Division Description Changes — Bills — Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020; Second Reading — 4th Mar 2020

Change	Division
representatives vote 2020-03-04#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-03-20 12:47:41	Title Bills — Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020; Second Reading Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020 - Second Reading - Poor economy Description ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Byrne</p>~~ <p>I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020, which provide appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of the government for the remainder of 2019-20. I do so within the context of how our country is dealing with the coronavirus, what we've seen around the world and what I think we're about to see in this country. Mr Speaker, you were here when I spoke about this on the adjournment on Monday night. I make these comments in the spirit of bipartisanship, but I want to draw attention to what I think are some constructive suggestions that might improve our response with respect to this particular outbreak.</p> <p>I'll start where I left off on Monday night. I believe that, with respect to the best way of dealing with not just this outbreak but future outbreaks, our country would be best served by an Australian centre for disease control. That, in my mind, would be the best way of providing an enduring and a coordinated approach to major health outbreaks like the coronavirus. In light of what we've seen recently in the public debate, as an individual, I'm calling for the establishment of an Australian centre for disease control prevention as a vehicle for preventing misinformation or conflicting information emerging in the Australian community. However well-intentioned our efforts have been and continue to be—and I commend the government and the opposition for their efforts—in this era of fake news, this is something that we need to look at and continue to address as the best way forward.</p> The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which is "that this bill be now read for a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text** > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "whilst not declining to give** the bill a second reading, the House notes that:* > *> (1) after six years in office the economy is flounder*ing on the Government's watch; > *> (2)** Australians are struggling with stagnant wages, with wage growth stalling further;* > > (3) net debt has more than doubled under this Government; > *> (4)** the Government does not have a plan to boost wages or growth in the economy; and* > *> (5) it is because of the Government's failures that Australia meets the challenges and uncertainties of the bushfires** and coronavirus from a position of weakness, not strength."* <p>I believe, and overseas experience shows, that a centre for disease prevention would be a useful coordinating agency that would harmonise the provision of information on, for example, the coronavirus, between the Australian government and the respective state and territory governments. In times of crisis, we need to ensure that the Australian public has the best available information at their disposal when they need it. Australians want to know, for example, about our quarantine and isolation arrangements. They want to know about how fast the virus is spreading, they want to know how many people have contracted the virus in Australia, and they want to know what to do if the virus spreads in Australia. An established centre for disease control and prevention in Australia would, in my view, be able to coordinate our nation's response in answering all of these questions not just now but on an ongoing basis.</p> <p>With this outbreak, we're starting to see that the lessons of SARS, swine flu and the 2014 Ebola outbreak have not been learned by governments. I've seen it described by immunologists as a panic-and-then-forget response. We can't afford to panic and then forget this time.</p> <p>As I said on Monday night, we live in an age of disinformation and fake news. More than ever we need to find a way to cut through this noise. I hope we consider establishing a properly funded Australian CDC to coordinate and disseminate vital public health messages for the sake of our community and our frontline and vital healthcare workers who need to keep us safe. Additionally, no specific antiviral treatments presently exist to deal with this virus. On the best possible medical advice that I've been provided with at this point in time, a potential vaccination could be at least a year away—that's not to mention how long it would take for large-scale production of that vaccine to proceed. That emphasises that we have to have a centre that is committed to ongoing and enduring funded research that addresses developing treatments that reduce mortality and outbreaks. As I said, research in this needs to be enduring and focused, not just reactive. That's not to diminish the work that some of our fine institutions do, but I do believe that we need to be more focused in how we address this.</p> <p>As we know with SARS and MERS, most of the serious cases of this virus develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. To quote a recent paper in <i>The</i><i>Lancet</i><i>,</i> 'There is an urgent need for focused funding and scientific investments into advancing novel therapeutic interventions for coronavirus infections.' Let us listen to this advice and support those carrying out this essential research on an enduring basis. I'll give an example of why we need to do this. A paper released a week or so ago by six epidemiologists based in Canada—in my last speech I said it was Canberra, but it was Canada—using mathematical modelling and taking into account the number of exported cases, has estimated the present case count of the coronavirus in Iran is about 18,000 people. I actually believe it's more than that. I have heard there are tens of thousands. This is in comparison to the 593 cases in Iran that the World Health Organization publicly reported only a couple of days ago.</p> <p>As I said on Monday, a co-author of the paper, infectious disease specialist Isaac Bogoch, commented, 'When a country exports cases to other destinations it's very likely that the burden of infection in this country is significant.' We have experienced that as a consequence of the underreporting of the virus in Iran and people returning from Iran. We're rushing to plug the gap, so to speak. That's why we need to have clearer information on an ongoing basis about how viruses of this type spread.</p> <p>Equally, it is clear we must do even more to contain the spread of the virus and to address what is clearly going to be—and I suspect we'll see this through the national accounts that will come down at 11.30 this morning—the economic damage this virus is creating. According to the ABC on Monday, the ASX 200 was down about 10.5 per cent last week, meaning that we lost about $240 billion on the local stock market. That was last week. The plummeting stock market, which is seeing a slight correction, is I think just the tip of the iceberg. Small businesses that rely on overseas production are suffering. Australian exporters are losing access to valuable overseas markets and tourism is clearly sharply down.</p> <p>Supply chain disruptions, due to halting production in China and elsewhere, will ripple throughout the economy for months, perhaps even years, especially in critical industries like construction and manufacturing. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, the coronavirus has exposed a critical weakness in our drug supply chain, for example. A significant proportion of pharmaceutical ingredients for drugs are manufactured in China, which means supply chain disruption may eventually cause drug shortages around the world, including in Australia. Analysts now project that many American and Australian companies will generate zero earnings growth in 2020 because of the coronavirus. If the coronavirus—I guess we could say 'when'—reaches global pandemic levels, experts predict that it could lead to a recession in Australia and across the globe. In response to the coronavirus, I'd encourage the Australian government as an example to work with employers to assist people with providing potentially an emergency paid sick leave for people either suffering from the coronavirus or who need to remain isolated if they have a relative who may have contracted coronavirus. Like I said, this will ripple across our country for some period of time. If you're a casual worker who might need to take 14 days off, as a colleague of mine, the member for Werriwa, mentioned to me yesterday, what does it mean for the person that is forced to take 14 days off? Where is the protection for that person, that casual worker? That might be a mum working in Narre Warren South or in Cranbourne who will need to take the mandated 14 days off because that person has the coronavirus, but where is her employment protection? Where is her wage protection?</p> <p>These are things that we're having to grapple with and we're going to have to grapple with them very rapidly, because we are requiring, as part of the best possible advice, which we have taken from our Chief Medical Officer and the experts, that it is going to require isolation. We're going to have to isolate people who are contracting this particular virus or who have contracted the virus, and we need to think about it. The ripple effects of this virus through our economy are going to be and continue to be substantial not just in mortality rate, not just in populations that are at greater risk—and we've had a discussion about that, and that has been in the media—but your normal mum and dad that live in the outer suburbs of electorates like mine.</p> <p>So I encourage the Australian government to strongly consider a stimulus package to support the Australian economy. As a starting point, I think the stimulus package should focus on low- to no-interest loans to companies of all sizes negatively affected by supply-chain disruptions, reductions to tourism or other temporary coronavirus related impacts. In my view, restoring confidence will be the key. We need calm, strong, focused leadership in addressing this issue. The Australian people need it. Our government needs to deliver it. Our parliament needs to deliver it.</p> <p>When the dust settles we also need to consider contemplating the effect our impact on the environment is having on the current and future spread of infectious disease. The dilution effect is a concept that has been around for some time. Basically, the theory is that healthy biodiversity can be a protection against infection of humans by zoonotic pathogens such as the case of Lyme disease in the United States. Climate change is expected to impact the spread of infectious diseases and the animals that carry them. In Australia, for example, research has shown that dengue fever and other arboviruses spread primarily by a particular mosquito are likely to significantly extend the period of time during the year when transmission of the disease is possible. In Far North Australia there are predictions that disease transmission could be possible for 12 months of the year.</p> <p>So we need to fully commit to the Paris Agreement, invest in the Green Climate Fund and continue to fund the Global Health Security Agenda to work in partnership with the now other 67 countries to strengthen their public health infrastructure and combat outbreaks before they start. As mentioned, we also need a centre for disease control and prevention. We should also join peer countries and invest in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a public global alliance focused on vaccine development, and actively participate in global coalitions working towards vaccine development.</p> <p>I give this speech at a time when we're seeing our supermarkets raided for toilet paper and other essentials: hand sanitiser and other things. I think it would be safe to say in this place that there is some significant level of concern in the Australian community. But the point I would make to the Australian people is also that this parliament—both sides, including the Independents—is resolutely committed on a bipartisan, tripartisan or whatever you want to call the level to ensure that we deal with this threat. I think the difficulty is that a lot of Australian people see this parliament through the prism of question time. And I know we have the member for Ballarat, who was an excellent advocate in the health space when she was shadow minister for health, and she will know what I'm saying. People see us addressing collectively a crisis through the prism of what they might see on their local news, which focuses on the issue of the day. For them, sometimes they need information around that blizzard of information that they see—the theatrics that happen in question time. They don't see what's happening on a bipartisan basis, with all levels of government and the opposition working together to come to a conclusion, which I believe leads to a misapprehension that all of us in this place are not committed to doing something to address this very serious issue. I want to take this opportunity to say to the people listening that that is not the case. This House, regardless of what you might see—and the Senate, even though it's in estimates—is consumed by this particular problem and wants to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we can address this issue. Do not underestimate, even through the static of what you might see on social media or through some of the misinformation that's being spread, that all of us—it doesn't matter whether it's the people over there or here—are committed to ensuring that we protect our country.</p> <p>This coronavirus outbreak is a matter of national security. It's the security of our people. On matters of national security, this place has a great track record of working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we deliver to the Australian people that sense of security that they need. That's what I believe will happen in this case. I inevitably think that the government will have to move to a stimulus package. There is no alternative. We've seen the reserve bank in the United States yesterday or last night cut interest rates by 0.5 per cent—I could stand to be corrected on that. Overseas there is clearly an understanding. Even with an American economy that seemed to be travelling pretty well. Like with the American economy, this virus is going to have a substantial impact on the global economy.</p> <p>But, again, through the static, through the noise, through the misinformation campaigns that will be run inevitably—you can see that through various manifestations that are occurring, whether it be a particular stereotyping of a particular ethnic grouping or whatever—the fact is that we will cut through the noise. It's our job to deliver health security to the Australian people. As I say to the Australian people, we do what we can in this place on a bipartisan level to deliver that outcome to the Australian people. Regardless of what they may see, regardless of what they may believe and regardless of what they hear, that's what we're here for. I believe that all of us in this place will be doing that job on behalf of the Australian people.</p> ~~<p class="italic"> <i>(Quorum formed)</i></p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Anthony Byrne~~
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020, which provide appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the annual services of the government for the remainder of 2019-20. I do so within the context of how our country is dealing with the coronavirus, what we've seen around the world and what I think we're about to see in this country. Mr Speaker, you were here when I spoke about this on the adjournment on Monday night. I make these comments in the spirit of bipartisanship, but I want to draw attention to what I think are some constructive suggestions that might improve our response with respect to this particular outbreak.
I'll start where I left off on Monday night. I believe that, with respect to the best way of dealing with not just this outbreak but future outbreaks, our country would be best served by an Australian centre for disease control. That, in my mind, would be the best way of providing an enduring and a coordinated approach to major health outbreaks like the coronavirus. In light of what we've seen recently in the public debate, as an individual, I'm calling for the establishment of an Australian centre for disease control prevention as a vehicle for preventing misinformation or conflicting information emerging in the Australian community. However well-intentioned our efforts have been and continue to be—and I commend the government and the opposition for their efforts—in this era of fake news, this is something that we need to look at and continue to address as the best way forward.
The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which is "*that this bill be now read for a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill).
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:*
>
> *(1) after six years in office the economy is floundering on the Government's watch;*
>
> *(2) Australians are struggling with stagnant wages, with wage growth stalling further;*
>
> *(3) net debt has more than doubled under this Government;*
>
> *(4) the Government does not have a plan to boost wages or growth in the economy; and*
>
> *(5) it is because of the Government's failures that Australia meets the challenges and uncertainties of the bushfires and coronavirus from a position of weakness, not strength."*
I believe, and overseas experience shows, that a centre for disease prevention would be a useful coordinating agency that would harmonise the provision of information on, for example, the coronavirus, between the Australian government and the respective state and territory governments. In times of crisis, we need to ensure that the Australian public has the best available information at their disposal when they need it. Australians want to know, for example, about our quarantine and isolation arrangements. They want to know about how fast the virus is spreading, they want to know how many people have contracted the virus in Australia, and they want to know what to do if the virus spreads in Australia. An established centre for disease control and prevention in Australia would, in my view, be able to coordinate our nation's response in answering all of these questions not just now but on an ongoing basis.
With this outbreak, we're starting to see that the lessons of SARS, swine flu and the 2014 Ebola outbreak have not been learned by governments. I've seen it described by immunologists as a panic-and-then-forget response. We can't afford to panic and then forget this time.
As I said on Monday night, we live in an age of disinformation and fake news. More than ever we need to find a way to cut through this noise. I hope we consider establishing a properly funded Australian CDC to coordinate and disseminate vital public health messages for the sake of our community and our frontline and vital healthcare workers who need to keep us safe. Additionally, no specific antiviral treatments presently exist to deal with this virus. On the best possible medical advice that I've been provided with at this point in time, a potential vaccination could be at least a year away—that's not to mention how long it would take for large-scale production of that vaccine to proceed. That emphasises that we have to have a centre that is committed to ongoing and enduring funded research that addresses developing treatments that reduce mortality and outbreaks. As I said, research in this needs to be enduring and focused, not just reactive. That's not to diminish the work that some of our fine institutions do, but I do believe that we need to be more focused in how we address this.
As we know with SARS and MERS, most of the serious cases of this virus develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. To quote a recent paper in TheLancet, 'There is an urgent need for focused funding and scientific investments into advancing novel therapeutic interventions for coronavirus infections.' Let us listen to this advice and support those carrying out this essential research on an enduring basis. I'll give an example of why we need to do this. A paper released a week or so ago by six epidemiologists based in Canada—in my last speech I said it was Canberra, but it was Canada—using mathematical modelling and taking into account the number of exported cases, has estimated the present case count of the coronavirus in Iran is about 18,000 people. I actually believe it's more than that. I have heard there are tens of thousands. This is in comparison to the 593 cases in Iran that the World Health Organization publicly reported only a couple of days ago.
As I said on Monday, a co-author of the paper, infectious disease specialist Isaac Bogoch, commented, 'When a country exports cases to other destinations it's very likely that the burden of infection in this country is significant.' We have experienced that as a consequence of the underreporting of the virus in Iran and people returning from Iran. We're rushing to plug the gap, so to speak. That's why we need to have clearer information on an ongoing basis about how viruses of this type spread.
Equally, it is clear we must do even more to contain the spread of the virus and to address what is clearly going to be—and I suspect we'll see this through the national accounts that will come down at 11.30 this morning—the economic damage this virus is creating. According to the ABC on Monday, the ASX 200 was down about 10.5 per cent last week, meaning that we lost about $240 billion on the local stock market. That was last week. The plummeting stock market, which is seeing a slight correction, is I think just the tip of the iceberg. Small businesses that rely on overseas production are suffering. Australian exporters are losing access to valuable overseas markets and tourism is clearly sharply down.
Supply chain disruptions, due to halting production in China and elsewhere, will ripple throughout the economy for months, perhaps even years, especially in critical industries like construction and manufacturing. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, the coronavirus has exposed a critical weakness in our drug supply chain, for example. A significant proportion of pharmaceutical ingredients for drugs are manufactured in China, which means supply chain disruption may eventually cause drug shortages around the world, including in Australia. Analysts now project that many American and Australian companies will generate zero earnings growth in 2020 because of the coronavirus. If the coronavirus—I guess we could say 'when'—reaches global pandemic levels, experts predict that it could lead to a recession in Australia and across the globe. In response to the coronavirus, I'd encourage the Australian government as an example to work with employers to assist people with providing potentially an emergency paid sick leave for people either suffering from the coronavirus or who need to remain isolated if they have a relative who may have contracted coronavirus. Like I said, this will ripple across our country for some period of time. If you're a casual worker who might need to take 14 days off, as a colleague of mine, the member for Werriwa, mentioned to me yesterday, what does it mean for the person that is forced to take 14 days off? Where is the protection for that person, that casual worker? That might be a mum working in Narre Warren South or in Cranbourne who will need to take the mandated 14 days off because that person has the coronavirus, but where is her employment protection? Where is her wage protection?
These are things that we're having to grapple with and we're going to have to grapple with them very rapidly, because we are requiring, as part of the best possible advice, which we have taken from our Chief Medical Officer and the experts, that it is going to require isolation. We're going to have to isolate people who are contracting this particular virus or who have contracted the virus, and we need to think about it. The ripple effects of this virus through our economy are going to be and continue to be substantial not just in mortality rate, not just in populations that are at greater risk—and we've had a discussion about that, and that has been in the media—but your normal mum and dad that live in the outer suburbs of electorates like mine.
So I encourage the Australian government to strongly consider a stimulus package to support the Australian economy. As a starting point, I think the stimulus package should focus on low- to no-interest loans to companies of all sizes negatively affected by supply-chain disruptions, reductions to tourism or other temporary coronavirus related impacts. In my view, restoring confidence will be the key. We need calm, strong, focused leadership in addressing this issue. The Australian people need it. Our government needs to deliver it. Our parliament needs to deliver it.
When the dust settles we also need to consider contemplating the effect our impact on the environment is having on the current and future spread of infectious disease. The dilution effect is a concept that has been around for some time. Basically, the theory is that healthy biodiversity can be a protection against infection of humans by zoonotic pathogens such as the case of Lyme disease in the United States. Climate change is expected to impact the spread of infectious diseases and the animals that carry them. In Australia, for example, research has shown that dengue fever and other arboviruses spread primarily by a particular mosquito are likely to significantly extend the period of time during the year when transmission of the disease is possible. In Far North Australia there are predictions that disease transmission could be possible for 12 months of the year.
So we need to fully commit to the Paris Agreement, invest in the Green Climate Fund and continue to fund the Global Health Security Agenda to work in partnership with the now other 67 countries to strengthen their public health infrastructure and combat outbreaks before they start. As mentioned, we also need a centre for disease control and prevention. We should also join peer countries and invest in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a public global alliance focused on vaccine development, and actively participate in global coalitions working towards vaccine development.
I give this speech at a time when we're seeing our supermarkets raided for toilet paper and other essentials: hand sanitiser and other things. I think it would be safe to say in this place that there is some significant level of concern in the Australian community. But the point I would make to the Australian people is also that this parliament—both sides, including the Independents—is resolutely committed on a bipartisan, tripartisan or whatever you want to call the level to ensure that we deal with this threat. I think the difficulty is that a lot of Australian people see this parliament through the prism of question time. And I know we have the member for Ballarat, who was an excellent advocate in the health space when she was shadow minister for health, and she will know what I'm saying. People see us addressing collectively a crisis through the prism of what they might see on their local news, which focuses on the issue of the day. For them, sometimes they need information around that blizzard of information that they see—the theatrics that happen in question time. They don't see what's happening on a bipartisan basis, with all levels of government and the opposition working together to come to a conclusion, which I believe leads to a misapprehension that all of us in this place are not committed to doing something to address this very serious issue. I want to take this opportunity to say to the people listening that that is not the case. This House, regardless of what you might see—and the Senate, even though it's in estimates—is consumed by this particular problem and wants to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we can address this issue. Do not underestimate, even through the static of what you might see on social media or through some of the misinformation that's being spread, that all of us—it doesn't matter whether it's the people over there or here—are committed to ensuring that we protect our country.
This coronavirus outbreak is a matter of national security. It's the security of our people. On matters of national security, this place has a great track record of working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we deliver to the Australian people that sense of security that they need. That's what I believe will happen in this case. I inevitably think that the government will have to move to a stimulus package. There is no alternative. We've seen the reserve bank in the United States yesterday or last night cut interest rates by 0.5 per cent—I could stand to be corrected on that. Overseas there is clearly an understanding. Even with an American economy that seemed to be travelling pretty well. Like with the American economy, this virus is going to have a substantial impact on the global economy.
But, again, through the static, through the noise, through the misinformation campaigns that will be run inevitably—you can see that through various manifestations that are occurring, whether it be a particular stereotyping of a particular ethnic grouping or whatever—the fact is that we will cut through the noise. It's our job to deliver health security to the Australian people. As I say to the Australian people, we do what we can in this place on a bipartisan level to deliver that outcome to the Australian people. Regardless of what they may see, regardless of what they may believe and regardless of what they hear, that's what we're here for. I believe that all of us in this place will be doing that job on behalf of the Australian people.
~~ (Quorum formed)~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~