﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2021-11-24</date>
    <parliament.no>1</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 24 November 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Andrew Wallace</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Privilege</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday this week, the Speaker, the President of the Senate, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs signed a new memorandum of understanding regarding AFP investigations where parliamentary privilege may be involved. The Australian Federal Police have also issued a new national guideline which updates the procedure that the AFP will follow for the collection and quarantining of material that could be subject to parliamentary privilege.</para>
<para>The MOU and guideline are designed to ensure that law enforcement investigations are conducted without improperly interfering with the functioning of parliament, its committees and its members. They also ensure that parliamentarians and their staff are given an opportunity to raise claims of parliamentary privilege in relation to material that is obtained through the execution of a warrant.</para>
<para>The new MOU and guideline replace a 2005 agreement on these issues, and include some significant changes, including strengthening oversight of investigations which may intersect with parliamentary privilege and clarifying the application of the guideline to electronic information, particularly where this is held by third parties. Further work will be required to agree on procedures in relation to the exercise of AFP's covert investigative powers, and this work will be conducted in the next parliament.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the work of former Speaker Smith and all others involved in bringing these negotiations to fruition. I present a copy of the MOU and the national guideline.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 41 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 29 November 2021. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of this report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 November 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 23 November 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 29 November 2021, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Standing Committee on Economics:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Review of the </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual reports 2019 and 2020.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">First Member speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Next Member speakin</inline> <inline font-style="italic">g—5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Mr Christensen: To present a Bill for an Act relating to the detention of Australian journalists by foreign governments, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 23 November 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant </inline> <inline font-style="italic">to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Fair Work Amendment (Same Job, Same Pay) Bill 2021 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Albanese</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">22</inline><inline font-style="italic">November</inline><inline font-style="italic">2021</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—45</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members—5 minutes. each.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Mr Zimmerman: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that 9 December 2021 is the United Nations' International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that 9 December 2021 is also the 73rd anniversary of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further recognises that that development of the Genocide Convention was motivated by genocidal crimes of the 20th Century including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the genocide of six million Jews committed by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges the importance of recognising, condemning and learning from these and subsequent genocidal crimes to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) remembers the loss and suffering caused by genocides in the modern era and their enduring impact on the lives of many Australians and their descendants; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) affirm its long-standing support for the prevention of genocide and the punishment of those who perpetrate or instigate genocidal crimes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) formally recognise the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Zimmerman—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1   Ms Claydon: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the GP Access After Hours service:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has provided over a million urgent after-hours consultations to families in Newcastle and the Hunter region for more than twenty years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) delivers 50,000 face-to-face appointments and handles 70,000 calls through the nurse led triage call centre each year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) saves our health system up to $21.7 million in unnecessary emergency department presentations each year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) due to the Government's continuous cuts to bulk-billing incentives and its failure to adequately index Medicare rebates, Hunter Primary Care has been forced to make cuts to the GP Access After Hours service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) from Christmas Eve, the Calvary Mater clinic will close completely, and operating hours for clinics at the Belmont Hospital, John Hunter Hospital, Maitland Hospital and Westlakes Community Health Centre will be reduced; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) over 10,000 people from the Hunter region have signed a petition calling on the Government to restore funding to the GP Access After Hours service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the GP Access After Hours service has been an essential service for tens of thousands of Newcastle and Hunter families who rely upon bulk-billing GP services to access the healthcare they need, when they need it;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) with so few bulk-billing doctors in Newcastle and the Hunter region, any further loss of services will have a huge impact on families already faced with high out-of-pocket healthcare costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any cuts to this service will dramatically increase pressure on our already overstretched and under-resourced emergency departments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) not only is the Government's lack of support for primary healthcare unacceptable, it is also grossly irresponsible in the middle of a global pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) restore the funding to our GP Access After Hours service to stop the closure of the Calvary Mater Clinic and retain existing hours of operation at all remaining clinics;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reverse cuts to bulk-billing incentive payments in the Lower Hunter that have seen GP practices close and vulnerable people left without access to a bulk-billing GP;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) abandon any efforts to further reduce funding to our GP Access After Hours service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) provide additional support for GP Access After Hours to expand their services to areas of need throughout the Hunter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) utilise the success of the GP Access After Hours service as a model of best practice after hours primary healthcare across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 November 202</inline><inline font-style="italic">1.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Australian Defence Force careers: Resumption of debate (from 22 November 2021) on the motion of Mr Leeser—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the benefits a career in the Australian Defence Force provides through skills, education, training and experience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Defence Force's objective to protect Australia and that those recruited to deliver on this objective put their lives on the line for our country; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that Defence recruits the best and brightest and offers varying pathways for individuals to join and serve our nation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the sacrifice our personnel and their families make for a career in the Australian Defence Force and our nation's eternal gratitude for all those who have served past and present.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members—5 minutes. each.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Ms Rishworth: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that young Australians have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are being left behind in our recovery;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that young people:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are facing an extraordinary jobs crisis, further noting that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) during the peak of the pandemic 15 per cent of all jobs were filled by young people yet 40 per cent of all jobs lost since March 2020 were held by a young person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the youth unemployment rate soared four times the national average to 13.1 per cent in October 2021 and is now higher than pre-pandemic levels; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) 50 per cent of young Australians have said that getting more reliable work is of most importance to them when it comes to employment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) are struggling with their mental health, with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) more than 50 per cent of young Australians saying their biggest concern with COVID-19 was mental health;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) one in two young Australians reported to not being able to carry out their daily activities during the pandemic due to a decline in wellbeing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) one third of young Australians reporting high or very high levels of psychological distress; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) 75 per cent of Australia's young people describing their mental health as worse during the COVID-19 pandemic;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) are suffering severe social disruption, as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) many have missed out on once in a lifetime milestones and rites of passage; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) more feel isolated due to lockdowns with distributions to school attendance, campus life extinguished, and social gatherings restricted or prohibited;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) are grappling with disruptions to education and training, and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) many feel their motivation and career plans have been dented; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) nearly 50 per cent of young Australians reported being worried about their education being disrupted or held back as a result of the changes to schooling; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) feel they do not have a voice in politics, with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) almost 60 per cent of young Australians feeling the biggest barrier to getting involved in politics was 'feeling like they won't be listened to'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 52 per cent of young people feeling they had a say 'none of the time' in public affairs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to work with young people and urgently design a comprehensive COVID‑19 Youth Recovery Strategy that puts young Australians at the centre of our economic and social recovery and builds our future generations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Rishworth—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Mr R. J. Wilson: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving connectivity for regional businesses, and better connecting regional communities through the Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) initiative;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the ROSI initiative upgrades key freight roads to efficiently connect agricultural and mining regions to ports, airports and other transport hubs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for its funding of $4.9 billion for projects nation-wide to deliver works such as road sealing, flood immunity, strengthening and widening, pavement rehabilitation, bridge and culvert upgrades and road realignments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that the ROSI initiative is providing substantial social and economic benefits, including opportunities for greater regional employment and business growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 15 June 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—r</inline> <inline font-style="italic">emaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr R. J. Wilson—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this </inline> <inline font-style="italic">should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2   Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">23</inline><inline font-style="italic">June</inline><inline font-style="italic">2021</inline><inline font-style="italic">—Mr Ted O</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline><inline font-style="italic">Brien</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—10</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members—5 minutes. each.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4   Dr Allen: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) leads the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together Rotary International, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and many others including in the private sector with a common objective to eradicate polio;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) when the GPEI commenced, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in 2021, polio is 99 per cent eradicated and wild polio remains in only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the entire African continent certified as polio-free on 25 August 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) this success has been driven by the GPEl's extensive worldwide community-driven vaccination program, the largest of its kind in the world, to safeguard children from polio worldwide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) safe and effective polio vaccines have been the single most important factor in achieving 99 per cent eradication of polio so far;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Australia has been a strong supporter of polio eradication for more than three decades and has invested more than $135 million in polio eradication over that time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) 2022 will be a critical year for polio eradication as the GPEI sets out its strategy to achieve polio eradication by 2026, and that this will be a key opportunity for Australian leadership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) Australian organisations lead the effort to see continued support for polio eradication from Australia, including Rotary International Australia, UNICEF Australia, Global Citizen and Results Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the work of the GPEI is a testament to the great power of vaccines and that the equitable and timely access to those vaccines is critical to the program's success;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) progress made toward polio eradication is facing new challenges with the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan impeding vaccination efforts and increasing the risk of new polio outbreaks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) additional measures will be required to manage the risk of polio in Afghanistan in an effort to ensure that no widespread polio outbreaks occur;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Australia is a long-term champion of polio eradication along with many other Commonwealth nations including the United Kingdom and Canada, who all share an interest in ensuring the success of the polio program and its important contribution to global health security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the current parliaments of Australia and other countries have the opportunity to be recognised as the elected representatives who ensured that polio was completely eradicated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to continue its strong ongoing support for the GPEI.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 21 October 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—50</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Dr Allen—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5   Dr Freelander: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that juvenile arthritis affects between 6,000-10,000 Australian children and adolescents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that of the Australian children living with juvenile arthritis:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 80 per cent will experience pain daily;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 20 per cent develop a vision-threatening inflammation of the eyes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) many experience lengthy delays in obtaining a formal diagnosis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the work of the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation of Australia and their tireless advocacy for young Australians living with juvenile arthritis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) recommends that the Government provides funding to establish programs aimed at:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) raising awareness of this disease; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) developing a national registry and research package to better understand the extent and impact of juvenile arthritis on individuals and the economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice gi</inline><inline font-style="italic">ven 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Dr Freelander—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should </inline> <inline font-style="italic">continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6   Mr Zimmerman: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that 9 December 2021 is the United Nations' International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that 9 December 2021 is also the 73rd anniversary of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further recognises that that development of the Genocide Convention was motivated by genocidal crimes of the 20th Century including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the genocide of six million Jews committed by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges the importance of recognising, condemning and learning from these and subsequent genocidal crimes to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) remembers the loss and suffering caused by genocides in the modern era and their enduring impact on the lives of many Australians and their descendants; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) affirm its long-standing support for the prevention of genocide and the punishment of those who perpetrate or instigate genocidal crimes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) formally recognise the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Zimmerman—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7   Ms Steggall: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that supports like JobSaver and disaster payments have ended at a time when the economic impact of COVID-19 restrictions will continue to impact a number of sectors for at least six to 12 months after the lifting of restrictions, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the business events sector, which has lost $29.4 billion in revenue from 96 per cent of all events being cancelled for 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the mass participation sporting events sector which lost over 80 per cent of events over the past two years, causing a loss of over $5 billion to the Australian economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) travel agents, which have been in effective lockdown for over 600 days and will not be back to full capacity until after March 2022; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) seasonal specific retail such as winter apparel and sporting stores who will need to wait six months for the next season and do not have savings to purchase stock; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) work with state and territory governments to implement targeted economic supports for specific industries including travel, business events, mass participation sporting events and seasonal retail, such as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) providing ongoing business income support, including for supporting supplier businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) underwriting cancellation insurance for events and travel to provide planning confidence and accelerate recovery of sectors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) providing economic incentives, including tax rebates, for events to be organised and booked in advance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) recognise the profound impact of COVID-19 restrictions on these sectors and their contribution to the Australian economy with benefits for trade, tourism and investment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">   </inline>(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 23 November 2021.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allott</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ed—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this </inline> <inline font-style="italic">should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON A. B. WALLACE MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 November 2021</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="265991" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Protecting Migrant Workers) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Migrant workers make a significant contribution to Australia's labour market and are a vital part of our economy and our community. They meet skills and labour shortages and contribute a diversity of ideas and experience. Migrant workers will continue to play an important role to assist economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.</para>
<para>This bill implements key recommendations made by the Migrant Workers' Taskforce. It amends the Migration Act to strengthen protections for migrant workers in Australia, while also helping to ensure that law-abiding Australian employers are not undercut by unscrupulous competitors.</para>
<para>The Migrant Workers' Taskforce shone a light on the seriousness of the exploitation of vulnerable workers in some Australian workplaces. It highlighted the significant impact that such conduct has on individual workers, law-abiding employers, our economy and our international reputation as a preferred migration destination.</para>
<para>As the task force observed, migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to underpayment and related exploitative work practices.</para>
<para>In its report, the task force recommended making it an offence for a person to knowingly pressure, influence or coerce a temporary migrant worker to breach a visa condition.</para>
<para>In response, this bill establishes new offences against coercing or exerting undue influence or pressure on migrant workers to accept exploitative work arrangements.</para>
<para>These offences, and related civil penalties, will apply to employers, labour hire intermediaries and other people involved in employing or referring noncitizens for work in Australia.</para>
<para>Under these new offences, it is not acceptable for an employer to either:</para>
<list>Coerce or pressure a migrant worker into accepting work arrangements that would lead to them breaching a work-related visa condition; or</list>
<list>Use the threat of a dob-in or visa cancellation or withhold evidence of employment that would support a future visa application, to induce a migrant worker to agree to sub-standard employment conditions.</list>
<para>The task force also recommended exploring mechanisms to exclude employers who are convicted by a court for underpaying migrant workers from employing new temporary visa holders for a specific period of time.</para>
<para>To address the recommendation of the task force, the bill establishes a power and framework for me, as the minister for immigration, to prohibit, for a period of time, an employer from directly or indirectly employing additional temporary migrant workers.</para>
<para>This power will be available where a person is convicted under the Migration Act of a work related offence, ordered to pay a penalty for breaching a work related provision, or where a sponsorship bar is imposed on an approved work sponsor.</para>
<para>The new power will also be available where an employer breaches a remuneration related provision of the Fair Work Act 2009, where that breach affects a non-citizen employee.</para>
<para>This prohibition is designed to penalise the misuse of our migration program, and migrant workers, and create a safer environment for temporary migrant workers looking for employment.</para>
<para>Prohibited employers' details will be published on the department's website. This will provide transparency to prospective migrant workers and the Australian community generally, while also putting unscrupulous employers on notice that the exploitation of migrant workers is unacceptable.</para>
<para>The bill also includes amendments to require employers and third-party providers who refer noncitizens for work to verify the immigration status and conditions of prospective non-citizen employees appropriately, using the Visa Entitlement Verification Online system. This system, known as VEVO, is designed for individuals and businesses to check whether a noncitizen holds a visa, and the conditions that attach to that individual visa.</para>
<para>These amendments clarify and strengthen the existing expectations under the Migration Act.</para>
<list>Unfortunately, some employers and labour hire intermediaries choose to ignore these obligations.</list>
<list>This creates serious integrity concerns for our visa programs.</list>
<para>These amendments clarify that employers also have a fundamental role to play in ensuring the integrity of Australia's migration program.</para>
<para>VEVO is a 24/7 online system, administered by the department. It is the most effective way for people and businesses involved in employing noncitizens to confirm that prospective non-citizen employees are lawfully in Australia and have the necessary permission to work. It is important that employers and other organisations understand and adhere to their obligations in relation to the employment of noncitizens.</para>
<para>Doing so helps to protect employers from facing far more severe consequences, should they be found to have committed an offence by allowing unlawful noncitizens to work, or allowing noncitizens to work in breach of a visa condition.</para>
<para>In addition, the bill also increases the financial penalties for work related offences and related civil penalties under the Migration Act.</para>
<para>These changes demonstrate how seriously this government views the issue of misusing our migration program to exploit migrant workers.</para>
<para>The bill also includes new compliance tools to provide a more robust and graduated enforcement scheme, including compliance notices and enforceable undertakings.</para>
<para>These amendments will give the Australian Border Force tools to work with employers and support them to do the right thing. Our primary goal is not to punish people for unintentional breaches but to change non-compliant behaviour. We want all employers following the same rules.</para>
<para>These new tools build on the existing compliance framework, which provides for an escalating range of measures that can be used when employers fail to comply with the law, including:</para>
<list>Education and administrative warnings, to infringements; with civil penalties and criminal prosecution available for serious and repeat offences.</list>
<list>All measures apply equally to employers and those engaged in recruitment or labour hire industries.</list>
<para>To those employers out there who always have complied, and always will comply, with their obligations, we thank you, and this bill will help to level the playing field.</para>
<para>As we progressively open the nation's borders, and seek to rebuild the economy, businesses will again look to temporary migrant workers to support our economic recovery. And, as we open up and our universities, tourism and hospitality sectors seek to recover, we will find ourselves competing with other developed nations for temporary migrants who have long contributed so much to Australia.</para>
<para>This bill will support our prosperity and protect migrant workers.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="WU5" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>If noncitizens do not abide by the law or they pose a risk to the safety and good order of the community the government can and should prevent the entry and stay of such individuals.</para>
<para>The Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 strengthens the character test in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 by providing a new specific and objective ground to consider visa refusal or cancellation where a noncitizen has been convicted of certain serious criminal offences—called 'designated offences' in the bill—regardless of the length of sentence imposed.</para>
<para>At present, not all noncitizens convicted of serious criminal offences objectively fail the character test. Certain criminal offences against Australian or foreign laws may involve violence against a person and have a significant impact on victims. Nevertheless, the perpetrator may receive a sentence of less than 12 months for their crimes.</para>
<para>The bill sends a clear message that the Australian community has no tolerance for noncitizens who have been convicted of such crimes. The amendments in the bill will ensure the character test aligns directly with community expectations that noncitizens who are convicted of offences will not be permitted to enter or remain in the Australian community.</para>
<para>By strengthening the character test in this way, I and my delegates will have a clear and objective ground with which to consider cancelling the visa of, or refusing to grant a visa to, a noncitizen who has been convicted of a designated offence regardless of the length of the sentence imposed.</para>
<para>A designated offence is defined as an offence committed in Australia or in a foreign country which is punishable by at least a maximum sentence of two-years imprisonment and involves:</para>
<list>violence, or a threat of violence, against a person; or</list>
<list>non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature; or</list>
<list>breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person; or</list>
<list>using or possessing a weapon; or</list>
<list>procuring, or assisting in any way with the commission of one of these designated offences.</list>
<para>The bill also provides that, for an offence with one or more physical elements that involve violence against a person, a person's conviction for an offence of common assault (or equivalent) will not be taken to be a conviction for a designated offence, unless the act constituting the offence:</para>
<list>causes or substantially contributes—temporarily or permanently—to bodily harm to another person or harm to another person's mental health; or</list>
<list>involves family violence.</list>
<para>This will ensure that low-level offending is not captured. However, any offence of common assault that does involve family violence will be taken to be a designated offence regardless of whether the offence causes bodily harm or harm to a person's mental health. This aligns with the government's position on combatting family violence.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill do not change the framework within which the character cancellation powers function. This new ground does not enliven mandatory cancellation powers. The amendments only seek to provide an additional, objective ground to consider refusing or cancelling a visa. The decision to refuse or cancel a visa using this ground will be discretionary.</para>
<para>Decision-makers exercising the discretion to refuse or cancel a person's visa are guided by comprehensive policy guidelines and ministerial directions, and take into account the individual's circumstances and the relevant international obligations.</para>
<para>This means any decision to refuse or cancel a visa is a proportionate response to the individual circumstances of each case.</para>
<para>In summary, this bill sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community—that entry or stay in Australia is a privilege, granted only to those of good character.</para>
<para>I should add that we've been here before. We'll be here again and again until the opposition stops blocking the government's measures to deport dangerous foreign criminals, or prevent them entering here in the first place.</para>
<para>Entry and stay in Australia is a privilege, not a right.</para>
<para>Labor is yet to convincingly explain why they oppose these simple, straightforward, logical laws.</para>
<para>However, through this bill the government will be giving them another opportunity to do this.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Amendment (Controlled Trials) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="84S" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Amendment (Controlled Trials) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOOD</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
    <electorate>La Trobe</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, congratulations on your new appointment. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Customs Amendment (Controlled Trials) Bill 2021 will amend the Customs Act 1901 to enable time limited trials of trade and customs practices, with approved entities, in a controlled regulatory environment. This is commonly referred to as a 'regulatory sandbox'.</para>
<para>Regulatory sandboxes ensure regulation keeps pace as industry develops, remains fit for purpose and does not become a barrier to innovation and productivity. This is the first regulatory sandbox mechanism identified within a customs framework, worldwide.</para>
<para>The bill will enable the modification or waiver of existing obligations, or imposition of new obligations, to trial simplified regulatory processes in the customs context.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to encourage innovation in developing best practice regulation through testing new business practices and technologies before committing to legislative change. Results from trials will build the evidence base to inform longer-term deregulatory reform. This will assist government in simplifying the Australian customs framework while maintaining, and achieving, Australia's border security objectives.</para>
<para>The controlled trials bill is an important step towards simplifying Australia's trade system, in line with the government's simplified trade system and deregulation agendas.</para>
<para>The simplified trade system agenda is a micro-economic reform agenda that seeks to create a simpler, more efficient and digitised trade system which will deliver tangible benefits for Australian businesses, enable trade growth and better protect the community.</para>
<para>A more streamlined and innovative border will lead to reduced costs and delays for businesses operating at the border, having flow-on effects and benefits to consumers.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee, Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, Publications Committee</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating changes in the membership of certain committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, can I add my personal congratulations to you on assuming the role of Speaker of this House. It's a great honour. It's one that I know that you will fulfil to the best of your ability, and that ability is profound. I know that you will come to this place with a great deal of integrity and common sense and that you will uphold the true nature of the role with great aplomb. So congratulations to you, and I commend you for what you've achieved so far during your parliamentary career and this next chapter.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Mr Wallace be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Publications; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Mr A. D. H. Smith be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, I present the final report of the committee together with the minutes of proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Over the past two years, significant natural disasters—drought, floods, bushfires and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic—have put a significant spotlight on Australia's mental health services and their delivery. We have seen a significant increase in the demand for mental health services across Australia, and we know that this increased demand is being put on a system already undeniably under strain. It is being put on a mental health system that is fragmented and, at times, failing to provide the treatment and support that people who need it legitimately expect.</para>
<para>Access to quality mental health care when you need it is as essential as being able to see a GP. It is as essential as having a good road to drive on. Mental health services are essential services, and it is time that mental health and suicide prevention is given the same recognition as physical health, both within the health sector and by policymakers. While it is true that, as a society, we are getting better at having conversations about our mental health, there is still vital work to do to ensure that, when a conversation turns to seeking help, an individual can access services that are responsive and suited to their needs. Ensuring someone has early access to quality mental health services when they need them is not only just about doing what is right; it is also about recognising that failing to have effective early intervention and quality mental health services only leads to greater cost in the long run. The Productivity Commission inquiry report on mental health quantified the significant annual cost of mental ill-health and suicide at approximately $70 billion per year.</para>
<para>I commend the government for the work already being undertaken in this space, including the significant investment outlined within the 2021-22 budget and the upcoming National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement. If the government wants to improve services and minimise future cost, it must act decisively on the recommendations raised by the committee in its final report and across other relevant reports. There must be a shift to focusing on implementation.</para>
<para>I am committed to the recommendations of this report, and I am driven by both my professional and my personal experience to see this implemented. I am driven by the memory of the school desk that sat empty behind me one Monday morning 27 years ago; the memory of Brett, that tall, handsome, intelligent young man who was always kind but who would not be returning to school, because he had taken his own life. How often I still reflect on a life that was not fully lived.</para>
<para>Ensuring our schools and our children have access to evidence based, quality psychological services is absolutely vital. We would not accept a situation where our children could not access timely treatment for a broken bone. We should not accept a situation where it can take months for them to see the mental health services that they need. It is imperative that we increase the ratio of psychologists in schools to a minimum of one full-time equivalent on site for every 500 students across all levels of school. Psychologists and psychiatrists are the lifeblood of our mental health system, and it is critical that we produce more psychologists and psychiatrists in Australia.</para>
<para>I am driven as a psychologist to see the recommendations implemented. As a professional, having worked firsthand with families and children, I know the profoundly positive impact that early intervention can have. Effective reform across mental health and suicide prevention needs to be above politics, putting the needs of Australians first. To facilitate a bipartisan approach and ongoing parliamentary engagement, the committee has recommended the appointment of a standing committee on mental health, suicide prevention and social and emotional wellbeing in the next parliament. This will ensure mental health policy remains on the agenda and that the parliament can monitor the processes and implementation.</para>
<para>The committee has made 44 recommendations in total. These recommendations will improve access to mental health and suicide prevention services, manage workforce constraints and improve funding and evaluation. Investing in mental health, suicide prevention and social and emotional wellbeing has never been more important. Evidence was clear that the key points for early intervention are early in life and early in illness, supporting parents through pregnancy, providing scaffolding for children throughout school and helping adults transition through life stages with ready access, reliable information and clear pathways to appropriate services. To support this, we need significant structural reform, including enhancing our digital technologies. Australia needs a common mental health language shared across the community and a diverse, coordinated workforce that incorporates lived experience and a wide range of specialist skills.</para>
<para>We need to increase access to safe and supportive services for Australia's diverse population. People who are culturally and linguistically diverse, and LGBTIQ+, and people from rural and remote areas deserve equitable and inclusive services. To do this, our mental health and suicide prevention sectors require further investment in community infrastructure and culturally-competent trauma informed workforces. These investments are critical for building the connectedness and social and emotional wellbeing of Australians across their lifespan.</para>
<para>I also draw attention specifically to Australia's First Nations peoples. Representatives have told us that culture is key, and commissioning pathways for services in the social and cultural determinants of health is fundamental to affecting change. The evidence is there. What are we waiting for? The committee has recommended that priority be given to investing in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership within the mental health system and fully implementing the Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit) Declaration.</para>
<para>On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank those who made their submissions, who participated in public hearings and who shared their time, knowledge and lived experience throughout the course of the inquiry. I acknowledge and thank the member for Dobell for her work and assistance throughout. I also extend my deep gratitude to the committee secretariat team, Greg Ward, Vikki Darrough, James Peters and Cathy Rouland, for their professionalism, their dedication and their commitment.</para>
<para>The compounding trauma from living through extreme weather events, bushfires, floods and droughts along with COVID-19 and increasing levels of anxiety about the future must not be ignored. Australia needs a whole-of-government, whole-of-parliament approach to mental health and suicide prevention. The committee's recommendations have been developed with this in mind. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'd like to start by acknowledging the work of the chair, Dr Fiona Martin, the member for Reid. Fiona and I share a deep mutual interest in the work of this committee, and her background and experience is evident in this final report. Fiona, you are honouring the memory of Brett. My Labor colleagues and friends, the member for Werriwa and the member for Macquarie, who, through quarantine and whilst supporting their own communities through the pandemic, committed fully to the work of this committee, championing access and affordability for the millions of Australians living in the outer suburbs and the regions. I would also like to thank the many individuals and organisations who made submissions and gave evidence to this inquiry. It is as the member for Reid has said: it is our responsibility to you to see these words translate into action and meaningful change.</para>
<para>The risk to Australians' mental health and wellbeing through COVID-19 has often been described as the shadow pandemic. The loss of loved ones, separation from family and friends, business closures and job losses have had a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of hundreds and thousands of Australians. This has been particularly felt in the states, who, in keeping all Australians safe, endured long and repeated lockdowns, for which we are all very grateful. Many Australians have lived through COVID-19 while enduring bushfires, floods, droughts and other natural disasters. These events have further exposed the gaps in Australia's mental health systems and the growing disparity of access and affordability, especially for those living outside of big cities. This burden, carried disproportionately by the most vulnerable in our communities, has been brought into sharper focus through the global pandemic. Unless we as a country address inequities to access to services and the underlying social determinants, including housing, employment and education, we won't see a significant shift in our lifetimes so that, wherever you're born and wherever you live, grow up and age in Australia, you enjoy a good quality of life.</para>
<para>This is about people, and it's about the economy. The Productivity Commission found that in 2018-19, prior to COVID-19 and the Black Summer bushfires, the annual cost of mental ill health and suicide was around, as the chair has said, $70 billion. As can be seen from the reviews cited in the terms of reference for this inquiry, considerable work has already been undertaken to examine this problem and to recommend action. The Productivity Commission inquiry report <inline font-style="italic">Mental </inline><inline font-style="italic">health</inline>, the report of the National Suicide Prevention Office and the Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System have all made recommendations on how to improve the provision of mental health services. But what is needed is a sense of urgency—swift action to implement the recommendations in this report and preceding reports and proper funding to allow this to happen.</para>
<para>A key recommendation of this report is accessibility. It must be front of mind for researchers, policymakers, practitioners and funders. As evidence has shown and lived experience tells, accessibility is most acute for the most vulnerable Australians—those on low or fixed incomes, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and those living outside of big cities. It is urgent, and we must act.</para>
<para>Then there are carers. The current mental health system does not work well to support those caring for people living with mental ill health. Despite their roles and significant responsibilities, carers often feel left out and overlooked. The report recommends a national carer strategy which includes a way for unpaid carers to be integrated into care teams and to access training for suicide awareness, risk and prevention, and a clear pathway for engagement for carer advocates and representative bodies. This must happen.</para>
<para>As a pharmacist, I understand the valuable role of pharmacists and other allied health workers in mental health and suicide prevention. Community pharmacists are often the first point of contact for many people experiencing mental ill health problems. Their role can span through to key members of multidisciplinary teams in acute inpatient settings. To support pharmacists in this role, the committee recommends evaluation of pharmacy mental health training and support for more mental health training for pharmacists and pharmacy staff.</para>
<para>My own experience as a pharmacist working in acute adult inpatient mental health units at Wyong hospital in the electorate I represent largely led to me being in this place. I worked alongside dedicated and capable nurses, social workers, OTs, psychologists and doctors doing their very best in a system under enormous strain. I saw firsthand the circumstances of people's lives that led to sometimes lengthy inpatient stays in stretched and underfunded public adult mental health units, only to be discharged often to the circumstances that made them sick. We discharged people to couches, to caravans, to caves. In a community where rents in the private rental market have increased by $3,600 a year, this problem has become a crisis.</para>
<para>The problems identified by this committee are not new. But progress in this area is being slowed by lack of clarity around funding and responsibilities between Australian and state and territory governments. I urge the government to finalise negotiations for a new national agreement on mental health and suicide prevention as a matter of urgency.</para>
<para>Another significant obstacle to action is the mental health workforce. There are simply not enough mental health workers, and there are barriers to employing existing workers in the areas of greatest need, or to work to the top of their skills and training, the top of their scope of practice. The National Mental Health Workforce Strategy must be finalised and acted on as a matter of urgency. Mental health is a bipartisan space, and it is above politics. We must work to ensure that the announcements made by the government are implemented, that the recommendations of this report and preceding reports are implemented, that there is a sense of urgency and that we don't have experiences, like the chair and I have had, of friends and colleagues who have had lives cut short, who should have been able to live full and active lives in our communities.</para>
<para>The government must work with the states and territories and with advocacy groups, not-for-profits and for-profits collectively and collaboratively so that we have a whole-of-community, whole-of-government response to mental health and wellbeing. The need for more mental health support is urgent in many areas, particularly for those living outside of major capital cities, yet there are long waiting times, leading to poorer health outcomes. Some communities are still waiting for headspaces that were promised prior to the 2019 election, such as headspace Wyong in my electorate on the Central Coast. I've been told several times that it is coming soon, and I hope so, given the impact of the pandemic, the surge in demand and the growing need. Climate change and natural disasters are impacting young people in my community and in communities across Australia. The need, as we know, is urgent. The need for implementation is urgent. The time for action is now.</para>
<para>In closing, I would like to thank the many individuals and organisations who made submissions and gave evidence to the committee, my fellow committee members and the secretariat. I now urge the government to act promptly on the recommendations on behalf of all of Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate is made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MARTIN</name>
    <name.id>282982</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>14</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="133646" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaking on the amendment, and of course the implications for the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 itself, I was, in fact, originally going to support this bill. I commend the Treasurer for his efforts to try and overcome some gross irresponsibility by major legal firms, in the main, but also other people who can see an opportunity for making an awful lot of money out of class actions and litigation and making a profession out of taking such money.</para>
<para>Having said that, I must reflect upon the fact that one of the greatest battles that has been taking place in my home state of Queensland has been over the taxis. We had 6,000 people employed in Queensland, and we've lost nearly 2,000 of those people who were employed in full-time employment, sliding into part-time employment with Uber. The major point with the class actions is: how do these people hit back? Nearly 2,000 taxi owners had licences worth $376,000. They'd mortgaged their houses to buy those taxis. They'd worked for decades in the mines, doing hard and very demanding work to save up to buy a little business. Some of the state governments in Australia made an effort to provide some sort of compensation, but in Queensland it was the brutality of a regime that is completely out of control. It's destroyed the taxis.</para>
<para>There's a message here for the people in this place. You think that you can just do that and walk away from the table. Well, there are certain people, like me, who you've done it to, and you think you can get away with it. I'm not going to talk about the Leader of the National Party who deregulated all of our farming industries, but his career in this place was destroyed. I'm not going to talk about the Prime Minister of Australia who cut off the live cattle exports and crippled the cattle industry—it may be the six biggest export industry in Australia—and brought it to its knees. I am not going to talk about the people that have done these things. In Queensland, the woman that was responsible for the taxis has been destroyed. I could argue that the Leader of the National Party, after deregulating all these industries, was destroyed. The Prime Minister was destroyed. So, if you think you can just do it to us and walk away from the table, I've got news for you, because our only weapon is to get even. Right? So you understand that when you do it to us we will attempt to get even with you personally. And, if that's a threat, I most certainly hope it's taken that way, and I would like you to record my own personal involvement in carrying out that to get square.</para>
<para>On my third week in parliament, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Deputy Premier of Queensland destroyed 13 businesses in North Queensland. Well, unfortunately for him, four of those happened to be good friends of mine. But even if they had no association with me whatsoever, do you think you can just go and destroy people's lives and walk away? Well, I am sorry, because I'm not Robinson Crusoe. When I say, 'You don't,' you don't. We may not be able to get you and get square, but we will most certainly try—that we promise you. So do it, and do it at your peril. The lady who deregulated the taxi industry in Queensland has had her career destroyed.</para>
<para>I will proceed: the class action is the only weapon these people have. I don't know what happens in history in our schools, but we're not taught the fundamentals of freedom. The Magna Carta was one of the most important documents in human history, because up until then brutal war lords became kings and they did what they liked. In the Magna Carta, the people came together, under Archbishop Stephen Langton, and said: 'No, Mr King, you can't run around doing what you like any more. That time is over. We are moving into a much more civilised environment, so you can't go around destroying people's lives, burning their haystacks, taking their daughters, taking away their property rights or throwing them in jail without any due process of law. That ceases with the Magna Carta.' The history since Magna Carta has been a fight to keep those freedoms that we won on that day at Runnymede in 1215.</para>
<para>Let me return to the class actions. I represent 25, maybe 30, per cent of the electorate of Kennedy of First Australians, and I myself identify as a First Australian, and I speak often and continuingly. The welfare fund in Queensland was definitely used for purposes that may have been good purposes, but the welfare fund belonged to the people whose money had been taken and put into the welfare fund. A lot of people refer to stolen wages. There is no doubt whatsoever that the wages went into a fund and that fund went into the welfare fund, so the sons and daughters of the people that were owed that money never got that money. So they had a right to a class action, and they took it. The 'live ex' case, where the livelihoods of every single cattleman in Australia was put under threat with the ban on live exports to Indonesia, who have been wonderful neighbours of ours as a country. To have treated them so shabbily was a disgrace in itself, which former Prime Minister Rudd has commented on, and I compliment him for it. But in the live ex decision we had no redress. We just had our livelihoods destroyed with no redress. Well, we do have a redress: the class action. Our First Australians have a class action; our cattlemen have a class action.</para>
<para>Powerful corporate interests wanted the South Johnstone Mill. The accounting firm, of course, was in bed with them and the various other corporate bodies. The South Johnstone Mill had got into trouble because of extraordinary cyclonic weather—and I won't go into that. But they sold the mill out from under the owners for what was effectively $2 million, if you took out the cash in the bank and liquid assets and a number of houses they owned that they didn't want and didn't need. If you took that out then the mill was sold for $2 million—a mill that's worth, if you want to build that mill, $200 million. The cost of building or replacing that mill is $200 million. It was sold two years later, by the people who'd indecently, improperly and illegally seized ownership of that mill, for $70 million, and yet the owners, the farmers, got $2 million out of it.</para>
<para>Well, there is the class action. You think you can get away with it? God bless Magna Carta. God bless those men who died to deliver these freedoms and rights to us. The class action is our way of getting back. We congratulate the people in the taxi industry in Queensland, who haven't lain down and copped it but have fought back relentlessly. I deplore the courts of Australia because they simply don't understand Magna Carta. The government is an entity. It is the same as any other entity. The government—not the parliament but the government—stands in a legal situation in the same way as any other entity—me, you, Mr Speaker, or a corporation, or any other entity. And if they do something that harms and damages people then the people have a right to hit back, and that's called a class action.</para>
<para>The Treasurer is acting with the best will here, and I praise him greatly for trying to overcome some of the excesses and bad aspects of class actions, but I am afraid I just cannot be part of cutting down our rights to our only pathway of redress, the class action. Look at all the great commentators on democracy, such as Locke and de Tocqueville. De Tocqueville's famous book on the tyranny of the majority, and the works of people like Locke, are referred to continuously by commentators on democracy. De Tocqueville said that democracy is not a just system and it's not a fair system; it is simply the rule of the majority, and that can be very oppressive, and there must be restraints upon the rule of the majority. People must have rights.</para>
<para>I have always opposed a bill of rights because I think it gives outrageous powers to the judiciary. All I can say is that I think the High Court under Brennan and Kirby did a wonderful job. I think they understood the separation of powers. They understood Magna Carta. They understood that the rights of the majority and the power of the majority, through a democratic system, are restrained by our own personal freedoms and rights, including property rights. They understood that. I don't think the current High Court understands that at all.</para>
<para>Let me return. This legislation is to protect big corporations. This legislation has come from big corporations. Thanks to the free market policies of that side of the House and that side of the House, almost every big corporation in Australia is foreign owned. So if you take the money off the taxi drivers—if you take $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 off the hardworking owner-operator taxi drivers—and hand it over to a foreign corporation then history will pass a judgement on you. And every state government in Australia did exactly that. They are the handmaidens of the big corporations. Uber, a foreign corporation, wanted the control and they got it, at the cost of the poor, hardworking owner-operator taxi drivers, who had hocked their homes and borrowed to the hilt to buy a taxi licence.</para>
<para>I represent the aspirational classes. Most of the Kennedy electorate would work in the mines. They are not there to be proud members of the working class, no; they are there to better themselves and better their families. They would work in the mines for 10 years, seven years, six years—sometimes they could work for three years and they'd buy a newsagency. The newsagencies are gone; Woolworths and Coles have put paid to them. They'd buy a supermarket, but they're gone; Woolworths and Coles have taken them out. They'd buy a taxi, but they're gone; the state governments have destroyed that. They'd buy a prawn trawler. Well, you have destroyed that industry completely, both through greenie bans and the deregulation of the fishing industry in Queensland.</para>
<para>All those owner-operated businesses that we aspired to have when we worked in the mines in temperatures that were unbelievable and did jobs that were unbelievable—and I will just go sideways for one moment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think you can go any further sideways, Member for Kennedy! It'd be nice if you spoke about the amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're talking about class actions. You take away the class action, and the people have no redress against government, which is often the handmaiden of big corporations. I'm talking about the people who worked hard to better themselves, and all those opportunities have been destroyed and taken away from them. In the taxi case, we have a class action. Particularly with the state governments in Victoria and Queensland, I deeply regret that their courts just don't seem to understand the separation of powers. They seem to think they're there to service the state government. I mean, they appointed me and they pay me, so who do I work for? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the second reading of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. Of course, I don't support the amendment. This is a very important topic, and I would like to start by commending the contribution of the member for Mackellar yesterday on this bill, and I associate myself with the remarks he made.</para>
<para>When it comes to this topic, I'm reminded of when former Prime Minister John Howard talked about the fondness we have for the people of the United States but said there are some things about the United States that we are pleased don't occur in our country; he often uses the experience of firearms control. When it comes to this debate, I would like to say that I hope we don't, in this country, end up having a judicial system that in any way mirrors that of the United States. In particular, we don't want to have a system where people are profiteering from the judicial system; we want it to be founded and grounded on the basis of equity and serving the cause of justice and nothing else.</para>
<para>This bill is about addressing something which is seeping into our judicial system—that is, people seeking to profit, earn money, from financing actions in and through our courts, not necessarily with the best intentions of the plaintiffs who may well be aggrieved and entitled to recompense through the justice system. One of the most awful experiences we have as members of parliament in dealing with constituents is when matters to do with family law come to us as individual circumstances. I've had a few times just in my two-and-a-bit years as a member where a few people have come to see me, as their local member, who have been through a family situation like a divorce. Before their financial situation is settled the entirety of their fortune as a couple has been expended on legal processes to try and settle their matters—so, in effect, they have virtually abandoned the course of action through the courts because there's no money left to fight over, if you will. That's one of the disappointing areas of our judicial system, that people spend more than the value of money that they are disputing on the cost of disputing it.</para>
<para>When it comes to class action litigation, I reassure the member for Kennedy, though he has left the chamber, that in no way, in my reading of this bill, are we outlawing class actions or the right to take class actions, and I'm pretty confident that constitutionally we wouldn't have that power or jurisdiction anyway. What we are talking about is the way in which we regulate people that finance class actions.</para>
<para>Let's just reflect on this business model for a moment. These people, in many cases overseas entities or entities that are registered overseas, who go out in a marketplace to investors and say, 'Donate into this fund that we are going to use to finance legal action in a particular class action matter, in Australia, and if we are successful, this is the return we think we can get you on the money you plan to invest.' So, effectively, they are spruiking a circumstance where, if it's genuinely a matter that requires justice and determination in the courts, and saying, 'Let's go and profit on this. Let's go and invest money in the cost of litigation and, if the determination is in our favour, you are going to get your money back and more.' If they happen to succeed in their objective of financing a successful case, they of course, through the contract that they have put in place with the participants in the litigation, receive, in some cases, a very significant share of the determination that was made in their favour by the courts for the benefit, in theory, you would hope, for the plaintiffs that have been wronged if that is what a court holds and finds.</para>
<para>In that circumstance, if there is a determination in favour of a class of plaintiffs that a court has made that they believe is fair compensation for them in exchange for the wrong that they have endured, they don't get what that court has decided and believes is their just entitlements to create recompense for how they have been wronged, because, once that determination is made, if they have been financed by one of these litigation funding schemes, then of course the determination in their favour is subject to the clipping-of-the-ticket by the people that have stumped up the cash. So they might go out and find a category of people who not only are worthy of taking action but also for whom the courts may well find in their favour, and they are worthy and it is just that they receive compensation, but they never receive anything like the compensation that our judicial system determined they were entitled to as recompense for how they were wronged, because someone else has come in and pulled them into this circumstance where they sign up to, and have to agree to, forgo parts of their compensation to the people who are financing the scheme.</para>
<para>This legislation isn't even saying that we're going to shut that down. What it is saying is that we need to put much better restrictiveness and regulation around these practices. And I can't for the life of me understand how anybody in this chamber, particularly people who purport to represent and stand up for working-class people, would be against us trying to protect the just return from a judicial settlement going to the plaintiffs that the judicial system has determined have been wronged. I cannot for the life of me understand how that, as a principle, is something people are against.</para>
<para>So what are we talking about? We're talking about courts having the ability to limit, look at and consider some of these shady contracts that vulnerable people are asked to sign up to, probably not ever fully understanding the consequences of what they are committing to, and giving the courts the power—like they have the power to make all sorts of other determinations in cases, whether or not they are class actions—to consider and look at some of these litigation financing structures and contracts that are put in place and have the ability to have some jurisdiction and put some limitations over them.</para>
<para>I think this is very important. I think it is fundamentally unfair, if a court determines that someone has been wronged and is entitled to compensation for the wrongdoing against them. That goes through proper and appropriate courts, structures and appeals mechanisms within our judicial system. At the end of that process, if the judicial system has determined they are entitled to, and should have the right to, a certain compensation, they then get a small percentage of what the judicial system believes is justly theirs for what they have gone through and taken action over.</para>
<para>We're trying to put some boundaries around that. We are talking about some very vulnerable people. The member for Kennedy highlighted some examples of class actions. I'm not sure they were necessarily litigation funded and would be relevant to the provisions of this bill, but I take his point, in a very general sense, that there are vulnerable people in our society who are absolutely entitled to come together as joint plaintiffs and take action. In no way is anyone suggesting that we want to put any restriction or limitation on that—and, as I said earlier, I doubt we would even have the power or jurisdiction to do that, constitutionally. But of course it is important when there are large groups of people who are all equally affected. Some of the more common examples, apart from those used by the member for Kennedy, are wage cases. It might be that a whole group of employees may not have been adequately compensated by their employer. Some shortcomings in payroll systems or what have you, whether intentional or not, might have been identified, or appropriate award conditions might not have been not applied. This may be something that the company disputes and it may be that it needs to go to court for resolution. At times, that might affect dozens, hundreds or thousands of people.</para>
<para>Obviously, it would be patently ludicrous to suggest that we think each individual person affected should have to individually litigate those matters. Hence we have the concept of class actions, a thoroughly sensible and important right that we have in our legal system. No-one is disputing that principle and no-one is saying it is not very important. But, equally, we don't want to have unregulated exploitation of those people. The irony, given that they're being approached to seek to right a wrong that they have purportedly suffered, is that at the end of that process, having been pulled into a scheme and financed by people, potentially offshore sources of finance who have got a profit motive—they are adopting and bringing together investors and saying: 'Hey, put your money in here. You're going to get more back in return. We're going to identify cohorts of people and tell them they've been wronged. We're going to launch litigation.' When they're successful and have their successful day in court and the court says: 'Yes, you were wronged. Yes, you are entitled to financial compensation. We determine that the value to compensate you is this,' and the court makes that order, these people come back and say: 'Congratulations on that excellent settlement. Most of it we're taking from you. I don't know if you read the fine print on page 342 of the agreement we asked you to sign when you became a co-plaintiff in this class action, but we tipped in the money to finance this litigation and, now that we have been successful, the huge majority of the settlement is coming to us. We're profiting, and you're not, even though, under our justice system, rather than this being profit, this is in fact compensation that you are duly entitled to.'</para>
<para>We shouldn't stand for that in this country. We shouldn't stand for that sort of exploitation of vulnerable people. And we shouldn't stand for the principle that, if our court system has determined that somebody is entitled to compensation, it should be possible for them to receive barely any of the compensation that our court system has determined they should receive. It is absolutely appalling and outrageous. In some cases, the people who are propagating these schemes are doing it wilfully knowing they are going to succeed and deny the proper and full compensation that the people they are pulling together under these schemes would otherwise be entitled to through the court system. They're effectively saying: 'We are really confident that these people deserve financial compensation for something that's happened to them. Let's get a group of investors together and go and exploit them. Let's go to them and say: "Hey, we will take care of this for you. You sign up to this scheme we've got, we'll pay the bills, and when you're successful, we won't tell you until after the result that the justice we promised to secure for you and the financial compensation for that justice is largely going to be eroded away by the fees that we take in exchange for us coming along and purporting to make your life easy by managing and handling this matter for you."'</para>
<para>We are in a situation where this is a growing sector, unfortunately. It is interesting to see the advertisements on the television. Advertising on TV is not cheap, but these people are very rich people, and frankly they have become rich by exploiting vulnerable people in our society, so they can afford to run television ads and they can afford to campaign and lobby. That should really say it all. Why don't they want this bill to pass? Because it's going to end their profiteering of vulnerable Australians. It brings the scams to an end. It means there is actually proper regulation of their activities, and it means that we are protecting vulnerable people from being exploited.</para>
<para>We have a circumstance where there is a bill before the parliament to protect exploited people, and, potentially, some members of this chamber are not supporting that, which says a lot. It says a lot and it is very disappointing. Nonetheless, I have confidence that not only will it pass this House but it will be passed by the parliament, because the fundamental value here is honouring and protecting vulnerable people and the Australian justice system. If we pass this bill, it will have been a very good day at the office for all of us in this building. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam. The Joyce-Morrison government and all the speakers that have trotted out on their behalf say that the purpose of this bill is to protect the interests of plaintiffs in class actions. That is the furphy being peddled by the coalition. They say that they are all about protecting the exploited. There's no suggestion that people are adults able to enter into contracts with a law firm funded by financial backers, and no suggestion that they have the freedom to enter into that contract. For some reason, when it comes to this type of freedom, legal freedom, Australians are to be treated like they are children. The Morrison-Joyce government is here to rescue these poor exploited people who do not have the ability to enter into a contract by themselves.</para>
<para>They clearly say that that is the intention of the bill. But, like most things that the Morrison government says, you have to have a look at the fine print to get to the real story. What they actually want this bill to do is to make it more difficult for people, everyday Australians, to bring class actions. The Morrison government is trying to protect wealthy and powerful defendants. This bill was the subject of a short inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. One submitter to this inquiry, Phi Finney McDonald, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Government is seeking to present this reform as a consumer protection measure is Orwellian gaslighting.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Further highlighting the idiocy of this legislation is that it is opposed by leading class action defendant lawyers at Herbert Smith Freehills.</para></quote>
<para>Don't be fooled by another Orwellian title trotted out by the Morrison-Joyce government. Like many bills we have seen the coalition ram through this parliament, this bill is friendless.</para>
<para>One of the new requirements this bill will implement is that class members agree in writing to be members of a litigation-funding scheme and to be bound by the scheme's constitution. This will mean that, for a funder to obtain a fee from a claimant, the claimant must be a member of the funding scheme. This is a departure from the current opt-out model, where individuals who do not wish to participate in a class action have to opt out. The current model and its advantages are summarised by the Law Council in its submission as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">15. Part IVA of the <inline font-style="italic">Federal Court of Au</inline><inline font-style="italic">stralia Act 1976</inline> … which contains the federal class action regime operates on the default basis of an opt-out structure. Under this system a class action can be commenced without the express consent of group members … Instead, the class action defines the group … and then a court-approved notice is given to group members advising that they may exclude themselves from the proceedings by advising the court … The opt-out class action is also referred to as an open class action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16. The opt-out structure was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission … because it promotes access to justice and efficiency.</para></quote>
<para>Take note, those opposite: it promotes access to justice and efficiency.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Group members who cannot be identified at the outset or who are unable to elect affirmatively to participate due to social or economic barriers are not excluded from the legal system and a potential remedy. That is particularly important for large classes of potential claimants in—</para></quote>
<para>I say this for the National Party—</para>
<quote><para class="block">rural, regional and remote, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and/or culturally and linguistically diverse communities and for those with disability. The opt-out approach also promotes efficiency by including all group members at the outset and binding them, unless they opt-out, to the outcome of the proceedings …</para></quote>
<para>The committee, even in its short inquiry, heard overwhelming evidence that most of the measures in the bill that the Morrison-Joyce government has brought to the chamber would leave class action plaintiffs and defendants significantly worse off. For example, the dissenting report from Labor members of that committee said:</para>
<list>The evidence received by the committee strongly indicated that the overall impact of the "rebuttable 70-30 presumption" would be to drive up litigation costs, discourage plaintiffs and defendants from settling disputes and so delay their resolution and—more generally—make the law "worse for everyone". Moreover, as such a presumption would also raise the risk for funders, "no funding [would be] available for some meritorious claims and … funding costs for all claims will likely be higher than they would otherwise be".</list>
<para>So here we go. The party that once upon a time used to believe in free markets and free choice and individual liberties is suddenly going to drive up legal costs and make the avenues available for the vulnerable less attractive. The dissenting report continues:</para>
<list>Most submitters argued that, rather than resolving uncertainty in the existing law in relation to the availability of common fund orders as recommended by all members of this committee in December 2020, the bill "promotes … uncertainty and confusion around common fund orders" to the detriment of plaintiffs and defendants in class actions.</list>
<list>By requiring class members to agree in writing to be members of a litigation funding scheme, submitters have argued that the bill would lead to an increase in the number of closed class actions and this would, in turn, result in multiple class actions for a given event.</list>
<para>Imagine being the insurance company for those companies.</para>
<para>There are other concerns about the process in bringing this bill before the parliament. Instead of preparing a comprehensive regulatory impact statement in relation to this bill so that the Treasury and government can understand the regulatory impacts on business, the Treasury certified a report by Liberal members of the parliamentary committee as being an independent review. I kid you not. That is actually what happened in 2020 and 2021 in this parliament. I will just make this a bit clearer. The Department of the Treasury officials certified a report written by Liberal MPs as being independent and then used that report as the primary justification for a Liberal government policy. You wouldn't do this in a dodgy dictatorship, never mind a healthy democracy like Australia. This is unbelievable. It's astounding that that would happen. There are processes to ensure that the parliament knows the impact that bills will have on the wider community and the economy. The Morrison-Joyce government, the car park rorts people, the sports rorts people, the Leppington Triangle land people—those people—have basically said: 'We know better than the public officials. Just believe us. We got the car parks right, building car parks outside train stations that are going to be closed down, and paid way over for land for an airport.' Unbelievable!</para>
<para>There are also some constitutional issues surrounding this bill. The Law Council, former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC—widely respected—and other legal experts have concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. Some of the concerns raised include whether the corporations power in the Constitution, section 51(xx), and/or the referral powers to the Commonwealth can support the provisions; whether the provisions would amount to an inconsistency with state class actions provisions so as to override them pursuant to section 109 of the Constitution, including impacts on the group costs order provisions unique to the Supreme Court of Victoria; and potential issues arising in respect of overriding the power of state courts or directing state legislatures. The Morrison-Joyce government has not addressed any of these concerns either in the explanatory memorandum or through the Attorney-General's Department when questioned about these concerns during the inquiry process. There has simply been no explanation or assurances that this bill is constitutional. One would think you'd get your house in order before trotting this into the chamber. The Attorney-General's Department itself appeared to harbour some doubts when questioned during the inquiry process.</para>
<para>Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia referenced this bill in a recent judgement in Stanwell Corporation Ltd v LCM Funding Pty Ltd. It considered whether a class action brought against two Queensland state owned coal-fired power companies was grandfathered for the purpose of the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2020 from a requirement to be registered as a managed investment scheme. The judgement made some important comments about this bill. At paragraph 19, Justin Beach referred to a previous decision which characterised a particular litigation funding scheme as a managed investment scheme. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it is arguable that the majority mischaracterised litigation funding arrangements as an investment by group members of property to achieve benefits, when such arrangements principally provide a mechanism for persons who share commonality in their unlitigated and separate choses in action to secure the payment for legal services necessary to vindicate those choses on a contingent basis.</para></quote>
<para>At paragraph 218 Justice Beach also said this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… may need to be modified to bring its scope within the referral contemplated by paragraph 51(xxxii) of the Constitution bestowed by the States under the Corporations Agreement 2002 (as amended), assuming that the approval of the Forum constituted thereunder has not been sought, and also assuming that the concept of "managed investment schemes" under clause 507(1)(a) is limited to its objectively ascertained meaning as at the inception of that clause, which pre-dated Brookfield and was also not affected by or considered under the 2017 amendments. It may need to be modified to address direct or indirect conflicts with the provisions of Pt IVA of the FCA Act or at least to deal with the arguable conceptual incoherency in seeking to shoe-horn the statutory model for managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act into a funding mechanism designed to facilitate access to justice under the open class regime enshrined in Pt IVA, where class actions are controlled by representative applicants, with external legal representation and advice, and by the Court, rather than by group members exercising their democratic rights under a so called managed investment scheme, or by funders or any other entity expediently nominated as a responsible entity.</para></quote>
<para>This is an important judgement that provides reasoned commentary about the bill that is now before this parliament, commentary that has not been addressed by the Attorney-General or by the Morrison-Joyce government in any way from the speakers I have heard on this issue.</para>
<para>These issues are not theoretical. This bill would have real-world impacts for Australians. Litigation funders and plaintiff law firms gave evidence to the committee inquiry about class actions that would not have taken place if the Morrison-Joyce government had had their way and got this legislation through. Let's look at them. Mervyn Street v State of Western Australia, known as the Western Australian stolen wages class action, was a class action involving thousands of Indigenous Australians in Western Australia whose wages were unjustly withheld or not paid, as a result of wage control legislation in effect until 1972. Imagine if that had not run. Eileen Cummings v Commonwealth of Australia was a class action involving stolen generations survivors. Imagine being the Attorney-General that stopped such an action. Gregory John Lenthall and another v Westpac Banking Corporation was a class action alleging that Westpac overcharged its life insurance customers. I will touch on that in a minute. Hudson against the Commonwealth was an environmental contamination class action against the Commonwealth of Australia and the Department of Defence relating to chemical contamination at the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in Queensland, which resulted in diminution in property and business values. Those PFAS cases would not have occurred if the Morrison-Joyce government had their way. Riley Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises was a class action brought on behalf of delivery drivers who allege systemic underpayment relative to award entitlements. That would not happen if the Morrison-Joyce government had their way.</para>
<para>Some of the speakers opposite obviously have not practised as lawyers. That's fine. We need a wide range of people in this parliament. That's important. When I was elected, 14 years ago today, 40 per cent of the parliament had a law degree. I had previously worked at Quinn & Scattini, not in personal injury law but in commercial law. That law firm, now Ryan Murdoch O'Regan, dealt in this sort of matter. I need to stress to those opposite that no lawyer can charge for work that they do not do. No lawyer gets paid for an hour of work that they have not properly billed. The previous speaker talked about shady contracts between people, when, really, this is all about protecting the wealthy from the actions of those who need someone to speak up on their behalf. I urge the parliament to support the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's quite extraordinary. With all of the issues that Australia is facing today, all of the urgent matters that this parliament should be addressing and that this government should be addressing, apparently the most important thing on the Morrison-Joyce government's agenda today is stopping people who can't afford to pay a lawyer being part of a class action so that they can get justice. What is their motivation in doing this? Who is the Morrison-Joyce government standing up for by trying to limit the ability of people who are damaged and have a legal right to claim damages—but can't afford the justice system to be able to do so—to get representation in a class action? Who's interests are they really looking after? We know the first interest they always look after is their own. I called it the Morrison-Joyce government, but let's be fair: in the last month or so it's clearly been the Joyce-Morrison government. We know that everything they do is through the prism of trying to get themselves votes and trying to get themselves re-elected. The least the Australian population deserves is a government where everything they do is through the prism of making Australians' lives better, but that is not what they have with this government.</para>
<para>This legislation, once again, is evidence that the interests that this government defends are their own and their rich mates'—not the people in my electorate who need to be part of a class action to hold corporations and institutions to account for systemic damage that they have caused. This Morrison-Joyce government is not on the side of Chrissy Stewart, who emailed me last Friday. She is a client of Shine Lawyers as part of their recent class action against Johnson & Johnson for the Gynemesh. That is such an important class action. Women's health in this country, for too long, has been second class, and here we have an action for women who have been damaged and are seeking health support, and it's exactly the sort of thing that this government wants to shut down. Chrissy emailed me and said: 'I don't know about you, but this Morrison government are totally disrespecting the Australian people. As far as I can remember, they never went to the last or past elections telling of their intention to do this. This is wrong and so disrespectful. I, like many Australians, do not have the funds to take action when things go wrong. I feel like we are getting more and more like America—just look at the proposed electoral changes they want to bring in.' Yes, Chrissy: just look at them. That's the next bill that this government wants to debate—restricting people's ability to vote. Chrissy goes on to say: 'It's wrong, wrong, wrong. To me, Morrison and some of his counterparts are treading all over us. We are being treated as second-class citizens. I am praying that they won't get back in.' There is a message for you, Prime Minister. There is a message for you, Treasurer. There is a message for you, everyone on that side of the chamber who is going to vote for this legislation. People like Chrissy from my electorate can't afford to take on a giant like Johnson & Johnson. They need to access class actions to get justice.</para>
<para>There are many problems in our legal system that need to be addressed, starting with a family law system that seems to heap more pain and more damage on vulnerable children and vulnerable women at some of the hardest times of their lives. The response of this Morrison-Joyce government has been to abolish the Family Court to make it harder for them. They are going to community legal centres, which operate on the smell of an oily rag to help the most vulnerable people in this country and cannot for the life of them get this Morrison government to fund them to deliver the services that are needed. People who have had their lives impacted by somebody's actions against them too often decide not to go to court to pursue their lawful remedy because of the costs of going to court, and the delays of the systems that are straining under underfunding and systems that are archaic and haven't been updated, in the end, wear people down and they just let it go.</para>
<para>There are so many things in our legal system that, if it really cared about justice and access to justice, this Morrison-Joyce government could be looking to improve. And what they choose is this piece of legislation to limit even further people's ability to get justice. I'm tempted to say it's extraordinary, but sadly it just seems to be par for the course for this government. As we have come out—or are coming out, we all hope—of this pandemic, as restrictions are easing, we know that there are going to be more and more people who are going to need to access the legal system as a result of being victims of domestic and family violence. The deputy speaker in the chair—the member for Macarthur—and I are on the social policy and legal affairs committee of this House, and we held an inquiry into domestic violence during most of this pandemic. Every single witness who works in the system—from counsellors to people who work in housing, people who are victims of domestic violence, community legal centres and advocates—told our inquiry that instances of domestic violence went up during the lockdowns and restrictions and that, in particular, women's ability to access services went down. That was partly because of the restrictions that meant they couldn't go out and access services and partly because for public health reasons they were locked in their homes with their perpetrators. Every one of those witnesses told us that they anticipated an increase in the need for their services when restrictions were lifting.</para>
<para>So one would have thought that an urgent matter for this government to bring to the parliament would be an improvement in the ability of those vulnerable women and children to access legal services and support services. One would have thought that the urgent matter that we should be debating today would be how much extra money and resources should be put into community legal centres, legal aid commissions and the family and Federal Court system to deal with the anticipated increase in matters—but, no. It's difficult to know whether to be angry or just deeply disappointed at the priorities of this government. Perhaps they don't think that there are enough votes in standing up for vulnerable people. Perhaps there are not enough political donations for them in standing up for vulnerable people. But that is what we are here to do.</para>
<para>People with money, people who are privileged—like those of us who are members of this parliament—and companies that are massive international corporations and have lots of money are doing okay. The people who need a voice are the people who have lost their jobs or who are working in low-paid, insecure employment; people who have children with disabilities; people who are in violent or coercive relationships; people who haven't got enough money to buy a home and are in long-term rental and have discovered that their rent has increased exponentially during the recession; people whose public school is crumbling down around their ears and who look five kilometres up the road at private schools that have swimming pools, Olympic running tracks and wonderful STEM centres; and people who work two or three jobs to make sure that their children have food on the table and can get to school the next day. They are the people who need a voice. They are the people who need a government that says, 'I know how hard life is for you and has been for you, and my priority is to help you so that your life, your children's lives and your community's life can be better.'</para>
<para>If we have ever had an opportunity in our generation to say, 'Here's a reset for our country; here's a time when we can say, "What are our priorities? What do we value? What do we want the future to look like for our children and our children's children?"' surely it is now. Surely, as we have grappled with COVID and we are coming out of a crisis, that is the opportunity for the parliament and for the government to look to a better future. We know that this Prime Minister likes to use a lot of words about rebuilding and coming out of this pandemic, but where is the evidence of the commitment to that? Where is the program of saying, 'As we invest in infrastructure, as we invest in manufacturing, as we build a renewable energy base that makes us a superpower, reduces emissions and helps us to have a future where the planet isn't destroyed, we're also looking to those people who have done it the hardest, we're also looking to those people who are most vulnerable and we're also looking to those communities where intergenerational poverty and socio-economic disadvantage are holding them back,' and saying to them: 'You are our priority'?</para>
<para>What Australia deserves is a government that's on their side, that's on everyone's side and that says: 'As we look to economic growth, we look to economic growth that benefits everyone. As we look to the future, we're going to set ourselves benchmarks. We are going to say that we have a legal system and a justice system that everyone can access, no matter how much money they earn and no matter where they live. We are going to look to a manufacturing base that means that we have sovereign capability and supply chains in this country and that we are investing in sustainability for now and for the future. We're going to have a health system which means that it doesn't matter how much money you've got on your credit card; it just matters whether you have a Medicare card so that you can get help when you need it—the best help.'</para>
<para>What are the priorities of this government? I don't know how many times I've stood in this chamber, having written to the minister for health, and said that in my electorate bulk-billing GP clinics can't get and keep doctors, which means that people in my community who can't afford to pay out of pocket to go to the GP get compromised health care because they can't get to a GP. Why aren't we doing something in this parliament today and debating legislation to fix that instead of debating legislation to make it harder for that same cohort of people to access the justice system? How many times do we have to stand in this chamber and say that the public education system should be the gold standard of education in this country, that every child should get the best education possible and that every educator in the education system should get all the resources they need to deliver that education? Why aren't we talking about that and debating that right now instead of legislation to make it harder to get justice? This Morrison government is not on your side.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, and it's an honour to follow the member for Dunkley with that impassioned speech. I wish I could speak like that. This bill attempts to set limits on litigation funding schemes, which are used to bring forward class actions in our courts. It would do this through two main mechanisms. The first provides that a court must approve or vary the distribution of proceeds of a claim so that the distribution is fair and reasonable. Where more than 30 per cent of the proceeds will go to lawyers, class action funders or other nonmembers of the action, the bill will require the court to hold a hearing on the distribution of funds. As a result, the funding agreements made between class action funders, lawyers and plaintiffs prior to court action could potentially be altered. The second mechanism would change the opt-out system to an opt-in system for gathering plaintiffs into class action groups. This would mean that, rather than being an automatic beneficiary of a successful class action, potential plaintiffs would need to formally join the class action before it gets to court.</para>
<para>Labor will oppose this bill. This bill makes plain the government's hostility to those in our community who seek justice via class action lawsuits. While the stated intent of this bill is to protect the interests of such plaintiffs, it is clear that the setting of the limits does the exact opposite.</para>
<para>One of the huge issues we have in this country is access to justice. The Australian legal system is so incredibly prohibitively expensive, to a point where, for almost everyone, going to court is not an option. Every year, community legal centres turn away over 160,000 people who need help. A similar story exists for legal aid services. It's what leads to what many in the legal community call the missing middle. Class actions help to address this. They allow those who have been wronged to join together and assert their fundamental legal rights. They allow justice to be done when it otherwise wouldn't be.</para>
<para>There are reforms to class action suits which need to be done, but this is a bill that misses the point entirely. A submission to an inquiry into this bill put it very clearly, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Government is seeking to present this reform as a consumer protection measure is Orwellian gaslighting.</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, the so-called inquiry revealed a lot about the serious deficiencies in this bill and the government's attempts to cover them up.</para>
<para>Just one week was given to public engagement so members of the community could make submissions—just one week for this very important change that will impact so many. The government tried to pass the inquiry off as independent, despite the fact it was partisan. When a government engages in these clumsy attempts to hide its intentions and smother dissent, it is a red flag that something is seriously amiss. And that is the case with this bill. This disgracefully-short public consultation period has rebounded on the government. Rather than muzzling discontent with the changes, 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. That's right: the effect of this bill would jeopardise the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants, and not, as the government's title claims, 'protect' them. This was the view of both the plaintiff lawyers who bring class actions but also the defence lawyers. Both groups are speaking up against these changes, proof that the government has an active campaign against class actions. The fact is the government doesn't want to protect plaintiffs. Instead, it wants to protect wealthy and powerful defendants. This will impede the quest for justice for those who have been wronged, for example, by the actions of a large corporation. And, where an action is successful, they will limit the financial penalty on those who've been found to be responsible for causing harm. That much is plain.</para>
<para>The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the current opt-out system. It refers to the system as open class actions, which is a good term to use, because this system opens class actions to anyone who may have been wronged. It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify every affected individual in a class action because of the large number of potential plaintiffs—for example, the class action by thousands of Australian women who took on and won against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson over the side effects from pelvic mesh implants, including chronic pain and infection. The Federal Court found Johnson & Johnson had been negligent and driven by commercial interests. It was ordered to pay $2.6 million in damages to three women who were the lead applicants in a class action of thousands of women affected by the implants.</para>
<para>Another example is the class action against the Morrison government over the shameful and illegal robodebt scheme. This action was made up of 430,000 members. The effect of this bill would have required every single one of them to be identified and for them to opt in to the class action in order to benefit from the $1.7 billion the Morrison government paid in restitution. In essence, the Prime Minister ripped off 430,000 Australians who, in response, took him to court and won. But rather than admit fault and learn from this embarrassing incident, the Prime Minister is now trying to convince us that this bill is about protecting the interests of people, just like those 430,000 people who, through the courts, just made him pay $1.7 billion!</para>
<para>We have seen this time and time again, that this Prime Minister is driven by revenge, and this will affect some of Australia's most vulnerable and powerless people. Each and every one of those 430,000 people illegally indebted through robodebt was, or had been, living on a low income. Many would have been members from some of our most remote, linguistically diverse and disadvantaged communities.</para>
<para>To obtain the written opt-in consent of all of those 430,000 people would have been inefficient, unworkable and unjust. Thousands could have missed out on justice and missed out on the money Scott Morrison's government owed them. But this is the actual goal of this bill, not just some unintended consequence. This bill will punish litigants like the robodebt plaintiffs, not protect them. It will punish anyone else with the misfortune of living on a low income who has been wronged by powerful corporate or political interests. But plaintiffs are not the only ones who will be disadvantaged by these arrangements; open class actions benefit defendants too. It is in their interests to defend a single claim. Closing off potential plaintiffs to a particular class action doesn't remove their rights to justice forever. It is conceivable that, under the system, defendants could be forced to fight near identical litigation claims multiple times over the same single event. Our courts are already under pressure with backlogs and delays. That was not helped when the government abolished the world-renowned Family Court either. Every attempt should be made to address delays in justice, but this bill, which would create closed class actions, would only heap more pressure on the courts.</para>
<para>This bill will also create other barriers to justice. The cost of class actions will be driven up by giving courts and so-called external contradictors a say in how funds are distributed among plaintiffs, class action funders and law firms. This bill will drive the efficiency out of existing arrangements, create uncertainty and introduce ambiguity into funding agreements. Confusingly, the government argues that creating more legal argument and more discretionary powers of the court will somehow resolve legal uncertainty for plaintiffs. But, as multiple submissions to the inquiry into this bill point out, this is simply not the case. Adding more voices, more opinion and more processes to anything only complicates it, and in the law complications mean greater costs. The changes to funding processes contained in this bill will not protect plaintiffs—far from it. They will instead deter them and their supporters. If they proceed, the changes will work against a quick resolution by fouling the potential for dispute settlement. Litigants on both sides will be dissuaded from seeking an agreement if the distribution of proceeds from an out-of-court settlement is uncertain and open to challenge after that settlement.</para>
<para>This bill is just another example of this government's shameful record on reforming our legal system, and just another example of this government's shameful record on always attacking the most vulnerable in our society and never standing up for those who most need the support of government. This is a government that is opposed to accountability. This is a government that tries to avoid dissent or debate at any turn. This pathetic one-week inquiry into this bill when it's going to have such impacts on so many people, mainly disadvantaged people who can't afford our incredibly expensive legal system—yet more people will be disadvantaged by this bill and unable to access justice. That is a disgrace, and Labor will stand up against this. Labor will oppose this bill.</para>
<para>To think that this government brought that disgraceful and illegal robodebt scheme, chasing up minimal debts, often wrongfully, from some of the poorest people in this country years later, driving people to extreme anxiety and, in devastating cases, even suicide. This scheme was found to be illegal, and, instead of recognising that, having been found by the court to need to pay back 430,000 people who were wrongfully targeted by this scheme, this government brings in a bill to make it harder for people, particularly those without the means to take on the legal system, to bring class actions. We're seeing that both sides, both plaintiffs and defendants, are not happy with what's in this bill. It's a bill that's trying to make it harder for people to bring class actions. The only people this protects are wealthy defendants and large corporations, who will be able to get away with things because people won't be able to come together—people who on their own wouldn't be able to challenge these issues in court. This will make it more difficult for them to get together and bring a class action that could expose the wrongdoing of wealthy and powerful corporations and others who already have the advantage in our legal system because of the sheer costs that prevent most people from accessing justice.</para>
<para>We're seeing community organisations and legal aid turning away people that desperately need help—more and more people every year. And this is what this government comes up with in an attempt to reform our legal system. Well, it's simply not good enough, and I'm proud to be part of a party that is going to stand up for the people, stand up for fairness and stand up for people who need a government to be on their side to ensure that they have a say and that they have access to justice.</para>
<para>This bill is a disgrace, but it's not a surprise from this government. It is really just another example. What would you expect from a government that brought us the robodebt scheme, a disgusting attack on the most vulnerable Australians; a government that makes the NDIS almost impossible to navigate for people with disability and their families; a government that makes people jump through hoops and fight for what are the most obvious supports that they need through the NDIS? We see this time and time again on the NDIS committee and from our own constituents. It's just a government that's not listening, that's out of touch with the community and that doesn't care about these issues. It doesn't care about standing up for people who really need access to justice, to a decent income and to a fair go.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. At the outset, I just make the simple observation that it's a very bad bill coming from those opposite, who belong to a tired eight-year-old government that seems absolutely obsessed with avoiding scrutiny in many areas of public life. Time and time again they show us the lengths that they're prepared to go to in order to avoid scrutiny, by not respecting proper process in this place, by not answering questions, by deflecting, by telling mistruths, and generally by avoiding scrutiny wherever they can in a constant attempt to look after those who support them, particularly in big business. They have little regard, as the member for Canberra just said, for ordinary people with their everyday struggles.</para>
<para>The proposed changes in this bill strike at the very heart of the notion of justice in this country by curtailing the opportunities that our citizens have for the pursuit of justice through class actions. This bill will have the effect of discouraging this pursuit of justice, leaving many with nothing after falling victim to corporate malfeasance. Not everyone in corporations sets out to do the wrong thing, but there are countless examples where corporate malfeasance has destroyed the lives of Australians and destroyed smaller businesses. It's simply not good enough that we make it harder for people to seek justice.</para>
<para>So I stand with my colleagues on this side of the chamber to resist and oppose this unacceptable attack on justice that is in this bill. Class actions are a critical means for accessing justice in this country, and this bill will make it harder for ordinary Australians to take this route. It's ordinary Australians who will be impacted. It won't impact the big end of town, folks with deep pockets or wealthy benefactors. It will impact ordinary Aussies who have been the victims of an injustice. Banding together with fellow victims to finally secure a just solution is the route that the government are trying to close. For these people, class action litigation is typically their only option, and this bill will deliberately weaken this option and make it more difficult for these ordinary Aussies to access justice. That's why we in the Australian Labor Party, the federal opposition, stand against it.</para>
<para>Specifically, this bill will set a limit on litigation funding schemes, which is a critical way that class action litigation is enabled and powered for ordinary Australians. This bill will set such a limit on that ability in two ways. Critically, firstly, the bill requires courts to approve or change the allocation of funds from a successful claim so that such funds are distributed on a 'fair and reasonable' basis. The actual impact of this change is critical. Before commencing class action litigation, funding agreements are made between the litigants' lawyers and funders of class action litigation, and these agreements concern the allocation of funds after a claim is successful. These are private arrangements which help to kickstart the class action litigation process, but, under this bill, if such an agreement allocates more than 30 per cent of the funds from a successful claim to the lawyers or the funders, the court will have to deliberate on it. This is an extraordinary change, forcing a private agreement to be pulled apart in a needless and wasteful legal process. You have to wonder why those opposite want to do that.</para>
<para>In that context, the bill uses the term 'fair and reasonable'. Like an increasing number of Australians, I don't associate the term 'fair and reasonable' with those opposite, with the current federal government. I've listened carefully to their contributions to the debate, and I haven't heard anybody adequately explain the need for this particular change. But maybe, honestly, truthfully, they've just come to the same conclusion as those of us on this side—the conclusion being that the intent and purpose of forcing courts to tear apart funding agreements is solely designed to discourage ordinary Australians from accessing justice through a class action. How could you in good conscience support that? Make no mistake: this change will have a chilling effect on the delivery of justice through class actions, but that is the intent of these changes.</para>
<para>These agreements play a critical role in getting class action litigation off the ground and into court. Why would they want to make that harder? Well, I think their intent is clear. If they were truthful about it, money plays a big role in your ability to access justice in this country, and, if you are not reasonably independently wealthy, the prospect of court can be prohibitive and dissuading. A class action case is, then, in many instances, the only way an ordinary Aussie can have any reasonable prospect of accessing justice. So the funders of class actions play a critical role in facilitating that access to justice. Those opposite do themselves and this debate no great assistance by railing against the critical role of funders in enabling class action litigation to take place. That is the first way this bill will place unnecessary limits on class action litigation.</para>
<para>The second change will completely alter who can actually make a claim and be party to a class action litigation. Currently, class actions operate under an opt-out system, which means those caught up in or impacted by the class action can be an automatic claimant to an eventual win. This is important. It may be impossible for lawyers to reach each person impacted by a matter subject to a class action litigation. People may be inaccessible due to geographic distances or even communication issues. Being initially inaccessible when the class action is being put together should not be a barrier to accessing and benefiting from justice. I've seen examples of that in the Northern Territory. Under the present set of rules, class-action litigation has an opt-out provision; if you're identified at the start of the process, you can still benefit from the justice which flows from a successful outcome. But the bill would shift this from opt-out to opt-in. If you aren't involved from the beginning, too bad, so sad. If you miss the start, then you miss out on any chance of justice.</para>
<para>This is extraordinary, even for those opposite. I honestly scratch my head on this one. Why would the government be making access to justice harder for people—the vulnerable and disadvantaged, those who live remotely, those far from the centres of power in capital cities—particularly those who are most in need of justice? Why would you do that? Think about some of the people this will impact.</para>
<para>As I said, I'm proud to stand here representing my electorate of Solomon, Darwin and Palmerston, but also the broader Northern Territory. We have ancient and vibrant communities and cultures in the Top End, many of them in remote communities. And, of course, like most First Nations communities around our country, they have experienced oppression and injustice, and they have experienced these things as individuals, as families and as communities.</para>
<para>Organising a class action among residents of remote communities, as you can imagine, has it challenges. Those residents will be effectively denied justice with this nonsensical opt-in change. It's dangerous and un-Australian. That's what Darryl Kerrigan from <inline font-style="italic">The Castle</inline> would say. We're not talking about theoretical matters here; we're talking about real matters that involve real Aussies and their access to justice. It's not a debate at a university. I personally wasn't a university debater. Sometimes I think many of those opposite still feel like they're back in that university debating world, where it's all just theoretical and fun and it's all about trying to show how clever you are. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the real world and impacts on our fellow citizens. We're talking about good people, Aussies who should have access to justice.</para>
<para>I'm reminded of some people in my electorate, who, after being taken from their families and put into the Retta Dixon home, gathered together to try to access justice for their removal from their homes and for what was done to them while they were in the Commonwealth's care. If they hadn't had the ability to get together and add in people who experienced the same injustice they did, how would that have been justice for those people who were treated so badly? As the member for Canberra just said, what would you expect from those opposite? Those opposite still won't allow a debate on whether, for example, territorians—whether in the ACT or the NT—have the same rights as any other Australian to make the laws that affect them. So it's not a surprise that they want to make it harder, because it's what they have form in doing: making it harder for people in NDIS to get the support they need; and sending robodebts to people and then paying out when the criminality of what was done to a lot of our fellow Australians has been so obvious.</para>
<para>Those opposite have form, but I'd ask them to stop and think about what they're doing and the impact it's going to have on Aussies' ability to seek justice through class actions with the changes they're suggesting. As the member for Whitlam said at the beginning of this debate:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>This is an egregious bill. It will deny justice to millions of ordinary hardworking Australians. Everybody in this place represents those people, so I say: shame on all those opposite who voted for it. I call on those opposite to reach into their conscience—and the same for the crossbenchers—reject this bad bill and allow all Australians to have access to justice. If you're not interested in Australians having access to justice then you'd really want to be asking yourselves what you're doing here. I have a pretty good idea of what some of you're doing here. But it should be to make sure that those that you represent in this place have every opportunity, particularly the most vulnerable. After all, that is how we judge a society, and I hope that how we judge Australia in our role as parliamentarians is by making sure that the most vulnerable, those who may be living remotely from the seats of power, still have access to justice in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. I recognise the contributions made by members in this debate. This bill has a magnificently Orwellian title. It is another bill that will not do what it says on the tin. In fact, it will do the opposite. As previous speakers have said, it will make it more difficult not just for my constituents but for constituents right across the country to access justice. The stated intent of this bill is to protect the interests of plaintiffs in class actions by setting limits on litigation funding schemes—funded class actions—by, firstly, providing that a court must approve or vary the distribution of claim proceeds between class members, lawyers and funders, which is fair and reasonable, and, secondly, by imposing a rebuttable assumption that a proposed distribution would not be fair and reasonable if less than 70 per cent of proceeds goes to the plaintiffs.</para>
<para>However, it is clear this bill is primarily aimed at making class actions more difficult for plaintiffs and protecting the interests of wealthy and powerful defendants. This is not a new story, but part of a continued pattern of hostility on the part of coalition members to the ability of individuals to access justice through class action lawsuits. In Asbestos Awareness Month, this bill is particularly galling. It should be noted that as part of this process—and it has been a pretty rushed process—the Treasury certified a partisan report by government members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services as an independent report, as the equivalent of a regulatory impact statement for the many measures outlined in this bill. As somebody who in a previous life had to put together many regulatory impact statements, I'm flabbergasted.</para>
<para>The bill has been subject to an incredibly short inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Not only was the inquiry short; it provided limited opportunities for public engagement, including only a one-week period for people to make submissions. If this is such an urgent bill to get through, there should have been appropriate consultation. Thankfully, Labor members of the committee opposed the bill and produced a dissenting report recommending that this bill not be passed.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, the stated objective of this bill is to protect the interests of plaintiffs in class actions, but the real, though unstated, objective of the bill is to protect the interests of powerful defendants by making it more difficult for people to bring class actions in the first place. It is a testament to the current government's incompetence that the bill fails to achieve either the real or the stated objective. As one of the submitters to the committee in that very short time span, Phi Finney McDonald, put it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Government is seeking to present this reform as a consumer protection measure is Orwellian gaslighting.</para></quote>
<para>Further highlighting the idiocy of this legislation is that it is opposed by leading class action defendant lawyers Herbert Smith Freehills. Phi Finney McDonald wasn't alone in his assessment. The committee heard overwhelming evidence that most of the measures in this bill would leave class action plaintiffs and defendants significantly worse off. For example, the evidence received by the committee strongly indicated that the overall impact of the rebuttal 70-30 presumption would, in fact, be to drive up litigation costs, discourage plaintiffs and defendants from settling disputes and so, in fact, delay the resolution process and, more generally, make the law worse for everyone. Moreover, such a presumption would also raise the risk for funders. No funding would be available for some meritorious claims, and funding costs for all claims would likely be higher than they otherwise would be.</para>
<para>Most submitters argued that, rather than resolving uncertainty in the existing law in relation to the availability of common fund orders as recommended by all the members of the committee back in December 2020, instead the bill promotes uncertainty and confusion around common fund orders, to the detriment of plaintiffs and defendants in class actions. By requiring class members to agree in writing to be members of a litigation funding scheme, submitters have argued that the bill would lead to an increase in the number of closed class actions. This would in turn result in multiple class actions for a given event. In other words, it would actually lead to much greater inefficiency and possibly much greater litigation costs.</para>
<para>It's also important to mention that, while the explanatory memorandum acknowledges that the bill gives rise to a range of regulatory impacts on business, the committee in making the dissenting report to this bill makes the point that those impacts have not been properly considered or even understood by the Treasury or the government. That is because, instead of preparing a comprehensive regulatory impact statement in relation to the bill—something I mentioned earlier is a task I've been involved in previously myself—the Treasury certified a report by Liberal members of the committee as an independent review which involved a process and analysis equivalent to arrears. It's quite extraordinary, really. In other words, the Department of the Treasury certified a report written by government MPs as independent and used that report as a primary justification for going forward with this bill.</para>
<para>But there are also broader constitutional concerns around the validity of this bill. According to the Law Council, former solicitor-general Justin Gleeson SC and other legal experts, it's not clear that the bill is constitutional. Multiple and serious concerns were raised in submissions, including but not limited to whether the corporations power in the Constitution and/or the referral powers to the Commonwealth can support the provisions in the bill, 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, impacts on the group costs order provisions unique to the Supreme Court of Victoria and potential issues arising in respect of overriding the power of state courts or directing state legislatures.</para>
<para>The explanatory memorandum fails to mention or address these constitutional questions in any way. Indeed, in response to these concerns raised in submissions, the Attorney-General's Department itself was unable to provide the committee with any meaningful assurance that the bill was constitutional or offer any rebuttal whatsoever to any of the concerns set out in Mr Gleeson SC's legal opinion. There was literally no explanation offered as to how or why the bill is constitutional. Indeed, according to the dissenting report, 'it was clear from the long silences, non-answers and visible discomfort at the questions that the officials from the A-G's Department themselves harboured doubts as to the bill's constitutionality'. It's extraordinary for it to have been brought forward without these questions having been answered.</para>
<para>Many of these concerns were raised most recently in a decision by Justice Beach, of the Federal Court of Australia, on 17 November 2021 in Stanwell Corporation Limited and LCM Funding Pty Ltd. Justice Beach raised some of these issues around the constitutionality and drafting of the bill and actually went to some of the rationale behind this bill. Some of the comments in that judgement included that the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… may need to be modified to bring its scope within the referral contemplated by paragraph 51(xxxii) of the Constitution. It may need to be modified to address direct or indirect conflicts with the provisions of Pt IVA of the FCA Act.</para></quote>
<para>This was only a week ago. In the same decision, Justice Beach found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the proceeding dispels the myth of the so called advantages of book building in a case of this type. The book building here has resulted in an unnecessary, costly and inefficient delay of seven months in order that over 50,000 retail customers be separately signed up to individual funding agreements. There is little justification for such a barrier to entry so to speak or justice. Fourth, to allow the proceeding to remain closed will incentivise others to launch parasitic actions to cover the balance of the universe of electricity consumers. So the potential for and the vice of a multiplicity of proceedings. And indeed if not productive of such multiplicity now, that position may be all but inevitable if I later deliver a judgment in favour of the present closed class, unless I open the class after judgment.</para></quote>
<para>Yet that is exactly what this bill will invite.</para>
<para>But it's not just about those particular important issues that go to the constitutionality of the bill; it also goes to the real-world impacts. This isn't merely some sort of academic process. There are many landmark class actions that wouldn't have gone ahead had the measures in this bill been in place. My colleague the member for Moreton has provided some of those examples: Mervyn Street v State of Western Australia—otherwise known as the Western Australia stolen wages action—a class action involving thousands of Indigenous Australians in Western Australia whose wages were unjustly withheld or not paid as a result of wage control legislation in effect until 1972; Eileen Cummings v the Commonwealth of Australia—a class action involving stolen generations survivors; and Gregory John Lenthall and Anor v Westpac Banking Corporation and Anor—a class action alleging that Westpac overcharged its life insurance customers. There's a bit of a theme emerging here about who exactly is going to be excluded if these measures actually go through.</para>
<para>Bradley James Hudson & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia, an environmental contamination class action against the Commonwealth of Australia relating to chemical contamination at the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in Queensland, resolved losses in property and business values. A couple of my colleagues in this House have worked hard to bring those key concerns about the consequences of PFAS: the impacts on small farms and tenancies outside defence bases. The idea that those sorts of participants should be excluded is quite extraordinary. Riley Gall v Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited was a class action brought by delivery drivers and in-store workers who had systematic underpayment relative to award entitlements. We shouldn't be surprised with that last example about why this government would like to exclude such actions from coming forward.</para>
<para>Even when they try to give Orwellian titles to their legislation at times, they allege that they are on the side of working people and their families across this country. The minority dissenting report on this bill finally came down to make the case that in the end the proponents of this bill haven't made their case. Today, again, they haven't made their case. This bill should be voted down.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased that this side of the House is opposing the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 vehemently. It is doing so because class actions are an important part of our judicial system. They gives the little person a voice. They give people the ability to undertake a court battle that perhaps their finances, in 99.9 per cent of the cases, wouldn't allow.</para>
<para>We saw the minority report, which I tabled in here the other day. We had an inquiry into the bill, and it was rushed through. We were given one day to hear witnesses. We couldn't call all the witnesses up that we wanted to. We had no time to have a good deliberation and understanding and to give other people a voice. This was rushed through. This was a plan by the government to rush through a report to bring this legislation on.</para>
<para>It makes you wonder why they are desperate to pass this legislation. Why are they desperate to pass this legislation concerning an important part of our judicial system? Some of the evidence that we heard in the committee was quite damning of this bill. In fact, Justin Gleeson said in a submission that this bill could be unconstitutional. That raises questions that should be answered. We asked for answers, we wanted it investigated further, but of course the government numbers on the committee made that impossible.</para>
<para>Without a class action regime, such small people, everyday Aussies, battlers, wouldn't have their voices heard. They wouldn't have the means to seek redress or compensation in the courts on their own. This has given the ability to have some form of justice to many people. We've seen it recently with the robodebt debacle. Through a class action, $112 million will be distributed to 450,000 eligible individuals of that group, people who would otherwise never have had a voice. They wouldn't have been able to fight the government to have justice. These people needed justice. There was money taken from them which shouldn't have been taken from them. On their own they had no chance of beating the government. But, through a class action, funded appropriately, this was possible, and $112 million is now there for the 450,000 people that had some wrongdoing to their debts et cetera through robodebt. But these claims are very costly, and most plaintiffs just wouldn't be in a position to fund the actions themselves or cover the costs in case of an adverse finding. Litigation funding schemes are therefore an important part of ensuring class actions are fair and equitable.</para>
<para>The question is how to prevent third-party litigation funders from claiming disproportionate shares of a successful action relative to the costs and risks. Understanding and resolving this question is the aim of the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. But this is why the committee's inquiry into this was so important. It just didn't give it any justice by having one day only of hearings and then 24 to 48 hours to table the report. It just did not do it justice. If the government was serious about this, they'd refer it to a Senate committee or another committee to do it justice, by looking at all the issues and what's important over a period of time. It's not surprising that the criticism came from both sides, from corporations as well as the lawyers who do class actions.</para>
<para>This bill and the inquiry process leave a lot to be desired. The bill is intended to protect the interests of plaintiffs in class actions, but in actual fact it does the exact opposite. It takes away the voice of justice from plaintiffs, because, by making it more difficult for people to bring class actions in the first place, the bill will protect the interests of powerful defendants. If you look at some of the cases—and we've heard of many of them in the debates; the member for Solomon mentioned a few, the member for Bean did earlier and I'm sure others will mention some—there was a class action on behalf of 10,000 survivors of Victoria's 2009 bushfires in which 119 people died and over 1,000 homes were destroyed. The lawsuit was taken against power distributor SP AusNet and asset managers Utility Services Group after the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission found that it was a faulty electricity cable that caused the bushfires. In 2014, a $500 million payout was secured, making it the biggest class action settlement in Australia's legal history. You can imagine, some poor farmer, somebody that had a house or a pensioner trying to prove that on their own. It would have been impossible. It was quite obvious when we had the many witnesses who were part of the class action before us and we asked them the direct question, 'If it wasn't for the class action and the system that exists, what would have been the outcome?' Pretty well 100 per cent of them, all of them, said zero, zilch, nothing. There wouldn't have been a payout, they wouldn't have had their voice heard and they wouldn't have had any findings against the rich and powerful companies they were fighting. That was just one example of the electricity distributor in Victoria.</para>
<para>There have been many others. For example, in 2010, leading litigation funder IMP Australia helped initiate more than 10 class action lawsuits against leading banks, including the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac and NAB, alleging that some $400 million had been siphoned from customers. You can just imagine an individual Aussie with a small bank account discovering that for years they had had a tiny little bit siphoned out of their account continuously from the day they opened their bank account trying to fight ANZ, Westpac, NAB or the Commonwealth Bank. They would have had Buckley's. They would have got nowhere. Yet, through this class action system we have, it made it possible for people to have their voices heard, to have justice and to be recompensed for it. It is important. It is so important to keep the system that we have to allow people to have a voice.</para>
<para>Another example is the over 600 shareholders who took a class action against Sigma Pharmaceuticals, initiated in 2010, where $380 million of losses were siphoned through Sigma Pharmaceuticals when the lawsuit came down. They paid out over $300 million to people to ensure that the wrong was rectified.</para>
<para>While class action lawsuits are sometimes criticised for being lengthy and being costly, there is no doubt they have contributed to giving the little people in our society a voice in the way they are treated by powerful corporations and institutions, and there is little doubt these kinds of lawsuits will always be around. But we need the power of collectiveness, to be in a collective, to be a force against some of the most powerful companies in the world and some of the biggest multinational oligarchies that exist. Can you imagine an Aussie battler trying to fight any of them? It would be impossible. We need a good class action system that has outcomes—we have seen outcomes in hundreds of class action lawsuits where the people seeking justice would have had no other way of doing it. Making it more difficult to bring class actions will only be detrimental to Australians.</para>
<para>How can we ignore the overwhelming evidence heard by the committee that this bill will leave class action plaintiffs and defendants significantly worse off? We were told in the committee, repeatedly, that the bill does nothing to resolve the current uncertainty in relation to the availability of common fund orders, recommended by all members of this committee in December 2020. Instead, we were overwhelmingly told the bill promotes uncertainty and confusion around common fund orders. In addition, the bill requires class members to agree in writing to be members of a litigation funding scheme. The committee heard this would lead to an increase in the number of closed class actions and possibly also multiple class actions for a given event.</para>
<para>Then there is the question mark over whether the bill is actually constitutional or not; I raised this earlier. Clearly, this is a real, serious problem. It is difficult to overstate the level of concern expressed by the submitters to this inquiry about the advice received from Justin Gleeson that the bill may not be constitutional. That in itself should be investigated before this bill goes any further. That is a serious question.</para>
<para>Labor members sincerely regretted that they weren't able to do this bill the justice it deserved and have a proper inquiry. We were given less than one day to consider the majority report and respond to it, but this is nothing new; the entire process around the handling of this bill has been shambolic from the start. Members of the public were given less than one week to review a draft of this complex legislation after it was distributed. We were hoping that people would see it and make submissions. Most of the feedback Treasury received from submitters was ignored, and here we are with the bill being introduced.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker Owens, I'm sure you'll agree these are important and complex legal matters we're talking about. You cannot have an inquiry and come up with a report within 48 hours—half a day for an inquiry and half a day for the committee to meet and deliberate on such a complex bill. It was a rushed time frame, it didn't create any good debate, and it didn't create ideas coming up with good recommendations et cetera. Obviously the government had a mindset and a plan for this bill and just wanted to bulldoze it through the committee and bring it here to be voted on.</para>
<para>The impact of this legislation will be severe if it gets through. We had litigation funders and plaintiff law firms provide the committee with a list of actual examples of class actions that would not have proceeded, or at least would have been unlikely to have proceeded, had the measures in this bill been in place. They are all attached to the report; if anyone is interested in reading the report and the dissenting report, there are attachments there. I assure you: these are important actions that would have been impeded by this legislation. We were told that most of these wouldn't have seen the light of day had there not been the system of class actions there for us. However, the government insists on proceeding with this bill. It should not do so until the bill has been the subject of a proper inquiry process, whether by the committee that I served on or other parliamentary committees. Such an enquiry is a must before this proceeds anywhere. We need to give witnesses sufficient time to respond to the questions. And, in addition, the Attorney-General's Department needs to comprehensively address, in writing, those concerns that I raised earlier—from Justin Gleeson and other legal experts—about whether the bill is constitutional. These are serious, serious concerns.</para>
<para>The matters handled in this bill could have serious ramifications on citizens' access to justice. It begs the question: who is this bill aiming to protect? I gave a few examples of class actions that were successful, of ordinary Australians who grouped together to take on one of the big corporations—the big banks or the multinational pharmaceutical companies. Those ordinary Australians would have had no success at all without this current system. Individually, they would have been picked off one by one. The high costs of our judicial system wouldn't have allowed them to seek justice. But it's clear that, as this bill stands, it's the people who stand to lose the most if this government has its way and gets this bill through. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. We are all equal before the law. Well, that's what we are taught at school, and in fact that is even a provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">All are equal before the law and are entitled … to equal protection of the law.</para></quote>
<para>But the reality is that in Australia today, because of the obscene and the prohibitive cost of justice, our legal system is broken and we are not all equal before the law. Where a small business has a commercial dispute against a large foreign multinational, that small business's chance of resolving that dispute through our court system is almost next to zero. The large multinational company can simply laugh at that small business, and say: 'How are you going to possibly afford the legal costs? And even if you win in the first instance, we'll appeal it. We will delay the procedures, we will bleed you dry.' When that occurs we are not all equal before the law.</para>
<para>Look at the costs of the former Attorney-General's legal proceedings against the ABC in his defamation case. He was the plaintiff and his costs were estimated at somewhere around $1 million. The ABC have acknowledged that their costs were at least $800,000. And that case never even made it to a courtroom. What do people working in the real world, in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, think? These people are adding value to the economy by making things and growing things and producing things. How can they possibly look at completely unproductive work that does nothing to benefit the overall economy, such as that defamation case, which has close to $2 million in legal costs and yet never even gets to the courtroom because it's just a mediation? People who are involved in family law disputes look at the costs of the actions and just see themselves being bled dry by a system.</para>
<para>The reality, as much as we don't like it, is that class actions are the only things that provide many small businesses and many small plaintiffs the opportunity to seek justice before the courts. Yes, these litigation funders are sharks. Yes, I am sure that in many cases they have ripped people off. But a form of price fixing—setting a maximum of 30 per cent that the litigation funder can obtain for his costs—is not the answer. That is trying to fix the symptom, not the cause of the problem. Going down this track—putting that 30 per cent cap on—won't result in greater returns for small plaintiffs. All it will do is change the risk-reward calculation for these large litigation funders. They are, in fact, gambling. They will weigh up the odds of the merits of the case. They will weigh up the odds of the potential of winning. They will weigh up the odds of how aggressively the defendant will defend the case. They put all that in, and if they think they can make a great windfall of profits, they will proceed with the case. But if you change those parameters, if you limit it to 30 per cent, you change that risk-reward benefit for them, and the only result will be that more Australians—more individuals and small businesses—will have less access to the courts than they already have. That is something I cannot support.</para>
<para>I think I'm one of the few people in this place who has ever tried to put together a class action for a group of small businesses. It involved extraordinary container detention fees charged by large, foreign multinational shipping lines, many of them controlled directly by the Chinese Communist Party. We had a good case. We won in the first instance. But, because it was a slightly grey area of law, when we took it to the class action funders they looked at it closely and admitted there was slight doubt and, therefore, they wouldn't fund it. Changing the parameters and limiting the amount that the class action funders can get, even though it seems like the right idea, will punish the very people that this legislation says it protects.</para>
<para>What class actions do we have on the horizon? We know that already 10,000 Australians plan to claim damages for COVID vaccine injuries under the government's no-fault scheme. How many more will there be and what case will they have? Clare Eves of Shine Lawyers said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Some of these reactions have been clots, major strokes, amputations, major cardiac problems, being on oxygen, having severe headaches that are debilitating and unable to return to work.</para></quote>
<para>At the moment there's a cap of $20,000. How $20,000 compensates someone who has their leg amputated, I do not know. My great concern is that we are going to see more of these class actions involving the TGA.</para>
<para>As many other members of parliament have given examples of potential class actions, I would also like to give one. The TGA data reports that the rate of adverse events from the COVID vaccines is 0.21 of a per cent, or 2.1 in every 1,000. But the problem is—the question is—how accurate is that data? There's another group that reports on adverse reactions, and that is a group called AusVaxSafety. Where the TGA relies on a system of people voluntarily reporting to them, AusVaxSafety, on the third day after someone has had their COVID vaccine, sends out a text message and requests the information. As at 14 November they had sent out over 4.6 million text messages and had surveys completed. They have found that 43.8 per cent of people had reported one adverse event and 0.9 per cent of people had reported visiting a GP or an emergency department. Now, how is it possible that the TGA data says there are 2.1 adverse reactions reported to it per thousand and yet AusVaxSafety is reporting 90 per 1,000?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member will address his remarks to the bill, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am setting out the potential examples of class actions, as many other members have done during this debate. I think it's important that, as the government, we understand what the potential for these class actions is and how this bill will actually shut the route for Australians seeking justice and seeking compensation. I believe the TGA have set this government up for many claims of class actions because they are using a system of reporting that is unfit for purpose and that is missing many of the adverse reactions.</para>
<para>The question is: how many class actions will be knocked out because of this potential legislation? Published in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> a few days ago was a report that stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">PwC found that more than 90 per cent of cases—</para></quote>
<para>that's class action cases—</para>
<quote><para class="block">may not have gone ahead because the funders and lawyers would have been left with either a loss or without an adequate return to justify the risks of taking on a long, complex case with uncertain outcomes against a well-resourced defendant.</para></quote>
<para>The article goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government's proposals would have denied justice to hundreds of thousands of Australians who have turned to class actions to help rebuild their lives.</para></quote>
<para>I don't know whether it is correct that 90 per cent of class actions wouldn't have gone ahead. But I do know that this legislation would change that risk-reward balance and result in fewer class actions going ahead and result in fewer Australians having access to justice.</para>
<para>Of course, with respect to potential cases, we only have to look at the one example where there is a potential class action that Australians may wish to sign up to—the TGA's approval of the Moderna vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds. Even though that is made in the USA, it does not have approval in the USA for 12- to 17-year-olds. It does not have approval in Germany for 12- to 17-year-olds. It does not have approval in France for 12- to 17-year-olds, nor Sweden, nor Denmark, nor Finland, nor Norway. But yet, here in Australia, our TGA has decided that the Moderna vaccine can be injected into 12-year-old Australian children. Now, one only has to look at the recent data, again from AusVaxSafety, to say what a potential great risk this is of future class actions. The AusVaxSafety data makes a comparison of the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines relating to the impact on routine activities of children aged 12 to 15. After the second dose of Pfizer, there are reports of 22 per cent of children missing work, study or routine activities. But, when it comes to Moderna, after the second dose, 39 per cent of Australians aged 12 to 15 years are reporting missing work, study or their routine duties. How can we allow this here in Australia?</para>
<para>We have this data. This data is publicly available. The TGA continue to close their eyes to it. They continue to ignore the fact that countries like Germany and France have suspended the Moderna vaccines in 12- to 17-year-olds while we continue it in Australian children. The adverse reactions continue to mount; the potential legal cases continue to mount; and the potential for class actions continues to mount.</para>
<para>I cannot vote in favour of any legislation that further restricts Australians' access to the courts and further restricts Australians'—especially those small businesses—access to justice. That is exactly what this legislation, sadly, does. To me, it is contrary to all the principles that I believed in when I signed up to the Liberal Party: equal rights, a fair go and equal opportunity for small business; protection of individual citizens; and allowing the free market to work rather than using price caps. We would do far better to have more firms in the area of class action litigation funding rather than fewer. That is the way we bring the cost down, not through artificial Soviet-style price caps. That is not the way the Liberal Party goes about things. But that is the mentality and ideology that they bring with this legislation. Therefore I thank the House, but I will be voting against this legislation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 and the amendment moved by my friend and colleague the member for Whitlam. Those opposite tell us this bill is all about protecting the interests of plaintiffs in class actions, that it'll make it easier and fairer and that it will lead to equitable outcomes and the proper functioning of justice in class action proceedings. But let's have a close look at those claims.</para>
<para>For a start, this bill creates a new requirement that class members agree, in writing, to be members of a litigation funding scheme and to be bound by the scheme's constitution. For a funder to obtain a fee from a claimant, the claimant must be a member of the funding scheme. This is a departure from the current opt-out model, where individuals who do not wish to participate in a class action have to opt out. The current opt-out model is well regarded. It was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission at its inception. In first recommending it, they noted that it promotes access to justice. It's an efficient, simple way for everyday people to engage with the legal system in order to get justice. This is the first bit the government gets so wrong with this bill. They'll make it more difficult for members of the public to sign on to class actions and more difficult for their legal representatives to get class actions off the ground in the first place.</para>
<para>The second change those opposite want to make relates to the distribution of funds at the end of proceedings. Those of us on this side, of course, wish to see those funds distributed fairly. But, as with so much of the legislation we see from this government, they've made a half-hearted attempt at a positive change here and just haven't got it right. Their changes to the way funds are distributed are expected to have a number of unintended consequences, based on the evidence of experts during the committee inquiry process. It discourages settling disputes, which can lead to proceedings dragging on and costs mounting for both plaintiffs and defendants. It also creates uncertainty in the process, which, again, disincentivises class actions getting off the ground in the first place.</para>
<para>We can see from these areas the government is looking to alter in this bill that this isn't about making class actions fairer at all. In fact, this legislation is all about doing their mates in big business a favour. It's about making it harder for ordinary people to stand up to big business and get justice. One submitter to the committee inquiry on this bill referred to it as 'Orwellian gaslighting'. How true is that! How true is that, in fact, for so much of what this government has brought forward in its eight very long years in power. Australians now know that, when this government says it'll do something, it can't be trusted, and they don't think—they know—that, when the Prime Minister says something, he certainly can't be trusted.</para>
<para>After those eight long years, after so many promises from those opposite and from the Prime Minister, what do they have to show for it? Stagnant wages, work that is more insecure than ever and living expenses through the roof. We all know people are paying $2 a litre to fill up their cars with petrol right now. Those opposite have nothing to show for their time in office, so they bring out the marketing boffins and they spin, spin, spin their way into an election. They publish their glossy pamphlets, they spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on advertising that says pretty well nothing, and they come up with slick names like the one for this bill—'enhanced outcomes', 'streamlined services' and 'fairer standards'. After eight long years, Australians know what to expect when they see terms like that from the Liberal-National government. They know they can't trust those opposite to do what they say they will do. We know that, when they say 'enhanced outcomes', they don't mean for ordinary people; they mean for their mates in big business, the hyperwealthy. When they say 'streamlined services' it means cuts, cuts, cuts. When they say 'fairer standards', they're undercutting protections and letting the market rip.</para>
<para>This bill fails the simple test of whether it will make the lives of Australians better. It won't. It does nothing more than protect those who have potentially wronged a large number of people. But I suppose those opposite can pat themselves on the back for a job well done when that's the outcome. Don't think I'm exaggerating on that point. What we need to make clear is that those opposite know what they're doing. It is not an accident that this bill leads to worse outcomes for ordinary Australians. It is by design, and they're entirely shameless about it.</para>
<para>The committee inquiry process brought up a myriad of issues with this bill and outlined the perverse outcomes I've spoken about so far. But what I find most fascinating is that there were even questions raised about the constitutional validity of this bill. Someone as respected as former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC has raised concerns that this bill is unconstitutional, and still the government presses ahead. It's incredible. So set are they on undermining the legal rights of everyday people that they're more than happy to disregard the Constitution and the opinions of multiple legal experts on that matter. They heard it in the inquiry from evidence. Labor drew attention to it right throughout the process and in the dissenting report. But what did the government members do? They misrepresented the evidence of the experts and then jumped on to the next point. You've got little time to worry about matters of the Constitution when you've got to protect multinational corporations.</para>
<para>I want to come back to the importance of class actions and why it is so important that we oppose the bill. Class actions, as I've outlined, give more equitable access to justice. They open the door to the legal system for ordinary people, often against massive corporations. They are an opportunity for people who have been wronged to shield themselves from the upfront costs and risks of litigation. Without a properly functioning class action system, the door to justice would be closed for many—perhaps most—Australians. It's an efficient, easy and fair way for people to engage in legal action and seek justice.</para>
<para>Class actions are also about class. They are about power in numbers. While some people don't have a platform or a loud voice, when you amplify this through class action there can be a mightily loud collective voice. Class actions are all about engaging with people who may not be at home in the foyers of courts or the chambers of lawyers and making sure that their concerns can still be addressed by the legal system. You don't need to have a lot of money to be involved in a class action and get legal representation. They create economies of scale. They make it more financially viable to take legal action against well-resourced defendants, including large corporations or government departments. Having a group of individual claims where people have had similar experiences or circumstances means more people get access to justice.</para>
<para>But this bill seeks to disrupt the way class actions work by creating an additional barrier for people to engage—by making them opt in, rather than opt out. Not only do those opposite want to make it more difficult for Australians to participate in class actions; these amendments also seek to limit the role of the legal system in holding corporations, large organisations and even the government to account. In our society, there are many crucial checks and balances to protect Australians. Obviously we have the media, which operates as the fourth estate by journalists' scrutiny, publishing stories and holding people to account. The legal profession is a crucial additional layer of scrutiny in holding corporations and governments to account. But a class action can also shine a spotlight on a problem and add to accountability. Highly skilled lawyers and legal practitioners forensically analyse documents. They interview people and work to get to the bottom of a situation. Even the fear of a class action which brings careful analysis and legal might, sometimes resulting in media interest, can be a powerful motivator for companies and organisations to respect the rights of clients and those they engage with. The scrutiny that class actions bring helps to protect all Australians, even those who aren't actively participating in them.</para>
<para>In Australia, we have seen landmark class actions brought against banks, governments and big business. Take the stolen wages case, where First Nations people were able to recover stolen wages from the Western Australian government through a class action. We have heard expert opinions that this case would have been unlikely to proceed had this bill been in place at the time. We have heard this opinion mirrored for cases of the underpayment of award wages, for the overcharging of life insurance by banks and for environmental contamination. Successful class actions on these issues, which got justice, would not have proceeded had this bill been in place.</para>
<para>Again, I want to make it clear that I am not the first one telling those opposite this, nor am I the most qualified person to tell them this. Experts, independent bodies, academics and lawyers have all told them that this is plainly true, and yet they press forward. That's because, for this government, access to justice is meaningless. The benefits of class actions, which I have just outlined, are seemingly meaningless to them. Justice for working people, the repayment of wages, dealing with unfair insurance charges and the payment of damages for environmental contamination or, as we have seen recently in the media, for medical malpractice just don't seem to matter to this government. Why not? It's because this government puts the interests of working people behind the interests of the wealthy, of big business. They've got nothing to lose, because we know if you have big pockets there are no barriers to justice. If you have blind trusts behind you, there are no barriers to justice. You can waltz on into the courts with your legal team in tow and punch down. If they feel they've been misrepresented, they sue. If they feel they've been wronged, they sue. It's because they can. It's because funding isn't an issue for them.</para>
<para>But everyday Australians, I can tell those opposite, don't have the backing of blind trusts. They don't have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend fighting a legal battle they don't even know if they are going to win. And so I hear so often from constituents and from people around the country that the wrongs will go unchecked. Sure, they probably have a case to mount, but, whether it be medical malpractice, stolen wages or another issue, they just don't have the means to fight it. That is what class actions are for.</para>
<para>I am proud of us, on this side of the House, because we are here standing up for everyday Australians. They, too, deserve justice. They deserve a fair hearing. They deserve to get it without the stress of going broke if they lose. That is what this is about. That is why we are opposing this bill. So I urge those opposite, if they care about fairness, if they care about the rights of ordinary people to get justice, to withdraw or vote against this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. Can I start by rejecting the speech by the member for Cooper—what a load of hyperpartisan nonsense! This is not the end of the class-action system by any means. That is not what this bill does. This is not what this bill is aiming to achieve. This is the fallback we see from Labor all the time: when they can't mount a coherent argument, when they can't mount a coherent set of amendments, they simply enter into a race to the bottom with hyperpartisan arguments about how the world is going to collapse and the sky is going to fall in. It's simply not going to occur. We've seen it time and time again. They resorted to that so often during the COVID period. Labor would say that nobody could get a vaccine because of supply issues. That wasn't the case. All they did was succeed in convincing people not to ring their GP and make an appointment. They said that we would never meet the 70 per cent and 80 per cent vaccinated benchmarks because other countries around the world had not—yet Australians have done that, with the federal government's urging.</para>
<para>So, speaking in globo, I would encourage Australians who are listening to this debate to reject the 'sky is going to fall in' narrative from the Labor Party about this bill and have a really careful look at the changes this bill actually entails. This bill is about fairness. It is about accountability. It is about justice—all of those things that you would want, and you would be seeking, through a class-action system. But it would be a class-action system that delivers the results that it is designed to, and that we all want it to—on both sides of the chamber. At the end of the day, if somebody is involved in a successful class-action lawsuit, we want them to get the compensation they deserve. If the decision has been awarded in their favour, then a great wrong has been done to them and they deserve the compensation they have been awarded.</para>
<para>But the reality is that, as much as both sides of the chamber might want that to be the case, that is simply not happening right now. You can stick your head in the sand, like the Labor members opposite, and say nothing is wrong and if we touch anything about the class-action system the whole class-action system will collapse, which is just nonsense, or you can do what this bill does, what this government has done, and take a really thoughtful, considered approach and look at the class-action system and come up with some targeted recommendations and legislative changes as to how we can make the system better and how we can make sure the money finds its way to where it is needed, which is those who have had wrong done to them—not lawyers, although lawyers will still get paid, I'm certain of that; and not litigation funders, though they'll still take their cut, just hopefully not as much and not like the outrageous examples we have seen.</para>
<para>It's another example of how the Labor Party have completely forgotten and wandered away from their roots. They used to be about the working class. They used to be about everyday Australians. They used to be about Australians doing it tough. But they don't think about them anymore. They only think about what responds well on Twitter and what is trending out there and what argument is going to look great for their woke mates. It's this side of the House that is thinking about those Australians who are doing it tough.</para>
<para>When it comes to the class-action system, I really want to pay tribute to my colleagues who have already spoken who have been so passionate about pushing forward these changes. The member for Mackellar, ably assisted by the member for Curtin, as part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, has done a lot of the review work. But I go back to my point that these are very considered and targeted changes. We've had the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services conduct a review. We've had the Australian Law Reform Commission conduct its inquiry into litigation funding and class actions. In addition to those reports, the bill itself has had extensive consultation by the Treasurer and the Attorney-General, which included a month-long consultation between 1 and 28 June 2021 on policy questions. As well as that month-long consultation, the exposure draft was released between 30 September and 6 October 2021 with a draft of the bill and regulations for public comment. Finally, following the exposure draft, there was further targeted consultation with both plaintiff law firms and litigation funders, including the Law Council, Litigation Lending, Omni Bridgeway and Shine Lawyers.</para>
<para>This legislation, through this consultation, has been designed to be a scalpel, not a broadsword. It's not a demolition; it's not a bulldozer running through the class action lawsuit scheme as those opposite would claim it is. It involves very targeted changes that are enabling more money to go to litigants who have been wronged. Let's re-establish the problem and the very stark examples of injustice that this government wants to confront and that those opposite are happy to stick their heads in the sand and ignore. I could look at their motives and consider that a lot of these large law firms that specialise in class action lawsuits have very deep links to the Labor movement and to unions, and I could speculate that it's just another example of how the Labor Party will stick up for their union mates and those affiliated with them before they'll stick up for everyday Australians who have been wronged.</para>
<para>But let's focus on the problem at hand that we are trying to address. Let me give you a few examples. In Liverpool City Council v McGraw-Hill Financial Inc, now known as S&P Global Inc, $215 million was awarded to the claimants as part of that class action. Of that, $92 million—43 per cent—was paid to the litigation funders. Another nine per cent was paid to the lawyers. So when all was said and done, those people who had actually been wronged, whose lives had been affected and who deserved compensation so they could get their lives back on track, shared in 48 per cent of the damages they had been awarded.</para>
<para>When those who are actually wronged and awarded compensation get less than half, something is wrong in the system. Something is rotten. In Petersen Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd—a smaller settlement but important to those litigants nevertheless—$12 million in settlements was awarded as a sum in damage. Fifty per cent went to the litigation funders, and another 15 per cent went to the lawyers. Again, those people whose lives had been turned upside down, who deserved the damages in order to get their lives back on track, who had actually been wronged, got a grand total of 33 per cent of the damages awarded—a third. A third went to the actual claimants.</para>
<para>I'm just a layperson. I started a law degree, and I'm happy to tell you that I did not finish it, for very good reasons. It is not a subject I have a lot of affinity for. But, as a layperson, I look at the fact that these people who have suffered, who have taken the time to go about a class action and who have been awarded substantial damages, have gotten only 33 per cent of the damages. There's something very wrong. There are more examples that I could give you. They're not all as egregious as those. Those are certainly some of the worse. In Whittenbury v Vocation Ltd, $50 million in damages was awarded. Only 48 per cent returned to the class members, another 26 per cent taken by litigation funders and 25 per cent taken by the lawyers. The examples go on and on.</para>
<para>How are we trying to address that in this bill? The bill contains five fundamental elements. There is enhanced protection of the right of class action plaintiffs to choose whether to join a class action litigation funding scheme, a type of managed investment under the Corporations Act 2001. This is important because it's freedom of choice. The previous Labor speaker indicated that this was somehow removing people's rights, that they would somehow not be able to participate in class action lawsuits because of this. That's simply not true. It changes the default so that people who have joined a class action lawsuit have to consent to enter in part one of these litigation funding schemes.</para>
<para>Why? What's the practical thing that we're trying to achieve? When they enter these litigation funding schemes, we know from actual experience that they open themselves up to losing 43 per cent, 26 per cent, 50 per cent, 27 per cent of the damages they're awarded, before they even pay the lawyers, directly to the litigation funders so that they can get their profit margin, their yields, on their finance. It is right and proper that the default for people who are in a class action is that they have to consent to that. They have to be convinced that this is in their best interests. They may well consent, and they may consent for a variety of reasons: they don't want to put their own money into it, they can't get financing from somewhere else, it's a requirement from their lawyers—I don't know. They should have to be convinced of that. It shouldn't just be as a matter of fact. Somebody who's a class litigant shouldn't turn around at the end of the process and realise that 50 per cent of the damages they've been awarded have gone to feathering the beds and increasing the yields of the litigation funders.</para>
<para>I talk about the fact that this is not a broadsword but a scalpel; litigation funders will still be able to operate and they'll still take a clip because they are providing the funding. But in this legislation there's a rebuttable presumption that a distribution of over 30 per cent in total of the claim proceeds of the scheme to nonmembers of the scheme is not fair and reasonable, combined with court powers to approve or vary the distribution of the proceeds of the funded class action to ensure it is fair and reasonable.</para>
<para>What do those two, acting in concert, achieve? They give a presumption that the litigation funders can't take more than 30 per cent. They might even take less depending on what the court decides. Isn't that fair and reasonable? Should their yield on the financing be to such an extent that they need more than 30 per cent of the damages? That's essentially what Labor is arguing. The Labor speaker before me, the member for Cooper, said that we just want to leave it to the market to decide and let it rip. That's the opposite. We are actually trying to curtail the market here. If the market were 'let it rip', as it is now, litigation funders would simply take whatever margin they thought they could get away with, and, when people are vulnerable and they're trying to undertake a class action, that could be an awful lot, as we have seen.</para>
<para>What we're trying to do is in the interests of justice, in the interest of fairness and in the interests of ensuring that those who are wronged get the money that they are awarded by the court for the damages done so that they can rebuild their lives. We curtail the litigation funders to only take a fair and reasonable margin. Why is Labor against that? I don't understand it. I can only put it down to the fact that, again, a lot of the law firms that undertake these large class actions have deep roots in the labour movement and in the union movement. And at the end of the day we know that's the only thing Labor is interested in, not everyday Australians, fairness and justice but supporting their Labor mates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad to make some remarks on the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021 and, in particular, to speak in support of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Whitlam. The bill is best summed up in the words of John Sheahan, from the Law Council of Australia, who described it as 'making things worse for everyone'. Unlike the previous speaker, this is someone with considerable expertise in the law with respect to the way our justice framework works, and his judgement is that the bill makes it worse for everyone.</para>
<para>The previous speaker, the member for Ryan, made some sort of attempt to suggest that the government is bringing in a bill that has at heart the interests of ordinary Australians and of people who have suffered very significant harm. That is rubbish. Class actions are vitally important. They help people who, usually through corporate malfeasance, end up suffering enormous harm. The best examples is asbestos, a toxic substance that has caused huge health consequences and death in the most terrible way for thousands and thousands and thousands of people. In some circumstances, justice for people—if you can describe financial compensation as justice for what they experienced—was only possible through class actions. There are many examples of that.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to make access to that kind of justice more difficult. The way in which it makes things worse for everyone springs from a number of different aspects of the government's conduct in general and its specific approach to this bill. The government has repeatedly shown no interest in advancing the cause of justice in this country. To have members of the coalition come in here and seek to pretend they're interested in the rights and opportunities of ordinary Australians, particularly Australians facing disadvantage, will come as a big surprise to all those in the community legal sector who have found themselves subject to funding cuts and uncertainty courtesy of this government. Everyone who is affected by or has a possible interest in the jurisdiction of the Family Court will find themselves surprised to see members of the government come in here and pretend they're interested in justice for those who need it most, when it wasn't that long ago that, against all advice, the government decided to abolish the Family Court. There was expert evidence from people working in that field who said the one thing you could guarantee from that outcome was that the lives of women fleeing domestic violence and the lives of their children would be made significantly worse and be put at risk as a result of those changes.</para>
<para>There's bad faith in the way this bill is presented. It's not intended to make access to justice easier and more affordable for everyday Australians. Like so many of the things this government has done, it's been done in the interests of reducing that access and allowing large corporations to go about their business without being held to account or held responsible for the things they occasionally get wrong.</para>
<para>And this bill has been done through a bad process. It was quite amusing to hear the member for Ryan say this bill has been brought forward on a thoughtful and considered basis. It has been rushed in here. The committee that considered it did so over three weeks. There was one public hearing. Public submissions were open for seven days. The majority report was provided literally seven days ago; Labor members of the committee received the report seven days ago and made their dissenting report on that basis. And here we are, seven days later, dealing with a bill that many people in the field regard as a very significant backward step.</para>
<para>I will go to a couple of those points. The first is the government's introduction of the rebuttable 70-30 cost split. The analysis by those who work in this area—and it's not people directly involved in the carriage of these matters but people like the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Law Reform Commission—has said that the crude and ill-considered change that the government is about to implement will have the effect of driving up litigation costs overall. So that's going to hit plaintiffs who are trying to receive compensation through these matters across the board. It's going to make settlements less likely, and settlements, we know, are one of the most effective ways of reducing costs in any legal dispute because they mean that you get to a point of conciliated resolution faster and less expensively.</para>
<para>It's also going to mean that there will not be funding for some meritorious claims. The reality of this world is that you will have a large, well-funded corporate defendant and you will have many people who, having been affected by the conduct of that defendant, have vastly different and inferior financial means to challenge that outcome and try to seek some sort of justice and compensation for the harm they have received. Litigation funding, whatever you say about it, actually enables that to occur.</para>
<para>I would be the first to say that, if the government wanted to embark on a broad program of reducing the cost of receiving justice, I would be happy to join them in that effort. They've got no interest in that more broadly. To come in here and try to suggest that it's the Labor Party that is the friend of well-heeled lawyers and large law firms is to enter into some sort of bizarre world. If the government wants to embark on a broad program of making justice more accessible and more affordable for Australians at every level, bring it on. After eight years, that would come as a surprise. But that's not what this achieves. This will actually mean that there will be meritorious claims that will not go forward. That means that there will be hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of Australians who have been harmed—they may have been harmed economically, but they may also have been harmed personally in terms of their health—and they will not be able to pursue justice and compensation because of the changes this government is making.</para>
<para>The opt-in requirement is particularly bizarre. No-one supports it. If you wanted to find one part of this bill that squarely went to the defendant protection racket part of it, it would be this. The member previously got himself into a real tangle on this. You can't, on the one hand, say that we're fixing the costs issue and then, at the same time, say we need people to opt in so they don't find themselves being on the end of unfair costs. If, in your own mind, you're fixing the costs issue—if that's what you are doing, which clearly isn't the case, but if that's what you're doing—then there's no problem anymore. The member for Ryan tried to pretend that people should actually sign up to some sort of unfair costs split. You're dealing with that, and therefore you surely should want as many people to benefit from a class action as possible. But that's not what this does. What it does is change the status quo. Rather than every relevant person being considered to have opted in and to be part of a class action and therefore potentially to benefit from it, this means having to opt out rather than having to opt in. This puts that obligation on them. It essentially means that, if people don't hear about it, don't know about it or are unconcerned about it and don't take the time to go and fill in some legal paperwork, they are not going to be covered. So it's going to exclude people who would otherwise benefit from class actions. As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, that will be a plain and certain outcome of this legislation.</para>
<para>Even from the defendant's side, what it means is that, rather than having one open class action that deals with the people who are affected, you're quite possibly going to end up with multiple, or even a succession of, closed class actions with different sets of plaintiffs, which, from the point of view of the defendant, just means that the process is more complex, more costly, more uncertain and more time-consuming. That goes to the point that I mentioned at the outset about this making things worse for everyone.</para>
<para>I actually do have some experience of class actions. I worked on behalf of plaintiffs, of claimants, who were injured through the use of the Dalkon Shield IUD. The Dalkon Shield was a very harmful contraceptive device and IUD, particularly in the 1980s and into the early 1990s. It ended up being, at the time, the largest torts matter in the world, certainly the largest after the asbestos cases. There were thousands and thousands of Australian women who were told that it was safe, some of whom were using that device as their first contraceptive device, only to suffer horrendous injuries. In some cases young women who had been told that this was perfectly safe subsequently had to have a total abdominal hysterectomy at the age of 19. They had their ability to consider having a family and future taken away from them by a faulty device, despite in many cases women going to the doctors and saying, 'This doesn't seem right; I'm experiencing some symptoms that concern me.' They were told: 'No, this is perfectly safe. This is a fantastic device, and you'll be fine.' That's what thousands and thousands of women, hundreds of thousands of women worldwide, experienced, and it was only through the class action that was started in the US that there was some compensation, very paltry compensation I should say, when you consider the magnitude of the injury that women suffered.</para>
<para>I was separately involved in, as a paralegal, a class action involving the insecticide called Helix. The drought in the 1990s meant cattle producers in Queensland and New South Wales had to rely on cotton trash as feed for their cattle. Unbeknownst to them, the cotton had been treated with an insecticide called Helix, which had a chemical in it that bioaccumulated in the tissue of the cattle and made them unsaleable. That cost those cattle producers hugely to, essentially, have their entire stock rendered valueless, because an insecticide company hadn't done its due diligence and it hadn't taken steps to ensure that—it's a fairly common practice that some kinds of agricultural products are fed to cattle in certain circumstances—there were proper warnings or that they avoided the use of some of the chemical components in that insecticide. It cost cattle producers their livelihoods, in some cases.</para>
<para>These are the kinds of things that class actions are required for. They have a very important place in our community and in our justice system. As colleagues of mine have said—the member for Bruce most particularly last evening—the Australian Law Reform Commission has talked about funding and enabling the use of independent cost assessors and contradictors in the Federal Court jurisdiction and those kinds of things. We are all for that. This is something that, if the government genuinely cared about these things, it could have done this year, last year, the year before that—in any of the last eight years. It could have got on and done some of that work, but no.</para>
<para>What the government is doing instead is rushing through this bill with a two- or three-week committee process, landing the report in the absence of a proper regulatory impact statement, which all parliamentarians should be concerned about. We don't actually have the benefit of a proper regulatory impact statement because what has happened in this case is that the Liberal majority committee report that was only provided last week has been deemed to have the character of some independent assessment, which is frankly bizarre. And this bill is being rushed through.</para>
<para>All of the people with expertise in this field, who have an interest in the proper conduct and carriage of justice and who have been advocates in the past for genuine reform that might have addressed costs issues, have judged this to be an absolute lemon; it is a dog with fleas, and yet here we are in the penultimate week of the parliamentary year having this rushed through. It is designed to protect the interests of large corporate defendants. It is designed to make it harder for ordinary Australians, whether they're cattle farmers or women who are injured by a faulty medical device or people injured through asbestos or anything else, to get fair and just compensation. It is a terrible piece of law and it should be rejected by this House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like the member for Fremantle, I was privileged to be educated with a law degree. And, like the member for Fremantle, I worked in the law before I came to this place. In fact I worked for a very large law firm in Adelaide before determining that I couldn't live in Adelaide and I needed to return home. Home for me is Mount Gambier, in the south-east of South Australia. When I did that I worked for a local practitioner before establishing my own firm. I say this because I reckon, of all the members in this House, I am perhaps one of the only people to have acted as a litigation funder. You might ask: how that could be? The majority of my practice involved working in the criminal law. I'll talk a little bit about that in a minute, in particular motive, and why perhaps those opposite are motivated to be debating this issue so voraciously.</para>
<para>In other fields of practice I would act on behalf of plaintiffs in personal injury claims. In those circumstances I would fund those proceedings where the plaintiffs had no capacity to meet my costs from day to day. Instead, I would carry that work in progress and finalise the matter in settlement, either at trial or ultimately when the matter settled. But that's where the similarity between the firm I operated and litigation funders ends, because, quite frankly, there was no return on that particular investment. Indeed, it would have been improper for me to do so. Fees were rendered in accordance with the work undertaken and, if successfully resolved, either by settlement or at judgement, my fees would be paid. If unsuccessful, then we would notch that down to experience and move on, because, quite frankly, the clients I acted for had no capacity to meet those fees independently.</para>
<para>I briefly mentioned the criminal law, and in criminal investigations I think the most important element is always to understand the motive of why someone may have acted in a particular way. It's certainly the approach taken by investigative authorities like the police. For those listening to this broadcast, I'd like you to pause for a minute and consider the motive of those opposite. I'm going to come back to that motive in a minute because I think it's incredibly instructive as to why we're seeing such strong, if you like, defence in this place of litigation funders.</para>
<para>Now, what's litigation funding about? Well, it's effectively about saying, in class action matters, that someone needs to pay the lawyers. As with my clients, there are circumstances where plaintiffs in class actions aren't in a position to do that. The class action industry in this country has embarked upon a campaign to try to scuttle this piece of legislation. In their advertisement, which is running on television, they try to paint this as the little guy versus big business. They say, 'If we all work together we can achieve our outcomes.' But the question becomes: what's the outcome? And the outcome to the ordinary viewer of that advertisement is about the little guy being appropriately compensated in circumstances where a court determines that they have been wronged in a way that sounds in damages. But that's not quite how it works, particularly when it relates to matters involving litigation funders. A recent Australian Law Reform Commission report indicated that, on review, those cases that involve litigation funders saw a median return to the plaintiffs of 51 per cent. You might say, 'Big deal.' Well, it is a big deal, because that same report went on to say that, in cases not involving litigation funders, the median return to plaintiffs was—wait for it, not 51 per cent—85 per cent. So, effectively, same plaintiff, same claim, same court, same wrong, same damages, but a very different outcome. We can measure that outcome. That very different outcome is a matter of 34 per cent. If a plaintiff has been wronged and is awarded damages of $100,000 then, in the case of not involving litigation funders, they can expect to pocket $85,000. But, in the case involving a litigation funder, that $100,000 awarded damages becomes $51,000. Same plaintiff, same court, same action, same damages, same compensation—different result.</para>
<para>The issue I have with this doesn't fall with practitioners. Practitioners need to be paid for the work they do, no question, and nor do I have a beef with someone who might step in as a litigation funder to meet the cost of that representation. But I do have an issue with those opposite suggesting that a provision in this bill, which effectively creates a rebuttal presumption—let's be clear about that; it's a rebuttal presumption, not a definitive position—that a distribution of more than 30 per cent in total of the claim proceeds of the scheme to non-members of the scheme is not fair and reasonable. In effect, what the law is saying is that courts need to determine, effectively, that these arrangements are fair and reasonable. And they will start from a presumption that anything more than 30 per cent being distributed other than to the plaintiffs is not fair and reasonable. Well, I reckon that's about right.</para>
<para>That's not to say that, in certain circumstances, you can't partition the court and indicate that this matter was of such complexity and such difficulty that there will need to be a greater proportion. It simply says that that's the starting position. I think people listening to this debate would reasonably say that people should benefit from the claims they bring in consequence of actions that have wronged them, and the damages that flow from those claims should rest with them—the majority of that benefit should rest with them. It shouldn't rest with litigation funders.</para>
<para>I think it's best that I give some examples, such as Liverpool City Council v McGraw-Hill Financial. The matter settled for $215 million—a whopping sum. The legal costs associated with achieving that outcome were $20 million, or nine per cent of the settlement proceeds. It is important we keep these numbers in mind: nine per cent of the settlement proceeds. Those that paid those legal fees, the litigation funders, received $92 million, or 43 per cent of the proceeds. To be clear, the lawyers charged and were paid $20 million for the plaintiff. Those who were paying the lawyers' bills paid that $20 million, but, in return for doing that, they were paid $92 million. Are we serious—43 per cent of the proceeds? This meant the plaintiffs—who, by the way, news flash, are the people that were wronged and that compensation was awarded to—received 48 per cent of those proceeds. So, having brought a claim and having obtained a judgement, they received less than 50 per cent of what they were awarded by the court.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker, you might ask me why I was so fixated on motivation. Quite frankly, I'm going to sound the bell here. I'm sure others have as well, but I'm going to ring it loud and clear. The member for Fremantle sought to suggest that the legal profession is in some way overwhelmingly centre Right. The reality, I expect, is that the legal profession, like the Australian population, is split right down the middle. I practiced the law, as did the member of Fremantle, proving the point. But the reality here—and I'd love anyone over there to take this point with me—is that plaintiff firms in Australia, particularly those specialised in class actions, are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Labor law firms. Great; fantastic! As I said, I have no particular issues with the legal fees paid here, but what I am particularly concerned about is the return on investment being achieved by litigation funders. And I've got to think to myself: who stands to benefit from this legislation being scuttled? The reality is that, disproportionately, litigation funders and, to some degree plaintiff law firms, and both of those cohorts are significant contributors, major donors, to those opposite. That's what we've got here, ladies and gentlemen.</para>
<para>For those out there listening to this debate, understand this: this is about protecting the Labor Party business model. That business model works as follows: 'We protect your ability to raise fees and achieve return on investment both as plaintiff law firms in class actions and as litigation funders. We protect that circumstance for you and, in return, of course, you will bulge our election-time coffers with contributions to the campaign.' There it is. This is a model that has been used ad infinitum by the union movement for a very long time. They often settle workers compensation matters. They step in, provide assistance to plaintiffs in those circumstances, injured workers, but then—and many members of this place and those listening otherwise might not know this—they take a significant cut of that compensation.</para>
<para>I would have thought that those opposite, if they bear true to the traditional Labor values, would step in, do that work, ensure workers are compensated appropriately and take almost no compensation other than the union due that was paid by every single member in support of those individual members who were impacted more disproportionately. But that's not what they do, because it is a business model—just like this is a business model—and they want to protect it. I have to tell you that it is an incredibly lucrative business model. As I said, $215 million worth of damages, with $92 million paid to the litigation funders and $20 million to the lawyers, leaving the plaintiffs—the plaintiffs; those that were wronged—with a mere 48 per cent of the judgement.</para>
<para>Well, quite frankly, the gig is up. We on this side have identified this as a real issue. We are not suggesting—like those opposite are—that this will be the end of class actions in Australia and that they will fall by the wayside. Of course, they won't! We are simply saying: give the plaintiffs a fair go. Don't take advantage of the fact that they don't have the resources, the means and the wherewithal to pursue their claim and, in circumstances where they are at that disadvantage, don't effectively hoodwink them into an arrangement which will see much of their compensation shoehorned to the litigation funders and effectively thereafter diverted in donations to the ALP. Don't do that. Create a circumstance where people are appropriately compensated and lawyers and those that provide capital to fund litigations are appropriately compensated. Who in their right mind would think that a contribution of $20 million paid over time to the plaintiff's lawyers should result in a dividend to litigation funders of $92 million? That's a 400-plus per cent return on investment. That's not fair for the plaintiffs who were injured, suffered loss and were compensated. It's not right, and those opposite know it. I expect better from them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I began my career as a lawyer a long time ago. I've since transitioned to becoming an economist. That's a transition, some people might say, that has both an unpleasant beginning and an unpleasant end, but that's an issue I can deal with at another time. Reflecting upon this bill, the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021, took me back to the early days in my career at the Attorney-General's Department, and it took me back to a maxim: justice delayed is justice denied. It's very much at the core of our legal system and goes to the issue of whether or not the legal system is denying the provision of justice in such a way that it is meaningful to a person who is seeking redress. It struck me that delay is indeed a denial of justice, but an even more fundamental denial of justice is to not even have access to legal representation and to the court system in the first place, and that is what we're dealing with today. What we're dealing with today, in my opinion, is, for many people and many classes of dispute, the most fundamental issue of access to justice. If we fundamentally weaken class actions in the way that I will argue this bill does, we will be denying many people justice in a most profound and egregious way.</para>
<para>Those opposite have stated that this bill is about scalpels and tweaking and improving at the margin—that it's about the way in which we distribute claim proceeds. What I'm going to argue is that it is nothing of the sort; that it goes to the heart of the way in which class actions operate in this country, and in a bad way; that it cuts them off at the knees; and that it will make it so much harder for people to participate in class actions in practice. That's the first argument.</para>
<para>The second is that this is manifested not just in the merits of the issue, which I will run through, but also in the way in which this is being brought here. It has been a completely atrocious process. This government is clearly trying to sneak this bill through after an abridged process in which a biased committee didn't listen to the preponderance of independent expert evidence. So we have an atrocious process leading to a flawed bill that isn't about what it is supposed to be about but is really about cutting off class actions at the knees.</para>
<para>That leads to the third argument, which is that this is a bill that is full of unintended consequences, and I will deal with just a few of them as I only have 15 minutes. It's a bill which is appallingly designed and which will have terrible unintended consequences.</para>
<para>Fourthly, not only is it a very flawed intent and an abridged, appalling process leading to unintended consequences but we have a bill that is possibly unconstitutional, which the second reading speech and the majority committee report on the bill don't really address in any substantive way. What we have here today is a bill driven by ideology, not by rigour or evidence. That is, as I said earlier, reflected in the fact that the preponderance of evidence was simply ignored by the majority members of the committee.</para>
<para>Let me go to the first issue which I want to address in this contribution, which is that this is not a tweak or a scalpel; this is going to attack class actions at their very heart. This bill is going to change the requirements such that class members will not now opt out but rather will agree in writing to be members of a litigation-funding scheme and be bound by the scheme's constitution. The current model and its advantages have been well summarised by the Law Council of Australia:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act … which contains the federal class action regime operates on the … basis of an opt-out structure. Under this system a class action can be commenced without the express consent of group members … The opt-out structure was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission … because it promotes access to justice and efficiency. Group members who cannot be identified at the outset or who are unable to elect affirmatively to participate due to social or economic barriers are not excluded from the legal system and a potential remedy.</para></quote>
<para>There has been a great deal of research in recent years, in psychology, economics and many social sciences, which points to the fact that opt-out schemes work in a materially significant way to improve participation rates. We know that if you move from an opt-out arrangement to an opt-in arrangement, particularly where there is great complexity, we know who the people are that will drop out and won't participate—it's going to be people who are vulnerable. This is in fact a problem that the Australian Law Reform Commission explicitly identified when it said that the opt-out arrangements are particularly important for large classes of potential claimants in rural, regional and remote communities.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>40</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations History</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PLIBERSEK () (): I want to draw the House's attention to a petition I received this morning which supports the teaching of First Nations history in Australian schools. It was started by Isaiah Firebrace, a brilliant musician and young Indigenous leader, and has been signed so far by more than 290,000 people. Australians should be proud of our unique history. This continent is home to the world's oldest continuous culture, with 60,000 years of wisdom, knowledge, language and art. It's a privilege to walk in these ancient footsteps, and nothing encourages learning like passion. Isaiah's passion is infectious. He has more than 290,000 signatures to prove that. If we're being honest, we haven't always properly valued our First Nations history as much as we should have. But we are a strong country, a confident country, and when we study our history, all of our history, we become even stronger. So I thank Isaiah for his hard work and for his advocacy. I think it is truly wonderful that we have young people like Isaiah who are enthusiastic about our history and are hungry to learn more.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the petition approved by the Petitions Committee?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's not.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you seeking leave to have the petition forwarded to the Petitions Committee?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a non-conforming petition, so I wanted to speak about it today rather than submit it.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>O'Connor Electorate: Film Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My beautiful electorate of O'Connor has been recognised as the ideal setting for iconic Australian movies. <inline font-style="italic">Jasper Jones</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Breath</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Rams</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">H is for Happiness</inline> have all showcased our amazing southern scenery, quaint country towns and welcoming regional communities. Now it's the Goldfields' turn, with its rugged landscapes and historic towns featuring in a new season of the award-winning crime drama <inline font-style="italic">Mystery Road</inline>. I recently visited the set of this ABC-Screenwest collaboration and was hosted on an informative tour by producers Greer Simpkin and David Jowsey of Bunya Productions. They introduced me to director Dylan River, son of the esteemed Warwick Thornton, and director of photography Tyson Perkins, who both represent the next generation of First Nations filmmakers. Their crew were transforming the front bar of the Federal Hotel, Kalgoorlie, into a crime scene, while the stars and a large contingent of local extras were enjoying a hearty brekky ahead of a long day of shooting.</para>
<para>Although nearby Coolgardie has been the main location for this incarnation of <inline font-style="italic">M</inline><inline font-style="italic">ystery Road</inline>, I'm told there has been a total regional spend of over $3 million with over 300 people employed as extras and crewmembers. This will have a significant economic and reputational benefit for O'Connor. Kirsty Bradley of the ABC summed it all up, saying: 'Your constituents have been so welcoming of the entire production, and the spectacular locations highlight the natural beauty of your electorate of O'Connor. We will be back.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Afghanistan</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Taliban secured their hold on Kabul, Australians watched in horror, worried about their families, friends and those who helped our country over 20 years. In a moment that required national leadership and generosity, the Prime Minister stood up and promised Australia would bring 3,000 Afghans to safety in our humanitarian program. This was widely seen by the community, the defence forces who serve, Christian churches and Afghan Australians as an insult. But today, three months on, Afghan Australians are increasingly distraught because the government has failed to act with any urgency. We're shocked to learn that, even out of this miserly promise of 3,000 visas, the Liberal government has processed zero. None. Nada.</para>
<para>Last week I met with a large group of interpreters, people who risked their lives for our country working with Australia and our defence forces. They're worried sick about their families. They feel lied to by the Prime Minister. He promised them when he met with them—he was all over them when it mattered—that their families would get priority and be brought to safety. It turns out the government has told lots of people they'll be the priority: those who helped us, families of Australians, women, persecuted minorities. The Prime Minister just says what he thinks people want to hear, but the truth eventually catches up with him. There's more confusion now than when Kabul fell. Prime Minister, when will people whose lives are at risk get a decision on their visas? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I had the pleasure of participating in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. I played the role of an ambassador in a fictitious country, and the good men and women of 1st MP had the task of protecting me from rebel forces. As you can see by my mere presence here today, they were successful! It is important for their training that civilians play these roles rather than their own personnel, who have training, so they can see how untrained people react in these situations, and it therefore enhances their training. I was happy to put my hand up, and I encourage other members to do the same. It was great to mix with these Defence Force members and hear their stories of service and some of the frustrations they have experienced in being able to do their job in an effective manner.</para>
<para>I was assigned a personal bodyguard. This person changed on a roster basis a couple of times per day. I also got to live, eat and sleep in the same quarters as the soldiers. Before participating in this program I had great respect for our ADF members, and this experience has only caused my respect to increase. I want to thank Lieutenant Colonel Ben Respondek, the CO of 1st MP; and RSM Greg Lockett for their leadership and hospitality and taking it easy on me in the PT sessions. A special mention to my bodyguards, Bonny, Louie, Vanessa and Tully, who will forevermore be known as 'Eddie'!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Syed, Miss Daniya Atif, Western Suburbs Rugby League Referees Association</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to congratulate Daniya Atif Syed, a 17-year-old Bardia student who was named the 2021 Western Sydney Young Woman of the Year at the 2021 Western Sydney Women Awards. Daniya attends Unity Grammar, which is an excellent and innovative school in my electorate. I've had the privilege of visiting Unity Grammar many times and speaking to students, including Miss Syed. Daniya is an inspiration to our community. Her proud parents told me that she is passionate about new and emerging technologies and is developing several solutions to help people with disability or who are older. The award acknowledged her charity and volunteer work as well. Daniya has received a number of other awards this year. Many congratulations.</para>
<para>I'd also like to take this opportunity to recognise the Western Suburbs Rugby League Referees Association for achieving 100 years of officiating in our community. A dinner was held last week to recognise former members for their achievements in refereeing tests and ground finals. As a former member of the association, I want to thank all of the volunteers who mentor and officiate at games throughout every season. But I would especially like to recognise the chairman, and active referee, Colin White. He has been in an executive position in the association for many years, and this year attained 50 years as a member of the association. That's a magnificent achievement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore Electorate: Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform parliament that $5.1 million in federal funding has been delivered to the City of Joondalup under phase 2 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This funding contribution from the federal government provides a major financial subsidy to our local government authority, enabling it to carry out a range of local projects, including the refurbishment of community centres, the construction of pathways to improve safety and access for cyclists and pedestrians, and to build new community facilities, resurface roads in poor repair and provide more local car parks.</para>
<para>In particular, I would like to highlight that $795,000 has been spent on constructing a dual-use pathway along busy Marmion Avenue, between Prendiville Avenue right up to Burns Beach Road, linking three suburbs. A further $1.2 million has been spent on the dual-use path from the Westview car park to Ocean Reef Marina. The funding has also enabled the refurbishment of community facilities at several local sporting reserves, including Seacrest Park, Admiral Park, Forrest Park, Gibson Park, Flinders Park, Timberlane Park, Bramston Park, the Connolly Community Centre, and the Warrandyte Club Room. Our community is benefiting from record levels of federal funding.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parkinson, Mr Thomas Conlon</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I honour the life of Thomas Conlon Parkinson, a constituent of mine in the electorate of Wills. Tom Parkinson passed away on 23 August this year. In 1951, at just 18 years old, Tom signed up to serve in the Korean War. Tom was sent to Korea as part of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment with the Australian Army, serving as a private and machine gunner between 1952 and 1953. His battalion endured harsh conditions, living in cold, wet trenches, and he was forced to sleep during the day due to constant shelling. On one occasion, the shelling of a road Tom was working on caused a truck to roll, trapping him underneath. Initially they feared there was paralysis, but fortunately Tom recovered and rejoined his unit.</para>
<para>Of course, like for so many veterans, the physical injuries of war were just one part of the story. Tom was very open about the toll of war on him and his fellow veterans. This drove him to work as president of the Korea Veterans Association of Australia, which he set up, from 2017. Tom was instrumental in the construction of the Korean War Memorial in Footscray and proudly represented Australia at a number of services held in South Korea. He served as the president of the Pascoe Vale RSL in my electorate for more than a decade, until his passing, having previously served as vice president. I was fortunate enough to know Tom and recognise his service at the recent Remembrance Day service at the Pascoe Vale RSL. Vale Tom Parkinson.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Schools</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we approach December, 'tis the season for school graduation ceremonies. Thirteen long years of school are coming to an end, and it's time for celebration and recognition of achievements, particularly after these last two unprecedented years. Like most people in this chamber, I would normally attend many of these ceremonies. I would get to present awards and sometimes say a few words to the leaving students, passing on my congratulations for hanging on in school longer than I did.</para>
<para>But, of course, this year is not a normal year, which is something we definitely don't need to remind the graduating class of 2021 of. I cannot begin to comprehend the challenges they have must faced learning without classrooms, studying without friends and finishing without celebrations. It is to their great credit that these students have persevered throughout this year, and in many cases excelled, so I would like to congratulate all the students of Bennelong, especially in my absence. Well done for surviving another strange year without your friends, teachers and routines. Thank you to all the teachers who have had to adapt in tough circumstances and continued to stay upbeat and positive. Most importantly, congratulations to all those leaving school this year. Well done on keeping your heads through the last two bizarre and unpredictable years, and good luck for whatever next year and beyond has for you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indi Electorate: Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Indi, like many parts of regional Australia, is facing an acute housing affordability crisis. It's holding back our economic recovery and taking a huge mental health toll on thousands of people. In Bright, house prices have gone up 117 per cent since 2014. The average house price has gone from $330,000 to $715,000. Bright has seen 24 per cent growth since 2019 alone. A few days ago I read in the <inline font-style="italic">Border Mail</inline> that a house in Albury-Wodonga, which last sold in 2016 for $335,000, was just sold for $1.36 million. It went up a million dollars in five years. This is rural Australia. Yesterday the ABC reported that Mansfield has had triple its expected population growth over the last two years. The new mayor, James Tehan, has committed to tackling housing as a top priority, and I congratulate him on that, but our local councils can't solve the problem alone. When I took these issues to the Minister for Housing a few months ago he had no solutions for me. The government's main response is to just give the councils a whack about releasing more land. It's a classic 'not our problem' response. We have a housing minister with no housing policy. If the regions are really to grasp the post-COVID economic opportunities, we need real action from the federal government on housing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Giudice, Hon. Geoffrey Michael, AO</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to note the recent death of the Hon. Geoffrey Giudice AO, the former president of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the former president of Fair Work Australia and a judge of the Federal Court. Geoff was president of the commission during my term as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.</para>
<para>Born in Bendigo, Geoff attended Xavier College in Melbourne before studying law at the University of Melbourne, where he was a resident of Newman College. He subsequently worked for the Hospital Employees Federation and for the Myer Emporium, as their national workplace relations manager, before undertaking articles at Moule, Hamilton and Derham, where he became a partner.</para>
<para>Geoff signed the bar roll in 1984 and practised in employment and industrial relations, often representing the oil and mining industries. Geoff also represented airlines during the 1989 Australian pilots dispute. He represented both federal and state governments and appeared in national wage cases on a regular basis. He was appointed president of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and a judge of the Federal Court in 1997. During his tenure he was involved in the very substantial award modernisation scheme that went on during those years.</para>
<para>After retiring he served as a professional fellow at the University of Melbourne and on other bodies, including as chair of the AFL Tribunal and the AFL Appeals Board. I extend my condolences to his wife, Beth, and his family.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aunty, our ABC, SBS, the public broadcasters—the names don't matter but Australians know these are the brands they can trust. During the Black Summer bushfires, the COVID pandemic, floods, droughts, wars and cyclones, Australians have known they can turn to their public broadcasters for accurate and up-to-date information. For almost a century this information has saved lives and averted tragedy, but it hasn't stopped this government from waging war on these trusted institutions, with eight long years of ideologically motivated cuts and attacks.</para>
<para>Last year the ABC was forced to axe hundreds of jobs after a funding cut of almost $84 million. In the government's most recent attack, Liberal senator Andrew Bragg tried to launch a review into ABC and SBS complaints handling. ABC chair Ita Buttrose, a trusted veteran of Australian media, described the review as 'an act of political interference designed to intimidate'. In response, the Prime Minister said that no-one is above scrutiny—no-one except members of his own government.</para>
<para>Political interference in and intimidation of our public broadcasters cannot and must not be tolerated. That is why Labor is defending the ABC. Yesterday the Senate backed a Labor motion to suspend the wasteful inquiry. Labor has pledged to restore funding to the ABC and SBS. The reality is that Australians can trust the ABC and SBS but cannot trust Scott Morrison and this government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The totalitarian regimes responsible for the most heinous atrocities in the 20th century—think Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot—didn't get there overnight. They used fear to control. They excluded the dirty people, softly at first. They justified the exclusion. They moved to harder exclusions and eventually eliminated people either socially or physically. In 21st century Australia state premiers are racing down that familiar path, trying to out-tyrant each other, drunk on power, setting up their own biosecurity police states complete with medical apartheid. Sadly, we have enabled it, refusing to rein them in and, worse, supplying the Australian Immunisation Register data that underpins this medical apartheid.</para>
<para>Fear is a justification of choice for coercion and control, with non-vaccinated Australians increasingly demonised, ostracised and socially eradicated. In Queensland the Premier tweeted that people not vaccinated raise red flags—not just one, but 22 of them. In the media politicians and health bureaucrats all claim COVID-19 is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but there is no justification for such demonisation. In a German study 55 per cent of symptomatic patients over 60 were fully vaccinated. Gibraltar, where all 34,000 residents are fully vaccinated, is recording 60 new cases a day. The totalitarian path we are unquestionably on has never ended well. The solution is a rediscovery of human dignity, along with—and I don't say this lightly—civil disobedience. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Disability Club</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand here today to shine a light on an incredible initiative created by an IT entrepreneur from Brogo in the Bega Valley. I met yesterday with Nathan Johnston, who is behind a fantastic new social media platform aimed specifically at people with disability. Nathan told me yesterday that, when he tried to connect with people during the peak of last year's COVID lockdown, he realised how challenging it was for people living with a disability to use social media networks like Twitter and Facebook. Nathan has cerebral palsy, and his feeling of isolation throughout the pandemic led him to develop a new and accessible social media site called Disability Club. Nathan used his web development skills to build the platform from the ground up, and he is now preparing to launch the network next week, on 3 December, International Day of People with Disabilities.</para>
<para>Disability Club is about creating a sense of inclusiveness and accessibility among members. It's a safe environment away from mainstream social media, with a lot more accessible features built in. These include the ability to adapt text, colour, contrast and page structure to suit the user. Along with connecting people with a disability, there will also be functions to connect users to service providers. This network has the potential not only to connect people with disability locally but, hopefully, to one day also connect people globally. I encourage everyone to check out Disability Club and support this initiative. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moncrieff Electorate: Ryan Aerospace</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Friday I had the pleasure of visiting one of many growing manufacturing businesses in my electorate. Ryan Aerospace has been in business for 15 years and is situated in Nerang. Chris Ryan and I announced his contractual win with the US Air Force in a competitive field to supply more than 300 helicopter and fighter jet flight simulators. Ryan Aerospace has already delivered 180 and continues its production line, using local talent and suppliers to deliver world-class production. Chris is currently on a plane to the US in the hope of securing another contract, which would mean more jobs for locals in Moncrieff. Chris is able to travel to the US because of the Morrison government's national plan to safely reopen Australia and keep Australia safely open, and I thank the Minister for Defence, Peter Dutton, for taking the time to congratulate Chris for the role he plays in our international alliances.</para>
<para>Aerospace and defence industry is a growing and emerging sector on the Gold Coast and part of the $7.2 billion manufacturing sector that employs over 22,000 locals. There are manufacturers of glass, steel plates, body armour, space rockets and now flight simulators. The federal government supported Ryan Aerospace with $260,000 to invest in 3D-printing technology, which is a key element of manufacturing these state-of-the-art simulators. I will just tell the House that at this stage I wouldn't make a very good US fighter pilot, because I had a go and crashed three times!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coalition Government</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Prime Minister's earliest slogan once he attained office, to my memory, was, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go.' Well, here's a message, Prime Minister, from my part of the world: you had a go, you got a go and now it's time to go.</para>
<para>What has this tired government delivered in eight long years? These are the questions being asked in communities across Australia. Well, they've delivered, in a word, division, and, in another, destruction. The digital divide is baked in under this government. The budget copper delivers less and costs more than optic fibre. The educational divide is deeper. Childcare and early education costs have gone up, and the concept of quality is never talked about by this government. In schools, they've again baked in inequality, and it's having a negative impact on outcomes.</para>
<para>Now this Prime Minister wants the government to step back so Australians can step forward in some kind of new Hokey Pokey dance. My electorate and the people that I represent here are tired of the word salads. They're tired of the number salads. They're tired of this Prime Minister and his slogans.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A young man about to complete his four-year apprenticeship was unable to sit his final exam unless double vaccinated—no exceptions. The mum of a daughter who'd had a horrific reaction to a vaccine was told by the neurologist, 'Your daughter must never have another vaccination.' The severe allergic reaction had caused the girl's body to convulse so badly that it broke her bones. Recently, that same neurologist refused to provide a COVID vaccination exemption for the daughter. The mother simply wants to save her child.</para>
<para>This is but one of the many conversations I've had, and they all end pleading with me to help. What happened to, 'First do no harm'? Welcome to Australia. If you want to talk about the rights of the majority over the individual for the greater good, go right ahead. I'll continue to represent my people. Some time ago, I had an intractable situation. I'd exhausted every avenue on behalf of my constituents. So I grabbed the file, bundled it up and wrote across the front, 'To the Minister: when all else fails, there is always hope,' and I sent it by hand to the minister. In that instance, right and justice took precedence over populism, policy, prejudice, politics and fear. Vaccine mandates without reasonable exemptions are not only unconscionable; they are criminal.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Shortland Electorate: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Hunter and Central Coast are facing a health crisis right now because of the actions of the federal government. The reclassification of our area as not having a doctor shortage has meant that some of my GP centres have lost half their doctors, which means many of my constituents can't find a surgery to make an appointment. Those that can get into a surgery are now waiting much longer to see their GP, and once they see their GP they are paying a much higher fee for that privilege because this government has cut the GP bulk-billing incentive to my region. This is a wholehearted attack on universal health care. This is a fearsome attack on Medicare, which is the bedrock of Australian society. To make it worse the Liberals have now cut funding to the brilliant GP Access After Hours service, which has provided great assistance to almost every family in the Hunter. They've cut funding, and there's a review on the minister's desk to cut three-quarters of its remaining funding. If that recommendation is accepted by Minister Hunt the service is dead, gone and buried. That means, instead of spending $4½ million so that families like mine and everyone else in Shortland can see a doctor rather than going to the emergency department, they will clog up the already busy ED wards of our hospitals. This must be stopped. The Liberal government must stop its attack on the health care of people in the Hunter, the Central Coast and Australia more broadly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to raise my concerns in relation to the growing crisis in access to affordable housing in my community both at Gippsland and in the Latrobe Valley. I recognise that this is not necessarily a new issue, but it has certainly become more acute in recent months, particularly in Gippsland due to the hundreds of houses we lost during the bushfires. We've seen increased property prices, which has been good for current owners. We've seen private owners cashing in on those increased prices and putting a squeeze on rental stock. We've had building material shortages related to COVID. All of these factors have contributed to what has become a very acute problem, and I think we will have some longer term issues in our communities. It's a perfect storm but we don't want to be sitting here in this place looking to blame other levels of government. I think we need to work together to try to find some answers.</para>
<para>It is becoming harder and harder in our regional communities to attract and retain workers because they can't find family homes or even units for single people to live in. For those of us who believe in regionalisation, as we do on this side of the House, we need to keep working with our state colleagues and our local government colleagues on positive and practical measures to increase the housing stock in our regional communities. I'm calling on all levels of government to work together with the industry to find community based and community led solutions to these challenges—whether it be capitalising on the low interest rates at the moment to establish housing cooperatives to find more affordable housing in those regional communities, or whatever measures are required. We need to release more land. We need to build more homes. We need to increase the supply of affordable housing. This critical concern in regional communities needs to be addressed. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are struggling under the increased cost of living, and this Liberal-National government is in denial. Petrol prices have gone up by 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. Childcare fees have gone up by 39 per cent under this Liberal government, and out-of-pocket costs are soaring. Fees are out of control, and this government has no real plan to fix it. Not only do Australian families bear some of the highest costs for child care in the OECD; they have one of the most confusing systems in the world. And families are suffering as a result. The latest data from Services Australia show that the government has hit more than 179,000 Australian families with childcare subsidy debt notices for more than $191 million. The Morrison government is not concerned that families need a PhD in maths and hours of spare time to work out the childcare system. This government is not bothered that families have been hit by COVID lockdowns. This government is not bothered about the soaring cost of living. It has become harder and harder for working families to make ends meet under this decade-old government, and we need a Labor government to make things easier.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senator Rennick</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Senator Rennick says he has extracted a change in government policy from the Prime Minister in exchange for his vote on Senate procedural motions. Why has the Prime Minister allowed himself to become hostage to a senator who boasts he is unvaccinated and proudly spreads vaccine disinformation? What other changes to government policy is the Prime Minister willing to negotiate with Senator Rennick?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has been considering for some weeks now improvements to the compensation scheme in relation to people who have had adverse reactions to the vaccine. We have decided to ensure that that threshold is $1,000. I don't know why those opposite would think that was a bad idea. We have been running a national vaccine program that now has one of the highest rates of vaccination in the world. But we also know that, in any national vaccine program, there are adverse reactions to vaccines, and we put in place an indemnity scheme to provide confidence to the Australian people so they could go forward and could get these vaccines. That is one of the many reasons that, under the national vaccine program, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.</para>
<para>If those opposite don't think that we should have an indemnity scheme for those people who have had adverse reactions to the vaccine—if they think that that is some sort of pandering to an antivax movement—I disagree with them. We put this in place to ensure that there was a proper indemnity scheme to give confidence in the national vaccine program. So what are those opposite doing? When we put it in place and make sure that it is fair and more equitable, with the same tight restrictions around proof of injury and harm, what do they do? They want to play politics with it, like they have all the way through the pandemic. I'm so pleased that we didn't have to rely on the opposition during the pandemic, because we wouldn't have got the results.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: National Security</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SIMMONDS</name>
    <name.id>282983</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia is recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and confidence is building, but significant challenges lie ahead of us. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is demonstrating strong and decisive leadership to keep Australians safe by addressing the many threats to our national security so we can look to better days ahead?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Ryan for his question and for his strong leadership in his community, and I'm pleased to see him here back in the House. During our response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians have proved their strength. They have proved their strength, and, indeed, our response has had faith in that strength and the resilience of Australians. That has resulted in Australia having one of the lowest fatality rates of COVID-19 of almost any country in the world, saving more than 30,000 lives, at least, in Australia because of our response to COVID. In addition, we've have had one of the strongest economies of advanced nations around the world, pushing through COVID with great strength from the Australian people, particularly small business owners. And we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.</para>
<para>Australians have shown their strength during the great threat of this pandemic. But that is not the only threat that Australians have had to continue to face not just during the course of this pandemic but also over many years, and will continue to face in the future. That's why our government has continued to take strong and effective action to counter the threats that Australia faces—importantly, $1.2 billion in the most recent budget to protect women and children from violence, including the minister's announcement today of a family, domestic and sexual violence commissioner, supported by funding; and $300 million to implement our National Suicide Prevention Plan as part of a $2.3 billion program to support mental health in this country. And I pay particular credit not only to the ministers but also to Christine Morgan, who has done an outstanding job on that program.</para>
<para>We've been taking on the social media giants, which I know the member for Ryan has a passionate interest in, as does the Deputy Prime Minister, to ensure that that social media space can be a safe space for children and so they can be protected in that space and it cannot be used as a weapon for terrorists. We took that all the way to the G20.</para>
<para>We're combating terrorism and violent extremism and increasing the powers and resources to our agencies to achieve that. Today we have fully listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, but not only that; we have listed them as a violent right-wing extremist organisation. We have no truck with that sort of business, I can assure you, and no-one in this House should. We're smashing organised crime through programs like Operation Ironside and record investment in defence and AUKUS, working with our partners. Australia cannot afford weakness on national security to keep Australians safe. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senator Rennick</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister show leadership and rein in Senator Rennick, who is undermining the vaccination effort, spreading conspiracy theories and holding Australia back from being able to be opened up by undermining that very vaccination process? When will he stop pandering to Senator Rennick, offering him concessions and instead show leadership?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I think about the next election—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've only been going for three seconds! They're very touchy today. There he is, getting all upset and tetchy. Calm down! One of the people who I have relied on heavily is the member for Higgins. I have relied on the member for Higgins for her counsel and support. Her experience has guided the minister for health and me. I know who is opposing her at the next election. It's someone from the Labor Party who spoke against the AstraZeneca vaccine.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left and my right! I will issue warnings before I toss someone under 94(a) for today anyway. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on direct relevance. The Prime Minister is not even trying to be directly relevant to this question. It's the same game the Deputy Prime Minister played yesterday.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the Prime Minister is being relevant. The Prime Minister is directly relevant in addressing the issue of vaccinations.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This government has absolutely no truck at all with those who would speak against the importance of getting vaccines in this country. That is not my government's policy. That is not our government's policy. I would urge all Australians to continue to go and get that vaccine. I have such faith in Australians to do that that I don't think they have to be paid off like the Leader of the Opposition thought they had to be. I had great faith that they knew what they had to do to protect themselves, their families and their communities. The Labor Party had so little faith in the people of Australia that the Leader of the Opposition thought they had to pay them off to do the right thing by public health in this country. I let that reflect on the views that the Leader of the Opposition has about the strength and character of the Australian people. I have a better opinion of the people of Australia and what they are doing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will. I encourage all Australians to go and get the vaccination. It is this government that secured those vaccines, got them into arms and supported the national vaccination program, which has seen us rise to one of the highest levels of vaccination in the world. That is something I think Australians can all be proud of. I had my booster shot the other day with Jane Malysiak, and I was pleased to be with her again. And I was pleased to hear from Jane that, when she went to get her first injection, which I went with her to, and her second, that was also, in particular, encouraging older Australians, including in the very aged-care facility she lives in, to go and get vaccinated. And now I think we are sitting at over 99 per cent of first dose vaccinations, and even close to that on second dose vaccinations, for Australians aged over 70. I put my arm where the vaccines need to go, and our government's put its shoulder to the wheel when it comes to the vaccination program. That's why we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.</para>
<para>I'm disappointed that there were those around the country who talked down the AstraZeneca vaccine. I'm disappointed they did, but those were all on the Labor side— <inline font-style="italic">(Time</inline><inline font-style="italic"> expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">.)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is delivering significant national and regional infrastructure which supports regional communities and economies, particularly in my home state of Western Australia? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question and note his absolute diligence to the great state of Western Australia. I note his work in certain areas, especially in his attention to the agricultural industry and his personal involvement in the great exports of that state, particularly in the grain industry, and also his continued support of live sheep exports, where I think it's so vitally important that we earn export dollars. So it's an area where he manages to stand up for his state when so many others are trying to let it down, especially regarding live sheep exports.</para>
<para>The honourable member asked questions with regard to the infrastructure spend by this side of the House, by this government, in Western Australia. Since 2013 we've committed over $17.3 billion towards infrastructure projects in Western Australia. These have been far and wide, from urban Perth right out to the Tanami Road going up to Halls Creek—an incredibly important investment project for the Indigenous people from that part of the world to allow them to get, especially, from Alice Springs up towards Halls Creek along the Tanami Desert. It's also projects such as the Outback Way, which is also so vitally important in opening up the gold precincts around Laverton. Even in the seat of O'Connor, such projects as the Western Australia agricultural supply chain improvements are vitally important. The freight vehicle productivity improvements are vitally important. The Albany Highway from Kelmscott to Williams, the pavement rehabilitation, the Albany Ring Road, the Great Eastern Highway—these are all parts of the projects that are so vitally important in making sure that we stand with Western Australians in allowing them to earn the export dollars which are so vitally important for our nation.</para>
<para>Regional Australia is doing its part. And it was very, very, very sad yesterday, when the first question the member for Ballarat wanted to ask on regional infrastructure was this slurring, snide approach, that regional Australia will be represented on Infrastructure Australia and ever have a chair from regional Australia. She asked the question yesterday: 'Is it true?' Of course she knew it was true, because Mr Murray had contacted Mr Albanese. But, of course, very sneakily they pretended that that call hadn't been made. Very sneakily they disclosed, most likely, a private call into a public forum. And of course she knew the answers. It's very sneaky when you know the answer to a question and ask if it's true. But we know that, unless you're in sight of Ultimo, for the Labor Party you ultimately don't matter. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister falsely claim a News Corp journalist had a harassment claim filed against them when it wasn't true? Why does the Prime Minister always accuse first and make excuses later?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the first point is that the second half of that question is clearly out of order. It's a reflection on the Prime Minister. It's not a factual statement. It's not anything other than a slur, and it should be ruled out of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order: it's an unusual one. Questions of this form have been asked for some time. And, effectively, what is being put by the Leader of the House is that it's not open to us to test the credibility of the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to allow the question. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for the question. I addressed those issues some time ago, including with those who were directly impacted by those remarks. I was relying on some reports which proved not to be correct, and I took the appropriate action by contacting those who were directly affected and remedying that matter directly with them. That's what one should do in those circumstances, and that's exactly what I did.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Integrity Commission</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, congratulations to you. My question is to the Prime Minister. With only five sitting days left this year, there is no government bill for an integrity commission in sight. If you truly want to pass a bill, you write one. You table it. You bring it on for debate. That's what I've done, but you've shut down debate on my bill in the House, you've shut down debate in the Senate and you've muzzled the Attorney-General, who is missing in action on this. Come clean with the Australian people. Prime Minister, do you honestly expect Australians to believe you truly want a robust integrity commission?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to add to my answer. The exposure draft legislation on these matters will again be made available very soon, and the government's priority, as we've been coming out of COVID, has been to return to a number of high-priority areas.</para>
<para>Hon ourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one moment. It's really not helpful to anybody when the level of interjections is so high that I can't hear the Prime Minister, and I would ask the Prime Minister if he could speak up a little bit; that would be great. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has been returning to some priority legislation after having spent the last two years focused on the pandemic response and the economic recovery. And the first of those priorities has been to ensure that we finalise the Religious Discrimination Bill, which I look forward to introducing into this House tomorrow. At the same time, the Attorney-General has been working steadily away and been working with cabinet on our draft legislation for an integrity commission, and that also soon will be available for people to give their responses to, and we will see whether that has support.</para>
<para>The bills and other proposals that have been put forward are not proposals that are supported by the government. What we have been doing already is taking action to invest in organisations like ACLEI and extending their coverage. It's the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—one of the members opposite didn't seem to be aware of what that was. We have invested in that organisation to ensure that it's reaching more and more of the government agencies. It's an important integrity office of the Commonwealth. It's very different to what happens at state levels. To make an assumption that the enforcement regimes and the authorities that exist already at a Commonwealth level are the same as those at a state level—they are different. That's why you often see different things done at a Commonwealth and a state level. I would ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General to add further.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():</para>
<para>I do thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to add to his comments in response to the member's question about the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We have been through a nationwide consultation process. Some 330 written submissions were received and some 46 consultation meetings and roundtables were conducted. And, very importantly, we've committed substantial funding. In fact, almost $150 million of funding has been committed to this body. At full capacity the Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have around 172 staff, as the Prime Minister has made clear. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity will be subsumed, it's envisaged, within the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Of course, we've also set out an explanation of the powers that this will have and we continue to work on this very important body.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's proven record of cutting taxes and providing investment incentives helping to safeguard our economy's rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and acknowledge she is a champion for Western Sydney and for manufacturing in her area. There are more than 14,000 businesses in her electorate that are benefitting and able to be eligible for the expanded instant asset write-off, like Da-Mell air conditioning, which used that tax incentive to purchase a new ute and new tools.</para>
<para>Last year we were facing economic Armageddon. There was some forecast that unemployment could reach as high as 15 per cent. Today unemployment is actually lower than when we came to government. We have seen small-business tax rates come down to their lowest level in 50 years. In the last three months, we saw tax relief of more than $10 billion to 11 million Australians. That is the product, that is the dividend of having a strong economy.</para>
<para>I'm asked: are there any alternative policies? We've talked about some of the big ideas from the Leader of the Opposition in this place before.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will resume his seat. On a point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the standing orders that require ministers to be answering about their portfolios, are we in a situation now where they only have to give one minute on their portfolio, and two-thirds of the answer is then a sledge against the other side?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is your point of order in relation to relevance?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. Previous rulings have been made by previous Speakers about preambles and about what can be at the beginning of the question and how much has to be about the substance of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer is in order. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition has some big ideas. I'll tell you what one big idea was: a national driver's licence. That was going to revolutionise transport and travel across Australia. You could go from Melbourne to Sydney with the same licence. For phase 2 of the program maybe you could get to Brisbane as well! The Leader of the Opposition has described himself as an economist-by-training. So what was his second big idea? A $6 billion cash splash to people who've already had the jab. Now the shadow finance minister said the time has passed for that, but the policy is still on Labor's website. The self-described economist-by-training had to go back to the textbooks. He had to come up with his third big idea and he went—oh no. Stop the clock!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance: the question did not go to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order that was raised by the Manager of Opposition Business—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It wasn't relevance.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was about preamble.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question, as I heard it, didn't go to my economics degree or his degree or anyone else's—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, but it did go to alternative policies.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's not talking about policies. He's not talking about my policies.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are going to alternative policies. We're looking for that third big idea.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just asking what your ruling was on the last point of order. A ruling wasn't made—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer is—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please, can I make the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was just asking if I can complete the point of order.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer is being relevant. The—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>By talking about policies that don't exist?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The third big idea, the third alternative policy—we found it. The Leader of the Opposition did a doorstop where he was talking about his electric vehicle policy, and he said, 'Labor will make electric vehicles cheaper by removing the excise.' There's only one technical problem with that. There's no fuel excise on electric vehicles! That's the point. They don't use fuel; they go by electricity. So concerned is the Leader of the Opposition about his credentials on taxes, he wants to abolish a tax that doesn't even exist. We have a Leader of the Opposition who's not trained as an economist. We have a Leader of the Opposition who's on training wheels.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasurer</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Can the current Treasurer name any other Treasurer in the last 100 years that has a worse record than him on waste, rorts, debt, deficits, annual growth and real wages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll tell you what I'm very proud of. After the first recession in nearly 30 years, unemployment today is lower than it was under Labor. The fact that today we have trade apprentices in the highest number on record, the fact today that—oh, no!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on relevance. The question was has there been a bigger disaster of a Treasurer than him, and the answer is no.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Rankin may not like the answer, but it was answered in such a way that you asked for whether there was a worse record on waste, so the Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we've seen first home buyers in the market—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wills is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>in the highest numbers in more than a decade. Today we have seen, as a result of programs like JobKeeper, more than 700,000 jobs saved. Today we have more women in the Australian workforce than under Labor. Today the gender pay gap is narrower than it was under Labor. In the last three months we have seen more than $10 billion in tax relief to more than 11 million Australians. As a result of policies supported by those on this side of the House, an Australian who's on $60,000 a year is $6,480 better off. And, as a result of the business investment incentives—the biggest on record—that we put in recent budgets, we have seen investment in machinery and equipment more than 20 per cent higher. That's the strongest growth in machinery and equipment investment in more than 20 years. Small businesses—we have seen the company tax rate for small businesses come down to 25 per cent, the lowest in 50 years. We have seen small and medium-sized businesses create 600,000 jobs between April last year and September this year—that's 1,300 jobs a day—from policies under this side of the House. Now, I'll tell you of one Treasurer who didn't do as well as that, and that was former member for Lilley Wayne Swan, because the member for Rankin learnt at his footsteps. And the member for Lilley said, after the train wreck of the last election—$387 million—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Cooper is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of higher taxes—that the Labor Party should not resile from those tax hikes. And you know who was the architect of those higher taxes? The member for Rankin. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky—because, when they get another chance on the Treasury benches, they're only going to do one thing; they're going to hit Australians with higher taxes.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Economy</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government is assisting Australian families and businesses with their costs by cutting taxes and strengthening our economy's ability to rebound from the impact of COVID-19? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Herbert for his question, and I acknowledge his distinguished contribution to our country in uniform, his support for mental health initiatives and his support for veterans across his community. The largest barracks in Australia are in Townsville. He understands the importance of cutting taxes and of business investment incentives across his electorate and across the country. Wulguru Group, a mobile crane group in his electorate, has benefited from those investment incentives to purchase 10 additional mobile cranes. It's a steel fabrication business, and it has used those tax investment incentives to grow the business and to continue to employ Australians.</para>
<para>We as a country have responded to the greatest economic shock since the Great Depression with programs like JobKeeper and the cashflow boost, with $750 payments to pensioners, carers, veterans and others on income support, as well as by continuing to provide tax relief—tax relief that has seen more than $10 billion go to more than 11 million Australians in the last three months. Business investment incentives have seen machinery and equipment growth up at its highest level in more than two decades. And, of course, we have cut company tax rates to their lowest level in 50 years. Australia has been able to maintain its AAA credit rating through this crisis. Australia is one of only nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading credit rating agencies.</para>
<para>Our policies are about driving the creation of more jobs and lowering taxes so Australians can keep more of what they earn. But the alternative policies to be put at the next election are the higher taxes proposed by those opposite. How do we know? Because they took $387 billion of higher taxes to the last election. Do you remember the member for Rankin saying he was proud and pleased about the retirees housing tax? Do you remember the member for McMahon saying to the Australian people, 'If you don't like higher taxes, don't vote for us'? Well, they took him literally. Do you remember the member for Sydney saying Labor's tax policies were well designed and that the Australian people would be relaxed about it when they understood the detail? And do you remember the member for Maribyrnong attacking what he called retirees hitting golf balls, effectively, from the backs of their yachts? Then, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On direct relevance: he's not talking about policies. He's just giving random comments and his own character assessment up and down the aisle. This doesn't go to policy. Even on the broadest definition of what was asked, I don't see how it's relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will return to the dispatch box and remain relevant to the question, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I'll tell you one alternative policy that's been worked up by the member for Rankin—a $27 billion higher tax on family businesses. It was revealed on the front page of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> that he had taken that policy to the shadow cabinet. There is one side of the House committed to lower taxes; that's the coalition. Only the Labor Party is committed to higher taxes.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would appreciate it if the Leader of the Opposition came to the dispatch box after I've given him the call or after the time is up. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, 'Electric vehicles won't tow your trailer, won't tow your boat and will end the weekend.' But now he says he didn't ridicule the technology. Does he think Australians don't notice when he says something on television and later pretends it never happened? Why does this Prime Minister keep making things up?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want Australians to have a choice about what sort of car they want to drive. I want them to have a choice about whether they use gas or electricity. I want them to have a choice about whether they work in a heavy industry in a regional area or have that job taken away from them, which is what would happen under the policies of Labor and the Greens. That's what would happen to those jobs.</para>
<para>I want Australians to have those choices. I want Australians to be able to plan for their future with confidence. And I want the big companies that make these electric vehicles to get their prices down without the Australian people having to pump subsidies into them so if they wish to buy them they can do so. But the Labor Party want to send money over to Europe to subsidise big manufacturing companies. This is the problem with the Labor Party. We don't always know what their policies are.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Th</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it's a point of order on relevance. This went to the Prime Minister saying that he didn't ridicule the technology on electric vehicles. It didn't go to some fantasy policy that he's just making up. We want things to be made here. It's your mob that sent the car industry offshore.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Leader of the Opposition, raising a point of order is not an opportunity to raise another argument. The Prime Minister has the call, and I'd ask the Prime Minister to remain relevant to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm speaking about electric vehicles. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition didn't know what one was. He didn't know a hydrogen powered electric vehicle was an electric vehicle, and he was the minister for transport for six years. That was actually his job and he didn't know what it was. Heaven knows what he'd do on national security and the economy! The guy's never put a budget together. He spent six weeks sitting in the national security—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I apologise, Mr Speaker. I'll return to the topic. Our policy when it comes to those vehicles is that we want to ensure that those technology costs come down so they can be affordable to Australians who wish to buy them. We don't want to pay out subsidies to large companies overseas to make them cheaper. If people want to buy them, then we want the car companies to make sure they're more affordable and they bring down the costs on their technology because there is a large market for it. But what we won't do, I can tell you, is put up the price of the cars they're now buying and that they wish to buy to try and force their choice to another choice. The Labor Party love to tell you what to do. They love to make choices for you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business can return to his seat. The Prime Minister wasn't asked about alternative policies.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was not asked about alternative policies, because I couldn't actually speak on alternative policies. I wasn't asked about alternative policies; all I can go on in terms of alternative policies from the opposition is what they did at the last election. That's the only thing we know. There's only one thing worse than Labor telling you what they're going to do; it's when they're so sneaky not to tell you. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton is warned!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, congratulations on your election. I've had cause overnight to reflect on some of the practical jokes I played on you in your first term and wish I hadn't! But, in any event, my question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please advise the House on how the Morrison government is supporting the health security of all Australians by investing in vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 while continuing to invest in other medicines, including those that assist Australians with a diagnosis of prostate cancer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, congratulations. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the member for Barker in supporting the mental health of people in rural Australia during the course of the pandemic. One of our great national health security achievements has been to see that, in 2020, when many expected tragedy on a terrible scale, the rate of suicide in Australia went down. There's more to do, but it's one of our great achievements together as a chamber, as a parliament, as a government and as a nation.</para>
<para>Another great thing is that we now have one of the lowest rates of loss of life to COVID in the world. At the same time, we have one of the highest rates of vaccination and the strongest economic recovery in the world. In particular, we have now, through this vaccination program, passed the vaccination averages for first doses of the EU, the G7, the OECD, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, Germany and now France. All of these things are saving lives and protecting lives at a time when there've been 600,000 cases worldwide in one day and 7,000 lives lost in one day worldwide.</para>
<para>The vaccination rate of 91.8 per cent for first dose and 85.8 per cent for second dose is protecting Australians. But, at the same time, we're also investing in treatments—ronapreve along with sotrovimab—to make sure that we have hospital infusions that are already protecting and treating Australians and bringing down the loss of life, even for those that are in hospital at this point in time. They are critical treatments. We've acquired 300,000 units of Molnupiruvir and 500,000 units of the Pfizer protein inhibitor. All of these things are saving lives and protecting lives now and will in the future as those new treatments are approved and, therefore, made available.</para>
<para>At the same time, we've also been continuing our work in the listing of new medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This program, which has been a staple of Australia's health condition, with one issue in 2011, is fundamental to the protection of Australians. On 1 November, at the start of November, we were able to list a new medicine for prostate cancer, Nubeqa. Nubeqa is going to help 1,000 Australian men save $40,000 a year and, much more importantly than the money saved, give them access to a life-changing, life-improving and, in some cases, life-saving treatment. Vaccines, COVID treatments, treatments for prostate cancer and treatments for numerous conditions—these are the things that are saving lives. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that batteries to store renewable energy are as useful as the Big Banana and the Big Prawn. Then he said that that was a complete misrepresentation. Given the Prime Minister is on tape calling the 'big battery' in South Australia as useful as a Big Banana and a Big Prawn, why is he pretending that he didn't?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>MORRISON (—) (): I think, if I remember correctly, I said that the size of the battery would actually charge the televisions in Adelaide of just—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The microphone is not on, Prime Minister. If it is, I cannot hear it. I will get you to start again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recall the comments I was making on that day. I was down in Adelaide, and I was talking about how the battery technology at that time, that large battery, would have been able to charge all the television sets in Adelaide for no more and wouldn't get you through one episode of <inline font-style="italic">Australia's Ninja Warrior</inline>. The point I was making was that what we need in this country is long-duration storage, which is why we are investing in projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0.</para>
<para>Of course we should invest in battery technology. It's part of our low-emissions technology plan to get us to net zero by 2050. But those opposite are kidding themselves if they think that is going to keep the aluminium smelters at Portland or at Tomago firing up. I'll tell you what's going to help those. What's going to help those, in particular, is the work that we've invested in through Snowy Hydro to ensure there's a gas-fired power plant at Kurri Kurri. And do you know who's opposed to that in the Hunter? The Labor Party—the Labor Party and the Greens working together to work against Australians having affordable, reliable power. They don't want to see the gas; they want to turn the gas off on Australian industry.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance. There was nothing asked about alternative policies. I don't see why we have to rise each time. The Prime Minister knows that this is not directly relevant to the question, and he does it to defy every single time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the question was very open ended insofar as it talked about the Prime Minister's position in relation to batteries and battery power.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And there is no reference to opposition policy, and that's what he's wanting to talk about. There's no reference to it at all.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will be relevant to the question, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about my comments on that day, and I am providing the context of the comments on that day. The context of those comments on that day was that battery storage was not at a scale—and, frankly, is still not at a scale—that competes with long-duration storage like projects like Snowy 2.0. Those sorts of battery projects are not at a level yet, but we must invest in them so we can rely on them for the heavy industry that this country needs. That is what our policy is based on.</para>
<para>We have a policy which is about reducing emissions. It's about technology, not taxes. It's about choices, not mandates. It's about ensuring we're investing in a portfolio of technologies which mean we can get those costs down to meet those important targets. It's about ensuring that we have reliable and affordable power. That's why we are investing in gas. That's why we are keeping the gas on. Those opposite really don't like these policies. They've been attacking our policies. They've been seeking to mock the policy. If you don't like 'technology, not taxes', it means you need taxes. That's what it means—taxes, taxes, taxes. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indo-Pacific Region</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Congratulations, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Defence: Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working with Australia's strategic partners to secure a free and prosperous Indo-Pacific? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the honourable member for Moncrieff for her question. I recognise the fact that she's a very strong supporter of defence industry in her electorate. Only a few days ago, it was announced that Aerospace in her electorate on the Gold Coast will provide to the US defence force 300 helicopter and fighter jet flight simulators. This will be a significant boost to the Gold Coast, with local jobs and a big multiplier in the Gold Coast economy.</para>
<para>This government, of course, is investing at a record level when it comes to defence, because we mean what we say when we say that we're going to have the backs of our Australian Defence Force personnel, that we're going to support them with the equipment and the kit that they need, and that we're going to invest to keep this country safe.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gellibrand is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We live in a very uncertain time in the Indo-Pacific. It's recognised by countries in our region, it's recognised by the United States and it's recognised by Europeans, including NATO, and many others have had comment on that. The fact is that, now, for our country, is not for a time for weakness but a time for strength. When we look at what the Labor Party presided over when they were in government, they weakened the Australian Defence Force, and we are recovering from it. I say that because the fact is that the Labor Party cut funding from defence. They cut it to a level which was equivalent to 1.56 per cent of GDP, the lowest level since 1938. Mr Speaker, if you want to see an example of weakness when it comes to national security, find yourself a government that cuts defence spending on the cusp of an uncertain period in our region.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Moreton then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This Leader of the Opposition was a central figure in the Rudd and Gillard governments. He was there for every decision that was made by Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard, not just in relation to cutting defence spending and taking money away from the soldiers of the Australian Defence Force; he was there when they made decisions—in fact, he was a chief advocate of policy which resulted in this country losing control of our borders. The more this Leader of the Opposition is known to the Australian people, the more they know he is a weak, weak leader. If they want to ask a question, I'm happy to take a question, but I've been in this portfolio for 239 days, and the opposition defence spokesman hasn't asked one question.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister: Why did the Prime Minister say he would deliver higher real wages when, in fact, real wages have fallen $700 over the past year alone?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I get this question from the Labor Party after real wages were falling in their last year in office and unemployment was rising! The reality is that we have seen the private sector's wages up 2.4 per cent, we have seen nominal wages up 2.2 per cent, and we have seen inflation higher than was first forecast during this year. But, at the same time, last year we saw real wages up by 2.1 per cent because we saw the largest fall in inflation since the 1960s.</para>
<para>The reality is that the best way to get higher wages for the Australian people is to drive a tighter labour market, create jobs and see more competition for labour. And that is what our policies are designed to do. Our policies are designed to create more jobs, as we have done since this pandemic. Our policies have been focused on getting more and more people into work. When we came to government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent. Today, it's 5.2 per cent. And the Reserve Bank of Australia is forecasting that the unemployment rate will have a '4' in it and be sustainably in the '4s' for the first time since the 1970s. At the same time as driving more jobs and creating more jobs, we're also cutting taxes. By cutting taxes, we're putting more money into people's pockets, boosting their disposable income and their ability to spend on the things that they need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs: Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is ensuring our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to counter the threat of terrorism and keep all Australians safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question, and I thank him for the work that he has done on the very important Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. On this side of the House we understand that national security is absolutely essential to our plan to grow the Australian economy, particularly following COVID-19. You actually can't have one without the other. So, even as we've been going through the process of tackling and dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, we have never, ever lost sight of the fact that there are many challenges that we are facing in terms of our national security, and we understand very clearly that the world around us is changing very dramatically. And we as a government have always been alive to those challenges.</para>
<para>Sadly, the threat of terrorism and violent extremism is very, very real. Our national terrorism threat level has remained at 'probable' since September 2014. In that time, 145 people have been charged as a result of 72 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. In fact, it was just last month that three men were before the New South Wales courts and were convicted of separate terrorism offences. It's absolutely a reminder that the threat has not gone away. So this morning I announced the government's intention to list, in its entirety, Hezbollah, as well as The Base, as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code. Hezbollah's external security organisation has been a listed terrorist organisation since 2003. The group continues to threaten terrorist attacks and provide support to terrorist organisations, so it's fitting that we extend the listing to the entirety of Hezbollah. The Base is a violent, racist, neo-Nazi group known by security agencies to be planning and preparing terrorist attacks. The violence and the views of these extremist groups are a stain on Australia's rich cultural fabric. There is no place in Australia for their hateful ideologies. Our government has invested over $69 million in funding to counter violent extremism since 2013. The Morrison government will always focus on national security and protecting the Australian way of life from those who would seek to do us harm. It is not only the first duty of government but also the foundation of securing our economic recovery.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister admit that real Australian workers are being paid less than their colleagues for doing the same job simply because they work for a labour hire firm? Does he agree this is a real problem which is causing inequality and depressing wages, or does he agree with his minister and the statement he made yesterday that it is a 'made-up issue'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians working right across the country are working under the rules and the laws put together under the Fair Work Act. You know who put those laws and rules together? The Labor Party. The Labor Party put those rules and laws together. When they wrote those laws, the number of people who were employed through labour hire was the same as it is now. It was exactly the same. There has been no real change when it comes to those issues over the course of that time. There are many different ways people are now being employed in the Australian economy, as there used to be, and it's important that we have the dynamism in our economy to give people those many different options and choices about how they wish to engage in the Australian economy. We want to ensure that they have those opportunities, but they need to ensure they do it in accordance with the rules of law of this country. Those rules of law, particularly when it comes to these issues, were written by those opposite. So we will continue to ensure that we enforce that rule of law when it comes to these conditions.</para>
<para>We want to see businesses succeeding in this country. Small and medium-sized enterprises—particularly family businesses—have gone through one of the hardest economic times they have ever had to go through since the Second World War, and certainly since the Great Depression. They're the ones workers rely on for their wages. If you've got more small businesses doing better, if you've got their taxes down, if you're getting government out of their faces so they can go ahead and employ more people—we took bills into this parliament to try and improve the opportunities. We took a bill to this parliament in the course of this term. We sat down between employers and employees. We sought to bring everybody together, we took the product of that to this place and the Labor Party voted against it. They voted against it because they wanted to use this issue as a political issue. They're all about the politics. They're not about the solution. They're all insults and no ideas.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister please outline how the Morrison-Joyce government's sustained investment in biosecurity services and new technologies ensures Australia has one of the most effective biosecurity systems in the world and how this allows our farmers—the best in the world—to maintain production levels and attain premiums for their product in international markets?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Riverina for his question. He knows better than anyone the importance of strong biosecurity systems and penalties, not just in protecting agricultural production—which, for the first time in our nation's history, will hit over $70 billion this year—but also in protecting the over 330,000 Australians who are employed in agriculture. As the threats are starting to evolve, as they're sweeping across the globe, across Asia and now into South-East Asia, literally blowing in, we are making sure that our borders are strong, not just through technology but also through more boots on the ground and more paws on the ground. We are penalising those that want to flout our biosecurity laws. I'm proud to say that over the last two budgets, since October last year, over a billion dollars has been pumped into biosecurity to make sure we are protecting them. And I'm saying today that we're proud to announce 96 new biosecurity officers that will go to ports and airports in major capital cities around the country as we reopen from COVID-19, to ensure that we have that protection. We're also putting more dogs and more scientists to make sure that we can identify these pests, these risks, to Australian agriculture immediately so that we can have a detailed response as quickly as we possibly can. But the technology piece is so important as well. We, for the first time, will have 3D X-ray scanners in all of our Australia Post facilities. The 144 million parcels that go through Australia Post every year will now go through a 3D X-ray scanner with artificial intelligence that will be able to identify organic matter, plant matter, so that we can intercept those risks to Australia straightaway.</para>
<para>I'm proud to say we also have a partnership with New Zealand—a world first. For anyone who leaves New Zealand, we will now use that technology on people's bags. We will know what's in their bag before it gets to Australia, and we will match that with their declaration cards to ensure that they are being honest and they are declaring the threats that may be posed to Australian agriculture. And, if we're able to prove this up, this is technology that can be adopted around the world for other ports that will send passengers into Australia. This is an important step in building the capacity and capability of our biosecurity systems.</para>
<para>We're saying to those who want to import into this country that they also have a role to play. We're trying to be more efficient at our ports. We'll go from around five million containers a year to over 8½ million by the end of the decade. But we're saying to them that, with that and in terms of giving them some more opportunity to self-assess, there comes responsibility. If you flout the laws as an importer, those penalties have been increased from just over $400,000 to over $1 million. And, if it's serious, you'll not only pay that, you will be at Her Majesty's pleasure for up to 10 years. We're also saying to those who come into this country that if you do not declare that self-declaration in a proper manner you will pay a penalty from $444 up to $2,064. And I'm proud to say that we have cancelled 14 visas of those that have gone and tried to cut corners. We do not apologise, and they are not welcome back for another three years. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Dawson</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the speech prior to question time from the member for Dawson, in which he criticised actions by state governments to secure the health of Australians, referred to it as 'police states complete with medical apartheid', compared them with 'Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot', and, most concerning, at the end of his speech, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The solution is a rediscovery of human dignity, along with—and I don't say this lightly—civil disobedience.</para></quote>
<para>Will the Prime Minister unequivocally and without reservation condemn this call for civil disobedience from his government member for Dawson?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a son of a police officer, I believe that everyone should obey the law. Every single person should obey the law, and no-one should encourage anyone to disobey the law—no-one. I don't care if they're in this House or anywhere else. And I, indeed, would condemn any encouragement whatsoever, by any person in any place, regarding acts of civil disobedience. That is not something I would encourage. That's not something I would participate in. And I don't think I can be any clearer than that.</para>
<para>I have been very clear in my denunciation of violence and threats and intimidation, and I don't care whether that has occurred most recently or where it happened at the Shrine of Remembrance or, indeed, when people and Labor unions tried to crash through the doors of this building many years ago. Every single time I have seen this, I find it appalling. I find it appalling, and I don't think it is an issue that those opposite should seek to play politics with.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LIU</name>
    <name.id>282918</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is boosting the capacity of frontline domestic violence services and ensuring accountability under the next National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and commend her on the leadership she shows in her electorate for women and girls. The Morrison government is absolutely focused on making Australia a place that is free from violence against women and their children. Across Australia, violence against women is estimated to cost $21.7 billion a year, but it's the social and emotional cost that is immeasurable as so many live every day from the fallout of this invisible pandemic, especially the often-silent victims, the children.</para>
<para>We demonstrated our commitment to ending family and domestic violence in the 2021-22 budget, where we made the largest ever commitment to women's safety with our $1.1 billion package. This historic package includes key measures that contribute to our net zero target. Importantly, it provided a down payment on the next national plan to not only reduce but end violence against women and their children, because we should always remember that violence against women is not inevitable; it's entirely preventable. We all have a role to play, which is why we partnered with the states through our $260 million national partnership agreement on family, domestic and sexual violence, which was the single biggest payment from the Commonwealth to states and territories, as well as the $130 million we were able to provide to ensure that frontline workers continue to support women through the pandemic.</para>
<para>That investment went to more than 450 support and crisis organisations so they could employ hundreds more staff and deliver those important services to women across the country. We know the next national plan needs to be more than ambitious words. That's why we're backing it with our funding. That's why we're investing $22.4 million over five years to establish a new Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. The commission will oversee the implementation of the next national plan. It will support the government, developing and fostering relationships, ensuring greater cooperation and transparency, and providing national leadership and accountability to make sure the next national plan delivers real and tangible actions.</para>
<para>The record funding we've provided and strong organisations such as this new commission will allow us to get closer to the outcomes that we all seek: to stop it at the start, to call it out, to know that help is here on 1800RESPECT, to shine a light so that we leave no-one behind.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—The scourge of domestic and family violence is something that we all—not just governments but community organisations and indeed our entire society—have to take greater action in.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Member for Dawson</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer in response to my question about the comments in this parliament from the member for Dawson, in which he refused to mention the member for Dawson. I invite him to directly condemn the member for Dawson for the very specific comments that he has made, saying that part of the solution is, to quote him—I don't say this lightly—civil disobedience.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I restate exactly what I said in my answer to the previous question. I note this, though—this is a quote from Sally McManus—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It goes to direct relevance. This was a very specific question about a member of this Prime Minister's government and statements that were made in this parliament.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister is entitled to some preamble, but it was a very direct question. I'm going to ask the Prime Minister to respond to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll complete the quote that I was going to refer to because it's relevant, Mr Speaker.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will directly respond to the question. It's not appropriate 12 seconds or 15 seconds into an answer to quote Sally McManus. I ask the Prime Minister to respond to the question directly, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do condemn those statements, and I also condemn statements like this—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members interjecting—</inline></para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're very touchy on this, aren't you? You don't want me to read it out, do you?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order under standing order 91(c), where a member's conduct shall be considered disorderly if the member has 'persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order', which is exactly what the Prime Minister is now doing in defiance of your ruling.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has the call. I'd ask the Prime Minister again to respond to the question and be directly relevant to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order: I have responded directly to the member's question in denunciating those statements. I've been very clear about that.</para>
<quote><para class="block">I believe in the rule of law when the law is fair and the law is right—</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I'll go to the next question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McManus, Ms Sally</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I address my question to the Prime Minister. Sally McManus has been a great union leader in this country. Would you quote her in this House, please?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. This is what the leader of the trade union movement said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I believe in the rule of law when the law is fair and the law is right, but when it's unjust I don't think there's a problem with breaking it.</para></quote>
<para>We should respect the rule of law. We should always respect the rule of law. We shouldn't encourage people to break the law. It shouldn't be optional for trade union leaders and militant union thugs who might want to come onto sites. It's not okay for members to encourage those to be wilfully not obeying the law by going on and preventing people from accessing their place of work, which those opposite know all about.</para>
<para>There's no wonder why those opposite did not want me to read out that quote. There's no wonder why they didn't, because it betrays their hypocrisy. It betrays their hypocrisy that it's alright for union thugs to come and try to knock this building down. It's alright for that. They'll support them then. They'll support them when they're out working away with John Setka and outlawed motorcycle gangs, and it's okay when they commit these crimes. They'll let them stay in this country, which is what happened under the Labor Party. But when we're in government and we want to send those thugs out of this country and we want to introduce laws that strengthen our protections to enable us to kick those thugs out of this country, guess who votes against us? The Labor Party. That's not the sort of weakness this country needs. The Leader of the Opposition was part of a Labor Party which let outlawed motorcycle gang thugs and the union leaders who work with them to get away scot-free. That's not how you run a country if you're a strong leader. This Leader of the Opposition is a weak reed. He is a weak reed. He is not someone—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was no doubt the first part of the answer was in order, and there's no doubt that this part is completely irrelevant to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question that was asked by the member for Kennedy was extraordinarily broad. I will give the call to the Prime Minister but the Prime Minister should return to the general thrust of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can only go back to what the leader of the trade union movement said. She said she didn't have a problem with people breaking the law. I understand the Labor Party has sympathy with that. I'm wondering whether the Leader of the Opposition will be going out and meeting mates out there who have gone to prison who he backed into their roles in the New South Wales parliament. Or are they are going down to Eddie Obeid's ski lodge this winter?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cybersafety</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister update the House on the strong leadership the Morrison government is demonstrating to keep Australian children safe online?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Longman, who has a very strong commitment to the rule of law—online and offline. In the physical town square, people have a right to be protected by the rule of law. In the digital town square, people have a right to be protected by the rule of law. That is a principle our government has been putting into practice consistently since we came to government in 2013. We established the Children's eSafety Commissioner. We established a legislative scheme to deal with the cyberbullying of children. We expanded that to deal with the removal of unauthorised intimate images, something which is devastating for victims and overwhelmingly affects women and girls. We responded to the appalling Christchurch mosque attack, where more than 50 people were murdered—that was live streamed on social media, an extraordinary demonstration of irresponsibility by the platforms—with a scheme to require the removal of abhorrent violent material. There have been some 10,000 complaints about child sexual abuse material, and 73 per cent of that material has been removed within six days. I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Home Affairs; we work very closely together on these issues.</para>
<para>We returned to government in 2019 with a commitment to establish a new Online Safety Act. We've consulted. We've legislated. That's now on the statute books. That will take effect from January next year. It will, for example, reduce to 24 hours the time by which social media platforms are required to respond to a take-down notice from the eSafety Commissioner. We've expanded the scope of the coverage of the regime dealing with cyberbullying against children. It now goes beyond social media platforms and will include, for example, chat rooms for games. We've increased from three years to five the maximum penalty for those using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. We've provided extra funding to the eSafety Commissioner, $15 million, for extra investigators to support the victims of online abuse. There's record funding—$125 million over four years for e-safety. We're developing the Basic Online Safety Expectations, which will be issued in final form early next year, under which a clear statement will be made to the platforms of what we expect of them on behalf of the Australian community, including that they are expected to protect Australian children from online harms. We have given the eSafety Commissioner new powers to require the tech companies to report on how they are responding to these harms. The principle that children and adults deserve to be as safe online as they are offline is one that our government is very strongly committed to. We are taking action to make the internet a safer place for Australian children.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today in question time the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm so pleased that we didn't have to rely on the opposition during the pandemic, because we wouldn't have got the results.</para></quote>
<para>I refer to the Prime Minister's own statement of 10 December 2020 when he said in parliament, 'I thank the opposition for their support in ensuring that was made possible,' when the changes to the legislation went through. And the Treasurer, on 26 August 2020, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I would like to take this opportunity to thank the opposition for the constructive approach they have taken to progressing this legislation through the parliament swiftly to provide certainty to Australian businesses and employees.</para></quote>
<para>The fact is that it was only because the opposition cooperated with the government that the parliament was able to sit and that any of that legislation was carried, which all went through this parliament with the opposition's support.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 9 of 2021-22, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Regional Land Partnerships: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment</inline>.</para>
<para>Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>59</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday 29 November 2020. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 November 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 23 November 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 29 November 2021, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Co</inline> <inline font-style="italic">mmission annual reports 2019 and 2020.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">First Member speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Next Member speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR CHRISTENSEN: To present a Bill for an Act relating to the detention of Australian journalists by foreign governments, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Illegal Deten</inline><inline font-style="italic">tion of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 23 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing or</inline> <inline font-style="italic">der 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 1 FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (SAME JOB, SAME PAY) BILL 2021 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Albanese</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 22 November 2021</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR ZIMMERMAN: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the vital contribution that temporary visa holders, including skilled workers and international students, make to both Australia's economy and our local communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that since March 2020, due to the international border restrictions that helped keep us safe during the pandemic, many visa holders, both onshore and offshore, have faced uncertainty and difficulty;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for reopening the international border to a range of economic and humanitarian visa holders from 1 December 2021; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) welcomes the further carefully managed opening of our border to other visa holders, including visitors, when it is safe to do so.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 23 November 2021.) </inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. </inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Zimmerman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Membe</inline> <inline font-style="italic">rs</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS CLAYDON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the GP Access After Hours service:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has provided over a million urgent after-hours consultations to families in Newcastle and the Hunter region for more than twenty years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) delivers 50,000 face-to-face appointments and handles 70,000 calls through the nurse led triage call centre each year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) saves our health system up to $21.7 million in unnecessary emergency department presentations each year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) due to the Government's continuous cuts to bulk-billing incentives and its failure to adequately index Medicare rebates, Hunter Primary Care has been forced to make cuts to the GP Access After Hours service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) from Christmas Eve, the Calvary Mater clinic will close completely, and operating hours for clinics at the Belmont Hospital, John Hunter Hospital, Maitland Hospital and Westlakes Community Health Centre will be reduced; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) over 10,000 people from the Hunter region have signed a petition calling on the Government to restore funding to the GP Access After Hours service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the GP Access After Hours service has been an essential service for tens of thousands of Newcastle and Hunter families who rely upon bulk-billing GP services to access the healthcare they need, when they need it;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) with so few bulk-billing doctors in Newcastle and the Hunter region, any further loss of services will have a huge impact on families already faced with high out-of-pocket healthcare costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any cuts to this service will dramatically increase pressure on our already overstretched and under-resourced emergency departments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) not only is the Government's lack of support for primary healthcare unacceptable, it is also grossly irresponsible in the middle of a global pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) restore the funding to our GP Access After Hours service to stop the closure of the Calvary Mater Clinic and retain existing hours of operation at all remaining clinics;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reverse cuts to bulk-billing incentive payments in the Lower Hunter that have seen GP practices close and vulnerable people left without access to a bulk-billing GP;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) abandon any efforts to further reduce funding to our GP Access After Hours service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) provide additional support for GP Access After Hours to expand their services to areas of need throughout the Hunter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) utilise the success of the GP Access After Hours service as a model of best practice after hours primary healthcare across Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE CAREERS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 22 November 2021</inline>) on the motion of Mr Leeser—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the benefits a career in the Australian Defence Force provides through skills, education, training and experience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Defence Force's objective to protect Australia and that those recruited to deliver on this objective put their lives on the line for our country; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that Defence recruits the best and brightest and offers varying pathways for individuals to join and serve our nation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges the sacrifice our personnel and their families make for a career in the Australian Defence Force and our nation's eternal gratitude for all those who have served past and present.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS RISHWORTH: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that young Australians have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are being left behind in our recovery;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that young people:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are facing an extraordinary jobs crisis, further noting that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) during the peak of the pandemic 15 per cent of all jobs were filled by young people yet 40 per cent of all jobs lost since March 2020 were held by a young person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the youth unemployment rate soared four times the national average to 13.1 per cent in October 2021 and is now higher than pre-pandemic levels; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) 50 per cent of young Australians have said that getting more reliable work is of most importance to them when it comes to employment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) are struggling with their mental health, with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) more than 50 per cent of young Australians saying their biggest concern with COVID-19 was mental health;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) one in two young Australians reported to not being able to carry out their daily activities during the pandemic due to a decline in wellbeing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) one third of young Australians reporting high or very high levels of psychological distress; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) 75 per cent of Australia's young people describing their mental health as worse during the COVID-19 pandemic;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) are suffering severe social disruption, as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) many have missed out on once in a lifetime milestones and rites of passage; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) more feel isolated due to lockdowns with distributions to school attendance, campus life extinguished, and social gatherings restricted or prohibited;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) are grappling with disruptions to education and training, and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) many feel their motivation and career plans have been dented; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) nearly 50 per cent of young Australians reported being worried about their education being disrupted or held back as a result of the changes to schooling; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) feel they do not have a voice in politics, with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) almost 60 per cent of young Australians feeling the biggest barrier to getting involved in politics was 'feeling like they won't be listened to'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 52 per cent of young people feeling they had a say 'none of the time' in public affairs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to work with young people and urgently design a comprehensive COVID-19 Youth Recovery Strategy that puts young Australians at the centre of our economic and social recovery and builds our future generations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Rishworth</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> m</inline><inline font-style="italic">inutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR R. J. WILSON: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving connectivity for regional businesses, and better connecting regional communities through the Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) initiative;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the ROSI initiative upgrades key freight roads to efficiently connect agricultural and mining regions to ports, airports and other transport hubs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for its funding of $4.9 billion for projects nation-wide to deliver works such as road sealing, flood immunity, strengthening and widening, pavement rehabilitation, bridge and culvert upgrades and road realignments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that the ROSI initiative is providing substantial social and economic benefits, including opportunities for greater regional employment and business growth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> 15 June 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr R. J. Wilson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee </inline> <inline font-style="italic">determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (A STEP TOWARDS A SAFER FAMILY LAW SYSTEM) BILL 202 0 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 23 June 2021</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">Mr Ted O'Brien</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">deration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 DR ALLEN: To move—That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) leads the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together Rotary International, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and many others including in the private sector with a common objective to eradicate polio;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) when the GPEI commenced, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in 2021, polio is 99 per cent eradicated and wild polio remains in only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the entire African continent certified as polio-free on 25 August 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) this success has been driven by the GPEl's extensive worldwide community-driven vaccination program, the largest of its kind in the world, to safeguard children from polio worldwide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) safe and effective polio vaccines have been the single most important factor in achieving 99 per cent eradication of polio so far;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Australia has been a strong supporter of polio eradication for more than three decades and has invested more than $135 million in polio eradication over that time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) 2022 will be a critical year for polio eradication as the GPEI sets out its strategy to achieve polio eradication by 2026, and that this will be a key opportunity for Australian leadership; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) Australian organisations lead the effort to see continued support for polio eradication from Australia, including Rotary International Australia, UNICEF Australia, Global Citizen and Results Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the work of the GPEI is a testament to the great power of vaccines and that the equitable and timely access to those vaccines is critical to the program's success;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) progress made toward polio eradication is facing new challenges with the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan impeding vaccination efforts and increasing the risk of new polio outbreaks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) additional measures will be required to manage the risk of polio in Afghanistan in an effort to ensure that no widespread polio outbreaks occur;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Australia is a long-term champion of polio eradication along with many other Commonwealth nations including the United Kingdom and Canada, who all share an interest in ensuring the success of the polio program and its important contribution to global health security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the current parliaments of Australia and other countries have the opportunity to be recognised as the elected representatives who ensured that polio was completely eradicated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to continue its strong ongoing support for the GPEI.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 21 October 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">50 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Allen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 DR FREELANDER: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that juvenile arthritis affects between 6,000-10,000 Australian children and adolescents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) further notes that of the Australian children living with juvenile arthritis:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 80 per cent will experience pain daily;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 20 per cent develop a vision-threatening inflammation of the eyes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) many experience lengthy delays in obtaining a formal diagnosis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the work of the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation of Australia and their tireless advocacy for young Australians living with juvenile arthritis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) recommends that the Government provides funding to establish programs aimed at:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) raising awareness of this disease; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) developing a national registry and research package to better understand the extent and impact of juvenile arthritis on individuals and the economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Freelander</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR ZIMMERMAN: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that 9 December 2021 is the United Nations' International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and the Prevention of this Crime;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that 9 December 2021 is also the 73rd anniversary of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further recognises that that development of the Genocide Convention was motivated by genocidal crimes of the 20th Century including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the genocide of six million Jews committed by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges the importance of recognising, condemning and learning from these and subsequent genocidal crimes to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) remembers the loss and suffering caused by genocides in the modern era and their enduring impact on the lives of many Australians and their descendants; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) affirm its long-standing support for the prevention of genocide and the punishment of those who perpetrate or instigate genocidal crimes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) formally recognise the genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and other Christian minorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 22 November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Zimmerman</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS STEGGALL: To move—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that supports like JobSaver and disaster payments have ended at a time when the economic impact of COVID-19 restrictions will continue to impact a number of sectors for at least six to 12 months after the lifting of restrictions, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the business events sector, which has lost $29.4 billion in revenue from 96 per cent of all events being cancelled for 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the mass participation sporting events sector which lost over 80 per cent of events over the past two years, causing a loss of over $5 billion to the Australian economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) travel agents, which have been in effective lockdown for over 600 days and will not be back to full capacity until after March 2022; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) seasonal specific retail such as winter apparel and sporting stores who will need to wait six months for the next season and do not have savings to purchase stock; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) work with state and territory governments to implement targeted economic supports for specific industries including travel, business events, mass participation sporting events and seasonal retail, such as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) providing ongoing business income support, including for supporting supplier businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) underwriting cancellation insurance for events and travel to provide planning confidence and accelerate recovery of sectors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) providing economic incentives, including tax rebates, for events to be organised and booked in advance; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) recognise the profound impact of COVID-19 restrictions on these sectors and their contribution to the Australian economy with benefits for trade, tourism and investment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 23 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">November 2021.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">deration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON A. B. WALLACE MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 November 2021</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In response to Glasgow (COP26), the Australian Government needs to ensure they are taking steps to address fuel sovereignty and security in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a preamble to the sovereign fuel security bill, on which the most diverse of views are represented on the crossbench. They have very, very diverse views. But we have come together to do something which is good for the country. This is a self-reliance issue. I raise the question on China. We want to be friends with China. We are not picking a fight with China. But if they were to embargo our fuel—our petrol and diesel—which comes out of Singapore and South Korea, then we would be in the most terrible trouble.</para>
<para>If you think that these scenarios are fanciful, do you read history books? In World War I, Churchill bought British Petroleum, the Anglos controlled all of the world's oil, and Germany went to war. In World War II, the Americans cut off the supply of oil to Japan, and Japan had to go to war. We have had Middle Eastern wars continuously for the last 40 or 50 years, all over oil. Twenty-seven per cent of our indigenous oil is sent overseas. Twenty-seven per cent of our petrol and diesel requirements are exported and then imported, with a huge profit margin for the people that process it. We're the poor country that just produces raw materials.</para>
<para>What we're proposing is that we ban the export of oil. That is very common, and I think most countries on earth do that. Most certainly America does it with gas. That's item 1: the oil will be kept in Australia and processed into petrol and diesel here. That's 27 per cent self-sufficiency now. Our waste can be converted into diesel. Germany did this in the latter years of the war. Southern Oil is doing it now. They've been visited by the Queensland Premier and the Prime Minister of Australia. They've been going for 16 or 17 years, making profits. They say that major population centres can turn 30 per cent of the waste of Australia into diesel.</para>
<para>Al Gore, the patron saint of the environment movement, in his book <inline font-style="italic">An Inconvenient Truth</inline>, cites renewables—ethanol specifically—as the first answer to the CO2 problems on the planet. So we are proposing that 40 to 45 per cent of Australia's petrol be renewables. That is what it is in Brazil, and I think it is 13 to 15 per cent in America, to quote two examples. Of course, we are extremely well suited to supply that at a very great profit and benefit for our country. And we are proposing that government cars in metropolitan areas be electric, which will extend our fuel supply in Australia for many more years than would normally occur and also provide us with an industry in Australia, because part of our proposal is that those electric government cars will be manufactured in Australia by an Australian owned company by law. No more of your economic rationalism, sending everything overseas. It stays here.</para>
<para>What a fantastic contribution to the nation the crossbenchers are making here. We buried our differences, which are huge. We buried our differences. Couldn't the major parties bury their differences and do something good for their country? Ninety-five per cent of Australians would agree with every single element of that, and it'll cost the country nothing at all. As a young man—I'm 76 years of age—I've spent most of my life with 72 per cent of our motor vehicles being produced by Australians. Five out of six of our great mining companies—the biggest mining companies on earth—were Australian owned. Five out of six of our major farming operations were Australian owned. All of the sugarcane mills—cane was our major industry in Queensland until coal came along—were 100 per cent Australian owned by Australian farmers. Our meatworks were 80 per cent—arguably 90 per cent—Australian owned from the cattle industry. And 100 per cent of our electricity was Australian owned. Now, no motor vehicles are produced in Australia—not 72 per cent; none. Our mining companies—five out of six of which were once owned by Australians—are now foreign owned. Five out of six of our major farming operations were Australian owned; the operations are now foreign owned. All of our sugar cane mills in Queensland are foreign owned, bar one. Our meatworks are 99 per cent foreign owned. Rather interestingly, apparently 25 per cent of our electricity is now coming from solar panels which come from China. So 25 per cent of our electricity is coming from China. And China owns 43 per cent of our electricity industry in Australia. We're a Third World country. Almost all of our exports are simply iron ore and coal. And the other minerals, including iron ore, are derivatives of coal and must be smelted by coal—that's copper, aluminium, zinc and iron.</para>
<para>I have never been a dramatist with respect to climate change. I have always said that, if you want to argue about climate change, I am not into that argument. But there is no argument about what happens in the ocean. If you've done elementary chemistry, you know that the more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more carbon dioxide there is in the ocean, which means changes to the pH level. And shellfish, which are at the bottom of the food chain—most shellfish can't be seen with a magnifying glass—will have great difficulty in forming their shells, which are calcium carbonate, which is an alkaline. A problem is arising there, but it's not about the problem arising; it is about knowing that we are going to run out of fossil fuels in 150 years.</para>
<para>To me, 150 years is not a long time. I can remember my great-grandfather, Joe Warby, vividly and with very great affection. Well, he was alive 150 years ago. So you'd better get off your backside if you want to deal with the fact that fossil fuels won't be around. God bless fossil fuels and God bless the industries that have provided us with great wealth in Queensland. But they won't be around, so we on the crossbench have got off our backsides and are proposing what will happen into the future, and we will be riding the front of that wave as we go into the future. These moderate proposals will bring an extra, I would argue, $10 billion a year into the Australian economy. That's 100,000 direct jobs, and indirect jobs doubles that figure.</para>
<para>In finally concluding what we're saying here, I praise the Prime Minister, insofar as what the Prime Minister said was, 'It is not a matter of when; it is a matter of what.' I wish he'd held his ground on it, because now he is on the 'when' side and not on the 'what' side. We're not talking about 'when' here; we're talking about 'what'. Do something about it. Don't talk about it; do something about it. Even if you do not believe in climate change or the problem arising in the oceans, you have to say that the fossil fuels will not be there, and you've got a huge time frame in which to move into new industries and, once again, to produce a refined downstream product, and not just be the raw materials country that really exports nothing else except iron ore and coal.</para>
<para>It seems to be the opinion of this place that we're going to close down the coal industry. I don't know where you're going to get your income from overseas. And don't talk about education, because it's an insult to our intelligence. It was never there until about 18 years ago, because the figures were looking so bad they moved education from over here into an export industry. Well, it's not an export industry. Your taxis are driven by overseas students. Your after-hours stores are manned by overseas students. It's simply rotating money in Australia. Indigenous oil is 27 per cent; waste to diesel is 30 per cent; renewables are 40— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired.)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I praise the member for Kennedy for his second valuable contribution in this parliament today. And I welcome the contribution he's made on this matter of public importance.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note his interjection, where he says that he was defending a union leader, but I'm sure that, once he heard the remarks from the Prime Minister about her encouraging lawbreaking, he retracted that proposition.</para>
<para>At the heart of the issue that he has raised in this matter of public importance are important issues about Australia's economic future and security, and they are ones that we are very mindful of. But they are also ones where we don't want to end in a situation where we want to close Australia off to the world. We are an island country. We prosper and thrive in a trading environment, and we do so because we see the economic opportunity to offer our bounty to be able to enhance the wealth of the nation and create the jobs so that we can build the future of the country.</para>
<para>As the member for Kennedy knows, if you have wealth that you generate from primary industries, you can invest it in building the base of your manufacturing sector. Of course, as part of that, there is an important role around affordable energy—something that is perhaps missing sometimes from some of the other crossbenchers, who seem to undervalue its contribution—and banning exports, for example, in certain fuels will only leave Australia a poorer nation and less capable of competing in the manufacturing sector. The member for Kennedy made a remark about $10 billion that he thought was the benefit of his proposals. I look forward to reading the modelling that backs that up.</para>
<para>Fuel security is a big challenge for our country, and nobody should suggest otherwise. We have big challenges around supply chains and security, and it sits at the heart of our economic resilience as a nation. It's at the core of what we understand as a government is central to Australia's sense of security and confidence in the world. If you want to see what happens when you dismiss those challenges, you just need to look at what is happening in Europe right now—and I think that's partly what the member for Kennedy has been alluding to—where they have become dependent on foreign fuels, particularly gas. That has left many countries high and dry, where people are unable to afford energy prices. That has a direct impact on houses, particularly during those difficult and challenging winter months. Also, of course, it means that the wealth of those nations is transacted off to others who can provide them a supply and exploit or take advantage of them. We don't want that for our country.</para>
<para>When Australians think about fuel security, what they think about is the ability to turn the switch on in their house and the light comes on and when they turn on the heater—and as the minister will know—they are able to heat their home for themselves and their family, particularly in the winter months, or turn on the air conditioner during the summer months and cool their home. And, of course, it is critical when they go to the bowser and they put the pump in that they are able to not only get the fuel but also are able to afford it.</para>
<para>It's also a big challenge for industry. We know that, for industry, there is a huge demand from feedstock, gas and electricity to make sure that they are competitive. It doesn't matter what sector you are in—and the member for Kennedy rightly outlined the role of manufacturing. If you are a manufacturer in this country, your electricity prices are a critical part of the input of your competitiveness not just in producing the goods for us domestically but also in being able to export those goods around the world competitively so we can create more wealth for our country. That is the value-add that comes from our natural bounty, which is something we need to understand.</para>
<para>And, of course, fuel security goes to the heart of our national defence. We know how critical that is, because we have big challenges in our regional security, and we want to be part of a solution that not only builds up our domestic security—which is very important—but also helps other sovereign states to be able to stand on their two feet regardless of the risks that may come.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The assistant minister will just pause for a moment. Is it a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I claim to be misrepresented. This is about fuel security, and all our fuel comes from overseas.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If the member is claiming to have been misrepresented, there will be an opportunity for that at some other time but not during the course of this debate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was no intention to misrepresent the member for Kennedy. At every point I have reiterated the fundamental concerns that he has raised and how critical it is that we have reliable, affordable energy and available energy for our country, for a multitude of purposes. The question is not whether we need it; the question is how best you achieve it. That is the basis of our plan and part of our approach as a government.</para>
<para>One of the most critical things is that you don't achieve security by isolating yourself from the rest of the world. In fact, last year I wrote a paper—which may be of interest to the parliament—focused on the challenges of supply chains and managing risk, and particularly cited a paper by Baldwin and Evenett from the Centre of Trade and Economic Integration at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. It was in the context of COVID-19, but the principles remain fundamentally the same. The report found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The risk management literature has been looking at the resilience and robustness of supply chains for more than 20 years. It does not conclude that domestic production or shorter supply chains are the best way of addressing risks.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on to say that, instead:</para>
<quote><para class="block">By allowing buyers to tap supplies produced in many national markets, individual supplier-specific and country-specific risks will be reduced.</para></quote>
<para>If you isolate yourself, you can only depend on yourself. If you work with other nations of good standing who are willing participants, you can hedge the risk and spread the risk across the board.</para>
<para>That is very much the approach we are also taking when it comes to domestic policy. How do we harden our infrastructure, our supply chains and our security, while also not cutting our nose off to spite our face? That is why the Morrison government is taking strong action to further boost Australia's long-term fuel security by locking in the future of our refining sector. This is an issue not just of security but also supply. Our comprehensive fuel security package will support around 4,000 jobs, protect the jobs in our refineries and increase the amount of diesel we will keep onshore to address exactly the challenges the member for Kennedy outlined. And, of course, we don't just do this in isolation around the refining of existing or traditional fuels like diesel.</para>
<para>Also, what do we need to do to build the industries and the foundations of the future of the Australian economy, particularly in the context of fuels? I think specifically about the challenges that we as a nation will face in the future with freight, as we move towards carbon neutrality. It is easy to say that we can just wave a magical wand through a piece of legislation, as some members may wish to, and somehow our challenges around reaching carbon neutrality are suddenly going to be solved. That's not the reality. We know that technology is going to be part of that solution and building the infrastructure and the foundations of Australia's future energy security is going to be a critical part of that conversation.</para>
<para>When the Prime Minister and I, the minister, the member for Higgins, who I understand is here, and Senator Henderson, from the great state of Victoria, were at the Toyota plant in Altona, we saw the real power of hydrogen as part of the transport fuel strategy of the country. There are companies, increasingly, investing in hydrogen power, particularly for passenger vehicles. And there is the work that's being done with electric vehicles as well. The reason that hydrogen is so important is precisely the point that the member for Kennedy outlines. When we think about the issues of security around fuel, this very quickly transfers onto the broader issues that our country faces as a consequence of our road network and food security. It's fine to create food, to manufacture and process food, but if you can't get it from the factories or from the farms and into households, or at least into nearby supermarkets, we have a food security risk. Hydrogen fuel—as part of that freight network to enable, in a carbon neutral future, the capacity for goods to be freighted across the country—is going to be an important part of that conversation as well. That's why we understand how important fuel and fuel security is going to be, because in the end it goes right to the heart of our capacity to succeed as a country and deliver for Australians what they want: national security, freight and food security, the creation of jobs and opportunities, and a vibrant manufacturing sector that value-adds onto our primary industries. So there is a lot that we are doing in this space.</para>
<para>As I said, it's not just in the context of hydrogen; it is also critical that we are doing it in new sectors that will build the future of the Australian economy. You just need to look at the work that we are doing in critical minerals. I see the minister in front of me who is in charge of the Critical Minerals Strategy. When we look at what we need to do to build energy security for the country, it is not just in the transport fuel space, which I understand is mostly what this motion is about, but also looking at the other sources of energy generation that underpin the electricity network that we are going to need in its many forms. Critical minerals are particularly important for building renewable resources, so they can be part of that solution. And, of course, they are minerals that we can export to the word.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">D</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>r HAINES () (): I thank the member for Kennedy for bringing this important issue to the House and acknowledge that he's quite right: we do have many different opinions. He and I both represent electorates where people need to drive great distances to work, to live, to socialise and to access health care. So the eye-watering cost of petrol these days is a top-of-mind issue for us both. It's a top-of-mind issue for any family budget. In the year to September, petrol prices have gone up 25 per cent. It's $1.62 in Wangaratta this morning and $1.68 in Wodonga. Unfortunately, prices are projected to remain high. Some analysts say prices could be $2 by the end of the year. When you're driving an hour each way to work or to the weekend footy or to see a GP, that truly hurts. It truly is an issue that regional Australians are concerned about.</para>
<para>Lots of politicians are running around saying they'll bring down petrol prices or, indeed, that the other side might increase petrol prices. But really we need to be honest with people. The reality is that there isn't much any Australian government can do to affect the price of fuel. The reason prices are so high is that the price of crude oil has gone up and that global supply chains are under pressure as the world recovers from COVID-19. Because Australia is almost entirely reliant on imported liquid fuels, there's truly not much we can do about it. In the year before the pandemic struck, Australia imported over 60,000 megalitres of liquid fuel, around two-thirds of our total consumption. Australia imports liquid fuels from countries like China, Japan, Singapore and the UAE. Each year we spend almost $40 billion on importing fuel. Australia has just two domestic oil refineries left, and the government is forking out $2 billion over the next decade to keep these alive. The brutal reality is that Australia does have a fuel security problem. Our entire economy and our national security rest on an unreliable, insecure supply of a polluting, expensive imported product. It would take just one hostile nation disrupting trade routes or one major natural disaster disrupting our supply chains and Australia really would be running on empty.</para>
<para>As we move into a more uncertain world where petrol prices are skyrocketing, we need to make the smart decisions to guarantee sovereign energy security and protect Australians from paying through the nose, and that means renewables. Australia is blessed with the best renewable energy resources in the world, and they're the cheapest form of power available to us. If the government did more to make electric cars more affordable and build the charging infrastructure we need—I acknowledge they're putting some money towards it, but we need a lot more—and to invest in renewable energy, we wouldn't have these problems of expensive and volatile fuel supply. You could power your car with the solar panels on the roof of your house, and you could do it on the cheap. If Australia generated all of our power, it would mean we would be less vulnerable to the whims of other countries and global markets. We could build our energy security on the supply of cheap, clean, locally generated power—power that we can never run out of. Instead of sending $40 billion a year to offshore oil companies, we'd be sending that money into the pockets of regional Australians, because renewable energy will be generated in the regions.</para>
<para>We've seen in the pandemic that global supply chains can be fragile. We've seen that those countries that can manufacture their own vaccines are in a much stronger position than those that cannot. We've seen the behaviour of countries hoarding not only vaccines but PPE, ventilators, oxygen and other essential medical equipment. Yet, on the critical question of our fuel security, the government is leaving us entirely open to an increasingly uncertain world.</para>
<para>Let's make our power here. Let's pay our farmers, not foreign oil companies. Let's rely on cheap fuels, not expensive ones. I call on the government to do more to invest in renewables and get the cost of electric vehicles down so that everyday Australians can pay less at the bowser and have more to spend on the important things of life.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we can all agree in this chamber on the principle of the importance of fuel security and its obvious importance from an economic point of view and from a national security point of view. Of course, as a government we have made some recent announcements to improve and enhance onshore storage and provisioning, particularly of diesel, and also refinement capacity in this country. I'm proud that the government is making those important, necessary decisions, and there may well be other things that need to be done into the future that we will certainly take into account. Just as importantly, on the topic of energy security, one of the things I'm particularly excited about is the opportunities we've got in hydrogen and the government's record in investing in hydrogen hubs and working with international partners for us to be a real hydrogen energy superpower. There's no doubt that to meet the commitments we've made to get to net zero by 2050 one of the big parts of that will be having a very substantial hydrogen industry. We are a nation that is well placed to be a world leader in hydrogen and have the ability to not only produce an enormous amount of hydrogen for our own needs here but also to export hydrogen around the world.</para>
<para>We are already seeing agreements signed between companies and governments. Japan and South Korea are two prominent examples—companies from those nations. They see the potential for Australia to produce the lion's share of their hydrogen needs here. I'm talking about green hydrogen that we produce through electrolysing with, most probably, renewable energy. In Adelaide we've got a trial site at Flinders University, where they're currently blending hydrogen into the natural gas network. There's an electrolyser there, and that uses renewable energy from the South Australian grid. Hydrogen is produced through electrolysis of water, splitting the H20 molecules so the oxygen is released and the hydrogen is captured. That is a very exciting pilot program that's seeing that blended into the natural gas network in the suburbs around Flinders University. In success, going forward, we could see that rolled out across the country, and more hydrogen than just the blend in the network that we've got right now.</para>
<para>Even more excitingly, we're seeing the government make commitments to major hydrogen hubs in the near future. I'm hopeful that my home state of South Australia will be favourably looked upon by the government when it comes to our ability to participate in the hydrogen supply chain. Of course, this is an industry that can exist right across the country. It doesn't have to choose one state or city over another. All of the states and territories have the ability to participate in a hydrogen industry and have that as a very significant fuel source domestically but also an enormous export industry for us. If hydrogen has a pathway to replacing diesel into the future in long-haul transport and other diesel use, we could see Australia being an enormous energy superpower from this opportunity because the ability for us to produce hydrogen should be unlimited. We should be able to produce all the world's required hydrogen if that's necessary. That's quite an ambitious objective, and I'm not suggesting that we will fulfil the 100 per cent bargain, but hydrogen can be a massive export industry for our country.</para>
<para>That's real fuel security because it's not increasing storage of someone else's fuels for longer supply chain periods here; it's producing our own energy here in Australia for Australian needs but also pursuing the export opportunities that we can have as the rest of the world moves down the path of decarbonising. I don't know anyone who would credibly suggest that we can achieve decarbonising the global economy without green hydrogen playing an enormous part in that. This is an exciting opportunity for our country. It's something that our government is investing in very heavily. We are partnering with industry to pursue the development of a hydrogen industry that we can see creating thousands of jobs directly—if not tens of thousands—and hundreds of thousands of jobs indirectly in this country. It will also make an enormous contribution to our energy security, grow our economy and help decarbonise the planet.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is the ninth-largest energy producer in the world and has enormous renewable energy resources capacity. Despite the naturally gifted position that we are in, we remain heavily dependent on imports of refined petroleum products and crude oil to meet our liquid fuel demand. The reason for this dependency is that our abundant energy sources are not the type and quantity of fuel we currently consume in the form of liquid fuels.</para>
<para>A report commissioned by the NRMA and prepared by retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn, titled <inline font-style="italic">Australia's liquid fuel security</inline>, called on the government to take precautionary measures to deal with the disruption of the flow of oil to Australia. The report highlighted the fragility of our supply and the impact of disruption to our supply through war, natural disaster or economic turmoil. For instance, dry goods could run out within nine days, and chilled and frozen goods within seven days. Retail pharmacy supplies could run out within seven days, and hospital pharmacy supplies within three days. Fuel available to the public may also be exhausted within a matter of days. One could be forgiven for thinking this is some kind of bad movie script, but it's not a script; this is the very real risk we face as a nation.</para>
<para>Australia, as a member of the International Energy Agency, has the obligation to maintain 90 days of net oil stock supply. However, we have failed to meet this obligation since 2011. The fuel security package announced by the government purports to address this with measures that will increase our domestic storage and maintain a sovereign refining capacity, but much of it is about fuel tickets being stored in the US. This is not a solution. Our fuel security is directly related to the sovereignty of our nation, I think, more than any other issue.</para>
<para>What we need are clear strategies that will remove our dependency on oil with immediacy. The most effective approach within our control is to transition to electric vehicles. However, just as with our obligation under the International Energy Agency, we are also failing when it comes to electric vehicle sales. The reason for this is quite simple: we do not have a nationally coordinated plan for the transition to clean vehicles. In 2020, just 0.7 per cent of new vehicle sales in Australia were electric, compared with a global average of 4.2 per cent. In Norway it was 75 per cent. We should be building electric vehicles here, not just driving them. The government's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy is a start, but it falls so far short. The strategy omits some of the most effective policies at increasing electric vehicle uptake—namely, an increase in direct purchase incentives, fleet procurement, vehicle CO2 standards and stringent fuel efficiency standards.</para>
<para>Report after report concludes that direct financial incentives have the biggest effect on EV purchase decisions. Increased incentives would drive demand, which will increase EV model availability and, in turn, increase EV demand. Incentives do not have to be straight-out subsidies, although I would welcome such an initiative. Low-cost loans available through government-backed borrowing could provide access to EVs across the nation with minimal or no cost to government.</para>
<para>It is really quite appalling that Australia is one of the few OECD countries with no fuel efficiency standards. In contrast, mandatory fuel efficiency standards have been adopted by approximately 80 per cent of the global light vehicle market, including the US, the EU, Canada, Japan, China, South Korea and India. We have no mandate for ethanol in this nation, and it is a great shame. I know it's an issue that the member for Kennedy has talked about for as many years as I have been in this parliament.</para>
<para>We often approach complex policies and priorities with mutual exclusivity, and it is no more evident than in the discussion around fuel security. The transition to electric vehicles must be considered as a strategic component to our national goal of achieving fuel security and not just a standalone policy that promises a lot but delivers very, very little. Australia has been very, very lucky on this issue, but, really, any number of issues could stop the fuel coming into our nation, and then we would be in absolute dire condition.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance raised by the member for Kennedy, my electoral neighbour and good friend. I should say we're talking about fuel security here in Australia, and I want to begin by acknowledging some of the recent things that have happened in this space in Australia under the Morrison government, such as the minimum onshore stock holding obligation to safeguard key transport fuels, including increasing diesel stocks by 40 per cent. It's a very good start, a long way from where we were under previous policy. I also note the investment of over a quarter of a billion dollars in constructing new diesel storage to create about a thousand new jobs, but more importantly to increase diesel storage in strategic key locations across the nation, and also locking in our remaining refineries; they were dwindling and threatening to go by the wayside. Locking them in also gives us a level of security that we didn't have before. But it is probably an understatement to say that that's just a good start.</para>
<para>There is a lot more that needs to be done, because we are well short of international obligations of around 90 days of fuel security, which is considered what is needed by any sovereign nation to get through some crisis. If there were a situation where our shipping lines were cut and we were reliant on fuel coming in from another nation, we would be in a lot of trouble, which is why other avenues need to be explored, such as biofuels. The member for Kennedy and I have been long-time supporters of the idea of expanding the ethanol industry through a mandate. I drive on ethanol just about all the time. When I go to a bowser that has an E10 option, I use that. It's clean, it's efficient, it drives very well, and, on top of that, it is a green fuel. So we could do more by boosting that. There is so much more that could be done in that space.</para>
<para>In my remaining time, I want to respond to the first part of the member for Kennedy's matter of public importance, and that is the response to Glasgow COP26, and I have a response to Glasgow COP26. All of these international experts and politicians and all the rest of it flew into the home city of my mother, actually, God bless her. They flew into Glasgow, a place that, because of my grandparents and my mother, I thought was a place of common sense, but it seems a lot of uncommon sense flew in—nonsense, actually. They flew in on a cornucopia of different gas-guzzling jets, producing goodness knows how much in terms of emissions. And I've got to tell you that the summary of those proceedings was given by none other than climate activist Greta Thunberg at the beginning, where she said the words 'blah, blah, blah'. That's basically all that came out of COP26, apart from some personal emissions by the President of the United States in front of Camilla. We had Joe Biden falling asleep—again, a great summary of the proceedings of that event; Prince Charles doing a bit of stumbling; Obama thinking he was in the Emerald Isle; and CNN reporting that the conference was held in Edinburgh. How could you say that, as a son of a Glaswegian? But this is what it amounted to. Absolutely nothing over there. There were 140 countries getting together and voting on things like halting and reversing forest loss and land degradation by 2030, when most of them actually don't even have forests to speak of or have any that are in any danger of being whittled away. So that was Glasgow—a complete and utter waste of time for the entire world, one of the talkfests again that will just go down in the annals of history as complete stupidity. But what's going to come out of it, or what people are going to say is going to come out of it, are things that are going to affect our lives here in Australia, things that are going to affect our industries—the push for net zero, the push for closing down the coal industry by 2030. All of these things will be of great detriment to Australia and great detriment to the workers and businesses of Australia. So I think my response to Glasgow COP26, for the member for Kennedy's benefit, is that it wasn't just a waste of time; it was a dangerous waste of time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After that rubbish, we will get on to actually talking about the matter of public importance: fuel security. I rise to speak on this because it is so important, especially after COP26, because we are incredibly exposed. In June, to bolster security, the government propped up Australia's remaining oil refineries with over $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies. It's important to note that these refineries have been on the decline for the last two decades. We had seven in 2010 and just four in 2020, and we have only two now. This comes due to pressures from lower-cost refineries in Asia. As the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Revi</inline><inline font-style="italic">ew</inline> editorialised at the time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The refineries plan does not mean self-sufficiency, even with more than $2 billion of subsidy …</para></quote>
<para>So we have no plan for this. Let's be really clear. Self-sufficiency and security must be our goal. If there is anything we have learnt out of this pandemic, it has to be the importance of that security.</para>
<para>Australians spend $29 billion per year on imported fuel, and we are highly dependent on these imports. We cannot service our needs with oil from domestic oil production. It's not enough, and it's the wrong type of oil. Over 90 per cent of our fuels are imported from countries in the Middle East, Asia and North America. It leaves Australia exposed to supply disruptions in our region emanating from conflict, natural disasters and other pressures. We hear the government talk about national security. Then it should care about this issue, because it is intrinsically linked. We've seen with the pandemic what happens with supply chain disruptions and what they do to prices. At the moment, we're seeing the price of a barrel of oil go through the roof, and no amount of sovereign oil refinery capacity will keep us secure from these disruptions. It's a fundamental national security issue.</para>
<para>You only have to look at the skyrocketing price of petrol to think: is this system really working for Australian households? We're now paying almost $2 a litre at the bowser. No platitudes or magical thinking from the Prime Minister will reduce petrol prices. No blaming another side of politics or doing the usual political football is going to change that reality. Rather, we need to come up with some proper planning and not just prop up something that isn't working. We need a transition to move away. But there's no credible plan to wean us off this. The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources has projected that oil demand will increase to 2040 if we don't change policies.</para>
<para>So that's the point of this MPI: what is the government going to do to reduce pressure on Australian households and exposure to supply chain disruptions post Glasgow? We need a credible transition plan for transport, which uses most of our imported oil—75 per cent, in fact. Transport also accounts for over 18 per cent of our national greenhouse gas emissions, and that's projected to rise over the coming years. Why not power our transport with Australian sun and wind instead of Saudi oil? Aren't we all for Australian sovereignty? Transitioning will require significant investments in electric vehicle infrastructure, vehicle emission standards and tax rebates. Again, the government is the party of lower taxes. Use that to actually create a credible transition plan.</para>
<para>For aviation, that means getting away from jet fuel and moving towards biofuel or synthetic fuels. For heavy vehicles, we can look at electrification and green hydrogen, which we can make here in Australia from renewable energy. The government is offering tokenistic financing through ARENA, who are doing their best, but it's not enough. It's not a concrete policy. It's not being put in place at scale to actually get this transition going.</para>
<para>'The Australian way', the pamphlet that we had pre Glasgow, is a joke. It is not going to pool technology. It is not going to drive investment. We have nothing like the Renewable Energy Target, which was pivotal in the deployment of renewables and is why we are enjoying the small emissions reductions that we have now. The Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy for electric vehicles and hydrogen will not deliver what needs to be delivered. We have an opportunity. It is a moment in time when you can actually have vision. You can put in place a plan. We have, post the pandemic, an opportunity to reset and take on board the evidence. But things like $2 billion for fuel subsidies, $600 million for Kurri Kurri and hundreds of millions for Beetaloo basin are not a transition plan. We actually need some bravery from government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the strong action the Morrison government has taken and is taking to reduce emissions whilst growing our economy. At Glasgow, the Prime Minister outlined our plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and we're doing this with technology, not taxes, and choices, not mandates. That's the Australian way. To reach net zero, we are considering the future of our technologies. We recognise the role future technology breakthroughs will play in closing the gap, with new and emerging technologies to reduce emissions by a further 15 per cent by 2050. And we're delivering a balanced approach to achieve this through our commitment to securing our fuel sovereignty. I'm seeing firsthand the benefits of our government's commitment to affordable reliable energy in my electorate of Bonner. We've locked in Australia's sovereign refining capability with our fuel security package supporting the Ampol refinery in Lytton, in Bonner, and Victoria's Viva Energy refinery in Geelong, backing more local jobs for more local families.</para>
<para>Fuel is critical across our economy and the Morrison government is acting in a practical, responsible way to reduce emissions while preserving Australian jobs and taking advantage of our new opportunities for industries. We're considering the livelihoods of our truckies, our tradies, our farmers, our commuters, our miners and, of course, everybody who travels in Australia. We are also protecting families and businesses from higher fuel prices, ensuring they can keep more of what they earn. In fact, we will be keeping fuel prices amongst the lowest in the OECD.</para>
<para>Locking in Australia's fuel security will deliver benefits for all Australians. Traditional fuels will continue to be the dominant fuel source for transport beyond 2030. We cannot be complacent about fuel security because of this, and this package will lock in these refineries until 2027. It is critical for our farmers, our emergency services, our truckies and our industries, who rely upon diesel to keep Australia moving. Diesel consumption has increased over the last five years. Of all major transport fuels, it is the most important for all Australians as it underpins our economy and critical services. If it wasn't for our government's commitment to fuel sovereignty, it is likely Australia's remaining refineries would have closed within the next five years. Between these two refineries, this would mean losing 1,200 direct jobs and forfeiting 1,750 new construction jobs. The fallout would have had devastating impacts on jobs in all fuel-dependent industries and our local economy.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I was extremely pleased to welcome the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, to Bonner for the announcement of this package. On a local level, this package equated to 550 direct local jobs. The flow-on effect of this certainty in the local community could not be underestimated. When I joined the Prime Minister and Minister Taylor on a tour of the refinery, we walked past a worker holding up a handwritten sign which read, 'Thank you for supporting our refinery.' I was beyond humbled to read this, because this is exactly what we do. We support real people, people with families, people with passion for their work. These are people with incredible skills, and we absolutely must harness and ensure that our sovereignty stays here with us.</para>
<para>This package will also complement our Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy, which will empower consumers to drive the car that they want. This will be done by enabling the right environment, rolling out infrastructure and making the grid EV ready through priority reforms. It's backed by a $250 million Future Fuels Fund focused on public EV charging, commercial fleets, household smart-charging and heavy and long-distance vehicle technologies. It also forms part of the more than $2.1 billion our government has committed to support the uptake of future fuels and vehicles. Labor's 2019 policy would have forced Australians to purchase an EV regardless of whether it was right for them, by setting a target that 50 per cent of new car sales had to be EVs by 2030. But our government won't be telling Australians what car they must drive or increase the cost for those who can least afford it through taxes, bans or standards. We know this will just drive up the cost of Australian family vehicles, so we're taking action to strengthen our economy and back our industries, and reduce emissions while we are at it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bonner started his remarks in this MPI by saying his government was taking action, but I think we know that this government is missing in action. And it is lovely, I have to say, to see the crossbench, with this MPI today, bringing forward a topic that I have spoken about in this chamber many times before and which we agree is a serious and important issue. But unfortunately the government, or at least most of the government—I know there's a spattering of members over there that agree with us—isn't actually taking this issue seriously, because under the Morrison government petrol prices are skyrocketing, real wages are going down and working families are going backwards, and this is a government that is doing nothing to resolve any of these things.</para>
<para>Back in 2011, Australia had a liquefied fuel reserve well over the 90-day International Energy Agency requirement. But, over the last 10 years, Australia's seven fuel refineries have dwindled down to just two. This approach is certainly leaving Australia vulnerable to supply chain shocks. COVID-19 has demonstrated that such supply chain disruptions are not just a theoretical possibility. In fact, we're seeing it right now, with petrol prices going through the roof across the nation.</para>
<para>It's not just about supply. It's not just about jobs. It's not just about the economy. It's also about our national security, our sovereign integrity and our ability to look after ourselves. Petrol prices have risen under this government. We've seen these prices rise all over the globe. Indeed, in the last 24 hours, President Joe Biden announced that he's authorising a historic release from that nation's strategic oil reserve to help offset a surge in gasoline prices in America in the hope that this will have global flow-on effects.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, here in Australia, we don't have a strategic reserve. We hardly have any refineries anymore. We get our fuel through Singapore. On this government's watch, we have seen oil refineries shut down in Australia, and a rescue package had to be put in place to try and keep refineries operating here in Australia. But guess what? That didn't work either, because, under the government's plan to support refineries, we saw two refineries close. In February we saw the Altona Refinery close in the seat of Gellibrand, resulting in the loss of 150 jobs. And in Kwinana, in the seat of Brand, the biggest refinery in Australia was closed, resulting in a loss of some 600 jobs. It was not just job losses but fuel security loss for our nation as well. Retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO has been vocal on this matter for some time, criticising the Australian government's approach to ensuring national liquid fuel supply. I tend to agree with him.</para>
<para>As I have said, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed significant vulnerabilities in global supply chains, and importing more than 90 per cent of our fuel stocks now means that we are absolutely at the mercy of these overseas supply interruptions. We need to approach this not just from an economic perspective but also with a scientific, business continuity and, perhaps most vitally, military defence approach. We cannot forget that fuel access and supply is a fundamental defence industry input to defence capability. It's become apparent that many of the fundamental assumptions about our nation's security need to be revisited and, with that, the assumptions that we have made regarding our supply chains and in particular fuel supply.</para>
<para>The security and critical supply chain is something that can't simply be left to the market or to big business. The government needs to take a leading role to ensure our nation's ongoing security. We must safeguard our nation's liquid fuel security. Everything that moves in this country is fuelled on diesel or avgas. The WA resources industry, the one that keeps our entire nation's economy going, would literally stop without these two fuels. Yet now, without the BP Kwinana refinery, there are only five days of avgas storage in Western Australia and only three weeks of diesel. Reliant on imports, many of which traverse northern Asia, we are now without an option for refining our own from more abundant crude imports from around the globe. And the government's best solution so far is to buy a fuel stockpile but keep it in the United States of America! We need to be serious about this. We need to be backing our Aussie refineries, our jobs that go with them and our fuel networks. We need to be backing our national economy and our security. The government's been talking a big game when it comes to national security over recent days and weeks, but it is leaving us fundamentally short when it comes to our fuel security.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALLEN</name>
    <name.id>282986</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government is taking strong action to further boost our long-term fuel security by locking in the future of our refining sector, and that's been through the landmark Fuel Security Act 2021, where we've looked at the refining capacity to secure ongoing operations of refineries in both Brisbane and Geelong. These will stay in operation until at least mid-2027.</para>
<para>As part of this commitment, the government will also co-fund $250 million in major infrastructure upgrades. This is important, because it will help to lower the sulphur fuel content of our fuels for our onshore refining. This lowering of the sulphur content in fuel will bring benefits of around $1 billion in avoided health costs due to better air quality. This will also help motorists to save costs on maintenance. Our fuel security package is important not only for ensuring our short- and medium-term support of the refinery industry but also for making sure we improve the health of our consumers.</para>
<para>The issue with our fuel security package is that there are two things coming at us at speed. Firstly, we have been dealing with the COVID pandemic, and that has had an effect on our supply chain. There is absolutely no doubt about our sovereign supply chains; whether it's been for medicines, PPE equipment or tests, we have had issues to address. That can also be true for fuel security, so it is important that we turn our minds to the issue of how to make sure we have fuel security.</para>
<para>But it's not just COVID that we've had to deal with, with regard to self-sufficiency and security; we've also had the issue of the world transitioning to a decarbonised economy. Australia has been very fortunate that it has had a lot of access to cheap energy in the past and will continue to in the short to medium term. But we are going through a transition which means we need to build the infrastructure of the future. That's why we recognise that, while fuels are transitioning, we need to get ready for the green superpower led future that is awaiting Australia. This includes the government's strategic investment in the Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy. This strategy will help empower consumers to drive the car they want and help support an enabling environment by rolling out infrastructure and making the grid electric vehicle ready.</para>
<para>The transition that needs to happen, where we move from being dependent on diesel and on fossil fuels, is going to take time, and it is going to take technological development to get us there. But this government is committed to a carbon net zero 2050, underpinning the infrastructure changes, technological development and business development that is going to have to happen to get us there sooner, faster and safer.</para>
<para>Our strategy is backed by the $250 million Future Fuels Fund, which will focus on some very important aspects. The first is public EV charging stations. We know Australia has some particular issues with regard to being a big continent and us liking to drive a long way. Anyone who's been to Europe knows that they have much shorter distances. Australians love to get in a car and drive a long way. We need to make sure our public EV charging stations are supplementing the private EV charging stations that are growing like sunflowers across this great continent. A number of constituents in my electorate spoke with me last week about the work they are doing in the private EV charging sector. We know GET and JOLT are two such EV charging businesses that have grown very rapidly and are providing private EV charging. We as a government are backing in private enterprise and filling the gap with public EV charging. We also understand household smart charging will be important for the future, and we also know we're going to have to deal with heavy and long-distance vehicle technologies in a very different way. These will be fuelled by hydrogen—green hydrogen in particular.</para>
<para>As we move from a liquid fuel past based on fossil fuels to a liquid fuel future based on green hydrogen, we know there is a lot of change coming to this country. And who do you trust better than us to lead you into that future? Who do you trust better than a government that understands the technology led development of future fuels, of infrastructure, and understands that industry partnering with government is the best way forward by enabling the gaps to be filled by government but not the whole thing to be driven by government? Partnering with the private sector to support uptake and stimulate co-investment in future fuels is how we get to a greener, cleaner future faster.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On 2 July this year I became the minister for northern Australia, and today I'm pleased to deliver my first annual statement on the implementation of the Liberal-National government's northern Australian development agenda. We are almost six years into the 20-year policy vision for sustainable economic development that was established by the 2015 white paper on developing northern Australia. Over the last five years, our government has laid a solid foundation to build on, and I thank the former minister and assistant minister for northern Australia, the Hon. Keith Pitt MP and the Hon. Michelle Landry MP, for their contribution to this agenda. I'd also like to acknowledge the passion and dedication of Senator Susan McDonald in her role as the Special Envoy for Northern Australia.</para>
<para>Developing northern Australia is truly a whole-of-government responsibility, and we are seeing the benefits of our collective work. Roads and water infrastructure are being built. Industry-led research is developing pathways for emerging markets and increasing the productivity of existing markets. We've enhanced livability to attract skilled workers and families, and we've enhanced capacity building in creating economic opportunities on Indigenous land. Led by the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, our education and skills development programs are equipping communities to achieve their full potential. Over 70,000 enrolments are being supported by JobTrainer, and over $364 million has been paid to northern Australian businesses to encourage uptake of apprenticeships.</para>
<para>Together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, we are addressing workforce shortages during harvest season with the streamlining of our Pacific labour mobility programs, the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program, through the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme and the recently announced Australian agricultural visa.</para>
<para>The reinsurance pool for cyclones and related flood damages, backed by a $10 billion government guarantee, commencing on 1 July 2022, will improve the accessibility and affordability of home and business insurance in cyclone-prone areas. The $40 million North Queensland Strata Title Resilience Pilot Program commencing in January 2022 will subsidise cyclone-disaster mitigation works for both improved resilience of strata titled properties and insurance affordability in northern Queensland. The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment understands the north's role as a major economic driver.</para>
<para>Through the government's $1 billion COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund we've supported tourism businesses to survive the loss of international visitors, including the zoos and aquariums that are so special to northern Australia and our nation's identity. We've invested in health and social infrastructure by giving healthcare providers in regional and remote communities across northern Australia $230 million to improve health outcomes, particularly for Indigenous communities. The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry will invest $10 billion into Australian Defence Force infrastructure over the coming decade, creating business opportunities for local industry through demand for services and resources for defence bases and personnel and their families.</para>
<para>The Deputy Prime Minister is championing our infrastructure by investing $1.96 billion over 10 years to 2028 on Roads of Strategic Importance to better connect agriculture, tourism and mining regions to transport hubs, creating opportunities for greater regional employment and business growth. And he's investing more than $500 million towards water infrastructure like the Rookwood Weir and Big Rocks Weir through the National Water Grid Authority, because dams create jobs and water security.</para>
<para>In the last budget, the federal government committed $189.6 million to kickstart the next five years of development based on the white paper. This year we launched our $111.9 million Northern Australia Development Program to give business and industry a helping hand to scale up and diversify their operations. The first assessment round will close soon, with grants to be awarded from February. We're also tackling the challenge of connecting people and business with the $68.5 million Connecting Northern Australia initiative dedicated to improving digital and telecommunications connectivity, and mobile blackspots. The program will open before the end of this year as part of the Regional Connectivity Program.</para>
<para>I want to highlight how we will implement the $9.3 million Regions of Growth pilot program also announced in the last budget. These regions of growth cover Broome to Kununurra to Darwin in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, the Beetaloo Basin to Katherine to Darwin in the Northern Territory, Mount Isa to Townsville, and Cairns to Gladstone in Queensland. As part of this we will deliver the master plans for those regions of growth and their respective corridors—20-year blueprints and five-year action plans—to lead a structured and coordinated investment agenda in collaboration with our state and territory counterparts, industry and communities. The first three master plans will focus on locations within our region of growth—Broome to Kununurra to Darwin in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, the Beetaloo Basin to Katherine to Darwin in the Northern Territory, Cairns to Gladstone in Queensland, and Mount Isa to Townsville in Queensland. The plans will decrease the risk of doing business in the north and give the private sector the confidence to invest there. We'll also look for opportunities to work collaboratively with jurisdictional counterparts to ensure that our policies and regulations are being implemented as intended and are enabling sustainable growth, not hindering or delaying it. The master plans represent our forward-leaning approach to ensuring that the benefits of Australian government investments are maximised and stay in the regions. And that's just the beginning. The Cairns to Gladstone region of growth will follow, and we are working to identify further regions of growth and pipelines of investment-ready projects. I'm pleased to release today this information booklet, <inline font-style="italic">Our North, Our Future 2021-2026: Targeted Growth</inline>, which sets out this agenda and our priority areas in more detail and will be available on the Office of Northern Australia website.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge the continuing contribution of government agencies and private sector partners implementing our vision. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, NAIF, has committed over $3.1 billion of its $5 billion to project financing. This commitment will generate an estimated total capital value of $6.6 billion, $16 billion in economic benefit and around 10,000 new jobs. Some of those highlights include $704 million for the Lake Wells, Kalium Lakes and Mardie salt projects in Western Australia to support the establishment of a new potash industry; $150 million for upgrades to Darwin airport, including a new freight, cold storage and import-export hub; and a $610 million loan to the Genex Kidston project to build Australia's first new pumped-storage hydro project connected to the grid in 40 years.</para>
<para>Our government is partnering with businesses to make sure that these important projects come to fruition, but our expectation as part of this partnership is that businesses pay their way first before dipping into the public purse and using Australian taxpayers' money. The NAIF will only draw down on the $3.1 billion currently committed once business hits their key milestone and once they've spent their own money. That's simple, responsible use of taxpayers' money. The NAIF will align more closely than ever with our national priorities and leverage private sector investment to maximise the benefits not only for the northern economy but for the national economy too. The Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia has invested $22 million across 59 projects, supporting pioneering industry-led research into water productivity for tropical horticulture to futureproof the aquaculture industry and explore new industry options, and improving the efficiency of existing Kakadu plum value chains to grow a sustainable industry for this unique bush food and grow consumer loyalty.</para>
<para>I want to thank members of the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group for their commitment and contributions to the northern Australia agenda. I'll soon stand up the second Indigenous reference group, which will be a valuable source of strategic advice to achieve practical outcomes.</para>
<para>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are custodians of over 75 per cent of Australia's landmass. Backing our Indigenous entrepreneurs and businesses is a top priority. NAIF will support the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation with a $13½ million loan to redevelop and expand a food cold storage and warehouse facility in Alice Springs, helping to get more fresh and frozen food into the region's communities. Minister Wyatt recently announced a new Indigenous business hub for Darwin to realise the ever-increasing opportunities being created through procurement policies and emerging commercial prospects. I congratulate Minister Wyatt on the progress made towards the development of the National Roadmap for Indigenous Skills, Jobs and Wealth Creation to date.</para>
<para>The Liberal-National government already has a proven track record of investment, but we all recognise that transformational change happens over many decades. That is why we are taking a whole-of-government masterplan approach across all levels of government and priority sectors. A stronger, more prosperous and more resilient north will benefit our nation as a whole through exponential growth.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in response to the northern Australia ministerial statement, and I congratulate Minister Littleproud on his appointment and on providing this House with his first update as Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Over six years on from the introduction of the white paper on developing the north, we are still waiting on the government to deliver on their promises. I note the promises which were made today. When the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government announced their northern Australia agenda in 2015, they claimed their plan would help unleash our nation's potential. That's yet to be realised. The government loves talking about potential, but the reality six years on is that the north can feel dudded, I think, by the piecemeal plans that have been put in place.</para>
<para>Time and time again, and contrary to what the government might believe, I hear from communities across the north that they are not seeing the leadership that they want from this government. I have to say it's not surprising, though, when leadership squabbles within the coalition are at the forefront of people's minds. As much as I'm glad to see Minister Littleproud deliver his statement, the elephant in the room, of course, is that the minister only got this job after Keith, his mate, was ousted after only a year in the job during yet another National leadership spill. I sympathise with Keith. We know that the people in the bush and particularly northern Australia are the people who suffer when the Nats decide they'd rather have a go at themselves.</para>
<para>We've also seen significant turmoil at the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF, with the shock resignation of CEO Chris Wade. Sadly, the NAIF continues to be a sore thumb for this government, and I note the minister's comments. Labor supports the NAIF, as you well know. There is a real gap, though, in financing projects in the north which the NAIF could fill. There are clear challenges for the new board, but I do want to recognise Tracey Hayes as the chair, someone who I've known for many years and I know well. We were pleased that the government adopted some of Labor's suggestions to improve the NAIF, such as allowing it to make equity investments and increasing support for small and First Nations projects. However, Minister, you've yet to acknowledge you'll include the Indian Ocean Territories as part of NAIF. It beggars belief that you can't see that Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, north of the Tropic of Capricorn—although, yes, in the Indian Ocean—are part of northern Australia. If you wouldn't mind, I would like you to include them as part of northern Australia for the purpose of NAIF funding. That would be something which would make people on Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands most pleased.</para>
<para>However, six years after it was announced, the NAIF has still only released 8.5 per cent, $427.6 million, of its $5 billion budget. At this rate it will take 70 years for all of NAIF's funding to be allocated out. The minister—and I want to thank him—has also touched on some government programs to fund disaster resilience. It's unfortunate he didn't think to mention the $4.7 billion Emergency Response Fund, which was announced over 2½ years ago to fund disaster recovery and resilience. This fund could be building cyclone shelters, evacuation centres and flood levies across the north right now, but 2½ years on it has only begun releasing funding in last month and there are still no shovels on the ground. The week that the Bureau of Meteorology declared a La Nina weather event and natural disaster, communities have been left unprotected yet again.</para>
<para>Perhaps the most worrying backward step in the northern Australia agenda is the winding back of some of these key structures. The ministerial forum on northern Australia, comprising responsible ministers from the Commonwealth, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, has, as I understand it, been quietly downgraded to meeting 'as needed' before it will be disbanded later this year. Funding for the Indigenous reference group, which the minister referred to, ceased at the end of last year, but I do note that he's confirmed today that the Indigenous reference group will be re-established. It was concerning that so little consideration was given to the ongoing importance of engaging with First Nations Australians in the first place. It should not have been run down. These types of structures are essential for the collaboration the northern Australia agenda needs to succeed.</para>
<para>I commend the minister to make more of the Indigenous reference group and the advice he can get from First Nations people right across this country. He made reference to the amount of land which they have responsibility for and speak on behalf of, and it's very clear that Indigenous people, First Nations people from across the country and across the north of Australia, are very keen to be involved in development projects. It is clear, however, that northern Australia needs a real plan backed by real action. That's why it won't surprise you that that's what Labor's economic plan for northern Australia will do, by creating more jobs in more industries. We want to create more jobs in the north's backbone industries like agriculture, resources and tourism.</para>
<para>It's significant, I think, that people from what we would call 'down south' fail to really understand the potential of the north in agriculture, and it's very significant. The amount of agricultural development in the Northern Territory, for example, is far, far greater than that in the Ord, and that's not recognised. I want to commend the activities of all people involved in those industries in the north, including, of course, the pastoral industry. We want to create more jobs, though, in the hidden industries that we often don't recognise—things that are extremely important to the north and indeed to Australia generally, like health care, education and human services. And we want to create more jobs in the newer industries, where our north has a massive competitive advantage, like renewables, particularly solar; hydrogen; advanced manufacturing; aerospace; and creative industries.</para>
<para>There are incredible opportunities arising across northern Australia, but we're not going to harness them by offering short-term solutions. I note the minister talked about long-term outcomes. Well, I would share that view with him, but we've got to get acting and we've got to get moving. Labour will start by actually delivering the infrastructure required to grow and connect northern communities. In this year's budget, Queensland received the lowest share of new infrastructure spending per head of anywhere in the country. In the Northern Territory, only one per cent of new infrastructure funds will be spent in the next four years.</para>
<para>It's not just about building the roads, bridges and tunnels needed to connect our communities. Labor believes in investing in our social infrastructure as well. Whether it's overcrowding in our remote Aboriginal communities or skyrocketing rents in our northern cities, housing is one of the biggest issues facing the north. The recent COVID outbreak around the Katherine region and down at Robertson River highlights the importance of us addressing the infrastructure shortfall in housing across northern Australia in First Nations communities. That's why Labor is committed to a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund which, over the first five years, will build 20,000 social housing dwellings and 10,000 affordable housing places for essential workers who are being priced out of the market. Significantly, the fund will also provide $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote First Nations communities. There is still more to be done.</para>
<para>Labor is also focused on tackling unmet need across our health and aged-care sectors in the north. While addressing this need will be good for the health outcomes of northern Australia, it will also create, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, many jobs. Of course, if we're to deliver this infrastructure or build our traditional hidden and emerging industries, we need to tackle the issue businesses constantly raise with me: skills shortages. And I note the reference that the minister made. That's why an Albanese Labor government will require that one job in 10 on major federal projects will be filled with an apprentice, trainee or cadet. We will establish Jobs and Skills Australia to match the training we provide with the skills gaps of industry, and we will invest $100 million to provide incentives for new-energy apprentices to ensure that we have skilled workers for the growing new-energy sector. We will develop a new employment program, in partnership with First Nations people, to replace the failed and punitive CDP. This is something I've been banging on about for over a decade. We're yet to see anything concrete come out of the government, but we will be changing it if we form government. We'll scrap CDP and introduce a new program which will be a work program in Aboriginal communities.</para>
<para>Finally, there is a real need to offer options to ease investment in northern Australia. That's why Labor has announced a National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund that will partner with the private sector to invest in projects that value-add. This will help create the jobs in minerals and food processing, shipbuilding, defence, renewables and medical manufacturing. I note the minister's reference to defence. Of course, it's a significant part of the economy of northern Australia, and much more needs to be done to advance the opportunities for small businesses involved in the defence sector across the north.</para>
<para>Labor believes in putting forward a bold agenda for northern Australia that will, above all, create more jobs across more industries. The north, as we all know, is full of potential yet to be realised, and it's time we had a government that will realise it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Implementation of the National Redress Scheme Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Committee</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport 14 of 2021</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 14th scrutiny report of 2021. As usual, this report contains a technical examination of the compatibility of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law. In this report, the committee has considered 91 new legislative instruments and commented on two of those. The committee has also commented on government amendments to one bill and has concluded its consideration of two bills and two legislative instruments previously introduced.</para>
<para>In particular, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the government amendments to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. The amendments seek to allow the Quality of Care Principles to set out who can give consent to the use of a restrictive practice on a person in aged care if that person lacks capacity to give consent. The amendments also provide immunity from any civil or criminal liability for the aged-care provider in relation to the use of such practices. The committee considers that these measures engage and may limit the rights of persons with disabilities and is seeking further information in relation to this. While it is not the usual practice of this committee to comment on amendments to a bill, the committee undertook an inquiry in 2019 into the legislation surrounding the use of restrictive practices in aged care, and as such this is an issue the committee continues to monitor closely.</para>
<para>This report also contains the committee's concluded comments regarding the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021. As members no doubt know, the mandate of this important committee is to examine all bills and legislative instruments that come before either house of parliament for compatibility with Australia's human rights obligations under international human rights treaties ratified by Australia and to report to both houses of parliament on that issue. To achieve this, committee members consider expert legal advice as to the application of international human rights law. On this basis, after considering this advice and the minister's advice to the committee, the committee considers it has not been established that this bill seeks to address an issue of public or social concern that is pressing and substantial enough to warrant limiting the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination, or that it is proportionate to the stated objectives. The committee draws this matter to the attention of the minister and parliament and has concluded its examination of this matter.</para>
<para>Finally, the committee has concluded its examination of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021. The committee considers that, while there are various measures in this bill that would promote the rights of persons with disability, allowing the CEO to vary or reassess an NDIS participant's plan on their own initiative and without the participant's consent may limit the rights to health and an adequate standard of living, as well as the rights of persons with disability. The committee considers that the proportionality of the measure may be assisted where the bill is amended to provide that, so far as is reasonably practical, the CEO should obtain the participant's consent to vary their plan, and the CEO's power to vary a participant's plan on their own initiative should be limited to variations that would benefit the participant.</para>
<para>I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis. With these comments, I commend the report to the chamber.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I spoke on the tabling of this report, but I want to add further following the information requested from the relevant ministers, which has been provided and which we've included in our final comments. Firstly, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity ) Bill 2021 seeks to require voters to present identification documentation or an attestation from another enrolled person in order to cast an ordinary vote during the prepolling period and on polling day. I note that, where these requirements are not met, a voter can cast a declaration vote. I put that on the record. But this bill engages and may limit the right to take part in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination.</para>
<para>Australians currently have this right. These rights may be subject to permissible limitations where the limitation pursues a legitimate objective, is rationally connected to that objective and is a proportionate means of achieving that objective. The committee did seek further advice from the minister, including: evidence that there is a problem that warrants limiting the rights of Australians, that's Legislation 101; what modelling has been done to assess how this measure would affect voter turnout, that's Legislation 102; and whether this measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on certain groups, that's Legislation 201. The minister provided the advice but did not provide any further evidence to demonstrate that there is currently a lack of public confidence in Australian electoral processes. That is a 'fail' in all three of the subjects that I've flagged. The minister didn't provide any evidence that there have been cases of voter impersonation in previous elections. The legal advice to the committee is that 'it is not possible to conclude that this issue addresses a pressing or substantial public or social concern'.</para>
<para>The minister pointed to Queensland voter identification laws to predict how this would affect voter turnout. The minister loudly said that the 2015 Queensland voter election, when voter ID laws were in place, had a higher voter turnout than the turnout since voter identification laws had been repealed. That was the election to get rid of 'Can-do Campbell Newman'. However, the minister failed to mention that the turnout in Queensland was higher prior to 2015, before voter identification laws were implemented. Voter turnout in the 2012 Queensland election was 91 per cent compared to 89.9 per cent in 2015. It might be worth the minister mentioning that key fact.</para>
<para>The minister's response did not address how voter identification requirements would be effective in preventing people from voting multiple times at different locations with the same ID. The committee still has concerns that certain vulnerable groups may be disproportionately impacted by this measure—Indigenous persons in remote communities, of whom there are plenty in Queensland; people experiencing homelessness., of whom there are about 100,000 throughout Australia; and people fleeing domestic violence, particularly women and children. The legal advice to the committee notes that the only alternative to producing identification still requires a person to state their current address, which may be particularly difficult for those people experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that the right to vote at elections and referendums must established by law and may be subject only to reasonable restrictions, such as setting a minimum age limit for the right to vote. There's no mention of intelligence tests coming out of the United Nations just yet. Under international human rights law the onus is on the state to demonstrate that any limit on the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. The legal advice given to the human rights committee was that there is a risk that this measure would impermissibly limit the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. I would encourage the minister to read the very thorough and considered examination of these proposals contained in this report that has been tabled by the chair, the member for Mallee.</para>
<para>I would also encourage all members of this House to read this report with respect to the proposed voter ID laws, as they will be called to vote on them soon. It might exercise their conscience, if they are currently willing their conscience out into the political daylight, as I note the member for Dawson has indicated. It is interesting to hear that he spent 11 years without using his conscience! I encourage them to ask why these laws are necessary when there is a real risk to the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination.</para>
<para>The second bill the committee has now made concluding remarks on is the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill will allow the plan of a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme to be varied or reassessed. This could occur on the initiative of the CEO or at the request of the participant. The committee requested further advice from the minister, and that advice has now been received.</para>
<para>The measures in this bill engages Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A limitation on those rights must pursue a legitimate objective, namely one that is necessary and addresses an issue of public or social concern that is pressing and substantial enough to warrant limiting the rights of Australians with disability. The committee noted that where a participant's supports are reduced or adversely changed as a result of the CEO varying or reassessing their plan the measure would engage and may limit the right to health and an adequate standard of living as well as the rights of persons with disability, including the right to live independently and be included in the community. As those who follow politics would know, that was the whole point of the NDIS. The committee also noted that some questions remain as to whether the measure is a proportionate means of achieving these objectives, particularly as much of the detail is to be included in the as yet unmade NDIS rules—something that would be outside the scrutiny of many people in this parliament.</para>
<para>Finally, the committee noted it is not clear that the measure represents the least rights restrictive approach to achieving the stated objective. The committee notes that a less rights restrictive way of achieving the stated objectives may be to require the consent of the participant to vary their plan and to limit the CEO's power to vary a participant's plan on their own initiative to variations that would benefit the participant. Those two words, 'consent' and 'benefit', were core concerns of the NDIS when Labor brought that wonderful program in. The committee has suggested some amendments to the bill in order to assist the proportionality of this measure, and I encourage the minister to make the suggested amendments as contained in the report.</para>
<para>I encourage all members to read the committee's report on the two bills that I've mentioned that are considered in report 14 of 2021 and to read the whole of the scrutiny report, which also considers several other bills and legislative instruments. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>82</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="250026" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>82</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="XW4" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="133646" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There being no further speakers, the question is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitman be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">2019-2020-2021</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Parliament of the</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Commonwealth of Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Mr Kelly)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 14 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 — Triple damages for con traventions of Australian Consumer Law</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Corporation Act 2001</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After Part 9.4AAA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 9.4AAB — Triple damages for contraventions of Australian Consumer Law</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1317AL Triple damages for contraventions of Australian Consumer Law</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a company contravenes the Australian Consumer Law (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) proceedings are brought in a court for loss or damage suffered as a result of the contravention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the court considers it appropriate to do so, the court may award against the company for the loss or damage triple the damages that the court could award in the proceedings apart from this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In determining whether it is appropriate to award triple damages, the court must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the difference between the financial resources available to the plaintiff and the company for the purposes of the proceedings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of Part 10.61</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1689 Applicatio n of amendments relating to triple damages for contraventions of Australian Consumer Law</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 1317AL applies in relation to contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law occurring on or after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<para>The title of this bill is the Corporations Amendment (Improving Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants) Bill 2021. If the government truly wants to improve outcomes for litigation funding petitions, I suggest that we look especially into areas of competition law and adopt the provision that exists in US antitrust law, and that is to bring in a provision for treble damages. Therefore, this amendment states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Triple damages for contraventions of Australian Consumer Law</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) a company contravenes the Australian Consumer Law (within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) proceedings are brought in a court for loss or damage suffered as a result of the contravention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the court considers it appropriate to do so, the court may award against the company for the loss or damage triple the damages that the court could award in the proceedings apart from this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In determining whether it is appropriate to award triple damages, the court must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) the difference between the financial resources available to the plaintiff and the company for the purposes of the proceedings.</para></quote>
<para>The concept of automatic treble damages applies to the vast majority of US antitrust cases. Indeed, mandatory treble damages are a bedrock of the US antitrust landscape and, absent of any major change politically—and there appear to be none on the horizon—they are likely to remain part of the US antitrust law for many years to come. However, the concept of treble damages was not adopted into Australian competition law; thus when a plaintiff tries to pursue a larger company for damages under breaches of Australia's competition law, they are up against an enormous disadvantage in the costs and their ability to do so.</para>
<para>The US provisions are said to be based upon three simple principles: treble damages are necessary to deter potential wrongdoers; treble damages provide necessary incentives for private plaintiffs to bring antitrust suits—in Australia's case, it would be breaches of our competition law—and that treble damages are necessary to fully compensate the victims of anticompetitive conduct. If we are truly concerned about the low returns and the costs of plaintiffs bringing cases to the courts and the inadequate returns that they receive from the damages that are done to them, we should adopt here in Australia the same provisions that exist in US antitrust law. One exception is that it is automatic under US antitrust law, whereas under the provision that I'm proposing, it would be discretionary, at the court's option. If this is passed, I would be happy to support the bill, because it would in fact improve the outcomes for litigation funding participants. But if this moment is not passed, I cannot support the bill as it stands.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings.</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to, Mr C Kelly and Mr Christensen voting no.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a third time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [17:40]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>65</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, J. G.</name>
                  <name>Allen, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Andrews, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Drum, D. K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Evans, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Falinski, J. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Flint, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Hammond, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Hunt, G. A.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Liu, G.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>Martin, F. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, K. D.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Porter, C.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Simmonds, J.</name>
                  <name>Smith, A, D. H.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tudge, A. E.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wicks, L. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, T. R.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, K. G.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>63</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bird, S. L.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Champion, N. D.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M. (Proxy)</name>
                  <name>Christensen, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hayes, C. P.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Owens, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B.</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="IYS" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I call the member for Scullin.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation and wish you well in your high office.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Scullin.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021. Labor is opposing this bill and the attack on our democratic rights and institutions that it represents. It is simply disgusting that the title of this bill includes the word 'integrity'. This bill has nothing to do with integrity and neither does this government. In fact, the very opposite is the case. This bill is by its very design a vehicle to diminish electoral integrity by restricting, without a shred of evidence, people's capacity to vote and by raising unwarranted questions about the operation of Australian elections. It is part of a wider attempt to undermine our democratic institutions.</para>
<para>On the eve of an election, this government, in its desperation, is seeking to move beyond rorting public money and treating it as a political slush fund to rorting the electoral process itself, seeking to rig it to its own advantage following the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021, shamefully rammed through this chamber on Monday with 35 separate amendments introduced at the very last minute, giving members no opportunity to consider their effect. That was a bad bill designed to shut out the voices of those who might be critical of this government, including some of the most important voices and perspectives that need to be heard in this place in our politics, diminishing our democracy again in the absence of evidence—indeed, in defiance of the evidence.</para>
<para>On this point of evidence, I note that, just as we were participating in the last decision, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights issued some guidance on this bill—the bill that's before the House right now—raising its concerns about the restriction on the right to vote that is set out in this bill—this bill which is all about voter suppression. It is part of a disturbing pattern which we see emerging, representing the very opposite of boosting electoral integrity. The bill before the House is a revealing piece of legislation. It speaks to the character of this tired, dysfunctional and directionless government and that of the man who leads it. He's a bloke you can't trust and who, through this bill, says to Australians that he doesn't trust them. In essence, that is what this bill is all about. He has clocked that Australians are working him out and that he has no record to run on—no record of achievement, no vision for the future. While he didn't 'hold a hose', he's now, in his audacity, telling Australians that they must bring particular forms of identity with them in order to exercise the most fundamental of democratic rights—that of casting a ballot on election day. He's making it harder to vote and pretending that this is somehow needed when it is a solution in search of a problem, notwithstanding the real danger that suggesting there is a problem here represents to maintaining trust in politics, and pretending that this bill is concerned with lifting democratic standards when the evidence tells a very different and much more sinister story.</para>
<para>On Monday, Mr Morrison's government moved to shut out opposing alternative viewpoints from the political debate, punishing charities and not-for-profits who might want to tell the truth about Mr Morrison's many failures. Today, his government is trying to suppress the vote. Through the pandemic, we saw a welcome increase in Australians' trust in government and political institutions. This increase in trust, though, is being undermined by the Morrison-Joyce government, which is taking every opportunity to dog-whistle to those with extremist and dangerous views, as we saw in question time today. In the past week, we've seen gallows displayed on the steps of the Victorian parliament and violent threats made against elected officials across the country and their families too. Instead of standing unequivocally against these threats, the Prime Minister has taken the opportunity to emulate Donald Trump. Mr Morrison has chosen time and time again not to make clear that all this conduct is unacceptable in our democracy. Instead, not wanting to upset violent extremists, he took the opportunity to tell them that he understood them.</para>
<para>This is at the same time that he claims credit for high vaccination rates without taking responsibility for those measures necessary to get those rates up. Indeed, he's undermining those measures, calling for restrictions on the unvaccinated to be rolled back, putting at risk the workers and healthcare systems that have kept us safe for the past two years. On the one hand, he's claiming he wants the government out of people's lives, and, on the other, he's limiting political debate and suppressing voters with additional regulations. This is a joke at the expense of Australians.</para>
<para>It is another opportunity of Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, seeking to divide Australians, rather than unite them. He claims he believes in vaccines, claims credit for the vaccination rates, but at the same time he allows government members and senators to spread COVID and vaccine misinformation and disinformation, like Senator Rennick, who's been running scare campaigns about vaccine safety, including sharing posts from an antivaccination advocate who's called for the execution of Prime Minister Ardern for her country's vaccination program. And Senator Rennick has been rewarded for this conduct, as we learnt today. There's also Senator Antic, who has been feeding protests by claiming Australians are being coerced into getting vaccinated against their will, and of course there's the member for Dawson, who has promoted dangerous and banned COVID-19 treatments and compared vaccine mandates to apartheid, and he put in a disgraceful performance before question time today, a disgraceful performance matched by the failure of the Prime Minister to call it out, matched by the weakness of the Prime Minister who cannot even bring himself to say the name of the member for Dawson, which is George Christensen by the way. He deserves to be called out, instead of another nasty deflection and irrelevant attack on great Australian Sally McManus.</para>
<para>Australians deserve so much better. Australians deserves political leaders from right across the ideological spectrum who will stand up for integrity in politics, through our words, speaking honestly and telling the truth and matching those words with deeds. It's now well over 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised a national integrity commission, but he won't establish one. If he did, he knows that it would be the members of his government who'd be the first to be hauled before it for this government's treatment of public funds, the Liberal Party's slush fund, and for the failure to disclose the source of secret donations hidden in something called a blind trust. Yesterday, Labor and the crossbench in the Senate sought to bring closer the national anticorruption commission that's so sorely needed in Australia, but the Liberals and the Nationals with their allies have again voted against this. They should be ashamed, and they should think about their obligations to our democratic and electoral system, instead of continuing to undermine these.</para>
<para>This bill is a cheap trick by the Morrison-Joyce government that it thinks will help it win the next election. This bill will require every Australian elector to prove their identity when they go to vote at the next election, and it has nothing to do with electoral or voting integrity and everything to do with this Prime Minister using any tactic available to him to stop people who might vote against him from having the opportunity to vote at all. This Prime Minister has only one motivation for everything he does. Nothing he brings before this House is ever genuine. Nothing is ever done in the public interest or the interest of Australians. Everything is done purely for this Prime Minister to somehow find a path to be re-elected, and this bill is part of that plan. It's a blatant voter suppression tool.</para>
<para>This government talks about how voter identification is required in other countries in all but 14 states of the US. The fact is, though, other countries don't have Australia's system of compulsory enrolment which makes the opportunity for voter fraud here almost nonexistent. Yes, voter ID is used extensively in the United States. It's straight out of Donald Trump's playbook. While we celebrated those famous and inspirational long waits in queues at ballot boxes—they were inspiring—let's remember that they were a triumph of resilience that should never have been required in the face of cynicism and often in the face of racism in that country, which we should not be seeking to emulate in this manner. There is simply no need for these laws. We know this because the Australian Electoral Commissioner has said the number of multiple votes cast in Australia is vanishingly small. It's something like 0.001 per cent. Of over 16 million people enrolled to vote at the last election, only 2,102 voters were found to have multiple marks next to their name. The commission wrote to every single one of them and found that many of the marks were simply administrative errors, where the polling official had mistakenly marked off the adjacent name. Others were mistakes by older people who voted again on polling day having already voted by post. On the few occasions where a person had more than two marks next to their name, some were found to have had issues in terms of their mental health. Out of 16 million voters, only 24 were referred for investigation. And how many were prosecuted?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not a single one, as the member for Chifley reminds me. As well as investigating every single potential model to vote, the AEC also examines multiple marks by electorate to ensure there's never a situation where any instance of multiple voting is greater than the margin for the election. If this was to occur, the AEC would seek for the result to be overturned in the Court of Disputed Returns. The AEC has never had to do this.</para>
<para>Despite all this evidence to the contrary, this government is desperately pushing this legislation through in the final sitting fortnights of the year, potentially the final sitting fortnights before an election and the very end of this parliament. So you have to ask: why is this government prioritising this voter suppression bill and the other measures designed to diminish electoral integrity over its national integrity commission? Well, the government knows, for example, that people in remote Indigenous communities are less likely to have or to carry identification with them. Enrolment and turnout are already much lower amongst Indigenous Australians than non-Indigenous Australians, with just 79.3 per cent of Indigenous people enrolled to vote nationally, compared to an overall enrolment rate of 96.1 per cent. And this is even worse in the Northern Territory, with an Indigenous enrolment rate of 69.6 per cent. More needs to be done to address this, including investigating how people living in remote communities can be added to the roll through federal direct enrolment and an update program. Requiring voters to provide identification will be yet another barrier to prevent First Nations people from voting and from their voices being heard in this place. The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation has previously submitted to a government review that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many of our Aboriginal patients use their Medicare card as their only form of identification—many do not have a Drivers' License or a Proof of Identity card.</para></quote>
<para>With many relying on a Medicare card as their only proof of identity, if someone replaces an expired or lost card when an election is called, they may very well not receive their card in time to vote, especially if that card has to be delivered to a regional or remote area. These are issues that you would be very familiar with, Deputy Speaker. This is a particular issue for those trying to attest someone else's identity. While there is a wider range of identity documents available to show when identifying themselves, when attesting to vote you can only use a Commonwealth or state issued identity document and not things like bank statements, rates notices or credit cards, which the government has promoted as making the vote process under the bill accessible. In combination with the polling officer's discretion and the possibility of names not matching on documents, introducing these changes this close to an election is a recipe for a disaster on polling day.</para>
<para>When the Northern Territory was about to be reduced to just one seat in the House of Representatives, we had to fight tooth and nail to save the seat of Lingiari and ensure Territorians had the representation they deserve. I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the member for Lingiari in that respect. In lieu of reducing the Territory to just one seat, this government is now using the bill to help it win Lingiari by suppressing the votes of First Nations people in the Territory. And, as the member for Kennedy has rightly pointed out, these laws are blatantly racist and will prevent First Australians living in community areas from voting, and I quote him, 'How hypocritical is it of this government to pretend to support a voice to parliament while taking steps to actively prevent First Nations people from participating in our democratic process.' Of course, it doesn't end here. People who are experiencing homelessness, women subject to family violence who have had to leave their home and many young people do not have easy access to identification that many of us take for granted.</para>
<para>In my role as the shadow minister for multicultural affairs, I've also heard from multicultural communities about the effect that this proposal will have on them. FECCA says that the government's proposed changes would disenfranchise voters from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who often face substantial hurdles in proving their identity. Identity documents can become mismatched for many reasons, including the anglicisation of personal names, difficulties in adapting cultural naming customs to standardised forms and government data entry or transliteration errors.</para>
<para>In this bill, if a polling official is not satisfied with someone's proof of identity, they can reject someone's claim to vote, allowing a declaration vote should certain circumstances be met. It's unclear the extent to which the name on somebody's identity will have to match their name on the roll. When confronted with someone with identity documents with a variation of their name due to registration differences, how much discretion will be left to the polling officer to allow or to deny someone their vote? Will they be directed to reject someone whose name isn't an exact match? How many forms of identity will someone be allowed to produce to try and prove their identity before they may be considered a fraud? If someone's identity is rejected, how many people will go home and find a document up to the polling staff's standard, and how many people would simply risk the fine rather than go back to the booth, and, particularly in a summer election in parts of the country that are a bit warmer than the northern suburbs of Melbourne, this may be a challenge.</para>
<para>Filling out a declaration envelope is not the easy solution the government makes it out to be, either. Currently, to complete a declaration envelope, you're required to provide your full name, address, phone number, date of birth, town and country of birth, and either your drivers licence or passport number, or have the envelope filled out by somebody who can attest to your identity. If you have to fill out a declaration vote because you don't have identification or someone to attest to your identity, how can you provide a driver's licence or passport number or have someone to attest to your identity to receive a declaration vote? It is absurd.</para>
<para>The AEC Commissioner has stated that the vast majority of multiple votes are cast by people over the age of 80 who have English as an additional language or are confused about the act of voting. At the last election, only 64 per cent of provisional votes were counted, with more than 56,000 votes excluded from the count—56,000! An AEC analysis indicates that provisional votes are roughly 50 per cent more likely to be informal. These are serious considerations that raise serious questions for anyone who is concerned about the strength of our democracy.</para>
<para>Given the complexity of completing a declaration vote, especially if you speak English as an additional language or have low literacy skills, many votes submitted by eligible voters may be excluded due to informality—votes excluded as a result of this proposal; votes that would have been counted if these electors had been allowed to vote in the same manner as every other election they have participated in. Indeed, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted in their scrutiny report that it was unclear if declaration voting was an accessible alternative for voters. This is a very, very serious concern that goes to the heart of this bill and demonstrates the cynicism that animates it.</para>
<para>These changes are being rushed through without consultation or regard for the particular impacts on multicultural communities—a major failure of process, compounding the substantive problem that underpins the bill. Instead of listening to our independent Electoral Commission, who have made clear that voter impersonation is not a problem in Australia, the Morrison-Joyce government is acting on suggestions from the Institute of Public Affairs. As the member for Moreton would be well aware, that is the same right-wing group that has long campaigned for repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to allow for hate speech. The government are listening to the IPA and not considering the facts before us, which is that these laws in the bill before us are unnecessary, burdensome and a deliberate, shameful and dangerous attempt by the Prime Minister to undermine public confidence in our electoral system.</para>
<para>I draw the attention of members to the evidence of Professor Graham Orr, from the University of Queensland, one of Australia's leading experts in electoral law. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The "evidence" to support voter ID is the intuition that voters should produce ID. The benefit of voter ID is said to be enhancing perceptions of integrity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Perceptions of risk can also be circular, if not manipulated. By playing up integrity risks, regardless of the actual evidence, you can generate concerns that you then use to justify new rules.</para></quote>
<para>These are the exact tools that the US Republicans and Donald Trump used—and there are still people in the United States who believe, shockingly, that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. There are real dangers to our democracy here and they need to be called out by all of us engaged in democratic politics.</para>
<para>While requiring identification will affect the most marginalised in our communities, make no mistake: this change, which has not been required in 120 years of federal elections, will make voting take longer all of us. There will be queues around the block on election day, with over 16 million identities being checked, with AEC officials needing to verify the authenticity of documents, making sure the name and address match that on the roll, then issuing and explaining declaration votes for people who've failed this unnecessary test—often an unfair test.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton reminds me—and during a pandemic. That's something that I'm glad he raised, because there is an important electoral bill that needs to be debated to put in place provisions that will enable the conduct of an election should pandemic circumstances render challenges on election day or during the course of the election period. But we're not debating this, are we? It is still sitting on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, where these bills, fulfilling an ideological agenda on the one hand and a desperate and cynical power grab on the other, are being pushed through this House, and, I'm sure government members hope, being pushed through the other place as well.</para>
<para>Let us think about the people who can't wait around on election day or at prepoll—shift workers, parents with young kids and older people who can't stand in queues for hours who might just give up and go home without voting. This law will potentially disenfranchise thousands of Australians. When voter ID was introduced at the 2015 Queensland state election, voter turnout was the lowest it had been since 1980—the lowest for 12 consecutive elections. Polling officials turned people without ID away because they were confused about the rules and didn't offer them declaration votes. Voters were also confused, so they didn't turn out if they didn't have ID or didn't vote at all if they had forgotten their ID.</para>
<para>With this government rushing this legislation through, this experience could well be replicated at the next election, with very, very serious consequences for our democracy. Even the government-controlled Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights said that these laws could reduce public confidence in the electoral system, that these laws could discourage some voters from voting and that these laws may be discriminatory. It is my hope that the members of the government who recognised these things in the committee will make that recognition clear on the floor of this place and of the other place, and join us in voting down these unnecessary, discriminatory and dangerous proposed changes.</para>
<para>The substantive impact of this is also impacted by the failure of the government to support the independent umpire in the Australian Electoral Commission. I note the government has provided just $5.6 million this financial year for the AEC to implement this change. This won't even touch the sides of what's required. You don't need to be a mathematician to work out that that won't be enough for the AEC to write to every single voter to provide them with a letter of enrolment that they can take along as proof of their identity. Yet, somehow, that $5.6 million has to cover: a public education campaign; training on the new rules for over 100,000 polling day staff; and additional staff that will be required at every polling place to manage the increase in the number of declaration votes. That's before we get to some of the challenges that the global pandemic may impose on the conduct of the election. I really feel for the AEC, who do such important work for all of us and for our country, having this change dumped on them months out from conducting the biggest peacetime logistical exercise in Australia's history under the cloud of COVID—a change which they have said is entirely unnecessary. And they would know; they are our election experts.</para>
<para>In addition to checking every single multiple vote, the AEC has other systems in place to protect the integrity of our elections. The AEC is increasingly rolling out electronic certified lists, an improvement on the paper rolls, lessening the chance of administrative errors and providing real-time updates on whether an elector has already voted. In addition, earlier this year this parliament passed legislation to establish a designated electoral register. If someone has been identified as a multiple voter they will be placed on this register and will only be able to vote by declaration vote, ensuring only one vote is counted. The Electoral Commissioner has said both of these initiatives will greatly assist in dealing with a very small number of multiple voters—a real solution, instead of this cynical exercise in power grabbing.</para>
<para>That brings us to the real question before the House: why is the government doing this? There is simply no warrant for changing the voting rules at what may well be the eleventh hour. This has nothing to do with electoral integrity or voting integrity but everything to do with this Prime Minister's character. Instead of this change here, there is much so more we could be doing to improve electoral integrity. To that end, I move the following as a second reading amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the bill's stated intention is to improve public confidence about the integrity of ballot-issuing practices;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes further that the independent Australian Electoral Commissioner has said that the issue of multiple voting is 'vanishingly small'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to implement electoral integrity measures that would make a real difference including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so political donations are transparent for all to see;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) requiring real time disclosure of political donations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) reforming electoral expenditure laws;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (d) providing more resources to the AEC to increase enrolment and turnout;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (e) addressing the spread of dangerous misinformation and disinformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (f) legislating for a powerful and independent anti-corruption commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (g) making laws to prevent governments from pork-barrelling in marginal held seats; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (h) requiring parliamentarians to disclose secret donations".</para></quote>
<para>We have an electoral system in Australia to be proud of, which gives everyone their say, and we on this side of the House will defend it and seek to strengthen it, not undermine it for cheap electoral politics. But this is a government that has long since given up on governing. Its threadbare legislative agenda this fortnight shows that they aren't even trying to advance our national interest. Instead, we see this: a desperate attempt to cling to power, whatever the cost.</para>
<para>This bill is an attack on our democracy—another one. It's an attempt to import the very worst of United States politics to mandate voter suppression, to frustrate millions and to exclude many thousands from casting their ballots, knowing the disproportionate impact on First Nations people and on Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, not just to seek to buy votes by treating public money as their slush fund but to go further and to seek to effectively restrict the franchise of those who they feel might not support them. They should be ashamed, but they are shameless. Australians deserve better. They deserve respect for them and for the democratic institutions that Australians have built up.</para>
<para>Labor knows this and we are resolutely committed to standing up for electoral integrity, starting with voting against this rotten and dishonest bill, which we will fight all the way. For us, Australian democracy is not for sale, and defending it—indeed, extending it—is nonnegotiable. I'm proud of us and I'm proud that my friend Senator Farrell has committed an Albanese Labor government to repealing this law as its first act should it be enacted. But it shouldn't come to this, and it needn't come to this. This bill can be withdrawn today—or this House should reject it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To that, the honourable member for Scullin 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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I'm not sure that I know the member for Scullin well enough to know what qualities of his I admire, but I have to say that he's got a vivid imagination if that contribution on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 is anything to go by. So I can confidently say that I admire the member for Scullin's imagination, if nothing else. I'm sure if I had more time on a personal basis with the member for Scullin there would be other things that I admire as well. But, quite frankly, given that contribution, it's his imagination that I am in awe of.</para>
<para>In sitting on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and considering this matter, I have to say that after the report was finalised and the matter came to this place, I've been surprised by the level of objection raised by those opposite. It's come as a bit of a surprise to me, quite frankly—and I might want to try and unpick why that might be. It's got me thinking—exercising my own imagination—as to why those opposite are so voraciously opposed. But I might make a contribution about that a little later.</para>
<para>I want to make clear that this is a bill about voter integrity and, whilst it's true that the Electoral Commissioner has said that this issue is small, small issues can create big problems. It's estimated that something in the order of 2,000 or so multiple votes took place at the last federal election. Indeed, one individual voted 13 times. Those opposite say, 'Oh, well, nobody was prosecuted in relation to those matters,' and true that is. But that has much more to do with how difficult it would be to bring a successful prosecution in these matters than the fact that there were no occasions of multiple voting. Equally, many of us in this place have been here long enough to remember the election for the seat of Herbert in 2016. That was an election that was so finely balanced, and ultimately led to a chamber that was equally finely balanced. A small handful of multiple votes in that particular division could have changed the course of that election.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, I personally find a number of the contributions that have been made by those opposite deeply offensive. The suggestion that this is being brought to this place so as to, in particular, disenfranchise First Australians from exercising their right to vote is not only offensive to me; I'd suggest respectfully to the House it's offensive to First Nations people. This week we had the member for Ballarat telling the people of Australia that she was gobsmacked, in effect, that the chair of Infrastructure Australia might live in regional Australia, might've been a mayor in regional Australia, and wasn't ipso facto adequately qualified to be in that role. Now we have members of the Labor Party implying that First Australians don't have the wherewithal or documentation to effectively prove their identification on polling day. I think a lot more of Australia's First Nations people than those opposite.</para>
<para>Before I go into much more detail, let's be clear about what this bill does. It effectively says that if you want to vote in person on polling day then you're required to provide identification. That can be in the form of a current photographic ID: a drivers licence, a passport or a proof-of-age card. It could also be a government issued identification card or documentation—for example, a Medicare card, a birth certificate or a citizenship certificate. It could be recent proof of name, such as utilities account statements, tax notices, bank accounts, a credit or debit card, or a document issued by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land council or native title body. If it's good enough to require ID to hire a car, take out a loan from your local library, buy alcohol or buy cigarettes, then I for one think it's quite acceptable for ID to be shown when it comes to exercising that most fundamental and most important right to vote on election day.</para>
<para>Those opposite want to contend, in an attempt to scare people about what this bill does, that people will be disenfranchised from voting. It's complete rubbish because, were you to attend a polling place and not have any of those documents that I just referred to, you would be invited to make a declaration vote. No-one, and I mean no-one, will be disenfranchised by this provision. What it will do is stop people from exercising that right to vote multiple times. Which brings me to why those others are so energised or exercised on this. You might be quite critical of me for saying this, but, to be honest, I think it's evidence that Trump derangement syndrome has entered this place. Quite frankly, those opposite, in almost every interview I've heard, every contribution that has been made, have quickly run to making a reference to this being a Trumpism attempt by those nasty coalition members to disenfranchise people from voting, to suppress the vote.</para>
<para>The truth is that this provision is much more European than it is from the United States. I'm sure those opposite know, for example, that this kind of ID requirement is in France, Sweden and Belgium. It's also a requirement in Canada. For those opposite to simply try pretend that this is just the coalition in lock step with the Republicans in America is quite frankly just another attempt to run the age-old lines you run at about this time in the lead-up to an election. If it's not scaring pensioners about the rubbish you're running around with in relation to the cashless debit card; if it's not ringing pensioners in the middle of the night to scare them about other things; and if it's not 'Mediscare', it's now this. It's now: 'You won't get to vote on election day because of these Trump-esque coalition members in the LNP.'</para>
<para>The member for Scullin made a virtue of the fact that, when the 2015 Queensland state election took place, an election at which voter ID was required, it had the lowest turnout in 12 years. But what the member for Scullin didn't then go on to say, but I will, is that the turnout at the 2015 Queensland state election that involved voter identification was in fact higher than the turnout for the 2017 and 2020 Queensland state elections when the identification laws were repealed. It's worth repeating—voter ID was required in the Queensland state election in 2015, it was repealed subsequently such that the 2017 and 2020 elections did not require voter ID and in fact the turnout without the need for voter ID declined. It went down. So, whilst the member for Scullin is quite right to come in this place and accurately say that the 2015 turnout was the lowest it had been in 12 years, the reality is that the turnout was higher in 2015 with voter ID laws than it was when those laws were repealed in 2017 and 2020. So the argument that voter ID in the Queensland context suppressed the vote, quite frankly, is rubbish. But it suits the argument of those opposite, of course, to point to that.</para>
<para>The reality here is that this legislation doesn't seek to disenfranchise voters. It seeks to improve voter integrity and ensure that, the day after election day, we are not in arguments about what the outcome may have been. We can have trust and confidence, and the Australian people can have trust and confidence, in that outcome. As we have seen recently in the American setting, that is so, so important. I want to wake up on election day in 2022 hopefully celebrating a win, but, if we are not, I don't want to be thinking to myself, 'I have concerns about the integrity of that election,' and, deep down, I think those opposite don't want to be having those concerns either.</para>
<para>This is not a proposal that seeks to suppress the votes of those that those opposite think we aren't going to successfully attract. It's certainly not a bill that's intended to operate in some sort of racist matrix, like those opposite are attempting to suggest. As I've said, I find that assertion offensive. I am sure many others do. But the people most offended by that assertion should be Australia's First Nations peoples. It effectively says that those opposite don't have the respect that they need to have for Australia's First Nations peoples. The reality is that their argument consistently in this place is that this is racist and an attempt to suppress the votes of First Nations people. The member for Scullin said exactly that. He mentioned Lingiari and he said it was an attempt by the coalition to win that seat. I didn't say that. He said that. The member for Scullin said that. The reality is that that is deeply offensive to me, and I'm sure it's deeply offensive to many First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>The reality is that this is about integrity. I began this contribution by saying that I can't understand why those opposite are so exercised about this. I said something about the member for Scullin's imagination. I also said that their attitude in relation to this bill has me exercising my imagination. Every time my imagination runs off in this direction, I pull myself up, because, quite frankly, I think too much of those opposite to think this. But it has me thinking: what are you trying to cover up?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ah, the member for Eden-Monaro has just belled the cat. The motivation here from those opposite is that they think that this is in fact an attempt by us to suppress the votes of Australians. It's complete rubbish. Those opposite need to accept that, by their arguments daily in the media and in this place, they're effectively saying that, as a class, the First Australians don't have the wherewithal to come to polling booths with the documentation, nor can they make a declaration vote. You've got to own the arguments you make. Those are the arguments the member for Scullin made. Own them, because they are deeply offensive.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ALBANESE (—) (): Labor opposes this voter suppression legislation introduced during the pre-caretaker period for the upcoming election. It's unnecessary. It weakens our democracy; it doesn't strengthen it. If passed, this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021, will make it harder for Australians to cast their votes. It demonstrates how far this Prime Minister will go to try to maintain power. First he abandoned the truth, and now he seeks to attack Australians' right to vote.</para>
<para>We should be really proud in this country that we have one of the most democratic voting systems in the world, the envy of the world. Today our electoral system is underpinned by two core principles: the franchise is universal, and our elections are run by an independent Electoral Commission. This bill attacks the franchise, because it puts a barrier between voters and the ballot box. A Prime Minister who can't be trusted is saying that he doesn't trust Australians. That is what this legislation is about.</para>
<para>Under this legislation, Australians won't be able to do what they've done for 120 years: turn up to a polling booth on a Saturday in the relaxed way that Australians behave, get their democracy sausage to assist the P&C at the local school, and go through and give their name and cast their vote in secret, according to who they want to represent them in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Under this, voters will have to show ID before they can receive their ballot paper and put it in the box to be counted on election night.</para>
<para>It's not right to say that the Prime Minister doesn't understand what this bill means for Australians in remote communities, those who don't have English as a first language, young people and new voters. He knows exactly what he's doing. The extraordinary speech from the bloke opposite, I think, just says it all. He purported to say that he understands what First Nations people think about this legislation. While the member for Barton was in the chamber, he had the temerity to question her standing up for First Nations people. He should listen to what the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council have to say and to what Indigenous communities are saying. This is largely based upon an assessment about Lingiari. That is part of the objective of what's going on here. It is as simple as that. He knows that many First Nations people in the remote communities don't carry around their birth certificates or their ID. Many of them don't have a wallet. They don't have a licence. So many of them, because of this government's cuts to the AEC, won't get a vote, because they haven't been put on the roll.</para>
<para>Here is some of the absurdity of the arguments: one of the members opposite who are supporting this has suggested, 'Well, as part of an arrangement, we'll get extra people to go and enrol First Nations people.' It's the wet season! You can't get into these communities. There's COVID, so you can't get into these communities. If there were any time to introduce this legislation, it's not during a pandemic. When local government elections are held next Saturday, in 10 days time, no one's allowed to hand out how-to-votes, because of the conditions in New South Wales. And that's far better than other parts, such as in vulnerable remote communities. But here it is—legislation that was never anticipated by conservative governments or by Labor governments that have been here for 120 years. Here it comes because nothing is beneath this Prime Minister. He's adopting the playbook of the right-wing Republicans in the United States, a playbook of voter suppression, of making it more difficult to vote. That's exactly what this is about. The Prime Minister hopes that voters will get turned off by the long queues that will appear at polling booths if this legislation is passed.</para>
<para>Why is this occurring? Because this bill is a solution looking for a problem. In the 2019 and 2016 elections, there was not a single prosecution. There has never been such a suggestion in this country at any election—not the last one or the one before. I've been here for 25 years. No-one has said, 'Someone stole the election.' What does that sound like? Where have I heard that before? It's from former President Trump in the United States and the commentators in the right-wing media who undermined United States democracy. We heard it here in this chamber from the previous speaker, who spoke about how he doesn't want to wake up and not be certain that an election has been legitimate. It's a shameful thing to do—undermining democracy and undermining Australia's capacity to have the best democratic system in the world, something that we should be proud of.</para>
<para>The truth is that the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Tom Rogers, has said that the number of multiple votes in Australia is 'vanishingly small'. According to the AEC, out of more than 15 million votes cast at the last election, there were just over 2,000 multiple votes recorded. Some of these mightn't have been multiple votes at all; they could have been due to human error—someone's on the roll as Richard Marles and someone's below them as Ricardo Marles, and they've just crossed the wrong name off. Human error can occur. But what we do know is that there were no prosecutions and that the Electoral Commission—independent—has said that multiple voting is not a problem. Under this bill, of course, a person who has ill intent could attend, have some form of voter ID—a false ID—and vote at multiple booths. All they would need to do is take along a fake ID. But there's no evidence. Quite frankly, if you're going to spend all that time working out cleverly how to get an extra five or six votes for the member for Brisbane—the member for Brisbane would be better off going and talking to constituents and winning over many more of them than spending hours and hours and hours plotting. That mightn't be successful, it must be said, because Madonna Jarrett's coming for him!</para>
<para>Let me say this. There are not just concerns about First Nations people; there are concerns as well about the people from CALD communities.</para>
<list> </list>
<para>The truth is, for a whole range of cultures, particularly for older people in those cultures, people who came here after the Second World War, people sometimes change their names. The Morris brothers, who sat in this chamber, didn't start off as Morris. They were Greek. They anglicised their names. People shortened their names. Demetri becomes Jim. Giuseppe becomes Joe. I'll give you another example. Joe Hockey, his name was Hokeidonian. I knew his late father—a great man who came to Australia for a better life. As part of creating that better life and the success he had as a real estate agent in the northern suburbs of Sydney, he changed his name—in part because you could be more successful and open more doors. So he changed his name to Hockey. He was an Armenian, from ethnic descent, born in Palestine.</para>
<para>It happens, and it will create confusion in many Asian cultures. It is very common to have a name and then what is often referred to as a Chinese name. In communities, when the Pakistan cricket team are here, you never know whether it's Imran or Khan. You never know, because in some cultures the first name is the family name, and, in other ways, these things get sorted out. There are going to be all sorts of issues raised here, and I suspect that that is part of the issue.</para>
<para>But of course it comes from a Prime Minister who is the only leader of a democratic nation in the world who refused to call out the attacks on the Capitol building on 6 January—attacks on United States democracy, encouraged by the outgoing US president, which got the condemnation they deserved from democratic leaders right around the world. Angela Merkel, Boris Johnson, Jacinda Ardern—right throughout the world, they all joined in. But not this Prime Minister. Of course, he was a close observer of former president Donald J Trump. In 2019, he told journalists that the two of them share a lot of the same views, and of course he attended a rally for the president in Ohio.</para>
<para>But, for those opposite, I just say that this sort of attempted manipulation in a precaretaker period is not in keeping with the high standards that this parliament should be conducting itself according to. It's an attempt to go out and once again cast aspersions against our democratic processes, which the previous speaker just did. If you're going to do that, then you have to argue that there is a reason for it. You have to argue whether it is legitimate that people are sitting in this place or not.</para>
<para>I have been, unfortunately, on the wrong side of most election outcomes. Guess what? In this country, the person who loses the election stands up and concedes first. And then the winner of the election, be they a prime minister or a premier or chief minister, accepts the outcome, and people come here and it's not controversial. Why is it that we are questioning the legitimacy of our democratic processes? Someone once said in this place, 'If you change the government, you change the country.' This bill shows that if a political party in government changes the Prime Minister, you change the nature of that political party. Tony Abbott never tried this. Malcolm Turnbull never tried this. But the bloke we have now has no foundation of values. That is what we are seeing played out throughout this system. We have a Prime Minister who is just focused on doing whatever it takes, on political preservation at all costs. It is extraordinary that the Liberal party room has been so cowed that it has agreed to a bill like the one before us. The Liberal Party of Ian Macphee, Peter Baume and so many fine people would just not have copped this. They would not have copped this for a minute. But this Liberal Party is liberal in name only these days. There's nothing liberal about it. Having suppressed liberalism inside his own party, the Prime Minister is now determined to suppress voting rights.</para>
<para>Well, Labor will oppose this bill in this place and in the other place. The fact is that this is not appropriate legislation. It undermines rather than strengthens our democracy. Labor trusts Australians. Labor trusts our democracy, and we will always defend it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I start by pointing out for the benefit of the House that 'Ricciardo Marles' would be above 'Richard Marles' on the electoral roll, not below him, just to be clear. As proudly representing the largest Italian electorate in the country, I think it's important to correct that mistake. Can I equally say as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that I have been part of the inquiry that has led to recommending this measure. So I speak in support of it, and having come from the position of having participated in a process of reviewing the 2019 election. But this is not a new proposition from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters; it's of course been a recommendation from a number of recent elections. I support it because fundamentally of course it is a matter of the integrity of our elections—ensuring that the way in which we conduct our elections is not open to or at risk of any unnecessary fraud or incorrect voting that could lead to incorrect outcomes. And how anyone could not support those fundamental principles is difficult for me to comprehend, but the Labor Party are breaking new ground on some of these principles every day of the week right now, so there it is—not the surprise that it might have been in the past.</para>
<para>Anyone that comes to this House has a lot of experience and understanding of the way in which we conduct elections in this country. It's pretty difficult to be elected to the House of Representatives and not be an expert on the rules and practices and experiences of our campaigns. It's also pretty rare, frankly, for someone's first election campaign experience to be their own. I'm someone that's been proudly involved, as a member of the Liberal Party, in federal elections dating back to 2001. My good friend the member for Leichhardt, of course, has been involved in federal elections since even before then. It's important that we're always defending and enhancing our robust democracy. That's why we have the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and why, after every election, we conduct an inquiry into those elections and we determine whether there are ways that we can improve our democracy.</para>
<para>I think we have the greatest democracy on the planet. I start by saying that I think the Australian Electoral Commission is excellent, at least the equal best electoral commission in the world. In all of my experience with them, they do an excellent job in operating our elections. I actually concur with the Leader of the Opposition: I don't reflect on or think of any example in my own experience and in the public domain where people have criticised the AEC for the way in which they conduct elections from an impartiality point of view. So we have an excellent system, but we need to keep improving it. Making sure that we have the highest confidence possible that, when people are voting in elections, the conduct around that is completely legitimate, is very important.</para>
<para>To break down some of the bogus claims that are being put forward by the other side in this debate, we should clarify exactly what this proposes. We are requiring people, when they vote, to identify themselves when they mark themselves off on the roll. This is not dissimilar to back in the days when—some people here might remember—if you joined the local video club you had to show your drivers licence and some identification before you could rent a video. When you go to the post office to collect a parcel, you show some identification to do that. In our society, where the right to vote and the responsibility to vote are so spectacularly significant, the fact that people would have a problem with not having to meet the same standard as hiring a video or collecting a parcel from Australia Post surprises me.</para>
<para>More importantly, that's not even the standard we are requiring in this bill—far from it. What we are saying is that we want people to identify themselves when they vote. That doesn't have to be photographic identification. The bill makes very clear all the different ways in which you can identify yourself to mark yourself off the roll. If you're not in a position to do that when you attend the polling booth, that in no way means you don't vote—far from it. The next option you've got is that someone that has identified themself can vouch for you. They can say, 'This is my spouse,' or, 'This is my friend,' or, 'I know this person to be James Stevens.' That's all that's required if you're not in a position to provide the relevant identification to be issued with a ballot paper.</para>
<para>Most importantly, even if that's not possible, all this bill requires in the circumstance where a person can't produce identification to validate that they are the person that has attended that polling booth to vote is that they undertake a declaration vote. Anyone who undertakes a postal vote or votes at a booth not in their electorate on polling day already undertakes a declaration vote. That merely means that, if I attend a polling booth and say that I'm James Stevens but I can't identify myself, they mark me off the roll as having attempted to vote there. I'm given a declaration ballot, which is the ballot paper for my division, and the envelope that it goes into, where I sign declaring that I am James Stevens and that I am voting there for the first and only time. When those declaration votes are counted, provided that I didn't attempt to vote multiple times or someone else didn't attempt to vote as me in multiple ways across the electorate that day, the vote is counted like already happens under the system.</para>
<para>The only thing that occurs through this measure is that, if someone attempts to vote on multiple occasions, which can conceivably happen and does happen—people have been dismissive of the concept of 2,000 multiple votes occurring. It is hardly acceptable to say that we're very happy and encouraging of potentially 2,000 different cases of breaching the Electoral Act. That's not acceptable. It's not acceptable at all. We're trying to make sure that there is a higher standard that, where that is happening maliciously, can prevent that from occurring. Through this measure, we're adding another step in the process, which I am very confident will deter anyone seeking to abuse our voting system and our election system by voting many times in the one electorate from identifying themselves as someone in multiple booths and thus being able to vote many times and defraud the process.</para>
<para>Having this higher standard in place means two things. Firstly, if the person were pretending to be someone else, going into polling booths and trying to vote on multiple occasions, they wouldn't be able to satisfy the identification requirement and they'd have to fill out and forge a declaration ballot. I think it's much more significant for someone to do that than what the current standard is. Secondly, if they are doing it and identifying themself but they go and proceed to vote in multiple booths, they are committing an offence. We shouldn't accept that, and we shouldn't say that the standard we have around the integrity of voting in our elections in no way seeks to stamp that out if it's possible to do so. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended to do just that.</para>
<para>The suggestion that we're doing this to benefit our side of politics is complete rubbish. We've won seven of the last nine elections under the current system, and the eighth was a draw. We would hardly be seeking to change a system that has seen us win seven of nine elections. Of the last nine elections, without this measure in place, the Labor Party has won one. This measure would in no way benefit the Liberal party, because all it's doing is adding another layer of integrity to the system of voting.</para>
<list> </list>
<para>If the Labor Party believes that having a stronger system of integrity for voting benefits the Liberal Party then they're just conceding that, for whatever reason—they can explain because they are advancing the argument—having loopholes that can be exploited is good for Labor. That concept needs to sink in in this chamber: why would Labor think that making it easier, or not supporting measures that make it more robust, to stamp out multiple voting is bad for the Labor Party. That kind of says it all. This is a provision that is in existence most broadly in Western Europe, particularly across jurisdictions that have compulsory voting as we obviously do in this country. Allegations that this is some kind of American concept are rubbish. This is something that is regularly required in some of the most robust and highly regarded democracies across the world—whether that is Belgium or Sweden, which are hardly renowned for being jurisdictions that have low standards when it comes to the integrity of their voting systems. So we're merely seeking to bring in the sorts of standards that are in place in other democracies like ours that are so highly regarded.</para>
<para>The most important thing is that not a single person, under this measure, would be turned away from voting. That is not what we are doing in any way, shape or form. What we are doing is seeking to have a robust standard around identifying your right to vote—and only vote the one time. As I have outlined, when we are in a circumstance at the booths when someone can't meet the broad standard of identifying themselves—you need a driver's licence or some kind of utility statement. You don't require photo ID. It can be someone that you know vouching for you. If you're not in a position to satisfy any of those requirements, you merely lodge a declaration ballot. And, as long as you haven't attempted to vote multiple times, that ballot will be counted. So in no way could anyone who is doing the right thing but is not in a position to identify themselves in all the various ways we are offering through this bill—they will all still be voting. So it is completely ludicrous to suggest that this would disenfranchise anyone who is seeking to cast a valid vote and seeking to vote only the one time.</para>
<para>This standard is already in place for postal voting. This is what we require for postal voting. No-one has ever suggested that the standard is too high when you cast a postal vote. When you put the ballot paper inside the envelope that then goes in as a postal vote, you are declaring that you are who you say you are, and that you haven't voted before. To have a problem with that, to suggest that there are people out there that this is going to disadvantage, only means that we are disadvantaging people who aren't prepared to agree that they are who they say they are on the electoral roll and that they haven't voted before in this election. So you're quite right: those people won't be allowed to vote again because they are not entitled to. By definition they don't meet the requirement of voting, which is being the person on the electoral roll and only voting the one time. So to advance an argument against putting that standard in place, essentially says, 'We don't have a problem with people voting multiple times and we don't have a problem with someone pretending to be someone else and going in to cast a ballot,' and that means that you are in support of fraudulent voting.</para>
<para>If we're going to be the proud democracy that we already are into the future, we have to constantly evolve our electoral system to make sure that we continue to safeguard the integrity of it. We have to always stand up for, and look for ways to reform and advance, the way in which we conduct elections so that no-one can ever—as I agree has not happened in the history of our democracy—claim that any of our elections have resulted in outcomes that weren't what the people voted for. People might not like the results of elections at times, but no-one in this country that I can recall has ever claimed with any credibility—in particular, no-one who's ever made it into this chamber—that the way in which we conduct our elections, and the results of those elections, have been inaccurate and have seen a result returned that wasn't what the people voted for. That hasn't happened, and I hope that in my lifetime, however long that is, it never happens in the future. To achieve that, we've got to constantly fight for and advance the robustness of our democracy, and we have to always look for ways to make it better and stronger so that the way in which the people of Australia vote is always the result that they get in our elections.</para>
<para>That's what this measure is about. It is about reform and progress to ensure that the people of Australia have the highest confidence—such as they currently have and need to have in the future—that the way in which we conduct our elections is fair and the governments that the people of this country choose are the ones that they get. That will happen if we continue to ensure that we have the highest standards of integrity, and this bill delivers that. I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021, but I am sad that it's happening. Despite what the member for Sturt has convinced himself of, there is no need for this legislation, and that is abundantly clear. I have experienced, as a candidate, 12 elections, and I've thought all along that our system of voting is fair and good. It's the best in the world, but it can be improved. But it will not be improved by discouraging people from voting, and that's precisely what this legislation will do. It will impact upon the most marginalised people in the country: people who have difficulty with language and people who may have an issue with their health. Most particularly, it will have a dramatic and negative impact on Aboriginal people who live in remote communities.</para>
<para>Forty-two per cent or thereabouts of my electors in Lingiari are Aboriginal people. What will happen with this legislation is that an already very poor turnout of Aboriginal people will be further lowered. In June 2020, the proportion of eligible Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory on the roll was 68.7 per cent, so 31.3 per cent of Aboriginal people who were eligible to be on the roll were not. In the case of Western Australia, the figure was 67.6 per cent. At the last election, there were 42 remote polling teams covering 387 communities. There were 23,503 ordinary votes cast and 5,262 declaration votes cast. In the Northern Territory alone, for Lingiari there were 20 remote polling teams covering around 200 communities and outstations. With the combination of low voter enrolment and low turnout, it seems likely that only around 45 per cent of eligible Aboriginal people voted.</para>
<para>These facts are very simple. What will happen as a result if this legislation were to be passed and enacted? We'd see fewer people voting. This is not just a recent phenomenon, but it goes to the whole question of what the government believes should happen in relation to Aboriginal people and the electoral process in remote communities. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this legislation will impact upon a range of people outside of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but it will have a significant impact upon Aboriginal people. It builds upon decisions previously taken by this government that have meant that the opportunity to vote or be enrolled to vote has been made extremely difficult by successive conservative governments in this country. The 2017 budget included a measure to restructure by downsizing and relocating functions from the Australian Electoral Commission's Darwin office to Queensland. They went from 15 staff to three. The decision to restructure was done without any public consultation or discussion or reference to the interests of AEC staff who were being told they were being made redundant. The only reason given in the budget papers in 2017 for the downsizing of this office was to provide savings of $8.3 million to offset expenditure provided to enhance laws around the authorisation of public political communications.</para>
<para>We need to understand this is part of a piece. When the Howard government came to power in 1996, one of the first things it did was remove 25 education officers from the AEC, mostly in northern Australia. Sixteen of these officers operated in the north, and their function was to promote voter education and enrolment. We had this happen in 1996 and then we had it happen again in 2007, when the Australian Electoral Commission, because of budget cuts, took away staff who would otherwise be out in the field promoting Aboriginal enrolment and educating people on the voting system and their rights and obligations as Australian citizens. And we wonder why enrolment levels are low.</para>
<para>We need to contemplate the population we're talking about here. It's a young population. Using 2016 census figures, as a proportion of the Northern Territory population Aboriginal people made up 30 per cent but comprised 46 per cent of 16- to 19-year-olds—a huge growth of young people moving into voting age and far higher than the rest of the population, given the proportion of the population that Aboriginal people comprise. Instead of trying to enhance the opportunity for these Aboriginal people to be enrolled to vote, we have seen the government pull the rug out from underneath any programs and policies that would have provided them the opportunity to do exactly that. This is just another example. Clearly, the member for Sturt has absolutely no idea—and I suspect many of his colleagues are in the same boat—about the population who are going to be impacted most by this stupid decision.</para>
<para>We went and talked to communities where Aboriginal people make up the majority—they live in dispersed populations across, in the case of the Northern Territory, 200 polling places—over a fortnight. We went to 200 polling places over a fortnight. I know this, because I go to them. I know what happens at those polling places. We've got a lot of Aboriginal people who have very little English literacy and speak English as a second, third or fourth language. And they don't have identification. Many don't have a drivers licence or the opportunity to get one. They certainly don't have an Australian passport or a proof-of-age ID card. Many won't have a birth certificate, and, if they did, they wouldn't where to find it or how to get one. Most of them don't have a Commonwealth or state ID card, particularly these young people I'm referring to. They don't have a council rates notice because they don't pay rates. They don't have a telephone bill, and they won't have a utilities bill. They'll live in a house where there might be 20 or 25 people, and they're expected to have identification papers to turn up at a polling booth.</para>
<para>What will happen, sadly, is that the impact of this will be that, even if we're able to get significantly higher turnout, we will get people turning up at the polling place, going up to vote and being asked their name and asked for their identification, which they won't be able to provide. Then they'll be told they need to fill out a form to apply for a declaration vote. They'll find that difficult if not impossible in some cases, and they won't be able to fill out the form. They may or may not have people who will identify them as local people who have got identification. But what we know is that this will be a huge deterrent to them turning up to vote—a huge deterrent. So the poor turnouts at the last couple of elections will be exacerbated as a direct result of these measures if they are passed. That's not what we want.</para>
<para>What we should be doing is the reverse. We should be saying to people, 'We want to make sure you are educated and understand the voting system, that you are properly enrolled to vote and that, when you turn up to the polling place on voting day, you will get a vote by standing up and saying your name, as it is on the roll, and answering the question, "Have you voted anywhere else but here today?"' That's it, pure and simple.</para>
<para>We know what may happen in some cases, because I know what happens at these polling places. There'll be a thuggish scrutineer who will make it extremely difficult for people to be able to exercise their rights. I've observed this over many, many years. What do you do? You upset people. I notice my friend the member for Newcastle is here. She will recall, or at least know of, the Court of Disputed Returns case taken by Ernie Bridge against Alan Ridge in Western Australia. What the Liberals did in Western Australia was to try and deny people a right to vote—Aboriginal people in remote communities in this case. They deliberately tried to deny people the right to vote. They used alcohol as a mechanism, a shameful practice. Whilst this is not that, what it is going to do will have a similar impact. It will mean that people who would otherwise have the right to vote as Australian citizens will not exercise that right, and that, to me, is what this is about.</para>
<para>The previous speaker said, 'Well, you know, this is not about winning elections.' Pigs! You've been waiting for 12 elections to see me depart this place, and now you think it's your best chance to win the seat. You think: 'We'll have the best chance of winning the seat if we can minimise the opportunity for Aboriginal people to vote, because we know that when they voted for Snowdon at the last few elections he was getting 70, 80 or even 90 per cent of the vote in some booths. So how do we minimise that opportunity? Well, let's try and get fewer people to vote.' It is a very deliberate strategy. Of course the Prime Minister will stand up here piously saying, 'Of course that's not the case.' Well, we know about him. The Australian population are awake to him. We need to make sure that this legislation does not pass this parliament. This piece of legislation is discriminatory. In my view, the way it impacts on Aboriginal people in my community is racist. It would do entirely the opposite to what the member for Sturt claimed it would do. We as members of parliament have an obligation here to try and encourage people to participate in our democratic processes. If we are going to introduce this piece of legislation and pass it, what we are doing is discouraging them and taking away the opportunity to vote for many people who would otherwise have the right to vote. That can't be good. It's a dreadful thing to do to the Australian community. I hope that members of this parliament, even those on the government benches, see the merits of the argument about opposing this piece of legislation and do not support it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset I want to say that I fully respect the retiring member for Lingiari. I acknowledge the contribution that he has just made. I acknowledge moreover his contributions to debates and his knowledge of the Northern Territory. He knows the Northern Territory better than anybody else in the House of Representatives, and I recognise that fact. I know that the member for Solomon also has an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Top End and the Northern Territory more generally. I acknowledge that. I disagree with him that this bill before the House, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021, is intending to just ensure that the ALP loses the seat of Lingiari and that it goes a CLP candidate, Damien Ryan. I have to say that the member for Lingiari knows full well the efforts to which I went to ensure that there were two seats in the Northern Territory, because as a regional member I understand how important it is to have representation and not to have to drive thousands of kilometres to see your local member, whether it is Warren Snowdon, Luke Gosling OAM or whoever, around and across this wide brown land. I acknowledge the fearless representation that Mr Snowdon has provided to not just—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SP</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Riverina will refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think he would be offended by the fact I didn't use his title. I know he's the member for Lingiari. But, as I was saying, it's not just Lingiari but indeed the Northern Territory, because the outgoing retiring member has indeed fearlessly represented those interests in the Northern Territory. I respect him and commend him for it. But, on this occasion, I do not agree with the arguments he's put forward that this bill before the House that we are debating tonight is in any way, shape or form racist, in any way, shape or form biased or in any way, shape or form just designed to ensure that the CLP wins the seat of Lingiari, which he has represented so well for so long.</para>
<para>As I said before, he knows how hard I fought to make sure that there were two seats in the Northern Territory, not one, which was the Australian Electoral Commission's preferred option. He knows that. He knows that the AEC made that determination based on population, based on trends and based on where that organisation saw the future going with the Northern Territory population. I countered that, perhaps against the better judgement of others on this side of the House. But I was prepared to stake my integrity and my reputation on it and put forward my name and, indeed, the weight of the Nationals to ensure that we had two seats in the House of Representatives for the Northern Territory, because that is just, that is right and that is fair.</para>
<para>As a National Party member, I would never, ever support a bill which gave regional areas less representation—I just would not do that—because I know how hard it is for constituents of ours to get that representation, to be able to see their local member who may live in a far-off town, a far-off city, hundreds of kilometres from where the constituents live. It wouldn't matter whether it's the seat of Nicholls or the seat of Riverina—indeed, I'd even throw Cunningham in that, because I know that electorate is not that small either and it has regional constituents. And I can hear the member for Cunningham supporting what I've just said.</para>
<para>One vote, one value: that is a democratic principle, an inalienable right, so important in elections in our nation. This bill before us is an important piece of legislation—it truly is. Your identity is your access to life, to engaging in society, to being able to take part in normal, everyday living. Australia is regarded as one of the most respected, if not the most respected, democracies in the world, where all citizens have the right and have the obligation to vote in free and fair elections. That's why members of the Australian parliament are often asked to go to South-East Asian countries and elsewhere to ensure that their elections follow a due, proper, fair and equitable process.</para>
<para>Everyone, no matter who you are or what your rank is, has one vote of equal value, and that one vote should be treasured—almost akin to being considered sacred. Therefore it should be a given that something which is precious be treated with equal importance. Think about the types of everyday activities and the processes for which you need proof of identity to access or be granted access, particularly in this day and age, as we hopefully come out of the back of COVID-19. You can't get into premises these days without some sort of proof of identity and without showing your double vaccination. And if I could encourage people to do just that, then that would be desirable. Daily, we are being asked to provide proof of identity to pick up parcels from the post office, to enter a nightclub or, indeed, an RSL, to drive a car, to open a bank account or to pick up tickets for a concert or for a show. Why then would we not protect and ensure the integrity of our democracy by asking voters to show proof of identification when they go to cast their ballot? Why would we not do that?</para>
<para>The opposition and others have criticised the government because these amendments may disenfranchise voters who do not have adequate personal identification. This proposition, I would argue, is quite ludicrous. If they cared to look at the detail of the bill—and I appreciate that detail is not always a strong point of those opposite—they would see that the government has made provision for those without photo ID to be able to vote by supplying things such as a bankcard, a Medicare card, a birth certificate, a utility bill or—and this is important in the context of the arguments that are being put forward by those opposite, including the Opposition Leader—a statement from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Council or native title body. Additionally, if someone is not able to provide any of what I have just said, any of what I've just listed, any of what I have just described—that documentation—a companion, a partner or a friend can complete an attestation to verify the identity of a person, of a voter. Given the fact that we now have weeks of prepoll, if somebody arrives at a polling booth and they do not have what they need in order to cast their ballot, then the modern-day provisions ensure and enable them to be able to return. I appreciate that in some cases that is difficult because, for some people that requires extra effort, particularly in the Northern Territory, which has very remote polling booths. I understand that; I am a regional member. I know that Senator Sam McMahon drove something like 1,700 kilometres to ensure that Steve Edgington could win the seat of Barkly in the Northern Territory election, which he did by just a handful of votes. That showed her commitment, but that also highlighted and underlined how difficult it is for some voters, whilst appreciating that some of these electorates in the Northern Territory, in the territory elections or federal elections, are just massive.</para>
<para>Comments have been made by those who oppose this bill that there is not enough evidence of documented cases to justify bringing in these provisions. Doesn't the saying go that prevention is better than cure? Why shouldn't we do what we can to protect our greatest institution, which is, after all, our democracy? Turning to pass elections, it is easy to appreciate how it can happen. Under the current arrangements, what stops someone from voting in an electorate multiple times over the course of several days, during what I would describe as the excessively long prepoll period, when one doesn't have to identify themselves at a polling booth? There is an oft-used phrase—it is slightly humourous—vote early, vote often. Of course, I wouldn't suggest people do that. I can see the member for Watson nodding amusingly, and I wouldn't suggest he would do it either. I certainly am not suggesting that to the House, but it is a phrase and it had to have originated from somewhere. Sometimes there would be that ability.</para>
<para>I have to say that there are arguments that voter fraud is rife. Of course, they are always investigated by the AEC. They are always investigated, and anybody found to have engaged in voter fraud is quite rightly penalised, as they should be. Similarly, I have had constituents relay to me examples of when they went vote: they simply said their name and the polling official then suggested their address. You would argue that there should be more proof of identity. You would argue that, and this bill provides for just that.</para>
<para>A couple of fraudulent votes could be what it takes to put a sitting member out of his or her seat, or indeed the opposite: deny somebody the rightful chance to represent their electorate, their community, in this place. The responsibility of being able to represent in this place is very near and dear to my heart. I know that whilst I fortunately have thousands of votes to spare—or have had in past elections; who knows what will happen at the next one—it wasn't always the case in the Riverina. Indeed, there was an election very early in the 20th century where a member by the name of John Chanter, the original member for Riverina, had to go to a second ballot to oust a bloke by the name of Robert Blackwood—who was an English boxing champion, would you believe! He was quite clever with his fists, unlike the current member Riverina. It came down to a handful of votes, and there were some irregularities in the voting process. Mr Blackwood has the distinct dishonour, I suppose, of having been elected to this place and never having given a speech in this place—more's the pity; I think he would have made a fine contribution.</para>
<para>I understand that we as a nation are not the first to attempt to legislate in this area. Liberal democracies—even though that is the start of the sentence, I mean it with a small 'l'—with whom we share common values, including Canada, Belgium and Sweden have already introduced measures which require identification to be shown before being able to cast a ballot. So it's not as if we are testing the water, so to speak; we are, in a sense, catching up and ensuring that our electoral system is as secure and robust as it can and must be.</para>
<para>These are the reasons why this bill should be voted upon and indeed agreed upon in this House. It is going to ensure, as the bill is actually called, the integrity of the system. That word is important. Integrity has to be the hallmark of everything that we stand for in this place. Integrity is important. If there were ever a word in this place that is important, as members opposite know, it would be 'integrity'. I believe that this is going to provide additional integrity to our voting system, to our democracy, to the institution that we hold so near and dear, to the institution that we hold sacred.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>100</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—In the interests of allowing members to speak on the current bill, particularly given the member for Riverina has only one minute to go, and for others on the speaking list, the government has agreed with the opposition to extend the sitting this evening until 9.30 pm. By agreement with the honourable member opposite, we have an arrangement where there will be no divisions or quorums post 7.30 pm. The only business will be the current bill before the House and for it to be adjourned at 9.30 pm. The adjournment debate will occur tonight at 9.30 pm until 10 pm. There will be no guillotine on this bill this week. Members who are not speaking on this bill tonight may leave the House. I will finish there and invite the Manager of Opposition Business to contribute.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I want to confirm the arrangements that have just been announced to the House by the Leader of the House and give the one guarantee that we're in control of, which is that there will be no procedural motions moved in any way tonight, so there should be no reason for any divisions, and people who have commitments will be able to keep them.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>100</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="IYS" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No need for you all to leave—this is going to be the best 56 seconds you'll ever hear! Indeed, I was right: in 1903 at the federal election, it was five votes, and of course our friend Mr Blackwood won that ballot but unfortunately lost the subsequent ballot, following the irregularities that had been discovered.</para>
<para>Voter identification in the 2022 election will be important. It will make sure that that and future ballots will be conducted in the right and proper way—in fact, in a better way. They have always been conducted in the right and proper way, but this is going to strengthen, indeed, that voting process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to that office. I am very pleased to speak to this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021, and particularly in support of the second amendment moved by the member for Scullin. Everyone in the Australian community should understand that this bill will make voting harder for all Australians. The bill will have the effect of ensuring some Australians don't vote at all, and that is exactly what the government is hoping for; that is exactly what this measure is intended to deliver. Why? Because the government has calculated that the people who will be most affected by these pointless, unnecessary, heavy-handed new voting requirements will be people who are less likely to vote for them. It is called voter suppression. It's been practised by right-wingers in the United States for a long time. So here we are, at the very end of a difficult year, in the time of a pandemic, after eight years of the government doing nothing about climate change and energy, eight years doing nothing about wage stagnation and insecure work, and eight years rolling out a broadband network based on 19th century copper, which is obsolete on delivery.</para>
<para>With so many areas needing the attention of good, hardworking, problem-solving government, they come along with this rubbish. Why? Because this government, the Morrison-Joyce government, having abandoned all pretence of doing anything substantial and constructive in the national interest, is desperate to protect its own interests by almost any means. It is desperate to find a way by hook or by crook, by rorts and dishonesty, by scare campaigns and by fomenting confusion and division in the Australian community, through any and all of the dark arts and by every low road, just to give itself the chance of sneaking back into office—sneaking back into a second decade on that side of the House. By introducing this bill, burdening Australian democracy with this cunningly designed and heavy-handed regulation, which was obtained by express mail from the hard-Right manipulators who practise this kind of game in American politics, they are hoping to squeak back into office.</para>
<para>Again, everyone in the community should understand that this bill, if passed, will make it harder, slower, and more frustrating for every Australian who goes to do their democratic duty and vote next year. But the particular evil in the design of this measure is that it seeks to ensure that some Australians don't vote at all. The Australians who likely won't vote because of this bill are people who need to be heard. They will most likely be First Nations Australians, young Australians, Australians from culturally diverse backgrounds and Australians facing severe disadvantage—in other words, Australians who can be marginalised from the political process and who tend to experience disadvantage and social exclusion. These are precisely the people who need to participate in the political process and be heard by all of us in this place so their circumstances can be understood and so we can do our job, which is to deliver fairness, justice and social inclusion. This bill seeks to blank out as many of those people as possible from our democracy.</para>
<para>Let's be clear: the government doesn't need to suppress the vote to any great degree. It doesn't need to knock out, silence and disenfranchise that many people in order to sneak across the line in a close election. Elections in this country are generally determined by a percentage point here or there. This measure is precisely the thing that those opposite hope will make that marginal difference and allow them to sneak back into office. That's why the member for Kennedy, no particular friend of this side of the House, has described the measure as blatantly racist. That's the view of the Northern Land Council. That's the view of the Central Land Council. That's the view of stakeholders in the social justice and social inclusion world.</para>
<para>What are the circumstances of the forthcoming election likely to be? It will be a pandemic election. We know it's going to be difficult. We know we're going to have additional challenges, because we will be opening up next year, and as a result of opening up we expect to see infections rise, particularly in states like Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia, which have been virtually COVID infection free. So we will likely see measures that are needed to help control the spread of infection. That's going to put burdens on the process already. That's going to mean that having people in close proximity to one another in queues needs to be avoided. That's the sort of thing we should be thinking about: making sure that at the federal election next year, which will be a vital turning point in the history of this country, as many as possible of the millions of Australians who want to participate, quite rightly, in that election can do so as easily as possible, considering the challenges of the pandemic.</para>
<para>These measures will make that harder. These measures will require people to be in queues for longer. They will require people to be at polling booths for longer. They will actually work precisely in the opposite direction from the kinds of things we would otherwise like to see happen at polling booths in 2022, where people are allowed to come, move quickly through a polling booth and cast their vote. These bills are going to cause long queues. They are going to cause crowds. They are going to cause people to have to come together and stand in proximity to one another for longer, because the government wants to impose this new, pointless, useless form of regulation in their own self-interest.</para>
<para>We know that there's no benefit to be gained by those bills, because we know there's no problem. The AEC has described the fact that a tiny, tiny number of people are thought to have voted twice, but that problem is, in their own words, vanishingly small. At the last election, the suggestion was 2,000 votes may have been cast twice—2,000 out of 15 million votes. That's not one in a thousand; that's a fraction of one in a thousand.</para>
<para>All of the analysis by the AEC shows a number of things. First of all, it shows that the majority of those people are older Australians, people who are 80-plus and who possibly vote once by postal vote and then have a child come on the day who doesn't know about the postal vote and say, 'Come on, Mum,' or 'Come on, Dad, let's go down to the polling booth.' The AEC believes that in some cases the thought that people have voted twice is really just because an official marking the roll at the polling booth has made a mark in the wrong place, which the Leader of the Opposition described to us earlier. In any case, after the last election there was an investigation by the AEC into only 19 cases where somebody may have voted more than once, and none of those led to a prosecution.</para>
<para>The AEC has been crystal clear that, in any circumstances in which there's evidence that there may have been double voting that goes to the question of whether or not an election in an individual seat can be in question, there are provisions that would allow for that election to be re-held. So, if that had ever been the case, if there'd ever been any evidence that there was a problem, that could have been dealt with. But it's never happened. It's never, ever happened in 121 years. There's no risk of it. There's no evidence of it. It has never ever occurred. Talk about a solution in search of a problem. The AEC, all of the evidence and all of our history show that we have a robust and high-integrity electoral system, but the government is coming along, with no basis at all, seeking to impose additional burdens on Australians who want to exercise their democratic right.</para>
<para>If there was any problem at the moment in terms of a concern about integrity and politics, if people on that side of the House could without massive hypocrisy, which we have heard in this debate so far and we'll continue to hear in this debate, or with any semblance of personal responsibility or anything other than shamelessness on the issue of integrity, there are only about 500 or 600 different things they could do. I mean, we talk about donation reform. When we were in government, we reduced the threshold down so that donations of $1,000 or more had to be properly disclosed. They came in and they straightway put it back to $14,500. They've got no interest in real-time disclosure of donations. For a government that comes along with this voter suppression rubbish at the last moment of a parliamentary year, when there are 6,000 things that need doing in this country, is it any surprise? From a government that is known widely, not just in Australia but unfortunately internationally, to be dishonest, to be characterised by rorts and scandals and waste, is it any surprise that this is what they come up with? This is what they hang their integrity hat on. They can't be bothered. They promised an integrity commission. We don't get an integrity commission; we get voter suppression. They talk about integrity! They've got no problem with ministers that come up with false documents and try to bully lord mayors, they've got no problem with pieces of land that are sold to Liberal mates for 10 times the price, they've got no problem with inflicting robodebt on the Australian people or being on the receiving end of a class action and then today coming in and making class actions harder for all Australians in future! They've no problem with any of that. They've got no problem with any of that. They've never shown the faintest interest in any real issue of integrity and now they're trying to pretend that this voter suppression, this attempt to make voter participation in Australian democracy significantly harder, is anything other than the dirtiest, grubbiest, low-road manoeuvre to give themselves a chance in 2022. So what? So they can continue on with what we've seen so far: rorts and waste and scandal. Is that what this bill is aiming to achieve? Anyone who stands up on that side and uses the word 'integrity' in their speech should hang their head in shame. This bill is what happens when a government gets so hollowed out, so valueless and so purposeless that all it can bring to mind is its own survival. It will crash and burn almost anything to cling onto power even though it has nothing in mind like a positive agenda and has a record of doing three-fifths of nothing.</para>
<para>The minister responsible, the member for Tangney, has made it clear that his defining purpose in public life is to reduce unnecessary regulation. Last year the member for Tangney announced a deregulation task force whose purpose was to eliminate unnecessarily burdensome and costly regulation. In his first speech, the member for Tangney said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I hate needless complexity and regulation because the more complex something is the more expensive it is to administer.</para></quote>
<para>That's exactly what this bill achieves; it makes Australian elections more expensive and more complex. It imposes requirements that serve no purpose. It makes voting more difficult and more unpleasant for every single Australian. And, worst of all, it will do harm to the fundamental democratic principle that participation in elections should be enabled to the greatest degree possible. Not only does this bill seek to achieve voter suppression; it seeks to disenfranchise some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised Australians, so these changes are utterly inconsistent with what the member for Tangney has claimed to be the central principle of his political life.</para>
<para>This proposed regulation responds to no problem whatsoever and solves nothing. It is imported Republican voter suppression bastardry. That's what it is. It's the very definition of red tape that makes a perfectly functional and effective process more complicated, more unpleasant and more expensive. Make no mistake: this bill is a cheap and nasty piece of self-interested antidemocratic bastardry whose only purpose is to give this awful, hopeless, shameless, desperate, do-nothing, stand-for-nothing government a chance of squeaking back into office while Australians have their democratic rights trampled over by the rorters and the wasters and the scandalmongers of those opposite. It is disgusting.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I won't detain the House for very long, but I wanted to put my voice on the record in strong support of these voter ID laws and this integrity to our electoral system. I would also quickly and briefly make the point that once again the Labor Party is playing politics instead of putting people first by moving yet another second reading amendment which is designed for that fraudulent website theyvoteforyou.org.au to misrepresent the voting intentions of this House, especially those on this side of the chamber, while protecting their friends, while protecting the people who love front groups, because they know that, if Australians really saw who they were and what they stand for, they would never get elected even for dog catcher at their local council. That's how fraudulent the Labor Party has become.</para>
<para>Let's make this very clear. What this bill does is it asks you to undertake one of the most minimum of standards for proving that you are who you say you are when you vote. Those opposite want to make it harder for someone to buy on Amazon than it is to vote in an Australian government. They want to make it harder to collect a payment from Medicare than it is to vote for the government of Australia. On that side, they want to make it harder to pick up a package at the post office than it is to vote for a government in Australia. Look, it's only democracy! It's not worth protecting, according to those opposite. It's not worth protecting! In fact, it should be a free-for-all! They keep saying that the incidence of fraud in the electoral system is vanishingly small. Let's make it perfectly clear—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Burt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Burt should listen. He should be curious, not judgemental, as Walt Whitman would say. Be curious, Member for Burt, not judgemental. What he would realise is that what the Electoral Commission meant is that it is 'vanishingly small' to prove that someone committed fraud in our current electoral system, because it requires you to commit fraud and then the only way that we can prove that you actually committed the fraud is for you to admit it.</para>
<para>In other words, what the Labor Party is saying—and I absolutely agree with them—is that people who commit fraud are disinclined to admit to it. I agree; that's absolutely true. So what we are trying to do as a parliament is bring in a system that is actually a lower standard than what they have in the United Kingdom, in Canada, in the United States, in France, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy, in Greece—even the Greeks have managed to do this! I suspect when you go to the polls in Russia they ask you to at least prove who you are. So the standard of the electoral system that the Labor Party wants this country to endure has less checks and balances in it than those that virtually every other Western democracy on the face of this planet has.</para>
<para>Then they claim—because we have the temerity over here to demand that there be at least a modicum of integrity in our voting system—that we are racist. I say to those opposite: keep telling the working men and women of Australia that when they disagree with you they are extremists. Keep telling them that they are Neo-Nazis and keep telling them they are racist. I'm sure that will go down incredibly well. No wonder you need so many front groups to hide behind at every election. No wonder you need The Vote for You, no wonder you need GetUp!, no wonder you need voices of front groups, no wonder you need whatever electorate rising/souffle, no wonder you need independents at every turn to hide behind, because you cannot stand up—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I really fear is that I've made the member opposite wait! I have gone over my three minutes. So I will stop there. But I will say this much: shame on those opposite. Shame on you for playing politics when you should be putting the people of Australia first. Shame on you for calling anyone who dares to disagree with you a racist, an extremist or a Neo-Nazi. Shame on all of you, because the fact of the matter is that this brings long overdue integrity into our voting system.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Mackellar, that was two minutes over the promised time and five minutes too long. On the government benches are members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: the member for Mallee, the member for Moore and the member for Curtin. And of course there are members of the government in the Senate, Senator Small and Senator McLachlan, who are also on the committee. And we have sitting at the table an assistant minister who used to be a human rights commissioner and a freedoms commissioner—a freedoms commissioner, no less. <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport 14 of 2021</inline> from this parliament's human rights scrutiny committee brought to the attention of the minister and the parliament that this legislation engages with and has the risk of impermissibly limiting the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination.</para>
<para>There's been a lot of yelling in this chamber and a lot of huffing and puffing about the need for this legislation. I haven't heard a government member refer to this report, which government members signed up to, which demolishes the response of the minister to their initial assessment that the bill engages the right to take part in public affairs and the right to equality and nondiscrimination and that it is unclear whether the measure addresses a pressing and substantial concern, will effectively achieve its objectives or will disproportionately impact particular groups, and whether alternative, less rights-restrictive approaches have been considered, which are the only justifications under international human rights law—under covenants that this parliament and this country have signed up to—for limiting those rights.</para>
<para>The committee gave the minister the opportunity to address those concerns, and the minister did in fact respond. But here are the committee's concluding comments: you could limit the right to take part in public affairs and equality and nondiscrimination with the justification of a legitimate objective. I quote from paragraph 2.15 of report 14 of 2021:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the minister advised that the bill aims to reduce the potential for voter fraud and impersonation, and safeguard public confidence in the electoral process. The minister's advice notes that there is public concern relating to the importance of safeguarding public confidence in the Australian electoral process. To support this the minister states that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) stated in its report into the 2019 election that 'multiple voting is frequently the subject of media commentary and social media speculation'. However—</para></quote>
<para>the committee goes on to say—</para>
<quote><para class="block">it is noted that this quote from the JSCEM's report was from the Australian Electoral Commission's submission to that inquiry. In this submission the AEC also stated that 'multiple voting is a very small issue in the context of the actual number of multiple votes', but that 'the perception of multiple voting is an important issue with respect to the integrity of election results'.</para></quote>
<para>And, importantly, the committee noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No further information was provided by the minister, such as survey data, to demonstrate that there is currently a lack of public confidence in Australian electoral processes.</para></quote>
<para>So that's argument No. 1 from the government demolished by members of this parliament, including members of the government. The minister also said that the measures were:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… designed to deter voters from intentionally voting more than once. However, the Australian Electoral Commission has noted that the majority of instances of multiple voting are unintentional. The Australian Electoral Commissioner has stated in relation to multiple votes, that the vast majority are cast by 'people over the age of 80 or people who have English as a second language issues or who are confused about the act of voting'.</para></quote>
<para>What was the committee's response?</para>
<quote><para class="block">As such, it is not clear that the measures would deter most instances of multiple voting.</para></quote>
<para>That's another argument from the government demolished by people who are members of this parliament, including the member for Mallee, the member for Moore and the member for Curtin. The report says in paragraph 2.17:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The minister also advised that the bill would help to avoid errors relating to accidental mark-offs against the wrong person by using identity documents to find the person's name and residence.</para></quote>
<para>That's because, according to the minister, in the 2013 election, 'over 18,000 multiple mark-offs' were recorded. The human rights committee of this parliament says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is noted that the JSCEM's report stated that 'a significant number of apparent roll mark-offs that would seem to indicate multiple voting incidents is attributable to official error (an issuing officer marking a certified list incorrectly)'. The JSCEM noted that the use of electronic certified lists 'would offer a significant reduction in the official error rate'.</para></quote>
<para>Paragraph 2.18 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The minister also advised that, critically, the bill would reduce the risk of electoral fraud in the form of voter impersonation, as requiring voter identification will mean that for those without identification, who must vote via the declaration process, only the first vote cast will be admitted to the scrutiny process.</para></quote>
<para>What does the committee say in response to that?</para>
<quote><para class="block">However, no evidence has been provided as to whether there have been cases of voter impersonation in previous elections. As such, it is not possible to conclude that this issue addresses a pressing or substantial public or social concern.</para></quote>
<para>That's another argument put up by this government demolished. Is there a rational connection to issues? Paragraph 2.2 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The minister's response did not address the question as to how voter identification requirements would be effective to prevent people from voting multiple times at different locations. The minister stated that the measures in the bill are designed to deter voters from intentionally voting more than once. Yet, as the Australian Electoral Commissioner has said, the vast majority of multiple votes are cast by the elderly, those with English as a second language or who are confused about the act of voting.</para></quote>
<para>What does the committee say?</para>
<quote><para class="block">As such, it remains unclear how requiring such voters to show identification would prevent them from continuing to cast their vote multiple times (and showing their identification each time they do so). In relation to clerical error, it has also not been established how electoral officials would be less likely to make mistakes in marking voters off the roll if they see an identity document rather than by asking for the name of the elector.</para></quote>
<para>Proportionality? No. The human rights committee demolishes the government's arguments on that as well. Paragraph 2.22 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there is concern about how the measure will operate in practice in relation to certain vulnerable groups. As stated in the initial analysis, requiring proof of identity may have a disproportionate impact on particular groups who may face issues accessing identification documentation or having such documentation on them when voting.</para></quote>
<para>And who are those people? People with no fixed address, people with disability, people of low socio-economic status, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and women escaping domestic violence. So when members of the government yell and scream and say Labor is making up all these arguments, that list, endorsed by the human rights committee, with members of this government on it, comes from a 2014 research report on multiple voting and voter identification prepared for the New South Wales Electoral Commission.</para>
<para>The committee also said: 'It's noted that the current declaration form provided by the minister for this legislation doesn't indicate that the provision of such information is optional, and, as such, it is not clear if electors would always understand the optional nature of the provision of some of the information.'</para>
<para>Paragraph 2.24 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The minister's response also did not address the questions as to whether consideration has been given to alternative, less rights restrictive, ways of achieving the stated objectives.</para></quote>
<para>That is something I would have thought the former freedoms commissioner would be very interested in. One would think that the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Act 2021, commencing on 3 September 2021, was intended to address that issue. So what do we need this bill for? Not for that issue. Paragraph 2.25 addresses this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Noting the intention of this legislation, which commenced operation less than two months before the current bill was introduced, it is not clear why any concerns regarding multiple voting are not able to be addressed by this new legislation (noting there has been no election since that legislation commenced, and so therefore no opportunity to determine its effectiveness).</para></quote>
<para>Anyway, many instances of markings of multiple voting are as a result of clerical error.</para>
<para>The conclusion of the human rights scrutiny committee of this parliament at paragraph 2.27 is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it does not appear to have been demonstrated that seeking to address concerns regarding multiple voting addresses an issue that is pressing and substantial enough to warrant limiting human rights. In relation to the desire to reduce clerical errors, it is not sufficient that a measure simply seeks an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient. Administrative convenience, in and of itself, is unlikely to be sufficient to constitute a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law. Finally, while public confidence in the electoral system is an important objective in a democracy, the minister has not provided any evidence that demonstrates a lack of public confidence, other than referring to 'media commentary and social media speculation' regarding multiple voting.</para></quote>
<para>And I break in to add this thought, which is not in the report: if we were to legislate in response to media commentary and social media speculation, perhaps this Morrison government would have an actual legislative agenda.</para>
<para>Paragraph 2.30 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the minister's response has not established: that the measure seeks to achieve an objective that addresses an issue of public or social concern that is pressing and substantial enough to warrant limiting these rights; that the measure is rationally connected to those objectives; or that it is proportionate. As such, there is a risk that this measure would impermissibly limit the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and non-discrimination.</para></quote>
<para>Paragraph 2.33 notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the potential for the bill to disproportionately impact on certain groups (such as Indigenous persons in remote communities, people experiencing homelessness and those fleeing domestic violence), and that it has not been established that there are no less rights restrictive ways to achieve the stated objectives, the committee considers the measure has not been demonstrated to be proportionate to the stated objectives. As such, there is a risk that this measure would impermissibly limit the right to participate in public affairs and the right to equality and non-discrimination.</para></quote>
<para>It's really, really important that those conclusions of this committee of the parliament, made up of Labor, National Party, Liberal Party and Greens members of the parliament in the upper and lower houses, is taken into consideration, particularly because the minister provided to that committee all of the arguments that all of the Liberal and National Party members on that side of the chamber have been putting in defence of this legislation and it demolished all of them. So, when people like the member for Mackellar, the member for Barker and others come into this chamber and rant and rave and accuse Labor of making up arguments for why this bill is unacceptable, undermines democracy, doesn't protect it and doesn't lead to further integrity, remember this report of a very important committee of this parliament.</para>
<para>I expect the member for Mallee, the member for Moore and the member for Curtin to come into this chamber and oppose this legislation on the basis that it impermissibly breaches human rights and undermines democracy in the way the human rights committee has set out. We don't have a national charter of human rights in this country, so we have to rely on engagement with these international covenants that we have signed up to. It is one of the reasons we need a bill of rights in this country—so that legislation like this can be assessed in a coherent rights framework and be identified for what it is and what it does. If nothing else, I urge members of the government to read the report in full and to search their consciences and ideological beliefs and ask themselves, 'Can I really vote for this legislation which undermines democracy and human rights and what Liberals are supposed to believe in, which is not breaching people's ability to—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill. The bill requires that an individual provide identification when voting in person at federal elections, and it is a bill that will help to improve public confidence in the integrity of Australian elections by reducing the risk of voter fraud. It responds to recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from its reports on the 2013, 2016 and 2019 federal elections. The measures contained in this bill will bring Australia into line with voter identification practices of other advanced democracies, such as Canada, France, Sweden, Belgium and a number of states in the US. It recognises that Australians require proof of identification for a range of activities, things we accept ordinarily and every day, including driving, opening a bank account or collecting a parcel from the post office. Even, as I recently discovered, buying a new phone requires identification. But, currently, that same ID is not required when carrying out one of the most sacred duties of a citizen in this nation—selecting representatives in this parliament and the parliaments to come.</para>
<para>I was a member of the JSCEM that looked into the 2019 federal election, and I was really pleased to note, when I did read the report, again recently, that a number of the recommendations from that report have actually now been accepted and implemented by the government, which shows the strength of that report. Some of these recommendations include recommendation 6, which encourages the Electoral Commission to bring forward a costed proposal and timeline for the introduction of an electronic certified roll before the next federal election.</para>
<para>I note that, as part of the 2021 budget, the government provided the AEC with additional funding to increase the number of electronic certified lists, which enable communication between polling booths in real time, ensuring that voters marked off the roll in one area are prevented from voting again in another. The AEC used over 4,500 electronic devices to mark off voters at the last election, and they were available at all the prepoll voting centres. This is a common-sense measure, resulting from this recommendation, that will not only make elections more efficient for polling staff but, in conjunction with the measures contained in this bill, provide further safeguards against tampering and fraud or the potential of tampering and fraud, and help to bring the voting process into the 21st century.</para>
<para>Another recommendation, recommendation 15 of the 2019 report, recommends that the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce be engaged permanently to prevent and combat cybermanipulation and foreign interference in our democratic process. In an ever-connected world, where information is shared almost instantaneously with others, the threat of misinformation and from both extremist organisations and foreign actors continues to grow. That's why this recommendation was important—to ensure that those with malicious intent are prevented from influencing public opinion for their own interests, protecting our democratic process and ensuring that elections genuinely reflect the interests of voters.</para>
<para>I understand that the AEC is engaging with government security partners, including the Australian cybersecurity Centre, to enhance our nation's cybersecurity posture prior to and during elections, and that the AEC has also implemented the ACSC's essential aid strategies to mitigate cybersecurity incidents and uses these strategies to help guide implementation of various measures. This is also important in light of other measures, such as those contained in this bill and of course the use of electronic certified lists.</para>
<para>Another recommendation, recommendation 16, states that a new offence of 'electoral violence' should established to address acts of violence, obscene or discriminatory abuse, property damage or stalking during an election. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Act 2021 clarifies the existing offence of 'interference with political liberty' under the Electoral Act to include the above behaviour, and it increases the interference with political liberty from imprisonment for six months or 10 penalty units or both, to imprisonment for three years or 100 penalty units or both. I can think of numerous times when my team, myself and my volunteers have been subject to, frankly, pretty horrific treatment by representatives of groups purporting to be supporting democracy by standing up for views but in fact are behaving in a vile, offensive and unacceptable manner. I really hope that these changes will deter this behaviour.</para>
<para>Recommendations 21 and 22 also advocate further changes relating to the need for identification when voting and enrolling or changing enrolment details. These, also, are sensible measures, outlined in this report, that are being addressed through this bill which will help improve the integrity, transparency and robustness of our democratic system so that it can not only be beyond reproach but also can be seen to be. The need for voter identification is something that is raised regularly with me, especially during prepoll—in fact, at every prepoll—and in the many community forums that are held on a regular basis around my electorate, particularly pre-COVID, before we were not able to gather in the way that we have been accustomed to. It would surprise me if there were a community forum where that question was not raised by at least one person. It is an issue that is out there. It is an issue that is a concern to voters, and it's important that it is addressed through this legislation.</para>
<para>I disclose as a very proud longstanding member of the Liberal Party, I'm also a very proud longstanding member of the NSW Liberal Women's Council. This is an issue that has been dear to the heart of the NSW Liberal Women's Council, a wonderful organisation of the Liberal Party. I had the honour to serve as its president in 2011-12 prior to being selected as the Liberal candidate for Robertson. This is an important body in the Liberal Party. It has been a very important voice for women and for progressive policy reforms in the Liberal Party since the inception of the party. I must recognise the influence that the Liberal Women's Council has had in my own life in encouraging me to run for parliament and supporting me in this endeavour. That's certainly an honour that I appreciate and that I've always sought to pay forward to other women who are seeking to represent their community. In thanking the Liberal Women's Council for their support, for their mentoring and for the honour of enabling me to serve as their president, I also acknowledge that this has been one of the longstanding reforms that the New South Wales Liberal Women's Council have long advocated for: voter identification in elections. As the current president of the Liberal Women's Council, Mary-Lou Jarvis, said to me today, the council has been advocating for voter ID for more than a decade and believes it will be an important step to ensure fair elections.</para>
<para>The Liberal Women's Council first started advocating for this many years ago, certainly as far back as when I served as its president. I want to note in particular the advocacy of Anne Yule, Juliet Kirkpatrick, Linde Jobling, Carolyn Currie, Karen Howard and many others. I also note the advocacy and strong leadership of past presidents including Chantelle Fornari-Orsmond, Felicity Wilson, and of course the indefatigable, passionate and driven advocacy of Mary-Lou Jarvis.</para>
<para>A strong democracy depends on a robust electoral system with appropriate safeguards, and this bill enhances these protections to ensure our system continues to function effectively and efficiently into the future. It has been well considered by the government, and the introduction of the requirement for identification has been really carefully worked through. Polling officials will be able to accept a large number of identification documents, including current photographic ID such as a driver's licence, passport or proof of age card; government issued identification or documentation such as a Medicare card, birth certificate, citizenship certificate or AEC issued enrolment confirmation notice; or recent proof of name such as a utilities account statement, taxation notice of assessment, bank account statement, mobile phone account notice, credit card, debit card or document issued by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land council or native title body. This is a broad range of identification documents that is far greater than able to be used in other nations. Proof of identity can also be provided in electronic form. Even if voters forget their ID or they're unable to bring it to a polling station, that's still catered for. A voter without ID will be able to complete a form to attest to their identity. This form is then kept as a record by the AEC to ensure voters do not vote multiple times. The government has committed additional funding of $5.6 million to the AEC to help implement these measures, including communication and community engagement activities to ensure that voters are well aware of this new requirement well before election day.</para>
<para>The opposition are opposing this bill and they've made a number of claims about it, including that it will impact voter turnout and disenfranchise vulnerable groups. I really would like to address both these points because, as the Special Minister of State noted, identification laws don't necessarily impact turnout at elections, but they provide confidence in the electoral system. The voter identification laws used at the 2015 Queensland state election had no discernible impact on voter participation. In fact, the voter turnout was higher at the 2015 state election when voter ID laws were in place than in the 2017 and 2020 Queensland state elections when the same laws were repealed. I'd really like to see high voter turnout at a federal level because I believe that this means even more people can have their say and help shape the future of our nation. At the 2019 federal election, the national turnout was 91.9 per cent, while in Robertson we had a higher turnout of 93.17 per cent. I am sure this bill will go some way to ensuring that this figure continues to rise at the next election and elections beyond.</para>
<para>Voting is such an important obligation and privilege, and compulsory voting, our system of democracy, helps to ensure that our parliament is truly representative of all groups regardless of their income, background or level of engagement with politics. I have always been a strong advocate of our compulsory voting system in Australia because it enfranchises those who might otherwise be the least likely to exercise their vote. That is why I have been such a strong supporter of our compulsory voting system here in Australia. I believe every vote should be given equal weight. Our nation is built on the idea that each and every voice and every vote matters and counts. So even one individual who chooses to vote multiple times reduces the weighted influence of others in that election.</para>
<para>So the reforms in this bill, along with the progressive implementation of the electronic roll, are sensible measures that I believe will be broadly accepted in our community despite some of the scaremongering we are seeing from those opposite, particularly given some of the other measures that are being contained to ensure that this is well known and that the identification options are as broad as they are outlined in this legislation. After all, voting should have at least the same safeguards and processes to ensure integrity as those required to collect a parcel at the post office or sign up to a phone plan.</para>
<para>The opposition argue that this bill will disenfranchise voters who are vulnerable. To ensure that this doesn't occur, the government is introducing measures to enhance electoral participation among these groups. The Australian Electoral Commission will receive an additional $9.4 million to continue to work with Indigenous communities and deliver targeted measures to support the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in elections. The AEC's community activities have seen Indigenous enrolment rates outperform the overall enrolment rate in Australia every year for the past four years, and I want to commend the AEC for their important work in this area. In fact, we have seen the estimated Indigenous enrolment rate lift year on year from 74.7 per cent in 2017 to 79.3 per cent in 2021, and an additional 52,350 Indigenous Australians have been enrolled since 2017. Additional funding will assist in building a capability to recognise multiple names to create better elector record matching, create a series of podcasts for culturally appropriate electoral education and help to undertake specialised Indigenous enrolment support. It will also assist in building a youth mentoring program to drive electoral participation and implement a targeted communication strategy. These initiatives, alongside this bill, are really important to help continue to facilitate greater Indigenous involvement in our democracy.</para>
<para>This bill also has several less significant but still important changes. These include reducing clerical errors, given that voters will provide documentary proof of their name and address rather than simply identifying themselves verbally. It also ensures that a voter's privacy is protected, as proof-of-identity documents must only be used by the AEC to establish the voter's identity and cannot be copied or retained.</para>
<para>I believe that this bill improves the confidence in the Australian electoral system and will help to increase voter turnout. It reduces the risk of voter fraud, implements appropriate safeguards and ensures our democracy will continue to thrive. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 is a bad bill from a bad government. It's a very unnecessary bill. It's a bill that pretends to be strengthening our democracy, like the former speaker just said, while in fact undermining it. At its heart, this bill is a voter suppression bill from this bad, unethical government. It is a deliberate attempt to suppress the votes of those that they don't think are as likely to vote for them. There are so many problems with this bill and with what the government is proposing to do that it's really hard to know where to begin.</para>
<para>But the last two Liberal Party MPs who spoke, when I listened to them just now, alerted me to something I may not have considered fully before. To perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt in a way, they've sort of got an impairment. The impairment is an inability to understand that not everyone lives as they do. It's an impairment that I wouldn't say the member for Grey necessarily has, although I'm looking forward to listening to what he spouts and seeing if it's the same as the ignorant contributions that I've heard from other Liberal Party members in the government trying to defend this bad bill. I'm looking forward to hearing that. This impairment is serious. Government members from the North Shore of Sydney and the Central Coast, where everyone goes around with their phone full of all sorts of cards and IDs, think: 'Doesn't everyone have a wallet? Doesn't everyone have a phone? Doesn't everyone have a bill for their tennis club? Doesn't everyone have that one?' Doesn't everyone have streams of identification available and ready to go in their ladies clubs or wherever?' I would love to hear what the gentlemen opposite, from the government, have to say. They at least live in places where perhaps they might have a better appreciation for the fact that not everyone lives as most members opposite live. Obviously, those opposite would understand that I'm from the Northern Territory, and our citizens are very much under the gun of this bad bill.</para>
<para>Those opposite are trying to make it more difficult for Australians across the board to vote. We're already looking at an election, in the first few months of next year, that will be heavily impacted by COVID-19. It's already been called a logistical nightmare for the AEC. Voters will already have to do a QR code check-in. There will be social distancing. People understand that there'll be new requirements. There'll be another new requirement if this bad bill gets through, and that is to produce some sort of ID. The story is that we'll have far longer waiting times at polling booths—unnecessarily long waiting times. Australians haven't had to deal with that as much, but, if you think you've ever been in a long polling line, this bill is designed to make you wait even longer and to slow the whole process down, in the hope that some people will just leave the queue and maybe come back later or maybe not. That's what they hope. It's going to be particularly tough in the Northern Territory, where my electorate is. We're already facing, at this time of year and early next year, extremely high temperatures. It's hot, and long waits in extreme heat won't just be a hassle in northern Australia; they could actually be very harmful to voters' health around the country, particularly senior voters and those with compromised health.</para>
<para>Requiring polling officials to check ID will further increase delay, because they'll have to check the authenticity of the document and there may be confusion as to which documents are accepted. Those voters whose ID is rejected will have to join separate queues to make a declaration vote, all taking longer, and they won't be told whether their provisional vote was ever accepted into the count. So this is going to diminish trust in our electoral process. As if the Prime Minister's performance in question time today hadn't diminished voters' belief in democracy and what goes on in this place, this is going to further drive down the trust that Australians have in this electoral process, not enhance it.</para>
<para>What the coalition's proposal would see is Australians turned away from voting, voting taking a lot longer for everyone and our democracy being weakened overall, when really what they should be doing is facilitating voting for more Australians around the country. There are tens of thousands of unenrolled Australians around the country who are currently not participating in our democracy. That's a problem.</para>
<para>If the coalition government were serious about improving Australia's democracy, there are plenty of things they could be doing. If Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, were serious about electoral integrity, he would support Labor's bills for real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the disclosure threshold from $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 so political donations are transparent. If he were serious, he would reform electoral expenditure laws. He would provide more resources to the AEC to increase enrolment and turnout of voters—not at a minute to midnight. Instead, in the NT, where we have the lowest rate of enrolment in the country, the AEC has been bleeding staff and resources for years.</para>
<para>Those opposite have deliberately been cutting AEC staff out of the Northern Territory in order to have fewer Aboriginal Territorians, in particular, but also other Territorians, getting enrolled. That is scandalous, unethical, shameful and un-Australian, but it's the mark of those opposite. In our local AEC office in my electorate, the number of staff was over 20 in the past, then it went down to 15, and then it went down to three—three AEC staff in the jurisdiction with the lowest enrolment in the country by far. Why would a government deliberately do that? Because they want to steal some seats. They want to take the vote away from Aboriginal Territorians, in particular, so they can try to win a seat. It's a disgrace. There was an Indigenous Electoral Participation Program, but what did they do with those personnel, the people who went out and enrolled people and educated them about the process? They sent them to Brisbane to enrol people in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Guess what: from Brisbane, those AEC staff didn't enrol many Territorians in remote communities—none. That was deliberately done so there are fewer voters in the seat of Lingiari. There are three people in an office for somewhere the size of the NT. There's a boss, someone who answers the phone, and another person who might have done something else—very professional public servants, but it is pretty limited capacity in the jurisdiction with the lowest enrolment in the country. It kind of sounds like a deliberate thing to do, eh?</para>
<para>If the Prime Minister wanted to, he could do something to fight dangerous misinformation and disinformation, which has been spreading all over social media. If he wanted to strengthen Australians' faith in the democratic process, he would also legislate for a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission, he would stop pork-barrelling in marginal seats, and he would make laws so people like the former Attorney-General couldn't take secret donations through a so-called blind trust. There are lots of things the Prime Minister could do, but instead of that the Prime Minister has decided, on the eve of an election, to make it harder for some Australians to vote, so the people who won't vote for him maybe can't vote at all.</para>
<para>Really, this is what it's all about. It's about voter suppression. We've seen it in the United States, where the Republican Party have spent years finding new ways to block voters who they think will vote Democrat from getting into ballot booths. This has got that sort of mentality and that sort of prejudice written all over it. This bill will have a disproportionate impact on people living in remote Indigenous communities. If those opposite were truthful, they would agree with that. It has a disproportionate impact on those dealing with homelessness, and it has a disproportionate impact on those escaping domestic violence, who often don't have easy access to identification because they've had to flee. So it's making it harder for all those groups.</para>
<para>Young people and culturally and linguistically diverse communities will also be adversely affected. Many young adults move around a lot, and they rent temporary accommodation, which makes it harder to keep their ID up to date. They're also less likely to have other forms of ID such as passports. Many probably don't have a passport yet. A lot of young kids aren't getting their driver's licence. They may not have any tax documents or bank cards. They might lose their wallet when they're out having a couple of beers. There could be any reason why a young person or anyone might not have ID on the day. It's passing strange, isn't it—these groups that I'm outlining and their vulnerability. Perhaps the Prime Minister has made an assessment: 'You know what? We're probably better off with those people not having a vote. We might get across the line in a couple of seats.' It is so shameful. Older people can face similar problems, such as they're no longer driving and haven't got a licence. They will be worried about this. They might think that they don't have the right form of ID. The magical sprinkling of fairy dust that we've heard about from previous speakers doesn't get to everyone.</para>
<para>The federal government have had the worst communications campaigns to do with the vaccines and action around the pandemic. What makes us any more confident that there will be good communications programs coming out about the ID stuff in the lead-up to the election? We know it just won't happen because they don't want those people to vote.</para>
<para>Migrant communities also face substantial barriers. Many people in some of those communities have struggled for years with formal name and identity issues such as bad transliterations from other alphabets and having their names anglicised when they've arrived in Australia—in other words, different forms of names. We're supposed to believe that all this is magically taken into account, but we know that that's unlikely. We saw in the 2015 Queensland election that voter ID requirements led to voters being turned away from polling places without being given the option to complete a declaration vote, because polling officials did not understand the new system. We're supposed to believe that 100,000-plus AEC people are going to be trained up over Christmas for the election in the new year.</para>
<para>The government say that voters will be able to have someone else sign a declaration form attesting that they are who they say they are, but they've offered no guidance on how those declarations will be followed up to ensure that anyone is telling the truth anyway. You can see, Deputy Speaker Vasta—at least I can, clearly—that it's all a crock. They're yet to explain what happens if a person's ID doesn't have the same address as their enrolled address. Under these proposed changes a person could still vote multiple times in their own name by going to different polling places. That bells the cat; they can't even stop people from doing the thing they say is a problem, which isn't really a problem. It's just so obvious. I hope enough members in this place have the integrity to make a wise decision when they vote on this bill.</para>
<para>The Electoral Commissioner has said many times that existing measures have effectively addressed that issue of multiple voting, as small as it is. Three months ago this very parliament created a designated electoral register for those who were identified as having voted more than once, and they will only be able to vote by declaration vote.</para>
<para>In summary, in the time remaining, this is a very disappointing piece of legislation, particularly for people that I represent. They know what this is designed to do—to have fewer people having a vote. That is un-Australian.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021. I'm surprised that the member for Solomon—as he leaves the chamber—has so little faith in Labor's candidate in Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour. I can tell him that the seat of Grey has a far longer boundary with the seat of Lingiari than Solomon does. My assessment, looking over the border, is that we've got Buckley's chance in Lingiari. But, let me tell you, we're coming after Solomon, because we've held that seat much more recently. I think that is a far better chance than Lingiari, and any effects you're talking about in this area that you promote would not affect Solomon in the same way if, indeed, they were right.</para>
<para>I've got to say I've nearly always voted in the electorate in which I live—prior to becoming a member of parliament, of course. I well remember my first vote. I was 18 and it was 1975. I made my first very wise political decision. I voted to get rid of the Whitlam government. What a disaster that was. All I did was walk into the Buckleboo hall—we don't have a voting place there anymore; we have to go to Kimba now—and they knew who I was and they crossed my name off the list. It has always surprised me since that time—and I've nearly always voted in Grey, as I said, or in the state seat—when I have been out of the seat, in Adelaide, and I've walked into a polling booth and they say, 'Who are you?' and I say, 'I'm Rowan Ramsey from Kimba.' I go to the correct polling booth and they say, 'Here you are; you live at 301 Ramsey Road'—good name for a road!—and I say, 'That is correct.' 'We'll cross you off, Mr Ramsey; here are your voting papers.' That's a pretty low threshold, isn't it? I don't think I could get a bank account like that. I certainly couldn't get a credit card. I couldn't get a Medicare card. I couldn't enrol my kids at school. I couldn't get a drivers licence or a passport. I definitely couldn't get married. I couldn't pick up a parcel from the post office. I couldn't buy a mobile phone. It seems to me you need it to get registered on the electoral roll; you need to prove your identity. The one thing you don't need it for is to vote. That is patently absurd. Not only do I think it's absurd; the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, after the 2013 election, after the 2016 election and after the 2019 election agreed with me. They, too, think it's absurd, that it should be fixed up and that we should show proof of identity when we go to vote. After all, it should be one of the most important things that we do as citizens of Australia. We should hold this up not only as something that we should be proud of but as an obligation that we are absolutely committed to deliver.</para>
<para>Australia is the fourth longest uninterrupted democracy in the world. I think that's a remarkable outcome. It probably sheds a bit of light on the troubles that have beset the rest of the democratised world. That's something I'm particularly proud of. I think our democracy's enfranchisement of every citizen is a very important fundamental, and it should be absolutely defended against any attack. The public space in our electoral system should be absolutely undeniable; it should be fundamental. We need to ensure that they trust the system. It's one of the reasons that I do not favour any kind of move to electronic voting. It comes up from time to time: 'Oh, why can't we vote electronically?' We can't vote electronically, because it's just too easy to rort, to corrupt. It's not easy for me. I'm quite proficient on a computer, but I can't reprogram one and I can't write new programs. But I certainly know plenty of people who can. I think as recently as in the last two decades at least a 12-year-old broke into the NASA computers. Every time somebody comes up with a brand-new block to stop corruption and people accessing information on computers, there's a new way. It's a bit like changing tax law. As soon as you change it, the best minds in the country are working out how to get around it. That's why we don't go to electronic voting. Of course, that's not what we're discussing today. I'm using that as a point about how I value our voting system and how it needs to be completely trustworthy.</para>
<para>I'm one of a diminishing number of people in this chamber who remember Fran Bailey, former member for McEwen. You would, Mr Deputy Speaker—you've been here that amount of time. In 2007, Fran Bailey, on initial count, lost her seat of McEwen by six votes. There was a recount. She won by 12 votes. Then there was a court of appeal and she eventually won by 27 votes. In Herbert, in 2016, we lost a very good man out of this parliament in Ewen Jones by a margin of 37 votes. In fact, my advice to Ewen at the time was to challenge that result, because we had a large defence exercise going on at Cultana range, just out of Port Augusta, and there were a whole host of people who came from Townsville who went to vote that day and they ran out of interstate voting slips for them. It was a bit of a failure on the Electoral Commission in that area. I thought that result should be challenged. He chose not to. He took it on the chin and moved on. He's still a good man, doing good work in his community. The reason I raise those two results—I think they're the two most marginal that I remember in my time in this place at least, and I can't go back a lot further—is it does prove that one vote can make the difference. It can change government. One vote could change a government. One corrupted vote could change a government. We should do everything we can to ensure that that vote is not corrupted.</para>
<para>Proof of identity is pretty common place around the world in most advanced democracies. Why on earth, here in Australia, we should propose that we should be different, I have no idea. I have great faith in Australians, but not so far as to think there is not one Australian that would rort the system. Unfortunately, there are, and we need to make sure that those avenues are not open to them.</para>
<para>I come to the point that many on the other side of the chamber are making now—that is, this disenfranchises Indigenous people, and they calling us racists. Close to eight per cent of my electorate are Indigenous, and I spend an enormous amount of time working on their issues. I'm pretty sick of some of the condescension and the disrespect that is shown to them, like, 'You poor black fellas couldn't be expected to work out who you are or prove who you are.' For goodness sake! What a low opinion those on the other side have of our Indigenous people. I spend, as I said, quite a bit of time with them and I know many personally. My electorate is pretty big, just like the member for O'Connor's. I drive about 80,000 or 90,000 kilometres a year.</para>
<para>I apologise to the people of APY Lands, I haven't been there in the last 18 months. Normally I try to get there twice a year, and I drive there, so I can drive from community to community and talk to the people on the ground. I haven't gone there. I've tried three times in last 12 months, and every time a COVID ban has caused me to cancel. I stay in touch by telephone. As an aside, I'm pleased to report that vaccination rates on the APY Lands, at least, are only running about five per cent behind the rest of South Australia, and I think in terms of remote Indigenous communities that's an outstanding outcome. I congratulate Nganampa Health for the hard work they're doing up there.</para>
<para>What I've got to say though is: I've been the member for Grey for 14 years, and my results out of those remote lands are actually pretty good when it comes to election time. I've got to say I trust them with their vote. I trust them with their judgement. I think I was just in front last election, with over 50 per cent of the vote on the APY Lands. So, to anyone that would suggest that any disenfranchisement of any individuals would be in the Liberal Party favour, I say no. I have a good Aboriginal acquaintance, where there's been some investment in their community—not on the lands. He said to me one day: 'All my life I've been told to vote Labor. We get told to vote Labor all the time. You got to vote Labor! The Liberals are terrible! I tell you what, you lot have done more for my people than they have ever done. I'm voting for you.' He's a community leader, and that's how you win votes. You get on the ground, you talk to people, you listen to their issues and you do something about it. So I'm not worried at all in any way that that is going to affect my vote, even though I'm getting the majority of the vote in those booths already. So, I'll tell the member for Solomon, who prattled on over there for a while and said, 'These people don't have mobile phones,' there are more mobile phone towers per capita in the remote Indigenous lands of Australia than there are in the rest of Australia. They are in every community. We've got a couple to go in the APY Lands that have populations of around 80, but all the bigger communities—and I mean communities of 200—have mobile phone towers. And I can tell you that there are not many people in those towns who don't have mobile phones, and as surprising as it might be for opposition members, they actually know how to use them. So, once again, there is this condescending and just disgusting attack on their capabilities, which I find absolutely inconsistent with this whole argument.</para>
<para>The member for Solomon mentioned the Queensland election in 2015 when they did have voter identification. He said, 'There were 100,000 people who didn't vote.' Well, there were fewer in the 2017 and 2020 elections, when they took away the voter identification. I don't know how he links any kind of argument about that. You are from Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, and you would know that the turnout in 2015 was higher than it was in 2017 or 2020. So it obviously wasn't any great disenfranchisement of anyone.</para>
<para>When the Labor Party speak of the very low rates of rorting of the current system, they know that that's because it's almost impossible to find anyone who is voting multiple times when you've got no proof of identity. I look remarkably like Ross Vasta, even though I'm sure our haircuts are quite different and our age is quite dissimilar. But, if all I have to say is that that is who I am and that is where I live—I don't know what your address is, but I could find out, Mr Deputy Speaker—who would know? We've got absolutely no idea how deep this goes. What we do know is we know how to fix it. That's what this legislation does. It's overdue. Bring Australia into the 21st century. Proof of identity is ubiquitous and mandatory on many occasions in most services that we access in the 21st century. So it's a faux argument that the opposition put forward. The opposition's amendment is completely out of line, and I support the original legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Let's call this bill for what it is: voter suppression—a government blocking its ears and closing its heart to Australians, because this government is worried that if all Australians vote they might not vote for them. It's a gutless move from a gutless Prime Minister, who steals his best and most evil ideas from the mind of Donald Trump.</para>
<para>Election day in Australia should be a celebration, a day when Australians are free to exercise their democratic rights. We've got a pretty good system in Australia, and speakers on both sides have pointed that out. It works well, it's efficient and at least most of us in this House, if not most of us across Australia, enjoy the experience. But this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity Bill) 2021, would change that. It would Americanise our voting system. It would add unbearable delay and it would reduce the number of Australians who would vote. It would literally cut them out of money that local P&Cs would get when they run their democracy sausage sizzles. They will get less money, because there are fewer voters rocking up.</para>
<para>If we want to really understand the impact of this we need to put ourselves in the shoes of a typical voter. Imagine election day 2022. They wake up on a Saturday morning after having a bit of a sleep in. They decide to go about their day, but they are going to get the voting out of the way first. So they drive to the booth and, on the way there, they see the crowds. It's not like normal; there's traffic everywhere and they can't get a car park. When they finally get to the booth, they can't believe what they see: people queued up everywhere; a line as long as the eye can see. Their neighbours, friends and community members are standing out in the sun waiting endlessly—all because they want to do what they have done at every election, which is vote. So they collect their how-to-vote card for their preferred candidate—and they get given the how-to-vote cards from all the nut-job right-wing parties, who preference the Liberal Party. The minutes tick past and the sweat begins to stick. They start to worry about how long they've been in line. They didn't put any suncream on; they're getting worried. They look at their phone. Twenty minutes have passed, and their battery might not last as long as they need it to, given how long the queue is. They look over at the sausage sizzle. They wish they'd got a sausage before they got into this never-ending queue. They start to wonder if they've been transported to somewhere in the United States. Finally the line starts moving. That's not because the electoral commission is processing people's identity checks quicker; the line's moving because people ahead of them are walking out of the queue. They've given up on democracy. Then, this poor voter, after 200 minutes, finally makes it to the front. They've been in line longer than the latest James Bond movie takes to watch. They're now behind for the rest of the day—late to pick up the kids, haven't started any of their Saturday weekend tasks. Finally they get to the desk and are asked for their drivers licence. They proudly hand it over. Nice and organised. Then the booth worker from the AEC tells them: 'Sorry. Your licence expired three days ago. You can't vote.' They look around desperately, trying to find someone to verify their identity. They can't find anyone who can verify them. All their neighbours and friends have given up and left the queue. So there they are. Stuck and unable to have their rights heard. So, having given up—because this government has given up on them—they go, 'I will console myself by getting a democracy sausage'. But we all know what it's like later in the day—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wright, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on relevance. The speaker who's addressing the House has just said that they wouldn't be able to vote. Clearly the legislation indicates that whether or not they have ID they will be able to vote on the day. I ask you to contain his comments to relevance. That would assist the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the member for Perth is in order, and I'll give him the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In my hypothetical example—which, clearly, the government acknowledges might actually be something that someone would experience—this particular hypothetical voter has just given up, not because of the legislation but just because of the ridiculous experience they have had of standing in the queue for hours and hours, having their ID demanded, being required to go through all these other obstacles they have never had to put up with before, and now this hypothetical voter just wants to go and get a democracy sausage. But they've been in the queue for hours. The sausages are a bit burnt, the bread has gone hard and, worst of all, there's no tomato sauce left. Talk about an unfair shake of the sauce bottle. That's what the Morrison government wants to do to our democracy—to destroy the experience that Australians love so much and to follow the American path rather than the Australian one that's served us well for more than a century—from tomato sauce on the democracy sausage to ketchup on the undemocratic hot dog.</para>
<para>And we know that just a few months ago the following was said about voter identification laws: 'All states should pass voter ID laws. Anyone who wants to vote should show photo ID to eliminate corruption and fraud, so we never again have an election rigged and stolen from us.' These are the words of Donald Trump, sending a message out to the conservatives across the world that they should jump onto voter ID laws. What does the cabinet and the Morrison government do just a couple of weeks later? They go and follow the words of Donald Trump and try to put them into legislation here in the parliament.</para>
<para>We know that here in Australia it was Clive Palmer's star candidate in Queensland, Campbell Newman, who first introduced voter ID laws in Australia. Let's talk about this. Donald Trump, Clive Palmer and Prime Minister Scott Morrison are all pushing in the same direction. That should tell the Australian people what is really behind these laws—implementing Donald Trump's and Clive Palmer's agenda here in Australia and writing rules to suit themselves. We know that when the United Kingdom passed voter identification laws earlier this year, former President Trump couldn't hide his excitement. I'm sure that as soon as he sees these laws—if the government get them passed—he will be busily saying what a fantastic job the Prime Minister is doing. He might even give him a call to say congratulations. We know how much former President Trump loved talking to former Prime Minister Turnbull.</para>
<para>I do wonder, as we look at digging out these ideas from the United States, what comes next? Will we move elections to Tuesdays to suppress the vote even further? Is that on the government's agenda? Maybe they could have an election Christmas Day to really mess things up for people who might find it hardest to vote or have ID? And then if we look at—</para>
<para>The DEPUTY SPEAKE R: The minister, on a point of order?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Buchholz</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance: does the member who's speaking in the House at the moment really believe that future elections of this government will be held on Christmas Day? That is just absurd and bizarre.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister knows that that's not a point of order. He can seek the forms of the House to ask for an intervention if that was what he was trying to achieve, but that is certainly no point of order. The member for Perth may continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've clearly struck on a sore point for this government. Indeed, Christmas Day this year is a Saturday so it could be a day the government could choose to have an election. When I suggest that they might be looking to move elections to a Tuesday like the United States, all of a sudden we have the minister at the table raising points of order. To me, that tells you everything about the direction of democracy under the Morrison-Joyce government.</para>
<para>Looking at some of the challenges that happen when you start to suppress the votes of Australians, I want to talk particularly about a cohort of vulnerable Australians who do find it hard to have up-to-date ID. We know that there are an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 rough sleepers on any one night, and they are often escaping domestic violence or a particular risk because of other health or social challenges. These voters will be disproportionately affected by these laws, and, again, are a group of voters who have been disproportionately ignored by this government. I want to echo the words of Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service, who put it so clearly. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Requiring voter IDs would hit hardest those people who already face barriers to voting - people who are homeless, people living in remote communities, First Nations people, recent immigrants, younger people.</para></quote>
<para>I know here in Western Australia that the government and the resourcing they provide to the Australian Electoral Commission has failed on the task of getting Indigenous voters on the roll. Here in Western Australia the estimates are that only 69.7 per cent of all eligible Indigenous voters are on the electoral roll. That is 20,954 people who are eligible to vote in Western Australia and are not on the roll. This government's legislation doesn't do anything to fix that. All it does is make it harder for those who are on the roll to actually be able to vote. It is so disappointing. When it comes to young people, we saw in 2016 that over one-third of Victorians aged 18 to 24 do not hold a drivers licence. Again, young people are disproportionately affected by these laws.</para>
<para>Most of all, this is going to reduce trust in government. It is government saying that they don't want to hear from people, and choosing to do something that's in their political interests rather than the interests of democracy. If you want to do something about improving democracy, start by looking at electronic electoral rolls. It's worked well in Western Australia. Start by looking at donation disclosure, making sure that we clean up all of the problems with this unrealistically high threshold for political donations. And maybe, just maybe, this government could match their words to actions when it comes to an anticorruption commission. Labor will oppose this legislation. We will fight it. We will make sure this is an issue at election time. If an Albanese Labor government is elected, we will repeal this mean, tricky legislation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is proud to have a free, fair and robust electoral system. In fact, the latest evidence from the Pew Research Center shows that our current electoral laws are among the best in the world and the envy of many democracies. I believe that we should be doing all we can to ensure every Australian has the opportunity to vote at elections, especially given it's compulsory. We should be very cautious of any laws that could possibly undermine this right.</para>
<para>This bill, if passed, will nominally require all Australians to present a valid form of identification before casting a vote. If a person cannot produce valid ID or have another person attest to their identity, they'll be offered a declaration vote, which will require them to list their address and other personal details. I believe these measures are unnecessary, poorly timed, and will create barriers that disincentvise people from participating in elections. And that's simply not healthy for our democracy. As an independent, I scrutinise every bill that comes before me in this place on its merits. I ask whether the bill is based on evidence and community need. I'm afraid to say that this is a bill in search of a problem that I can't possibly see exists.</para>
<para>I have met with the Special Minister of State about this bill and, when I did, he could not point to any hard evidence that demonstrates voter impersonation or multiple voting is a systemic problem in Australia that requires an intervention such as this. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. This idea originated from a government majority committee, nowhere else. The Australian Electoral Commission recently described multiple voting issues in Australia as 'vanishingly small' and I've heard so many members in this place describe that exactly. And, at the last federal election, the AEC only referred to a handful of suspected cases of fraudulent voting to the Australian Federal Police, which led to zero convictions.</para>
<para>The government is also trying to argue that perceptions of fraud in elections are a problem in Australia. And there's absolutely no evidence for this—in fact, quite the opposite. New voter ID laws in the US, pursued under the Trump administration, clearly show that such laws are discriminatory and discourage many from voting on election day, particularly in underprivileged communities. The political language used around voter ID laws also encourages scepticism and further distrust in a system that is already working. That's why I am particularly concerned to see the government partner with senators on this bill who actively stoke this kind of scepticism, without basis.</para>
<para>Mandating voter identification will also create harmful, unintended consequences that aren't proportionate to the supposed problem that the government is seeking to solve. For example, it's unclear what the administrative impact on polling booths would be if election staff need to check voter ID for every voter who walks through the door. Last election, some eight million Australians voted at polling stations on election day. At some booths, people waited for over an hour to vote. Potential administrative blowouts from checking eight million ID documents could see longer lines around street corners and drive some Australians to just pay the $20 fine for failing to vote instead. Perhaps some members could be overstating this; we don't know. But the thing is that the need for change is simply not compelling. And to make these changes, when they're not clearly necessary, is absolutely unhealthy for what is a thriving democracy.</para>
<para>The government also intends to introduce these ID requirements before the next election, which could be called anytime between now and May. Even if the bill passes, there's simply no time to effectively administer a voter ID scheme with appropriate safeguards and an effective communications campaign. And that's really important, particularly for people who might now misinterpret the new rules as a sign that they're ineligible to vote if they don't have valid ID. And this includes, as we've heard from many members, members of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, where voter turnout is already low; people with a disability; culturally and linguistically diverse people; low-income communities; and many among the elderly. To think that all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons in remote communities have immediate access to a hardcopy letter from a local land council or trust is, frankly, farcical. The $5.3 million the government has committed to community engagement and a communications campaign is really abysmally small for a major, sweeping and unnecessary reform so close to an election. Voting, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, as I know you know, is an absolute right under our Constitution. It's not a luxury. It's not a privilege. We should respect it as such. The government has argued that Australians need to present ID to collect a parcel from the post office or to visit a member's club. While this may be so, collecting mail or having a meal at an RSL are not activities that are absolutely core to our democracy like voting and to compare the two is a very dangerous distraction.</para>
<para>As a parliament, we should be debating laws that would clearly improve our democracy, like the need for a robust federal integrity commission to stamp out corruption or political donations reform. The government has repeatedly blocked my bill, for example, for an Australian federal integrity commission for over a year and has sat on its own dud model for almost three years. It's clear to me where the government's priorities lie when it comes to true democratic reform in this country. In my electorate of Indi we are passionate about encouraging everyone to get involved in their democracy, to step up, to use their voice, and there are few times when it's more important to use your voice than voting during an election. I'm committed to promoting and defending that right—by golly I am!—and I'll call out any attempts to water it down. I have serious and very considered reservations about this bill, and it's on that basis that I simply cannot support it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have to start by saying that this proposed legislation by the government is absolutely outrageous. This government has learnt absolutely nothing from the years, the decades, of watching what we have seen in other democracies and the learnings that we should be taking out of that. When I look across the ocean to some of the negative things we see in some of our counterpart democracies around the world, things that undermine those democracies, I think, 'Thank God those things are not happening here in Australia,' yet, low and behold, on the eve of a federal election in this country, we see the Morrison government trying to push through voter ID laws that are designed to, and will have the effect of, suppressing voting in this country. Australia is about enfranchising the vote. We are one of the first democracies in the world to give women the vote and that is something that we should and can be proud of. We have been about giving more people the vote over the time of this democracy.</para>
<para>What do we have now? I think it's a virtue that we have compulsory voting, that we try to encourage as many people to vote as possible, including by making it compulsory, but we now have a government putting in place measures that will make it more difficult for people to vote, the exact opposite of what our democracy is all about. We should always be trying to get more people to vote, yet the Morrison government has introduced legislation here that, quite frankly, Donald Trump and his Republican Party in the US would be very proud of. This will undermine our vote and our democracy. On this side of the chamber, Labor believes in our Australian democracy. The Morrison-Joyce government is actively trying to weaken it through this bill. This is, as I said, a thought bubble straight out of the Republican playbook. Instead of working for all Australians, Scott Morrison is working to ensure those who might not—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Buchholz</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. The Prime Minister should be referred to by his title.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you could refer to the Prime Minister and other members by their proper titles, that would be appreciated. I call the member for Burt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister is working to ensure those who might not vote for him can't vote against him. The Prime Minister's proposal would see Australians turned away from voting, voting taking longer for everyone and our democracy weakened as a result. There is no evidence that this is needed. This is a disgraceful proposal, and we will fight it to protect our democracy. This is a solution looking for a problem to solve. You would think, with all of the things that this government should be doing during this limited time in the parliament, even more limited through COVID, limited as even the Prime Minister himself was describing in question time today—that it's held up some of the government's actual priorities—that maybe it wouldn't be wasting legislative time on legislation designed to fix a problem we don't even have.</para>
<para>The Australian Electoral Commissioner has said 'evidence of multiple voting to date is vanishingly small'. This is very important because many of the speakers on the government side during this debate have tried to say, 'We don't really know how big the problem is, because how can we tell?' It is very simple. We just go and count how many times someone has been marked off the roll more than once, and the Electoral Commission does that after every election. We have a very good statistical understanding of how much multiple voting is happening in this country, and it is infinitesimally small. Indeed, the AEC said it is 'vanishingly small'. Most instances of multiple voting are by the old or infirm who have forgotten that they've already voted. There is no attempt at voter fraud there. There is no evidence of voter fraud at elections, with only 2,102 electors having been identified as having multiple marks against their names at the last federal election. That's out of over 15 million votes that were cast. Some of the multiple marks would have been mistakes by polling officials when marking off the adjacent voter from the roll. It's a long day. We don't criticise them for it. But that is part of what we are seeing here in the count. Only 24 of the more than 2,000 cases that were investigated after the last election were prosecuted, which gives you a sense of the scope. There are difficulties in prosecuting this offence. I'm not denying that. But we are talking about such a small number of people in the first place. It represents just 0.03 per cent of the votes cast.</para>
<para>It's also worth noting that, of that number, this law won't stop all of that, if that is your actual concern, because what it won't do is stop somebody from rocking up with ID to multiple polling booths to vote. It won't stop someone who actually intends to defraud the system. What it will do is prevent people who would like to vote from being able to vote. Our compulsory system means that people should have the opportunity to vote, and that is being limited through this legislation.</para>
<para>In its submission to the finance and public administration committee's inquiry into this bill, the Australian Human Rights Commission noted that at no time have the very few instances of multiple voting ever affected the outcome of a federal election. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the requirement for voter identification does not appear to be necessary or proportionate to the aim of addressing voter fraud and likely constitutes an unreasonable limitation on a person's right to vote. It may also create an obstacle to voter participation, particularly for vulnerable groups, and unduly impinge on their exercise of the right to vote.</para></quote>
<para>The bipartisan, government chaired Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported that the proposed laws might 'reduce public confidence in the electoral system and discourage some voters from voting' and that the committee has seen:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… no evidence of, or concern about, a lack of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system or any evidence of voter impersonation.</para></quote>
<para>It also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… additional requirements imposed before a voter can cast their vote engages and may limit the right to take part in public affairs and the right to equality and non-discrimination.</para></quote>
<para>These are important points being made by a committee of our own parliament.</para>
<para>This bill will have a disproportionate effect on people living in remote Indigenous communities and other First Nations people. Those dealing with homelessness and Australians escaping domestic violence often, through no fault of their own, don't have easy access to identification. Young people and culturally and linguistically diverse communities will also be adversely affected. Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service summed it up when she said, 'It will hit hardest the people who already face barriers to voting.' She said: 'It would create an intimidating process and significant confusion as to what is required to vote. It would deter many from turning up at voting booths at all.' The priority of government should be to make sure it supports everyone to exercise their right to vote. Governments should be removing barriers to voting, not creating them. It should not be making it harder to vote for people who already experience discrimination and exclusion. But that's what this government, through this bill, is determined to do. It will also deter some older Australians who've handed back some of their identification due to no longer being able to drive. It will, as I said, definitely impact on people who are escaping domestic violence, unable to access their ID, fleeing without their ID, not able to go back and collect any form of identification.</para>
<para>Rebecca Stokes, from the Southern Goldfields, backed this up when she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Isolation combined with cultural differences and low confidence in government, means the number of votes cast by Aboriginal people is consistently low. And this will just continue to erode Aboriginal people's confidence. They're already not very trusting of the system. Places where the voting has to go to them—how do they expect people to show ID when they live in those communities? A lot of Aboriginal people don't vote because they don't understand what they're voting for. People are scared. They don't really want to go in there and embarrass themselves.</para></quote>
<para>In that broader context, why on earth would we be making it even more difficult? Let's just reflect: this is against a background where we saw in Western Australian state elections only a few decades ago efforts by members of the party opposite to actually suppress Aboriginal voting in our remote electoral districts in Western Australia. The case of Ernie Bridge in the 1977 and 1980 elections definitely goes to the case in point. I won't repeat the details now because the people for Lingiari already gave them. But that should ring in the ears of the government. The central premise of the Closing the Gap initiative is to overcome Indigenous disadvantage in Australia, to empower First Nations Australians to be part of our shared decision-making. However, this legislation deliberately widens that gap, further disempowering First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey said the evidence of the use of voter ID in the United States has shown that 'voter ID laws diminish the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in elections' and that they 'produce a clear partisan distortion', favouring conservative candidates. In simple terms, the only reason the Prime Minister and his government are introducing these laws is in an attempt to make it harder for people who are unlikely to vote for him to vote at all. The rub in this is pretty clear, because when the minister who is responsible for this legislation raises this issue he says, 'Labor's only opposing the legislation because it will make things harder for them.' That's from the minister responsible for this legislation. Just think about what that means. The minister is saying, in effect, that this legislation will make it easier for the government to win the election. He is actually saying that on the record—that there is a partisan effect to these changes to our electoral law. And somehow this government thinks not only is it a good idea but that it's fair.</para>
<para>This is not how democracies are supposed to work. We've already seen laws like this have a negative impact on communities in Australia, with the introduction of voter ID requirements for the 2015 Queensland election. That election saw many voters being turned away from polling places without being given an opportunity to vote. The Queensland election in 2015 saw a lower voter turnout than the 12 previous state elections. Interestingly, the Special Minister of State tried to say that that 2015 Queensland election had the highest voter turnout in the last three Queensland elections. What he neglected to point out is that if you go back over the last 15 elections in Queensland there has been a continual decline in voter turnout. These voter ID laws cannot be held up as some way of showing that they increased voter turnout when they most certainly did not.</para>
<para>We know that the next election is already likely to be a logistical nightmare. We've got to run a national election with the varying COVID restrictions that may be in place in different jurisdictions, and with good reason. But that will be challenge enough. We'll need to have social-distancing requirements and COVID check-ins. People will definitely need to spend more time at polling booths than they previously have. This legislation will require officials at polling booths to also check IDs, further increasing delays and further increasing the amount of time that people have to queue, that people have to wait in the rain or the sun. This might be great for the P&Fs and the P&Cs that are selling democracy sausages—and that's a great fundraising outcome for them. But just bear a thought for a moment for the people with disability, for the people who already have mobility concerns and can't spend a long time standing, waiting to vote. They already look for the short-queue polling booths. If there are none available because of the additional delays brought around by this voter suppression legislation, it will just make it even harder.</para>
<para>While the Australian Electoral Commission says the introduction of a system of voter ID is 'not impossible'—which is hardly a ringing endorsement—it notes it would involve significant start-up and ongoing costs, voter inconvenience, possible disenfranchisement of a number of voters and possible delays in the delivery of election results because of an increase in the level of declaration voting. The Morrison government has identified that $5.6 million will need to be provided to the AEC to implement the bill's provisions. This is entirely inadequate to cover the increased training required for the AEC's large temporary workforce—some 100,000 people—as well as public information campaigns and the need for more bodies on the ground at polling booths. I can tell you: I have already been contacted by some of those 100,000 people who work on polling booths during our elections—people who give up their time to make sure our democracy is functional—and they have identified for themselves just how problematic this system is going to be for our nation. It is simply not adequate.</para>
<para>The Morrison government's argument that this legislation will prevent people voting multiple times is also just plainly not true. When you take a moment to consider the proposition, a person can still go and vote multiple times if they have ID. What a great system they have set up! The parliament already passed legislation in August this year to try and deal with these multiple-voting issues. We saw that with the designated electoral register, which we agreed to; this has been set up in legislation already passed. We've got a system now to try and minimise that. We don't need this in addition, because it is, as was said before, disproportionate to the issue. It is legislation that is a solution for a problem that does not exist.</para>
<para>This legislation is a blight on our economy. It is indeed a slippery slope. We already have the lived example in other countries of the effect—the disproportionate effect, the partisan effect, the unfair field balance shifting effect—of legislation like this. It is a disgrace that this legislation is before our parliament. It is a blight on our democracy, and Labor will oppose it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to address the House on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021. Let me start at the start, which is not actually the start but a problem the government wants to make you believe is at the start. Those opposite want you to think that there's an issue with voting, that some large group of Australians is practising voter fraud. They want you to believe that Australia's democracy is under threat from First Nations communities, from those who have experienced homelessness without a stable address, from those who struggle with literacy and navigating bureaucratic systems. Really? These are the people putting Australia's democracy under threat? Honestly, this egregious bill is an answer looking for a problem.</para>
<para>This bill is a window into a new sort of Trumpian dystopia that is still, thankfully, foreign on our shores. It is an established tactic of the far Right that seeks to silence those who may not vote for those opposite. This is a play straight from Donald Trump's handbook. On one hand we have some Australians marching with nooses in our capital cities, including my hometown of Melbourne, playing a terrifying game of hangman. Only it's not a game; it's very real, because they are inciting very real violence on our streets, trying to create a climate of fear. There are those who are peddling death threats, for heaven's sakes, all the while working to drum up fear of science and vaccines. And what are they on that side? What are the government of the day doing about it? They're refusing to condemn this action outright. They're trying to hedge their bets. They're trying to court the vote of extremists. It's hard to believe that, instead of being the leaders this country is screaming out for, those opposite have fixed their sights on silencing those they consider their most frightening political opponents, those they can't be bothered courting, those they can't be bothered responding to, those they'd happily give up on. Let me repeat: these are people without fixed addresses. They're our First Nations communities who may not carry regular IDs. They are people who live remotely, who have dementia, who struggle with the bureaucratic system. These are people that the government of our day is frightened of. These are the people that the government of this day is saying are threatening our democracy. This bill is an outrage.</para>
<para>I'd like to quote Aunty Naomi Wilfred, an Alawa native title holder from Hodgson River, around 300 kilometres east of Katherine, who is reported to have made a similar observation:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Indigenous voters in remote areas already faced difficulties such as poor disability access and waiting "a long time" in temperatures above 40C.</para></quote>
<para>The Torres Cape Indigenous Council Alliance has written to the Prime Minister expressing its serious concerns about the bill, saying that the bill will discriminate against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote communities in the Cape York, Torres Strait and Gulf regions. Samuel Bush-Blanasi, the chairman of the Northern Land Council, pointed out that the government and the AEC should be making it easier for First Nations people to enrol to vote. He wrote in the <inline font-style="italic">Northern Territory News</inline> that there are simpler ways to enhance the process of democracy, that you can actually help people to enrol to vote. He called this 'a bad law', because it doesn't do that; it does the opposite. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Any changes that diminish the democratic rights of one group of citizens in the NT diminish the rights of us all.</para></quote>
<para>That, in a nutshell, says everything.</para>
<para>The member for Cook's tactic is making it more difficult for Australians to vote. This bill will diminish us all. It will diminish us as a nation. In this proposal, we will see Australians turn away from voting. We will see voting take a lot longer for everyone in Australia. It will see voting lines snake around blocks. It will see fewer people turn out, given the longer, arduous waiting times to cast one's vote. The processes will already be lengthened due to COVID restrictions, and having to prove ID will make it worse. Lines will be so long that voters will get sunburnt due to the wait times.</para>
<para>I'd like to remind those opposite just how many people don't have ID. These are people that would be excluded from voting. My team and I have recently been helping people in our electorate of Cooper set up their myGov and Medicare accounts to make sure they can get their COVID vaccination certificates on their phones. To complete this process, you generally need a few different kinds of identification and they have to match across the two sites. We have met so many people who simply do not have the required identification. They don't have driver's licences, they don't have passports, they don't have ID cards. Some don't even have bank cards. In these cases, though, thankfully, we were able to call Medicare to get around this requirement, but it took, on average, 40 minutes to an hour to sort it out for each person, with lots of toing and froing. Forcing this additional step and barrier onto people to vote will be extremely restrictive. When we make it harder for people to vote by introducing new barriers, the outcome is very clear: fewer people vote; our democracy is weakened; and different communities' interests are not represented in the process of governing. Some electorates, like Lingiari, which spans the Northern Territory, have over 100 mobile booths that go from remote area to remote area, working around the clock to give people—mostly in First Nations communities—a political voice. I don't have to spell out to this House how, by voting, even our remotest and indeed marginalised Australians are able to have their voices heard, to make sure that all people and the issues they care about can be represented, debated and sorted in this parliament.</para>
<para>This is one part of the problem; the other is potentially worse. When you freeze out a whole demographic from voting, when you freeze them out of our democratic process, it means you can quite ruthlessly ignore their needs and issues. Less scrupulous governments only respond to electoral pressure, so, if you don't want any pressure from certain people, you cut out their ability to apply that pressure. It's as simple and as Machiavellian as that. It is clear by this bill that those opposite don't want remote or First Nations communities to vote. They don't want homeless people to vote. They don't want those at the margins to vote. They don't want aged and vulnerable people to vote. Because they don't want to offer these Australians anything.</para>
<para>Over the last eight years you just have to look at things like robodebt and debt recovery from pensioners verses JobKeeper billions for multinationals; terrible, piecemeal aged care reform verses no reform for the banking sector; and no commitment to treaty verses deals to buy land from mates at an exceptionally over-priced rate for airports. They don't want to create a plan that these important groups could vote for. There's nothing other than a ridiculous barrier from a conservative government seeking to silence those who probably don't vote for them because they deliver them nothing.</para>
<para>Let me be clear: Labor believes in Australia's democracy. We will always, always fight for our democratic system, and we will always call out false problems like this, scams like this. You see, there's no evidence that this bill is needed. The independent Electoral Commission has said the issue of multiple voting is extremely small. In the 2019 election there were more than 15 million votes cast and there were only 2,000 incidences of multiple marks against the names of voters. That's 0.03 per cent of the votes cast. And we know that some of these votes could have been and probably were mistakes by polling officials accidentally marking off adjacent voters on the roll, marking down a 'Christine Smith' instead of Christina Smith', for example. Most of those who voted more than once were elderly and had forgotten they'd already voted by post. There were others who spoke English as a second language and didn't fully understand the voting process. Others had mental health issues. Following the 2019 election, not a single person was prosecuted for multiple voting. It was the same for the 2016 election; not a single person was prosecuted for multiple voting.</para>
<para>These measures may be named 'voter integrity' but let me tell you there is no integrity in what those opposite are seeking to do. To borrow a phrase from another portfolio, they are failing. There is net zero integrity to these measures. Integrity is about empowering people, giving opportunities to those who don't have a platform or a loud voice. Integrity is turning up and listening. Integrity is about doing things that are right, really right and sometimes hard. If those opposite were really serious about electoral integrity, they would support Labor's bill for real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000, so political donations are transparent for all to see. They might consider reforming electoral expenditure laws. They might actually follow through with a national anticorruption commission. But why chase integrity when there are car parks to rort, sporting clubs to fund through dodgy means and barrels of pork to throw at marginal electorates?</para>
<para>We have a leader who is willing to turn a blind eye to a blind trust, but he wants to throw the book at the disenfranchised among us who don't have IDs and stop them from voting. This smacks of someone who is scared. The Prime Minister is the guy at the barbecue who's so worried that people won't like him he tries to stop them turning up in the first place. He's the guy who's cutting First Nations Australians out of our democratic system. Those opposite are scared that on the eve of an election voters will turn up in droves railing against their poor performance, their botched vaccine rollout, their diplomatic faux pas which saw the French President label our leader a liar and their inability to take real action on climate change.</para>
<para>Again, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is essentially a ban on voting for many people who may be for good reasons sceptical of the coalition's track record. I want you to consider the situation in Queensland, where they adopted a system for the 2015 election where voter ID was required. Voters were turned away from polling places without being given the option to complete a declaration to vote because polling officials didn't understand the process. When voter ID was required, voting was the lowest it had been in the last 40 years, the lowest turnout in 12 state elections.</para>
<para>With an election in 2021 the AEC is already facing a logistical nightmare in navigating the challenges of an election during a pandemic, with social distancing measures already expected to make queues longer. If polling officials were required to check ID, this would further increase delays as officials have to verify the authenticity of documents and deal with confusion about which documents are accepted. These longer wait times will discourage people, including shift workers or people with a disability or those reluctant to line up for a long time, from voting at all.</para>
<para>Don't take our word for it. Cassandra Goldie, CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service said: 'Requiring voter IDs will hit hardest those people who already face barriers to voting: people who are homeless, people living in remote communities, First Nations people, recent migrants, younger people. It will create an intimidating process and significant confusion as to what is required to vote. It will deter many people from turning up at the voting booths at all.'</para>
<para>We already know that filling in a declaration vote will be difficult for voters whose first language is not English. It will be alienating and off-putting for those who have limited literacy skills. But, instead of discouraging those opposite, this seems to be an appealing prospect. The more disadvantaged people it can bar from voting, the better. According to its ideology—and that ideology is clear—it's 'win at all costs'. This bill, while named after voter integrity, is a misnomer. There is no integrity in this bill.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Eden-Monaro Electorate</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm standing here with a feeling of deja vu. Last year, I spoke to parliament about how my communities were looking forward to the summer that was just gone. They were looking forward to people coming back into our towns for businesses to get the kickstart they needed. Instead, what we saw was a COVID outbreak in Sydney that forced the Victorian border to close, which meant thousands fled my communities and lined up for hours at the border to get home. Last summer did not bring the benefits that we expected.</para>
<para>Almost one year on, I stand here again filled with optimism for another summer and the lifeline that a boost to the tourism season will bring to my communities. Over the past couple of weeks I've travelled and met with people in the Snowy valleys, Cooma, Jindabyne, Nimmitabel, Bywong, Bungendore and Merimbula. I've travelled hundreds of kilometres meeting with constituents to see how they're feeling as we once again try to move towards recovery following this pandemic. Our coastal communities and those inland in Cooma and Tumut are vastly different, yet when I visited these regions they all raised the same issues: telecommunications, tourism, roads and housing.</para>
<para>These issues are always front-of-mind in my communities, but locals are more concerned now more than ever because issues that were once bubbling away under the surface are now front and centre. The pandemic has shifted the way people want to live and work. Remote work has become a reality and people are seeing the benefits of living, working and raising their children in regional areas. And I don't blame them. I grew up in a regional area. Although I came to Canberra to go to university and begin my career, I was quick to return to the coast and the regional community I love. But, with this shift to our regional towns, we are seeing the demand for homes to buy, rent or build go through the roof. This does create opportunity but it is also creating a housing crisis for the vulnerable members of our community. Demand is outstripping supply and, unfortunately, locals are being priced out of the market and out of their homes.</para>
<para>What we are seeing now in our regional communities are the effects of a lack of planning, a lack of foresight and a lack of preparation in regional development. It is time or this to change. It is time for an all-of-government approach to regionalisation. We need a federal government that will stand up and play a leadership role in the development of our regions and will work alongside our local and state governments. Our regional communities already know what's required to ensure they are prepared for the future. They just need the backing of all levels of government to make it happen.</para>
<para>Last week I attended a community meeting in Bywong, and I met with the Nimmitabel Chamber of Commerce. Both of these communities raised concerns about local roads but, in particular, major highways that surround them. Time and again I'm asked whether there is federal funding available to fix or improve Eden-Monaro highways. And every time, I provide the same answer: yes, there is funding available, but ongoing funding is only provided if the road is identified as a road of strategic importance. This government has identified a number of roads across the country which they deem to be of great importance to our nation. Unfortunately, key transport routes for timber, livestock and produce and the increasingly busy tourist drives and highways across Eden-Monaro are not included on that list.</para>
<para>Only one road in the entire Eden-Monaro electorate—an electorate that is the size of Switzerland and covers more than 40,000 square kilometres—is considered a road of strategic importance. That means that only one road in this region receives regular federal funding, and that is the Barton Highway. When people ask me why the Barton Highway is the only road to receive regular funding and why the Monaro Highway, the Kings Highway, the Snowy Mountains Highway or the Princes Highway are not on the list, I can't answer. There is no visibility as to why some roads have been chosen and others haven't. This is a point of frustration in my communities.</para>
<para>As we start to move on from this pandemic, tourism providers, local chambers, individuals and businesses are all planning and preparing for what is next. They want a long-term plan, not just one to get through summer. They are being creative and coming up with some fantastic and innovative ways to encourage more people to leave the cities and to spend time in regional areas year round. But many fear the state of roads and the safety concerns around these are a deterrent to people who would otherwise love to visit. We have huge stretches of highway in my region that are major transport routes that don't have any overtaking lanes.</para>
<para>The fact is that the state of regional roads is endemic of a broader problem and a lack of vision that we are seeing from this government. Our regional areas need a plan. They need a plan for proper investment in infrastructure. They need leadership at national level so that they can plan at community level. They need a government with vision. And, after eight long years, it's clear that that is something that this government doesn't have.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>White Ribbon Day</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Friday was White Ribbon Day. This is a day that's really helped to raise awareness and to see domestic violence recognised for what it is: a crime. On the Central Coast, local community groups have organised events and art installations to mark the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, which is an international campaign that takes place each year. Zonta Central Coast created the Yarn Bomb art installation in Terrigal, which will run until 17 September. Eighteen of the iconic trees along the Terrigal foreshore will be clothed in bright colours, drawing attention to messages of anti-violence. In addition, our Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, will be the keynote speaker at the Central Coast Domestic Violence Committee inaugural dinner next month. One of the Central Coast's domestic violence advocates, Angela Howes, has organised a show, Comedy for Courage, which will be on 3 December and will raise funds for domestic violence services in our region. I look forward to joining with my community at some of these events.</para>
<para>In Australia, one in four women and one in 13 men experience physical, sexual or emotional violence at the hands of a partner. On the Central Coast, police are seeing a rise in reported incidents of intimidation, harassment, stalking and sexual assault. When we talk about violence and abuse in relationships, we speak a lot about the physical and financial abuse aspects. These are aspects that can often be identified and seen in a way that others who perhaps have not experienced this can somewhat relate to and understand. However, emotional and verbal abuse also can impact a person's life in profound ways and have a very, very long-term impact.</para>
<para>Tonight, I wanted to raise awareness of this aspect in the House. Experiencing this kind of abuse feels like being torn apart from the inside. The scars are invisible. Your reality becomes skewed until you are left taking ownership of the problems in the relationship just to try to stop the terror. It takes away your dignity, your strength, your safety, your sense of agency, your sanity and sometimes your health. You can lose your entire sense of self, sometimes without a single mark or bruise. The wounds are not left on your body but on your soul, spirit and very sense of self.</para>
<para>Emotional abuse is similar in that it plays into deep-seated fears of rejection, abandonment, unworthiness and shame, and it happens in secret, with victims often masking the abuse they are facing in order to protect their abuser. It escalates as a victim learns to adapt and reason with it over time, which leaves them in a situation where they are increasingly isolated and feeling very vulnerable. Sometimes it includes soul-destroying tactics such as gaslighting, projection or trauma bonding. Gaslighting involves manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories and the events occurring around them. Someone who is dealing with gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity. Projection is the art of placing unacceptable feelings or wants on to another person or accusing that person of behaviour or motivation that is actually the motivation and behaviour of the perpetrator, not the person they accuse. Trauma bonding is where the abuse of a victim leaves a toxic bond that is incredibly hard to break. It's used by the perpetrator to control, manage and manipulate the other person, sometimes even taunting them about its very existence and blaming them for the ways they hold their victim captive.</para>
<para>We need to encourage greater awareness about these forms of abuse, expose them for the insidious acts they are and recognise the long trail of destruction this type of abuse can leave so that we can better support those who spend years trying to heal from invisible brokenness and the trail of terror and destruction it can leave behind for the victim to make sense of. We also need to acknowledge and find ways to help people leaving domestic violence to recognise they're not just building a new life but restoring their very sense of self and identity. This process is hard and takes longer than perhaps is often recognised.</para>
<para>The scars of men and women who have lived through abuse cannot be taken away by any legislation or act in this place alone; however, what we are doing as a government to help provide victims with tools and support to enable them to leave abusive relationships is a positive step forward. I know that we need to do more in this regard, but I commend the government for what it has done to date. I urge them to continue to work towards the goal of ending domestic violence for good in this nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic, Family And Sexual Violence</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ahead of tomorrow's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, I rise to draw members' attention to the inconsistencies in Labor's rhetoric on this very serious issue. Today's <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> newspaper reports that one woman is killed every week in Australia by a partner or former partner. The <inline font-style="italic">West</inline> also recounts that violence is the leading cause of preventable death, illness and disability for women aged 15 to 44. Police are called to a domestic violence incident every two minutes. This senseless violence must stop.</para>
<para>To that end, the Morrison government has announced it will establish a domestic, family and sexual violence commission. The Commonwealth is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, by committing $22.4 million over five years to establish the commission. The commission will support the development of policy to address violence against women, develop relationships with service providers and improve cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories. Further, this year's federal budget committed more than $1.1 billion to reducing family and domestic violence and making Australia safer for women and children.</para>
<para>In my electorate, the Goldfields Indigenous Housing Organisation will receive $780,000 to build four units to house women an children escaping violence. The funding will assist more than 70 women around children in the Western Australian Goldfields each year. The chair of the Goldfields Indigenous Housing Organisation, my friend Dianne Logan, tells me that many Aboriginal women fleeing violence are not comfort comfortable in mainstream shelters, so having housing specific to the needs of Indigenous people is critical. In Albany, the Southern Aboriginal Corporation will receive more than $3 million to build a six-unit crisis centre to support women and children in the Great Southern region. Their CEO, Asha Bhat, was in Parliament House in May and said the corporation's current refuge was at full capacity. Ms Bhat said that many families were being housed in other towns where they do not necessarily feel safe or welcome. She said a crisis centre in Albany would greatly alleviate this situation.</para>
<para>I also see in today's <inline font-style="italic">West</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Australian</inline> that the federal Labor leader is talking a big game on tackling violence. Mr Albanese says there should be greater cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. He claims there is no single thing that would help reduce domestic violence. Yet in my electorate there is a single thing that Mr Albanese could do through the WA Labor Party to reduce domestic violence. The Southern Aboriginal Corporation tells me that their planned project, which includes an outdoor kitchen, adventure playground and healing and counselling rooms, is under threat. That's because WA Labor are yet to come to the party with operational funding. Southern Aboriginal Corporation tells me it wishes to partner with Anglicare, which has experience in running similar services in Albany and with acquitting state funding. Like the Goldfields project, the Albany one was announced back in May under the Commonwealth's $72.6 million Safe Places Emergency Accommodation program.</para>
<para>Like all good programs, safe places is part of a wider strategy, in this case the $340 million fourth action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Again, like all good programs, safe places has concrete milestones that recipients must meet. In the Southern Aboriginal Corporation's case, their first milestone includes the achievement of an agreement on operational funding by 30 April next year. It's now almost December, the clock is ticking and no operational funding has been forthcoming from the WA Labor government.</para>
<para>That's why I've written to Simone McGurk, Western Australia's Minister for Child Protection; Women's Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services. Much like Mr Albanese's comments reported in today's <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline>, Ms McGurk's job title suggests that Labor aspires to do something about domestic violence. But there's still no operational funding for a project that the Southern Aboriginal Corporation tells me will support 166 women and children each year.</para>
<para>If Mr Albanese has any sway at all with his WA Labor colleagues, I say to him: get on the phone to Ms McGurk and sort this out. The women and children of the Great Southern region deserve nothing less, and they definitely don't deserve this uncertainty. On the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, concrete action is needed now from Labor, not platitudes about future plans. Sorting out the funding situation in Albany before Christmas would be a tremendous relief for the clients and staff of the Southern Aboriginal Corporation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Longman Electorate: Vision Builders</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Even though I was raised and I've spent most of my life living and working in the community of Longman, I was unaware of how many fantastic community organisations and community minded business we had when I was first elected as the federal member in 2019. As a business owner, I know how easy it is to get caught up in your own work and focus solely on the day-to-day running of your own business. But even then, when I opened my chandler store in Caboolture in 1992 and was the owner of the Good Guys at Morayfield in the 2000s, I was always a big believer in small businesses getting involved in the community, donating goods to charity and sponsoring local sporting teams, and I still am.</para>
<para>Last year I was proud to launch Vision Builders, a forum where community groups and business owners in the electorate of Longman can come together to share advice, stories, news and sometimes even some laughs. For me, Vision Builders is about bringing people together from different walks of life and looking at ways in which we can collaborate and bring out the best of what Longman has to offer. The issue I saw when I was elected was that many of these businesses and community groups were totally unaware of each other. So I determined that I would create a platform that allowed them all to collaborate with one common goal: to make Longman the greatest place in Australia to live.</para>
<para>I'm pleased to say that this year has been another great one for Vision Builders, with incredible speakers and lots of new faces in the audience at each session. I have received a lot of positive feedback from those who have come to the meetings, whether it was to listen or to speak, and have thoroughly enjoyed them. Although the pandemic limited when and if we could even hold the Vision Builders meetings, I found that for many people this group was greatly needed at a time when businesses were struggling and business owners were frustrated by constant lockdowns, added compliance, the loss of customers and clientele, and general uncertainty.</para>
<para>It can be lonely to be a business owner at times, and it can take its toll on your mental health, especially during a life-changing period like the pandemic. But when you can bounce ideas off other people, listen to their stories and hear about their plans for the future, you feel better about yourself as a business owner and as a person, because you're surrounded by support and people you can lean on. I know I definitely could have used a group like Vision Builders back in my early days as a business owner.</para>
<para>At our last Vision Builders event for the year, we heard from Nick Steiner from the Mini Farm Project, author and speaker Stephen Dale, and Cameron Matheson from GeoEco Panels. Nick Steiner from the Mini Farm Project spoke about his organisation, which aims to convert underutilised spaces into urban farms. They donate half the food that is grown on these farms to local clarities and food rescue agencies such as Meals on Wheels and OzHarvest. There are also educational employment opportunities that come with the farms. Nick is examining any opportunity for space in the Caboolture area to establish a working farm alongside operations at Millen Farm in Samford and the Farm Market Garden in Loganlea.</para>
<para>It's not uncommon for people to hit rock bottom in their lives, but Stephen Dale did it quite literally, and he barely survived. When he was 21 he fell 30 feet off a cliff at Phillip Island, but he says it was this incident that helped him to find his purpose in life: to help others who have fallen off a cliff. Steven wrote a book about his experiences in 2010, titled <inline font-style="italic">Bouncing Back When You Hit Rock Bottom.</inline> He's now an inspirational speaker and workplace trainer.</para>
<para>Cameron Matheson from GeoEco Panels shared his plans to import a type of building product that is rustproof, termiteproof, verminproof and fireproof. They are lightweight and made from composite materials, and can be used in domestic or commercial projects. They are made from recycled timber amongst other items, and it is environmentally friendly. Cameron said there was nothing like it in Australia, and it is currently going through the Australian standards and approvals process.</para>
<para>It's been great to have so many wonderful people from across the Longman electorate come along to Vision Builders and use it as a platform to get their story out there and to network, collaborate and connect with other businessowners in the Longman community. Each and every one of their stories has been inspiring. I'm looking forward to seeing what the new year will hold for Vision Builders. I know it will only get bigger and better in 2020.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 22:02</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>123</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 24 November 2021</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mr Llew O'Brien</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 10:03.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>125</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jackman, Charlie</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the upsides of the last year and a half with COVID has been the ability to spend some time at home with the family and reconnecting with the community by walking the streets—in my case the streets of Ascot Vale and Moonee Ponds and Travancore—and down by the Maribyrnong River and the Moonee Ponds Creek. And now that it's again time—Christmas—to reach out to the locals, to wish them a safe and happy festive season, I want to send them something truly unique and local. This is how I came to meet 14-year-old artist Charlie Jackman.</para>
<para>You see, Charlie's not just your average high school student. For starters, he is a killer artist. He is also a brother, a son and a friend. And Charlie is 'proudly autistic', to quote his own words. By day, Charlie is a student at Overnewton college in Keilor, a school that has championed Charlie's abilities as a student, as an artist and as a person. And out of school hours, Charlie runs his own online art business. It's called Charlie By Art. He has had art commissioned by the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews. He has an instinctual ability to capture the world around him in his drawings. For me, and for the entire Maribyrnong electorate, Charlie has drawn a spectacular vista of the area, across the famous showgrounds, the river and the Melbourne city skyline—a brilliant and detailed perspective of Melbourne that not everyone gets to see. I'm very proud to share his remarkable work with my constituents.</para>
<para>Charlie lives with his mum, Sue, his dad, Scott, and his brother, Nate. Sue says Charlie's early efforts at art didn't give too much away about his talent. The very young Charlie hated both paint and painting. It wasn't until he was nine that his artistic virtuosity came to light as a drawing artist. Through his art, we see the world through Charlie's eyes, and he truly looks at the world through a unique but brilliant lens. Charlie is also very disarming. When I met him last month, he cut to the chase and asked me how I had coped with the 2019 election. It may have been direct, but it was a question lathered in kindness, care and interest.</para>
<para>I think it's fantastic to see a young autistic man making his mark, defining the world on his terms, defining his independence and his identity. As I said to Charlie, it's not just about the destination, it's about the journey. I hope that many more Australians get to see this young man's amazing craft and his amazing work, and perhaps we might redefine our sense of what it is to have autism and redefine our views of how we see people with autism.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mitchell Youth Leadership Forum</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Friday 8 October, the annual Mitchell Youth Leadership Forum, which has been widely successful over the last 20 years, was again held, and it was as a huge success. This year, however, it was a testimony of how, under difficult and restrictive conditions due to the lockdowns and the restrictions caused by the pandemic in Sydney, 132 students representing 13 local schools in my electorate met virtually for a full day of leadership. MYLF has not skipped a beat during the pandemic as school principals, speakers, sponsors, volunteer leaders, the steering committee—everyone—stepped up to produce an exceptional interactive virtual program incorporating breakout rooms and focusing on our three core values of service, integrity and courage.</para>
<para>The forum is unique to any other youth leadership endeavour as it places year 11 students in an unfamiliar environment with their peers for a 2½-day live-in program where they participate in developing leadership skills, team-building activities and discussions about our three core values of service, integrity and courage. The alternative format this year ensured the forum was still able to support a cohort of year 11 student leaders and provide them with an engaging opportunity to develop their leadership skills during a year where we've needed the development of our leaders, especially with youth mental health issues, more than ever before.</para>
<para>I would like to thank our 13 participating schools, including their development of the leaders of the future: Baulkham Hills High School, Castle Hill High School, Galston High School, Hills Grammar, Kellyville High School, Marian Catholic College, Model Farms High School, Muirfield High School, Northholm Grammar, Northmead CAPA High School, Norwest Christian College, Redfield College and Tangara School for Girls. Special thanks go to the principals who have supported the forum, and the forum's values, for 20 years now, and who continue to support our excellent leadership program. Keynote speakers on this day included Matt Kershaw and Barnaby Howarth—great supporters of the forum who inspired the students with their own remarkable stories of overcoming their life battles, including the students realising the values needed to be an effective leader. I also want to thank the committee, the ongoing and passionate committee, of former leaders and pupils who make the forum a great success, and our sponsors—Nature's Sunshine Products Australia, Swift Consulting, Castle Towers, QIC—all of whom contributed to this year's forum and the success and the vision in developing our leaders of tomorrow.</para>
<para>Leaders of the present have a distinct responsibility to encourage and support the leaders of tomorrow, and I want to thank all of the students who have come back year in and year out to help develop their peers and to bring forward student leaders and leaders of the future, developing their skills in a positive and collaborative environment. I'm glad to be able to witness this in action, and to support it as the local member and as the president of the forum. I'm so proud to see what has been achieved over the last 20 years, and the leadership skills that have been developed. I look forward to seeing the achievements of these students, despite this very difficult year, in supporting their peers with the mental health challenges they have faced, with the peer challenges they have faced in a year unlike any other.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lalor Electorate: Afghan Community, Broadband</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Airport Noise</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr EVANS</name>
    <name.id>61378</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since the opening of Brisbane Airport's second runway, many Brisbane residents have been bearing the brunt of excessive and unreasonable aircraft flight noise from new flight paths overhead, so I've been fighting hard for Brisbane residents on this issue to ensure that these concerns are heard and addressed. I welcome the recent tabling here in the parliament of a petition signed by over 2,000 residents of Greater Brisbane, many of whom are constituents in the electorate of Brisbane, expressing their frustration at the level of noise and disruption they're experiencing. I also welcome the recent report by the Commonwealth Aircraft Noise Ombudsman which vindicates what residents have been saying in two key respects: there were inadequacies over a long period of time and in the consultation and engagement process with the community, and the reality of the new runway in operation is not consistent with what some suburbs were led to believe they would experience. I want to thank the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance for their work on both fronts and for continuing to meet and work with me so constructively.</para>
<para>My focus continues to be on finding real and practical solutions to reduce unnecessary and unreasonable noise. When the Airservices post-implementation review of the new runway was brought forward, which was a good decision, I made a submission containing 10 potential solutions and ideas that might help residents. They included the establishment of a new independent body to hold operators and regulators to higher account. I'm pleased to say that the new body, called the Brisbane Airport community forum, has now been established and is up and running. Importantly, the forum is independent of the airport operators and the regulators. It is running a process separate to the Airservices PIR, but ultimately, of course, it can feed solutions into the Airservices PIR when appropriate. What we needed to do was to up-end the governance, to put the emphasis back on experts to answer community concerns and to work on proposals, because it was entirely unreasonable to expect residents and laypeople to have to become the aviation experts and to find ideas and drive for this sort of change.</para>
<para>Right now, the forum is taking direct submissions from the public as well as bringing in the experts to work on potential solutions. I recommend that any resident from anywhere around Brisbane, not just the electorate of Brisbane, who's been impacted by aircraft noise gets involved in the forum process and makes a submission. Submissions are still open. I'm looking forward to the first report from the community forum. I hope it contains ultimately good recommendations for real practical actions and change that can help to ensure that Brisbane remains the very best place in Australia to live, to work, to play, to raise a family, to start a business and to retire.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations: Amazon, Genesis Owusu</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Members of this chamber have an opportunity to provide an early Christmas present to retail, warehouse and transport workers by joining with the SDA, TWU and unions across the world calling for an end to poor working conditions and low wages for Amazon workers. As Black Friday sales begin this week, not just in America but also here in Australia and many other countries, Amazon workers will face undeniable pressure and stress to fulfil orders around the world.</para>
<para>The race to the bottom on wages and secure jobs is a global problem, and Amazon is a prime example. Amazon Flex drivers aren't even getting minimum wage. They have no rights and are pressured to drive dangerously overloaded cars to avoid being sacked on a whim. This week is a reminder that Amazon workers, who kept filling and delivering orders throughout the pandemic, deserve respect and have a right to a safe workplace.</para>
<para>While profits soar for Amazon, doubling in the first half of 2021 compared to 2020, workers are left with little or no pay rises, and working unimaginable hours without breaks. In too many of their sites across the globe, Amazon workers are forced to work in unsafe environments, often too afraid to speak out or join their union for fear of retaliation.</para>
<para>As a union for Amazon online retail workers, the SDA has worked tirelessly to stop the Americanisation of wages and working conditions in Australia. The TWU is also working hard to protect safe standards for transport workers who deliver Amazon's goods to consumers. From the day Amazon opened their first site in Australia, the SDA has worked to enforce and lift safety standards on those sites. The union has taken legal action to stand up for workers who face discrimination at work and has relentlessly pursued safety standards in Amazon's Australian sites.</para>
<para>The SDA and the TWU formed the Online Retail and Delivery Workers Alliance to further efforts to ensure that workers are protected in every step of the supply chain. A secure job with a fair wage does not have to be a thing of the past for Australian workers; it should be the Australian way. The SDA and TWU will not stand by and allow Australian working conditions to be undermined. It's time to make Amazon pay.</para>
<para>A quick shout-out to the magnificent Genesis Owusu, ex-MacKillop college student and Bean constituent, who is up for six ARIA awards tonight, including for Best Artist and Album for his debut, <inline font-style="italic">Smiling with No Teeth</inline>, off the back of winning triple J Album of the Year. As someone used to say: 'Do yourself a favour.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Robertson Electorate: Health on The Streets, Robertson Electorate: Peninsula Recreation Precinct</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to update the House on two very important commitments that were made at the last election by the Morrison government for my electorate of Robertson. We made a first of its kind commitment of $945,000 for the new and innovative Health on The Streets, or HoTS, program. This initiative involves a mobile health clinic for people experiencing homelessness, and it takes health care and support services to those sleeping rough across the Central Coast. It works to ensure that when it comes to vital health care across the Central Coast, no-one falls through the gaps. The team of registered nurses provide comprehensive health assessments, including primary health, public and sexual health, mental health, and drug and alcohol services.</para>
<para>In the last 12 months, Health on The Streets have had over 1,300 clinical interventions, helped to link over 100 people to ongoing GP-led care, and conducted around 900 referrals to other health services. Outreach workers have also assisted 30 people to be permanently housed, with an additional 33 people helped to attain temporary accommodation options. This has made such a tremendous difference to the lives of every single person who was able to find that support. Health on The Streets has been particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the team detecting five active cases in our community and administering over 33 vaccinations. The team partner with organisations including our local Coast Shelter and Mary Mac's Place, they're a truly valuable part of our community.</para>
<para>I really want to thank all of those involved for their genuine passion and care for others and the direct and important impact that this service is having on many people across the Central Coast. I personally very strongly advocate the work that this particular service does and will continue to advocate very strongly for it.</para>
<para>I'd also like to inform the House that the funding agreement between the federal government and Central Coast Council has been signed for the $8.25 million redevelopment at the Peninsula Recreation Precinct in Umina Beach, which means that council will have the funds to get on with the job of planning and constructing these new, improved facilities. This has been a very frustrating experience for stakeholders engaged in this process. With the funding agreement signed, though, it means a new skate park; two separate sports facilities, each with a clubroom, storage, change rooms, toilets and a canteen; and surrounding works.</para>
<para>These upgrades are really important for the Umina United Eagles Soccer Club, the Umina 'Bunnies' junior rugby league club and the Southern Spirit Cricket Club, who have worked to make this project a reality, and of course for so many young skateboarders here on the peninsula, who need to see this skate park upgraded. We know that the clubs that use Umina Oval as well are growing at a very rapid pace, and they need amenities that are state of the art. That's why it's so important that we work to get the funding agreement right. I want to see the shovels in the ground as soon as possible and will continue to advocate until this project is delivered.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Western Sydney</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Western Sydney was at the centre of the New South Wales lockdown. We were subjected to some of the harshest regulations in New South Wales and, indeed, the nation. Our small businesses closed their doors. Our workers, particularly in construction and other authorised industries, had to comply with complex rules that workers in the eastern suburbs were not subject to. On top of this, we were denied a mass vaccination hub in my electorate of Greenway. Many residents had to travel significant distances, in very trying and worrying circumstances, to get vaccinated. In spite of all this, we did the right thing. My electorate went from having one of the highest number of COVID cases to being the most vaccinated electorate in the entire country. Just imagine how long the Liberals would have kept Western Sydney in lockdown if we had not achieved such high levels of vaccination. Just imagine how much additional damage the Liberals would have done to small businesses who were forced to close.</para>
<para>Adding insult to injury, we are now just beginning to learn that, throughout this difficult ordeal, the people of Western Sydney were treated differently and misled by the Liberals. Just this week, media reports revealed that Dr Kerry Chant urged the New South Wales Liberal government not to treat Western Sydney any differently from the rest of Greater Sydney. Yet, despite this, the Liberals chose to target the harshest restrictions on Western Sydney, imposing them in a manner that was inconsistent with the health advice. In a further insult, it has also been revealed that the $5 billion so-called Western Sydney COVID projects fund promised by the New South Wales Liberals in September simply does not exist. Instead, the promised funds from the privatisation of WestConnex are being used to pay off debt racked up by the Liberals. The question remains: why does this New South Wales Liberal government feel like they can get away with misleading Western Sydney residents time and time again? This is not costless. It has been reported that the areas subject to the harshest lockdowns are experiencing the highest rates of joblessness, including many areas in Western Sydney.</para>
<para>Now that the lockdown is over, the resilient small businesses of Western Sydney are gaining momentum and things are beginning to feel normal again. But our people won't forget that the Liberals were not upfront with them throughout the lockdown. Western Sydney expects its politicians to keep their promises and be held accountable for the decisions they make, and it has every right to expect this during a pandemic. I thank the people of Western Sydney, and, in particular, the people of Greenway, for their intelligence and consistent desire to do the right thing by their community. It's clear we can't trust the Liberals with taxpayers' money or trust their ability to make decent decisions or even keep their word. That's why we need an Albanese Labor government to build back an even stronger Western Sydney. If anyone can come out of this pandemic even stronger, it is the good people of Western Sydney.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>O'Connor Electorate: Main Streets</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to recognise the Morrison government's efforts to re-energise the main streets in the Wheatbelt region of my electorate of O'Connor. Following the recent WA redistribution, O'Connor now has more main streets than any other electorate nationwide, with well over 100 towns spread over 57 regional and remote municipalities. The government is acutely aware of the importance of main streets to the continued prosperity and vitality of regional towns nationwide. If you drove through the WA Wheatbelt just a decade ago, you would have seen that many main streets which had grown grand on the back of sheep and wheat had become somewhat shabby and jaded. But, thanks to the grassroots investment by the Commonwealth, that's changing in many Wheatbelt towns. Just last week I opened a major upgrade to the Memorial Park that adjoins Parade Street, the main thoroughfare of the Wheatbelt town of Pingelly. That $1.6 million upgrade was largely funded by $1 million from the $301 million extension to the Drought Communities Program. It has transformed a tired community and economic asset into a vibrant park that will encourage passers-by to slow down and stop in the town. That in turn will develop Pingelly's economy.</para>
<para>Elsewhere in the Wheatbelt, $2.1 million was announced, under round 5 of the Building Better Regions Fund, to upgrade Barrack Street, the main street of Merredin, as well as Bates Street. Like the project in Pingelly, the Merredin initiative will greatly improve parkland in the town centre. The $4.27 million project will provide pedestrian-friendly spaces and improve the profitability of nearby businesses. The town of Beverley, which is currently in the electorate of Pearce—the electorate of my good friend sitting here on duty in the House—has been enabled, under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, to improve pedestrian and wheelchair safety and provide public art, trees and seating in the town's main thoroughfare of Vincent Street. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is really underrated. Under this year's budget, all 57 local government areas in my electorate will receive funding from phase 3 of that highly successful funding program. Under phases 1 and 2, the Shire of Cuballing received $114,000 to upgrade Francis Street in the small town of Popanyinning. Again, the idea is to get fast-moving travellers to slow down in the town's main street, take a breather and use the local facilities.</para>
<para>Finally, the Shire of Bruce Rock has been very innovative in installing temporary parklets to provide outdoor seating and dining near food businesses on Johnson Street. That trial proved a great economic social and success, and $126,000 was provided to make the street parklets permanent. Thanks to these three visionary programs aimed at building better regions, cushioning the impact of drought and providing community infrastructure, many main streets in the WA Wheatbelt are returning to the vibrancy of their heyday.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very proud to be a member of the Labor Party, a party that has stood up for working people in this country for many, many decades and particularly has stood up for the protection of wages and conditions for workers in Australia. While many in the union movement and the Labor Party have fought for better wages and conditions, it is no use if employers out there don't do the right thing and actually pay those wages and provide the conditions that workers deserve. Deliberately not paying the wages that workers are entitled to is known as wage theft. This should be criminalised. I've got to stress this. This is not an accident; this is deliberately evading and trying not to pay the money owed to workers. It is outrageous.</para>
<para>In 2019 PricewaterhouseCoopers found that underpayment of Australian workers' entitlements was estimated at $1.35 billion a year. This modelling was based on the Fair Work Ombudsman data that found that workers in essential sectors like retail, construction, social assistance and health care are at most at risk of wage theft. If we think about these areas, these are the workers that turned up during the pandemic. During the pandemic, when we had lockdowns around this country, these are the workers that continued to go to work, to put food on our table, to make sure that essential services continued to operate. Of course, ensuring that they get paid what they are entitled to should be a priority of government, but this government would like to put its head in the sand when it comes to wage theft.</para>
<para>I just want to share one quick story, the story of Cameron, who lives in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. He was a first-year electrical apprentice, a job he'd gotten with the help of a family friend. During his apprenticeship, Cameron became the victim of wage theft by his employer. In the first year of Cameron's apprenticeship, his employer refused to pay him super. He was underpaid between 50 and 60 cents per hour and never got penalty rates for overtime or Sunday work when he completed it.</para>
<para>With the help of his union, he was able to win the case. Actually, the court decided he should be paid the money he's owed. Unfortunately, the company is evading the court orders and refusing to pay Cameron what he is owed. We need to see government stand up in this. Labor has a plan to criminalise wage theft, and I would encourage the government to do the same.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The pool at Peakhurst West has a very proud history, dating back to the 1960s, when the community got together and raised the funds to open it. Since that time, many tens of thousands of people have learnt to swim at the pool at Peakhurst West, on Ogilvy Street, and, for more than half a century, it was operated by the community with great success.</para>
<para>Recently, the pool's management was taken over by BlueFit, and we have had a situation where the pool has not reopened after the end of the COVID lockdowns in Sydney. This has been of great concern to me and the community. This morning BlueFit confirmed that the pool will reopen next Wednesday 1 December. That's a really important development and a very positive thing for our community. I thank BlueFit for doing that—it's the right thing to do—and I want to thank all of the community groups that have helped in bringing attention to this very important issue, including Penshurst RSL swimming club and many others. The pool will reopen to community groups next week, and that's a great thing for the community in the Peakhurst area.</para>
<para>Oatley Football Club was established in 1975, and it's gone from strength to strength over the years since. There were eight teams in 1976; there are 69 teams this year. There's a really strong focus on female football, with just about a third of all teams now female, which is fantastic. There are more than 850 players in the club. That has grown very substantially in the last five years or so. The club has done a tremendous job in promoting football in our community. I want to thank Belinda Stanton, the president; Lisa Kirby, the vice president; Antonella Cino, the secretary; Jason Finlay, the treasurer; Rob Wild, who was down there recently when I met with the club; and everyone else who puts in so much effort to making Oatley Football Club such a critical part of our community.</para>
<para>It's important that mental health services are provided in culturally appropriate ways. CASS is doing a very important thing in its recent opening of the H-Line mental health phone line service. This service caters particularly to Australians of Chinese background, with in-language support for mental health issues right across the community. It's a very positive initiative, and I was pleased to attend the launch of H-Line in Peakhurst. I want to thank Dr Bo Zhou, the chair of CASS; Henry Pan, the founding chair; and all of the staff and volunteers at CASS for this important initiative.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year we witnessed a powerful reckoning, with tens of thousands of women marching across Australia demanding an end to violence. The brave women who came forward inspired many others to share their stories of violence and harassment. Following a massive public backlash over the Prime Minister's behaviour, and under enormous public pressure to act after ignoring women's safety for eight long years, the Morrison government hurried to make new announcements and new appointments. Eight months on, there's very little evidence of delivery. The Prime Minister's promise of extra funding to fight domestic violence has been exposed as yet another heartless con, another hollow announcement from a government with no intention of delivering.</para>
<para>We know that throughout COVID-19 there has been exacerbation of domestic and family violence, with almost one in 10 women in a relationship experiencing domestic violence during the pandemic. Two-thirds of them say that it was then that the attacks started or indeed got worse. I want to recognise the tireless work of all frontline community based organisations who give so much of themselves to support women and children fleeing violence, despite a desperate lack of resources from this government. Each and every day you are on the front line, giving women the support, advice and assistance they need to take the most difficult of steps, constrained only by the shameful lack of support and action from this government.</para>
<para>I'd particularly like to acknowledge the important work of Nova for Women and Children, Jenny's Place and Warlga Ngurra in Newcastle. As for so many services across the country, government funding has not kept up with demand. Frontline workers are crying out for support. That's why the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence campaign is so important. That's why we must pressure this government every day to do better. It has been eight long years of coalition governments failing to make any impact on putting an end to violence against women and children. That's why it's way past time to be talking about this issue.</para>
<para>It is essential that we elevate women's safety to a national priority. That's why an Anthony Albanese Labor government will establish a family, domestic and sexual violence commissioner. We know that's just the beginning. Labor is committed to action and to bringing down the rates of violence in our communities. Right now, women who are fleeing violence are being turned away from services because this government has not funded enough workers to help then, and that's not okay. An Albanese Labor government will also fund 500 new community sector workers to support women in crisis, with half of these working in rural and regional communities like mine. That builds on our commitment to provide social housing to those fleeing violence, to 10 days paid domestic violence leave and to the implementation of all recommendations from <inline font-style="italic">Respect</inline><inline font-style="italic">@</inline><inline font-style="italic">Work</inline>. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parker, Ms Frances Belle, Leadbeater, Mr Pat, Sear, Ms Gail</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge Frances Belle Parker. Frances is an artist, a mother and proud Yaegl woman from Maclean. Frances was born to Tony and Lenore. Tony was a respected barrister with the Aboriginal Legal Service, and Lenore, a Yaegl woman, was a midwife and diabetes educator before retiring and becoming an Anglican priest.</para>
<para>Frances has been a practising artist for the past 20 years. Her works include paintings, printing, sculpture, installations and public works. Her art has been exhibited across Australia and internationally. At just 18, Frances won the Blake Prize. This achievement made her the youngest-ever winner and the first Indigenous recipient in the prize's history. Frances has also designed and screened her digital work <inline font-style="italic">Angwirri</inline> on the sails of the Sydney Opera House. She has recently been selected for a significant art and story-telling project along the northern beaches of the Sydney coastline walk.</para>
<para>Frances carries on the legacy of her late cousin Jessica Birk, who sadly passed away in 2019. Jess grew up on the northern beaches, and Frances has said her current project is another way for her to continue her legacy, using elements of Jess's designs in her artwork. Frances has said that she feels as though Jess is still with her and guiding her. Frances calls Yaegl country her home, with her husband, Mason, and her two children, Libby and Addie. Congratulations, Frances.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge Pat Leadbeater, who was recently given life membership of the Marist Brothers rugby league club. Pat has been actively involved with the Marist Brothers from a young age. He got involved at the age of just 10, when he started playing cricket. Then, at 15, he joined the baseball team. He's also a life member of the baseball and cricket associations and the Far North Coast Cricket Umpires and Scorers Association. In 2015, Pat was presented with the inaugural legends award from the Far North Coast Baseball Association for his services to the game.</para>
<para>He's one of seven children. His siblings are Sue, Paul, Louise, Selinda, Francesca and Lucy. Despite having an intellectual disability, Pat has lived an independent life and lives in Lismore with his partner, Lexie. For 20 years he worked for Lismore City Council's parks and gardens. His sister has said that he is humble and knows everyone. She describes him as a local living legend. Pat, thank you for your contribution and devotion to our local sport and congratulations on your life membership.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge Gail Sear from Casino, who's retiring from Kwong Sing & Co after 50 years. Gail has fitted and assisted many generations of women in the lingerie department. She will work her last shift at Kwong Sing on Christmas Eve. Her daughter Kylie said she has always been dedicated to her customers and loves what she does. I know that her daughters, Kylie and her partner Sean and Lisa and her partner Midge, and her grandkids, Harrison and Chelsea, Jak and Mia, are proud of you and looking forward to spending more time with you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Afghanistan</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to inform the chamber about a constituent of mine, Bibi. She's a young woman in her mid-20s. She's articulate, she can navigate bureaucracy and she is close to her family, but right now she is stuck in Pakistan. She flew to Afghanistan to marry her fiance in July. Of course, we know what happened next. In mid-August Kabul fell to the Taliban. This put so many people in danger, particularly those who had helped international [inaudible] Australia and those who had worked in Afghanistan's courts, universities, media and many other workplaces. Bibi tried to get out. She went to the airport with her Australian passport and she followed all the instructions, but as we know it was mayhem. In Bibi's words the situation was 'horrific and chaotic'. She repeatedly emailed DFAT to get advice on getting out of Afghanistan and bringing her immediate family members who, she has advised me, were in considerable danger. But she wasn't able to get a timely response from the government department. Her family members worked in the previous Afghani government as a supreme court judge and police prosecutor. She fled across the border with her family and only a pair of shoes and some clothing. She told me it was a very difficult journey. She said that, as an Australian citizen, people were not willing to offer her shelter as they were afraid the Taliban would find out. Her immediate family members and fiance kept her safe. She doesn't want to leave them to their fate in Pakistan, which would potentially mean they would be deported back to Afghanistan to the possibility of significant punishment and violence. Bibi and her brothers in Australia have sponsored her Afghani family members and fiance for refugee and humanitarian visas. Now they wait, and they will have to continue to wait.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, Labor is seeking urgent clarity on the number of Afghan nationals that will be resettled in Australia, given the ongoing and growing uncertainty regarding the government's commitment. The government's offer of 3,000 visas is not enough. We have a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan, given our recent shared history. If we are elected, Labor will abolish temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas. We will give people with those visas permanent protection to stay in Australia and establish their lives with stability. We will double our intake of refugees. Crucially, we will not subject refugees to indefinite detention. Numbers are important: 3,000 is not enough because behind every number there is a story. In all of the emails that I and my staff have received, we hear a young woman typing out emails while scared and in hiding.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>132</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sarah Lloyd was a beautiful, caring, confident, vivacious young Riverina woman. She was loved by many, especially her parents, Daniel and Tracey, and her family. Early on the morning of 12 August 2017, a Saturday, Sarah lost her life in a crash on a country road. She was only 19—just 19—with her whole life ahead of her. So much potential just torn away, instantaneously, unfairly. We mourn for Sarah as we grieve for all families who have had loved ones stolen from them because of road tragedies. Whilst Sarah loved to dress up and looked fabulous when she did, she was equally comfortable in greasy, oily overalls—you see, Sarah was an apprentice motor mechanic and a hard-at-it Aussie rules player. She wasn't your average young lady, but at the same time she was one of us. She was all of us. Her dad is a genuine country bloke, a farmer, a doer. With Sarah, you could take the girl out of Mangoplah, where she was from, but you could never take Mangoplah out of the girl. She was country to the core, whether in high-vis or high heels. There is now a Sarah Lloyd scholarship fund in her honour, with $2,000 awarded each 16 July, her birthday, to a New South Wales female in a non-traditional trade to help them complete their apprenticeship.</para>
<para>Given the circumstances of Sarah's passing, it did not come as any surprise to me to see that Daniel, her dad, took exception to a recent social media post by the member for Moreton. On 1 November, the Brisbane based Labor MP tweeted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My grandfather was a grader driver during the Great Depression. If a road hasn't had a grader on it since the Thirties why on earth would a responsible federal government make it a priority now while the population in the bush is decreasing?</para></quote>
<para>This was in response to the Liberal-National government's $150 million Remote Roads Upgrade Pilot Program. The funding targets unsealed roads throughout regional Australia, many of which have not been upgraded since the great depression. Mr Lloyd wrote: 'It just proves how anti rural the ALP really are. It practically states, "stuff the safety of people in remote areas".'</para>
<para>I say to the opposition that we do care about country people. They are overrepresented in the road toll. That is why we have invested record funding into regional roads, highways, byways and back-tracks. Better roads save lives, lives of young people in particular, young people such as Sarah, who have so much to live for and so much more to give. As for the ALP MP's claim that country population is declining. That is untrue. A net 43,000 Australians moved to regional areas from capital cities in 2020. Those statistics come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We know they're right; we know they're accurate. Better roads save lives, and the country population is increasing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wills Electorate</title>
          <page.no>132</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>KHALIL () (): A big part of the last three years has been about working for my constituents, the people of Wills. Today, I want to share a few examples of how, when you listen to people in your community about what matters to them and you work with them, progress can be made. There are some wonderful locals in the suburb of Fawkner in my electorate who have been campaigning to save the Fawkner pool.</para>
<para>The Save Fawkner Outdoor Pool group has campaigned tirelessly for a full refurbishment of the Fawkner Leisure Centre. I first met up with the group in July this year as they campaigned against plans to reduce the size of the 50-metre outdoor pool. For constituents in the northern suburbs of my electorate, it can be very hard to get to the beach on those hot summer days. For my family and so many others that live in those northern suburbs, we spend some of those hot summer days at the local pool to relieve the heat and have some fun.</para>
<para>I have been advocating directly to the local council, and I've worked very closely with the group. I've even helped collect some of the thousands of signatures on their petition. The power of community organising and the effort that was made has seen the local council commit to a full refurbishment of the Fawkner Leisure Centre. Importantly, there's no cut back in amenities, and the 50-metre outdoor pool will be retained, ensuring Fawkner gets its fair share. I want to say congratulations to everyone involved in that campaign, particularly Jenny, Damir and Anna, and so many others. Well done.</para>
<para>In another part of the northern suburbs of my electorate, I've been listening to a lot of local traders in Hadfield and Glenroy who want road upgrades at the West Street shops to bust congestion and make the roads safer. The intersection at West Street and Glenroy Road is notorious and is very dangerous. There have been numerous accidents there and near misses over the years. The road design also causes cars to back up for hundreds of metres during peak times, entirely blocking access to the shops.</para>
<para>For traders like Peter at West Street Cafe & Bakery or Charles at Bonn Meats or Sam and Claudia at Cafe Stradina, and so many others, the poor road design is hurting their business. I've raised this matter in some depth again with the local council, urging them to act. They're looking at some of the plans around redoing this. I'll continue to advocate for those upgrades on behalf of local businesses.</para>
<para>I've also met with the Scale it Down campaign. These are wonderful Brunswick locals who want a proposed apartment development scaled down to reduce the impact on the Gilpin and Clifton parks in Brunswick. There are over 1,000 petitioners who have campaigned against overdevelopment in Brunswick. In an urban electorate like mine, overdevelopment is a constant challenge. I have made representations to the state government, calling on the size of the developments to be reviewed. This group is a passionate bunch. They think of others, they think of their community, and they work really well together. It's been a great privilege to serve these residents of Wills in this place and to work on what matters to our local community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Martin, Mrs Cathryn Fay, OAM</title>
          <page.no>133</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to pay tribute to one of our region's much-loved and highly respected leading citizens, the matriarch of the National Party in the Central West, a tireless volunteer and dedicated community member, the late Kay Martin OAM.</para>
<para>Ninety-one-year-old Kay was the spiritual leader of the Nationals in our area. I recently attended Kay's funeral, held at Canobie, her farm near Rydal and the centre of so much joy and happiness throughout her life. It was the location of many National Party meetings, social functions and volunteer headquarters over the great many decades Kay dedicated to the party. It was a fitting setting for the send-off of a wonderful woman who was lovingly referred to as 'the Little General'. This title encapsulates the very essence of Kay. She loved and lived for service and politics. In fact, Kay featured in my very first political advertising campaign in 2010-11. To have Kay on your team meant you'd already won the race. She made things happen. She brought people together to make her community and our country a better place. She left no stone unturned in her quest to be part of something great that would benefit her much-loved region.</para>
<para>Kay was born Cathryn Fay Kennett. She was known as Fay until she decided 'Kay' was it. Her early days were spent in Orange, where she was known as 'Toots'! Kay went on to study physical education in Sydney before the call of the country saw her return to Orange as sports mistress at the then PLC. She and her late husband, John, had five children: David, Andrew, twins Jonathan and Cate, and Stuart. Her family speak of a splendid wife, mother, grandmother, sister and aunt, generous to the core, hardworking and with boundless energy, stoic and determined.</para>
<para>Kay loved her family and she also loved the National Party. She lived and breathed the party's values: strong representation and positive outcomes. The chair of the Lithgow branch and Calare FEC Peter Pilbeam says, 'You couldn't find anyone more dedicated to the party than Kay.' Kay Martin exemplified service. A member of the New South Wales Nationals for more than 50 years, she had been an honorary life member since 1995, was a past secretary of the Lithgow branch and held countless other executive positions. And it didn't stop there. Kay was a life member of the Rydal Show Society, where she was the Rydal Showgirl chaperone for many years. She was also a life member of the Wallerawang-Lidsdale CWA. She was heavily involved in the Rydal RFS brigade, Rydal Village Association and the Rydal Union Church. Kay volunteered her time at local preschools and schools. Three years ago Kay was honoured with a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to her community and the National Party. She wore it with pride recently, on her 90th birthday.</para>
<para>On behalf of this parliament, I extend my sincere condolences to Kay's family, including Andrew and Sarah; Jonathan and Julie; Cate and Ian Menz; Stuart and Linda; her grandchildren, Belinda, Thomas, Emma, William, Kai, Neve, Lauchlan and Tom; her sisters, Jean, Louise and Susan; her brother, David; and her sister-in-law, Maureen. Farewell, Kay Martin. She is simply irreplaceable.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Broadband Network</title>
          <page.no>133</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to talk about Labor's plans to fix our National Broadband Network. I don't need to tell Canberrans how important this is. We know, because we've got some of the worst access to the NBN in this country.</para>
<para>The NBN designed by the last Labor government was supposed to be a transformational infrastructure project. If it had been implemented as intended, all Australians would now have access to fast, reliable broadband. But Tony Abbott set about destroying Labor's vision for the NBN. Instead of Labor's 21st-century fibre-to-the-premises network, we got a mismatch of technologies that doesn't do the job and includes ancient copper networks that simply do not work properly. The result for Australians is some of the worst internet connections in the world; in fact, Australia now ranks 59th for average broadband speeds. That is shocking and unacceptable.</para>
<para>Of every capital city in the nation, Canberra, our national capital, has by far the worst NBN infrastructure. Around 70 per cent of the network in our nation's capital is made up of substandard fibre-to-the-node technology. That includes almost all of my electorate, where this building, our national parliament, is located. No other capital city is nearly this bad. I campaigned earlier this year for the ACT to be included in future NBN upgrades, and I'm glad that 10 Canberra suburbs, six in my electorate, were finally included. But it's not good enough and it never will be under this tired old Liberal government.</para>
<para>An Albanese Labor government will secure for more Australian families and businesses quality, high-speed internet by expanding full-fibre NBN access to an extra 1.5 million premises. A Labor government will ensure that 90 per cent of Australians in the fixed-line footprint—over 10 million premises—will have access to world-class speeds by 2025. We will also keep the NBN in public hands, keeping internet costs for families affordable while ensuring improvements to the network. Reliable, quality high-speed internet is not a luxury or something nice to have. It's incredibly important in today's economy and society.</para>
<para>Labor's expansion will particularly benefit regional Australia, which has been left behind by the Morrison-Joyce government by providing up to 660,000 additional homes and businesses in our regions with access to optical fibre. For 30,000 families without access to the internet, Labor will support them with access to free broadband for a year under Labor's plan for better NBN.</para>
<para>We've known for a long time the impact that not having internet has on disadvantaging schoolchildren. During COVID this became incredibly clear with people needing to homeschool just how far behind they could be left without access to decent broadband. Under our plan, eligible families will be identified by schools, state education departments and local community organisations and eligibility validated. Australia should have done it once, done it right and done it with fibre. The coalition have flubbed it, and Labor will fix it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Two Sisters Campaign</title>
          <page.no>134</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In our role of representatives of our community we're fortunate to meet ordinary people doing extraordinary things sometimes amidst distressing or tragic life events. Over the past few months I've come to know a passionate, driven and remarkable young woman who is working tirelessly to make the world a safer place for children all in honour of her sister Zoe.</para>
<para>Just a few weeks ago Amanda Duncan launched the Two Sisters Campaign born out of a promise she made as a young girl. 'When I was six years old I promised Zoe that one day I would grow up and fix the world which had hurt her so badly,' Amanda said at the launch. That little girl grew up, became a nurse and midwife and is now fiercely determined to change the system from the inside out.</para>
<para>In 2001, at the age of 11, Zoe was raped by a doctor at the Launceston General Hospital. Just as we have heard far too many times from victim survivor stories told at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Zoe's story was not believed by the hospital after the doctor denied the attack and the hospital dismissed the complaint after deeming Zoe was not upset enough for the allegation to be true. Zoe and her parents also faced further challenges when dealing with the police and Tasmania's child protection unit. In the years that followed, Zoe suffered from severe trauma and worsening chronic illness, passing away in 2017 at the young age of 28.</para>
<para>The launch of the Two Sisters Campaign was held on Friday 12 November on what would have been Zoe's 32nd birthday. Amanda and her parents spoke about the impact that Zoe's abuse had on their entire family. It was powerful, confronting and moving to hear their stories and those of other survivors who spoke at the launch. Camille Bianchi's podcast <inline font-style="italic">The Nurse</inline>, which highlights Zoe's story and those of others who were sexually abused by a nurse at the LGH, has led to an avalanche of other victim survivors speaking out about abuse in other institutions in our state, including the education and juvenile detention system. This has led to our state's current inquiry into child sexual abuse in Tasmanian institutions. I was pleased to see Tasmanian health minister Jeremy Rockliff attend the Two Sisters Campaign launch and not shy away from what is a very difficult issue.</para>
<para>The aim of the Two Sisters Campaign is to ingrain a mantra in institutions of listen, believe, support and report; ensure trauma-informed training across all government agencies; and improve reporting process and transparency within institutions. We must continue to let survivors speak, have their stories heard and make the changes needed to ensure all children are safe. That a child could be abused in a hospital by the very person in charge of their care is beyond comprehension. We all have a collective responsibility to drive change, and Amanda Duncan is helping to lead the way.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Malibu School Markets, Rockingham Beach Cup, Jay, Mrs Ivy Esther Grace</title>
          <page.no>134</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELE</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>INE KING () (): Summer's coming and, as happens every year, my electorate of Brand is filling with festivals and markets. Between parliamentary sitting weeks and mandatory quarantine, I haven't been able to attend as many events as I would like. However, I made the most of my one week in the community last week by attending the Malibu School markets. I am continually impressed with the students' creativity and enthusiasm, and I started my Christmas shopping early by picking up some handprinted wrapping paper and snowman tea lights that the students themselves had made. I want to thank the whole community of the truly remarkable Malibu School.</para>
<para>Earlier this month the Rockingham Beach Cup was held along the Rockingham foreshore. This is Western Australia's first beach horserace. As always, it was terrific to see many thousands of people on the foreshore, cheering on the horses and the jockeys as they thundered along the pristine beach that we all love.</para>
<para>Events like this would simply not be possible without the work of community organisations and their volunteers. I want to sincerely thank the Rotary Club of Palm Beach and their members for their hard work in bringing this all together; and also to Rob McGavin, who is integral to the event that is so wonderful for the City of Rockingham. My electorate of Brand with its beautiful coastline and strong sense of community never disappoints.</para>
<para>Last Sunday was a particularly special day in my electorate with constituent Ivy Esther Grace Jay turning 100. Ivy was thankfully released from hospital yesterday and celebrated the occasion with her friends and family. While I've heard that she would flatly disagree, I believe Ivy has led quite an extraordinary life. She spent the Second World War stationed at Kent in the UK with the Royal Air Force. While she goes to great pains to point out that she was never on the front line, being in Britain at that time is certainly more than most of us have ever experienced.</para>
<para>In 1967 she moved with her mother to Western Australia to join her sister and brother-in-law, and found work making transformers in a factory in Osborne Park. It was tough manual labour, but she kept at it for many years until retiring to look after her mother who passed away at 98.</para>
<para>At this point, I'm sure everyone is anxious to hear Ivy and her mother's secret to a long life. I'm sure part of it is the hard work she did at the factory in Osborne Park. I've also heard that Ivy kept up her linedancing for many years, so perhaps that's something all of us in this place could consider for a long and healthy life. It's even been rumoured that she appeared on national television at 80 years old, linedancing with her friends. Unfortunately, her family have not been able to find a record of this, so if anyone has seen a group of 80-year-old women linedancing, please get in touch with my office and we'll try and get her family the tape.</para>
<para>I'd just like to say a very special, happy birthday to Ivy. Thanks to her family for getting in touch, and many happy returns on your 100th.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:02</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>