The SPEAKER ( 09:31): I present report No. 38 of the selection committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 18 October 2021. The report will be put in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Committee and delegation business and private Members' business

1 September 2021

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair      

Hon A. D. H. Smith MP, Speaker

Members   

Mr B van Manen MP (Chief Government Whip)

Mr C Hayes MP (Chief Opposition Whip)

Hon D Drum MP (Chief Nationals Whip)

Mr R Broadbent MP

Ms N Flint MP

Ms P Murphy MP

Mr K O'Dowd

Mr R Ramsey MP

Ms J Ryan MP

Ms R Sharkie MP

Ms A Stanley MP

Mr L O'Brien MP, Deputy Speaker

Secretary

Mr J Sherd

Committee support

Mrs L Long

Mr D Pecar

Mrs H Waterhouse

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business

and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 31 August 2021.

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, 31 August 2021, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 18 October 2021, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 15 June 2021.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2   Mr C. Kelly: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, and for related purposes. (Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 24 June 2021.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3   Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes. (PEP11 Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 31 August 2021.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

4   Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a national climate change adaptation and mitigation framework, and to establish the Climate Change Commission, and for related purposes. (Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 31 August 2021.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

5   Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to create duties to consider climate change impacts and to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Act 2021, and for related purposes. (Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021)

   (Notice given 31 August 2021.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

6   Mr Vasta: To move—That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the month of August is Spinal Muscular Atrophy Awareness Month;

(2) notes that:

(a) spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is the number one genetic killer of infants under the age of two in Australia and one in thirty-five people are carriers of SMA; and

(b) the Health Chief Executives Forum has encouraged all states and territories to include SMA in their Newborn Screening Program's following the success of the pilot program in NSW/ACT;

(3) recognises that the Commonwealth Government has invested significantly in the space of genetic testing and SMA treatment due to our strong economic management; and

(4) calls on the remaining state and territory governments to implement SMA testing into their Newborn Bloodspot Program, following the advice from the Health Chief Executives Forum.

   (Notice given 11 August 2021.)

Time allotted —30minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Vasta —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

7   Ms Stanley: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 15 October 2021 is International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day;

(b) on that day, parents, families, friends and healthcare workers will memorialise babies they have lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death;

(c) infant loss is a tragic and terrible event to go through for families, healthcare workers and friends, and International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day provides an opportunity to mark their shared loss; and

(d) direct support for persons affected by pregnancy and infant loss is difficult at the current time considering the local health environment;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) each year approximately 150,000 women in Australia experience some form of pregnancy or infant loss;

(b) further issues are commonly faced by those close to these tragic events such as depression, anxiety, changes in relationships, development of unhealthy coping mechanisms and post-traumatic stress disorder;

(c) these effects, amongst others, are often underestimated and overlooked by healthcare professionals, friends, and even family members, especially concerning pregnancy loss related bereavement and subsequent grief;

(d) greater research and understanding is required to aide in the creation and establishment of programs, resources and services that support and provide assistance to survivors of baby loss and their families, and enable them to overcome their trauma and integrate their bereavement into their life in a healthy, helpful, healing manner;

(e) services for people affected by pregnancy or infant loss have been continuing, as best as possible, their necessary and significant work during this recent and difficult period; and

(f) further support is required including providing parents who aren't covered by leave entitlements with the same amount of paid leave they would be entitled to if their baby was born alive;

(3) expresses sympathy to all families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death; and

(4) commends every person who has supported parents and families through their journey from the loss of a baby.

   (Notice given 12 August 2021.)

Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon.

Speech time limits —

Ms Stanley —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Orders of the day

1   Labour hire companies: Resumption of debate (from9August2021) on the motion of Ms Swanson—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) many Australian workers are being employed by labour hire companies on low wages and without access to entitlements such as annual leave, sick leave and parental leave;

(b) these workers are often working alongside other workers doing the same job, with the same roster who are employed on higher wages and with access to leave entitlements;

(c) the use of labour hire to avoid paying fair wages and conditions by Australian companies is growing, particularly in Australia's mining industry;

(d) the Federal Court of Australia in the Workpac v Rossato case determined that a worker who was defined as a casual employee by labour hire company Workpac was in fact a full time employee working a full time roster and therefore entitled to leave entitlements; and

(e) Workpac have appealed this decision in the High Court of Australia and the Government has intervened in the case to support the submission of Workpac that Mr Rossato is a casual employee and should not receive leave entitlements;

(2) recognises that the increasing use of labour hire companies by employers to avoid paying fair wages and conditions is reducing the incomes of workers and families, and is having a detrimental impact on their livelihoods, particularly in regional Australia; and

(3) calls on the Government to support Labor's policy and legislation in the Parliament that will ensure workers who do the same job receive the same pay.      

Time allotted —30minutes.

Speech time limits —

All Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Notices

1   Mr van Manen: To move—That this House:

(1) notes the vital nature of Black Spot Program (BSP) funding in reducing death and serious injury on Australian roads;

(2) recognises that BSP projects target those road locations where crashes are occurring, which are a major cost to Australians every year;

(3) commends the Government for its extensive commitment to road safety through infrastructure investment, by providing $1.1 billion to the BSP from 2013-14 to 2023-24, with an ongoing commitment of $110 million each year following; and

(4) acknowledges research from the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics that the Government's BSP reduces death and serious injury from crashes by 30 per cent, on average at treated sites.

   (Notice given 23 June 2021.)

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr van Manen —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day—continued

2   Youth mental health services: Resumption of debate (from2June2021) on the motion of Ms Templeman—That this House:

(1) notes with dismay that suicide is the leading cause of death among Australians aged 15 to 24 years;

(2) recognises that for young people the decision to access mental health care is fragile, and if they do not have a positive experience they may not make another attempt to seek help;

(3) further notes that youth-friendly mental health services are not available uniformly to young people; and

(4) calls on the Government to:

(a) increase access to effective mental health services and supports for young people across all stages of mental ill-health; and

(b) build a youth mental health workforce to meet the current and future needs.

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

All Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

2   Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) a number of Australian businesses have been impacted by cyber­ attacks including by ransomware in 2021; and

(b) ransomware is a common and dangerous type of malware employed by cyber criminals that can affect both individuals and organisations, and cause severe damage to reputation, and business bottom lines; and

(2) records its concern at the impact and frequency of cyber attacks on Australian individuals and businesses;

(3) notes the significant investment by the Government of $15 billion in cyber and defence capabilities, including $1.35 billion through the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, to keep Australians safe online;

(4) recognises the important work done by ACSC in providing advice and technical support to individuals and businesses affected by cyber incidents;

(5) urges all Australians to implement good cyber hygiene measures across their home and business networks; and

(6) encourages all Australians to visit cyber.gov.au and take the steps to protect themselves, their businesses, their families and Australia's digital sovereignty.

   (Notice given 23 June 2021.)

Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm.

Speech time limits —

Mr T. R. Wilson —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

3   Mr Wilkie: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that the:

(a) Government has failed to establish a strong independent federal integrity commission, and on 8 September 2021 it will be 1,000 days since the Prime Minister promised to pass legislation to create one; and

(b) Government's proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is half-baked, creating the weakest watchdog in the country with hearings for all politicians and public servants held behind closed doors, no transparency on findings and penalties for whistle-blowers; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) abandon its deeply unpopular Commonwealth Integrity Commission proposal which in its current form is beyond effective amendment and should be scrapped;

(b) establish a strong, well-funded, wide-ranging and independent integrity commission through the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill put forward by the Member for Indi that can launch its own inquiries into criminal, corrupt and unethical behaviour by politicians and their staff, hold public hearings and make public findings; and

(c) commit to passing such legislation as a matter of urgency.

   (Notice given 24 August 2021.)

Time allotted —45minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Wilkie —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

4   Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises the critical work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in safeguarding Australia's security and national interests;

(2) notes that ASIO Director-General Mr Mike Burgess recently observed that 'Australia's threat environment is complex, challenging and changing';

(3) commends the Government for providing $1.3 billion over ten years in the 2021-22 budget to help further improve ASIO's capabilities; and

(4) thanks the men and women who work in ASIO and our other national security agencies for their dedication to keeping Australians safe from a range of threats and to protecting our national sovereignty.

   (Notice given 23 June 2021.)

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr T. R. Wilson —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

5   Mr Perrett: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) books can be an escape from the worries of everyday life;

(b) reading reduces stress by 68 per cent;

(c) reading makes your world bigger and makes more things possible;

(d) literacy and reading are tools that can help you achieve your goals and help others;

(e) reading helps your mind grow;

(f) by reading other people's stories you can walk in their shoes; and

(g) books build empathy, connection and help you feel less lonely;

(2) notes that:

(a) the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many literary activities;

(b) major writers' festivals have been interrupted;

(c) schools have moved to online learning for weeks at a time; and

(d) libraries and adult education forums around the country closed their doors to in-person attendees; and

(3) acknowledges:

(a) Tuesday, 14 September 2021 is Australian Reading Hour and this year's theme is, Stories that Matter;

(b) Australian Reading Hour is in its tenth year and is a showcase for Australia Reads; and

(c) Australian Reading Hour highlights the importance of reading in transforming lives.

   (Notice given 23 August 2021.)

Time allotted —40minutes.

Speech time limits —

Mr Perrett —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

6   Mr Simmonds: To move—That this House notes that:

(1) membership of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Cadets:

(a) gives young people the opportunity to be members of a team, develop their skills as leaders and develop an individual's capacity to contribute to society; and

(b) fosters an interest in Defence Force careers, and is important in developing ongoing support for Defence; and

(2) ADF Cadets contribute greatly to the community and Australian society.

   (Notice given 23 June 2021.)

Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm.

Speech time limits —

Mr Simmonds —5minutes.

Other Members —5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

1 September 2021

Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (10:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill of 2021. This is the second stage of aged-care legislative reform to deliver the high quality and safe aged care that our senior Australians deserve.

This bill responds to a number of recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, ahead of further reforms that have been committed to by this government. The royal commission was one of the first actions of Prime Minister Morrison upon being appointed to office.

Australian National Aged Care Classification (AN-ACC)

This bill implements significant structural reform of funding for residential aged care. It replaces the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument with a new model for calculating aged care subsidies. The Australian National Aged Care Classification (AN-ACC) model has been developed in consultation with the aged-care sector and consumer groups over several years and it will encourage innovation and investment in the sector.

The AN-ACC was developed following an extensive research project, and the government has taken a staged approach to implementation. From April 2021, residential-aged-care recipients have been progressively assessed and classified under the AN-ACC, and this classification will now be linked, through this bill, to the subsidy calculation for residential-aged-care providers. This bill will finalise implementation of the AN-ACC model from 1 October 2022.

Aged- care and support worker regulation

The royal commission recommended strengthening regulation of the personal care workforce and increasing protections for senior Australians from workers who pose an unacceptable risk of harm.

This bill responds in part to recommendation 77 of the royal commission by establishing authority for nationally consistent pre-employment screening for aged-care workers and governing persons of approved providers. It also establishes a code of conduct, which will ensure poor behaviour of approved providers, workers and governing persons is held to account.

A national database of cleared and excluded individuals will support employment decisions in aged care and, through mutual recognition arrangements with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, across the care and support sector more broadly.

The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner will have powers to make and enforce a code of conduct. The commissioner will have a range of powers to deal with breaches, including civil penalties, and, significantly, new banning orders for individuals, in line with recommendation 103 of the royal commission.

These new regulatory arrangements are designed to work together, to effectively manage and prevent unsuitable workers from entering or remaining in aged care.

Extending the Serious Incident Response Scheme to home care

The bill extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to home care and flexible care delivered in a home- or community-care setting from 1 July 2022. These amendment give effect to royal commission recommendation 100.

The new requirements seek to build provider capacity to identify risk, respond to incidents, and drive learning and improvements that will reduce the number of preventable incidents in the future. Under the scheme, providers of in-home aged-care services will be required to identify, record, manage and resolve all incidents that occur.

By extending the definition of 'reportable incident', this bill will ensure the most serious incidents occurring in home- and community-care settings are reported to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Expanding the Serious Incident Response Scheme will reduce the risk of abuse and neglect, and protect vulnerable senior Australians receiving aged-care services in their home and the community.

Strengthening provider governance

This bill improves the governance of approved providers from 1 March 2022. The amendments align with recommendations 88 to 90 of the royal commission, which note that good provider governance arrangements result in high quality care.

A number of new governance responsibilities for approved providers and their governing bodies will be introduced, as well as new reporting requirements to assist senior Australians and their families to understand the operations of providers.

Approved providers will be required to notify changes to key personnel, and the bill will replace the current disqualified individual arrangements with a suitability test. The new governance arrangements will improve the transparency and accountability of providers, and will change the culture from the top down.

Enhanced information sharing

Along with improving regulatory protections in aged care, the Australian government is taking a first step towards aligning the regulation of providers across the broader care and support sector. This sector covers aged care, disability support and veterans' care. Regulatory alignment will improve the consistency of quality and safety protections across the care and support sector while reducing the overall regulatory burden on cross-sector providers.

The bill facilitates increased information-sharing by the commission, Department of Health and Department of Veterans' Affairs with specified Commonwealth bodies. It will facilitate information-sharing about providers and workers operating across the care and support sector who are not complying with their obligations, are failing to provide quality care or whose conduct might be putting senior Australians at risk. The amendments seek to address aspects of the existing legislation that make it difficult to share information in a way that responds effectively to such risks.

I note that reciprocal sharing of information about provider and worker conduct in the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be facilitated by proposed information sharing powers in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021.

Increased financial and prudential oversight

The government is implementing a new financial and prudential monitoring, compliance and intervention framework for the aged-care sector. Its purpose is to build the sector's financial resilience and improve its accountability. It will enable the government to identify at-risk providers earlier, and help ensure providers meet their obligations to refund deposits to residents.

This bill introduces the second phase of a three-phase reform by:

enabling the secretary or commissioner to request information or documents from a provider or borrower relating to the use of a loan made with a refundable deposit or accommodation bond

making it an offence for a borrower to not provide the information or documents and

extending the period of liability between misuse of refundable deposits and insolvency for both providers and key personnel from two years to five years.

These changes implement the government's commitment to enhancing the transparency of the aged-care sector and supporting continuity of care for senior Australians. They also respond to the royal commission's recommendations for more stringent financial reporting requirements and strengthened monitoring powers.

Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority

Finally, the bill expands the functions of a renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to also include the provision of advice on healthcare and aged-care pricing and costing, and to perform functions conferred on it by the Aged Care Act.

New governance and appointments arrangements will streamline administration and reflect the enhanced responsibilities and integrated functions of the pricing authority. Information used and disclosed to perform the new functions will be appropriately protected.

Establishing an independent aged-care pricing and costing advice function will support transparent and evidence based assessment of the costs involved in delivering care to senior Australians who use aged care. This builds on our existing work to improve transparency in the aged-care sector and fosters community confidence that the care they receive is cost effective and sustainable. Transferring functions performed by the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner to the pricing authority will further streamline administration and enhance industry confidence.

Collectively, these amendments form the second step in the government's five-year reform agenda through the five reform pillars: home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability, residential aged-care quality and safety, workforce and governance.

In particular, I want to thank all of those who have been involved in these monumental reforms, in particular beginning with the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, Minister Colbeck; and his staff, led by Mel Clode, who has done such work in such difficult times for her personally. I thank my own staff. Wendy Black has been an extraordinary pillar of strength in relation to this, as has Jane Kilmartin. I thank those within the department, led by Michael Lye and his team. They have done an extraordinary amount of work. And I thank all of those in the sector and all of the advocates for our senior Australians. This is landmark reform. This is reform which will save lives, protect lives and improve lives.

Ultimately, the health, safety and wellbeing of senior Australians is of the utmost importance to the government, and is driving our plan for generational change of the aged-care system. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (10:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government is reforming remote employment services, and the reforms will be co-designed and piloted in partnership with a number of remote communities ahead of implementing the new program.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 creates a new supplementary payment for jobseekers in remote engagement program pilot communities who volunteer to participate in a placement that is like having a job. The placements will build participants' skills in roles that will deliver goods or services to the benefit of local communities and provide a pathway for jobseekers to find a job. The new payment will be one aspect that communities can trial alongside other approaches to training, skills development and non-vocational support as part of the co-design of the new remote employment program.

Over many decades, governments have tried different approaches to delivering employment services in remote Australia. We have learned that what works in our cities and more densely populated regions may not work in remote areas. We have also learned that we have to continuously adapt and evolve to better meet new and existing challenges.

There is more to be done to continue to develop an approach that empowers the people, many of them Indigenous people, living in our remote communities to develop their skills and engage in economic opportunities in a way that is both tailored to their specific needs and beneficial to their communities.

This bill supports collaboration with communities to develop an appropriately flexible program that will build the skills and vocational capabilities of people in remote communities. Many of the more detailed aspects of the approach will be set out in legislative instruments and policy guidance, allowing the flexibility to adjust as lessons are learnt and communities' ideas change over the course of the pilots.

Achieving sustainable change in remote communities can only be done by working together, including by listening to Indigenous experience and expertise to develop a new approach. Working in partnership to pilot innovative approaches, learn and review, and develop the new program will be key to our future shared success.

Rewarding and sustainable employment opportunities are transformational for individuals, families and communities. Jobs contribute to financial and economic security and to self-determination and wellbeing.

Australians living in remote communities face complex employment challenges, different from those experienced in regional and urban areas. Remote areas cover 75 per cent of the Australian landmass. However, there are fewer jobs available in remote areas, with less than two per cent of actively trading businesses located there.

The measures in this bill recognise the lack of employment opportunities that people, including Indigenous Australians, face in some of the most remote parts of Australia. The opportunities and circumstances in remote Australia are unique and different from urban areas, and this will continue to be the case. We've heard what communities and stakeholders have said about current and previous remote employment services. We know that remote communities want changes so that future employment services better match place based economic circumstances and labour market opportunities.

This bill supports the reforms to the government's suite of employment services and programs to ensure they remain fit for purpose, make the most of technological advances and support Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19.

These reforms include the government's 2021-22 budget announcement to pilot a new remote engagement program to trial approaches in advance of replacing the Community Development Program (CDP) in 2023. Initially, we estimate that around 200 eligible jobseekers across the pilot sites will volunteer to participate in placements in work-like roles across their community and receive the payment.

We want to collaborate with stakeholders to develop a new remote engagement program that will better enable jobseekers to contribute to the goods and services that will strengthen the economic, social and cultural life of communities and build in-demand skills and, at the same time, create a pathway for these jobseekers to build skills to find local jobs.

When implemented, the new program will contribute to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which includes targets to close the gap on employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The new payment is one possible design element of the new program we would like to co-design with communities as part of the pilots. We will also work with communities during the pilot phase to explore:

how to provide better support to jobseekers who have the skills and experience to work, but are having difficulty finding work;

vocational training options for jobseekers that will lead to real jobs in their communities;

how to provide the right support, at the right time, to jobseekers with acute or complex needs; and

the best ways to engage with and support jobseekers to meet their mutual obligation requirements.

This bill makes changes to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to create a new supplementary payment that will be paid at a fixed rate between $100 and $190 per fortnight. The new payment will be paid in addition to an eligible jobseeker's primary income-support payment and other supplements. The new payment will not be subject to the income test.

This bill proposes that an eligible jobseeker's income support plus the new supplementary payment will be approximately equivalent to the minimum wage for the hours participating in work-like activities. Eligible jobseekers will voluntarily participate in a role in government services or community organisations for between 15 and 18 hours per week building important skills and experience. The payment will be designed not to discourage people from taking up paid employment opportunities. The pilots provide an opportunity to test the level of incentives.

The bill defines an eligible jobseeker as someone receiving a qualifying income support payment, who receives employment services from a remote engagement program service provider and who has agreed to participate and is participating in an eligible placement, with a host organisation, for at least 15 hours per week.

Eligible jobseekers will be considered to be fully meeting all their mutual obligation requirements by participating in the scheme. Eligible jobseekers can voluntarily choose to leave the placement at any time.

To give effect to this commitment of working in partnership, this bill proposes further detail about qualification criteria and the rate of the payment be set out in legislative instruments. These legislative instruments will be informed by the outcomes of a co-design process with communities in the pilot sites. We will take the time to work together and listen to communities in the pilot sites about what they think could work in relation to the amount of payment to be provided, the hours of engagement to be undertaken in return and what eligible jobseekers are required to do to continue to receive the payment. This approach will also enable adjustments during the pilots as lessons are learned.

This bill provides that the payment will not be payable after 30 June 2024.

While the bill will have no impact on arrangements for current CDP participants outside the pilot sites, learnings from the pilots will inform the design of the new program.

The bill also proposes amendments to repeal or omit provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999relating to the former Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme. Removing these obsolete provisions will assist with modernising and streamlining the social security legislation.

It is important that we take this opportunity to work with Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in remote communities. Sustainable change can only be done by working together, including by listening to Indigenous experience and expertise to develop a new approach. An approach that empowers individuals to gain skills and find a job. And an approach that enhances employment pathways for jobseekers in remote Australia to realise aspirations. For themselves. For their families. And for their communities.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested Australia's human biosecurity systems in an unprecedented way. It has highlighted the rate at which a biosecurity threat can spread between countries and around the world. The spread of exotic pests and diseases is putting unprecedented pressure on our border, and our biosecurity system must continue to evolve to keep pace with these new threats.

Through this pandemic, international maritime vessels have emerged as a significant risk pathway for biosecurity threats to enter Australia. This bill will amend the Biosecurity Act to provide an improved framework to assess and manage incoming vessels and aircraft where infectious disease risks have been identified on board. These amendments are consistent with recommendations made by the Inspector-General of Biosecurity in his review of the Ruby Princess cruise ship incident, which the minister commissioned.

The bill will expand pre-arrival reporting requirements, ensuring that accurate and up-to-date information is available to assess the human health risk of arriving vessels and aircraft. It will also expand and strengthen penalties for operators and persons in charge of aircraft and vessels who do not comply with pratique requirements.

It will also provide a mechanism to manage groups of people, such as on board a cruise ship, where passengers or crew display signs or symptoms of a listed human disease, or have been exposed to such a disease. In these circumstances, human biosecurity officers will be able to effectively assess and manage the risks of that disease spreading or entering Australia.

We all look forward to the safe reopening of Australia's borders and this bill will play an important part in supporting this by reducing the potential for the entry, emergence, establishment and spread of listed human diseases while facilitating a critical step towards a national economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Currently, Australia is one of the few countries in the world that is free of serious pests and diseases. This means our current biosecurity system is serving our country well. It has been instrumental in successfully protecting our $51 billion agricultural export industries, our unique environment, our native flora and fauna, and our way of life.

However, Australia's biosecurity system is facing growing regional and global threats such as African swine fever and hitchhiker pests like khapra beetle and the brown marmorated stink bug. Higher mail and cargo volumes and complex supply chains, together with the anticipated return to growing international passenger arrivals, increase the opportunities for pests and diseases to enter Australia. The constantly evolving biosecurity environment and risk profile have heightened the need for enhanced risk management to respond effectively to emerging biosecurity risks and future challenges.

This bill will enhance the ability of the Biosecurity Act to meet these challenges. It will increase the transparency and efficiency of administrative processes in the Biosecurity Act, such as those involved in conducting a risk assessment for the purposes of making certain determinations or granting an import permit. The bill will also introduce into the Biosecurity Act a framework to provide legislative authority to the agriculture and health ministers to make, vary and administer arrangements or grants for expenditure in relation to biosecurity related programs and activities such as the National Citrus Canker Eradication program, which successfully eradicated the citrus canker outbreak in the Northern Territory and saved Australia's $800 million citrus industry.

The bill will also amend the Biosecurity Act to increase certain key civil and criminal pecuniary penalty provisions to promote deterrence and enable a proportionate response, reflecting the seriousness of the contravention of these provisions and the consequences that may result from non-compliance.

The increased civil penalties introduced by this bill will serve as a significant deterrent to anybody considering undermining our biosecurity laws and the criminal penalties will allow a proportionate and appropriate punishment for contraventions of the act.

This government is committed to continuous improvement across our world-leading biosecurity system. That is why this government announced funding of over $400 million for biosecurity in the 2021-22 budget. The Biosecurity Act is the central pillar of our defence against current and emerging biosecurity threats, and this bill will enhance our biosecurity framework by improving the efficiency and administration of the act.

This bill ensures continued protection for agriculture, tourism and other industries; plant and animal health; the environment; and our market access while providing a stronger biosecurity risk management framework and contributing to a safe reopening of Australia's international borders.

I commend the bill to the House

Debate adjourned.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—RCEP.

Once it comes into force for all 15 signatories, RCEP will be the world's largest free trade agreement, bringing together nine of Australia's top 15 trading partners—that together account for nearly 60 per cent of our trade and about two-thirds of our exports—into a single economic framework.

The signing of RCEP in November 2020 by Australia, the 10 ASEAN member states, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea signalled a commitment to opening up new trade and investment opportunities and support for rules-based trading arrangements. These signals are especially important in the face of the challenges of COVID-19 and emerging global trade tensions.

The negotiation of RCEP was driven by the 10 ASEAN nations, which collectively constitute Australia's second-largest two-way trading partner. Having considered a number of options for expanding opportunities for regional trade, ASEAN chose to pursue a more inclusive approach that would extend to all of ASEAN's then FTA partners, including Australia.

Australian participation in RCEP negotiations has allowed us to influence the rules incorporated in RCEP.

The government will continue to work with ASEAN and other RCEP signatory states to shape the implementation and future direction of RCEP so that it contributes to the development of open, transparent approaches to regional trade and investment; and bolsters ASEAN's role in the region.

Active Australian participation in RCEP will be needed to maximise our influence, requiring a substantial investment on the part of the government.

RCEP delivers a range of improvements over our existing FTAs with RCEP partners—especially in areas where our partners' economies have the greatest growth potential, such as services, investment and digital trade.

RCEP will help stimulate growth, strengthen economic integration, and build business confidence in our region. RCEP signatory states account for around 30 per cent of the world's population and GDP. No other free trade agreement brings together the collective economic weight of the ASEAN nations and the major economies in North Asia. RCEP also provides for additional economies to join RCEP in the future—building the significance of RCEP over time.

RCEP will lock in market access and address non-tariff barriers, creating significant new trade and investment opportunities for Australia across the Indo-Pacific. It will also establish rules that provide greater certainty and improve the business environment across the region.

RCEP's regional rules of origin will support access to regional value chains, thus increasing opportunities for Australian business. Regional cumulation rules will facilitate inputs from the most efficient and cost-effective regional source, while supporting access to preferential tariff treatment. Goods made in another RCEP party from Australian exports—for example, iron ore, wheat, barley, milk powder, copper, nickel and wool—would benefit from tariff preferences under RCEP when processed in a second RCEP party and exported to a third.

RCEP will reduce FTA rules of origin compliance burdens, meaning that Australian businesses trading with multiple RCEP parties will only need to comply with one set of rules and procedures. RCEP will also provide businesses with greater choice in how they meet origin documentation requirements.

This bill will insert into the Customs Act the rules of origin and document retention requirements called for by RCEP. The bill outlines when imported goods may be considered to have originating status and be eligible for preferential tariff treatment.

This bill is complemented by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, which will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Customs Tariff Act) to implement Australia's import tariff commitments under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP).

The bill will insert a new schedule of duty rates into the Customs Tariff Act. Schedule 14 will contain the preferential rates of customs duty for imported goods that satisfy the rules of origin as agreed by Australia and other RCEP signatory countries. Australia has committed to eliminating the duty rate for most originating goods to 'free' over the years following the entry into force of RCEP. Certain goods, such as excise equivalent goods, will retain a rate of customs duty other than 'free'. Excise equivalent goods, which are certain fuel, alcohol, tobacco and petroleum products, that are considered originating under the agreement will continue to receive the same treatment as domestically produced equivalents.

The bill also amends certain tariff concessions to maintain their scope.

The bill complements the Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021, which will amend the Customs Act 1901.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:59): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Christmas Island Stormwater, Landslide and Rockfall Mitigation Works Project.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications is proposing to undertake infrastructure work to manage the risks of stormwater flooding, landslide and rockfall at key locations on Christmas Island. The proposed work includes upgrades to the stormwater overland flow and in-ground network arrangements at Drumsite as well as landslide and rockfall defence mitigation and protection measure at Flying Fish Cove. These proposed works are necessary to protect the community and visitors living or working on Christmas Island and to ensure the government meets its obligations to provide safe workplaces. The estimated costs of the works is $28.9 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 12 May 2021. The committee has recommended the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Work Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activities are expected to commence in January 2022, with completion expected by mid-2023. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry and I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (11:01): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Construction of National Collections Building, Black Mountain Science and Innovation Park, ACT.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is proposing to construct a new national collections building as well as minor alterations to the existing herbarium building at its Black Mountain Science and Innovation Park site in Canberra. The works will enable CSIRO to develop a collections precinct that will accommodate the 13 million specimens comprising Australia's national research collections. These collections represent significant research infrastructure and underpin research in a range of fields, including agriculture, biosecurity, biodiversity and climate change. The works will provide fit-for-purpose specimen storage vaults, research laboratories, curation facilities and office workspace. The estimated cost of the works is $70 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 3 June 2021. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activity is expected to commence in January 2022, with completion expected in August 2023. On behalf the government, I'd like to thank the committee for undertaking the timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:03): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Report 197: OCCAR managed programmes participation agreement; Minamata Convention on Mercury—report, August 2021.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr TIM WILSON: I ask leave of the House for the chair of the committee to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (11:04): [by video link] by leave—I wish to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 197, which reviews two major treaty actions: the framework agreement between the government of Australia and the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation for participation by Australia in OCCAR managed programs and the Minamata Convention on Mercury.

I'll address first the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is quite an important environmental treaty. It's a global response to a chemical of global concern. By some accounts, as much as 9,000 tonnes of mercury are released around the world each year, and mercury, as many would know, is a toxic pollutant with the capacity for long-range atmospheric transport. It bioaccumulates in our ecosystems and it has significant effects on human health and the environment. There is no known safe exposure level for mercury in humans, and mercury, like other fundamental elements, can never be destroyed.

The Minamata Convention of Mercury is named after the Japanese city of Minamata, where the industrial release of methylmercury from a factory in the 1950s caused what was known as the Minamata disease epidemic—a debilitating and destructive disease which caused countless harms to newborn babies, infants and adults who consumed seafood which was rendered toxic by this mercury poisoning.

There are many good reasons for Australia to ratify this treaty. There is a need for global action to better control mercury and to control its interaction with us as human beings. But it's also important for Australia to be a responsible global citizen and demonstrate leadership in this region. Ratification of this treaty would provide certainty for and decrease the regulatory burden on Australian business and industry, which still make some limited use of mercury for industrial and other processes. Australia's ratification of this treaty would also allow us to participate in regulation-making and in shaping future decision-making under the convention. It is our understanding that Australia is already substantively in compliance with the convention, with ratification having negligible regulatory or financial impacts because Australia has existing policy and legislative frameworks in place which are robust and which manage protect the community from toxic chemicals such as mercury.

Australia has been slow to ratify this convention. It was signed initially in 2013 and entered into force in 2017. As of July this year it has already been ratified by 132 countries, or some two-thirds of the UN's membership. That's why the committee supports the convention and recommends that binding treaty action be taken. One particular recommendation the committee has made, though, is that the government does not seek an exemption to allow the continued importation of high-pressure mercury vapour lamps into Australia beyond the date of ratification. The committee heard from industry and others that such an exemption was no longer necessary and that industry—particularly the lighting industry and those which administer and install streetlighting, local councils and local government—have already made the transition away from HPMV lamps. They already have plans in place to ensure that they transition more quickly to LED lighting and other elements which are now cheaper and which, of course, are much more environmentally friendly—and, incidentally, have lower emissions. For that reason, seeking an exemption is no longer necessary for Australia and it would also put us in odd company, alongside less-developed countries with much poorer environmental stewardship credentials such as China, Iran, Madagascar and Ghana. The committee noted that no other OECD or developed country has sought an exemption of the sort that Australia is proposing. So in this regard, the committee recommends ratification of this treaty and it also recommends that the government reassess this need to seek an exemption to allow for the continued importation of HPMV lamps into Australia.

The second item addressed by this report is the OCCAR managed programs participation agreement. The evidence on this one was quite clear from the defence department and others, that allowing Australia to join OCCAR would promote cooperation in defence procurement and sustainment in line with Australian interests and with little detriment—in fact no detriment—to our own national security needs. It would allow Australian defence industries in particular a better prospect of participating in global defence materiel supply chains, which is obviously critical if Australia is to develop and sustain a sovereign defence capability. So, in this regard, the committee does recommend that the government ratify this treaty and that it enter into force as soon as possible.

Report 197 also touches upon three other minor committee actions—an amendment to the International Tropical Timber Agreement and two amendments to appendix III of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:10): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:10): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:10): I understand this administrative matter was supposed to be dealt with the other day but was not. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties presented on 31 August 2021, Report 196: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.

Leave granted.

Mr TIM WILSON: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:12): by leave—I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (11:12): I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021. It's been almost a decade since the Gillard Labor government announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Survivors waited a long time for that royal commission, and they're waiting a long time for redress. It's been a painful and long journey for so many. These delays are only compounding the trauma. These delays re-traumatise the victims.

The royal commission estimated that 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. As of 26 March 2021 the scheme had received 10,005 applications and finalised 5,266 applications, including 5,218 payments. It's processing 3,627 applications, and 765 applications are on hold. Compare that to the 60,000 survivors estimated by the royal commission, and it does indicate that the slow rate of applications points to difficulties for survivors navigating the scheme. Their sense is that it is inadequate and that redress is hard to find.

Survivors have spoken of the difficulty of preparing an application. The Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme heard that for one survivor it took 17 months to finalise their application. A Senate estimates hearing last year revealed that the average processing time was 12 to 13 months. That's just not good enough for survivors of institutional child sex abuse. The second-anniversary review also identified a number of issues inhibiting the operation of the scheme and the delivery of redress to survivors, as well as the difficulties faced by First Nations people, people from culturally or linguistically diverse background and people with a disability. The quality, scope and geographic spread of support services, including financial counselling, leave much to be wanted. We've heard of major privacy breaches, in which the details of survivors' applications have been sent to the wrong individuals, and in some instances, those details have been sent to the institutions themselves. The second-anniversary review identified IT systems and lack of staff as aspects of the scheme that need vast improvement. Too many are waiting—many are ill, many are dying and many have missed out altogether.

It wasn't meant to be this way. The scheme that was ultimately rolled out by the government didn't fully realise the recommendations of the royal commission. It didn't live up to the hard work that that royal commission had done. It is vital that Australia gets right the promise of redress for survivors, and it's clear this scheme isn't delivering the way it was supposed to. In February, Labor moved a comprehensive suite of amendments to overhaul the scheme and get it back on track, to end the delays and ensure survivors don't miss out. The government refused these on the basis that the second-anniversary review was yet to report. Now that report has been completed—months ago.

It is over three years since the commencement of the scheme, and the government has finally presented some modest amendments to the parliament. We won't stand in the way of these amendments, but they fall well short of what survivors have asked and what Labor has proposed. I should say that, in not wanting to hold up the passage of this bill, Labor won't be moving detailed amendments to the bill, but one could easily imagine that a government that was better at living up to what the royal commission demanded would be moving these amendments itself. I call on the government to give a hard thought to that question. During the course of this debate they have an opportunity to look at what the royal commission has asked for and what survivors have demanded, come back at the end of the debate and move their own detailed amendments.

We saw that process play out last night with another bill, a bill relating to parental leave access for people who are the victims of family or domestic violence. Labor had flagged detailed amendments to that bill, but by the end of the debate, the government had done the right thing. They brought forward their own detailed amendments and we withdrew ours. In this case, we don't want to hold up these modest changes, but we do want the government to do better, survivors want the government to do better, the royal commission wants the government to do better and the Australian people want the government to do better.

This process should ensure that survivors don't miss out. We're still seeing institutions not joining, institutions shielding their assets and institutions becoming defunct, and while we welcome the government's power to revoke the charity status of such institutions and the government's pledge to name and shame, that measure doesn't go far enough. I say this as the shadow assistant minister for charities, well aware of the implications on charities of withholding their charitable status. It should only be done under very exceptional circumstances, but an institution failing to sign up to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse for survivors is such an exceptional circumstance.

The government needs to be seeking financial contributions from institutions who don't sign up, through a levy or the tax system, so that redress can be paid to survivors. Where institutions are genuinely unable to pay or where institutions are defunct, the government needs to act as a funder of last resort. We know the government are considering this, but we need from them an ironclad guarantee that the government will act as the funder of last resort. We need that so as to provide certainty for survivors. Labor has called for the introduction of an early payment scheme to ensure the elderly or unwell don't miss out on redress. We're glad that the government has finally come to the table on this through the introduction of this bill. We been calling for this for years, and it should have happened by now. By definition, it would have helped those who have died while awaiting redress. It would have helped those who have become so ill and frail that they are limited in what they can do with any payment. It's especially sad how long this has taken, because it just brings payment forward. It doesn't involve paying more; it just involves timely payment.

There is an issue of lifting the cap and ending deductions, where survivors have criticised the scheme for caps on payments, for the indexation of prior payments and for the deduction of unrelated prior payments, including stolen generation payments. Labor is concerned this is pushing survivors to give up on the scheme or leading them to seek justice outside the scheme. When they do that, that means civil claims, which tend to be more difficult, costlier and lengthier. These are the very things the scheme was designed to avoid.

Currently some survivors are receiving payments of $5,000 or less. This bill will reduce the time frame over which prior payments are indexed before being deducted from a redress payment. It will do this by ceasing indexation when an application for redress is made and not at the time when the application is finalised. Labor believes that isn't good enough. Labor is again calling for the indexation of prior payments to cease completely. We are calling for the government to ensure that unrelated payments are not deducted, and this includes payments to stolen generation survivors for non-sexual abuse.

We're again calling on the government to lift the cap on payments from $150,000 to $200,000, following the royal commission's recommendation. The government should provide a guarantee that a review of an offer of redress won't lead to that offer being reduced. People shouldn't be scared to be asking for a review. They shouldn't be thinking that it's a roll of the dice. Survivors have been calling for such a change, Labor has been backing such a change, the royal commission recommended such a change, and that is what should be realised. I note that the second anniversary review also recommended the introduction of a minimum payment of $10,000, even where a prior payment would have otherwise reduced a payment to a lesser amount. We call on the government to respond to this.

This bill also fails to address major shortcomings in the government's arbitrary assessment matrix, which survivors have been calling to be reformed for years. The government's assessment matrix sets low and arbitrary payments for the impact of abuse based on the kind of abuse and not the scale of its impact on a survivor's life. Again, this is another marked deviation by the government from the original recommendations of the royal commission. That's why Labor has called on the minister to remake the redress amendment framework to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments. The term 'penetrative' should be removed, in acknowledgement that trauma is not caused only by penetrative abuse. The government should make the assessment guidelines public so survivors know how decisions are made.

The second anniversary review also called for a change in the internal review process so there is more information for survivors or applicants—a simpler template, as well as the provision of an initial payment that cannot be reduced by the review. That second anniversary review also called for amendment of the standard of proof to 'reasonable likelihood'. As I said before, the whole purpose of this scheme was to end the hurdles, the high barriers, that access to justice can entail when complainants, abuse survivors, are forced to go to civil litigation.

The bill also fails to provide the ongoing psychological support that not only survivors have been calling for but the royal commission originally recommended. We're concerned that in many cases people are being provided with as little as $1,250 to cover future counselling and psychological care. Survivors will likely need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives. As such, the system should provide it, and that's why Labor has called for the scheme to provide ongoing lifetime psychological support and counselling.

Often we hear a claim from this government that it cannot make a change to a scheme on its own, that it needs the support of the states and territories. Of course, agreement is needed for certain changes, but so is leadership, so is action from the Commonwealth. If states or territories are holding out on the Commonwealth in making the changes that Labor, the royal commission and survivors have called for, then there's a simple response the government can make: name those states and territories that are holding out, against the will of the royal commission and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

The Redress Scheme under this government falls short of the original recommendations of the royal commission. The improvements in this bill fall short of properly getting redress back on track and delivering redress for survivors—redress that is timely, redress that does not re-traumatise, redress that does not leave survivors missing out.

Finally, I would note that the member for Barton wished to be here delivering this speech in the second reading debate on behalf of the opposition but is prevented from doing so by technical issues today, so I'm speaking in her stead on this bill. I moved last night the second reading amendment that's been circulated in my name. Just for clarity, I'll move that again, and, naturally, that second reading amendment will need to be seconded. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the Government has not committed to implementing all the recommendations of the second anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme; and

(2) calls on the Government to listen to survivors and:

(a) increase the cap on payments to $200,000, as recommended by the Royal Commission;

(b) end the indexation of prior payments;

(c) fix the assessment matrix and properly recognise the impact of abuse;

(d) make sure funder of last resort arrangements are in place so survivors do not miss out;

(e) guarantee that offers of redress will not be reduced on review; and

(f) provide ongoing counselling and support".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Stephen Jones: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (11:26): It is with deep sadness and sympathy for all victims of child sexual abuse that I stand in this place and dare to speak of the unspeakable that has been forced upon the innocents of our nation. I put my name forward to speak on this National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 because I want to see child sexual abuse addressed, victims given justice and a safer upbringing for all Australian children. We know that it can take up to 50 years for some to bravely come forward, and many take as long as 30 years to tell their harrowing stories. For some, their very personal and painful truths remain untold and, often, their secrets go with them and their perpetrators to their graves.

I speak today for those victims who have passed, and for those who have found their voice and will find justice in their lifetime through the government's Redress Scheme. I stand also for those victims who have not yet found their voice; for those victims who have not yet seen justice or, indeed, have had justice denied; and for those who have been brave enough to stand before the law, to stand before their perpetrator, and yet have still been denied justice for the gross and callous theft of their childhood by evil, selfish and deranged sexual predators. Often this is because of the time it takes victims to muster the courage to face their perpetrator through the arduous court system.

I stand here for those women and men across our nation who struggle every day to come to terms with how and why their lives were destroyed by adults who were entrusted with protecting their personal safety in childhood. Many of those trusted individuals who failed in that, who abused them, were representing, through their employment, church organisations; they were in the state school system; and they were in charge of the pastoral care of children in many other institutional environments. Many remain in those positions of trust and remain abusers today. All of these institutions are listed on the national redress website, and, for the public's information, those institutions who have not signed up to this scheme are also listed on the website.

We know there are victims who have been and continue to be sexually abused in non-institutional settings—for example, in the home, by a relative or in extracurricular environments. This must stop. It must stop. The harm that is caused to children, and society more broadly, must stop. There is no greater cause of pain than to be abused by someone who is supposed to protect you. How, as a human being, could you ever fully trust again? This affects the ability to create what are considered normal, functioning relationships across lifetimes. I believe that many of the harms that we see in society today, such as domestic violence, mental health problems, violence, anger and rage, can often be attributed to childhood sexual abuse—the damage that it causes and the pain that it inflicts.

The National Redress Scheme was established in 2018 in response to the royal commission. It's a light at the end of a very dark tunnel for victims. It rightly turns the spotlight on to justice and financial support for victims. It can never fix or replace bad memories with good ones, but it can assist with counselling and often improve the poor health of many survivors. This government is focused on delivering outcomes for victims of child sexual abuse, and that is a great relief for so many across our nation who have just cause to seek redress.

The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 introduces the first tranche of legislative amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 as part of the initial response to the final report of the second year review of the National Redress Scheme, undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. The bill gives effect to several key recommendations from the second year review. This initial action reflects measures that are relatively straightforward to implement and have agreement from states and territories to ensure the scheme is rightly more survivor-focused. The review makes 38 recommendations to increase access to redress, to improve the scheme's operation and ultimately to make it easier for victims of these abhorrent crimes to obtain redress. In undertaking the review, Ms Kruk consulted with key stakeholders, including survivors, advocacy groups, support services, institutions and the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The government is prioritising initial action on 25 of the 38 review recommendations, in full or in part, and is investing over $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget to support implementation of these recommendations. This bill will establish a $10,000 advance payment for applicants who are elderly or terminally ill. Remember that I outlined earlier that many victims take up to 50 years to come forward, and therefore many are in their sunset years or sadly in ill health by the time they come to a redress process. This measure assists them to move forward with their lives.

Technically, the bill changes the date for which indexation of a prior payment is calculated to be when a survivor submits an application to the scheme, rather than when their application is determined. The bill enables flexibility to extend the period during which an applicant can accept their redress offer and allows the period for seeking a review to be extended in order to be consistent with the acceptance period. It removes the requirement for a statutory declaration in the application form. It introduces the ability for the scheme operator to make redress payments in installments, giving survivors choice and control over how they receive their payment. The government is committed to the continuous improvement of the scheme and recognises that people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse have waited too long. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston, for their work to improve outcomes for survivors.

I conclude my remarks by again condemning those who perpetrated these crimes against defenceless children and abused their positions of trust in what can only be described as a national shame. I send love and light to you, the innocent children—now adults—who are struggling to come to terms with the heavy burden and toll of the sexual abuse you endured that has impacted you and your families and your relationships for the rest of your lives. I say to you that this is your way forward. I'm proud to stand as a member of this government, which continues to improve this scheme for Australian children. I encourage you to apply to the National Redress Scheme for your own benefit, your compensation and your healing journey. If you experienced sexual abuse when you were a child under 18, the abuse happened before 1 July 2018, an institution was responsible for bringing you into contact with the person who abused you, you were born before 30 June 2010, at the time you applied you were an Australian citizen or permanent resident and the institution you attended has joined the National Redress Scheme, then you may be eligible for redress. You can call 1800737377 or you can go to nationalredress.gov.au to apply.

Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (11:35): [by video link] Child sex abuse survivors deserve better from the Morrison government. This bill goes some way to improving the National Redress Scheme, but it is in no way enough. It is almost a decade since the announcement of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Survivors are getting older, many are still waiting for redress and some are tragically dying and missing out altogether.

The royal commission estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. As at 26 March this year the scheme had received just over 10,000 applications and finalised 5,266, including 5,218 payments. It's processing 3,622 applications, and 755 applications are on hold. These statistics show that there is a massive gap between those estimated to be eligible and those who have so far received a payment. The slow rates of both payments and applications indicate that the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate in its current form and hard for survivors to find. Survivors have spoken of the difficulty of preparing an application, and in a Senate estimates hearing last year we heard that the average processing time for claims is between 12 and 13 months. These difficulties are of course even harder for First Nations people, for people from CALD backgrounds and for people with disability.

While it's positive that this bill is coming forward and making some improvements to the scheme, and so this bill shouldn't be held up, we can't pretend that it will make the changes that the National Redress Scheme needs. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse uncovered some of the worst abuses and the worst failings of government and institutions in our nation's history. For too long we looked the other way. We allowed the cover-ups. For too long we allowed power imbalances to mean that children were abused and then silenced. The consequences for those children, some of whom did not get to grow into being adults, have been horrific. Consequences for their families and for their communities have been horrific. So, in the wake of the landmark royal commission, it would seem urgent that we do all we can to make what reparations we can. Of course we can never fully undo the hurt and the damage that came from this massive abuse of trust. But we can make it so much easier for victims to get the redress that they deserve. That means that the Morrison government should stop dragging its feet and urgently and comprehensively address the major challenges that still exist within the National Redress Scheme.

The scheme that was ultimately rolled out by the government did not fully realise the recommendations of the royal commission. Labor proposed amendments to the scheme in February to align with the royal commission's recommendations, but the government voted them down. Survivors have been clear from the outset. Since the royal commission they have highlighted the following: they are missing out on redress; there's an ongoing lack of survivor trauma focus and ongoing counselling and support; and survivors are seeing their payments chipped away by a low cap, indexation of prior payments as well as an arbitrary assessment framework. The government's amendments to the scheme fall short of what survivors have asked for and what Labor has proposed. The whole point of the royal commission was to listen to survivors, and yet the Morrison government is still not hearing them.

The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 seeks to establish an advance payment scheme for older, ill or vulnerable applicants. The advance payment scheme will provide $10,000 to older, terminally ill or vulnerable people. The advance payment will be deducted from a person's final redress payment. Labor have been calling for an advance payment scheme for some time now, and we do support the change. People have waited too long for the support that they should have. This bill will also seek to reduce the time frame in which prior payments are indexed before being deducted from a redress payment. Indexation will now cease when an application for redress is made, not at the time a decision on a redress application is finalised. Again, this change is not good enough. There has been an ongoing criticism from survivors, and Labor is calling for the indexation of prior payments to cease completely—as well as ensuring that unrelated payments are not deducted. There's no need for this government to be so mean spirited about this.

This bill will also introduce changes to allow the Department of Social Services to extend the time a person has to accept an offer of redress beyond the current six-month limit. This is significant, as a person can only apply for redress once, and, if an offer is not accepted within the allowed time, it's taken as having been refused. The bill will remove the requirement for applications to include a statutory declaration, as this can be a traumatic experience for survivors. The bill will also allow redress payments to be made in instalments if requested by the applicant. As I said, these are welcome changes, but there is still too much that is unaddressed and that has been unaddressed for far too long.

We know that survivors have asked for so much more and that the second-anniversary review of the scheme recommended more. So we have both the voices of survivors and a comprehensive review saying that what the government is putting forward today is not enough. Further changes must be made, and they must include things such as a face-to-face application process for First Nations, CALD and disability communities; lifelong access to counselling for all survivors; improving the quality, scope and geographic spread of support services, including financial counselling; developing a survivor improvement charter to set expectations around privacy service standards; and reviewing the limit of one application so that changes in circumstances and additional information can be taken into account. This is naming just a few of the things that that review found and that survivors have asked for.

It is too important for us to wait to get this right. As I said earlier, unfortunately some survivors are dying before they get to be part of the redress scheme—before the acknowledgement of the hurt and the neglect that they suffered. I urge the government to do better, urgently, to support survivors.

In talking today, I want to pay tribute to all of the survivors, to their families and to their communities. You should never have experienced what happened to you. I acknowledge all of those who told their stories to the royal commission, and I acknowledge all of those who were not able to. I thank the tireless and fearless advocates, people such as Leonie Sheedy of CLAN, who have worked so hard to push successive governments to do so much better. Those are the people that we here in this place must listen to. Those are the people that the Morrison government must listen to. We all owe these survivors a debt. They were failed by institutions. They were failed by this place. It is on all of us to make sure that the redress, the reparations that they get now, live up to their expectations and live up to what's been recommended in the review of this scheme.

I also want to acknowledge in this speech the work of my colleague the member for Newcastle, who, in her community and in this parliament, has been critical to ensuring survivors are heard and has pushed for them to get the redress scheme that they deserve. It's a pleasure to be a Labor member with her and to know that there are such fierce advocates on the Labor side for victims of child sexual abuse.

It seems like I give speeches in this place, time after time, about missed opportunities by the Morrison government—about things that come half done, too late, without enough support for people who desperately need it. This is another one of those occasions. The Morrison government have missed the opportunity to address major structural issues in the National Redress Scheme. They should implement all of the recommendations of the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme and, most importantly, lift the maximum redress payment to $200,000. Survivors have been through so much. They need to be able to count on this redress scheme. We must get it right. We must not add to the trauma. We must help the healing.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:45): I rise in support of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021. It forms part of the initial response our government is taking to the Final report:second year review of the National Redress Scheme, undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. At the outset, I want to put on record my sincere thanks to the minister in the other place, Senator Anne Ruston, for bringing this bill before the House and introducing it as the first tranche of amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. The measures we are discussing in this bill will ensure the scheme is survivor focused and trauma informed, and, ultimately, it will enable fairer outcomes for survivors and enhance the access of a survivor to redress. The changes in this bill align with findings of the independent review led by Ms Kruk, which heard directly from survivors, advocates and other stakeholders. I thank them all for their engagement in the review process.

Recently, I attended a dedication and memorial commemoration at De La Salle College in Malvern, in my seat of Higgins. It was an incredibly moving service, dedicated to the lives of those who've experienced historical child sexual abuse and recognising forever the harm inflicted upon them. I'd like to thank De La Salle College for acknowledging and leading the way to ensuring victims of institutional child sexual abuse have been heard and respected. At that ceremony, we honoured and remembered those students who were victims of historical sexual abuse during their time at the college. It was incredibly difficult for the victims to be there, and they're incredibly brave souls to be there, but we also need to equally understand that De La Salle College has shown bravery in stepping forward to do the right thing by paying reparations for harms of the past.

As a parent and as a paediatrician, it's appalling to think of children put into a situation where those that they are supposed to trust and respect have that stripped from them. They're essentially having their childhood stripped from them. And to listen to the events at the service was an incredibly touching and moving experience. Recognising the past practices that put these students in harm's way is the first step in the process towards healing, and I commend principal Peter Houlihan and the wider De La Salle College community for their efforts in this regard. The victims have been traumatised, and the National Redress Scheme is one small way to help redress what has been a wrong of the past.

As a federal government, we are responding to these past injustices and want to ensure that the National Redress Scheme meets its goals to provide redress to these survivors of institutional child sexual abuse in a timely and effective way. Approximately $490 million has been provided to survivors, with more offers being made each day. A total of 10,665 applications have been received as of June, with 5,700 being finalised. The average payment amount is $84,743 per survivor. Importantly, 500 institutions have so far joined the scheme. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I've heard firsthand the harrowing stories from survivors of institutional abuse. I'd like to thank the chair of this committee, Dean Smith, for so sensitively holding the inquiry and providing a space for victims and advocates to safely express their experiences and what they would like to see change with regard to the redress scheme.

As a government, we understand the enduring pain and trauma that survivors have had to experience and know how much more work needs to be done to ensure the success of this scheme. I would like to say that for so many it can be incredibly retraumatising to have to re-experience and talk about these past experiences. We're committed to continual improvement of the scheme to ensure it is survivor focused. This includes naming those organisations which have failed in their obligations to those survivors by not joining the scheme. Our federal minister responsible for this scheme, Minister Anne Ruston, has named these organisations publicly in order to get them onboard. This is the right course of action and highlights her determination to put survivors of abuse first. We've already committed to stripping recalcitrant institutions of their charitable status and denying them eligibility for Commonwealth grant funding until they join the scheme. This is right and proper.

The redress scheme was established in 2018 in response to the royal commission and has fulfilled a promise to survivors seeking redress for the wrongs committed against them historically—a shameful blight on the history of our country. We're committed to redress for survivors and improving the scheme over the 10-year life span of it, as evidenced in this bill and the measures we're introducing to improve it. The bill gives effect to several key recommendations that are straightforward to implement from the second-year review and that have universal agreement from the state and territory governments, so these are changes that will happen very swiftly. I'd also like to thank those governments of all political persuasions for working so well together to see this scheme implemented and continually improved for survivors. The review made 38 recommendations to increase access to redress and to improve the scheme's operation, and the government is prioritising initial action on 25 of these recommendations either in full or in part, and it is, importantly, investing over $80 million over four years in this most recent budget to support implementation of these recommendations. The government plans to produce a final response to the review in early 2022, following further consultation with stakeholders, institutions, survivors and governments of state and territory denominations before final decisions are made.

There are a number of amendments contained in this bill, and I'd like to point out a couple that I think are incredibly important. The first is the $10,000 advance payment for applicants who are elderly or terminally ill. Certainly, in our redress committee, we did hear of those who were finding it difficult at the end of their life to access the redress scheme, so I'm very pleased that through engagement with survivors and stakeholders it's become apparent that this is an important thing to redress. We know that the nature of institutional child sex abuse means that survivors may not come forward to seek redress for some time. I know this, as someone very close to me who grow up in the UK took many, many years to understand that what he had experienced had actually been criminal. He'd been keeping it secret for so many years and it was only at a school reunion, upon returning to the UK, that he found that his teacher had been jailed for 25 years. The shock for that person was enormous. To know that he was carrying an experience that had not been redressed and had not been acknowledged was extraordinary. So it is important that we recognise that these childhood traumas can take decades to come to the surface, and it only seems fair to introduce amendments that make providing advance payment of $10,000 possible, which will provide applicants with a form of recognition of their abuse early in their application process while they wait for the redress scheme outcome.

Another key change to the bill that was identified is to the way indexation is applied to a survivor's payment. Currently, indexation on a relevant prior payment is calculated from when the prior payment was made until the date a determination on the application is made. This will be changed so that the indexation is calculated up to the point a person submits their application, ensuring applicants are not unfairly impacted by the time it takes for their application to be processed. This processing time is obviously varied for each applicant, so this change will apply to both future and past applicants, acknowledging the need to ensure no survivor is disadvantaged. Importantly, this measure is being covered by the Commonwealth government, meaning no change to institutions' liability. Flexibility will be introduced to the scheme to ensure a survivor can extend the period they have to consider whether or not to accept an offer or seek a review.

Removing the requirement for applications to include a statutory declaration will also make it easier for survivors to apply for redress. This is another key feature of this bill and will ensure survivors will no longer be required to submit a statutory declaration, which can be difficult to obtain for some elderly or vulnerable people. We are in rolling lockdowns in my home state of Victoria at the moment. Moving about and getting this extra documentation is particularly onerous, which many survivors question when they are undertaking this task. This measure is consistent with other social security payments which do not require applicants to complete a stat dec, and brings uniformity. Consequences will still be in place for people who provide false or misleading information. I think this approach is a sensible one.

The other key change is the flexibility of payments, providing survivors the choice of receiving the payment in instalments rather than as a lump sum. We heard in our redress committee hearings that survivors would like to have this change made. This will give survivors control over their management of their finances. Financial autonomy is incredibly important to those who may have had controlling and difficult relationships in their younger and formative years.

I would like to express my gratitude to Ms Kruk and the Ministers Redress Scheme Governance Board, which comprises ministers from states and territories who have carriage of the Redress Scheme, for their support of the scheme. The board have agreed to the changes contained in the bill, and I thank them for their ongoing advocacy to improve the scheme for survivors of institutional child sex abuse.

Lastly, I would like to pay tribute to the survivors. Yours is a hurt that cannot ever fully be redressed. Your childhood has been robbed. I'm deeply sorry. I know everyone in this House is very sorry for those who have suffered at the hands of institutions and perpetrators. I'm very proud of the fact that this government and those in in this House have supported the changes to make sure we can go some way towards redressing the wrongs of the past.

I commend this bill to the House.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:57): It is always an honour to stand in this parliament and try to give voice to the survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions. I'm therefore very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate today, and I do so in strong support of the amendments moved by the member for Fenner on behalf of the member for Barton. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was a necessary and essential response to one of the darkest and ugliest chapters in our national history. We remain forever grateful to the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and a former colleague and friend, the former member for Jagajaga, for their outstanding work in establishing the royal commission and enabling the National Redress Scheme to become a reality.

The royal commission uncovered some of the most horrific abuse of innocent children, often perpetrated by the very people they were entrusted to. That was a gross violation of trust. It was felt deeply in my community of Newcastle; we are not dissimilar to the town of Ballarat, the dreadful epicentre of the institutional abuse that took place over many decades. Until the Redress Scheme, many survivors had not been able to access any form of justice for what had happened to them. While no amount of financial compensation will ever take away that trauma and abuse, the National Redress Scheme continues to serve as an important step in the healing process and a way for many to secure justice for the harm and utter betrayal that occurred.

Labor welcome the legislation before the House today. We believe that the reforms to the National Redress Scheme are absolutely necessary to start bringing that focus back onto the survivor and their experience of the Redress Scheme. The Redress Scheme must be unswervingly focused on ensuring that every decision is made in the best interests of victims and survivors. It must be trauma informed in its approach and practice. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions have consistently told us about their concerns with the National Redress Scheme and its many inadequacies. These are issues that Robyn Kruk AO canvassed in her independent second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. But we need to put on record that that review is a reiteration of the many, many issues that are well known and have been put before this parliament since at least 2019.

There have been three reports handed down to this parliament since the royal commission. Many, as I said, have highlighted that the scheme is not working as it was intended to. I was in this House on 2 April 2019 when the final report, entitled Getting the National Redress Scheme right: an overdue step towards justice, was tabled in this parliament. I was here in May 2020 when the First interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme April 2020 was tabled in this parliament. And, again, I was here on 23 June this year when the Final report of the second year review of the National Redress Scheme was tabled in this parliament.

Of course, the joint select committee, which I have been deputy chair of in both the former parliament and this current parliament, is right now deliberating additional reforms that are required. We're looking very closely at the issue of the funder of last resort, a matter which I'll come back to, and indeed issues around barriers to participation for First Nations people and CALD communities—people who we know are not currently accessing the scheme in numbers that we would expect or want to see. Labor supports the government's decision to finally take some action here. As I said, three reports down; glad to see some legislation now on the table.

We welcome all the parts of the bill, but I think it's also incumbent on us to acknowledge that many of the changes in this particular bill are what I would regard as the low-hanging fruit. They are relatively non-controversial, easy changes to be made. I'm glad that the governance council has agreed to it, but truly these should have been done some time ago.

The one that Labor is especially pleased to see in this legislation is the adoption of Labor's policy on advance payments. This is something that the Scottish parliament, in fact, led the way on. I give a shout-out to our colleagues in the Scottish parliament for advancing this proposition, which we have warmly embraced and now wish to take up in Australia. This is an issue that my Labor colleagues have been pressing for since April of last year. We put this to the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, and bipartisan support was received to ask the independent reviewer, Robyn Kruk, to do some more detailed investigation. I'm very pleased to see that this has finally been given the tick and we are now seeing an early release scheme in legislation.

Advance payments are really all about ensuring that those people who are old, sick or have multiple comorbidities get some compensation before they pass away, because, sadly, I am aware of at least 20 people who have passed away before receiving their redress. I am really very mindful of cases in my own electorate, and I'm thinking now of Frances, who was aged 96 and waited an eternity for redress in her lifetime. She finally was given a redress payment just months before she died, having, as I said, waited her entire life for redress. It just seems now, upon reflection, very cruel that she hadn't received that earlier payment and recognition so that she might have put her mind at rest and got rid of much of that anxiety she lived with. She might have got to enjoy that period of life—a bit longer period of life—before her death. For that and for every survivor that has passed without having that proper acknowledgement, I am deeply, deeply saddened.

We've got many survivors who are worried about COVID-19 and the impact that's going to have on their life, their quality of life and the length of their life. They would like to see this advance payment put in place, as it should be. We have really waited far too long for this to come, but it's a terrifically welcome part of the legislation today.

Another issue that's caused great distress and anxiety for survivors relates to the issue of indexation. This is an issue that CLAN and its advocates in particular have really pressed, both with the committee and I know with government members. Prior to the changes in this bill, survivors were forced to adhere to a very mean and unnecessary provision that left many with little redress. There have been some shocking examples where the indexation has actually reduced people's payments—potentially reduced them to zero—which was, of course, completely unjustifiable and outside of the spirit of the Redress Scheme. So we would like to see indexation as a practice ceased altogether. I need to make that very clear: that remains Labor's position, but at least the government has agreed to ensuring that indexation will not be deducted from the Redress Scheme payment—the clock can't start ticking—until the redress application is finalised.

I'd also like to say it's really hard to overstate how difficult the decision to accept redress is and the emotional trauma that it can really give rise to for a lot of people, so the bill allowing the department of social security to extend the time a person has to accept the offer of redress beyond the current six-month limit is welcome. I'd have to say that it was recommended by the royal commission that this should have been a 12-month period in the first place. So, again, this is another example where a deviation from the royal commission recommendations has not been to the benefit of survivors. I'm glad to see some remedy in this bill on that front.

On the requirement for the statutory declaration: we've had a lot of evidence from the Commonwealth funded knowmore Legal Service, which provides free legal services to survivors, to get rid of this ridiculous and unnecessary component. It's just another additional barrier. I know members have made reference to the fact that during COVID this has been especially difficult, but, regardless of COVID, this was an unnecessary hurdle. There are ample provisions to ensure that any instances of people being misleading—or, indeed, of fraudulent behaviour—can be dealt with through other avenues. It was not necessary to have a statutory declaration to accompany the application, so I'm glad to see that this is now going. And knowmore has been calling for this change since 2017, I think. Here we are in 2021, finally listening and acting.

This bill also finally allows redress payments to be made in instalments at the applicant's discretion. Again, this has been a really important matter for a lot of First Nations communities who have raised these matters with us about needing to have the choice to be able to take the payments in instalments. I know the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency raised this with the committee. It was raised with the committee in the last parliament as part of the evidence we took for our 2019 report, was repeatedly raised again in this parliament and was part of the interim report that was tabled here. So I am pleased that, many years later, the government has accepted this advice.

Every time this government has chosen to move away from the royal commission recommendations, it has been to the detriment of survivors. We need to keep calling that out. That is the value of having the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, because it is now the only platform for survivors to voice their experiences directly with members of the parliament. I want to trust the government's word that this bill truly represents the first real step in a long line of necessary and overdue changes to the Redress Scheme.

My colleagues who have spoken before me have outlined the many shortcomings that remain with the National Redress Scheme. The most egregious harm is actually the lack of reform around the assessment matrix, which sets such low arbitrary payments for the impact of abuse. The matrix is focused on the kind of abuse that takes place, not the impact of that abuse on a survivor's life. Again, this is in direct contrast to what the royal commission had recommended. In my view the term 'penetrative' needs to be removed altogether, as an acknowledgement that trauma is not only caused by penetrative abuse. The Morrison government must reconfigure the redress assessment framework to properly recognise the impact of abuse when calculating redress payments, as recommended by the royal commission. There are many aspects that still need to be addressed on this front. My Labor colleagues and I will be pursuing this throughout the joint committee hearings and holding this government to account at every opportunity. (Time expired)

Dr MARTIN (Reid) (12:12): I rise to support the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse handed down its final report in December 2017. This was after decades of denial of responsibility, of hiding the truth, of institutions and individuals silencing survivors and avoiding reality. We were provided with the stark reality of the crimes, trauma and acts of evil that had been perpetrated against children over many years, often by those tasked with caring for them.

The royal commission shone a light on the experiences of survivors of child sexual abuse. They told their stories and we listened. We believed them. More than 4,000 individual institutions were reported as places where abuse had occurred, with the youngest victim the royal commission interviewed being just seven years of age. More than half of the survivors were aged between 10 and 14 years when they were sexually abused. We know the journey for survivors of child sexual abuse is traumatic and extremely challenging. For many survivors the abuse they suffered can have profound and broad-ranging impacts, with individuals experiencing a diverse range of ongoing health problems, including mental and physical health problems.

The Morrison government remains absolutely committed to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. The government has introduced this amendment bill in response to the Final report: second year review of the National Redress Scheme, undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. That review made clear that changes were needed in order to ensure that the scheme meets it intention of being survivor centred, humane and a less onerous option than civil action.

The government remains committed to continuing to improve the Redress Scheme over its 10-year life. As it stands, the Redress Scheme covers approximately 66,400 sites across Australia. In addition, over 6,100 payments, totalling approximately $519 million have been paid to survivors to date. This amendment bill will establish a $10,000 advance payment for applicants who are elderly or who are terminally ill. This will ensure that survivors have a form of recognition of their abuse early in their application process while they wait for their redress outcome. To assist survivors, they will not need to apply for the advance payment—rather, this scheme will identify eligible applications after receiving a valid redress application or at any time during the application process. It will then offer the advance payment to the survivor.

The bill also changes the date for which indexation of a prior payment is calculated to when a survivor submits an application to the scheme, rather than the date their application is determined. It will also enable flexibility to extend the period in which an applicant can accept their redress offer, and will allow the period for the survivor to seek a review to be extended to be consistent with the acceptance period. It will also introduce the ability for the scheme operator to make redress payments in instalments, to give survivors choice and control over how they receive their payment. The bill also removes the requirement for a statutory declaration application form.

On this last point: while it may seem small, I believe it will have a profoundly important impact. We note that one of the key things we heard and learned from the royal commission was that simply an acknowledgement of belief in a survivor's story can be very significant. Let's remember that some survivors have spent their lives just fighting to be believed. As the second-year review noted, many survivors consider the requirement for a statutory declaration questions the integrity of their application.

The review also made clear that some survivors have difficulty in complying with this step due to being homeless, living in a community where they do not have a birth certificate or if they have concerns about confidentiality, especially in regional communities or for people who have literacy difficulties. Survivors are also required to provide proof-of-identity documentation despite, in many instances, being in receipt of other national government health or social care payments.

The measures in this bill have been agreed to by all states and territories, and the government has committed $80 million over four years in the 2021-2022 budget to support implementation of the recommendations of the second-year review. I recognise that this bill does not address all of the review's 38 recommendations. The government has made clear that it will continue to progress the other recommendations, many of which constitute major changes to the scheme. It will continue to work with stakeholders, and plans to release a final response to the review in early 2022.

From the outset, the government has always been committed to ensuring survivors have access to redress, and the measures in this bill, along with the other work of the government, will ensure the scheme is more survivor focused and trauma informed, enabling fairer outcomes for survivors. It will enhance a survivor's access to redress.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:18): In my comments on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021, I'm going to focus on just a few matters.

This legislation makes several improvements to the Redress Scheme in response to the two-year review of the scheme itself—a review that I believe was very necessary, given that it was a new scheme and that there would have been, understandably, changes required as the administration of the scheme was rolled out. The improvements in this legislation are indeed welcome, but they simply don't go far enough. As the member for Newcastle quite rightly pointed out, there have been some three previous reports with respect to this matter, all of which have raised deficiencies in the current scheme and the administration of it. Indeed, even with respect to this review, where there were some 38 recommendations, not all of them were adopted in this legislation, and nor were many other good suggestions that have been made by both this side of the House and other stakeholders.

The Redress Scheme was initiated by Labor under the Gillard government, in terms of the original royal commission which ultimately led to it. I have no doubt that it was something that not only was well overdue but would have brought a great deal of hope to all of those people who were in institutional care and who had, in some way or another, been violated. To now, after a royal commission, delay improvements that are needed, that have been exposed and that have been identified by the review itself simply draws out the suffering, the anxiety and the trauma of all of those people.

The redress recipients, in my view—and I suspect in the view of all people in this place, based on the comments that I have heard to date with respect to the scheme—have in many cases been living with their trauma for decades. This whole process was initiated in recognition of that and in recognition of the hurt and pain that had been caused to them. And it was about finally bringing to them not only some recognition but some restitution for what they had endured. So, that being the objective, let us, the parliament, now not further delay but instead move quickly to bring some comfort to those very people. In recognition of that delay, I say not only does it cause further hurt but I suspect that in some cases it may even cause an attitude of, 'I'm just hitting my head against a brick wall and I will simply not pursue this matter any further, because to do so just continues to agitate and relive the trauma that I have lived through.' That would be the last thing that we would want to do to the very people that I think we all would agree have suffered enough.

The key change in this legislation is the provision of an advance payment of $10,000 to vulnerable applicants, those being the elderly and perhaps people with a severe health issue, and to provide that $10,000 payment whilst their applications are being assessed. I think that is a good start, but what I hope it doesn't do is simply give people $10,000 as a way of saying, 'Now you can go away and leave us alone.' I suspect that, in some cases, if it gets too difficult for them, that's exactly what they might do. I would hope that this is not going to be the case and that, in fact, the $10,000 will be given in good faith and that their applications are then properly pursued, with all of the support that they might need to do that. So there is that $10,000 payment, along with some other adjustments in the legislation, which I have read through but will not go through in detail, because I think the payment is the most significant of them all. That leaves out some 20 other sensible suggestions that have been made with respect to the administration of the Redress Scheme; those suggestions are simply not picked up.

In his second reading speech, the minister stated that the government's final response to all of the review's recommendations would be provided in early 2022. Early 2022 is the period when we are very likely going to be having an election. So the reality of that statement is that this issue is going to be pushed down the track, and I don't think anyone in this House would know when it is likely to be dealt with. In other words, it is very unlikely that any of those other recommendations will see the light of day in the foreseeable future. I believe that is wrong, given that those recommendations were made in good faith, they are before the government, they are before the parliament, and we should be dealing with them now.

For victims of this abuse, even dealing with the application process would be incredibly traumatic and difficult. I know that because I've actually spoken with several victims. For victims with a disability or a language problem or for a First Nations person, the process would be even more difficult, and we need to do something to make that process much easier for them. I accept that some support measures might be available out there, but they are simply not enough. We should make sure that they are given every bit of support they need to follow through with applications that they need to make. Likewise, with respect to counselling—and that is one of the other matters that have been raised—lifelong counselling should be made available to victims. Having identified that they are victims, having accepted that they are victims, there's no doubt in my mind that those people will require that support for the rest of their lives.

The reality is that reviewing the criteria and the process should be an ongoing thing because different matters arise at all stages of that process. I will give one example of that, concerning one case where I spoke to the victim. The person was already in receipt of some compensation from the institution or the organisation where the abuse occurred. That organisation was one of the first to join the Redress Scheme, but, after it joined the Redress Scheme, the criteria under which that person's payments were assessed changed. The assessment process undertaken originally by the organisation was much more generous and much fairer than the assessment process under the scheme. So the person has actually gone backwards, in terms of missing out on support that might have otherwise been available, because the organisation, quite rightly, joined the scheme but the government's assessment criteria are inferior to those of the organisation. Things like that should never be allowed to happen, because, had the scheme never come in, that person would be in a better position today. I've raised that matter with government, but it seems that we are locked into the assessment process that we currently have. In that case, as I say, the person involved was actually denied the support that they would otherwise have received.

In another matter, earlier this year I put a question on notice to the minister in respect of those organisations that had not joined the Redress Scheme. I thank the minister for his reply to that, which I received recently. The reply said that organisations that had not joined the scheme had until the end of the third quarter to do so. The particular organisation that had not joined at the time and about which I had spoken to victims about their experiences was the Jehovah's Witnesses. I asked the minister again: has that organisation now joined the scheme? In the answer, the minister said that the organisation was in the process of doing so. But I'm still not clear whether they have, and I would like to think that the government would like to know, given that the Prime Minister standing at that dispatch box made it clear that any organisation that didn't join the scheme would lose their DGR status. I would certainly appreciate an update with respect to that matter because I know that there are people within that organisation who are victims and who are finding it extremely difficult to seek redress for a whole range of reasons, which I outlined in another contribution on this matter that I made earlier this year or late last year.

Finally, the people that are directly affected by the Redress Scheme, the victims, are people that not only I but other members in this place have met with, and there are many stories that we can tell. They have all suffered in silence and their lives have been profoundly changed as a result of their experiences. In many cases, that experience was whilst they were in the care of people who were entrusted with actually protecting and looking after them but didn't. They now carry that trauma and that injustice each and every day of their lives.

The royal commission also exposed all of that. We hear very compassionate and understanding words from members opposite and from the government itself. Those words need to be matched by real action. Regrettably, that is not always the case. It reminds me very much of the words about defence veterans we often hear in this place, which, equally, are not always matched by the actions of the government. They become empty words and, quite rightly, leave people feeling even angrier and more hurt than they previously were.

So I say to the government: you have done the right thing. You have reviewed the scheme, and you have the recommendations before you. You should be listening to the words of the people and the organisations that are involved with the scheme. You should be taking on board the concerns that have been raised and the proposals that are being made in order to make the scheme even better. The people who were the victims deserve that, and it's up to the government to deliver on it.

Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (12:31): I believe that the government is absolutely committed to survivors of institutional child sex abuse, and the Redress Scheme has been an important step in addressing the shameful history of institutional abuse in Australia, but there is no doubt that for survivors the pace of change has been frustrating. The Redress Scheme is complex and relies on collaboration with the states, and I don't think that we have always got it right. The government recognises this and is committed to continuing to improve the scheme, and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 adds to that improvement.

There is not enough money in the world that can take away the pain and suffering that so many survivors have carried with them their entire life. While some survivors have gone on to build a life that has brought them joy, many have been unable to sustain meaningful relationships or employment, and many have struggled with addiction and ongoing trauma. Redress can help both in a tangible way and by recognising the intrinsic pain of survivors. People who have experienced institutional child sex abuse have waited too long for redress, and we must continue to listen to their voices and improve this scheme. While the purpose of this bill is to implement recommendations that are reasonably straightforward and aim to improve the survivor experience while seeking redress, it's important to note that this bill is not the extent of action that the government will seek to undertake, with a number of recommendations made in the recent review still under consideration and consultation.

The review found that the redress process was traumatising, bureaucratic and too slow, and these amendments are a step in the right direction to addressing these issues. It's common to hear of survivors who have been brave enough to come forward and tell their painful stories to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, or through the media, being put through further heartache when seeking redress. I recall some time ago listening to an older gentleman, who had called in to ABC talkback radio, telling his story of the horrific abuse he suffered as a child in institutional care and the terrible, enduring effect it had on his whole life, a life of pain and loneliness and trauma. Redress would make his final years a little easier, but he said that the wait was so long he feared he would die waiting. It's not good enough.

It's to people like that man that we owe these amendments so that the Redress Scheme, first established in 2018, will introduce a range of new measures that will make the process, which is already so painful, a bit less so to navigate and far easier to access. The amendments include establishing a $10,000 advance payment for applicants who are elderly—in this case, classified as those over the age of 70 or, for Indigenous Australians, over the age of 55—or who are terminally ill; changing the date from which indexation of a prior payment is calculated so that it is when a survivor submits an application to the scheme rather than the date that their application is determined; and introducing the ability to make redress payments in instalments, giving survivors choice and control over how they receive a payment.

Every individual has their own, unique story, and for some the wounds exist to this day, with some elderly survivors only coming forward with their stories for the first time. We mustn't forget that, while a necessary part of seeking redress, the process involves retelling their life history and telling what brings them to seek redress, which may re-traumatise people. I recognise the scheme has been complex to navigate and can be confronting to survivors. We must seek every means necessary to ensure that this process is as simple as it can be.

I've spoken many times in this place of the need to ensure that there is a trauma informed response within government policy, and I'm pleased that, at least in this situation, these amendments begin to address this issue. One of the proposed amendments before us today is the introduction of flexibility to ensure a survivor can extend the period they have to consider and accept an offer of redress or to seek review of their redress offer. This amendment addresses technical issues in the operation of the legislation but creates a more trauma informed approach, ensuring applicants do not lose the ability to access redress or procedural fairness due to the restricted and disconnected drafting of current provisions.

Of course, the scheme can only seek to appropriately compensate survivors if those institutions which were responsible for the horrific acts of child abuse, many of which came to light during the royal commission, actually join the scheme. I thank Minister Ruston for her dedication to getting the scheme right and for working with the institutions—sadly, far too many of them—to ensure they sign up to the scheme. While many of these institutions have taken responsibility for the abuse that occurred in their school, club, organisation or church, it both saddens and, frankly, enrages me to hear of some who are still refusing to be held to account for the pain and hurt they have caused. Just recently I learned that the Devonport Community Church, in Tasmania, are refusing to join the scheme, as they believe, 'The scheme could be misused by those seeking easy money.' I cannot even begin to properly describe just how offensive this reasoning is. It is completely devoid of any compassion or care. As Minister Ruston has said, it is completely unacceptable that they have failed to meet their moral obligations.

Sadly, the church is one of three institutions that have failed to sign up to the scheme. The minister also said:

These are institutions which know they have been named in applications and yet they have chosen to shirk their responsibility to finally do the right thing by these survivors.

Let there be no doubt that I wholeheartedly support the minister's words.

Unfortunately, seven institutions which did take steps to join have not been found to meet the legislative requirements of the scheme and are therefore unable to join. As such, I commend the government for its commitment to supporting the expansion of funder-of-last-resort provisions to cover institutions that do not meet the legislative requirements of the scheme to join, providing $22.8 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget for the Commonwealth share of expanded funder-of-last-resort costs.

Lastly, this is an opportunity for me to say thank you to every single survivor who has told their story to the royal commission, which has led to the Redress Scheme, and to those who gave input to the scheme and contributed to the more than 450 submissions, surveys and consultations that informed the outcomes of the review. To you, and to all the survivors that have come forward in the years following the royal commission: we must, and we will, do right by you. To all silent survivors of abuse: I hope you can one day find your voice and speak your truth.

In closing, I repeat what I've said before in this place: as important as the National Redress Scheme is, we must also acknowledge that child sexual abuse is not only historic in nature; it happens now, every day, in Australia. Our responses to the issue of child sexual abuse must go further. We must make greater efforts to prevent abuse happening in the first place, and we must have a more holistic approach to recognising and addressing trauma to mitigate the lifelong damage caused to victim-survivors.

Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:39): I rise to address the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 and to commend the member for Bass for her strong support for victims. I know, like all members of the House, that the work of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, which I was a member of in the last parliament and have been a member of in this parliament, is, I think it would be fair to say, a constructive and well-resourced use of this parliament's time. Members from both sides of the chamber and from both houses of parliament have given voice and allowed the voices of many survivors to be heard regarding their experience of the Redress Scheme, which has not been as it was designed to be nor what survivors had anticipated. Today we will be dealing with some legislation to improve the scheme. This also enables me to speak to the chamber about the serious issue of redress that Australia has been grappling with for some time. I wouldn't say Australia now is delivering. I would say that that is underway, but more work needs to be done. We know how important this scheme is to the survivors of institutional child sex abuse. The scheme was a long time coming when it was first introduced, and these steps are a step towards ensuring that it does right by those who access it.

I want to start my remarks today by expressing my disappointment that, while the bill goes some way towards fixing the issues with our existing redress program, it fails to address many of the recommendations of the second anniversary review of the Redress Scheme by Robyn Kruk AO, an eminent Australian who I think has done a remarkable job. I'll touch on some of the recommendations that I think should be supported and that I think survivors also want supported. That's why I'm a strong supporter of the bill today and want to speak on it, in particular the second reading amendment that the member for Fenner, in lieu of the member for Barton, has moved today.

Survivors of child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives for redress for the horrific crimes that were perpetrated against them as children. For decades they have suffered in silence, tormented by the truly awful acts committed against them over many years. Being on the redress committee for a number of year has enabled me to learn and to understand but also to hear the tragic stories of so many people. Growing up on the south side of Brisbane in a loving family with an older brother and sister and with two parents who did everything they could to make sure that their children would be protected and loved but also given every opportunity in the world, I had, I would say, a very idyllic and happy childhood. It really has shown me what a privilege I've had in my life. When I was just a child, I had no understanding of the horrific abuse that was happening in my home city, my state and my country. It puts everything into perspective. Now serving in the parliament, representing my own community—meeting with survivors, talking to them, hearing their stories—and, of course, having the absolute honour of serving on the joint committee has made me a better member of parliament and also, I would go so far as to say, a better person. I have been able to look into the eyes of people who have gone through things that, as a child, I could never have understood would have happened in my life. I have heard witness statements through hours and hours and days and days of evidence and read some of the worst stories that you could ever imagine. The Parliament of Australia needs to hear this as well.

We need only look at the numbers from the previous Labor government's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to see the scope of the impact that child sexual abuse has had. Over the five years of the commission, 16,953 people who were within the terms of reference contacted the royal commission. The commission heard from 7,981 survivors of child sexual abuse in 8,013 private sessions. It received 1,344 written accounts and referred 2½ thousand plus matters to police.

These striking numbers only begin to scratch the surface of just how big the issues were for thousands of Australians, and this speaks to how important it is that we get the redress right. The bill today makes five key changes to the scheme. It establishes an advance payment scheme, reduces the time frame over which prior payments are indexed, allows the time a person has to accept an offer of redress to be extended, removes the requirement for applications to include a statutory declaration and allows redress payments to be made in instalments.

I want to focus on the first one today, and that's the establishment of the advance payment mechanism. This is something that we have been calling for, and in this part of my remarks I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of the member for Newcastle and the work that she has done as the deputy chair. And I also want to acknowledge the current chair, Senator Dean Smith, who has acted in a very collaborative and collegiate way. But the member for Newcastle, Ms Claydon, has really been at the forefront of this, from the experience of her own community and also in being a powerful advocate. I like to say that she is the voice for the voiceless. The bill will establish an advance payment, providing $10,000 to people aged over 70, to First Nations people over 50 or to terminally ill or vulnerable people. Although this is a minor amount, it is a significant amount and we can imagine the recognition that comes with it in helping the mental wellbeing of survivors by being acknowledged, their voice being heard and also a public acknowledgement.

Secondly, the passage of the bill will reduce the time frame for which prior payments are indexed before being deducted from a redress payment. Indexation will now cease when an application for redress is made, not at the time of a decision when a redress application is finalised. We've been calling for the indexation of prior payments to cease completely, and we will have more to say about that. The bill will also allow the Department of Social Services to extend the time a person has to accept an offer of redress. Currently, that period is six months. This is an important change, as a person can only apply for redress once and if an offer is not accepted within the allowed time it's taken to be refused.

The bill also seeks to reduce the trauma of applying for redress by removing the requirement for applications to include a statutory declaration, and the member for Newcastle, in her remarks, made crystal clear why that's such an important provision which needs to be introduced. And, of course, if payment by instalments are requested by an applicant that's not only common sense but I think it's best practice. These changes are important and they will help to ensure that the redress scheme functions in the interests of survivors.

I want to touch on the recommendations in the second anniversary review which the government has so far refused to act on. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Ms Kruk delivered her report to the minister at the end of March this year. In conducting her review, Ms Kruk met with 81 survivors and with support services and government agencies, and she received around 226 submissions on top of the commissioned feedback study, in which 503 survivor support groups and institutions participated. Now, not all groups were happy with the way that process was undertaken. I particularly want to place on record the concerns that CLAN raised when we had public hearings. I pay tribute to all those advocates, but particularly to CLAN. It has been leading the fight for justice for survivors for so long.

Labor has also made repeated calls for significant changes to be made to the scheme, and that's what we're doing with the second reading amendment today: increasing the minimum payment to $200,000, which was a key recommendation of the royal commission; ensuring that payments are not indexed when calculating a redress payment; ensuring that prior payments which do not relate to institutional child sex abuse are not deducted from redress; introducing an advance payment scheme for elderly and the ill; ensuring that governments act as funders of last resort for all institutions; guaranteeing that the review of an offer of redress will not result in the offer being reduced; and providing necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support for recipients of redress.

That's a big issue I want to place on record today that the government needs to do more on. They need to be working more constructively with organisations, support groups and the survivors themselves. We know that there is a huge list of recommendations that are not included in this bill. I want to support and trust what the government is saying on this but, so far, their record in delivering a redress scheme that meets expectations has not lived up to that. As someone who's been following this for a number of years, I really want to make sure that the government hears this message today. They have to do better with the implementation and management of the Redress Scheme in this country.

We have a duty and obligation to those survivors. We have a duty of care to ensure not only that those people's voices are heard but that the scheme is simple and easy to navigate. All the evidence that we've heard is that that is not the case. To be fair to the government, they have tried; but they need to do better. That is not from the member for Oxley or the Labor opposition; it is the voice of so many in Australia saying this scheme needs to work—the families of survivors, the people who have been caught up in this system, the people that haven't come forward yet because of their fears or concerns around accessing the scheme and the difficulties they're having to navigate with the Commonwealth government, their fear of government and their misunderstanding of what's happened. Ms Kruk's report is a really vital and important one. I'm hopeful that the government will look at all those recommendations, and I will take them at their word they will be working through them. While the bill today deals with some of the modifications to the scheme, there is still a huge amount of work to be done in terms of giving justice to survivors.

I will finish my remarks today by paying tribute to the survivors. Understanding their pain and trauma is one thing, but delivering justice for them is another. I commit myself today to making sure that I keep learning from, listening to and hearing their experiences, bringing their voices to the parliament to ensure that justice for the pain and trauma they have gone through their entire lives is not only seen to be done but is delivered.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (12:53): I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse in response to recommendations from the final report of the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. The review makes 38 recommendations to increase access to redress and improve the scheme's operations, making it more trauma informed, more efficient and, ultimately, more survivor focused. The Australian government is prioritising initial action on 25 of the 38 review recommendations in full or in part and is investing over $80 million over four years in the 2021-22 budget to support implementation of these recommendations.

This bill makes legislative changes giving effect to a number of these recommendations. Importantly, the measures in the bill make genuine changes that will have a real and direct impact on survivors' experience in accessing redress through the scheme in the short term while further improvements continue to be made. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories have agreed to the amendments in the bill. Work is underway to ensure administrative arrangements are put in place to enable measures to commence as soon as possible, especially for advance payments to be made.

More substantial changes to the scheme arising from the review require further detailed development work in consultation with state and territory governments, survivors, institutions and other stakeholders. The government is continuing to consider and consult on these issues and I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (12:56): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:56): Discipline in the military is critical to the success of the Australian Defence Force—it almost goes without saying, but it is so very, very true. The men and women who don an ADF uniform are made of special stuff, the right stuff. They are disciplined beyond any measure in civilian life and they need to be. Rigid training hones the discipline in them. The Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021 updates the Defence Force Discipline Act to enhance the management of disciplinary matters within the ADF. These are good amendments; these are timely.

Our ADF is always under pressure; that's the very nature of the critical role it plays and this is certainly so today. Our military personnel, from the Chief of Defence right through to the newest recruit, are also the very best in the world at what they do. I have been lucky enough to visit Al Minhad Air Base, Camp Baird, in the United Arab Emirates twice. The first time was in August 2014 and then again in October 2019. On both occasions, and I had the opportunity to speak to military personnel from other allied nations, I was told that our ADF men and women are the ones they want to serve alongside. Australian men and women are regarded highly for their courage in combat, ingenuity, service, respect, integrity, excellence and discipline.

Of course, ADF personnel are only human. Whether they are old hands in the Special Air Service Regiment or are on their first posting after marching out of recruit training, they still have human frailties. They make mistakes; they err. No-one is perfect, and whether it's an undisciplined act or something of a more serious nature that requires their superiors to intervene then commanders need the tools and the guidelines to enable them to make the right call every time. These amendments do just that.

I have a little historical context—and it's not that ill discipline began at this point; I'm not saying that at all and I'm not suggesting that in any way, shape or form—an interesting anecdote, nonetheless, as part of this debate. But before going into that narrative, I would point out that air forces, armies and navies have been instilling discipline and meting out military punishments for breaches since the start—since that long line of khaki which happened well before Gallipoli. It annoys me that we have some modern military 'historians' who wish to put 21st century slants and revisits, and rewrite such things as Anzac legends, simply to sell a book. Then, there are some journalists and media organisations who are quick to besmirch the good names and reputations of our SAS and others when they are only in possession of half the facts or none at all. The old saying 'I wouldn't want to be in the trenches with that person' certainly applies in these cases. The SAS does so much to protect this nation and to assist other nations. They are the best of the best.

Some of the media coverage attempting to tarnish the names of some soldiers because of a song played at a funeral is, quite frankly, beyond the pale. It's so typical of a society prone to catastrophise the very, very smallest of issues. And those of us who are fortunate enough to have never experienced the physical and mental pressure of a soldier involved in active combat and the subsequent lifelong bonds held between brothers and sisters in arms should not be so quick to assume the worst in people or throw wild accusations which effect the whole, instead of perhaps a few.

As I stated, there is a fascinating piece in relation to the military and disciplinary procedures from way back—although it seems like only yesterday—in my local newspaper, the Daily Advertiser, and I was working there at the time. In the edition of Thursday 14 February 1985, there was an article highlighting the fact that women had just entered recruit training with the 1st Recruit Training Battalion, Kapooka, Blamey Barracks, the home of the soldier. The article said:

The first Australian women to train alongside men in the army arrived at Kapooka last night.

Two buses, one from Sydney and one from Melbourne, delivered 48 new recruits who will go through an intensive training period for the next 11 weeks.

The women, whose average age is 18, will undergo virtually the same training as the men. The only difference is that hand grenade throwing has been completely ruled out—because that is combat related—and there are slight variations on physical requirements.

That, I am thankful to say, has changed. The article continues:

Next week the new recruits will rise at 5.45am to start training drills, field and bush exercises and weapon handling.

The Kapooka recruits form Delta Company and yesterday's arrivals will be known as 31 Platoon. Recruits have come from all over Australia and have signed for three or six-year terms.

The first busload from Melbourne arrived at 5.50pm and the girls shuffled out to prepare for their first taste of army life—standing at attention during a roll call. The second busload arrived from Sydney at 7.20pm. After the roll-call the women dragged heavy suitcases to the barracks, their new home for the next 11 weeks. That period will not be easy one, according to Royal Australian Army ordinance corps Major Bob Antonis.

He said training and night study will mean a 17-hour day for the new recruits and there wouldn't be "time for them to fraternise".

Although the women will be billeted in a barracks less than 50 metres from male soldiers, a "hands off" warning has been issued. An officer spoken to last night would not specify what punishments would be carried out for those disobeying the warning but agreed guilty male soldiers could be in a great deal of trouble.

Senior army officers did not allow us to speak to the recruits when they arrived last night. However, one recruit spoken to in Melbourne yesterday was enthusiastic about her new career.

Helen Jones, 20, from the Victorian town of Portsea, signed on for six years. Recruit Jones has had 18 months experience in the Army Reserve. "I realised I wanted more after being in the Army Reserve," she said.

…   …   …

Delta Company will be under the command of Lieutenant Jill Curry and 31 Platoon leader is Sergeant Gail Legge.

After the 11-week training period the recruits will decide which army trade they will undertake.

The next batch of recruits, 32 Platoon, will arrive in four weeks.

One wonders what happened to those recruits, but it was a proud day when those women arrived at Kapooka. And, indeed, the little anecdote about the fact that there was going to be very strict rules enforced as far as 'fraternising', as the journalist Steve Connolly called it, no doubt that was carried out, because Kapooka has always been the home of the soldier but the home of discipline as well. I'm proud to say it's in my electorate, of Wagga Wagga, and it does a great job. Successive commanders have ensured that the discipline has been what it needs to be at Kapooka. Indeed, this amendment improves the management of disciplinary issues in the entire Australian Defence Force. The act enables commanders in the ADF to ensure and enforce military discipline, and ensure the safety and wellbeing of servicemen and women.

I'm pleased that the amendment will result in a military discipline system that is going to be more efficient and easier to understand and, perhaps most importantly, to use. It will reduce needless delays, while also being fair to those involved. This was a point made by the member for Stirling in his contribution to this debate on Monday. He talked about the fact that it will result in a system that will be far easier to use, and it will reduce unnecessary delays. He should know. Having served in the Australian Army, he would know this. He said:

This is important, because if somebody has a pending infringement hanging over them for months or, potentially, longer then it can impact, certainly, their morale and that of the rest of the unit, and their ability to attend promotional courses and other training activities as well. So it's really important that we get in and deal with infringements quickly when they occur.

Morale is something that is so critical in the ADF. I do acknowledge not only the member for Stirling, but other members in this place who have served. Parliamentarians who have come here having given service in the military, I commend them. We say always thank you to them and to all of those who have served, who are serving and those who will potentially pull on a uniform in the future.

The majority of breaches covered by the DFDA are of a uniquely military nature. They range from offences that are operational matters, right through to being late for work—and sometimes being late for work can be a serious breach. Unlike other occupations where you could be five or 10 minutes late, in the Defence Force this can be a critical error. Serious criminal offences or other illegal conduct can be referred to civilian authorities, such as the civilian police. It is critical that breaches of discipline are resolved expeditiously—and fairly!—to maintain morale, as the member for Stirling pointed out, and to ensure good order and fighting capability.

We need, at all times, to maintain an operationally capable Defence Force with the absolute highest levels of professional competence, and we do; commitment, and we have; and discipline, both on and off duty. As I say, we can be very proud—and we are—of those people who pull on a uniform, because the service and sometimes the sacrifice they make is the ultimate. What they do for and on behalf of our nation in difficult times is beyond measure, and we should be very thankful—not just on Remembrance Day, Armistice Day, or on Anzac Day, but on every single day.

This bill will provide commanders within the ADF with the necessary tools to better carry out their mission. It will reform the ADF's military discipline system, and in particular—and this is important—the lower level summary system and disciplinary infringement scheme so that we do have that ability to get these matters resolved quickly, because resolving these matters quickly is what it is all about. It will make it easier to use the act when dealing with minor disciplinary matters, particularly when deployed on operations. When members are out in the field and things are alleged they can be resolved quickly and amicably, and everybody can get on with what they need to do. It will build on what is working well, and that's important. The disciplinary infringement scheme works by enabling a broader range of minor breaches in military discipline to be managed faster and simply as disciplinary infringements, rather than as the service offences, which are intricate, adversarial, court-like procedures, that currently apply.

This will also provide a more formalised and better structured discipline hierarchy based on the seriousness of the offending, available punishments, rank of the individual—that's critical too—and the seniority of the discipline authority.

As well, the changes introduce several new service offences relevant to the modern ADF. The new service offences to be introduced include, I'm pleased to say: cyberbullying and the related offence of failure to comply with a removal order concerning cyberbullying material; failing to perform a duty or an activity; and failing to notify a change in circumstances when in receipt of a benefit or entitlement. The cyberbullying aspect of this amendment is so critical. We are in a new era where mobile phones can be used, dare I say in the context of this debate, as weapons. People do not need to have some things filmed and then shared amongst colleagues. It makes it so much more critical when you are in either close quarters or close confines with work colleagues, as the unique nature of military service provides. I'm very pleased, and I know that the parliament will also be keen, to see this measure adopted as part of this amendment.

The changes build on the very successful and highly regarded disciplinary infringement scheme. They will provide more opportunity for our people to choose to have a wider range of minor breaches of discipline dealt with in a less-confronting manner than before with the more formal, court-like and adversarial summary authority tribunals. This reduces stress on all involved. What we want and what we are going to get through these amendments is a better discipline system managed well and done properly. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr STEVENS ( Sturt ) ( 13 : 11 ): I think it would be remiss at the commencement of remarks on a bill related to the Australian Defence Force to not first make mention of the milestone yesterday of the exit from Afghanistan of the United States, and of course the experience over the last month, particularly, of our own heroic ADF personnel and other personnel from other agencies—DFAT and home affairs—and the effort that they've gone to to help many people, particularly Australian citizens, safely leave Afghanistan. Of course, I pay tribute to all of those who served there over the last 20 years, particularly the 41 fallen Australians. I pay tribute to them, their sacrifice and, of course, the sacrifice of Australians throughout the history of the Commonwealth in conflict, particularly major conflict overseas and particularly those who lost their lives.

It's a poignant reminder of how significant the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021 is, because our Defence Force is so vital to the national security of our nation. They have our utmost respect, and we need to ensure that our legislative frameworks when it comes to dealing with them are modern and efficient. Those are the two things I would like to reflect on in my contribution in support of this second reading.

I also pay tribute to those who have already made a contribution to this bill, particularly ex-service personnel. I apologise if I'm missing any, but I think I heard the contributions of the member for Stirling and the member for Solomon. There may be other former serving personnel who have contributed to this second reading debate. I was quite interested to hear both of their contributions, because they are uniquely qualified to speak on this. I also pay tribute to my colleague Senator Andrew McLachlan, who I know was quite involved in the process leading to this bill coming to the chamber. He has particular experience when it comes to military justice. I know that other contributors in this second reading debate talked about the contribution that he made to what is now before this parliament. I pay tribute to him.

I'm very proud that we have some excellent ADF capability in my home state of South Australia, particularly RAAF Base Edinburgh, which, frankly, is a RAAF and Army base. It's a vital national security asset to the Commonwealth. Many people who serve on that base and serve in uniform live in my electorate of Sturt, adjacent to that base. We're also very proud to have such a significant defence industry capability in South Australia. We are building the Royal Australian Navy's future frigates and submarines in South Australia. We have other great military assets, like Cultana and Woomera, which are so vital in testing and proofing ranges and so on.

This bill does two important things: it improves the efficiency of our military justice system and it modernises our military justice system. Regarding the second of those, I endorse the comments Mr McCormack, the member for Riverina, made about modernisation, in particular in relation to introducing cyberbullying as a category that needs to be reflected in our military justice system. It is vitally important that we recognise the potential for cyberbullying, not just in the services but throughout our society. We've changed, updated and modernised other elements of our justice system to make sure we recognise the significance of this type of activity as bullying and its potential to lead to very, very significant long-term impacts on victims. In many cases it can lead to suicide. It is a very serious thing, and we need to acknowledge it. We need to indicate that we won't tolerate it and that we believe that anyone who engages in it should be appropriately dealt with.

The amendments in this legislation, which ensure that that's very clear in the military justice system, will send the message to those who serve in uniform that, in the ADF, just like in any other part of our society, we don't tolerate what is emerging as a new form of potential harassment. Mobile phones, smartphones et cetera, and all the various devices that can capture material now, didn't exist in decades gone by, so I understand why it isn't until now that we haven't had a proper mechanism in place to deal with this category of offence. But I am very pleased that it is being picked up in this legislation. I also endorse some of the other modernisation in the legislation, which other speakers have talked about. It is vitally important that, as regularly as possible, we ensure that the military justice system is capable and competent to deal with the most modern, developing offences. They may not have existed in decades gone by but they do exist now and need to be appropriately dealt with through the mechanisms of the military justice system.

Regarding the efficiency of our military justice system, we talked about the lower level summary offences in the Defence infringement system. I particularly note the member for Stirling's comments about this, as someone who has experienced the military justice system. I don't cast the aspersion that he's necessarily been within it, but he's served in uniform and therefore is aware of examples of how, in the past, the system hasn't necessarily been as efficient as it could have been. There's a saying that the punishment should fit the crime, and I think the process should also fit the crime. Though I have not served, I understand from the contributions of those who have that at times some of the disciplinary processes can, frankly, take far too long. For some of the lower level offences, the fact that you've got a question mark over you and you're awaiting the outcome of a particular disciplinary procedure can cause significant impacts on your career. It can hold you back from consideration for certain promotions or impede progression in your career. A comment was made by one of the contributors that, in some ways, having a low-level conviction for something is better than having an outstanding matter for the same allegation. That's because, until that allegation is resolved, you can be put on pause for any progression through the ranks within the ADF. I think we can all agree that it is fair and right that people get access to swift justice, which is fair justice. When certain allegations are hanging over the head of service personnel, they should not have to wait for an undue period of time to get an outcome as a result of potentially avoidable bureaucracy or delays. Equally, and as something else that contributes to the efficiency of this, we believe in the importance of the right to the presumption of innocence.

We also believe in the right of appeal and that when a decision is made against someone, whatever the disciplinary decision might be—whether or not it's a conviction or whatever action it might be—it's important that there's an opportunity for review. Again, that has to be in the context of the scale of the offence and the scale of the consequences that the person is subject to, if they are found to have committed that offence. Equally, when you've got summary justice being distributed, it's important that there is an appropriate scale of review in place for those determinations that might be made against someone. That's another thing that this bill does. It creates efficiency where allegations are made, but it also ensures that there's fairness, there's a presumption of innocence and there's some natural justice in the processes so that, as the scale of an alleged offence is more significant, so too is the substance of the process, the right to appeal and other representation. The military justice system has the same capability as courts martial in undertaking proper trials where the offence meets that threshold. Equally, as has been mentioned by other contributors, the civilian justice system is very commonly referred to when there's an allegation of a crime that's been committed that would be a crime of the same substance outside of the military system in civilian life in this country. I think that's very important. It's important that we make sure that we have a very high standard when it comes to discipline in the forces. Also, if you serve in the forces, you should have the same rights and privileges as any other citizen of this country.

Clearly, the Defence Force needs its own system of enforcing its rules, as the consequence of not doing something—say, not following an order—in the Defence Force is quite different to the consequence in any other workplace. Having the categorisation of offences in the military system that wouldn't be considered offences in other workplaces—you wouldn't use the term 'offence' in other workplaces or our parts of our society—is vitally important within the ADF because, as I mentioned at the commencement of my remarks, we rely on our service men and women so much to secure our national security and the interests of our country. We're proud of them and the service that they provide to our country and have provided throughout our history. This is a good opportunity for us to make sure that the military justice system, which is very important, is modern and efficient so that they are capable of receiving justice and also have no ambiguity whatsoever about the standards and what is expected of them.

With those comments, I thank all those that have contributed to the debate. Thank you for the bipartisan support for this important reform from all those on both sides of the chamber. I think this is an excellent outcome, particularly for the men and women in uniform that serve our nation with such great distinction. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:23): I rise to address the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021. There's no doubt that we live in a changing society with changing workplaces, and the acceptance of many actions and behaviours yesteryear is perhaps no longer permissible, not just in Defence but right across society. There has been a lot of reform within the workplace concerning our treatment of individuals—bullying, for instance. Respect, I think, is the bottom line as well as the value of reaching speedy resolution on problems that exist within the workplace. We all know that a problem in a workplace that is unresolved can cause tension between workmates, and Defence is no different. As the conditions change and society changes, so too do the rules need to change. Defence was once largely a male domain, and it now has a very mixed workforce. Once again, in many cases, activities that may have been tolerated in the past would no longer be tolerated in Defence and, when infringements occur in this area, they need to be dealt with quickly. They're not something you want hanging around for a long time.

I'm sure we've all seen the kind of induction that people get in the defence forces—I haven't served in the forces, but it has been depicted quite well—with the sergeant or the corporal about 50 millimetres away from the inductee, yelling their tonsils out in a very confrontational way. For instance, I had a friend some years ago who joined the reserves. He gave up after a few weeks, when, in the middle of a rain event, he was asked to dig a hole under a tree and, once he completed the task, he was asked to shift it. Basically, he had to fill it in and start again somewhere else. I don't know whether that kind of treatment goes on in Defence today. I suspect it's not the same as it was, because the expectations of society and workers—and, at the end of the day, that's what Defence Force employees are; they're workers—are quite different.

Looking for a bit of inspiration, I googled famous AFL sprays, and I saw Ron Barassi giving someone a dreadful dressing down, Rodney Eade's complete rant and Malcolm Blight—there's a whole list of them. If you watch them, you see that that's not the way they treat their workforce today. They treat them with much more respect because society's expectations have changed, and dispute resolution, as a rule, is dealt with very quickly. Basically, it doesn't fit the bill anymore, and neither does it in the modern Defence Force.

The essence of this amendment is discipline resolution. It's the link between cause and effect: if I sin today, do I get dealt with tomorrow, next week or next year? The purposes that sit within Defence at the moment can often lead to it being next year, because it ends up in an adversarial court situation, which, of course, at the end of the day, only makes people more reluctant to report poor behaviour. This moves in that area. It takes account of the modern world, which the member for Sturt just spoke. The fact is that the electronic world and our mobile phones have such a big part to play in society. There's an instant camera in our pocket or in our hand at any given event, and there is the ability to spread information, misinformation, rumours and all those other kinds of things around on the electronic services. We need to be up to date in the Defence Force as well. I'm pleased that this legislation takes those issues into account.

Our military has an excellent reputation worldwide as a well-trained, highly disciplined unit that can get done jobs that need to be done. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them. Every year, when it comes to those important dates on the calendar—Anzac Day, Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan or Vietnam Veterans' Day—we pause to reflect on those who have served in our country's service. But we shouldn't forget them on any given day. Certainly, individuals get changed in the defence forces and generally, I would say, for the better—not always, because sometimes they come away with poor experiences and things that cause mental issues. But, in general and across the board, if one of my children were wanting to go into the military, I would be encouraging them, not discouraging them. That's what I think of the organisation and the values that it holds and the important role that it delivers for Australia's place in the world. That's why we need to keep it relevant. That's why we need to keep it up to date. I'm pleased that this legislation is receiving bipartisan support. I commend the proposed legislation to the House.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:29): I think the member for Grey was expecting it to be 1.30, but he's given me an opportunity to begin my contribution, which will continue at an appropriate opportunity. In speaking to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, can I first acknowledge that I am speaking today on the 70th anniversary of the ANZUS treaty, an incredibly significant agreement between our nation, New Zealand and the United States. That treaty is in particular focus at this time, given the events at Hamid Karzai International Airport in recent days.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:18): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled One nation, one family, one future: deepening relations with the Pacific nations through trade.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr TED O'BRIEN: by leave—Before I go into the nuts and bolts of this report, can I just reflect very quickly on the title—one region, one family, one future—because it encapsulates not a summary of the report's recommendations per se but the outlook of the committee when deliberating on and formulating this final report. You see, together with Pacific island nations, we of course do share one region. We are their backyard as much as they are ours. But we're more than neighbours that just happen to live close to each other. Indeed, we have an affinity between our people that goes far deeper, something that is more akin to a family, and as a family in one region, indeed, we have a shared destiny—thus one future.

After 56 submissions and eight public hearings, including round tables with diplomatic representatives of Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Kiribati and also with many businesspeople within the Pacific region who are trading and investing, the inquiry looked at both the challenges and the opportunities. We as a committee have therefore together put forward this report for government consideration. In doing so we make five recommendations to government.

Firstly, we recommend the government prioritises its support for the Pacific region to recover from COVID-19 by increasing development assistance, providing vaccine coverage and assistance in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak and assessing opportunities to restore international trade and travel when it is safe to do so.

Secondly, we recommend the government prioritises activation of greater trade and investment with countries of the region by considering measures and reforms to the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, known as PACER Plus; providing support to make it easier for Pacific islanders to access the Australian market; supporting further research into trade and investment; supporting the establishment of national standard bodies; supporting the Pacific Quality Infrastructure Initiative; promoting pilot investor tours to Pacific island countries; and assisting countries wishing to join Australia's kava commercial importation pilot.

Thirdly, we recommend the government improves travel and mobility between Australia and countries of the Pacific region by establishing a Pacific travel bubble subject to health advice and related processes; investigates potential for improving infrastructure; introduces a Pacific travel card: that is, a Pacific business travel card; and improves labour mobility arrangements.

Fourthly, we recommend the government works towards deepening people-to-people ties between Australia and countries of the Pacific region through sport, churches and media. In particular, a centrepiece of this recommendation, and indeed of the report, is a proposal to introduce a new program called Team AusPac, which would be spearheaded by the Australian government and, in partnership with relevant sporting organisations, would create a special program for Pacific island athletes as part of the Australian Institute of Sport; expand the number of sports to receive special focus under the PacificAus Sports program; build greater capacity for sporting coaches and trainers; and lend support for consideration of a team from a Pacific island country to enter the Australian rugby league competition, the NRL. Team AusPac would also maximise opportunities for Pacific island countries to be closely associated with, and actively participate in, the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Australia, in South-East Queensland, which we have branded as Brisbane 2032.

Fifthly, we recommend the government recognises the important role played by Australian states and territories in our relationship with Pacific island countries, in particular the state of Queensland, which acts as a gateway to the Pacific. It follows, therefore, that the committee recommends the government analyses the outcomes in this report within a Queensland context; undertakes a feasibility study on expanding the services of a Pacific focused office of DFAT, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in Queensland; and engages the Queensland government and its relevant local government authorities to work collaboratively on aspects of this report.

I thank all witnesses and those who kindly shared their insight and advice with the committee, in particular the diplomatic and government representatives of Pacific island countries. I also thank my deputy chair, Senator McCarthy; chair of the joint standing committee, Senator Fawcett; and my fellow committee members. I also say thank you to the dedication and professionalism of the secretariat, in particular Andrew Dawson.

This report does not pretend to be an all-encompassing report or a roadmap about deepening ties with Pacific island countries across all areas. Rather it builds on the great work that the Australian government has been doing in this field and focuses in particular on areas of trade and investment. While we make these recommendations for how we might deepen relations with Pacific island nations and their people, we do so believing that we are indeed one region and one family with one future. With that, I'm happy to commend the report to the House.

Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:25): Before question time, I was taking the opportunity when leaning into this bill to acknowledge the 70th anniversary of ANZUS. It's often said that blood is thicker than water, and that is true. But what I've also found is that bonds formed in trenches, in combat and in circumstances of particular difficulty are the strongest bonds of all. The Australian people and our Defence Force personnel have stood shoulder to shoulder with US defence force personnel in every conflict and skirmish, every theatre of war, for over more than 100 years. That camaraderie and mateship was confirmed 70 years ago with the establishment of the ANZUS treaty.

I'd like to also quickly reflect on the events most recently at Hamid Karzai International Airport. The anniversary today brings into the cold light of day that relationship but also causes all of us to reflect on the efforts at that airport, where reportedly 13 US defence force personnel lost their lives in the last hours of the evacuation as a result of the evil actions of ISIS-K, who snuffed out the lives of both the brave and the innocent as a result of that disgraceful act of terrorism.

I of course support the bill, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021. The bill in essence does three things: the reform measures set out in the bill will result in the military discipline system being easier to understand, they will reduce unnecessary delay and they will allow commanders to more simply and quickly address poor behaviour and create an opportunity for early intervention to better support our incredibly professional and brave ADF personnel.

Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I've got a background in the law. I spent my professional life before entering this place defending individuals facing criminal charges. I know a few things about criminal law systems. The first of which is that they need to be easy to understand. They operate in both the general deterrent and specific deterrent spaces. If these systems aren't well understood then it derogates against the ability for that system to operate in a specific deterrence capacity but equally—and I'd argue more importantly—in the general deterrence space. People need to understand very easily what the systems are that will see them brought to trial. It's trite to say, but obviously justice delayed is justice denied. So we owe at least as much to our Defence Force personnel in that, if they are subject to disciplinary action, that action is taken as expeditiously as possible and we do everything we can to mitigate against delays. That's because, ultimately, a delay in these proceedings creates unfairness and, in many cases, it avoids there being a fair outcome.

Finally, we need empowered commanders and leaders to be able to deal with matters quickly to address poor behaviour. There are issues that pertain to morale which sit around questions of how one deals with poor behaviour, particularly within an organisation such as Defence. These are unique beasts, if you like—not the personnel, but rather the organisation of Defence. It's a unique beast, and commanders need to show authority and need to be able to move simply and quickly. They need to be able to nip certain behaviours in the bud quickly, if you like. Equally, those who are subject to allegations of an invariably minor nature—of course, serious matters are referred to the requisite police force for more serious consideration—need to have them dealt with as quickly as possible, both to nip those behaviours in the bud, as I said, but, equally importantly, so that the anxiety and stress around minor skirmishes can be dealt with.

On reviewing the detail, as I did after this matter was discussed within our party room, I was quite surprised to form the view that many of these issues haven't been dealt with at this point before. I'm pleased they're being dealt with now and I hope that this will provide our Defence Force personnel with a greater degree of certainty around the disciplinary system to be used, that it will limit delays and empower our commanders to deal with minor matters as quickly and expeditiously as possible. I thank the House.

Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:32): I would like to thank all members who contributed to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021. I would particularly like to thank and acknowledge those members who have served our nation in uniform and brought their considerable experience and understanding to the debate on this bill. I also acknowledge the member for Blair and those opposite for their support of this bill in this House.

This bill will reform the system of military discipline for those who serve in our Defence Force by improving the way discipline officers and summary authorities operate under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. It builds on the success of the Discipline Officer system and will enable minor breaches of discipline to be managed as a disciplinary infringement. In doing so, it will remove the stress of lengthy criminal-like investigations and court-like procedures that apply to matters dealt with by summary and superior military tribunals. It also introduces a new cyberbullying service offence. This will send a very strong message to those in uniform that the use of social media to cyberbully another person is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the Australian Defence Force.

Discipline lies at the heart of military service. These reforms will better support Australian Defence Force commanders and give them the tools they need to defend Australia and its interests. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr GEE (Calare—Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:34): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (16:34): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021(the bill)makes minor amendments to theNational Health Act 1953(the act) to expressly provide for the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Instrument 2020(the CAPS Instrument) to confer review functions on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

On 16 January 2021, the CAPS Instrument was amended by the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Amendment (Merits Review) Instrument 2020 (merits review instrument 2020), to provide for internal review of decisions by the Secretary of the Department of Health (the department) under the CAPS Instrument. The secretary delegates power and functions to the executive in the department with responsibility for the CAPS Instrument.

The merits review instrument 2020 also enables CAPS participants or their nominated organisation affected by the secretary's internal review decision to apply for an independent merits review by the AAT of the initial review decision made by the secretary.

The bill amendments to the act will validate AAT review decisions made under the CAPS Instrument.

CAPS participants are unlikely to seek an independent merits review by the AAT, as Services Australia who administers the program works with CAPS applicants to resolve issues relating to their eligibility.

Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (16:36): [by video link] I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021. Labor supports this bill. It makes important changes to the Continent Aids Payment Scheme, otherwise known as CAPS.

CAPS is an annual or six-monthly payment available to people who suffer from permanent and severe incontinence. The changes made by this bill will allow people to apply for an internal review or go to the AAT for a decision made by the department secretary with respect to their representatives or payments made under the scheme, because continence aids are not cheap. They are expensive, yet they are a vitally important product to those who need it. For many, the CAPS goes a great way to making people's lives vastly better, so we support this bill.

For the vast majority of Australians, incontinence is not a subject they discuss on a regular basis. It often doesn't make headlines or feature at the barbecue banter or the water cooler chats, and rarely does it make its way to the chamber. But, if you look at the statistics, chances are at least one person around the barbecue or the water cooler might just be experiencing incontinence of some sort—as might several people right here in this chamber now. You see, incontinence affects one in four adult Australians.

Men do suffer with it, but mostly it affects women. Urinary incontinence affects up to 10 per cent of Australian men and 38 per cent of Australian women. Eighty per cent of those with urinary incontinence in the community are women. And it's not only the aged that have this issue: over half of women living in the community with urinary incontinence are aged under 50 years. Women who have had two or more vaginal deliveries are at higher risk of developing urinary incontinence. In fact, injury during childbirth is the most common cause of the damage leading to stress incontinence.

Although women are more predisposed to this condition, men are also commonly affected. Generally, males who have had their prostate removed or resectioned are more likely to suffer from incontinence, and another population that has that higher incidence is male and female athletes. This includes both endurance athletes and powerlifters. However, this condition can be tricky, because it can result from many different stresses and causes, and of course it's important to note that incontinence can be both urinary and/or faecal. Damage to the nerves, muscle and connective tissue of the pelvic floor can be a cause of stress incontinence, which happens when physical movement or activity, such as simply coughing, sneezing, running or lifting heavy objects, happens. These things put stress on your bladder.

Other causes can include weakness or tightness in the pelvic floor muscles, lower back problems, pain, excessive weight, nerve injuries and more serious pathology. Additionally, surgery in the abdominal area can lead to incontinence. Other risk factors commonly linked with it include pregnancy, younger women who have had children, menopause, urinary tract infections, constipation, reduced mobility, neurological and musculoskeletal conditions, and health conditions such as diabetes, stroke, heart conditions, respiratory conditions and prostate problems, and some medications. Of course, many Australians with neurological, genetic and other disabilities require aids. Sadly, a risk factor for faecal incontinence is urinary incontinence, so one follows the other.

I mention all of this, uncomfortable as it may be to hear, because, as you can see, incontinence is not some vague mystery illness or rare disease. It is as common as all get-out and it's all around and amongst us, so it's important to talk about it in places like this, outing it as an everyday experience that deserves attention. It's important to show that we are informed, that we understand and that we care. It is an issue that is too often hidden, and people are often reluctant to come forward and get treatment. We know that 65 per cent of women and 30 per cent of men sitting in a GP waiting room report some type of incontinence, yet only 31 of these people will seek help. We also know that 70 per cent of people with urinary leakage do not seek advice or treatment, and this is especially true for men. For example, urge incontinence, a strong and sudden need to urinate, occurs commonly with prostate disease. It has a low incidence in young men and increases as men age. As it's a sign of potential cancer, it's extremely worrying that people don't feel they can report it or seek treatment.

Research tells us that many people with incontinence don't seek help. Depending on the individual's personal beliefs and feelings about the condition, they might not be bothered by it or try to hide it or deny it or not want to talk about it. It can cause anxiety, frustration, anger and even grief. There are feelings of embarrassment and shame, and often an overwhelming sense of loss and grief because of the inability to control this bodily function. Understandably, it comes with low self-esteem or confidence. People feel lonely and isolated. There can be a loss of desire for intimacy and an impact on sexual activity. The impact on mental health is immeasurable. As I said, this is far from a condition limited to the elderly, as people imagine. So many young people are affected. For example, 44 per cent of women living in the community with faecal incontinence are under 50 years of age—astonishing.

But, with respect to older Australians, the outcomes are stark. It's a major risk factor for admission into residential aged care. In fact, faecal incontinence is one of the three major reasons, along with deceased mobility and dementia, for admittance to residential aged care. Another study found that 81 per cent of women and 75 per cent of men in permanent residential aged care had some degree of incontinence that was not self-managed. We were shocked by some evidence given to the royal commission into aged care on the prevalence and lack of management of incontinence in aged-care facilities. So often the smell of urine permeates from the nursing homes where the problem is not well managed. The commission heard that some management practices actually lead to residents becoming incontinent. I know that such practices can be related to understaffing, where carers and nurses simply don't have the time to toilet residents frequently. As a nurse, I remember good nursing practice is toileting a resident every two hours, and what we know now about current staffing issues in aged care is that that would be impossible, so incontinence pads are used instead. Some poor residents sit in wet pads and beds for long periods of time. Consequently, they lose bladder tone and they become prone to urinary tract infections, which again contribute to incontinence. It is a vicious circle.

Carers and nurses in residential aged care have reported to me that incontinence pads can be rationed. They are locked away. They're not changed as often as they should be, and this is shameful and avoidable. Any review of funding for aged care should of course ensure enough staffing to properly attend to hygiene needs, including toileting. But also residential aged-care facilities should be held to account for poor continence practices. I believe the Continence Foundation of Australia has commissioned the National Ageing Research Institute to develop and test a best practice model for continence care in residential aged care. That's great; I welcome that. But will there be enough staff to implement their recommendations? The royal commission recommended an increase in care minutes and a registered nurse on shift in every nursing home. Yet the Morrison government has only accepted part of that recommendation; it's only gone halfway. Those extra minutes of care, those extra staff, could mean residents sitting in soiled incontinence pads and soiled beds for less time. It might even mean more staff to properly toilet their residents so that incontinence pads are not soiled or needed at all.

Worryingly, recent data has shown we are facing a critical aged-care workforce shortfall of more than 110,000 workers in the next decade. CEDA chief economist Jarrod Ball said:

We will need at least 17,000 more direct aged-care workers each year in the next decade just to meet basic standards of care.

The National Centre for Vocational Education Research has revealed that since the government came to office there are over 4,000 fewer health and welfare support workers and over 3,000 fewer aged- and disability carers. This is a cut of more than 7,000 workers to those coming through the skilled workforce.

The workers in aged care and disability are exhausted, overstretched and under-resourced to the limit, and they lack the resources they need to take care of older Australians and people with disability. I wonder if the minister for aged care understands this. I wonder if he gets the real-life implications of an acute shortage of workers and of aged-care workers not having enough time to properly care for their charges. Imagine how you would feel as a carer, knowing an elderly man has soiled his incontinence pad and you can't get to him to change it because you're tending to dozens of other residents at the same time. I ask the minister to imagine if that elderly man was himself. He isn't exactly a young man—not that there's anything wrong with that; I'm not being ageist here at all! But he isn't all that young and his elderly years are indeed ahead of him, as they are for all of us, me included. I wonder how he would feel knowing he may find himself in a nursing home in need of incontinence pads. I hope that is a sobering thought. Maybe incontinence and this subject isn't something he turns to but something he turns his nose up at. Better management of incontinence and indeed maintenance of continence where possible means prioritising.

It takes specialist care and knowledge to care for an incontinent person. As a nurse, I saw close-up the role of specialist continence nurses and the important work they do in helping people deal with a life-changing development. Their role is so intimate, so personal and vitally important. They deal with so many questions, about coping at home, managing while at work, dealing with embarrassment and dealing with intimate relationships, that impact on personal lives. Continence care nurses are specially trained nurses with advanced practice skills in continence care. They are experts in its management. They are skilled to help people from different cultural backgrounds at different stages of their life across a multitude of communities in a range of settings. A nurse continence specialist provides services as an integral part of the healthcare team along with other allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and pharmacists. Their roles need to be fully recognised and resourced to help people with incontinence have the best lives they can.

Our experts spend a lot of time working with and helping carers of people with incontinence. Carers, I must add, can feel overwhelmed with the stress arising from life and relationship changes. There's the huge financial burden of continence care. There's increased time and costs spent on cleaning clothes and bedding. They may find their behaviours in their loved ones difficult to understand and accept, making it harder for them to help the person achieve the best outcomes for each of them. For carers, it's especially important to recognise their own changing emotions and feelings—especially carers for people with disability, who may be a child, a sibling, a partner or another relative. It can be exhausting and straining.

That brings me to mental health care needs for someone with incontinence and their carers. As I've mentioned, the impacts of incontinence on people's lives can lead to depression, poor self-image and even suicide. People with incontinence must be able to access affordable mental health care. So, while we support this bill, and it is an important bill for all of the reasons I've mentioned, it's imperative that the government understand the broader impacts of incontinence on the community and their failings, especially when it comes to aged care, disability care and mental health care. I'd just like to finish by adding that, if anyone by chance is listening to this speech and thinks they need assistance, you can find out where your local nurse continence specialist is by calling the National Continence Helpline—it's a free call—on 1800330066.

Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:50): I thank the member for Boothby and the member for Indi for allowing me to talk ahead of them today on the National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021. This is a speech I really want to give, because I want to give the perspective of people with disabilities and incontinence. I've cared for many children as they grew into adult life with severe disability, and I remember the difficulties that their parents faced with them as they approached adult life with faecal and urinary incontinence. Of course, we're all born incontinent. For most of us, as our children grow, we toilet-train them and, at around two to three, most kids are toilet-trained. It's a very exciting time for a parent when your little boy or girl—it's usually girls earlier than boys—is finally toilet-trained and you can go out without the need to take nappies with you. You go out knowing that you will be doing an exploration of all the local toilets as your two- or three-year-old wants to use them all! That's a really exciting time.

For many of the kids that I looked after, that didn't happen. I can remember the excitement that some parents had when they would bring their 16- or 17- or 18-year-old child in to see me, and their child was finally toilet-trained after all those years. But of course many children with severe disability progress into adult life still requiring continence aids. That is a really difficult problem. My secretary, Cheryl Roberts, has worked for me now for over 35 years. Her daughter Stacey had severe disability. Even in her 20s she was not continent. I asked Cheryl just today, before I gave this speech, what the problems were that she faced. The first thing that people face with this issue is the cost. I looked today, and the cheapest price for small adult sized nappies was $29.95 for a pack of 28. That's only relatively small ones. For medium sized ones it was $49.95 for a packet of 28. And for the large sized ones, which many of these now-adults need, it was $61 for a packet of 30—$2 a nappy. It's a huge cost.

In days gone by, before these were subsidised, the parents had to meet those costs themselves. Many of the kids that I saw didn't come from wealthy families. On several occasions I actually paid for nappies for an adult child. It was the introduction of the PADP scheme, the Program of Appliances for Disabled People, run by state governments, that allowed some subsidies to be provided for incontinent older children, over the age of five, and incontinent adults. That was a huge positive in their lives. Subsequently federal government funding became available, and now, with the NDIS, there's been a dramatic improvement in the lives of these families and these kids. Cheryl explained to me that the difficulties were not only in paying for the cost of the nappies. Cheryl's daughter Stacey, towards the end of her life, weighed over 80 kilos. Cheryl herself is only 60 kilos, and she had to not only find a place where she could actually change her adult child's nappy but be able to lift her and manipulate her. That was a real difficulty because even baby change rooms don't cater for incontinent adults. Cheryl said she often resorted to changing her daughter on the floor without any help to manipulate her.

This is a very important bill because it allows more access to continence aids for people who are incontinent, and appeal rights for them. There is not only the cost of it; there are physical, psychological and social costs. Having a child with severe disability who is incontinent as they approach adult life is a real difficulty. Not many places are designed to deal with this. As Cheryl and many families have pointed out to me, they are very restricted as to places to change their adult child. The Continence Foundation of Australia mentioned this in the snapshot they did a couple of years ago about what incontinence means for disabled people.

I think this bill is very important in allowing people more rights to appeal decisions about funding for continence aids and supports. I would also add that we need to make venues more understanding of how to manage continence difficulties in adults—in particular, adults with disability. This bill is a very good beginning of that. As the shadow deputy minister mentioned, we need also to be aware of the importance of proper continence management in special aged-care facilities and disability-care situations. We know that, if continence issues are not dealt with for adults who have mobility difficulties, lying in wet nappies for long periods of time not only increases the risk of urinary tract infection—and that can be an end-of-life event in very old fragile people—but can lead to the development of pressure sores, extreme discomfort, pain and a lot of suffering. Continence is a really important issue as adults approach the end of life.

We support this bill, and I think there's much more that could be done to support those with continence difficulties. In particular, I really want to make the point that continence is a specialised issue both for people with disabilities and older Australians. I fully support the development of continence clinics which are able to deal with this very special condition in a specialised way and in a way that shows understanding of the difficulties that it causes. We know that continence in adults can relate to a whole range of neurological difficulties, mobility difficulties and dementia. For men, it can follow prostate surgery. For women, it can follow childbirth and gynaecological surgery. These are issues that all of us may face as we go through life. It is a highly specialised area and one that can be managed much, much better if the people that are dealing with it understand the issue and are able to access the services and supports that are needed for people with chronic continence issues. The Continence Foundation of Australia has studied this deeply. At any stage, around 15 per cent of the Australian population have some issues with continence—and many of them are quite severe, particularly with an ageing population. It is very important that these issues are addressed for quality-of-life management and also to help families who may be dealing with an adult with continence difficulties.

I don't want to talk for too long. I support this bill strongly, but there is much more that could be done. An investment in the management of continence in Australia would be very worthwhile for people with disabilities and for our ageing population. I support the bill, particularly for my clients who have disability and continence difficulties in adult life. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (16:59): I would just acknowledge the contributions and expertise of the members for Cooper and Macarthur on this very important issue. They have both had very successful careers within medical services in Australia. I know that they have just provided a lot of information that will be of great use to people watching today or listening at home.

The National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021 will reform the review of decisions made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Instrument, conferring review functions of decisions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This will allow for Australians who are using the CAPS program, or their nominated representative, to apply for an independent merits review by the AAT for decisions made under the program. This is a commonsense reform to the scheme's operation and brings it into line with many other programs and benefits offered by the federal government to Australians in need.

I think it's important to reiterate what the members for Cooper and Macarthur have said and explain a little bit about why this program is needed, who this program assists and how the program helps people before again reiterating why the changes to this legislation are needed. The CAPS program assists people suffering from incontinence. This, like many other health issues that involve bodily functions, is not something that many people are comfortable talking about or letting others know that they suffer from. So I hope that by discussing this bill today, and the broader issues, we might help someone watching or listening to get the help they need or to discuss their problems with somebody—to assist in understanding and to gain support. Again, I thank the members for Cooper and Macarthur for lending their medical expertise. The member for Cooper was a nurse and the member for Macarthur was a specialist paediatrician, and they have both had personal experience in supporting people and families with incontinence issues.

Incontinence is described as follows by the Continence Foundation of Australia:

Continence is the ability to control your bladder and bowel. Incontinence is the involuntary loss of bladder and bowel control.

This affects approximately 15 per cent of the Australian population. If you would like more information about continence and incontinence, please visit the Continence Foundation of Australia website, which is continence.org.au. You can find a lot of very clear and easy-to-understand information, and you can find out more about where to get help and support. The Department of Health also provides the National Continence Helpline, which is staffed by a team of continence nurse advisers and is available to anyone in Australia. It operates from 8 am to 8 pm, eastern standard time, Monday to Friday. You can contact the hotline on 1800330066, and that's a free call.

It's really important to understand that incontinence can affect anybody: men, women, young adults, teenagers and children. For sufferers, it can be deeply embarrassing and affect and impact every part of their daily life. But, as the Continence Foundation of Australia explains, there's a lot of help available to people, so, again, please visit their website at continence.org.au or call the Department of Health's national hotline from 8 am to 8 pm, eastern standard time, Monday to Friday, on 1800330066.

There are many specific health issues that can cause incontinence. In men it may be because of prostate issues, or perhaps after prostate cancer surgery or perhaps because of pelvic floor issues. In women it may be because of menopause, pelvic floor issues or as a direct result of childbirth or prolapse. It can also affect children and teenagers for a variety of reasons. A range of other serious diseases and medical conditions can also cause incontinence, from stroke and diabetes to dementia and Parkinson's disease, and arthritis and mental health conditions may be linked with incontinence, even if they don't directly cause it.

People with incontinence often need careful planning in their days; they need to make detailed plans for travel and ensure that they have the continence products they need, which is what this bill is all about. Those who care for people with incontinence also take on an involved and taxing task. It can complicate even the simplest of tasks that most of us take for granted. It can often be one of the most difficult aspects of caring, as the member for Macarthur has just powerfully described. It can be unpredictable and add a lot to a carer's workload. For this reason, there's a huge psychological toll and impact on carers but also, of course, on the person who is suffering from incontinence. If the condition is not managed well, people may experience feelings of rejection, social isolation, dependency, loss of control, and may also develop problems with their body image. These immense pressures can, of course, also impact carers, overwhelming them with stress and straining their relationships.

While the CAPS program could be considered small within the context of the broader health budget, the subsidy and provision of incontinence products can have a huge impact on a person's life. In addition to the social cost, this has an impact on Australia's overall health system. A Deloitte Access Economics report commissioned by the Continence Foundation of Australia estimated that incontinence cost Australia's health system around $450 million last year alone. The report estimates that further costs born by the economy generally include productivity losses numbering into the tens of billions, the costs of formal care and aids that this program assists with directly, and the burden of the problems themselves. This is why the effective delivery of this scheme to all who are entitled to it is so important.

Every year, the CAPS program helps around 130,000 Australians by providing financial support of more than $620 to each person to assist them with the cost of incontinence products. This benefit is non-taxable, it's offered on an annual or six-monthly basis and it is provided to those who are over four years of age and have permanent and severe incontinence. Earlier this year, the CAPS instrument was amended to provide for an internal merits review of decisions by the secretary of the Department of Health and, following internal review, an independent merits review of the internal review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This bill amends the National Health Act to make it clear the results of merits reviews conducted by the AAT are valid. This amendment will take effect immediately after the royal assent, and it is an important administrative improvement to the program's operation and to the previous reform. The program is administered by Services Australia, who work with CAPS applications, and applicants, to resolve issues relating to their eligibility, ensuring there are very limited numbers of applicants who wish to have decisions reviewed. In instances where an applicant wants to have a review, they should be entitled to one, and this is what this bill achieves.

Resources such as continence products provided through the CAPS program work hand in hand with such things as the federal government's National Continence Helpline, which I have previously mentioned, and also the National Public Toilet Map app, which shows the location of 19,000 public toilets Australia-wide and is a resource also provided by the Department of Health. If you have a google, you'll be able to track down both of these very important information resources. These initiatives also, importantly, work alongside the NDIS funding, which the member for Macarthur mentioned, and have had such a huge impact for people suffering from incontinence. There are also state and territory run resourcing and funding schemes so that everybody receives the support they need to manage their incontinence.

We know that independent merits reviews are key to accountability and transparency in decision-making that affect Australians in many ways, and, as such, this is a sensible reform. The bill is designed to provide more support to those that need it most, and it builds upon the Morrison government's strong record of investment in health and health care. We could not afford to provide this sort of support without the Morrison government's strong economic management that allows a range of health investments such as this. Broadly speaking, the Morrison government is investing a record $121.4 billion in the year 2021-22, and $503 billion over the next four years, to provide more support to Australians as we face some of our greatest health challenges in a generation, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

I've already referred to the mental health impact that incontinence has on sufferers and also on carers, as did the members for Cooper and Macarthur. I do just want to note that we have made a record Commonwealth government mental health investment through our $2.3 billion investment in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. This includes creating a landmark national network of up to 57 additional mental health treatment centres and satellites for adults around Australia, as well as more centres for youth and children through the Head to Health and the headspace programs. I'm incredibly proud the Morrison government is delivering this record mental health support at a time when the nation most desperately needs it. Improving the mental health of Australians is one of the Morrison government's key priorities and, of course, it has never been more important following the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. I know in my electorate, for example, we are already seeing the benefits that further mental health investment has, through the recently opened headspace centre in Marion, in the heart of my electorate of Boothby. We know that early intervention is essential to minimise longer-term impacts on mental health, and headspace was created to serve precisely this purpose.

The Morrison government is also guaranteeing the future of Medicare through an investment of $125.7 billion over four years, which is an increase of over $6 billion since last year's budget. It is extending a series of primary care measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through to 31 December 2021, including telehealth. It is continuing to implement reforms to the MBS from the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Task Force recommendations and Medical Services Advisory Committee recommendations. The Morrison government also has a health reform agreement which will deliver more doctors, more nurses and more services across public hospitals in every state and territory. These are all completely related to making sure that people, whatever their health issue may be—but particularly on the issue we're discussing, which is incontinence—can access their GP, can call their GP if they're not able to travel at the moment or leave their house because of all the COVID restrictions that we're seeing. Our national mental health investments mean that people can access the support that they need when they need it.

I note that we are also listing a record number of medications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As part of our funding measures, we're also investing $43 billion over four years in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This has an absolutely critical role in making sure people can access the medications they need at an affordable price, especially where those medications are for rare diseases and people would never be able to afford them if they had to pay the retail price on the market without the support of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The listings that we've made recently represent an average of around 30 listings or amendments per month, or one each day, for an overall investment by the government of $13.6 billion. This reaffirms our commitment to making sure all Australians can afford the medicines they need.

We're also doing a lot of work with the medicines and technology sector to continue streamlining and deregulating processes to apply for reimbursements for new products and services. We have invested $36 million in the Health Products Portal, where we are creating a new one-stop shop for applying electronically to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the Medical Services Advisory Committee, and other mechanisms for listing new medicines and medical devices.

In conclusion, the health care of Australians is absolutely paramount. This bill is just one small part of a raft of achievements and record funding amounts that support the health of everyone in the community. The National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021 will reform the review of decisions made under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme instrument, conferring review functions of decisions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It will allow for Australians who are using the CAPS, or allow their nominated representative, to apply for an independent merits review by the AAT of decisions made under the program. So it's a commonsense reform, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr HAINES (Indi) (17:15): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021. This provides a mechanism for internal review of decisions of the secretary of the Department of Health under the CAPS instrument, and for independent merits review by the AAT. I want to acknowledge the contributions that have been made in the House this evening on this bill. The member for Boothby just then made the very real connection between mental health and incontinence. We know that a fear of incontinence raises anxiety and great uncertainty for people, which is directly connected to their mental wellbeing. I want to thank the member for Macarthur, who so beautifully humanised this bill. It's not a glamorous bill. It won't make a headline. Probably no-one outside this chamber but the people who really rely on these kinds of aids will even know about this. For all the work that we do in this place, it's actually bills like this that make me feel better about being an MP, to be honest.

One in four Australians experience incontinence. It's much, much more common than people think. More than 4.8 million Australians have a bladder or a bowel problem. Incontinence can impact just about anybody: women, men, children. It impacts people from all walks of life and at all stages, as we've heard this evening: young and old, expectant and new mothers, and the elderly. Sadly, though, over 70 per cent of people with urinary leakage never seek advice or treatment for their problem. They're embarrassed and they put up with it as best they can. In my long career in health care prior to coming here, I stumbled upon this with people I met coming into hospital or into health care for other reasons—their embarrassment when they had to undress and it was revealed that they had homemade continence products because they'd never sought any help.

Incontinence impacts people's social and emotional wellbeing and their ability to engage with their community. Some people with the condition haven't gone out for years. They can't go grocery shopping. They've relied on family members to support them with their essentials. There are plenty of people who never play sport or who won't go to a concert for fear that they can't sit through the length of the concert. There are people who don't go out because they know that there's no public toilet anywhere near where they live. Again, I was pleased to hear the member for Boothby talk about the app that helps people find a public toilet. It's such a basic thing, but so important if you need it. There is so much stigma still associated with incontinence and, sadly, it prevents people from seeking help for what we know is a really commonplace problem that actually can, in many cases, be managed and, in some cases, be completely fixed.

Under the CAPS, an annual or six-monthly payment is available to people over the age of five who suffer from permanent and severe incontinence caused by particular kinds of conditions specified in the CAPS instrument, and who meet other eligibility criteria. These payments help offset the costs of purchasing incontinence products from a supplier of choice. Again, anyone listening to the member for Macarthur might have been very surprised at how expensive these continence pads are. Introducing a review mechanism is a really sensible change, and highly commendable and wholly commendable, and I'm grateful to the government for doing this. There should always be accountability when a government bureaucrat makes a decision about a matter which affects a person's rights and entitlements, and, in this case, such a basic right and entitlement. There should be the right to challenge it on the grounds that perhaps it's wrong.

This government, by its own admission, said that CAPS participants are unlikely to utilise the review pathway of Services Australia, who administers the program and often works with CAPS applicants to resolve issues. Further, the Continence Foundation of Australia points out that participants are really unlikely to bother going through a bureaucratic process when the annual maximum payment for these products is only $635.10. Many of these people say it's just not worth the time and the fuss.

While one in four Australians experience incontinence, only about 135,000 people are actually eligible for this CAP Scheme. Some are deemed ineligible for CAPS because their health professional hasn't described the condition in the precise way required by the scheme. I really support calls for the decision-making around eligibility for the scheme to be more transparent. Perhaps there needs to be some education of our GP workforce around the precise definition so that they can describe it in the way that is required. We need transparency, with an annual publication of statistics around the use of the scheme, including waiting time for a decision and the number of new applicants. We need to know this because if we know this we get a better understanding about what's happening in our public health system and perhaps where there's greater prevalence than we ever thought. We need transparency around the total number of ineligible new applicants or participants and the grounds upon which they're denied access. That's really important.

As I've said, continence care is expensive. The Continence Foundation of Australia says it receives over 6,000 calls to the National Continence Helpline every year from callers seeking financial assistance and trying to get help with the cost of continence products. Callers regularly report financial stress, particularly in that period leading up to the annual payment in July, because the CAPS provides for less than a quarter to a third of their annual expenditure on continence aids. It's estimated that $1,698 is the expense for someone who uses around 18 incontinence pads per week, and we know that there are some people who require many more than that. Incontinence is not only a huge personal cost but also a huge cost to the economy. A 2010 Deloitte report estimated the cost of incontinence to the nation at around $67 billion, and that includes money spent on health systems, productivity loss in the workplace and in employment, aged care and carer costs.

I really support the calls from the Continence Foundation of Australia to review the CAP Scheme as a matter of urgency to address the following things: (1) the adequacy of the payment in meeting the hygiene and dignity requirements of Australians living with permanent and severe incontinence; (2) the adequacy of the payment in ensuring Australians living with permanent and severe incontinence do not experience financial stress or hardship due to expenditure on continence aids; (3) establishing a mechanism for regular review of the schedule of eligible conditions causing permanent and severe incontinence; (4) review of the policy rationale for the difference in eligibility for CAPS between neurological conditions and other health conditions causing permanent and severe incontinence; and (5) review of the pension card requirements for CAPS applicants with non-neurological conditions, including comparison to other schemes, such as the Stoma Appliance Scheme, which provides free stoma appliances and products to nearly 50,000 Australians—quite a big difference.

I'd also like to turn the House's attention to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety findings. The aged-care royal commission looked into the prevalence and treatment of incontinence in residential aged-care homes. It heard that 75 to 81 per cent of all the people in residential aged-care facilities live with incontinence—that's a very big number. The royal commission also reported that it heard that staff members don't have the time needed to assist residents to go to the toilet in a timely manner, and too often there's actually routine use of incontinence pads to manage workload—again, when we think about people's dignity, a fundamental dignity is to be able to go to the toilet.

I've worked in aged care and I've been the director of an aged-care facility, so something I'm very aware of is managing workload. Many of our elderly people, of course, are frail. It's difficult for them to walk. They need assistance to go to the toilet, so those findings from the royal commission are really, really worrying. Again, it speaks to the urgency that we have as a nation to get cracking on the findings of the royal commission and make sure that we've got the workforce in our residential aged care to provide the most fundamental element of human dignity: going to the toilet.

We need our aged-care workforce not only to have the numbers to provide that kind of care but also to be adequately trained so that they can respond to the needs of people with incontinence, so that they can provide that dignity and respect and so that our elderly have the best possible quality of life that they can. The 2021-22 budget included an investment to support an additional 33,800 training places for personal care workers to attain a certificate III in individual support in ageing, and it's crucial that continence care is part of any training and education. The Continence Foundation of Australia has recommended that incontinence is recognised as requiring both basic and specialised care and support, and is incorporated into the foundational courses for aged-care workers. This needs to be back on the curriculum, but it's fallen off. This is so fundamental. It's fundamental so that both the current and the next generation of care workers are suitably qualified and trained in safe and effective continence care and incontinence management. Continence care includes things like nutrition and hydration. It's about recognising signs and symptoms of bladder infection. It's about recognising signs and symptoms of muscular dysfunction. There are many elements to this; it's not straightforward. Until recently, Australian registered nurses seeking to specialise as nurse continence specialists had the option of undertaking one of two post-graduate courses. Sadly, these graduate courses are no longer available, and there's little scope for registered nurses to gain the necessary specialised knowledge required to become a competent nurse continence specialist. The Continence Foundation of Australia is calling on the government to ensure that these courses are placed back on the national curriculum, and I join the foundation in that call. It is projected that, by 2030, 6.2 million Australians will be living with incontinence. Despite the growing prevalence, there's currently no funding commitment or action plan from the federal government beyond June 2021. I said tonight—and I mean it—that the government are doing good work in this space, but they need to fix that. They need to make sure that there's ongoing funding.

I'd like to recognise some of the champions out there who are working to provide fantastic support for people who suffer from incontinence. Continence nurses are key to this, as are physiotherapists. They enter people's lives with compassion and without judgement. They're people like the member for Macarthur, who shows such humanity. They talk about an issue that, for many people, they will be discussing with them for the very first time. They listen carefully, they provide advice and they go on that journey with these people to make sure that these people are getting continence care that fits with their lifestyle. It takes a pretty special person to do this. I know a few of them: Nicci Malcolm, at Northeast Health in Wangaratta; Kath Thomas, who's a physio and has been working in this area for a long time; Deborah Gregory is also a nurse who's been working in this area for decades; and Associate Professor Helena Frawley, a specialist academic who's looked at this area for many years. She has been a leader in research and the training of many physiotherapists.

I also want to recognise that there are some fantastic programs in my electorate that are doing really good work on incontinence awareness. Gateway Health ran a bladder health education program in Wangaratta and Benalla earlier this year. They educated participants, who learnt about how bladders and bowels actually work and how to keep your bladder and bowel healthy with the skills to manage urinary incontinence. Northeast Health in Wangaratta announced during World Continence Week in June that it's supporting the BINS4Blokes initiatives, which promotes the installation of incontinence bins in male public toilet facilities. At Northeast Health in Wangaratta, they will provide bins for blokes in male toilets right throughout the health service—good on them. Gateway Health's Below The Belt program for local men is also a terrific program. It looks after men's incontinence and chronic prostate health. Many people don't realise that men who've undergone a radical prostatectomy very often suffer from incontinence for some time after that surgery. The Below The Belt bladder health program provides men in the community with an opportunity to explore a variety of treatment options to suit their individual needs and helps them to develop a plan that's really going to make a difference to their lifestyle. At Albury Wodonga Health, they're absolutely in this space as well, with their continence nurse advisory service, which has outreach to many small rural towns as well. In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, this is an important bill. It's not a glamorous bill, but it's an important bill, and it brings to this chamber the voices of many people who are never heard. I thank the government for this work and I commend the members who've had something to say on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (17:29): I present an explanatory memorandum to this bill.

I thank all those members who have spoken on this issue. It's one we often overlook if we're not involved within the sector or the industry. We often forget about the impact it has on the social, emotional and mental health state of an individual.

The National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021 makes amendments to the National Health Act 1953 to expressly provide for the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Instrument 2020, the CAPS instrument, to confer review functions on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT.

On 16 January 2021, the CAPS instrument was amended by the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Amendment (Merits Review) Instrument 2020 to provide for internal review of decisions by the Secretary of the Department of Health under the CAPS instrument.

The merits review instrument also enables CAPS participants or their nominated organisation affected by the secretary's internal review decision to apply for an independent merits review by the AAT of the initial review decision made by the secretary.

The bill's amendments to the act will validate AAT review decisions made under the CAPS instrument.

I thank members for their contributions, and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (17:31): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (17:32): [by video link] I rise to speak to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021. This bill will introduce significant changes to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 following a recent review carried out by the National Indigenous Australians Agency. The CATSI Act, as it's known, establishes a special form of incorporation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. It is designed to make it easier for First Nations people to form and manage corporations that reflect their unique needs and practices.

As a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 the CATSI Act is intended to promote First Nations rights, particularly the right to self-determination. Critically, the act is intended to provide the flexibility for First Nations people to run organisations in accordance with their cultural practice and traditions. It also functions to ensure strong governance. Many of the most valued and recognised organisations are registered under the CATSI Act. They are part of the backbone of our communities, carrying out essential tasks and advocacy on behalf of First Nations people across the country.

Nowhere has this been more plain than in recent times with Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, ACCHOs, which have played such an important role in the pandemic response. There are 143 ACCHOs across Australia employing over 700 workers, half of whom are First Nations people. The majority of ACCHOs are registered under the CATSI Act. Over the course of the pandemic they have been the front line of the response in First Nations communities. Where they have been listened to and adequately resourced we have seen their capacity to provide flexible and effective services to First Nations communities.

Labor strongly supports the continued operation and improvement of the CATSI Act. It is a special measure to promote First Nations economic advancement and self-determination. We welcome the parts of this bill that will make it easier for First Nations organisations to do business and to strengthen transparency. However, if we have learned anything from the pandemic, it's that we must listen to and support First Nations organisations. At a minimum, we owe it to them to ensure that the adjustments we're making to the CATSI Act strike the right balance. We owe it to them to make sure they're supported, not impeded, by the changes to this critical act.

While many First Nations organisations support aspects of this bill, they have also raised significant concerns, including about the consultation process in the development of this bill. Labor notes that the exposure draft bill was available for consultation for just a month, from 8 July to 9 August this year. This was a time when many First Nations organisations, including ACCHOs, were dealing with the growing COVID-19 outbreaks in First Nations communities. This made it difficult for organisations to respond, especially given the complexity of the proposed reforms.

NACCHO, the peak body representing Aboriginal community controlled health organisations has criticised this lack of engagement. In their submission on the draft exposure bill they said:

NACCHO has been disappointed in the cursory approach to engagement undertaken in the review. It is NACCHOs view that the National Indigenous Australian Agency (NIAA) has lost a valuable opportunity to not only demonstrate its commitment to the new process of partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership as set out in the priority reform areas of the new National Agreement on Closing the Gap.

They went on to say:

The main criticism we have of the process with the review of the CATSI Act is that all we have had is consultation and there has been no clear and systematic engagement with senior Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership in the process of the review and in the decision making in relation to the drafting and the preparation of the exposure draft.

They called on the government to delay the progress of the bill to rectify these failures. They also proposed the establishment of a joint governance review group, with key leaders of the community controlled sector. This would provide a vehicle for partnership and shared decision-making in the reforms of the CATSI Act. As far as we can tell, neither of these requests have been fulfilled. These are requests from the Aboriginal health services who, as we speak, are battling to protect the most vulnerable communities.

Other concerns have been raised in relation to the impact on registered native title bodies. These are the organisations established to manage and protect native title on behalf of the traditional owners. Native title bodies are required to and must comply with the onerous regulatory obligations under both the CATSI Act and the Native Title Act. Many native title bodies operate with very limited resources. They also have the challenge of bridging traditional and mainstream law to manage the rights and interests of native title holders.

The Native Title Council raised concerns that the bill ignores the recommendations from the review to create a separate chapter, or division, of the act specifically concerning native title bodies. The Native Title Council supports parts of the bill, but it also identifies a number of impractical and overly onerous changes. They're concerned that the framework could see many organisations, including native title bodies, breach the act because they're too poorly resourced to comply. Others are concerned that changes could increase the risk of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being manipulated by parties seeking to profit from organisations with Aboriginal status. I am glad to note that the bill has been referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry. Labor supports the changes in this bill that make it easier for First Nation organisations to do business. We also support improved transparency and accountability of First Nation organisations. It is essential that representative corporations operate for the benefit of their members and do so in a way that is consistent with strong governance principles, but we must be sure that the right balance is struck and ensure that the self-determination of First Nation organisations is not undermined.

In closing, while we will not oppose the passage of this bill through this chamber, it is important that the broader impacts of the bill are examined. This process will enable the parliament to hear directly from First Nation organisations and interest groups that are most closely affected, including ACCHOs and registered native title bodies corporate. Labor will reserve its final position on the measures in this bill until we've had an opportunity to consider the inquiry's report, which is due to be completed by 14 October 2021. In the meantime, we urge the government to support and adequately resource all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, particularly those community controlled health services that are on the front line of the COVID 19 crisis currently unfolding in western New South Wales.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (17:42): I rise to speak on the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021. The electorate of Grey covers over 92 per cent of South Australia. It has an Indigenous population of around eight per cent and includes all of the remote Indigenous communities that sit within South Australia, so I have a deep interest in the outcomes and fortunes of those people. I often say there's quite a category of difference between those who live in remote communities and those who live in urbanised communities, on a lot of different levels. Sometimes it's as simple as language, but there are a lot of other things at work as well. We need respect and to have the ability to deal with them as different organisations with different needs and wants and give them the room to make the decisions that affect their future. That is what this government endeavours to do.

It would be fair to say that over a period of time—I've been the member for 13 years—I have been shocked and disappointed at the income streams that some of these bodies receive, from mining royalties in particular, and yet seem to be doing almost no good at all on the ground. There are a number of them that have been under administration or investigation by ORIC in recent times, but I think it's a far wider and broader issue than just this. This bill recognises the important role that the corporations play in the current management of Indigenous communities.

When we seek, as we do with this legislation, to improve the transparency and accountability of corporations by requiring them to lay any reports they're required to prepare for the registrar before their annual general meetings, including the new remuneration report which will give members an insight into what the key management personnel in their corporation are being paid and how the corporation funds are being spent, I think that's a very important point, because I'm well aware of organisations that don't always have annual general meetings when they should and they do not provide that information. In fact, a complex web of companies can be set up around these organisations—all with the help of highly skilled lawyers who are very expensive—making it very difficult to chase the money trail. I'm appalled at some of the services provided to these organisations by their appointed lawyers. It's not easy for governments to legislate for smart appointments or to come down in this area, because, of course, these organisations are autonomous. They need to operate within the rules that are set and policed by ORIC. But it's difficult and hard work, and there are some things going on with corporations within my electorate at the moment—with payments and lawyers and whatever—that are in dispute.

I think these are very important recommendations. There have been a number of times when I've had people come to me and say: 'We haven't had our meeting. We haven't had our meeting notice. They don't tell us anything. We don't know anything about the finances of our organisation.' You can reach nothing more than the conclusion that people within their own community are taking for their own benefit and that of their friends and families at the expense of others. If there are these significant streams of income coming to these corporations, why don't we see investments in really useful things like low-cost housing projects? We know there is an ongoing issue with finding housing for Indigenous people in Australia. There is overcrowding. We are looking at Wilcannia at the moment, where 12 people in a house is not uncommon. I know some Indigenous people choose to live in bigger groups, but we also know that we could do with more housing. On one hand we have corporations taking millions and millions—tens of millions—of dollars, yet, on the other hand, we don't see them investing in things that would actually be really important to their people.

Anything we can do to improve that process and sharpen up that focus is good. I think reporting on the remuneration of directors and employees is excellent as well. But, at the same time, we need to be able to provide them with the flexibility to make those decisions. I'm very hopeful this legislation will do that. At the other end of the scale, you have corporations that aren't in receipt of the rivers of gold—with income of less than $1,000 per year, for instance. This will allow them to apply not to hold an AGM, because they may not be doing anything of great significance, and that's a perfectly viable case to make.

There's a point to be made here about the application for membership of a corporation and how that needs to be decided within a specific amount of time. These organisations can become a closed shop. Who they accept as contributing members or franchise members can be up to the organisation itself. Once again, it is very difficult for governments to implant themselves in this process, because we want to these communities to make these decisions for themselves. But I'm aware of organisations where this has become a corrupt practice—organisations where only certain people are admitted or where a bit of muscle is exerted on those who might be jumping out of line. So, while we need those corporations to run themselves, manage themselves and make their own decisions, they also need a framework to operate within which, just as it would a district council or any other corporation, compels them to hold the normal meetings and processes which allow for the unbiased and uninfluenced appointment of those people who might become their directors or employees.

We've got to work with the corporations; we've got to try and help them. I know the minister is more than aware of all these situations. I've had long and deep conversations with him. This legislation we see in front of us is an effort by a very committed minister to try and bring about structural change that will actually change the way these communities operate. It will change the way that the committees that control these communities' assets operate and the way they reinvest in their communities' futures, and ensure that individuals do not take the lion's share and leave the rest of the community to scrabble over the crumbs and crusts that fall off the table.

There is provision within the bill to allow for the adoption of modern technology. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you're probably just about as sick of Zoom meetings as I am, but it seems that it is the way we are going to have to deal with things through the COVID crisis. I suspect it's one of those changes in society that, in a lot of ways, is here to stay. In the federal parliament, for instance, we do allow contribution online, but we don't allow people to vote online yet. I don't know if we're ever going to get there or not. I'm not arguing for change in this particular place, but I think it makes sense that an organisation meeting in an electronic fashion should be able to carry out a vote, certainly at committee level. It is a little harder at a general meeting, as such, so provision is allowed for in that.

Of course, in general we need these organisations to be fit for purpose and we need them to have a purpose which is more than just being in receipt of moneys and doing what they feel like at the moment. We need them to have a real vision, a plan and an idea of where they want their community to be in five years, for instance. A five-year plan would be a wonderful thing, particularly when you're in receipt of an income stream, and then set parameters that draw the board of the day to make those decisions to achieve those outcomes, and not just focus on the short term every step of the way.

I have been saddened by what I've seen across my Indigenous communities over a period of time. We do a lot of good work. We've got some good people out there working very hard for good outcomes. We've also got some people who are not, and they are the blockers of the system. We need to find a way to get around them and take these people forward and get the most out of all the assets and benefits that are provided to them.

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (17:53): [by video link] I understand that we've only got until six o'clock and then we'll be going on to other matters—is that correct?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): That's correct. We will be adjourning for a condolence motion at 6 pm.

Mr SNOWDON: I'll attempt to wind up my comments before six o'clock. Can I firstly say that I'm very pleased to be able to speak to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021. I acknowledge the contributions of the member for Barton and the member for Grey, and I'll come back to the member for Barton's contribution in a moment. The member for Grey talked about how big his electorate is and how many Aboriginal people, First Nations people, reside in it. I don't want to one-up him, but Lingiari is 1.34 million square kilometres, and 43 per cent or thereabouts of the population are Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. So, I have had the experience, over many, many years now—over 30 years—of working directly and indirectly with Aboriginal organisations and corporations. I've seen some that are good and some that are not so good. But I recall the debate that took place around the introduction of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, CATSI Act, when it was introduced. If my memory is correct, it was done to replace the old Commonwealth councils and associations act. It was done to give us a better body of law for recognising that, as the member for Barton said, it was a special measure. It was designed to give effect and acknowledge First Nations people's right to self-determination and to recognise and incorporate the need for cultural practices within organisations as they were developing. Of course, they vary across the country.

As the member for Barton rightly pointed out, there is some concern which is being registered about the consultation that has taken place around the development of this particular piece of legislation, which the government claims will modernise the CATSI Act and strengthen the governance of First Nations organisations. It has a number of objectives, including to make it easier and less costly for organisations to register and operate under the act; provide more flexibility in business structures that can be adopted by corporations; increase the transparency of corporation operations; streamline the process of winding up defunct corporations; increase corporations' access to modern technology, including for managing membership; and expand the powers of the registrar to respond to noncompliance. As the member for Barton pointed out, First Nations people and organisations have welcomed some of the changes in the bill but have registered their concern about the lack of consultation.

I think it's worth just contemplating for a moment the need to appreciate the range of organisations that might be caught up in this CATSI Act. We could be talking about very small community organisations in remote parts of the Northern Territory, for example, or we could be talking about complex business enterprises and community enterprises in Western Sydney or in South-East Queensland or, indeed, in Darwin. So there is a diverse range of interests. And, of course, what we know is that in remote communities there is an absolute need to provide the assistance that people require to understand the governance obligations they sign up to when they form these organisations. They need to be assisted in managing the governance of those organisations, there needs to be flexibility in the way in which they are administered and the oversight of them needs to be flexible.

I note, as the member for Barton said, that there are 143 Aboriginal community controlled health organisations around this country all doing magnificent work. By and large, they are employers of a large body of people with professional staff. They have good administrative structures, good compliance—their books and their administration are very transparent—and that's to be applauded. But, as NACCHO has pointed out, there's a great deal of concern about the cursory nature of the engagement undertaken by this review for First Nations communities and organisations. It reminds us of the national reform of the Closing the Gap agenda—shared decision-making, building the community controlled sector, improving mainstream institutions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lead data. It's very clear from the process which NIAA has undertaken on behalf of the government for the review of this legislation that they seem to have lost sight of those obligations and those undertakings as priority reform areas, because we really do need shared decision-making. So, who are the shared decision-makers with the government around these particular proposals, who have they discussed it with and whose approval have they sought? They say they want to build the community controlled sector. Well, the only way to build a community controlled sector appropriately is to engage properly and not from afar. I'm concerned about the lack of engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations in the development of this legislation, and there have been many critics who have similarly raised their concerns. The shadow minister has made it clear that our intention is to support this legislation but refer it to a committee and reserve our final position until that committee has undertaken its work.

I understand it's now close to six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is close to six o'clock and you would like me to sign off, could you just raise a hand? If I've got more time, raise your other hand!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): You can continue if you have a few more brief remarks to make.

Mr SNOWDON: The member for Fenner is very keen to shut me up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Member for Lingiari; you will be able to continue your speech, but just at another time.

Mr SNOWDON: I appreciate that. I'm just giving him prod. I'm quite happy to complete my remarks right now. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (18:01): I move:

That debate be adjourned, and resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Regional Health) (19:27): I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations play a central role in delivering services and in supporting economic development in Indigenous communities, particularly in regional and remote Australia. The CATSI Act is a specialist regulatory framework designed to make it easier for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups to form and manage corporations. While it mirrors many of the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001, it establishes a unique regulatory framework that supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations to succeed. In doing so, the CATSI Act demands high standards of governance while, at the same time, recognising the special cultural requirements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The corporate regulatory framework established by the CATSI Act has been very successful. It has improved the efficiency, sustainability and accountability of Indigenous corporations, and this has benefited their members and the communities they serve. However, the CATSI Act is no longer meeting the needs and expectations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and requires modernisation. The CATSI Act has not kept pace with incorporation statutes and it does not reflect the reality of running a corporation in this day and age. Moreover, the CATSI Act, in its current form, does not provide the type of flexibility that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples want when structuring their corporations.

These amendments strengthen and improve the CATSI Act, remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and empower members by increasing transparency. The amendments in this bill were years in the making and some have been subject to numerous rounds of public consultation through the 2016 review of the CATSI Act and the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations; the 2017 technical review; and a public inquiry on the predecessor of this bill, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment (Strengthening Governance and Transparency) Bill 2018.

Recommendations and feedback through these processes was consolidated in the National Indigenous Australians Agency's comprehensive review of the CATSI Act undertaken in 2020. People said they wanted this review with a broad scope—