Chris Hayes's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
Thankfully, the Speaker's not joining in that condemnation, being another fellow motorcyclist! Warren and I are probably destined to grow old disgracefully! To the Leader of the Opposition,...
Thankfully, the Speaker's not joining in that condemnation, being another fellow motorcyclist! Warren and I are probably destined to grow old disgracefully! To the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, who will be the next Prime Minister of this country: it's been an absolute privilege to serve your team as chief whip. I look forward to the next chapter of your life and that of all our Labor colleagues here—namely, to chart the future direction of this country. Australia needs a Labor government to restore fairness in the community and prosperity in our economic outlook. To all those loyal ALP branch members who have supported me throughout my career: I can never repay that debt. But, sadly, we've lost a few along the way. Ted Wale, for instance, at 107, was the oldest living member of the Labor Party. His passing, along with that of his son Alan, was a tremendous loss to our Cabramatta branch. More recently was the passing of Huy Tran, one of the first Vietnamese people I met on coming to Fowler. At the age of 45, he was taken far too early. An old union mate of mine, Digby Young: not only did we work together in the AWU but he was a tireless supporter and campaigner for me in every election in Fowler. To the clerks, the Serjeant-at-Arms and their staff, who have always been so professional and proper in their dealings with me; Luch and all the attendants; Joy our cleaner; our COMCAR drivers; and all who've made my time here more comfortable: thank you. Also, a special thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary Library. Apart from research, they've certainly kept me in novels, which I share with my mother. Notwithstanding the pandemic, there are probably two areas which I'd like to highlight that occurred within the last 12 months which have been quite significant—if you like, a high point, at least for me. Recently working with the Capital Punishment Justice Project team we submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Thailand for an Australian citizen who was on death row. His final judicial moment was to be considered. Not only did we get this Australian citizen off death row; all charges were then dropped because of the brief that was provided. This man is now back living with his family here in Australia. The other one I'd like to indicate, which certainly involves the minister opposite: he will recall that I had eight people who were trapped in Kabul after its fall—as a matter of fact, caught in the bombing at Kabul airport. The minister brought his staff back to the parliament at 11 pm one night, together with my staff, and worked on the necessary paperwork. We tracked their journey from Kabul, through to Quetta, then onto Islamabad, and a military flight brought them home from there. It's one of those things that can be achieved by working cooperatively. Alex, mate, thanks for your cooperation, and Ross MacDonald, who was there at 11 o'clock at night. It's really appreciated. That family is now happily settled in this country. Whilst there have been high points, there is still one low point for me. A great personal disappointment is that, despite what I consider to be my best efforts over the last two years, I have not been able to get an Australian citizen, Van Kham Chau, out of a Vietnamese prison. This 72-year-old retired baker from Western Sydney was convicted on charges of terrorism solely because of his membership of a human rights and pro-democracy organisation here in Australia. So I'd make this plea to the Prime Minister: please take an active interest in this matter. I know that you and, indeed, the Australian government have a good relationship with the Vietnamese administration but could you please take an active interest in this with a view to securing Mr Chau's release so that he can return to his wife and family here in Australia. Finally, I am the 1,018th person to have had the honour of representing their local community in the federal parliament. It has been an absolute privilege to serve in this place. To the people of Werriwa, and those of Fowler, I say a heartfelt 'Thank you'. To everybody here, I wish you a merry Christmas and I hope you have time with your family and loved ones. I look forward to welcoming a Labor government next year. Honourable members: Hear, hear!
on indulgence—Mr Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and the many nations that make up this...
on indulgence—Mr Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and the many nations that make up this great country of ours, Australia. I acknowledge their elders past and present, and also acknowledge their work in their conservation and care of this great country. I believe there's still much to be learnt from their practices and traditions. I remember standing here giving my first speech, full of emotion and pride. In 17 years it seems little has changed, except electorates. Just to answer some people: no, I haven't changed my mind—I'm still going. Bernadette is still up there in the gallery to make sure I don't recant! From Werriwa, where I was first elected in a by-election, where Bernadette and I raised our family and were both pretty engaged in our communities, I transferred, because of party interests, to the seat of Fowler. When I got here, it was an eye-opener for me. Not only was I representing one of the most multicultural electorates in the whole of Australia; they had a vastly different expectation of me as their member. This multicultural community wanted me to be their voice on matters of human rights, particularly in respect of violations that occurred in countries of their respective diasporas. With the assistance of my local community and with my long association with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, I have spoken regularly, as everyone here knows, on matters of human rights not only in this place but also in various community and academic forums. After parliament, I intend to continue my work with the human rights community as well as with the Capital Punishment Justice Project. As most would be aware, I am a convenor of Australian Parliamentarians against the Death Penalty, and have been since 2005. I also intend to continue my association with the Police Federation of Australia. I think it's pretty common knowledge that my office has been well-known to police—but in a good sort of way! Not even with their badges could they get in here today, but I understand they're listening, so could I acknowledge the PFA president, Ian Leavers; CEO, Scott Weber; their predecessors, Mark Carroll, Vince Kelly and Peter Alexander; and my good mate for the last 25 years, Mark Burgess. I acknowledge them not only for their advocacy on behalf of 65,000 professional police officers in this country but also for putting policing on the national agenda. Their efforts in this regard have been truly commendable. As Chief Opposition Whip, it necessitates me working very closely with my counterparts—a relationship that's built on honesty and integrity and trust. Our efforts have been to make this parliament work, as well as look after the welfare of our colleagues. I've been incredibly assisted by Jo Ryan and Anne Stanley during my time as chief whip. But, given the challenges of the pandemic, Bert van Manen and I, and our staff, have almost been joined at the hip. As the member for Casey will well know, there have been many three-way conversations throughout this whole period. I also acknowledge the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House and the assistance they have given in helping us as whips at least keep this place functioning. To Bert, Nola Marino, Scotty Buchholz and Warren Entsch: thanks for your friendship, your cooperation. Not many people really know what we do here, but together, and despite the adversarial environment of parliament, we strive to make this place work. I would just like to make special mention of Philip Ruddock. I must be pretty careful here, because currently Philip is the president of the Liberal Party of New South Wales. Not only did he and I serve together as chief whips; we shared a common interest in the promotion of human rights and served together as conveners of Australian Parliamentarians against the Death Penalty. Together, Philip and I visited the refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, seeing firsthand the plight of the displaced Syrian people, which was, without doubt, one of the worst humanitarian crises since the Second World War. Simply put, you could not come away from that experience unaffected. Full disclosure: Philip and I actually do remain close friends, but I assure my colleagues here that I will not be handing out for the mayor of Hornsby at Saturday's council elections. Throughout my time in politics, I have not been comfortable being out front when it comes to community campaigns. To me, it's always been important to work with others, local champions, and to assist them in achieving outcomes. For me, building community resilience was always more important than a photo opportunity. Maybe it's not necessarily the making of a good politician. To show the calibre of the local community I have had the honour of working with, I would like to name just a few. I assure you it's not an exhaustive list. There are people like Grace Fava OAM, an advocate for autism support. Lucy Reggio, a Liverpool Citizen of the Year, does incredible work with families living with disabilities and special needs. Tracy Phillips, of Bonnie Support Services, and her team, looks after women fleeing domestic violence. Their work has increased exponentially over the period of this pandemic. Harry Hunt OAM is one of the most engaged business leaders in our region. From charities to startups, little happens in Liverpool without Harry's involvement. Ken Chapman OAM is the driving force behind the Neighbourhood Watch program and a major supporter of Cabramatta business development. Janice Le is a local lawyer and convener of Amnesty International as well as Human Rights Relief Foundation. Janice is really a moral compass for the community in a very, very complex world. Carmen Lazar OAM, of the Assyrian Resource Centre, assists in the settlement of displaced peoples and refugees from the Middle East, principally from Syria and Iraq. Brad Parker, from MATES in Construction, looks after the mental health of workers in this dangerous but very essential industry. Beth Godwin OAM is a former principal of Cabramatta High School, a passionate educator and advocate for the welfare of children, particularly those from diverse backgrounds. James Chan OAM is one of the most respected leaders in the Chinese diaspora and a major contributor to the multicultural credentials of our community. I'm proud to call James my Chinese brother. June and Ken Young—what a team! Both have been awarded OAMs and both are tireless in their charitable and community work, always looking after people from youth to veterans. They really epitomise the phrase 'service above self'. Sid Hugen and the fellas from the Bonnyrigg's Men's Shed not only support the wellbeing of each other, but collectively they have made an enormous contribution in our local community. Dr William Trinh OAM leads a team of dedicated doctors, optometrists, dentists and volunteers who regularly travel to Cambodia and Vietnam to treat the poor and those who are unable to obtain medical treatment. Cheryl Bosler is associated with probably everything good that happens in Cabramatta. She is one of my community's most prized assets. Charles Gream chronicles just about everything in life in our community. Charles is someone who genuinely cares about the community and its people. These are just some of the many wonderful people that I have had the privilege of working with throughout my time in parliament and who have made a difference for the better in my community. Throughout my career, I've been very fortunate to work alongside some incredible colleagues, committed in helping me look after the interests of our local community. Here, I'm speaking about my electorate staff. I know my decision to retire has an enormous impact on them, their lives, their families and it throws them into a period of uncertainty. From the outset, I always took steps to ensure that the diversity of our community was represented in the composition of my office. So just a few words about my current staff, if I may. Gai Coghlan, my office manager, has been with me since my by-election in 2005. It may be a little indiscreet to say we've aged together in two electorates, but I'm afraid it's true. But despite everything, all the challenges, Gai has been truly loyal and totally reliable. The young ones in the office refer to her as their 'work mum'. Gai has kept me on the straight and narrow and certainly kept the office focused on the needs of our community. Rania Haddad is a young lawyer of Lebanese heritage and an Arabic speaker, a great researcher and someone who shares my passion in respect of human rights. Her personality and daily selection of hijabs certainly lend colour to our office. Alex Glumac, an electorate officer of Serbian heritage, is fully committed to looking after the welfare of the community as a whole. His language skills have been invaluable to me, particularly in our interactions with the Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and Russian diasporas of my community. Sandy Luc is a young woman fluent in Mandarin and Vietnamese who brings her analytical skills as a business development graduate in the way she deals with the complex needs of a community such as mine. Grace Le is another young lawyer and a Vietnamese speaker, and apart from her role in the electorate office and working with me on matters of human rights, Grace fulfills the very important role of coordinating Labor's activities in the Federation Chamber. Harry Wong is a young man of Chinese heritage fluent in Cantonese. Harry, a recent graduate, shows great care and compassion in dealing with constituents. Nathaniel Dadd, on my relief staff, is a young man who keeps us grounded in how we should care and engage with people with disabilities. Nathaniel has really impressed me not only in his ability to pick up complex tasks but in how he has been able to settle in and become an integral part of an electorate team. Having a disability doesn't disbar you from being part of the community. I'm terribly proud of Nathaniel and all my staff. It has been a privilege to work with them over my time in parliament. That brings me to my staff as chief whip. I'll start with Debra Biggs, who is in the advisers box. Debra has been a part of the parliamentary scene over the past 30-odd years and worked with most of the Labor luminaries—and then she gets stuck with me! Deb largely coordinates the functions between the opposition and government whips' offices, with Jess and Larni, making sure that things work. I've got to say that Deb didn't have grey hair before she started working with me! Now it comes to the real whip, Anna George. Anna has had a lifetime serving the parliamentary Labor Party. She is the fount of all knowledge about the parliament and someone not to be messed with! I've always found that, to avoid trouble, it is advisable to check with Anna before acting. I should mention that Anna and I have decided to pull the pin and we're going to retire at the same time. I'll say a few words about my high school sweetheart, who's been the centre of my life for almost 46 years. Before I get to Bernadette, I should say being of short stature has actually proven to be an incredible virtue for me. At the dances at the Mount St Joseph school, a convent school, as it turned out, Bernadette was one of the few girls shorter than me, so she quickly became my go-to dance partner and, somewhere along the way, became my life partner. Without Bernadette's support, I would not have even considered entering politics. Here in parliament, everyone knows Bernadette. I hate to say she's part of the furniture, but I think most people have had many, many interactions with her. Bernadette is widely known throughout the local community. I think I'd say she's far more loved than I'm known! In the 17 years that I've been a member of parliament, I think there would have been only a handful of events that Bernadette has not attended with me. She's been part and parcel of the team of looking after our community and being part of our community. I turn now to our children. Elizabeth, like Bernadette, is an absolutely fabulous mother. She is also a devoted high-school teacher and someone who's absolutely determined to give kids graduating from year 12 the best opportunities in life, particularly the children around Rosemeadow in New South Wales. My two sons, Nicholas and Jonathan, are both highly skilled tradespeople and devoted fathers. Of them and their families, our 10 grandchildren, we are just so proud. I'm also so thankful for their support and also probably what they've had to put up with over the period that I've been a member of parliament. To the Speaker emeritus, Tony Smith: while retiring from politics, I know there will be another chapter in your life, and I trust it will be equally as successful as your time as Speaker. I wish to thank you for your friendship and support. Similarly, to all our colleagues who are not contesting the next election: I wish you all the best in future. I should say that my mate Wazza Snowdon and I have planned a few more motorcycle excursions.
Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
ES (—) (): I want to indicate my support for the amendment. I thank everybody who's participated in this debate. I think it's been held and conducted in a way that brings great credit to...
ES (—) (): I want to indicate my support for the amendment. I thank everybody who's participated in this debate. I think it's been held and conducted in a way that brings great credit to this House. I, like many, was very disappointed, at the outset of the whole debate on mitochondrial donation, to be simply advised that we can't get any information about the progress of this research that has been going on since 2015 in the United Kingdom. We're prevented from having any access to that on privacy grounds. That means that we must now start from ground zero in starting to look at all these issues. It takes me back a little bit. Those of us who were around the House in 2006 will remember that we had the therapeutic cloning legislation being debated here. The big aspect then—and there was a lot of hype, I must say, associated with it—was the demand for embryonic stem cell research. All of these potential benefits were being discussed pretty openly by politicians—that's what we are—and not necessarily by all the researchers, other than those who ran the various research laboratories. Some laboratories specialise in embryonic stem cell research, while others specialise in adult stem cell research. Since 2006, the great gains for humanity have come out of the adult stem cell research. Does that mean we're setting up research facilities just to experiment to see what happens? Surely, if the UK were making progress, there would be something that we would know about it. I know that a lot of our research scientists are getting very excited about these techniques. The other thing I wanted to say is that what I said about embryos in 2006 is that embryos should be afforded the same respect from the moment of creation, regardless of the method, intention and age. I've got to say that remains my position now, but my position could be internally challenged on my part if it could be shown that there are overwhelming benefits to humanity. Yet there's no information out there, so there's no justification for saying there's an overwhelming benefit to humanity. We're just going to see what happens. To me, it's a bridge too far. I didn't like the media reporting of my views on this. The reporting referred to me as a Catholic, which I am, but I took great pains not to take briefings from the church or from other vested interests, although I must admit I spent a lot of time with Mike Freelander, a good friend of mine, who explained to me a fair bit about it, because he has treated children who had mitochondrial disorders. But I thought: 'This is a conscience vote. This has to be what you really believe.' My personal view, and my strong belief, is that simply conducting research on the basis that you will destroy human embryos in the process is a bridge too far.
Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve’s Law) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I am in continuation. Given that this bill is modelled on the legislation introduced in the United Kingdom, it's worth looking at what progress has been made in the six years it has been in...
I am in continuation. Given that this bill is modelled on the legislation introduced in the United Kingdom, it's worth looking at what progress has been made in the six years it has been in operation. As I understand, only one clinic in the UK has been authorised to conduct research into mitochondrial donation technology, and 21 couples have received treatment. However, I am advised that, due to privacy reasons, we cannot be provided with any information as to the outcomes of these cases. I find that absolutely extraordinary, given that we have been invited to pass legislation based on the UK model itself. I don't expect the names, the ages or the locations of people, but information as to how many viable pregnancies and births have resulted from mitochondrial donation or how many embryos have had to be destroyed to achieve the favoured result would be understandably useful information in considering arguments on advancing these technologies. But there is none. The only reports of successful births as a result of mitochondrial donation procedure have come out of Mexico and, of all places, the Ukraine. Neither of these countries has explicitly legalised the procedure. There are no reports in the Lancet, and, as I understand it, they are not considered as legitimate examples by any international medical research authority. I note the United States has prohibited clinical trials into mitochondrial donation on the grounds that it constitutes genome editing and, as such, presents an unacceptable risk. Similarly the World Health Organization has indicated its opposition to making modifications to the genetic code in humans capable of being passed on to future generations. Therefore we have no compelling information as to the types of methods that have been used in these British cases, and little or nothing about the success or otherwise as to the methods being an assistive reproductive technology. Particularly when the procedures necessitate the destruction of embryos, simply lining up to pass legislation without sufficient evidence or any real idea as to its effectiveness or its prospects of success is, I believe, just not good enough. In 2006 this House debated whether therapeutic cloning through the use of human embryos should be permitted. I said at that stage that an embryo should be afforded the same respect from the moment of creation regardless of the method, intention or age. My position remains the same, unless it can be clearly shown that there are real and substantial benefits to humanity itself that may outweigh that ethical opposition. I'm not opposed to mitochondrial research or all the associated donation technologies. Clearly, we need to be working towards ways to mitigate the risk of children being born with mitochondrial diseases. I believe the maternal spindle transfer may be one of those ways, and I would be prepared to support legislation that allows this technique going forward. However, to support methods that would require at least one human embryo being destroyed at every try, successful or not, is a bridge too far for me. I understand my position is going to disappoint some people. But, ethically, I cannot support clinical research or practices involving these human embryo technologies. I will exercise my conscience vote to vote against the bill as it presently stands.
Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I would like to respectfully make a contribution to the debate on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. From the outset, I'd like to say I'm not trying to approach this...
I would like to respectfully make a contribution to the debate on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021. From the outset, I'd like to say I'm not trying to approach this from any moral or religious perspective. I believe that, as legislators, we must consider the perceived benefits and risks associated with the proposed methods of mitochondrial donation. But we must also consider and weigh them against our obligations in terms of ethical perspective. There is no doubt that, for some Australians, the risk of passing on mitochondrial disease is far too high. It can prevent women from having healthy children. Understandably, women facing this prospect would look at any feasible approaches to lessen that risk. As with any pregnancy, I think it would be every parent's fervent hope and prayer that they would have a healthy child. Regrettably, at the moment, almost one child a week—somewhere between 50 and 60 children each year—is born with a mitochondrial disease in this country. Sadly, the prognosis for those children is not great. The fact is that most will die within the first five years of life. On those young people: I know I will be followed by the member for Macarthur, Dr Freelander, who has on a number of occasions treated young patients suffering from a mitochondrial disease, which he will inform the House about. Others living with this disease will have a lower life expectancy and can suffer a wide range of debilitating symptoms, including loss of hearing and vision, multiple organ failure and heart problems. Clearly, this is something that should concern all of us. I agree with so many in this place that there must be an ethical and sustainable way of mitigating these risks, and that there is a need for a pathway for women living with mitochondrial disease to have children without the fear of passing on this debilitating disease. As legislators, we must balance what are seen as the possible benefits to humanity with the extent to which we are willing to compromise on our ethical obligations in passing a bill which will pave the way for these proposed research methods. Firstly, the bill sets out a path for research into mitochondrial donation technology as a means of assisted reproduction technology. Secondly, the bill creates a pathway for mitochondrial donation to be legalised for clinical use. As the bill before the House stems from legislation in the United Kingdom, it is prudent to note that in that jurisdiction only two methods have been approved for research and subsequently for clinical use. The first of these techniques is called the maternal spindle transfer, which involves the extraction of a mother's nuclear DNA to be transferred into an unfertilised donor egg containing healthy mitochondrial DNA. This technique, despite objections from some, is one I can conceptually support, as it seems to follow a pathway for women suffering from mitochondrial disease to have a child without the needless destruction of human embryos, and only sees the discarding of an unfertilised egg. Whilst MST will, to some extent, still have an effect on the genetic code, as it does require a third person as the donor, I consider this approach to be more in line with modern-day IVF, which is a proven assisted technology—one which I would find very difficult to oppose, given that the other day I found a statistic which surprised me: one in 20 babies are born in Australia today through IVF technology. This bill also paves the way for research into four other techniques, three of which have not been approved in any other country or jurisdiction for licensed research. Today I want to focus on the pronuclear transfer, the second and more favoured approach in the United Kingdom and, as I understand it, here in Australia. This technique is vastly different from the maternal spindle transfer, as it requires the fertilisation of both the mother's egg, which has the mitochondrial disability, and the egg of a donor. It requires both those eggs to be fertilised. Once the mother's nucleus has been transferred into the donor's egg, which is at that stage an embryo, the mother's embryo that has the diseased mitochondrial DNA is then discarded. That is the part that I find problematic, as it requires the creation of two human embryos, with the full intention that one of these embryos will be destroyed at the end of the process. The Plunkett Centre for Ethics raised a concern about this, and it is quoted in the committee's report, saying: Treating an embryo merely as a means and not also as an end in itself violates the respect owed to embryonic human life. That is a view I actually share. To create a human embryo and then destroy it for the sole purpose of research is something that I just can't see as being ethical. To be fair, the report goes on to note that there are many other research techniques and procedures that involve the destruction of embryos. But, in my opinion, that in itself does not justify the creation and destruction of potential, viable human embryos as being a normal or necessary process of medical research. I do not believe it is proper or ethical to create and then destroy human life, albeit embryonic human life, even if it is the intention for alleviating, ultimately, the suffering of another. While I have less concern about material spindle transfer—and, in fact, would support research being undertaken in respect of that technique—I cannot, from an ethical point of view, support the approval of research into the practice of pronuclear transfer. Should this bill be passed, I think there will also be an issue that could occur with respect to the limited supply of donor eggs. The type of technique proposed by pronuclear transfer requires a donation of both eggs from the mutated mitochondrial DNA as well as healthy eggs. My concern is that, where the access to supply of either of these eggs is limited, it could well result in a commercial incentive being offered to women and, inadvertently, the creation of unwarranted social consequences. In this scenario, I think we could be creating a market where women who are willing to give up their eggs at a cost would, realistically, be women from—how do I say this?—probably more socio-economically challenged backgrounds. I know that is not the intended outcome of the bill before us, but I suggest it could be a realistic one. I'm sure that it wasn't the intention of those who approved organ donations to create a trade in organs—and we know that that does occur. We know that occurs in China, the Philippines, Thailand and many other countries, and I know that a lot of that is illegal trade. So it is not inconceivable that egg donation would not follow a similar path. Further to this, the donation of feasible eggs is not a simple act. It's not like blood donation. It will require the donor to go through a hormone regime in order to donate the viable egg which is to be fertilised—and in the full knowledge that it is there to be destroyed. Other than supporting family, I do not imagine there will be an outpouring of women in the community ready to go through this type of treatment as simply an altruistic gesture. Debate interrupted.
Tran, Mr Huy | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise to speak of the tragic death last week of Huy Tran, a long-term member of the Cabramatta branch of the Labor Party. Huy was one of the first Vietnamese people I met. He welcomed me to the...
I rise to speak of the tragic death last week of Huy Tran, a long-term member of the Cabramatta branch of the Labor Party. Huy was one of the first Vietnamese people I met. He welcomed me to the community when I became the member for Fowler. At just 45 years of age, Huy's unexpected death was a surprise to all of us and was such a tragic loss to his family and friends. Huy was a good friend to me. He was a political colleague totally committed to the values of Labor. He was a corporal in the Australian Army Reserve and was also highly regarded by his colleagues at Western Sydney University. Huy was always active in and a strong contributor to my election campaigns. As a long-term resident of Carramar, he was an impressive advocate for the needs of the community and was never afraid to raise matters of local importance. Huy also spoke regularly with me about issues of human rights in Vietnam, and clearly he was a champion of diversity and multiculturalism in our community. Above all, he was a proud family man. His joy was in his wife, Mai Le, and his two children, Vi and Nam. Huy will be deeply missed by his parents, his family and his friends, as well as our diverse community of Western Sydney and particularly those of us in the Labor Party. May he rest in peace.
Youth Voice in Parliament Week | Statements by Members | House debates
Sonja is a young constituent in my electorate who joined the Youth Voice in Parliament Week campaign, raising awareness of the need for better access to domestic violence services in our...
Sonja is a young constituent in my electorate who joined the Youth Voice in Parliament Week campaign, raising awareness of the need for better access to domestic violence services in our community. Sonja says: It is unequivocal that adequate protection and support is provided to young people fleeing domestic violence. No person should be punished for fleeing their abuser by becoming homeless. She goes on to say: We must break the intergenerational cycles of abuse and trauma that have become an everyday reality for so many and replace this with opportunities and an optimistic future for survivors. One woman is killed every 9 days by a partner. So why do women still lack access to adequate domestic violence support services? In 2020, the number of police recorded victims of family and domestic violence related sexual assault increased by 13%. This national crisis is detrimental to community wellbeing and has been going on for too long, disproportionately affecting women and those with a disability or ATSI background. In 20 years, I hope to see Australia as a place where everyone lives a life of safety and security, where justice is ensured for survivors and where the duty to protect our citizens from violence is upheld.
Death Penalty, Cook, Mr Luke | Adjournment | House debates
On 10 October we commemorated World Day Against the Death Penalty. On that day we as a nation and concerned members of the international community reaffirmed our commitment to the ultimate...
On 10 October we commemorated World Day Against the Death Penalty. On that day we as a nation and concerned members of the international community reaffirmed our commitment to the ultimate pursuit of a world free of the death penalty. As I've expressed in this place on many occasions, I believe capital punishment is the cruellest and most inhumane response to crime. My opposition to capital punishment is universal, and it's not just when Australian lives are at stake. The death penalty is invariably associated with the miscarriage of justice, the inevitable consequence being the execution of innocents and the disproportionate execution of the poor and of ethnic and religious minorities. Clearly, no legal system is free of error, but the death penalty is irreversible. As long as the death penalty exists innocent people will be executed. To this end, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to a very significant outcome that was reached only last month with respect to an Australian national, Mr Luke Cook. Mr Cook was arrested and sentenced to death in Thailand after being convicted of drug related crimes. On appeal, Mr Cook fortunately not only escaped the death penalty but also had all charges against him withdrawn. Mr Cook, happily, now has returned to Australia. I'm pleased to have worked on Mr Cook's matter together with Senator Dean Smith, my fellow Co-chair of Australian Parliamentarians Against the Death Penalty, engaging all diplomatic efforts to reach a positive outcome in this case. I specifically want to also acknowledge the tremendous work of the Capital Punishment Justice Project, and in particular acknowledge the commitment and dedication of Australian lawyers Simone Abel, Sarah Kowal and Stephen Keim SC. They were instrumental in providing effective legal representation of Mr Cook and in preparing an amicus brief to assist the court, which certainly provided a determining factor in this matter. The Capital Punishment Justice Project undertakes significant work in promoting the worldwide abolition of the death penalty and in supporting pro bono work, ensuring the effective legal representation and just outcomes for those individuals facing the death penalty. As was evident in Mr Cook's case, effective legal representation is crucial for a successful outcome, an outcome of life and death, which we now know in his case could have gone the wrong way, and an innocent man would have been executed. I also take this opportunity to thank the Australian Ambassador to Thailand, Mr Allan McKinnon, and his team for the support they gave to Mr Cook over his four-year ordeal. I particularly thank the ambassador for his timely intervention in the days leading up to Mr Cook's appeal. Not only is there room for mistakes in cases involving the death penalty, I've got to say that the most incredible research also indicates that capital punishment does not deter crime. I believe that in a modern society like ours there are adequate means to punish offenders for their crimes, but there is also the ability to assist people with their rehabilitation. The international community has a long way to go towards the abolition of the death penalty, although recent statistics show significant improvement. They show that 144 countries have now abolished the death penalty, as compared to only 16 in 1977. Unfortunately, that leaves 55 countries which are actively deploying the death penalty. Australia can be proud of its longstanding and principled opposition to capital punishment, including our whole-of-government strategy in pursuing the global abolition of the death penalty. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to continue to use our various platforms to encourage, inspire and support other nations in their move towards abolition. After all, we have a responsibility to work towards justice and the advancement of human rights, and this includes the most important right of all: the right to life itself. I conclude with the profound words of a former Chief Justice of the South African Constitutional Court, Ismail Mahomed: The death penalty sanctions the deliberate annihilation of life. As I have previously said it "is the ultimate and the most incomparably extreme form of punishment … involving … the planned and calculated termination of life itself; the destruction of the greatest and most precious gift which is bestowed on all humankind". I remain inspired by these words, and I am proud to be associated with the Capital Punishment Justice Project.
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People | Private Members' Business | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that 29 November 2021 is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People as declared by the United Nations in 1977; (2) recognises the...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that 29 November 2021 is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People as declared by the United Nations in 1977; (2) recognises the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self determination and a future built on peace, dignity, justice and security; (3) acknowledges the obstacles to the ongoing peace process, particularly the need for urgent action on issues such as settlements, Jerusalem, the Gaza blockade and the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories; (4) further recognises that the ongoing humanitarian situation in Palestine is far-reaching, with many in the Australian community affected by this ongoing conflict; and (5) calls on the Government to ensure Australia is working constructively to support security and human rights in Palestine, in advance of a just and enduring two-state solution in the Middle East. As we approach 29 November, I take the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the Palestinian people and stand united in their struggle for self-determination. When the Oslo agreements were drafted in 1993, they were intended to give the Palestinian people autonomy. However, 28 years later the military occupation continues to control the lives of Palestinians and their access to the basic necessities of life, including the vital water supply. Under the Oslo agreements, Israel retains exclusive control over almost all the water resources. The agreements allocate 80 per cent of the mountain aquifer water to Israeli use and 20 per cent to the Palestinians. Apart from the human rights implications that arise, it is quite concerning given that over the last 28 years the Palestinian population of the occupied West Bank has nearly doubled. Due to these restrictions, the Palestinian authority is forced to purchase significant water supply from Mekorot, Israel's national water company. This issue is further complicated by the very poor Palestinian water pipelines, which mean that about a third of the water supply, I am advised, is being lost to leakage. The water shortage in the West Bank is acute in summer and Mekorot restricts the water supplies for the higher demands of the Israeli settlements. As a result, the average water consumption for all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza falls well behind the World Health Organization's recommended minimum levels. Access to necessities such as water is an inalienable human right and, unfortunately, these rights are not being realised due to military occupation. Clearly this is inhumane and unjust. We must work towards affording self-determination to the Palestinian people, including a future that's based on peace, dignity, justice and security. I acknowledge there are many obstacles in the ongoing peace process, particularly the need for urgent action in respect to settlements, Jerusalem, the Gaza blockade and the humanitarian situation in the occupied territories. I believe it falls to countries like Australia, who believe in the dignity of all people, to become more engaged in addressing the need for a tangible process towards the creation of the Palestinian state while ensuring respect and security for a Jewish homeland. I genuinely accept the right of the Jewish state to exist and for it to be able to defend the rights and freedoms of its people. However, I firmly believe the future of the Jewish state and, indeed, the region depends on Israel's ability to live in peace with its neighbours, including a Palestinian state. On this note, I call on the government to ensure that Australia's working constructively to support security and the human rights of Palestinians, including the unequivocal commitment to adjust an enduring two-state solution consistent with international law. While slightly digressing, I'd also take this opportunity to reiterate my concerns about Mohammed El Halabi, the former director of World Vision Australia in Gaza and the West Bank. Mr El Halabi has been charged on allegations of funnelling $50 million of World Vision aid money to a terrorist group, Hamas. Although investigations have been conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs, independent auditors as well as World Vision itself, they have all failed to show any evidence that money was actually diverted, Mr El Halabi remains in prison. He's been severely restricted in his legal defence throughout his four-year ordeal, depriving him of a fair trial, and has been forced to attend over 150 court appearances without any substantial evidence to support the allegations against him. I have been in contact with Mr El Halabi's distressed father on a number of occasions now regarding his son's plight and, accordingly, I use this opportunity to renew any call for the international community to continue to place pressure on Israel to finalise Mr El Halabi's trial without further delay. I look further to a future where Israel and Palestine can coexist in peace and harmony and I echo the views of Pope Benedict—let the two-state solution become a reality, not remain a dream.
Afghanistan | Constituency Statements | House debates
Over the past few months, the situation in Kabul and across Afghanistan has been deteriorating rapidly. While the Taliban promised stability and security, what we've seen is the dismantling of...
Over the past few months, the situation in Kabul and across Afghanistan has been deteriorating rapidly. While the Taliban promised stability and security, what we've seen is the dismantling of our efforts over a 20-year fight against terrorism. Our support for freedom and democracy and a better future for all Afghans, particularly women and children. Our priority must be to ensure the safe departure of visa holders and the resettlement of those Afghans who have supported Australian and allied forces' efforts in the conflict. This is not only a moral obligation but a legal obligation in terms of adhering to the various human rights commitments that we have in international law. Following the resurgence of the Taliban, I was contacted by Brad Parker, CEO of MATES in Construction, on behalf of a constituent regarding the Salehi family, whose father and brother provided support to the allied forces throughout the Afghan conflict. The situation was grave for this family, following a formal directive from the Taliban ordering their deaths—not only of the two men but of their families. Fortunately, the family were granted a humanitarian 449 visa and has now arrived safely in Australia. This would not have been possible without the efforts of Minister Alex Hawke and his staff. I'll mention particularly Ross MacDonald, and Grace Le in my office. As a matter of urgency, we all convened in Parliament House at 11 pm one night to help secure visas for this family. I also acknowledge the ongoing efforts from the minister's office to arrange flights to Australia for this family. As it turned out, this was particularly challenging given the issues at Kabul airport, as well as the fact that this family was caught in the middle of the ISIS bombing that occurred. Luckily, the Salehi family were able to cross the border into Pakistan and flew to Australia on a military flight from Islamabad. Sadly, however, this is only one of many cases, but it nevertheless highlights the real need of pressing the case for these individuals who are facing such dire situations in Afghanistan. While we welcome the government's announcement of 3,000 extra places for Afghans' settlement, we can do more and we must do more. We owe it to the Australian Afghan community and to our military veterans who fought on our behalf to restore hope for these people who are suffering under the harsh and radical leadership of the Taliban.
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I too would like to make a contribution to this debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. I would just note that this bill is the second...
I too would like to make a contribution to this debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. I would just note that this bill is the second response to the royal commission's recommendations. Those of us who were in the parliament will recall the way that the minister treated call after call from Labor for a royal commission into aged care. The minister of the day actually said that that would effectively be elder abuse. Since then a litany of issues have been explored and evidence given—some hair-raising stuff for anyone who might care to put their loved ones into aged care. There are 151 electorates represented in this chamber. Every one of us has a concern about looking after aged care. We all have a concern about looking after the vulnerable. Yet, of the 148 recommendations made by the royal commission, just a little over half were actually addressed by this government. The royal commission cost $200 million—not an insignificant amount—and the government, who were dragged kicking and screaming to have a royal commission and then wanted to try to take credit for it, are only partially dealing with the recommendations of that royal commission. I would have thought that the alarm bells would have been ringing once the commission delivered their interim report, with the one-word title of Neglect. But, with respect, the royal commission had a bit of a head start on this. After the government, under then Treasurer Morrison, took up to $2 billion out of the system, there have been 21 reports into aged care, all of which have been ignored. But, getting back to the fact that what we in this place are supposed to be doing here is looking after our people and that in all of our electorates—and I don't think that mine is different to anyone else's—there is an ageing population, this should be front and centre to what we are doing here as elected members of this place in looking after the vulnerable in our community. But I want to be balanced and say that Labor will support the passage of this bill. Any improvement to aged care will always get our support. But this is, once again, a missed opportunity. Looking at the way that the government have gone about proposing this bill, I don't know whether they're trying to convince Australians that they really don't care about aged care. I understand that they really care about some of the aged-care providers. I understand that, particularly when you can give them $3.2 billion without strings attached to it and particularly when we've heard evidence—not from the Labor Party but in the royal commission—of some of the excesses that are occurring in aged care. Healthcare workers gave evidence of the fact that some of them were given one set of gloves per shift to look after people in aged care. So apart from looking after multiple clients they were given one set of gloves, that's for doing everything from getting people to be suited for their food and such to addressing other issues—which you can well imagine, Deputy Speaker, for people that are in aged care, particularly those, unfortunately, suffering with incontinence and other issues. But that wasn't evidence from the Labor Party about putting on one pair of gloves per shift, that was sworn evidence from workers to the royal commission. The royal commission found that one in five people in aged care were suffering from substandard care. They're things that should have rung alarm bells for everybody here. It's not a matter of trying to point the finger and playing catch-up on all this. We have a responsibility, as those who are privileged enough to serve in this place, to look after the vulnerable and there can't be many more vulnerable than those who are requiring aged care. As I said, we will certainly support many of the recommendations made. Some sensible amendments are made relating to residential aged-care funding. There are others in terms of the screening of aged-care workers and also governing persons employed in approved providers. Other sensible amendments include a code of practice allowing the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to make and enforce a code of conduct, extensions to the way reports are made in terms of incidents and critical reporting of in-home care, governance approvals for providers, information sharing between Commonwealth bodies and disability and veteran sectors in relation to non-compliance, misuse of refundable accommodation and deposit bonds. They're good things. There are also amendments relating to the independent health-care pricing authority. Labor will be supporting any decent, well thought out improvement to aged care—that's what we do. While we're not opposing the passage of the bill in that respect, the fact that the government has fobbed off, delayed or outrightly rejected almost half the recommendations of the 148 made by the royal commission is a missed opportunity to do something of decency for the people that we purport to represent. This bill is no different, with its alterations from the original royal commission recommendations. I want to deal with some of the evidence that we should be taking into account in the formation of the legislation. As I said, this royal commission cost taxpayers $200 million. It unearthed evidence of abuse, neglect, poor hygiene practices, ongoing workplace issues, labour shortages, poor wages, overworked carers and malnutrition. These are things that we have a responsibility to look at. The royal commission found that the workforce was undervalued, understaffed, under-resourced and the workforce needed critical reform in the aged-care sector. It recommended better wages to ensure that workers are properly valued and to attract and retain new employees to the sector—and that is something the government has not only not responded to but completely ignored. Fortunately my mother is not in aged care—she lives with us—but, if she were, I'm not sure that I would want her being looked after by someone whose only interest in the job was making a bare minimum, where maybe they couldn't get a job at McDonald's at the time, so 'I'll work in aged care.' If you compare the wages of both, there's probably less care needed and less responsibility required to work in fast food than to look after someone in aged care. Yet the aged-care workers I've met, while, sure, they don't get paid much, actually care about people. This is what the royal commission found when it took its evidence—that, yes, they did care about people, that they were undervalued and that they were certainly underpaid. They weren't valued for what they're required to do. It's little wonder there's such a turnover in staff. Then, with the advent of COVID, we discovered that, to make a living, these people are working at more than one aged-care facility. They'll do shifts at some and half-shifts at others. We found out that we have a system that is dependent on people moving from one facility to another. It's not like you have carers whose fulltime responsibility is caring for people in one facility. As I said, this bill is a missed opportunity to address those issues. The royal commission made comments and recommendations about staffing levels, but there has been no effort by the government to address the issue of staffing levels at all. If anything, our staffing structures don't even meet a three-star level of aged care. The royal commission took it upon itself to recommend investment in professional development and career paths for workers in that industry. Again, you won't find anything in this bill about any of that. It's just being left to those who run private aged-care facilities—the ones who are receiving the government's no-strings-attached $3.2 billion. So we're going to have hope, and probably pray a little, that they are going to do the right thing and look after people, rather than simply profit from this. There are no strings attached to that. We have not valued the aged-care workers and home-care workers, who have been on the front line of this pandemic for the last 18 months. We have not shown them any care or treated them decently for what they have been through. We have a situation where not all of our aged-care workers are fully vaccinated yet. The Leader of the Opposition referred to aged-care facilities in his electorate and how a worker, in working in multiple facilities, brought COVID into aged-care facilities in his electorate and five people subsequently died. Surely we can do better than this. We can't be so penny-pinching in trying to cut back on everything, as the government was previously when it took $2 billion out of aged care and then had to face the ignominy of 21 reports. They could have avoided a royal commission if they had picked up some of the recommendations from those reports—the royal commissioners actually had a bit of a head start in looking at the issues in the sector—but none of that occurred. Those on the other side shouldn't think they can leave here, patting themselves on the back and saying: 'Haven't we done well. We've looked after aged care.' We will always support anything that you opposite do to improve the sector, to improve the standard of aged care. But, if you're really serious about aged care, you've got to think about the people who are on the front line of aged care: the workers. I have a bit of an interest in this. My little brother happens to run one of the biggest unions in this space. He has a very clear view on this: if we are going to put our most vulnerable—those that we love—in the hands of others, shouldn't we value the ones we entrust them to for what they're going to do for us? That's a reflection on us. This is, regrettably, a missed opportunity. I think the government should have done a lot better. As a matter of fact, I think there should have been more people in this chamber listening to these debates if they cared about aged care. In that respect, Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the house. (Quorum formed)
Youth Voice In Parliament Week | Statements by Members | House debates
Helen is a 16-year-old young woman living in my electorate. Tragically, she is living with a disability. She is also part of the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, and she has shared with me her...
Helen is a 16-year-old young woman living in my electorate. Tragically, she is living with a disability. She is also part of the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, and she has shared with me her hopes for what Australia will look like in 20 years. Helen says: Today there are very limited options when it comes to education in Australia for disabled, neurodiverse, mentally ill, and chronically ill children. The best option at the moment is schools like Sydney Distance Education High School, where students complete their work online and can attend learning hubs 1-2 days a week. We attend this school because we can't attend a traditional school and often spend a lot of time at home, but we still want to go to school and interact with our classmates and teacher as often as we can. I am hoping that these schools will receive a lot more funding to truly meet the needs of students and that there will be more schools with learning hubs all over Sydney, so students can attend the same hub daily and build friendships. I hope these changes can be made so that future students can receive a good education without having to be isolated. Students like us need access to schools where we can thrive and do well. Thank you, Helen, for raising your voice in this parliament on such a critical issue. We should be doing everything we can to support disabled people.
Spinal Muscular Atrophy | Motions | House debates
I second the motion. I thank the member for Bonner not only for bringing this motion before us but also for his ongoing advocacy in respect of spinal muscular atrophy. Looking back to August,...
I second the motion. I thank the member for Bonner not only for bringing this motion before us but also for his ongoing advocacy in respect of spinal muscular atrophy. Looking back to August, that is the month when we recognise SMA. Not just is this a debilitating disease; it is a killer disease. It is the leading genetic killer of infants under the age of two in this country. To put the matter in greater perspective, one in 6,000 babies are born with SMA. SMA is a rare motor neurone disease that causes progressive deterioration of the motor neurons, the spinal cord and the muscles surrounding the area, like those affecting the neck, the trunk, the arms and the legs. They are the muscles that control posture and movement and the respiratory muscles which control the breathing. Over time, coughing becomes very difficult. As a matter of fact, the inability to cough is one of the significant aspects of SMA that causes the death of children suffering from the disease. Alarmingly, SMA occurs not only in children but also in adults. Many experience the late onset of this disease, particularly types 2, 3 and 4, and it has absolutely life-changing aspects. For many individuals impacted by SMA, the symptoms may develop as early as at three months of age, yet for others who are mildly affected by types 2, 3 and 4 the disease may not be visible until they are in late childhood or even, as I said, early adulthood. Sadly, children with type 1 SMA usually do not live beyond their second birthday. Another statistic that it is worth acknowledging, given the importance of ongoing engagement with and awareness of the condition, is that one in 35 Australian adults carry the regressive gene that causes SMA, and most people are simply unaware of it. What that means is that, if one person is a carrier of this defective gene and has a child with another who is similarly a carrier of the gene, they have a one-in-four chance of having a child born with SMA. This is a statistic that should be a concern to all Australians, and that is why the Health Chief Executives Forum has encouraged all states and territories to include SMA in newborn screening programs, particularly following the success shown by the programs operating in New South Wales and the ACT. In fact, I'd go further and say that, given the success of the newborn screening programs, we should establish a national screening program that operates uniformly across all states and territories. This is where we require the Commonwealth to work cooperatively with all our states to at least establish a consistent outcome. SMA is a matter close to home for my family, having witnessed the impacts of the dreadful disease. In 2010, my cousin, Tamara Hayes, lost her daughter, Summer, to SMA. You can imagine the absolutely tragic and devastating time that the family has had after losing a precious little girl. To Tamara's credit, she used her experience to become an advocate on this very important issue. Tamara advocates for others to ensure that they are aware of, and better equipped to deal with, SMA as a real issue with respect to their children. I can't imagine the grief that families go through when they lose a child—it's simply beyond reckoning. But what it does mean is that we must do better. Clearly, we must work to ensure that better support is provided to families, including the availability of genetic screening, and to those families that are found to be carriers of the regressive gene. While there is currently no cure for SMA, there is certainly a lot of research being invested into this condition with respect to both genetic testing and SMA treatments, with some promising treatments now being tested in clinical trials. This is why we must continue to support the investment of further research into SMA and its treatments.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Was it the states or was it the Prime Minister who falsely claimed that Australia...
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said, 'Ultimately, everything is a state matter.' Was it the states or was it the Prime Minister who falsely claimed that Australia was at the forefront of the vaccine queue?
Gallacher, Senator Alexander McEachian (Alex) | Condolences | House debates
Alex Gallacher was a truck driver. He worked airside as part of the aircrew for TAA. He became a union organiser. Importantly, he was elected secretary of the South Australia/Northern Territory...
Alex Gallacher was a truck driver. He worked airside as part of the aircrew for TAA. He became a union organiser. Importantly, he was elected secretary of the South Australia/Northern Territory branch of the Transport Workers Union. In 2010 he became a senator of the Australian parliament, representing the great state of South Australia. That's a significant and telling curriculum vitae for a working-class man. He never lost sight of who he was and those he was determined to represent to the best of his ability. Alex was a committed Labor man and fiercely loyal to the people of South Australia. For those of us that knew him, I think the best words to describe him are that he was down to earth, genuine and direct. There was no pretence about him. He was honest. Those are words that would probably come to mind for all of us who have dealt with him. Alex's great mate is Senator Glenn Sterle. Together they formed a dynamic duo in our Labor caucus, particularly when it came to matters of road safety or matters affecting the road transport industry. They were passionate about those causes. Alex, as I said, was a working man in a workers' party. He was never slow to remind colleagues if he thought they were straying from what he saw were the key principles of the Labor Party and if we were slow to move to protect workers' rights. He was fiercely loyal to the party itself. He was a strong advocate for improving road safety and the conditions of the road transport industry. By the way, it's an industry which tragically has a fatality rate almost 10 times higher than the average of all other Australian industries, so clearly his passions were well directed in that respect. I remember he once addressed caucus and said words to this effect: 'Truck drivers work hard to make a living, but they shouldn't need to die to make a living.' His contribution was short, direct, considered, but always, always compelling. Alex didn't waste words. He didn't believe in long speeches. He simply conveyed to those who listened what he genuinely believed. It was raw honesty. One thing is certain, and that is that Alex Gallacher made a difference for the better for workers, particularly those in the transport industry. But, more than that, he made a difference for the better in the way he represented the people of South Australia. To his wife, Paola, and to his children and grandchildren, please accept my condolences and know that Alex was much loved and respected by all who knew him and those who had the privilege to work with him. Alex Gallacher, great man, good mate, rest in peace.
National Police Remembrance Day | Motions | House debates
I move: That this House: (1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 29 September 2021; (2) acknowledges the crucial role police officers across Australia play in our local...
I move: That this House: (1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 29 September 2021; (2) acknowledges the crucial role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the tremendous risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty; (3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty and specifically this year honours, Senior Constable David Masters of the Queensland Police Service, who was killed while trying to intercept a stolen vehicle; (4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history; (5) commends the valuable work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers who have fallen; and (6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities. National Police Remembrance Day is observed on 29 September, the day of Saint Michael, the patron saint of all who defend against wrongdoing. This is one of the most significant days in the national police calendar. As a nation, we pause to remember the police officers who have lost their lives in the execution of their duty. We honour their courage and the commitment and the dedication of all police members who have sworn to protect our communities. Policing comes with a high degree of risk that thankfully most of us will never have to encounter. It takes a special type of person, I believe, with a special type of courage to wear the police uniform. We are forever indebted to those fine men and women who choose to do so and recognise their commitment to ensuring the peace, safety and wellbeing of our communities, a duty which we should never take for granted. Our safety and that of our families, the security of our homes and our businesses and indeed our democracy are all reliant on the enforcement of our laws, a task which predominantly falls to our police. I acknowledge the member for Cowper and his service in the NSW Police Force; the member for La Trobe and his service in Victoria Police; and the members for Richmond, Dickson and Wide Bay for their service in the Queensland Police Service. This Police Remembrance Day I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the significant work that's being undertaken by our police with regard to assistance given to our respective health departments in combating COVID-19 outbreaks in our communities. The police continue to play an instrumental role on the front line in respect of the COVID-19 public health orders and restrictions, including maintaining, sadly, control at various protests, as we have seen. Police have been putting themselves on the front line in harm's way and have been personally attacked for doing their duty, which is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our communities, particularly during this challenging period. Sadly, this year we will once again see the total number of police officers listed on the National Wall of Remembrance rise. This year we recognise the tragic loss of Senior Constable David Masters of the Queensland Police Service, who tragically was killed in the course of duty while trying to intercept a stolen vehicle. Senior Constable Masters was highly respected by his colleagues and his community, with his loyalty, commitment and positive attitude very much missed by those in the police family. Quite frankly, the death of Senior Constable Masters highlights the inherent dangers involved in all police work. These people are putting their lives at risk, not knowing what they are likely to encounter every time they go on the shift. Senior Constable Masters leaves behind his wife, Sharon, and his son, Jack. National Police Remembrance Day is, therefore, also a time to reflect on the loved ones that have been left behind. We mourn with them, we thank them and we honour all our police families, whose unconditional support allows these fine men and women to serve our communities. We owe it to the fallen to look after their families, which is why the work of Police Legacy is particularly important and deserving of our support. I note that the Wall to Wall Ride is a major fundraising event for police legacy. But, because of COVID, this year the Wall to Wall Ride has been cancelled; and many of the commemorative services have also been significantly restricted, but most, I understand, will be livestreamed. Like many, I look forward to being able to ride again next year with members and friends of the police family, and hopefully without COVID restrictions, so that we can show our support for Police Legacy. To Senior Constable Masters, to all the police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and to all past and current members of the Police Force: we honour you and profoundly thank you for your service. To all those on the thin blue line: please know and understand that your service makes a difference for the better in our community.
COVID-19: Hospitals | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why are ambulances being forced to wait with COVID patients for hours on end, parked outside Sydney hospitals, because these hospitals are being overwhelmed?...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why are ambulances being forced to wait with COVID patients for hours on end, parked outside Sydney hospitals, because these hospitals are being overwhelmed? What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for leaving our hospital system unprepared 18 months into this pandemic?
COVID-19: Education | Statements by Members | House debates
This year, 2021, has been an incredibly difficult year for Australians but particularly so for year 12 students, who have seen their final year of secondary education thrown into turmoil. Their...
This year, 2021, has been an incredibly difficult year for Australians but particularly so for year 12 students, who have seen their final year of secondary education thrown into turmoil. Their mental health and wellbeing has suffered due to the lack of face-to-face contact with their peers and their teachers. They are facing the very real prospect of their school achievements passing without formal recognition or graduation. My granddaughter Charlie is in year 12. She loves school, but remote learning has taken a toll on her as she tries to navigate learning in an isolated environment. These students know what the pandemic has robbed them of, while the New South Wales government still insists they sit a formal period of exams. The pandemic has changed the government's response to almost everything in our community, but not this year's HSC and the stress and the uncertainty this is causing students. It's time to rethink the validity of the HSC, particularly for this year, and its relevance to university entry. Given the absence of overseas students, our universities are not waiting for the HSC results but are offering more places through early entry provisions. I don't believe this year's HSC is a valid tool of the assessment, but the current level of uncertainty is certainly affecting the welfare of our students. It's time that the New South Wales government listened to our young people, their teachers and, indeed, nearly the entire education sector of New South Wales. (Time expired)
It's clearly been heartbreaking to watch the distressing scenes coming out of Afghanistan, not only for the Afghan people but also for the international community as a whole. We must reflect on...
It's clearly been heartbreaking to watch the distressing scenes coming out of Afghanistan, not only for the Afghan people but also for the international community as a whole. We must reflect on what this means for Australians who are stranded in Afghanistan; Australians who have relatives in their homeland; Afghans who have worked with the Australian and allied military personnel during the conflict; the officials who have been caught up through, for example, humanitarian agencies; and, most of all, our veterans, who are no doubt feeling the absolute brutal cost of this 20-year-long mission. While this is not how we envisaged that the conflict would end, we must now come to terms with the reality and the urgency of the humanitarian disaster now unfolding. Although many veterans will, no doubt, be questioning whether the Afghan war was worth it, on behalf of our community and certainly I think on behalf of all Australians, I want to reaffirm our gratitude for the service that they have given for their country in a fight against terrorism to secure freedom and a better future for Afghans and particularly for women and girls. This was not for nothing. Clearly this conflict will raise many emotions within the community, but we must also think of the gains that have been made through the efforts of our participation in the Afghan conflict, particularly through education, health, human rights, trade and, to an extent, the opening up of diplomatic connections throughout the region. While there is no doubt that miscalculations and misgivings were made throughout this mission, as I gather would occur in any tense situation of conflict, let us recall the reason why the allied intervention occurred in Afghanistan in the first place: it was a fight against terrorism, terrorism espoused by extremist groups, including al-Qaeda, who were responsible for the tragic September 11 attack and who colluded with the Taliban to attack our very way of life. To our veterans, our service men and women, we are indeed in your debt for your service. As a nation we are safer today from the threat of terrorism because of your courage and your sacrifice. While these have been certainly testing times with the situation in Kabul and across Afghanistan rapidly evolving our priority must be to ensure the safety and orderly departure of Australian citizens, permanent residents, visa holders and those in Afghanistan who have supported Australia and our allies on the ground. This is not just a moral obligation; it's certainly a matter of some considerable importance when it comes to our national security. I believe the government could have, and should have, done more as soon as it had decided to announce its intention to leave Afghanistan nearly three months ago. I know many members have been contacted by constituents concerned about the plight of relatives in Afghanistan, but I would like to refer to one. I was recently contacted by a constituent expressing grave concern with regard to his father and brother in Afghanistan due to the support that they had provided to allied forces throughout the conflict. The situation is so grave that I'm informed a formal directive has been issued by the Taliban ordering the death of these men and their families. While they have documentation that substantiates the nature of their work with allied forces, they don't have a visa. The consequence is that they cannot enter the airport because they don't have their visas. They risk being caught by the Taliban with the incriminating documents which define the work they were doing with allied forces throughout the conflict. This is but one example of the real and pressing dangers facing many individuals in Afghanistan who have supported our mission, and we must be prepared to take further action to secure the safety of these people and these families. We must not forget the humanitarian obligations to the Afghan people, with the United Nations estimating 250,000 internally displaced Afghan people since May of this year. Just in my electorate alone, I've received over 200 emails from concerned family members about the current plight of Afghanistan. Constituents from a vast range of backgrounds, professions and ages are coming to advocate for the protection of the human rights, the security and the dignity of all Afghans, and this is something occurring within our communities that we should be proud of. We are talking about the women, the children, the human rights activists and the many members of the various minority groups in Afghanistan. While we welcome the government's announcement of 3,000 places for Afghan resettlement in the year 2021-22, more can be done to resettle Afghans throughout our humanitarian program. The sheer desperation of Afghan people has been captured in a very moving way in the images that we have seen over the past week. There was the image of the teenage boy gripping to the undercarriage of a moving aircraft and tragically falling from the plane after take-off and the image of a parent offering up their child to a military officer over a fence at Kabul airport. You've got to wonder, Deputy Speaker, what was going through the mind of that boy or that parent taking such drastic action. That can only be described as sheer desperation and fear of what is to come under the Taliban leadership. With that said, we must take an active role as part of the international community to secure the safety of Afghanistan and its people and to restore hope of a better life for those who suffered and endured so long under the harsh leadership of the Taliban. We owe it to the Australian Afghan community and to our veterans to ensure that this hope becomes a reality.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I also would like to make a contribution to this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. To make it clear from the...
I also would like to make a contribution to this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. To make it clear from the outset, Labor welcomes the measures in this bill to the extent that they are aimed at improving support and protection for NDIS participants, including the involvement and functions of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. While we do welcome those measures in the bill, we certainly have grave concerns about the lack of consultation with the people who rely on the NDIS, and their families. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that's fundamentally what is contained in the second reading amendment. It draws attention to those ultimate deficiencies. The displacement of people with disability from the decision-making process, a process that directly involves their lives, contradicts the very core of what the NDIS was all about. At the core of the NDIS was a people centred principle. To make changes without consulting those directly involved certainly has—with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker—hairs on it. We should not be taking these people for granted. What we know about the bill is that it is a direct response to the Robertson review of the death of an Adelaide NDIS participant, Ann-Marie Smith. The review was the result of pressure from Labor's shadow minister and also from Labor's state shadow minister in South Australia to establish the independent inquiry into the death of Ms Smith. While we congratulate the government for finally taking much-needed action on this issue, it should be noted that they took that action 11 months after former judge Alan Robertson handed down his report and some 16 months after Ann-Marie Smith passed away. Only now are they finally doing something about it. That's just simply not good enough, and it's not the appropriate care that you would expect would be made available to the most vulnerable in our community. The bill doesn't even come close to fixing what we see as the mess that the Morrison government has made of the NDIS and the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework—particularly what is in that framework to prevent abuse. This is a government—you've only got to remember back to a couple of budgets ago—that robbed $4.6 billion from the NDIS. That was not because the NDIS didn't need it; they actually did that to prop up the budget's bottom line. So, if you can make flagrant changes like that concerning the most vulnerable in our community, what else can you do? But I've got to say that there is a bit of a common theme in that. Just look at how they approached the issue of robodebt. That found its way into the courts where it was found to be an illegal process, but they were quite happy to move on some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the community on robodebt. Juxtapose with that how they responded to large corporations that inappropriately pocketed JobKeeper money. They didn't actually try to go and get any of that back. As a matter of fact, they said: 'It's gone to other things.' Well, yes—it went to propping up share prices and to paying executive bonuses and other things like that. Their treatment of public funds is just reprehensible. But they were prepared to take a different approach to robodebt; they tried to justify that. Then they tried to justify not restoring moneys that were paid out to companies that didn't need them, when, quite frankly, those moneys could have been used for other things, given the circumstances of this pandemic. Let's also remember that 12,000 Australians with a disability tragically died while waiting to be funded under the NDIS on this government's watch. This is just not acceptable, particularly in a country like Australia. We are not talking about a third-world administration or a third-world country. In a country like Australia, we expect the most vulnerable in our community to be looked after. I would have thought that that should have been a common thought across this chamber. I remind Australians that this is the same government that, through tricks and dishonesty, tried to ram through, not all that long ago, the independent assessment scheme, which was also designed to cut costs out of the NDIS. They only pulled back on that when there was a hue and cry—a national backlash—and not just from our side but from their side as well, when people started working out what this meant for families living with disabilities. I've got to say: the Liberals just can't be trusted when it comes to schemes that underpin the most vulnerable in our community. In essence, this bill amends the provisions of the NDIS Act to support the implementation of changes in response to recommendations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Robertson review, all of which were aimed at improving the support and protections provided by the NDIS to NDIS participants. Recommendations 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are responsible for facilitating better exchange of information between the agency and the commission and also for the disclosure of information to the relevant state and territory authorities. Recommendation 6 deals with the clarification around the scope of reporting incidents. While those are certainly welcome recommendations from the Robertson review, which have been implemented in this bill, we are disappointed that report does not identify any failings in how the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission carried out its function around Ms Smith's death. Now, remember that Ms Smith was a 54-year-old Adelaide woman. She was an NDIS participant, and she died on 6 April 2020. It was found that she died with severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and other issues connected with her cerebral palsy after being confined to a cane chair for 24 hours a day for more than a year. Ms Smith's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports are that she only received two hours per day and had not been seen outside her house for over 12 months. This tragic death is nothing short of unbelievable neglect. If there was one positive to come out of this dreadful situation it's that it has prompted the government to come to terms with the failures of the system to identify the gaps that this bill now seeks to address. There is certainly clearly something not working that goes to the heart of the issue—that is, the failure of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to ensure that its monitoring and its exercising of punitive functions are being appropriately administered. The Robertson review found that there was no legal wrongdoing when the commission, which was set up to protect NDIS participants, issued a $12½ thousand fine for failing to notify the commission of Ms Smith's death—but that was a month and a half after she had died—and placed a banning order on the provider, Integrity Care, for four months, following her death. We know that this was the only infringement that the commission had issued up to that point over two years. I guess now I know that, a year on, there have been a handful of other infringements issued. In 2018 the inaugural NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Graeme Head, gave a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, and I just want to quote his words. He said: We have comprehensive regulatory powers and functions, and real regulatory teeth. Incidents that must be reported … include the death of a participant, serious injury, abuse or neglect and importantly also the unauthorised use of a restrictive practice in relation to a participant. Where was any of that in relation to Ms Smith? It just was not there. So I imagine Mr Head must look back on his words in 2018 and think they haven't aged well. If those opposite think that the commission has any real regulatory power, as well as function, why aren't they ensuring that the commission is overseeing the care of participants, overseeing the care of Ann-Marie Smith? Simply, the government must address these issues and ensure the commission's power is being properly administered, to prevent the abuse and neglect in the first place, not after the event. It should be overseeing and regulating the conduct of care being given to ensure that we don't see a repeat of the issues that occurred in Adelaide with respect to Ann-Marie Smith. It's certainly not a satisfactory situation. Quite frankly, it's highly offensive and disrespectful to the many families out there who have had to endure the similar fate of being, effectively, ignored when it comes to what is actually needed and necessary for families that are living with disability. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a vital service, but after eight years of Liberal rule it has been slashed and mismanaged to the extent that people are now dying of neglect in their homes. Our approach must be to focus on the issues and to ensure that we never see again instances like that of Ann-Marie Smith occurring on the watch of this parliament. This is the kind of systemic failure, one that results in death by neglect, that needs to be approached head-on, with honesty and with vigour for reform—ensuring that we make a change that delivers the results that were always intended with the initial formation of the NDIS itself. The government must work beyond the measures in this bill. It owes it to all Australians living with a disability and their families to ensure that it is overseen appropriately and properly, and with the best possible system of care for some of our country's most vulnerable Australians.