Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John?

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm seeking the call to move a couple of amendments

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Let me just check precisely what stage we're at, senators.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move amendments on sheet—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on! Senator Steele-John was seeking the call. The temporary chair then said he was seeking advice as to where we were up to. Sorry—

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just sought the call.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Jordon was seeking the call.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Jordon doesn't need advice. I'm—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Jordon sought the call to move the Greens amendments. That is what Jordan was doing before you jumped to move yours.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Hold on, let's do this through the chair.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Temporary Chair—Senator Hanson-Young, my understanding was that we were going through the procedural activities that the chair was going through before we moved to the moving of amendments. I thought Senator Steele-John was actually—the temporary chair asked Senator Steele-John whether that was what he was doing. He said he was seeking to move amendments. I was obviously waiting for the place in the program where amendments were to be moved. I'm more than happy, as I always am, to make sure everybody in the chamber gets the opportunity to ask their questions. But I was intending to stand as the first person to stand, because I was waiting for the time in the program that it was appropriate to do that.

Well, I'm sorry. That was a term—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Ruston, one moment. Let me manage this situation.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

That was offensive!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Let's bring the temperature down, senators. At this point, I did recognise Senator Steele-John first. I appreciate the point you're making, Senator Ruston. I appreciate this may not be ideal, but I am going to give the call to Senator Steele-John first on this occasion, and then I will come to you.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

SHEET 3439

(1) Clause 11, page 17 (after line 3), after paragraph 11(j), insert:

(ja) promoting research in relation to public health matters, including by:

(i) developing and maintaining close relationships with key public health research entities; and

(ii) providing advice to research funding entities on research priorities for public health matters;

(jb) promoting public health workforce expertise;

(2) Clause 12, page 17 (line 13), omit "to (j)", substitute "to (jb)".

_____

SHEET 3440

(1) Page 63 (after line 21), after clause 77, insert:

77A Annual pandemic preparedness and climate reporting

The annual report prepared by the Director-General and given to the Minister under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for a period must include an assessment of the following in relation to the period (including as compared to any previous such periods):

(a) Australia's pandemic preparedness;

(b) the impacts of climate change on health for Australians.

_____

SHEET 3441

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 8), after the definition of Director-General, insert:

disability has the same meaning as in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

(2) Clause 30, page 28 (after line 24), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) The Minister must ensure that at least one appointed member is a person with a disability who has expertise, qualifications or experience in the health needs of people with disability.

_____

SHEET 3443

(1) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 23), after subparagraph (11)(h)(vii), insert:

(viia) bodies whose objects include the prevention and management of occupational exposures and injuries;

(viib) bodies whose objects include the prevention and control of infection;

(viic) bodies representing people with disability;

(viid) bodies whose objects include research into, and the management of, the health needs of people with disability;

These amendments, when taken together, substantially strengthen the Centre for Disease Control. They will ensure that climate change is mentioned specifically in the annual report as it relates to public health. They will ensure that there is consultation with community organisations in relation to policy setting. They will ensure that the centre has a clear direction in relation to the promotion of the health workforce and health research.

Critically, they will ensure that there is, now and forever, a permanent disabled representative on the advisory council—someone who is a disabled person and who has specific disability-health based knowledge. I think this will go a long way to demonstrating to the Australian disability community that we here in the Senate understand that the disability community bore the brunt of the pandemic. So many of us lost loved ones. So many of us were confined to our homes. So many of us still must isolate in order to safeguard our health.

I will share with the Senate, on a personal note, the fear that swept through our community in those early days and weeks of the pandemic. We would reach out to government and ask what the disability-specific response plan was for disabled people, and we were often met with silence or a 'we're working on that' or a 'we are bringing some people together to have a bit of a conversation', all the while people were beginning to become sick or were dying or being incubated. If we can learn one thing from this event it is that government must plan for these situations in a way which ensures there are urgent responses that reflect the diverse needs of the Australian community, because time is the precious substance in these situations. We should spend that time getting health care to people, not pulling together emergency working groups that we didn't know we needed because there was nobody in the room sharing a disabled perspective in relation to the plan as it was actually being made. With that said, as I said, I commend these amendments to the chamber, and I'm proud to do so this morning.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the clarity of the chamber, I understand that the Senate has just given leave for the amendments on sheets 3443, 3441, 3440 and 3439 to be moved together. I simply wish to confirm that, because they're not listed in consecutive order on the grey, and I wanted to make sure we were all clear about where we were headed.

I will make a very brief remark about the bill overall, which is just to thank those members and senators who have engaged here and in the other place on the debate about the establishment of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. I think there has been genuine interest and genuine engagement in relation to the bill. There has been very constructive feedback and dialogue with the government, and I know that Minister Butler has appreciated the willingness of many members in this place and senators in this chamber to engage.

It is a very significant bill. It delivers on a promise that Labor made some time ago, and it will establish a new statutory agency to commence on 1 January 2026. The point here, as Senator Steele-John indicated in moving his amendments, is to strengthen our public health capability, improve pandemic preparedness and safeguard the health and wellbeing of all Australians, not just in times of crisis but every day.

The independent COVID-19 response inquiry found that we went into the pandemic with no playbook for the pandemic, we had limited readiness in the national medical stockpile, and we had badly stretched aged-care and healthcare systems. These were all structural challenges which made it difficult for Australia to respond, and that inquiry identified serious gaps in our national response, and the absence of a central authority to provide consistent advice, fragmented data systems and outdated emergency fund were amongst those. The message was very clear from that inquiry—we can't allow our public health systems to fall into neglect or short-term thinking.

The inquiry talked about the need to rebuild and maintain public trust in health advice—trust in the health advice that informs government when making decisions that can have a very significant impact on peoples' lives. The Australian CDC responds directly to this request. It will bring independence and transparency—the independence and transparency that the public expects—and it will make its advice to government and the reasons behind that advice available to the public. Establishing a permanent Australian CDC through this bill will deliver on our commitment to create an independent agency that can help protect Australia from diseases and public health threats.

The initial priorities for the CDC will focus on communicable diseases, pandemic preparedness and capabilities in environmental health and occupational respiratory diseases, with progressive expansion into areas such as chronic conditions considered following an independent review of the CDC's funding and operations in 2028. That review will assess the Australian CDC's effectiveness in delivering on its initial priorities and help inform a staged widening of its remit over time.

Our expectation is that the CDC will consult widely with public health experts, with clinicians, with academics and, importantly, noting the contributions from Senator Steele-John, with communities. It should engage closely with those with lived experience of health threats and response measures to inform its advice, and this inclusive approach should ensure that the CDC's advice is grounded in real-world impacts and is sensitive to social, cultural and economic factors that shape health outcomes in nuanced ways across our diverse society. No Australian should be left behind.

It will complement and not duplicate the work of existing government agencies, and it will enhance our capacity by providing high-quality, independent advice and improving access to timely, reliable data. It will support the Commonwealth and state and territory governments in planning for and responding to health emergencies. We expect the Australian CDC to work closely with states and territories and to tailor its engagement to meet the unique needs of each jurisdiction, ensuring that national coordination does not come at the expense of local relevance. It will be led by a director-general, directly accountable to the minister for health and accountable also—importantly for this chamber—to parliament. Supporting that director-general will be an advisory council made up of members with deep expertise in relevant fields, including public health, clinical practice, economics, health, human rights, data, emergency management and communications. At least one member must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person and must have expertise in the health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, supporting our commitment to closing the gap.

Transparency is a cornerstone of the reform. One of the most powerful lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is that Australians expect clarity in public health decision-making, and the CDC will be required to publish the advice it provides to governments. This will help rebuild public trust, counter misinformation and ensure that communities and businesses have the information that they need to act effectively during future crises. Data will be at the heart of the CDC's work. The COVID-19 inquiry highlighted a critical weakness in our pandemic response. Decisions were often made without sufficient evidence due to fragmented and inaccessible data, and this bill addresses that gap.

The CDC will lead the development of a modern approach to national public health data that enables faster detection of risks, more consistent responses across jurisdictions and stronger foundations for planning. It will use advanced data analytics to detect emerging threats and provide timely, independent advice. It will also streamline data sharing across the Commonwealth and with states and territories, supported by strong privacy safeguards. These data functions have been developed using a privacy-by-design approach, ensuring that transparency and individual rights are protected at every stage.

The bill is the result of more than three years of policy development and public consultation. It closes the governance and data gaps that undermined our pandemic response. It reflects the input of key stakeholders, and it establishes a CDC that is built to deliver real and lasting impact. To ensure that it remains effective and fit for purpose, the government will conduct a legislative review every five years. This will allow us to monitor its performance, adapt to new challenges and ensure that the legislation continues to support the CDC's mission, particularly in improving the availability and use of public health data. This bill establishes a permanent, evidence based institution, and it should ensure that we are better prepared, more united and more accountable in the face of future public health threats.

I want to turn briefly to the amendments proposed by Senator Steele-John that are before us. As Senator Steele-John indicated, a number of these go to ensuring that the particular challenges faced by the disability community will be observed and acknowledged in the work of the CDC. I thank the senator for his constructive engagement with the government. The government appreciates the way that you approached this debate. It is the case that we will now ensure that at least one member of the advisory council, should this amendment pass, be a person with disability who has expertise, qualifications or experience in the health needs of people with disability, amongst the other effects of this amendment. I thank you particularly, Senator, for this contribution.

The final thing I would say in the remaining time is that this is a long overdue reform. We hope that it honours the hard lessons of the past and builds a stronger, healthier future for all Australians.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you confirm that the requirements of the CDC to publish information only applies to documents that explicitly do not make a recommendation on a course of action?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have is that the CDC will provide advice to government with a recommendation, either for action or for no action, and that advice will be published.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the CDC be required to release information that provides analysis or advice on an action already taken by government or governments?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the CDC provides advice to government that includes analysis that would support an action that has already been taken, it would be required to publish that advice.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm interested to understand what the need or rationale is to include amendments to the FOI Act that apply specifically only to the CDC. Why is the FOI Act, in its current form, insufficient to be able to cover any necessary provisions in relation to FOI? In relation to material causing social stigma and vilification to a group, is the term 'group' explicitly defined in the legislation? To that end, could a state or territory government—or other government entities or bodies—be considered a group for the purposes of this provision? If so, could this result in critical information being withheld from the public domain simply due to the objections from entities such as a state government?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to your first question, the advice I have is that the CDC will hold, at times, sensitive information. That information is defined in the act. It's necessary to ensure that the FOI arrangements are responsive to the sensitivity of that information. It's described in the provisions of the bill. In relation to your question about states and territories, I will seek further advice to understand the effect of it.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.

Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I'll go so far as to say that it's the worst legislation I've seen in nine years in the Senate. It's dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.

The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There's nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci's haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America's National Institutes of Health, and Fauci's colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak.

Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they're being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—'Look at what we can do!'—or is there a genuine medical outcome they're working towards?

We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they're experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what's happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don't know. The bill doesn't set out these matters. It's a glaring omission.

The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn't started yet. You're assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there's nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give 'thank you' jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong?

Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak.

Finally, I've already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let's take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people.

Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that's really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn't the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that's all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You're given them the money to do it, and they'll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I've dealt with. Minister, I've given you many questions. I'd like some answers.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll come back to the question asked by Senator Ruston in relation to the FOI arrangements and whether the exemptions proposed in the definitions in section 5 would extend to states and territories. The advice that I have is no. The exemptions simply indicate that, under the act, it would be an exempt document if there is a risk that publishing the document or material could cause physical harm or threats of harm, social stigma, bullying, vilification or other harm, other than commercial or economic harm, to an individual or group. A state or territory would not be considered an individual or group under that definition.

I've listened to the contribution made by Senator Roberts, which I think proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of the Australian Centre for Disease Control. In particular, Senator, you seem to assume that medical or scientific research would be conducted by the centre and would be amongst the responsibilities of the director-general. Perhaps to reassure you, you may wish to turn to page 15 of the legislation, which sets out the functions of the director-general. I won't read out all of it because that would take too long, but I would indicate that, if you scan it, you will see that the function is to provide advice on public health matters to the minister at the request of the minister, provide advice to or consult with Commonwealth entities on public health matters, provide advice to or consult with state or territory governments on health matters, provide advice to or consult with international organisations, gather and analyse information relating to public health matters, provide advice or consult with a long list of bodies on public health matters, and develop, publish or promote standards or communications. That's the short version of the material that's set out in the published bill from page 15 onwards.

I think it is important when we have debates of this kind that we conduct them in an honest way. I spoke in my earlier contribution about the challenges of misinformation. All senators have a role to provide accurate information about the bills that are before this chamber. I don't think coming here and characterising this bill as a bill that relates to the conduct of scientific research by a new body is accurate, and I'd invite you to reflect on the bill that has actually been circulated and perhaps confine your remarks to the particular policy proposals that the government is bringing forward.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'd like to talk about racism and the impacts on health. Racism is not just another social determinant of health; it is part of a system of power and oppression that inflicts real harm and takes lives. The Lancet journal declared racism a global public health emergency. It shapes who gets sick, who gets care and who survives. It is a toxin that creates disease and distress in the body, and it is a root cause of inequity that shortens lives, worsens disease and drives mental distress globally.

Research from the Mayi Kuwayu study led by Indigenous scholars was one of the first of its kind to quantify how racism harms the health of First Peoples. The study found that almost half of First Nations adults experience high psychological distress linked to everyday racism and that racism alone accounts for nearly half the mental health gap between First Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples. The Lancet commentary Rights-seeking, racism, and retribution shows that when First Peoples assert our rights, racism intensifies. We saw that during the Voice. We are seeing the same with treaty in Victoria, with the 13YARN crisis support line being swarmed due to increases in racism.

You have a number of Aboriginal members of your government, yet racism is not part of this bill. I know you've done a deal with the Greens already, but you've excluded racism, Minister. My people, and I am sure the Aboriginal members of your government's people want to know why racism has been excluded.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Thorpe, thank you for bringing questions around race and the impacts of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into this debate. It is an issue I would acknowledge, and I know that my colleague Senator McCarthy would also acknowledge these concerns. I well recall the important role that Aboriginal controlled community health organisations and land councils played during the pandemic in describing the particular risks that presented for their communities and in supporting senators in this place to understand those and to help shape the way that we were thinking about what an appropriate pandemic response would look like.

The bill does provide many references to the responsibilities of the director-general to consider the public-health impacts that might arise for particular populations. In particular, as a legislated objective, the director-general must have regard to the impacts of risks to public health and the impacts of responses to risks to public health on particular communities and population groups. This objective will ensure that consideration is given to the impacts of public-health risks, the advice and approaches to combat the impacts on specific population groups and the health inequities that they face across all functions—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why can't we name racism?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why can't we name racism?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Thorpe, you do not have the call. The minister is on her feet, responding to your question. If you want to hear the answer, please remain silent. It is disorderly to be shouting out from the other end of the chamber to the minister while she is on her feet, and also disrespectful to me.

Why aren't you speaking up for it? Because you jumped ship. You're a joke.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, come to order.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I'll just conclude by saying that the objective I read to you just now is intended to ensure that the CDC does consider—

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You sound like a copper.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe!

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

issues relevant to specific—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe, if you keep interjecting, we cannot continue for the minister to give her answer. Please be respectful, as others have shown respect, so that they are able to answer the question that you have posed to the minister. If you keep interjecting, she's not going to be able to give her answer.

Senator, I simply wish to indicate that this objective is intended to ensure issues relevant to specific population groups, including issues such as racial discrimination, are considered.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's concerning that we have limited debate like this on a bill that creates a new institution—an institution that I think is overdue, and I welcome the government bringing forward this legislation. But I simply do not see the need to constrain debate like this, to the point where the minister has to get up and give her second reading speech in Committee of the Whole, where we have 40 minutes, and chews up 10 minutes giving a speech which could have been done, had senators been allowed to speak on this. Regardless of what you may think—and I strongly disagree with many of the objections to this bill—people should be able to have their say and actually scrutinise things in Committee of the Whole. But here we are, coming up to time, and a whole bunch of senators haven't even been able to say what they think about this bill. The creation of a new institution does require scrutiny. We need to get this right and set it up for success. To guillotine this with almost no notice, with a bunch of people still on the second reading speakers list, I think, is very regrettable.

But I say just briefly, as a senator for the ACT, that it was great to see a commitment from the government to have the ACDC based in Canberra. This is something that I have been pushing for, since the government announced it in the last election campaign, because it makes good, practical sense. When thinking about the ACDC in Canberra, my team actually came up with a bit of a logo, which I'm happy to table if the government would like to use it. I think it's a pretty good start. It would probably save a thousand bucks maybe.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, you need to seek leave.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.

I'm happy to email it through if that's of interest. It makes good practical sense because Canberra is where our Public Service is headquartered. In the event of an emergency, we want and need the ACDC to be positioned close to parliament, close to government, close to the Department of Health and close to our national security agencies. We saw just how critical coordination is through the pandemic. I really thank and welcome the government's commitment to Canberra.

The ACDC could also help Canberra recruit more desperately needed clinicians. Part of what makes Canberra an attractive destination for clinicians is that we can often offer those clinicians some diversity in their work. In Canberra we have clinicians working in our hospitals, in our general practice and in our pharmacies while they're also working in the Department of Health or the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Canberra offers opportunities for clinicians to practice in public health and in public policy whilst also seeing patients on the front line of our public services. For a jurisdiction with a very low proportion of GPs, as we have canvassed in this chamber, and a jurisdiction that lacks a number of specialties, the ACDC offers us an opportunity to draw a few more doctors, nurses and pharmacists to our growing city. That's why I fought as hard as I could to make sure that it was based in Canberra, here in the ACT.

I want to thank the AMA ACT, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation ACT branch and the Pharmacy Guild ACT branch for backing that call and for recognising the difference a new public health agency could make to our local workforce. What we've heard around the traps is that it wasn't a sure thing. Melbourne put up some stiff competition for the ACDC, but, on this occasion, I think Canberra made a better case and the reasons were very clear for that decision. I again commend the government for bringing forward this legislation.

I think the COVID pandemic was clearly a wake-up call for the nation and reminded us that we aren't immune to pandemics. It is likely that we will have to confront more of these situations going forward, with scientists warning that climate change is expected to accelerate the emergence and reemergence of infectious diseases. The government's own national climate risk assessment shows that climate change will increase risks to our health more broadly, including by exacerbating noncommunicable diseases. In fact, we are already seeing that. During the Black Summer bushfires, we saw 445 excess deaths attributable to smoke exposure. Currently, 3,200 Australians die each year from respiratory disease related to air pollution. That is more people than die on our roads each year. Even more frightening, we know now that hotter days are linked with more suicides, higher rates of family and domestic violence and more mental health emergencies. According to child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr Cybele Dey, even mild heat has been shown to increase suicidal distress amongst young people. We've already locked in warming, and now we are going to need the dedicated expertise from the ACDC to provide advice on how to manage this from a public health perspective. So I'm very pleased to see that the ACDC will take a role in advising governments on the public health risk of climate change. This is essential work. This is critical work, and we need to ensure that they are well resourced to do this.

Like some of my colleagues here in the chamber, I also believe that the ACDC should consider all preventable health conditions. The greatest burden of disease in Australia is not from communicable diseases; it's in non-communicable diseases. If we hope for a healthier future, we want and we need the ACDC to be providing advice on how we can manage all types of disease from a public health perspective, because we know that, as a country, we're not doing enough when it comes to prevention. We have a ballooning health budget and all sorts of issues. We're very good at treating, but we need to be far better at prevention and actually setting Australians up to live a healthy, longer life—a real focus on health span.

One of the other things that I wanted to touch on quickly—I understand others are wanting to speak—is that we should include gambling. We have seen it reported in the news this week there has been a steady increase in problem gambling over the past year, which has coincided with the increase—