilling or unable to engage in any substantive discussion. I asked whether I could join the Rule of Law Institute, because I like the rule of law, and they said, 'No, it's not a membership organisation.' They wouldn't tell us who funded it. But they love to write op-eds in right-wing newspapers. They were later accused of misstatements by other submitters who listened to their evidence. But the government, in their wisdom, are relying on their evidence in this report to back in this bill. We also had Stuart Clark QC, who paraded himself around on paper as the former president of the Law Council and an adjunct professor at Macquarie University. He didn't turn up, which was a pity because we had some good questions for him like, 'Did you plagiarise your evidence?', because, mysteriously, the evidence he had put in was identical to the submission from the United States Chamber of Commerce on the exposure draft—just a Deidre Chambers style coincidence, no doubt! It was sad that he didn't appear, although last time he appeared I don't think he had a great experience; I think he had to register as an agent of foreign influence in the end, just to be prudent. I want to make some very serious remarks on the constitutionality of the bill. There are serious doubts as to whether we can even pass this bill. Let that sink in. The former Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth gave compelling evidence that this bill is not constitutional. Justin Gleeson SC said there were serious concerns about whether the corporations power in the Constitution or the referral powers to the Commonwealth support the provisions we're now being asked to vote on, whether the provisions would amount to an inconsistency with state class action provisions so as to override them pursuant to section 109 of the Constitution, and whether there were potential issues arising in respect of overriding the power of state courts or directing state legislatures. Despite this, the explanatory memorandum from the geniuses over there, the government, doesn't mention constitutionality at all—not a word. We spent an hour or more grilling the Attorney-General's Department—nothing. They could not rebut one single proposition from the former Solicitor-General. Nothing—absolutely nothing. I can't go into what we discussed at the committee, but let's just say that I'm confident there are members of the government who share these concerns and that this is not the end of the constitutionality question. As everyone from the legal profession said clearly, if this bill goes through it will tie up the profession in years of litigation in the High Court to pull this legislation to bits, because everyone knows large swathes of it are not constitutional. This all sounds very esoteric, but in the real world it means that, if these laws are passed, numerous cases where victims in Australia have suffered harm and have a meritorious case will not proceed in the future. This is best illustrated by examples of recent cases that could not or would not have proceeded had these laws been in place. I will give you five. There is the Domino's Pizza case; a class action by delivery drivers and in-store workers about underpayment of their wages could not have proceeded under these laws. There is the stolen wages case for Indigenous Australians; the reason it couldn't have proceeded under this regime is that it's one of the most complex of cases. It's expensive to fight. You can't just go out to remote Aboriginal Australia and sign up defendants all over the country. You need the open class action system to get justice for vulnerable people. The big banks, like Westpac, allegedly overcharged their life insurance customers; that class action couldn't proceed under these rules. There is the case against the Commonwealth Department of Defence for contamination of Army land in Queensland. There is the robodebt case. There is a long list. There is a lot to say on this, but I recommend the government's own report recommending a change to the bill. I don't think it can pass the House in its current form. They should withdraw the bill or at the very least send it to a Senate inquiry. 19:24 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff In rising to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, I acknowledge the member for Bruce and his innate talent for theatre and spin on the other side of the chamber. On 28 October 2021 the House referred an inquiry into the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, or PJCCFS. A bit of background on this bill is that class actions enable a representative plaintiff to bring a claim on behalf of a larger group or class. These claims are often complex and costly, and a representative plaintiff may not have the financial resources to fund the action and may be exposed to liability in the event of an adverse finding. Third-party litigation funding schemes can enable inaction by paying the costs of litigation and indemnifying the plaintiff in exchange for a share of any proceeds if the litigation is successful. Litigation funding can therefore play an important role in promoting access to justice by enabling class actions and reducing the risk that plaintiffs face from unsuccessful litigation. Australia operates an open-class action law, whereby potential claimants are bound by the judgement of the court unless they opt out of the action. Affected individuals may therefore benefit from a successful action or avoid costs from an unsuccessful action, even though they did not sign up to a scheme or contribute to the cost of running that action. Under an open-class action model, individuals who did not opt to join an action, and therefore also did not incur the risks or costs of the representative plaintiff, may still receive a share of any settlement in a successful action. This is the free rider problem. Courts have used common fund orders, or CFOs, to address the free rider problem and limit windfall profits to funders. CFOs have often been made before trial and require all class members to contribute an equal proportion of their share of the settlement to the litigation funder, whether or not they signed on to the action. CFOs encourage open-class actions and promote certainty and finality for defendants. However, the legislative basis for CFOs remains unclear, leading to uncertainty, procedural contests, delays and increased costs. CFOs may also promote speculative actions that are backed by funders without adequate investigation and may run counter to common law doctrine with regard to informed consent. Courts have also used funding equalisation orders, FEOs, to address the free rider problem and the issue of disproportionate returns to funders. FEOs require non-scheme members to contribute to the cost of an action borne by scheme members out of any settled funds. Such orders are designed to ensure that all group members contribute equally to the cost of running a class action from which they benefit. In contrast to many CFOs, FEOs are made at the conclusion of a proceeding—meaning that they account for the actual costs incurred during an action rather than expected costs. This bill amends chapter 5C of the Corporations Act to implement the government's response to recommendations 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the PJCCFS report. The amendments establish a new kind of managed investment scheme, a class action litigation funding scheme, and introduce additional requirements for the constitutions of managed investment schemes that are class action litigation funding schemes. The measure ensures that returns to litigation funders out of the claim proceeds of a scheme are fair and reasonable. This bill partially implements the government's response to the PJCCFS report and the Australian Law Reform Commission report. I will start to outline the main points, as we go forward. This bill gives rise to a range of regulatory impacts on businesses, as set out in the PJCCFS and the ALRC reports. Those reports have been certified as independent reviews which involved a process and analysis equivalent to a regulatory impact statement. To address the gap in analysis between the reports, inquiries and the government's consideration of options for class action litigation funding reform, supplementary analysis on the costs, benefits and risks associated with the new measures was prepared consistent with the Australian Government Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis. A number of key impacts were identified in that report: Litigation funders will experience greater barriers to charging unfair and disproportionate fees and commissions in class actions, reducing the availability of windfall profit making. Litigation funders may be incentivised to undertake greater 'book building' to— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 62 ADJOURNMENT National Disability Insurance Scheme 62 19:30 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I've risen many times in this chamber to condemn this government's inaction on addressing the appalling state of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor, industry stakeholders and NDIS participants themselves have all criticised this government for the appalling lack of action on this issue. A properly functioning, adequately funded NDIS would be capable of ensuring the safety and dignity of many thousands of the participants. A properly functioning, adequately funded NDIS would enable thousands of disabled Australians to live meaningful lives with the same opportunity to pursue their dreams and aspirations as all other Australians have. I have repeatedly called on the Morrison government to provide support to NDIS participants. Time and time again, they have not only failed to reform these systems but even failed to try. Harvey McKeever is a 16-year-old boy in our electorate of McEwen. In February, Harvey's life changed forever when a dirt bike accident on his family's Willowmavin property resulted in him becoming a quadriplegic. He spent seven months in hospital, only being discharged in September. Harvey requires significant rehabilitation and around-the-clock care. Harvey's mum, Renae, has told me and my office that their family are currently awaiting an outcome on their fourth NDIS plan review since June. Renae states that a request for a functional electrical stimulation bike has been refused as not being considered reasonable and necessary for Harvey, despite the Royal Children's Hospital and Victorian Paediatric Rehabilitation Service experts recommending it for his health. Renae states that, since Harvey's return home, the family is living under temporary and inconvenient conditions while they wait for an outcome on his plan. They've purchased their own portable ramp, a bed and a Showerbuddy so that Harvey could return home from hospital. But they're finding it extremely difficult to continue without certainly and assistance from the NDIS. Home modifications are required, as are physiotherapy, bladder care products and carer services. The NDIS have told Renae that their family's requests will require assessments and quotes from relevant professionals. Renae has already provided these assessments and quotes. The NDIS told her that, if she was unhappy with the outcome of their plan, she would have the right to request an internal plan review. Already she has done this four times. Renae is a mother who wants nothing more than adequate capacity to care for her son at home. Harvey is a 16-year-old young adult who, despite his injuries, is looking forward in life and wants the greatest capacity possible to engage with family, friends and the community. With regard to Harvey's NDIS plan, multiple occupational therapy assessments have already been done, and the family has provided quotes twice regarding home modifications. They have jumped through every single hoop this heartless government has placed before them. In contrast, the McKeever family's communications with Intereach, their NDIS planner, have been almost entirely via emails, some unsigned, often delayed and often unreasonably brief. In an email announcing rejection of the request for funding for the electrical stimulation bike, all the McKeever family received was a line in an unsigned email, with no explanation or further information. Vulnerable Australians should not be forced to jump through hoops. They should not have to navigate inane bureaucracy. They should not have to navigate obstacle after obstacle in a system that is offering them nothing in return. Taking away the dignity of Australians living with disabilities is a hallmark of the Morrison government. The inefficient and uncaring system that has been allowed to develop under this government is not just an affront to Australian values; it is an affront to basic human decency. The burden placed on NDIS participants, people who are already under enormous levels of stress and have to keep banging their heads against a brick wall in order to receive basic care, is an absolute disgrace. The government have had years to fix these problems that they created, and they haven't. In fact, the problem has got worse and worse on their watch. We need a government that cares about Australians. We need a government that places the issue of vulnerable Australians at the forefront of national policy so that our country moves forward and no-one gets left behind. The Morrison government has seen the NDIS as an inconvenience. Again and again, they've kicked the can down the road, failing to institute the necessary reforms for the safety and efficiency of the NDIS. Labor, industry stakeholders and NDIS participants have all criticised this government for its appalling lack of action. Almost every day in this chamber, my Labor colleagues share stories from their constituents—stories like that of Harvey and his family, NDIS participants completely let down by a broken system. Australians deserve more than this. An Albanese Labor government is the only government that Australians will be able to trust to be honest and deliver a functioning NDIS that gives vulnerable Australians what they— (Time expired) Wynnum Fringe Festival 63 19:35 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation. Fantastic, jaw dropping, heartwarming and iconic—all words to describe the return of this year's Wynnum Fringe Festival in my electorate of Bonner. I rise tonight to celebrate this festival and its showcase of the arts over six jam-packed days last week. In the weeks leading up to it, there was an incredible buzz in our community. Every corner of the bayside was transformed with pop-up stages, bars, eateries and countless local businesses that offered their spaces to be used as performance venues. Everyone got involved, whether as a volunteer, patron, local business owner or performer. It was a true demonstration of our community spirit. We all embraced this festival and made it a celebration of the bayside. I must take this opportunity to acknowledge festival founder Tom Oliver, who has outdone himself this year with a passion for the local arts scene that is one in a million. The bayside is tremendously lucky to have Tom. I speak on behalf of the community in saying that his vision for this year's festival benefited not just the arts but also local businesses, community groups and our economy. Tom is putting the bayside on the map. We all love the arts. It brings us joy. It has a powerful way of bringing communities together, and it inspires the next generation of talent. The Morrison government is committed to the sector, and secured the return of the Wynnum Fringe Festival as an annual event by delivering $236,000 in funding. It's been another challenging year for our arts and creative sectors, but we're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and events like this give us great excitement as we enjoy the simple things that we have really missed. It was a privilege to attend the Wynnum Fringe Festival's opening ceremony alongside Tom Oliver, Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner and the community. What a turnout it was. As part of a special ceremony, the Quandamooka elders presented yana marumba, which means 'walk good'. We started at the shores of Moreton Bay and walked up to the festival hub on Bay Terrace, where we finished the night with a free street party. People of all ages came together for this ceremony, united by our love of the arts. I also want to take this opportunity to recognise the over 300 artists, performers and musicians that took over the bayside, entertaining locals and visitors alike. There was sell-out show after sell-out show, which speaks volumes of the level of talent that we were so honoured to have in town. We couldn't have been more excited to welcome them to the bayside. The countdown is on to next year's fringe festival, and I can't wait. Health Care, Ethiopia 64 19:38 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Congratulations on your elevation, Mr Speaker. Trans and gender-diverse people deserve to feel affirmed for their gender expression. For some, it can be life-saving. In our current system, trans people have to spend up to $30,000 to access surgery and transitional health care because it isn't covered under Medicare. This is unacceptable. No matter how much or how little money you have, you should be able to access health care that affirms your identity and your expression of who you are and helps you to be seen in the way you want to be seen. Affirmative health care has incredibly positive consequences for trans and gender-diverse people, improving their mental health and reducing rates of suicide, especially among young people. Last year alone, nearly 50 per cent of trans and gender-diverse young people reported attempting suicide. We are failing them. A young community member started a petition to cover affirmative health care for trans and gender diverse people under Medicare, and it has gathered over 140,000 signatures. It's a privilege to be able to bring those voices to parliament today. I table this petition and present it to the House of Representatives. The petition has been considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions and found to be in order. The petition read as follows—   The petition was unavailable at the time of publishing.   Mr BANDT M3C It's clear that there is a need for this. It's our duty to make sure that socioeconomic barriers don't stop trans and gender diverse people from accessing lifesaving support services. Currently, numerous barriers exist in the healthcare system for disadvantaged trans and gender diverse people, and removing the socioeconomic barrier to affirmative health care is an important step in upholding our responsibility to care for trans and gender diverse people in this country. The Australian Greens want gender affirming medical care, including access to surgical procedures, prescribed hormones, products and services to achieve authentic gender identity and expression, to be provided at no out-of-pocket cost as part of Medicare. Congratulations to the petitioners and to everyone who is pushing for change. I also want to speak tonight about the situation in Ethiopia and the tragic violence and suffering that we've witnessed there. I want to recognise the impact on diaspora communities in Australia and particularly on those in my electorate of Melbourne. The events in Ethiopia have been devastating. A recent open letter signed by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and 30 other organisations is summarised as follows: Since fighting erupted in November 2020, civilians have been trapped between the parties to the conflict, largely cut off from assistance and communications, and displaced to other parts of Tigray, other regions of Ethiopia, and into neighboring countries. …   …   … The blockade put in place by the government of Ethiopia on June 28 has caused the number suffering from extreme hunger to increase dramatically. Amnesty International has documented that: Soldiers and militias subjected Tigrayan women and girls to rape, gang rape, sexual slavery, sexual mutilation, and other forms of torture, often using ethnic slurs and death threats. There are 2.3 million children still inside Tigray who need urgent assistance. Over 100,000 children of Tigray could suffer from life-threatening severe acute malnutrition. The violence has been widespread and devastating. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also recognised in a recent update: During the period under review, the Tigrayan forces have allegedly been responsible for attacks on civilians, including indiscriminate killings resulting in nearly 76,500 people displaced in Afar and an estimated 200,000 in Amhara. …   …   … On 5 August, Tigrayan forces allegedly attacked and killed displaced people, mainly women, children, and older people, sheltering in a camp in Galikoma Kebele, in the Afar Region. We've also seen recent reports of a civilian massacre with 120 deaths near Dabat in the Amhara region by Tigrayan fighters. Sadly, while the violence has continued, the international community has not intervened. We support calls for a humanitarian ceasefire, a removal of the blockade and the deployment of international monitors. Here in Australia we welcome the money committed to the World Food Program and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, but there's more we can do. That should start with dramatically increasing Australia's assistance to Ethiopia, working through UNICEF and other international bodies to ensure assistance reaches those who need it. To our community members here in Australia, I want to affirm our solidarity. We hear your pain and we will support your calls for urgent action. Higgins Electorate 65 19:43 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation. The SPEAKER 265967 Thank you. Dr ALLEN 282986 It has been a big two years of delivering for the people of Higgins, and I'm only just getting started. Since my election to this place I've been determined to see the commitments I made to the people of Higgins delivered in full despite the massive impact of COVID. I'm getting on with the job of taking care of Higgins. No project speaks to this more than the brand-new headspace facility that will be opening its doors in Higgins very soon. It is important that people experiencing mental health challenges receive support as early as possible to help them stay on track, and this has never been more important than during COVID. One in four people aged 16 to 24 experience some form of mental ill health every year, and three-quarters of all mental health illness manifests in people under the age of 25. Each headspace is tailored to the needs of the local community. I know that the new service coming to Malvern has been selected with input from key service providers led by Alfred Health. I was proud to be on the panel that has been dealing with this. This new headspace was made possible by a $3.5 million commitment from the Commonwealth government. It's right in the heart of Malvern, close to shops, public transport and educational facilities and services, and it's expected to open early in 2022. I am also pleased to say that earlier this year the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, opened the new state-of-the-art Cabrini Cancer Institute, made possible with $6 million in Commonwealth funding. This incredible facility brings together all aspects of cancer research and services right in the heart of Higgins. As the only hospital in my electorate, this funding will provide researchers and clinicians, and enable them to work towards life-saving breakthroughs for cancer. As a former doctor of Cabrini Health and as someone who is on the board of the hospital, I know the outstanding work this institute undertakes each day for clinical care and for those with cancer. Continuing this theme, I'm very much looking forward to visiting the site of the new hospice for very special kids in Malvern. The sod-turning will commence the complete rebuild of one of Australia's only children's hospices, which is made possible with a $7.5 million commitment by the Morrison government. This rebuild will provide a beautiful private space for families to spend their final days with their child supported by expert and loving care. It is truly 'angels taking care of little angels'. Another key local health project coming to Higgins is the residential eating disorder treatment centre in Armadale. This government has provided the $13 million needed to provide this important facility. As we know, one million Australians are thought to suffer from some form of eating disorder. Locally, referrals for eating disorders have doubled in the last 12 months because of the rolling lockdowns in Victoria and the global COVID pandemic. Treatment requires intensive wraparound support, and residential centres like the one coming to Higgins are essential to delivering this care for our great state of Victoria. As lockdown in Victoria lifts, locals in Murrumbeena are gearing up for the 2022 season. The highly anticipated new Murrumbeena Community Hub is nearing completion thanks to a $4 million contribution from the Morrison government. I know how excited the local community groups are to have more changing rooms and a new 140-seat function room with verandas for viewing sports in action. The facilities will be used by Murrumbeena Football Netball Club, Murrumbeena Junior Football Club, Murrumbeena Cricket Club, Murrumbeena Bowls Club and Oakdale Angling Club. This is a very highly anticipated new community hub. Finally, I want to use this opportunity to once again place on record this government's commitment to seeing the dangerous and congested level crossing at Glenferrie Road in Kooyong removed. We have delivered $8 million for the business case to assess the removal of this crossing, but the Victorian state government has not yet released the findings. I call on them again to release the business case. Locals are desperate to know the options for removal of this level crossing and want to get rid of this dangerous and congested level crossing. While it's been tough for Higgins through COVID, much has been delivered for my community. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with, and for, my community and being part of the Morrison government, which gets on with the job of helping to deliver an even better place to live, work and raise a family. I am proud to be the member for Higgins and proud to be taking care of Higgins. COVID-19: South Australia 66 19:48 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Spence Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to the chair. The SPEAKER 265967 Thank you. Mr CHAMPION HW9 The borders of South Australia were opened today, Tuesday November 23, and the South Australian government, by its own admission, is managing the introduction of travellers and, therefore, COVID into the state. We are alone among the COVID-free states of Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia in undertaking this process. Premier Marshall was down at the airport today crowing and getting emotional about scenes out of Love Actually. Of course we're all touched by people returning, by people seeing their family, sometimes after a very long time, but I'm very concerned that the government has acted prematurely. Our vaccination rate was supposed to be 80 per cent. It is actually 77 per cent today. On ABC radio a couple of weeks ago, I raised the issue that, even though the statewide figure is 80 percent, there are many communities where the vaccination rate is much lower than that. They include the northern suburbs of Adelaide. The city of Playford's current vaccination rate for second doses is 65.4 per cent, almost 15 per cent below where it should be. The city of Salisbury's second dose rate is 72 per cent. In the district of Light and the town of Kapunda, where I grew up, the second dose rate is 64 per cent. Then there are other regional areas of the state: at Mid Murray it's 63 per cent, at Murray Bridge it's 66 per cent, Port Augusta is on 72 per cent and Port Pirie is on 74 per cent. So there are a great many areas where the vaccination rate is well below 80 per cent and, therefore, communities are very vulnerable. On that radio program, one of the government bureaucrats let slip that Elizabeth Park was, at that point, at just 40 per cent. So we have some suburbs where the vaccination rate is very low, indeed. We also have in the northern suburbs of Adelaide at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, the hospital where I was born, a case where all day today the hospital has been under pressure and running on code white. If you went to SA Health's emergency department dashboard at 10 am, at 12 o'clock, at 1pm and at five o'clock, when the last statistics were updated, you would see that every treatment room was being used at that hospital. This has been consistent over the last year, where we have had emergency departments under pressure, without COVID and without a flu season. We have had ramping accelerate through this time and become a chronic problem nearly every day. Indeed, last night, SA Ambulance Service had an OPSTAT Red, where there were sustained impacts on the delivery of safe care. That is code for saying that there was ramping—that is, hospital emergency department car parks where there were just ambulances after ambulances, sometimes with elderly people waiting hours to get treatment. This is in the very community where the vaccination rates are still 15 per cent below where they should be for the safe opening of the state's borders. It is very concerning, indeed. Just today in InDaily, which is an online newspaper in Adelaide, SA Health revealed that it's planning COVID quarantine camps in case of outbreaks. They are signing contracts or looking for contractors to run quarantine camps in regional areas because they are worried that Aboriginal communities and other vulnerable groups won't be able to quarantine in time. If it has been anything like SA Health's attempts to engage the community of the northern suburbs around vaccination rates, we should have great worries about their capacity to deliver. This is very concerning. We of course hope that the opening of the borders is a successful thing, but it is really, really concerning when you've got communities in my electorate and communities I used to represent under the old boundaries of Wakefield and communities in regional South Australia where the vaccination rate levels make them extremely vulnerable to COVID outbreaks. While there have been scenes of heartfelt joy down at the Adelaide Airport today, we just have to hope there are not tragic scenes in our local hospitals and in our local communities after COVID arrives in South Australia. (Time expired) Mallee Electorate: Longerenong Agricultural College 66 19:53 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Mallee is a proud agricultural electorate. Recently, I travelled through the electorate and dropped into Longerenong Agricultural College. This is a fine institution training up tomorrow's top producers. This was my third visit to the historic college, and I had the pleasure of meeting their new general manager, Avril Hogan. I am very encouraged by the direction that Australia's agricultural industry is heading in. Longerenong Ag College, fondly known as 'Longy', hosts over 100 students on campus at any one time, many of whom will pave the way for the future of food and fibre productivity as we head towards a $100 billion ag industry by 2030. I am told that the majority of applicants for next year are female, which is truly encouraging. These students stream in from all regional corners of Australia, with Victorians, Tasmanians, New South Welshmen and Queenslanders represented in their cohort. Even Australian universities in metropolitan areas are sending students there. Graduates are job-ready. I'm pleased to report that Longerenong boasts a 95 per cent employment rate for graduates on completion of their studies. That is truly astounding. Longerenong has an enviable reputation in training, mentoring and educating leaders in the ag industry. The college provides an excellent academic environment for students, embedded in research and practice, with plenty of hands-on training. Longerenong is on the front foot, looking for opportunities to partner in research. Vision and innovation in research and development provides students with hands-on experience and cutting-edge technology in farming. This ensures that future Australian farmers will continue to develop competitive advantages in the global market. As we venture into the next phase of our nation's history and look to reduce emissions and improve the stewardship of our land, innovation will drive our agriculture and horticultural industries. We are a government committed to doing what is necessary to manage emissions without destroying our economy, and it is encouraging that we have institutions like Longerenong which are investing in creative solutions to reduce emissions through adaptive technologies. It is encouraging to hear that Avril is looking to expand and develop partnerships in this space. One technology that I'm particularly interested in is the emergence of seaweed technologies in livestock feed. I spoke with Avril about the Australian Sustainable Seaweed Alliance. Fifty milligrams of seaweed in a bovine's gut can reduce methane emissions by 90 per cent while increasing productivity by 20 per cent. This is quite remarkable. The Morrison-Joyce government is backing innovative technologies for Australia's future industries. We are directing $30.7 million over six years towards these promising feed technologies. The Low Emissions Supplements to Grazing Animals at Scale program will provide $23 million in funding to help develop technologies that deliver low-emissions feed supplements to grazing animals. Our $6 million Methane Emissions Reduction in Livestock program supports research into the abatement potential and productivity benefits of livestock feed technology. The future is also looking bright in sustainable land management strategies. Longerenong college is investing in soil management strategies and training students in stewardship techniques to ensure sustainable productivity. These solutions include planting summer crops to break up and protect the soil. I am pleased to say that this side of the House is also working to reward farmers for good land management through the Agriculture Biodiversity Stewardship Package. This package demonstrates the potential for financial returns to farmers by piloting projects that deliver biodiversity outcomes and enhance remnant vegetation. The Liberal-National government will also soon begin consultation to develop legislation that will support new income streams for farmers who improve biodiversity outcomes on their land, and so we should. Farmers are the most committed to soil health, as their livelihood depends on it. This proposed legislation will be designed to deliver a range of benefits, including opportunities for farmers to earn additional income by delivering sustainability outcomes. It will recognise that farmers already deliver environmental services and incentivise others in the sector to engage in these practices. The proposed legislation would build on the success of previous pilot programs and develop a long-term pathway to market for farmers. (Time expired) House adjourned at 19: 59 NOTICES 67 NOTICES

Tuesday, 23 November 2021

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 69 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Petition: Eurobodalla Hospital 69 16:00 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I was recently at a community event at Moruya, in my beautiful electorate of Gilmore, where the community got together and presented me and the member for Eden-Monaro with a petition, which I have with me today. The petition is calling for a new level 4 Eurobodalla hospital. Currently around two-thirds of patients have to travel outside of the area for treatment. Often that means a really long drive to Canberra. We currently have a level 2 hospital in Batemans Bay and a level 3 hospital in Moruya. But the idea is to have a new Eurobodalla hospital that is a level 4 hospital. People thought that the new Eurobodalla hospital would actually provide those level 4 services, but they found that that was not going to be the case—that the hospital, when built, was not going to open with those much-needed services. The petition that I have, which I'm going to table later as a document, calls on the government to provide a level 4 service. If the hospital does not open at level 4, it will mean having no intensive care unit. Imagine having no intensive care unit. That means, again, a long drive to Canberra. The hospital is actually going to have fewer emergency beds, fewer maternity beds and no acute mental health beds. So it's really no great replacement for the current Batemans Bay hospital and the Moruya hospital. Needless to say, people are pretty mad about that. I have been flooded with emails, comments and phone calls. The community are really getting together to act on that. We're also finding that the current Batemans Bay hospital is being run down. In the words of Phil: 'I write this from my bed in the high-dependency unit in Batemans Bay hospital. This is the last time I'll be treated here, due to the closure of this unit. The same treatment I receive today is now only to be had in Moruya. I am extremely disappointed with New South Wales Health's dismantling of our hospital before the supposed level 4 is even started. Yes, I'm old, so an appropriate saying is "Put the cart before the horse." This government department is dictating our medical wellbeing and health care. I for one have lost faith in them. The general public have been treated like mushrooms.' That's pretty much what people are thinking. They feel like they've been ripped off with what is currently happening. At the petition presentation— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! Are you seeking to present the petition? Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Yes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 You should do it within your three minutes. Is leave granted for the document to be presented? Leave granted. Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 I present the document. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders. Herbert Electorate: Townsville City Deal 69 16:03 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I want to talk about the Townsville City Deal today. To be honest, it is a mess. This city deal has been nothing but trouble since its inception. The Australian government are trying to get on with the job of funding under the city deal, and this includes projects like the new concert hall, a business case for water recycling, green hydrogen production and major redevelopments for Reef HQ. However, currently there is $27 million of funding for projects which are being blocked by the Queensland state Labor government. These are projects that the state Labor government themselves are supporting or have been begging for. They are a new hub for the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Townsville and a matched funding commitment of $12 million for the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct. It wasn't long ago that the Deputy Premier of Queensland was in Townsville at a business breakfast. He was asking, pleading and begging for these projects to go ahead and for the Australian government to commit to these projects, and we did. Now he's the minister who is not allowing these very payments, which he asked for from the Australian government, to flow through the state to the council, as required by the Constitution. It's the exact same situation for the Royal Flying Doctor Service hub, which the Premier herself included on the dot point wish list of projects she'd like funded under the Townsville City Deal. The very understandable question that needs to be asked is: why is the state Labor government blocking passage of funding for these two very important, very valuable projects that they themselves support? If you ask me, I would say that I don't know. I have no idea why they'd want to do this—why they'd want to play politics and why they'd reject funding that has been handed to them on a silver platter. They keep putting politics before the people of Townsville. If you ask them, the answer would be that they will lose 80 per cent of the funding of their GST allocation. But that is a complete farce. I went to the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission and asked if it was possible to calculate that any one project would result in a reduction in GST allocation to the value of 80 per cent. The answer was no. But don't take my word for it; here is what the Commonwealth Grants Commission told me: 'Queensland is just one of eight states receiving Commonwealth payments. When another state receives a grant from the Commonwealth, Queensland's GST share will increase by about 20 per cent of the value of that grant. Therefore, the final effect on GST distribution cannot be determined without considering all Commonwealth payments to Queensland together with all Commonwealth payments to other states.' COVID-19: Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome 70 16:06 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to speak on behalf of a Blue Mountains family whose daughter Katie died at the age of 34 in August this year as a result of taking the AstraZeneca vaccine. She is one of nine deaths the TGA reports as linked to AstraZeneca and one of eight who developed TTS. To use the words of her dad, Ian, Katie was a 'vibrant, healthy woman with no pre-existing medical conditions' living in Sydney's inner west. She was a writer, comedian and performer and worked as a tour guide with BridgeClimb and at the Butterfly Foundation. I've listened to a podcast she made last year and heard her speak of her deep passion for travel and performing and of making a difference. Katie received her first dose of vaccine in July. A few days later she had a rash on her arm, but her GP didn't feel it was linked. On 1 August she woke feeling unwell and her condition deteriorated rapidly. She was taken to RPA by ambulance, diagnosed with major bleeding in her brain. Doctors recognised this was an AstraZeneca case. That same day she had neurosurgery and an angiogram, but she didn't regain consciousness before she died three days later. Her family was not able to spend time with her because of COVID. I speak about this knowing that there are some in the community who will try and use what the family have said to me for their own purposes. That would be wrong. They are grieving and angry that Katie's death is a direct consequence of the government's reliance on AstraZeneca. They acknowledge that many other people have died because of the failure of the federal government to better manage the vaccine program. They know Katie listened to the urging of the government and made the decision to be vaccinated with AstraZeneca after discussions with her GP. For the sake of people's mental health, she wanted to do her bit to help end the lockdown. They grieve that she was the one in a one-in-a-million risk. What's added to their grief and distress is the lack of contact initiated from either the government or AstraZeneca. What they'd like is for Katie's death and that of others to be recognised in parliament. They'd like a public memorial acknowledging those who died during the pandemic, both as a result of the disease and of the vaccines, and public recognition at major gatherings in the form of a minute's silence. They'd like a vaccine compensation scheme that proactively reaches out to people who've lost a family member, one with specific time frames, relying on an expert legal and medical panel that considers impact statements from family members and treats them generously. What they want is reasonable. They also want to see the Prime Minister acknowledge those who have died or been disabled through the vaccination program. They want recognition by the Prime Minister of what these people have experienced and what their families have lost. They have lost this for the sake of the rest of the community. Bonner Electorate: Small Business 70 16:09 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I rise today to recognise the small businesses at the heart of our communities and to acknowledge the support the Morrison government has delivered to keep them afloat during this time. New economic data from the ATO and Treasury analysis this week show that small businesses will receive $5 billion worth of tax relief this year and next. That's $5 billion back into the pockets of these businesses, seeing the creation of 600,000 new jobs. We've also provided Australian workers who are on $60,000 a year, whether they be teachers or nurses, $6,480 in tax relief. Australians are better off thanks to our government. I've welcomed the comments from small businesses in my electorate of Bonner, who couldn't be more thankful for the support that we have provided. Michael Sunderland is the sales manager at Karalis Real Estate in Mount Gravatt. As it is a small company, with only three full-time staff, things were at their lowest when the pandemic hit. Karalis Real Estate were eligible for our wage subsidy scheme, which, in Michael's words, was a life-saver for his business. As time progressed it was no longer needed. Now they're focused on expansion and growing their team of three full-timers to eight employees by next March. In the bayside suburb of Wynnum is Fleur by Ellie, a local florist which opened during COVID. Owner Ellie believes wholeheartedly that our tax relief measures have had widespread benefits in the area. Given the noticeable increase in foot traffic and the return of consumer confidence, Ellie has been able to expand her floristry business with the addition of a new cafe, creating more jobs and more opportunities for locals to go local first. There's also Jungle Adventure Play in Cannon Hill, the favourite place to be of every local kid, including my two sons. Owner Lachlan Walker opened this business during the June-July school holidays last year. To get on their feet during this time, Jungle Adventure Play took advantage of our government's instant asset write-off. In anticipation of Brisbane's hot summers, they installed air-con units, which has improved the space for children who are busy running around and climbing the equipment. Lachlan mentioned the jungle also has 10 staff taking part in our Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program. They are now able to upskill and train casual apprentices to become part-time or full-time employees. This is just a snapshot of how our government's measures have positively impacted countless businesses and employees in Bonner. With Christmas just around the corner, it's the most important time of the year to be purchasing gifts locally and supporting our mum-and-dad small businesses. Werriwa Electorate: Australia Post, Werriwa Electorate: Infrastructure 71 16:12 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to put before the House yet another example of how suburbs in the electorate of Werriwa are not treated equitably. I've been inundated with feedback from residents in Austral, Rossmore and West Hoxton about Australia Post's unwillingness to deliver parcels, sending residents on a 30-kilometre round trip to Ingleburn post office or Smeaton Grange—past closer post offices, I might add. The response that I recently received when I raised concerns with Australia Post was that a delivery attempt was made in the first instance for all these parcels; however, the feedback from my constituents is quite different. One even provided me with a video demonstrating this was not the case. I understand his frustration and that he felt the need to prove his concern. I do acknowledge that Australia Post staff are doing the best they can in difficult circumstances. It is Australia Post management who must provide a work environment that ensures the service standards expected of Australia Post are met. Chris from Austral told me that there was not even one attempted delivery of his parcel. The Australia Post app showed his parcel was not leaving Ingleburn, so he went there to pick it up. When Chris received his parcel from the post office staff, the parcel was kicked along the ground. There was no trolley offered by staff to help him. Two days later, after he'd already picked up his parcel, he received a missed-delivery card. This is unacceptable. Chris says it best himself: 'It is so important that we have a centralised, publicly owned service to handle what is now an integral part of our economy and day-to-day modern life. However, it's clear something's terribly amiss in Australia Post that they would even allow this to happen, with zero answers to fix the problem.' What my constituents are also upset about is the lack of infrastructure in place in Austral. New residential homes, parks and trees are still lacking. There'll be 17,000 new dwellings put in Austral soon, and that puts it on par with New South Wales regional cities. Australia Post needs to ensure that a parcel service continues to account for this population growth and to service customers and businesses now. Ms Ismail, from Austral, told me: 'The issue is ongoing and will only become worse as a number of Austral residents rise. Worst of all, they're all paying for postage and for the delivery to their homes.' All residents deserve fair and easy access to postal deliveries, no matter where they live. I call for more Australia Post outlets in more convenient locations in my electorate to cater for these growing suburbs. Australia Post is an essential government service and my constituents deserve much better. Mildura Airport 71 16:15 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Mildura is one of the most geographically isolated major regional centres in Victoria. To travel to Adelaide, locals must travel 4½ hours by car—six hours to Melbourne. It underscores why the Mildura Airport is so important to so many people in Sunraysia. In a normal year, 280,000 trips are made to connect people with their loved ones or for medical treatment, work or holidays. It is significant that seven per cent of these flights have had to redirect due to adverse weather conditions. Of course, safety must come first, but diverting flights causes delays that can have a profound impact on people's lives and timetables. It can leave people stranded in other cities overnight. I know; I've had to do it myself. Particularly for those travelling for medical reasons, delays can be very difficult to manage. I made an election promise to address this problem for the residents of Sunraysia, and I have campaigned successfully for an instrument landing system. This week I was proud to open Mildura Airport's new instrument landing system, funded by the Community Development Grants Program. The Morrison-Joyce government paid $2 million for the ILS; $1 million was added by the Mildura Rural City Council, and $1 million was added by Mildura Airport. The ILS provides the lateral and vertical guidance necessary to fly a precision approach in times of low visibility and fog. This project will provide critical safety and security measures for planes to land, rather than be turned back to Melbourne, Sydney or whatever they've come from. The physical installation of the equipment has been completed, and the design procedures are currently being finalised to go live in February 2022. The ILS project secured 23 jobs throughout construction and will create 50 going forward. Residents of Mildura and the surrounds will now be able to fly with greater reliability and peace of mind with this critical infrastructure. It's calculated that Mildura inbound and outbound flights will boast a 99 per cent completion rate, rather than 93 per cent without the ILS. Mildura Airport also serves as an emergency landing base for commercial flights, and this upgrade will ensure enhanced safety in the event of an emergency—such as that which occurred in 2013, when a Qantas jet from Sydney and a Virgin jet from Brisbane, both bound for Adelaide, managed to land safely in fog in Mildura. This was a high-risk situation, but, due to low fuel, there were no options left. The ILS will profoundly reduce the risks and make this kind of approach much safer. The Liberal-National government is committed to efficiency and safety for regional Australians and is delivering— (Time expired) Broadband, Climate Change 72 16:19 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean At the start of the year my local Labor colleagues and I wrote to the minister for communications calling for improved NBN infrastructure in the nation's capital. Canberra's NBN infrastructure is undoubtedly the worst of all the capital cities. The network is comprised of more than 70 per cent fibre to the node, higher than other major urban centres around the nation. It's inferior to fibre to the premises or to the kerb and it doesn't deliver the performance that a modern broadband network should. Canberrans are not the only ones who are frustrated. Australia has slipped to 59th in the world on broadband speeds and ranks 32nd out of 37 OECD nations. This is not good enough. It's a drag on our economy, it has undermined the competitiveness of small business and it has left sectors like health and education reliant on patchy, outdated technology. Furthermore, this government promised to deliver the NBN for $29.5 billion. Their patchwork of second-rate technologies has cost nearly double this amount. We have a second-rate network that has cost twice as much as promised, a clear demonstration of the government's technological and economic incompetence. Labor will fix this mess. We understand the need for world-class digital infrastructure in the post-COVID economy for schools, small business, regional communities and growing industries such as advanced manufacturing. Labor's plan to boost fibre and fast-track NBN repair will deliver and it will create 12,000 construction jobs along the way. People in my electorate of Bean know first-hand that we have the most to lose from inaction on climate change. One only has to look at the summer bushfires of 2020 to see the evidence. But my community also knows that we have the most to gain both locally and globally from climate change action. We are a territory powered 100 per cent by renewable energy, a target that's driving investment in our region and bringing jobs to the economy. The world is moving rapidly towards renewable energy, and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia to jump ahead of the pack. But Prime Minister Morrison is leaving Australia increasingly isolated on the world stage on climate policy. We on this side care about outcomes, not just announcements. We on this side care about conviction, not just convenience. We will underpin our climate change policy with four key principles: net zero emissions by 2050 with a strong road map to get there; ambition backed by policy; understanding that climate policy is good jobs policy; and understanding that regions, including our capital region, will get a set of those policies. We will take action that will create jobs, drive investment, cut power prices and reduce our emissions. The truth is—and it's time for honesty—we have to stop toxic politics and start addressing one of the great challenges this nation has faced. The opportunity is there, and Labor is ready to work with our communities to embrace it. Veterans 72 16:22 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman In my electorate of Longman we have one of largest veteran communities in Queensland. I've had the pleasure of speaking to many of these veterans and their families, whether it be at the veterans' forums I've hosted, out and about at community events, at Vietnam veterans' days, at Remembrance Day or Anzac Day services, or just helping them with their inquiries from my office. I would like to take a moment to thank them all for their service. We can never underestimate the importance of ensuring that our veterans have the support and services they need to live and work comfortably in our communities—after all, they have fought for us and the country they love. It's now our turn to return the favour. That's why I've been fighting for funding for a veterans' wellbeing centre to be based in the heart of Longman. This would mean our veterans, their families and current ADF members who have begun the transition into civilian life are supported and have greater access to wellbeing services and support in the Longman community. I was fortunate to recently visit The Oasis Townsville with my colleague the member for Herbert, Phil Thompson. They provide a single front door for all members of the ex-Australian Defence Force community, current members and their families. This is what I want for our veterans living in Longman. I want Longman's veteran wellbeing centre to provide simple access to local services specifically designed to meet the needs of our veterans. We want to help connect veterans and their families to a range of core services, including support for transition, employment, health and social connection and advocacy through the centre. I don't want our veterans to ever feel alone or feel that there is no help in sight, because you can count on me to fight for you. The federal government has made addressing the development and management of mental disorders such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and other anxiety disorders for the veteran community a high priority. The mental health needs of veterans are diverse and rapidly changing, and veterans generally experience PTSD at higher rates than the general population. That is why wellbeing centres for our veterans are vital in helping them to manage disorders or traumatic experiences. As part of our commitment to veterans across Australia, the federal government has announced further funding in the 2021-22 federal budget to expand the veteran wellbeing centre network to Tasmania and South-East Queensland, with $5 million in funding being allocated to each of these locations. This is great news for many of our veterans and their families. I want Longman to lead the expansion of the veteran wellbeing centre network in Queensland so that we can support the large veteran community in Longman. It is my hope that we can find a way to build this facility in Longman to service the needs of our substantial community of veterans. SafeGround 73 16:24 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Some time ago I had the opportunity to meet with SafeGround, who are an Australian NGO that work to minimise the impact of weapons of war. They came here to parliament, which is when I spoke with them, to discuss with us the issue of lethal autonomous weapon systems in the lead-up to the global diplomatic discussions that will reach a critical juncture next month at the United Nations in Geneva. Without doubt, artificial intelligence technology has great potential to bring benefits to society across a range of applications. These technological advances, however, must be developed and implemented with appropriate oversight and regulation. The global proliferation of increasingly autonomous weapons is occurring amidst the absence of new international regulations that address the challenges caused by these emerging weapons systems. Rapid advancements in technological systems compel us to not only re-engage with, but to also advance fundamental notions of human rights well into the future. You might call this future proofing of our human rights. The fundamental and underlying principle is this: international humanitarian law must continue to apply fully to all weapons systems. Under this principle, like-minded countries have raised concerns about the ethical, legal, operational and technological issues associated with lethal autonomous weapon systems, particularly where human agency is removed from decision-making on issues of life and death. Germany and France have highlighted the indispensable need to maintain meaningful human control over new weapons technologies. Closer to home, New Zealand has emphasised the legal, ethical and human rights challenges posed by the development and use of lethal autonomous weapon systems. In our own region, India has, in some respects, expanded on the issue of meaningful human control by cautioning against the potential for states to legitimise these weapons systems with broad references to what the term 'meaningful human control' actually means. This is particularly important because such an awareness goes to the heart of the issue of accountability not only in terms of consequences, but also the ability of such weapons systems to reduce the social and political thresholds with respect to decisions of whether to engage in war. I know some of my colleagues are equally concerned about this issue, especially the need for Australia to support meaningful and legally binding international instruments with respect to lethal autonomous weapon systems. This includes the need for Australia to support the establishment of legally binding rules regarding specific prohibitions and limits on autonomous weapons, as well as support for the implantation of a normative and operational framework in the area of autonomous weapons within the instruments of the United Nations. Australia should prepare and articulate a national policy that strictly regulates and defines human control and responsibility with respect to such weapons. I want to thank SafeGround for the incredible advocacy and work that they do in the national interest. COVID-19: Vaccinations, Hayes, Mrs Eulalie 73 16:27 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I want to thank my community for getting vaccinated in large numbers, and I want to thank the health workers who have worked in clinics across the country. I'm vaccinated, my family is vaccinated. In my region, first dose is at 95 per cent at the moment, and second dose is close to 90 per cent. Vaccination has allowed us to open our economy and it has also meant our hospitals haven't been overrun. As we approach the completion of the vaccination rollout, it's very important for the state government to lift restrictions on those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. I understand why state governments had restrictions when vaccination levels were low, but they are not low now. We can't have a segregated society of those who are and those who are not vaccinated. We have achieved some of the best vaccination levels in the world, so I will continue to lobby the state government to lift these restrictions on those who choose not to be vaccinated. We live in a free country, and while I don't agree with those who choose not to be vaccinated, I respect their right to make this decision. Restrictions on their lives need to be lifted. We have arrived at some of the highest vaccination levels in the world, and therefore the segregation needs to end. I would like to acknowledge Eulalie Hayes for more than 60 years of service to netball in the Clarence Valley. In 1963, Eulalie and her sister Narelle responded to an ad in a local paper looking to establish a woman's netball team in Grafton. Eight years later, Eulalie was coaching 10 teams. She was also treasurer of the Grafton Netball Association for more than 10 years. In the seventies, she was made a life member of the association. Her 38-year involvement with Grafton netball came to a close in 1998, when she retired from work to move to Gulmarrad with her husband, Barry. Eulalie then occupied many positions in the Lower Clarence Netball Association, including president, rep convener, coaching convener and treasurer. She received the club person of the year and the Ernie Muller award in 2010 for her contribution to Lower Clarence sport, and in 2012 she was awarded the Lower Clarence Netball Association life membership. Eulalie is still an active member of the association and is at the courts every Saturday during the season. She's a mentor to players and coaches. She also has a coaching award and a court named after her in Grafton. Eulalie, your contribution to netball in our community is outstanding, and I thank you for this. I know your family; Barry, your three children, Tanya, Roslyn and Martin, and Terry and Kate, as well as your five grandchildren, Kyle, Joel, Ryan, Hannah and Piper, are all very proud of you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 74 Report 74 16:31 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I rise to comment on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia. I think this was good work by the committee and I fully support the three recommendations from the report. The first recommendation, which I support, recommends: … the Australian Government prioritise the collection of data on online gambling in Australia, including the size and growth of the online gambling market, online gambling with credit, and the extent and nature of the associated harms. The second recommendation, which I also support, recommends: … the Australian Government develop and implement legislation to ban online gambling service providers of wagering, gaming and other gambling services (but not lotteries) from accepting payment by credit cards, including via digital wallets. The third recommendation, which I support, recommends: … Australian Government ensure that, in designing and implementing recommendation 2, these measures have no adverse consequences for lotteries, including the activities of not-for-profits, charities and newsagents. As good as all that is, regrettably, it doesn't go nearly far enough. We have had an explosion of online and sports betting in this country, requiring the most conscientious attention by the federal government and the implementation of a raft of harm-minimisation measures, because we don't want online and sports betting to become like poker machines. While it has been out there for some years now, it's a relatively emerging form of gambling. There has been a rapid uptake of this form of gambling, particularly by younger people and younger men, and we have an opportunity to intervene reasonably early in the evolution of this form of gambling to make sure that the most effective harm-minimisation measures are in place. The obvious thing to regulate is to require the Australian online gambling companies to link their precommitment arrangements in real time so that when any gambler reaches their daily limit on one platform they are shut out of all platforms provided by Australian online gambling companies. We need to do that because at the moment we have a ludicrous situation where someone who in good faith has set a daily limit with one gambling company can, when they reach that gambling limit, close that app and open the app of another Australian gambling provider. They can gamble away and maybe reach the limit on that one, and then close that app and go to the next app—and, before you know it, a gambler, particularly a gambling addict, can have maxed out on all of the Australian companies and have lost much more than they can possibly afford. If the companies were to link their lockout arrangements in real time then that would go a very long way towards protecting Australian gamblers. I've discussed this—I won't name names or identify the company—with leaders in the industry, and they tell me that the technology exists, that it could be done quickly and that it would cost very little money. So here we have an initiative which I urge the government to embrace. The industry can do it. The public wants it. It won't cost much money, and it will protect gamblers, particularly problem gamblers. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that gambling addicts, when asked to set a daily limit when they're not in the zone, will normally set a sensible limit. When they're not in the zone, gambling addicts often know that they have an addiction, want to do everything possible to deal with that addiction, and will set sensible limits. It was the same way back in 2010, 2011 and 2012, when I was campaigning for mandatory precommitment on poker machines—the knowledge that gambling addicts in their lucid moments set sensible limits. If they're going to set a sensible limit then we need to ensure that the industry implements that limit across all of the platforms. Also, we really need to ban, or at least rein in, the advertising of these online gambling companies. Frankly, the community is sick to death of being bombarded with ads, particularly at either end of a sporting game on a Sunday night, a Saturday afternoon or whatever. We have the ridiculous situation in Australia where gambling advertising is banned during G-rated television times but there's an exemption—a carve-out, if you will—for gambling advertising either side of sports events, which of course is when an enormous number of children are actually watching the telly. They've turned it on, they're sitting down, they've got a bag of crisps and the game's about to start, and then those little children are bombarded with gambling ads. And they're gambling ads that are associated with their sporting heroes and the code of sport they love. It's obviously unacceptable. We've also got to stop predatory behaviour by these companies. I am aware of gambling addicts who have shut down accounts with one online gambling company, only to be cold-called by an industry insider who encourages them to set up an account with another gambling company. They eventually close down that account, only to be cold-called by someone within the industry who encourages them to open another account with another company. There is clearly mischief going on within the online and sports betting sector. I don't know what it is, but somehow people are collecting lists of names and they are using them quite mischievously to pray on gambling addicts. We need to clamp down on that somehow. We also need online gambling companies to be alert to gamblers gambling with the proceeds of crime. When it is discovered that an online gambler is gambling with the proceeds of crime, the gambling companies need to be required to pay that money back to the victims of that crime. Not that long ago, in fact, I moved a private member's bill in this place that would have required gambling companies to repay the proceeds of crime. Regrettably, it received no support from the government and no support from the opposition. For the life of me I can't understand why that would be the case. We appreciate more broadly that proceeds of crime should be repaid but not when it comes to the gambling industry, it seems—they're different; they shouldn't have that obligation. I strongly disagree with that and condemn the government and the opposition for not supporting that private member's bill. Another bill that I tried to progress in this place—again, it has lapsed, having received no support from the government or the opposition—was for a ban on social casinos, those ridiculous games where people pay online to gamble but can't win anything in return. It is just bizarre. People are playing gambling type games online, paying money to participate in the game, but at the other end there is no tangible winning to withdraw. We might all think: 'That's just ridiculous. Who on earth would gamble like that?' The fact is a lot of people gamble like that. Surely we should ban social casinos? I make the point again—I labour the point—that this was another private member's bill I introduced into this place that received no support from the government or the opposition. It's another example of how the gambling industry seems to have special status in this place and is treated absurdly favourably by governments and politicians. I'm not going to give up, though. I have prepared a private member's bill, which I will introduce in this place when I get an opportunity, to ban loot boxes. Now, loot boxes are when you pay money to win something to use in an online game, but you don't know what you've won until you've paid your money for your virtual box. You open your loot box to see what you have won, or that you have won nothing, to use as part of an online game. I would have said that, when you pay money to participate in a game of chance from which you may or may not get a positive outcome, that's gambling by any definition. Yet loot boxes are legal in this country. So it'll be another test of the government and another test of the opposition, when I move that private member's bill, whether or not they will support it, and I hope it's a test that they pass. I would add that there are other good members of the Australian parliament who are trying to do good things. For example, Stirling Griff currently has a private member's bill in the Senate that would basically do what the committee has recommended here. So why doesn't the government, supported by the opposition, get behind Senator Griff's private senator's bill that would basically prohibit credit card use? The work is done. All the government and the opposition have got to do is line up on the day. It was good work by the committee, as far as they went, but, heavens, there's still a long way to go. Again I urge the government and the opposition to do the hard work and to help protect gambling addicts. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 203092 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and will resume as an order of the day for the next sitting. BUSINESS 76 BUSINESS Rearrangement 76 16:41 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson by leave—I move: That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 76 Report 76 16:42 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I commend to the House the third interim report and the final report tabled by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, of which I am a member. In doing so, it is important that I call on the government to actually act on these reports and the two previous reports from the committee. Don't let these reports sit on the shelf like so many similar reports from previous inquiries. It should be noted that there have been 67 different inquiries on the Family Law Act since it came into effect in January 1976. Unfortunately, there is a history of successive inquiries identifying similar systemic problems in our family law system and of successive governments being unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes. When this inquiry was first announced at the end of 2019, I was sceptical that this was to implement real change and not just a political stunt. My concerns about how this committee might be used and about the process were real, because these are real people's lives. People are incredibly impacted by the breakdown of family relationships, and they are turning to this inquiry for change and they are turning to the government for implementation of the recommendations so they feel that there can be progress in such a distressing area. Having been a family law barrister before coming to this place, I have experience of how distressing this area of law can be. It goes to the absolute core of people's lives. Having acted for both sides—for both men and women, for both parties—in property and parenting proceedings, I know it can be so distressing. This needs to become a bipartisan issue, and there needs to be a political will to implement these changes. The reality is that in modern society, sadly, 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce. While many of those separations are conducted fairly and amicably, there are still many Australians who rely on the family law system to settle their divorce or separation and resolve disputes over property and over the custody of children. Most of us know someone who has gone through either separation or the family law court. To varying degrees, this process can be adversarial, confrontational, emotionally unsettling, financially crippling and life-changing. If there's one thing we can never get back, it's time. It is one of the major problems with the system. For that reason, it's imperative that our family law system not only be functional; it needs to be fair and well funded. It all goes to that question of time—the time it takes for disputes to be resolved or determined. It is so important that the government take note of these recommendations. Over the course of the inquiry, we received more than 1,700 submissions, the majority from individuals detailing their incredibly personal cases and experience. I thank all those who provided evidence and submissions to the inquiry. Despite the challenges of COVID-19, the committee held 13 public hearings and 13 in camera hearings. I'd like to thank all the people on the committee and also, importantly, the secretariat for their tireless efforts in providing logistical and administrative support of the committee. The terms of reference for this inquiry were far-reaching. On the whole, I feel they have been addressed by this inquiry. The key issues identified were the costs associated with the family law system; the adversarial nature of the family law courts and whether we should move towards a more inquisitorial model; the issue of distressing delays in the current court system; the role of family consultants, expert witnesses and independent children's lawyers; enforcement and contravention of family law orders; and family violence, because in family law proceedings how the family law system and family violence jurisdictions interact is considered. The first interim report canvassed the various themes and issues raised in evidence received throughout the first 12 months of the inquiry. It was tabled in October 2020. The second interim report detailed the committee's conclusions and recommendations in relation to the family law system. It was tabled in March 2021. The third interim report dealt specifically with the issue of Australia's child support scheme, which emerged as a dominant issue during the inquiry. We expanded the inquiry with the aim of focusing specifically on the child support scheme and its interaction with the family law system. The committee's goals were twofold: first, to allow for a better analysis of the existing evidence; second, to provide an opportunity to gather additional evidence through a further inquiry and better question key government agencies and stakeholders. The child support scheme is vital to society. It is a social policy, and I note that it supports over one million children and involves approximately 1.25 million parents. There was a broad range of participants, who were generous enough to provide the committee with their personal experiences with the child support scheme. It's important to remember that the overriding objective of this scheme is to ensure that children—the innocent parties in all family breakdowns—receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. The overriding duty of parents is that they are financially responsible for children, and that can never be forgotten. The committee's recommendations also aim to improve the general operation of the scheme and the experience for both the payer and the payee parent. Less than 40 per cent of cases involved payments of $5,000 or more per annum. Approximately 30 per cent of cases actually had amounts payable of $500 per annum or less, which does make me question how those children are actually managing on such small supports. Importantly, the committee was also advised that the median child support payable under the formula was only $3,354 per annum, or $65 per week, which really raises some questions of how well the formula is actually working. One of the key themes identified by the committee was the general accessibility of the scheme, and that's why one of the recommendations is for the government to provide adequate resources to Services Australia to allow it to enhance child support scheme services. Also, it should work better with the courts. In particular, there was a recommendation for more consultation and more transparency. The Australian government needs to reconvene regular meetings of the Child Support National Stakeholder Engagement Group. In particular, it was recommended that there should be a meeting before the end of 2021 and that the group should meet at least twice per year and should publish minutes to promote accountability and transparency. Participants in the scheme want to know the scheme is being looked at, reviewed and assessed. There was also a recommendation about the location of child support officers in the family law courts. There needs to be a better conjunction of the scheme and the courts to ensure that there is proper reference and that they are working together. One of the more shocking aspects raised was the child support payment debt and government guarantee. Australia currently has $1.6 billion of child support debt. The report powerfully states that this is 'equivalent to stealing from children'. Urgent action needs to be taken to reduce the existing child support debt levels and to promote the ongoing prompt payment of assessed child support, because those children need that financial support while they are children. Recognising this increasing level of debt and the negative impact it will have on children, the committee notes that a number of submitters proposed a guarantee mechanism to ensure payments are made to the payee parent irrespective of the other parent's compliance—essentially, a framework that would provide that outstanding debt would become a debt to government, which could be pursued accordingly through government services. The committee felt that this suggestion had merit because the government is better placed to recover outstanding debts, compared to individual parents. Of course, the question of financial abuse and family violence featured prominently. We must never underestimate financial abuse. The withholding of child support payment needs to be recognised as financial abuse. There were, in all, many, many recommendations. I urge all those who participated to read the report in detail to better understand where these recommendations came from. It really is important that the government engage with these issues. Ultimately, there were many questions of mental health that were raised, because of the pressures of this system, so I would encourage anyone to seek help with Lifeline or Beyond Blue. The breakdown of a family relationship should not be exacerbated by the system. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 77 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Prime Minister 78 16:52 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga In the three weeks since we were last in this place, I've been pleased to be able to be meeting with my constituents again, face to face rather than virtually. It's been really good to be able to talk to people about how they feel our community and our country are travelling. One of the clearest messages I've been receiving in the last three weeks is about just how disappointed people are with the way that this Prime Minister does his job. This came through to me very clearly during the Prime Minister's recent trip to Glasgow, when, as part of that trip, he decided to leak private text messages that he'd received from the French president. From the conversations I've been having with people in my electorate, they were just aghast at this behaviour. They know that this isn't how they would behave in their own personal or professional dealings. They wouldn't leak private text messages to try and make a point, yet the Prime Minister of our country is behaving in that way and is treating our foreign relationships in that way. They were genuinely appalled. The conversations I've been having with many people are around how this Prime Minister is just not up to the job and continually fails to show the leadership that our community expects from someone in that role. They don't expect that the person who is our Prime Minister will provoke an undiplomatic fight with a foreign leader because he's actually obsessed with his own image and pathologically unable to tell the truth. It is really distressing to people in my community, and it concerns them that that is the way this Prime Minister behaves. Of course, we returned yesterday to the theme of text messages and untruths during question time, when the Prime Minister initially claimed that he'd sent the opposition leader a text message to tell him that he was off to Hawaii for holidays, during the bushfires, which we all remember very well. Then, an hour later, after being called out about that, the Prime Minister retracted and explained to the House that in fact he hadn't told the opposition leader where he was going. There is a pattern of behaviour—that we see in this place, that we see outside this place and that people in our community see—from this Prime Minister, who will say anything in the moment to score a political point. It is genuinely unsettling for those of us in the community who think that this is a leadership role and that it should carry the qualities with it of being trustworthy, of looking out for the interests of others and not just looking out for your own interests. It was particularly distressing to see those qualities on display most recently in response to some terrible things that have been happening in my home town of Melbourne. We have had some very difficult protests over the past couple of weeks—people protesting in front of our state parliament with mock gallows, with images of politicians in our state. That has been really difficult, and it is the type of behaviour that every political leader in this country should unreservedly condemn. But of course with this Prime Minister there was a 'but'. There was a 'but' because he is dog whistling and chasing votes from the fringe, a strategy that maybe he didn't want to reveal but that was revealed very clearly by whoever is cutting the material for his Facebook page, where, instead of posting in no uncertain terms condemnation of this type of behaviour, the Prime Minister posted the strategy lines that he had obviously worked to put in afterwards. It is really dangerous not to call out this behaviour, because not doing so deepens divisions in our community. It enables attacks on our democracy. I say again: it is not what we expect of our leaders. Our leaders should be the people who bring us together, not the people who encourage division, not the people who encourage people who seem to be encouraging violence against other politicians in our country. The Prime Minister has failed to pull people on his own side into line. We still have government members sharing dangerous misinformation on their Facebook pages. Again, all of us have seen in our communities what impact that misinformation is having. It is putting people at risk. It means that people are getting information that is not medically sound and is not actually the best advice for them and for their community. And it is being spread by government members. I say again: it is so disappointing that the person who leads our country, who should be the person who brings us all together at this most difficult time, does none of those things and is in fact dog whistling and seeking to deepen divisions. The Prime Minister also, at that opportunity, took the time to give us some lines around how we all just want governments out of our lives. That made me reflect on the record of this Morrison government in my home state of Victoria over the past couple of years, during the pandemic. I would like to share some times when I think we really would have liked government, particularly the Morrison government, in our lives over the past couple of years. We would have liked them in our lives earlier this year, when we should have had vaccines so that we didn't need any more lockdowns. But instead we had a government that failed to order the vaccines and put us at the back, not at the front, of the queue. As a result, we've had a much more difficult year than we should have had. We would have liked the Morrison government to be in our lives last year, when our aged-care homes weren't protected as they should have been by the federal government, which is responsible for aged care, for the settings in aged care and for the safety of people in aged care and absolutely failed to do any of those things, absolutely failed elderly people in my community and their families. We had deaths. We had people who were afraid for their loved ones. That just should not have been the case. We would have loved to have had the Morrison government in our lives at those times. We would have loved for this government to have discharged its duty, to have shown the leadership that we should have from a Prime Minister, from a national federal government, in a time of crisis. But we did not get it. Time after time we have a failure of leadership. We have this Prime Minister demonstrating that he will say whatever he thinks it takes to win but he will not say the things that bring our community together. He will not say the things that put us on the track for a better future for all of us. The other big failing that has been raised with me when I talk to people in my community is this Morrison government's failure to take any serious and meaningful action on climate change. Last time we were in this place we had a lot of posturing from the government on climate change. We got told that things were resolved now and that the Prime Minister had pulled the Nationals into line. We had an agreement, a commitment to net zero to 2050 and a plan to get us there. Well, we now know the plan was a sham. The modelling was fake. We're not even going to get there under this modelling. There's a gap in technologies that we'll apparently magically discover some time in the future. This is the plan that this Prime Minister took to Glasgow—not a plan, a sham. We are so far behind the rest of the world and that will cost this country. It will cost us the jobs and the opportunities. As the rest of the world shifts to clean energy, we will miss out on those opportunities. As our planet continues to warm, we will not be doing what this country should be doing to make sure that we limit warming so that it remains below dangerous levels. This is critical. When I talk about leadership, this is a major challenge and it is a challenge that this Prime Minister just refuses to pick up. Instead, he is apparently led by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Nationals, who's made it clear that even though he's a member of the government he didn't sign up to any agreements out of Glasgow. So it's very unclear: is Australia a signatory to agreements that came out of Glasgow, or are we standing aside and in fact making our pariah case even stronger? No wonder Australia was ranked dead last in developed countries for both our policy and the actions we've taken to address climate change. People in my community could not be clearer with me: they know this is urgent. They know that we need a genuine plan, not a sham, in place to address climate change. They know that time is running out. They have seen through this government and they have seen through this Prime Minister. They are looking for genuine leadership. They aren't looking for more spin, more focus group lines or being bought off with sham modelling. What they want to see is a genuine plan, a genuine commitment and a genuine way forward on climate change, and all the things that should build our country back stronger, and stronger for all of us, as we come out of this pandemic. That's the leadership they're looking for. They're not going to get it from this Prime Minister. They will get it from Labor under Anthony Albanese, and people in my community are very aware of that. Green Hydrogen, North Queensland Economic Diversification Grants 79 17:03 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert There is no question that the City of Townsville will play a major role in being a major producer of hydrogen into the future. We're making significant investments in hydrogen right now and around the country. A couple of weeks ago in Townsville, it was a great pleasure to make a major funding announcement for a world-first project. While we know hydrogen will play a key role in a future energy mix for Australia, technology to produce it and put it to use is still in its early development phase. That's why the project I'm about to outline is so key. Not only will it reduce reliance on fossil fuels for a major North Queensland industry; it will help develop a model to expand and adopt it across the nation and throughout the world. It's a concept that, once proven within just a couple of years, I've no doubt, will be the envy of the world. Through a federal government investment of $15.5 million, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, five trucks will hit the road in Townsville, powered by green hydrogen that's been produced in Townsville. The proponent is Ark Energy, a sister company of Sun Metals which runs a zinc refinery that has been operating in Townsville for decades. The investment will enable two things: firstly, to be able to purchase five large hydrogen fuel cell large heavy-haul trucks; and, secondly, a one-megawatt electrolyser to produce hydrogen powered by Sun Metals at their massive site, their solar farm. Ark Energy's SunHQ hydrogen hub is expected to produce up to 158 tonnes of hydrogen a year. The 540-tonne trucks will transport zinc ore from Townsville port to Sun Metals Zinc Refinery where the hydrogen will be produced. The trucks will be able to refuel and return zinc to the port in a 30-kilometre round trip. Currently, these round-the-clock operations are powered by diesel. Under this project, they will avoid 1,300 tonnes of CO2 each year. Unfortunately, heavy freight has been a challenge for the industry because electric engines powered by batteries just don't have enough grunt to be viable. That's why hydrogen will be so important to this industry going forward. But running this fleet of five trucks is just the start. Ark Energy plans to upscale its operations within years to produce enough hydrogen to supply a domestic market which is expected to see very strong growth. After that they will focus on an export market with plans to send hydrogen offshore to customers throughout Asia. Everything that is learnt about hydrogen throughout this project will help others who are keen to improve their sustainability as well. We talk a lot in this place about targets and technology, and that's very important, but it's projects like these where our investments are fuelling real initiatives on the ground that we are getting on with. Ark Energy and Sun Metals have runs on the board when it comes to reducing their reliance on the grid and that they have an Australian-first fleet of hydrogen-powered trucks moving freight around our city is a massive vote of confidence. This is the first investment in Australia by the CEFC through the Advancing Hydrogen Fund. That's a project in Townsville that will be the first cab off the rank when it comes to federal funding for hydrogen projects. There will be no doubt more to come with the National Hydrogen Strategy setting out a vision for Australia to become a major global hydrogen supplier by 2030. We're investing more than $1.2 billion to accelerate the development of an Australian hydrogen industry. This project with Sun Metals and Ark Energy is only the beginning. I've been working with a consortium of like-minded proponents with a strong vision for hydrogen in Townsville and have joined forces to ensure this can happen. Together we've formed NQH2, the consortium. Ark Energy is a part of that as well as Origin Energy, a subsidiary of Kawasaki, who are already building strong links for future hydrogen export with markets in South Korea and Japan. Recently, NQH2 consortium applied to National Energy Resources Australia, or NERA, to establish Townsville as a declared hydrogen cluster. This will be excellent news for Townsville and put us on the national map as a city and a region that has hydrogen as a priority industry. I'd like to congratulate all the members of the consortium in Townsville Enterprise who have led the charge. This kind of thing needs to be community led and industry led. The one thing that I've learnt in this place is: nothing should be government led; it should always be led by industry, experts and professionals. Government should be listening, allowing industry to determine the best path forward, providing the support, the environment, and stepping back and allowing them to get on with their job; they're the experts. I look forward to continuing to work with the consortium to identify and put forward further hydrogen projects to increase our contribution to this industry and make the most out of the opportunity it provides. This is a big step for Townsville and it's in the right direction. We are going to be the first in Australia to have hydrogen-powered vehicles, or large-haul trucks. Nowhere else. This is great for the region, and it will develop our hydrogen technologies and experience to be able to help other communities and other places around Australia. Speaking of providing support to industry, it has been very good to see a number of businesses and organisations in the electorate of Herbert receiving support under our North Queensland Economic Diversification grants program. This program was developed in response to the 2019 monsoon flood event, which devastated Townsville and North Queensland, to help businesses recover and emerge stronger by expanding their business. Four organisations in the electorate will share in more than $1.2 million worth of funding under the program. Fruit-processing business Simsha does a fantastic job sending out local produce to the nation and an investment of $400,000 will help them build a larger plant to process fruit which otherwise they wouldn't be able to do. A four-wheel drive hire business with an investment of more than $335,000 will help more tourists get out and about and enjoy our beautiful region. A sport-fishing charter will build a new vessel for offshore fishing charters and operate year-round after receiving a grant of $110,000. We’re also supporting the Arcadian Surf Lifesaving Club to complete the final stage of their Alma Bay clubhouse renovation and extension. This is a great investment. But all these investments aren't because of me; it’s because of them. They’re the ones who come to me or to other members of parliament with a plan, with a direction, with an idea. I'm just happy that I can work side by side with them and allow them to achieve greatness. Once again, this isn't government leading. This is industry, people and communities banding together to ensure that we, in the regions, can benefit from these kinds of grants. The result will mean better facilities at Alma Bay for more volunteers to patrol our beaches and keep swimmers safe. We know that our city is still feeling the effects of the 2019 flood event, which is why we’re investing in local and small businesses and organisations to help them grow and thrive and create local jobs. Across North and north-west Queensland, 15 projects have received funding under this round of grants and will receive between $10,000 and $500,000 to diversify existing industries or start new ones. The economic diversification grants program is one of five programs funded through the government's $60 million package to support the long-term recovery of 14 local government areas hardest hit by the monsoon trough. The National Recovery and Resilience Agency is continuing to work hard to build back from the disaster. Communities are still devastated. We are also continuing to work closely with businesses, offering them a hand to expand and diversify with the recently opened Northern Australia business development grants and industry transformation grants. Under the business development stream, grants between $50,000 and $2 million are available for small and medium businesses to create jobs and strengthen their capability and resilience through diversifying. This fantastic opportunity that we've committed to on an ongoing basis is another example of how we’re asking small businesses what they want and giving them a helping hand up. The key is to ask people what they want, not to tell them what they need. Before I finish up, there was a comment made in the House today by an opposition member that was worried about what someone said around Sam Dastyari. I want to put my view on the record. My view of Sam Dastyari and what happened is a national disgrace. I think he is a traitor to this nation. To have helped his friend of the CCP through his position on the PJCIS and his position as a senator and inform someone known to have ties with the CCP that their phone had been bugged is absolutely disgusting. Sam Dastyari is a traitor to this nation. Australian Defence Force, Veterans 81 17:13 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to talk about a couple of issues to do with members of the ADF who’ve served our nation and have not had the right thing done by them. I also want to acknowledge some firefighters. A couple of days ago, there was an opportunity in this chamber to talk about Australian Defence Force training. The debate finished before I had the opportunity to make a contribution. I would have said that our training in the ADF is top-notch. It is fantastic. But it doesn’t come without its dangers. Even with the risk management that goes on nowadays and even in the past, serious accidents happen. I want to bring to the attention of the House a serious injury that happened to one of my soldiers who served in Rifle Company Butterworth in Malaysia. Darren Hayes, Hayesy—a fantastic bloke—received a serious injury in 1994. Since 1994 Hayesy has been in a wheelchair. He had serious head injuries as well. He died a couple of times during the evacuation and was brought back to life. I have been working with his advocates to get him a gold card. He was seriously injured in the service of our country during training, and you would think that he would be well looked after. Unfortunately, for Hayesy, his accident occurred a couple of months after a change in legislation, which has meant that he hasn't been able to receive a gold card. It might be unbelievable to those listening that someone that suffered a serious back injury in 1994 that resulted in them not being able to use their legs cannot receive a gold card. What I've asked successive veterans' affairs ministers to do is to use their discretion because, as time goes on, there will be further complications, and Hayesy will need to be able to just go a medical professional to get the support that he needs. But, for whatever reason, DVA and the minister haven't been able to make that occur. I appeal to the latest veterans' affairs minister in this government to use his discretion. If a gold card can't be given then a white card without conditions should be given. Hayesy has already got a white card, but it has all conditions on it. Hayesy is not going to the doctor to get unnecessary treatments. He goes for treatment that he needs as a result of his service. He has a Subaru with modifications to get around. He can drive it with his hands, and he's had that vehicle for over 20 years now. Subis are good vehicles and they do well, but his Subi is clapped out. He told me the other day that it's no longer safe to drive. I want to get Hayesy a new vehicle, so he's got mobility and he can get to his medical appointments. But DVA has been faffing around with this for over a year. The new person managing his case said, 'Oh, we'll look around and see what we can do.' Back when the accident happened and Hayesy needed a vehicle, Defence paid for it, rather than DVA. DVA said that they will pay for the modifications to the vehicle to allow it to be driven by hand. They won't pay for the vehicle, but they will pay for modifications. If his accident had happened three months earlier, they would have given him $39,810 towards a new vehicle. But because it happened three months after a change in legislation, he has to buy the vehicle. Mind you, he's still getting compensated the same amount he was getting when he was a young soldier, so it hasn't kept up with the career progression he would have had if it weren't for the accident. If anyone who owns a Subaru dealership is listening to this, he's after a Subaru Outback, which at the moment is $39,990. DVA will pay for the modification, but not for the vehicle, because he broke his back three months after a change in legislation, and ministers haven't been able to see their way clear to make a determination for this Australian soldier. The battle for Hayesy will continue, and I thank his advocates, Peter and Andrew. One of my constituents is a veteran firefighter, Andrew Innes. He spent 18 years in the force, and a lot of firefighters get cancer. Andrew got leukaemia. He was fighting that and he was helped through workers compensation during that fight. But then it came to a point where they encourage people on workers compensation to return to the workforce. He worked really hard and probably didn't rest as much as he could have during chemo, which set him back a bit and he got another cancer in his throat. He is fighting that, and I am working with him and the NT government who have done fantastic work bringing in compensation for these firefighters because they all get cancer. They don't all get cancer because of their workplace, but a lot of them do. We owe it to those who sign up to protect our country and our community. We owe them a bit better than that. We want to be doing everything that we possibly can when those who serve our country and our community are in the fight of their lives. I just wanted to send a message of solidarity to all those Australians who are in the fight against cancer. During COVID, people haven't been getting their tests as often as they should. Get your tests. Some cancers are linked to workplace issues, some are genetic, but get your tests. Let's make sure that, with our focus on COVID, we don't lose sight of the importance of getting all those tests, whether it be breast cancer screening or a bowel cancer test when you turn 50, which I did just the other day. I want to send that message of support to Drew, who's fighting cancer, and thank him for his work as a Territory firefighter. I also want to send a message of solidarity to my uncle, Ray Wellard, who is a former member of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in Melbourne. He's fighting cancer. My mum, Chris, was only visiting her beloved brother two weeks ago. Ray was frailer while battling cancer, she said, but he was walking and eating again, and the pain was under control. He's now settled into hospice care. So many Australian families have been through this journey. There can be a rapid dive when fighting cancer, and family members wonder whether there will be a final chance to say goodbye. So, if I can't, mate, I just want to say that you're a champion. You're a great bloke. My Uncle Ray has been resilient his whole life. When our mum's mum, nanna, had Ray in hospital, in Melbourne, the doctor said, 'Your son is not going to make it; he's not going to get out of this hospital,' such were the health challenges he had at birth. But he had so many surgeries. He served with the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He lived for 76 years. He had two kids, Dana and Paul. He lived a great life. He was a great uncle. We did so many good things with you, mate—ferreting, spearfishing. We had a great life growing up with you, a great uncle. God bless you, mate. Go well, Ray, in this battle against cancer. We're all with you. Good on you, mate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Solomon. I'm sure your uncle would be very proud of you. Ryan Electorate: Young Community Leader Award 82 17:23 Mr SIMMONDS 282983 Ryan Indeed I do have a grievance, and that is that there is just not enough time to acknowledge all the wonderful young achievers and community leaders in the electorate of Ryan. I'd like to try and rectify that tonight. Each year I run the Young Community Leader Award, where local schools nominate students who have gone above and beyond within our community. The award recognises some of our talented young leaders, who are the future of our community and are making incredibly important contributions to our local area, both within their own school and the broader community. The award is given to students who have shown a commitment to leading positive change, and, with your indulgence, I'd like to speak to some of the efforts of the recipients of the Young Community Leader Award. First is Eli, in year 4 at Brookfield State School. Eli promoted, organised and supported a food drive to support Community Friends, a non-profit organisation that helps people who are homeless and those in need. Community Friends helps by giving people food, clothing, shoes, blankets and support. It's a fantastic cause to support. Well done, Eli, for your community spirit and for looking after those who are less fortunate than we are. Kaylee is in year 6 at Ferny Grove State School. Kaylee is a passionate and friendly student who exemplifies inclusivity for all. She regularly engages in opportunities to offer service to the community and support local fundraisers. Kaylee has taken on the role of environmental advocate in the school community. Kaylee, for your leadership within both your school and the wider community, congratulations on this award. I had the wonderful pleasure of meeting a young lady, affectionately known as Mif, in year 4 at Grovely State School. She coordinated with Artforce Brisbane to have an Indigenous artist visit the school and help the students to design an Aboriginal artwork on the electrical box on Dawson Parade outside the school. It's a beautiful painting that I've seen in person. I was glad to visit last week to give her the award. She should be very proud of her organisational efforts in assisting her fellow students to participate in a practical reconciliation activity and also to brighten up that old electrical box on Dawson Parade. Charli is in year 5 at Hilder Road State School. Charli and her sister Holly make up the Gap's Wacky Wildlife Sisters, as they call themselves. They are budding conservationists who are committed to engaging in activities within the local community that promote sustainability practices. The sisters created the Great Gap Fashion Swap and were named as finalists in the WasteSMART Brisbane Awards. Congratulations to Charli and her sister Holly on this fantastic work. You had the initiative to set up your own special conservation initiative and see that be promoted, be so successful and already be award winning in our local community. Thomas is in year 6 at the Kenmore State School. Tom uses his initiative to lead school projects. He has been instrumental in further developing the school's student buddy program, the recycling initiative and the STEM innovation projects. As school captain, he demonstrates the school values and is an excellent role model for all students at Kenmore State School. Well done to you, Thomas. You've obviously been recognised as a student leader by your peers, but, with the initiatives that you're leading, you're going above and beyond for our wider community as well, and I sincerely congratulate you for that. Mitchell is in year 6 at the wonderful Upper Brookfield State School. Mitchell leads by example and is a reliable and dependable presence at the school. He is dedicated to ensuring that all of the jobs that need to get done are done with no fuss, making the school a positive place for all. When I go and talk to students about leadership, particularly those in primary school, I talk to them about the fact that you don't have to wear a badge to be a leader. We can all be leaders in our own school. Every time you pick up a piece of rubbish, every time you invite somebody new to play with you, every time you ask a friend if they are okay, you're showing leadership. Mitchell is one of those students at Upper Brookfield State School who is always thinking of others and always just gets the job done in a no-fuss way. Well done, Mitchell. Keep up the very good work. It's pleasing to see some recognition for your quiet achievements. Mikey is in year 6 at Our Lady of Assumption, OLA. Again, I had the pleasure of meeting this young man who is an outstanding leader inside and outside the school community. He is passionate about the future of the planet and he has been instrumental in initiating change to the OLA community, with a focus on students' emotional and social wellbeing. Mikey is an outstanding school captain at OLA. I know he has some very proud parents, whom I had the great pleasure of meeting, who are also a fantastic support for his efforts. Well done, Mikey, particularly in supporting your fellow students. As we've been through the COVID pandemic over the last 18 months, it has been so important to check in on each other and make sure that you're doing okay, and your focus on welfare, in particular, was very impressive. Aiden is in year 6 at the Brisbane Independent School. As a senior student, Aiden is a leader and continually thinks of how he can advocate for change within the school. He regularly co-hosts whole-school meetings. He organised a 2021 survey of the student body to identify what equipment the kids wanted at the school and he helped to fundraise for the new equipment. Aiden also coordinated a mobile muster, which recycled old and unwanted phones. Finally—as if that wasn't enough; Aiden has done quite a lot!—Aiden coordinated an appeal to have the student toilets refurbished to ensure students feel safe and welcome. Well done, Aiden, particularly on the democratic way you went about achieving change—surveying your fellow students and then raising the funds for the work. It's an incredible achievement. Matthew is in year 9 at Brisbane Boys College. Matthew is the semester 2 president of the middle-school leaders. He has overseen the Containers for Change initiative, something that many members of this House are familiar with, promoting recycling in his school community. Matthew, along with the BBC middle-school leaders, are on track to raise at least $1,000, which will be donated to charity at the end of this year. Well done, Matthew, on your community spirit and for looking out and raising funds for those who are less fortunate than ourselves, as well as for your practical leadership of your fellow students. Rachel is in year 12 at St Peters Lutheran College, which is where my wife went. It's an excellent school. Rachel is an outstanding leader inside and outside the school community. As a college vice-captain, she has helped lead the school through various challenges and opportunities throughout the year. She has had a positive influence on her peers and the wider community. She always seeks to support and encourage others. She goes above and beyond in her service to the school. Well done, particularly on inspiring your fellow students. Leadership, as most of us in this place know, is not about the accolades that you can achieve for yourself or what you can achieve on your own; it's about the way you inspire those around you to also achieve and to accomplish the best that they are able to. Willow is in year 10 at Glenleighden School. This is a special school with very wonderful kids who overcome a lot of odds to be successful. Willow is always one of the first ones to put her hand up to help. Willow has done more than 80 hours of community service for Rosies this year, helping to make food and toiletry packs for the homeless. Willow has completed her food-handling course at TAFE to assist in serving lunch for patrons at Rosies. Well done, Willow. Well done not only for your service, but also for taking the initiative to get additional training for yourself so that you can help further. Jack is in year 12 at Mitchelton Special School. Jack is a real young leader for his school community, and he is the vice-president of the senior cohort. He has worked hard across several work experience opportunities locally, and always looks out for others at school, and encourages safe, respectful behaviours. He shows the characteristics that I know will see him make a remarkable impact in all that he does. Well done, Jack. Indiana is in year 10 at Brigidine College. Indiana is one very busy student. She is a member of the Enviro Club, the St Vincent de Paul Society group and has received an academic excellence award. She works tirelessly to support the aims and objectives of the service clubs she is in at college, and is a credit to the school. Well done, Indiana. Chloe is in year 10 at Brigidine College. She is another busy rock star of year 10 at Brigidine! She is in the Justice and Democracy Group, the model United Nations club, the Enviro Club and the St Vincent de Paul Society group, and she gives her all to each and every one. And finally, Grace and Connor are both in year 12 at Mount Maria College. They are described by their principal as generous and diligent in their leadership. Congratulations on everything that you are achieving. National Disability Insurance Scheme 84 17:33 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I'd like to use my time in this grievance debate today to put on record some of the issues that Cowan constituents have with the NDIS. Of all the issues that my office deals with, the NDIS is one of the top 3, along with immigration. The issues that arise keep my office incredibly busy. I want to start by paying heed to the member for Maribyrnong, who is also the shadow minister for the NDIS, for his strident advocacy for people with disabilities and for holding the government to account in ensuring that the NDIS delivers for people with disabilities in the way in which it was intended. On that topic, I just want to start by reminding this chamber exactly what the NDIS is supposed to do and why. I'm going to do that by quoting from the NDIS website. This is what the NDIS website says in terms of the NDIS participant service guarantee regarding plan approvals and reviews: The NDIA must make decisions about access, plan approvals, plan reviews and nominee changes within these timeframes. This gives participants, families and carers greater certainty about how long processes will take. Families of children with disabilities, participants in the NDIA, absolutely deserve to have that level of certainty about the processes. They deserve to be kept informed about the processes and they deserve to have their plans dealt with in a timely fashion. The second quote that I want to use is about the continuity of support guarantee. The website, ndis.gov.au, says: Governments have committed to ensuring people with disability who are currently receiving services are not disadvantaged in the transition to the NDIS. That's a core principle—that people who were receiving services prior to being on the NDIS are not disadvantaged in their transition to the NDIS. So the processing should be done in a timely manner, there should be no disadvantage in the transition, and of course each participant should have access to timely and appropriate support without interruption. They are three key pillars of the NDIS, as articulated on the NDIS website. I'm sorry to say that I could go on and on about the number of cases that are presented to my office that demonstrate the failing of the NDIS on these pillars—on timely access, on not being disadvantaged—and the impact that that has on NDIS participants and on their families. I'll start with the case of a 14-year-old boy in Tapping, in the Cowan community. This boy has complex challenges posed by autism. He has coeliac disease and he requires significant support, including some significant supports for complex needs around his behaviours. His family are at breaking point. Every family member has developed some serious mental health conditions due to the stress associated with their care responsibilities. Prior to the NDIS, they had a large amount of support. They had a significant amount of support through support workers. They had respite in the form of specialist camps for children with autism. They were able to access those specialist camps, that respite, four times a year. But the NDIS plan for this 14-year-old boy fell well short of the funding levels to maintain those supports, and they had next to no funds for a support worker, no funding for those camps and limited funding for therapy. His NDIS review did not consider the complex needs of the family and provided the same outcome, leaving the family only with the possibility of appeal through the AAT process. Once the case was at the AAT, despite the plan's funding being exhausted, leaving the family with no supports for the boy, and a deteriorating situation as a result, the minister repeatedly refused to intervene or to make an interim plan for this family. When the AAT requested an interim plan the NDIA continued to delay giving him the interim plan. In the end they gave him the same plan that he was previously on, the same plan that his family had been appealing, that they had taken all the way to the AAT to appeal. The delays and the refusal of the minister to intervene, despite evidence of the need of this young man and his family, is nothing short of cruel. Another case is a woman in Cowan who is wheelchair-bound and requires full assistance with all personal care and mobility. Her support coordinator submitted a change-of-circumstance request in May this year. In June this year she wrote to my office, as the funding had been exhausted. She was at very high risk of pressure sores, neglect, homelessness and hospitalisation because she had no funding to pay for her supports. She needed to move out of her residence and was subject to abuse and neglect in her living arrangements. After my office contacted the NDIS for a plan review meeting, the planner finally made contact with the specialist support coordinator to make an appointment. That was months after a meeting was first sought. It was only this month that the SSC, the specialist support coordinator, contacted our office, because the situation had become so dire, and still no plan has been approved. This woman with a disability, who is wheelchair-bound, who requires personal care and has mobility issues, is currently in an abusive and neglectful situation, with no support funding. They're just two cases that demonstrate that there is no dignity for people with disabilities under this government's dysfunctional NDIS. There is no continuity of care. There is no certainty. Those pillars of the NDIS that I mentioned in my opening—they're failing on all of those accounts. There is no adherence to service standards or principles of standards for the NDIS. I fully believe that the measure of society is how it treats its most vulnerable. We pride ourselves, as a developed nation, that we do not leave people behind. We do not leave people with disabilities behind. We want them to live a full life and have a quality of life. Sadly, the NDIS that was meant to ensure that people with disabilities would not be left behind is doing just that—it's leaving them behind. It is leaving them in vulnerable situations. It is not meeting the basic human principles it was set up for: to in ensure that people with disabilities have the support services they need and that they get those support services in a timely fashion and in ways that do not compound the already dire circumstances in which they live. We can and we should do better. Housing Affordability, Migration 85 17:43 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I would like to make some comments this evening about some challenges and opportunities that I believe we have in this nation in the months and years ahead, on two similar, linked themes: the first is the opportunities of migration, and the other is the challenges of housing affordability. I think they are linked. In the comments I'm about to make you'll see that I'm very supportive of seizing the opportunity of a new era of migration into this country but equally I believe that we need to have a plan to address sustainable population growth in the right way and in the right parts of this country, and at the same time take an opportunity to address the challenges of housing affordability. At the moment I'm lucky enough to be serving on the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, and we're in the middle of a housing affordability inquiry. I in no way intend to comment on an inquiry that is underway and predetermine what that inquiry might find, but it's an undisputed fact that housing affordability is an enormous challenge in this nation right now. It's an odd predicament for a nation like Australia. Not many people in other parts of the world would think that we had housing affordability challenges. When they were giving out continents, not many countries got one to themselves. We are an island continent nation like nowhere else on the planet. We have a comparatively small population for the size of our land mass. Obviously, I accept that continental Australia isn't ubiquitously inhabitable like some other continents but, nonetheless, it would surprise most people—and I think it surprises people in this country–that, given the abundance of land that we have as a nation, we have these challenges of housing affordability. That is regrettable because I am a firm believer that one of the most important things for someone's future security, their economic security and that of their family is for them to be able to own their own home and have that economic and social stability that you get from having no stress or concern whatsoever about having shelter for yourself and your family. Hopefully, it's not just anything but something you're proud of and something that allows you to genuinely enjoy the time that you have when you're in that home. It is surprising that it's not just the major cities that have acute housing affordability at the moment. I'm obviously talking about Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and perhaps the entire south-east corner of Queensland could be put into this category where we've had, particularly in pre-COVID times, very significant rapid population growth in those areas which has put pressure on housing prices. It's also put pressure on infrastructure and other services, and that has created some tensions in debates about managing with some arguing to limit population growth in some of those areas. I come from Adelaide of course, being the member for Sturt, and the state of South Australia, which has had much lower population growth, both in Adelaide and more broadly in South Australia. Yet we too are struggling with very significant housing price increases and challenges for younger people to be able to get into the housing market. I want to link this to immigration because one of the great strengths of South Australia in decades gone by, particularly in the post Second World War era, was that we had two very substantial advantages, economically: one was low-cost housing; and the other was relatively cheap electricity. That provided an opportunity for the establishment of substantial manufacturing. Obviously, one of the more iconic industries in South Australia was the car industry but there were many others—white goods et cetera. And of course South Australia and Adelaide were an enormous attraction for post Second World War migration, commencing with European migration, particularly those of Greek and Italian descent. I note, having the member for Adelaide here, we're very proud of those who are from the generations that came in that period and the contribution they make to our country and of course the other waves of migration that we've had in more recent times. I think no-one would disagree in 2021, despite some of the disappointing elements of migration debate in this country in decades gone by, that we would be a shadow of the nation that we currently are, were it not for the immigration that we've had into this nation over a very long period of time and of course the multicultural society that we now have. I think we are in another post Second World War era for this nation where, again, given our relative impressive and exceptional response to the challenges that we faced as a nation—I don't mean to be political and talk about the government here; I genuinely mean as the people of Australia—and the way in which we have responded to the coronavirus challenges that we have demonstrated to the world once again that Australia is a very appealing place to make your future and to come for opportunity and security. It would be a great thing for this country if we embraced another wave of migration into Australia in this post-COVID period, like we did in the post Second World War period. I think it's equally important that we think very carefully about the places and geographical parts of this nation where there are better opportunities for more substantial population growth than there are in others. It's not for me, being from Adelaide, to make comments on the size of cities like Sydney and Melbourne, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they are very substantial large cities with challenges that befall them through very high rates of population growth. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be growing like they have been over the last few decades, but it might be that there are pressures in those big cities in bearing the brunt of a significant new wave of migration. There are certainly enormous opportunities in a city like Adelaide and a state like South Australia. We are a city state. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you drew a 100-kilometre radius from the GPO of Adelaide, it would pick up all of the Adelaide Hills, the Fleurieu Peninsula down to Victor Harbor and right up through the Barossa Valley et cetera. Really, 90 per cent of the population of South Australia is within 100 kilometres of the Adelaide GPO, even though you could fit France and Germany in the geographical boundaries of the state of South Australia. Of course, there are a lot of regional centres, not just in South Australia but around our country, that could quite easily accommodate large numbers of new migrants if that were adequately coupled with the appropriate housing opportunities for those people. Of course, the economic opportunities need to be there so that the jobs are there. One thing that we are hearing about more and more consistently, particularly in regional areas, is the challenge of workforce. We hear businesses saying, 'We don't have trouble getting the capital, and we don't have a lack of confidence in our ideas, but we cannot commit to major economic opportunities in regional parts of Australia because we don't have confidence in being able to get and retain the workforce.' We've had these problems before in Australia, when opportunities were there but we lacked the adequate, reliable workforce supply, and we met those challenges through migration—the waves of migration that came into this country, particularly in the post Second World War era. I think that opportunity is upon us again now in the post-COVID period, in the 2020s and beyond. We need to have some political unity around that, which I hope there is some appetite for, and we need to think very sensibly and carefully about how that can be strategically undertaken and exploited. In the final moments that I've got, I'll note that I'm a particular advocate for differentiated migration on a regional basis. There are parts of this country that are desperate for migration, and the problem is that in the past we've had people who have migrated to Australia but, largely, have been attracted to the major cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne. I would like to see us be a lot more strategic and targeted in providing pathways for people to come into this country in circumstances where they're going to the regions that really need them, providing the workforce and the economic stability and, in return, having great opportunities for a fantastic life and future here in Australia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I thank the member for Sturt for that interesting speech. The time allotted for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:54