The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER (09:01): In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the bill be read a second time.
The House divided. [09:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:11): I move:
(1) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:
Prohibited investments
(3) An investment for the purposes of the Corporation's investment functions must not relate to any of the following:
(a) an activity that involves the extraction of coal or gas;
(b) an activity that involves the construction of coal or gas infrastructure;
(c) a project or product that involves the logging of Australian native forests;
(d) an activity the carrying out of which is inconsistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
(4) In this section:
Australia's greenhouse gas emission s reduction targets means:
(a) if:
(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and
(ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;
the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or
(b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in:
(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or
(ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.
Paris Agreement means the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.
Note: The Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).
For clarity, the amendment is that after line 3 at the end of clause 63, on page 39, add: 'Prohibited investments. (3) an investment of a corporation body must not: (a) directly finance the extraction of coal or natural gas; or (b) directly finance the construction of pipeline infrastructure primarily for the extraction of natural gas; or (c) directly finance the logging of native forests; and (4) in this section 'native forest' does not include a plantation, and "plantation" means an intensively managed stand of trees that is created by the regular placement of seedlings or seed.'
Public money should not go to making the climate crisis worse, and public money should not be invested in coal, gas or the destruction of our native forests. That is what people across this country expect. What we have seen in the past is that when government bodies are established that allow the government to invest, previous governments have tried to use that money to support making the climate crisis worse. The Liberals even tried to use the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Authority to finance coal and gas! So we know that governments need to be stopped from financing the climate crisis and making it worse.
We know that amendments which were put in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and which were agreed to by the Greens and Labor stopped the destructive Liberal government from investing in coal and gas that would make the climate crisis worse. Public money should be going to public schools and hospitals, not to coal and gas corporations. But we know that every time money is put aside to increase investment in manufacturing to make the country more resilient that the big corporations will line up with their hands out. They will try to take public money and use it for more coal and gas. That is why the Greens have insisted that if the government wants to establish a fund to support manufacturing in this country—which we support as well; we want to see manufacturing in this country supported, grown and got off its feet—then that money cannot be used for investment in coal and gas, or to destroy native forests. So I'm pleased to advise the chamber that it's my understanding the government will support this amendment and make sure that this does not turn into a slush fund for new coal and gas. On that basis, the Greens are prepared to support this bill.
Today is an important day, because today the Greens have stopped public money going to coal and gas, and the destruction of our native forests. We know that has happened in the past but, through this amendment, it will not happen again in the future. This country has massive potential for a revitalised manufacturing industry that thrives in a zero-pollution economy. As we have said, and as we said consistently during the election, in many places the best job for a coalminer is another mining job. We have opportunities to grow green steel in this country, to be world leaders in manufacturing steel without the need to make the climate crisis worse. This amendment, secured today by the Greens, will stop public money going to coal and gas and stop the destruction of our native forests.
Of course, part of the reason that Senator Allman-Payne, from Queensland, our spokesperson on this issue, has pushed so hard for this is that, living in Gladstone, she knows that every dollar of public money that is spent on making the climate crisis worse is a dollar that goes away from investment in regional jobs that this country needs to ensure that workers in Gladstone and everywhere around this country can have high-paying, secure jobs as we move to a zero-pollution economy. We can have both. With public investment in public manufacturing we can provide secure futures with high wages for people who are currently working in coal and gas industries. Every dollar from the government that goes to coal and gas takes away from the jobs and wages of workers in regional Queensland and right around the country. That is why this amendment, which I'm pleased to hear the government supports, is so critical to ensuring manufacturing jobs, high wages and tackling the climate crisis.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (09:16): I agree with my colleague on the necessity to restrain the exponential growth in CO2. I do not agree with my colleague on abolishing coal. If my honourable colleague seriously thinks this country can do without coal, well, let me point out that we have only three exports: iron ore, coal and gas. We gave the gas away, so we get nothing at all out of it. All these things are worth over a hundred billion dollars. The next things down the list are maybe gold, cattle and aluminium, worth about $15 billion—they were the last time I looked, anyway. So we've got the big three and nothing else. This House gave away one of them for nothing. It gave all the gas away for 6c a unit. We're now buying our own gas back for $49 a unit. I speak with authority because I was the Minister for Mines and Energy in what was then the biggest mining state in Australia—Queensland.
Mr Speaker, if you take away coal, you bankrupt this country. Start picking out the hospitals that you're going to close—just pick them out—because there's no money. Already in Queensland, because they've got no money, they've closed, for the first time in 110 years, outpatient services. That's in Queensland, where we were opening up coalmines again and again.
There's a second issue here. Von Clausewitz, in the best book on warfare ever written, said that if goods do not cross borders then guns will. If you think a tiny little country of 24 million people, which happens to be Anglo and European, in the middle of Asia is going to tell China and India that they can't have any coal, well, mate, you're asking for trouble—big trouble. And you mustn't have read many history books—I can tell you that!
In concession to your point of view: surely, if you're going to let the coal go, you say that all of the stations have to be heli-stations, which halves the amount of coal? Surely you get off your backside and make sure your coal-fired power stations in Australia are converted over? You have to do this—and I'm not being patriotic here—in North Queensland because we've got all the water. I bless the new Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, because she told me the name of the algae that's used. Michael Kelly, who was a prominent minister in this place, was advocating the use of algae some considerable time ago. If you've got a huge area of land and a lot of water, you can take all of the emissions from a coal-fired power station and turn them into a profitable product. So let's not believe that coal is the great evil, when in fact you can convert that coal into food through algae. A great advocate for the environment and dealing with climate change is no less a person than the minister, and the great advocates are now looking at where the answers are. But to cripple Australia and bankrupt Australia is not the answer. And to provoke a fight with China and India is just the act of an imbecile, quite frankly.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (09:20): The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 is an important bill. It's a no-brainer. We do have to reconstruct our manufacturing capability. It's a matter of national sovereignty and urgency that we rebuild our manufacturing capabilities across a whole range of things. The government are putting up a bill to tip $5 billion in and add another $10 billion, but they have changed the mix of what is going to be supported in the form of either loans, guarantees, equity—all the things that interventionist governments love doing—and a lot of people in business are seeing cheap money. It won't be cheap money if it's borrowed money, where the government has to pay the value of the bonds or the borrowings every year and then try and get money out of their investments or their equity. I certainly agree with the concept that we need to reconstruct manufacturing in this country, expand it. It is value-adding jobs when we use our resources to process them into aluminium, steel, copper—all those things. We are going to process critical minerals for all sorts of things.
The common thread in this is that all these things that you want to do with reconstructing manufacturing won't happen unless we have cheap, available energy all the time. The member for Kennedy has just pointed out the bleeding obvious: countries around the world have spent trillions of their nation's wealth—trillions of euros, trillions of US dollars, trillions of Australian dollars—on the mirage of being able to totally get rid of fossil fuels. I hate to disappoint the member from the crossbench, but fossil fuels are part of the modern industrial world. Coal will be needed to make steel.
You can replace the use of coal and gas to produce electricity, and something that I want to point out to the ministers on the other side is that the investment mandate is critical. If we are going to spend this money, we need to reconstruct our electricity grid, because it's been moth-eaten away and it's about to collapse. The Callide Power Station in Queensland is still not ready to generate electricity. Liddell is about to be destroyed and, in a couple of years time, Eraring will be, and there will be regular blackouts, because there is no reserve capacity left in our grid to keep our cities working. Keeping everything running—hospitals, refrigeration, food processing, sewerage—relies on constant energy in a grid, and our grid has been moth-eaten away. We will end up like South Africa. Trust me, that is coming soon to a city near you, because Liddell has threatened to close. They have put in for approval to basically disassemble it, blow it up and put a battery there. Instead of 51.5 gigawatts of electricity coming out 95 per cent of the time, there will be a 500-megawatt superbattery. That will be chewed up in a couple of minutes.
The other thing is that we should remove the prohibition on nuclear energy, because we know it has the lowest footprint in terms of CO2—lower than wind and solar. I'm not making this up. The United Nations say this. The European Commission for the economy says this. The Nuclear Energy Agency has shown this. There is much less steel, concrete and critical minerals in a nuclear power plant. The waste is very manageable, but we need to remove the prohibition. If we are going to reconstruct our manufacturing, we can have green steel and we can have green aluminium, with nuclear power. Five grams of CO2 per kilowatt—that is lower than wind and solar. There is no destruction of vast parts of the country—our beautiful native forests and mountaintops and plains covered with short-lived renewable energy and mineral-intensive renewable resources. The sun is renewable and the wind is renewable, but solar panels and wind farms are very short lived. So put the money into reconstructing our grid and manufacturing; we'll get cheap energy and will thrive again.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (09:25): It is incredibly important that this National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 pass, and I commend the member for Melbourne for this amendment. And I commend the government for its negotiations and engagement with this process. It's incredibly important that the National Reconstruction Fund be used to support emerging technologies and key manufacturing sectors—not to prop up mature technologies, such as fossil fuel extraction or infrastructure related to that, like coal and gas, or logging native forests. These are all mature technologies and if they're not standing up on their own now then they have passed their time.
What's important for Australia's future prosperity is a road map on how we're going to grow our wealth. Where is the world going for export industries? It is not nuclear, and it is not coal and gas. When it comes an export industry that we must engage with, it's going to be green hydrogen. We know that the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is creating a race to investment, so it's going to be key for Australia's future prosperity that we also get into that race. The EU has now responded to the US in that respect, and so it's incredibly important that this fund—through this amendment—makes it clear that we're focusing on the future and on emerging technologies.
It will be incredibly important for the minister, the corporation and the commission to ensure that the funding looks to support projects where proof of concept has been established, they're ready to scale and will deliver. I've had discussions with the minister about the importance of also looking to small and medium businesses to capture innovation. I would like to ask, though, about the inclusion of the word 'directly' in this amendment. I just want to understand it clearly. Obviously, there's a lot of infrastructure that may well be converted to green hydrogen use, and that's where our ultimate export opportunity is. So I would ask for clarification from the minister as to how he sees this amendment and the reconstruction fund bill working towards enabling those new technologies to prosper.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (09:27): At the beginning, may I extend my deepest gratitude on behalf of the government to those who have wanted to engage constructively on this bill. I have said to all people who have wanted to talk about it that this is a National Reconstruction Fund and that this is a moment in time where we can all play a part in ensuring the support required to drive the economy longer term, particularly with the challenges we're facing, be those in respect of the climate, geopolitical strategies, economic or those coming out of the pandemic. This is a point where we can all work together. There's an expectation that we will and for those people who have come to the table with that view in mind, I have sought to match that approach. I have very much valued it. I know we can't agree on everything, and I don't think we expected to, but there are some things that we can work through and that's what we have sought to do today. I also extend my apologies to the member for Lyne, who wanted to speak last night and I inadvertently cut him off. He doesn't agree with everything we've said, but I understand where he's coming from and so I was quite happy for him to make his contribution today.
In respect of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Greens, the government accepts it. For the reasons why we are, I might pick up on some of the points that the Leader of the Greens raised, and also those raised by the member for Warringah. This is a fund designed to support the evolution, reinforcement and diversification of Australian manufacturing. It's a fund which is designed to help Australia be a country that makes things. We want to back investment in those firms which have a concept that they've got to the point of commercialisation, where they're ready to scale up and to broaden out the manufacturing activity they're intending to do. This fund will be managed—and I emphasise again—by an independent board. I will not be making the calls as the minister for industry, and nor will anyone who follows after me. This will be an independent board, made up of experienced people, guided by an investment mandate and delivering a return to the taxpayer. The reason I mention this is because it's not just about delivering for the taxpayer. If they're delivering a return, they're delivering for the economy and the communities they serve.
In terms of some of the issues the Greens have raised, the intent of the NRF is not to deal with some of the things that have been raised in the amendment. There may be other vehicles that support that type of activity, but this is about manufacturing activity, so we've been quite open to supporting that.
In reference to the member for Warringah's points around directly investing, there may be some firms that particularly have levered off fossil fuels as their source of their energy, and they want to covert over. Unless they're preparing to manufacture the technology that they will then embed in their operations, this will not be a fund that will support them to bring in new technologies that have already been made by someone else that they just put in to satisfy their energy needs. If they're building the technology, yes, but if they're just bringing it on board, no. There will be other vehicles that can support that.
I hope we do address those concerns that have been raised. But there is a lot of work to do. The fund has, at its heart, $3 billion dedicated within the $15 billion of the NRF that has been factored into our plans to reduce emissions to meet the targets the parliament supported for 2030 and net zero. It's been calculated in that modelling. We would not want to do anything inconsistent with that. Hence, for those people who are wanting to know why the government has agreed to the Greens amendment, we are not going to do anything that runs counter to that $15 billion investment. That is why we've been prepared to support this. It's why the amendment is phrased in the way it is.
Again, it's about anything that is supporting the manufacture of some of those new energy technologies that come with low or zero emissions, and we can scale that up onshore. Importantly, as the Prime Minister has often remarked, we've seen the intellectual property that has underpinned the development of solar technology emerge from this country, and then some other country has gone off and manufactured that. We are rightfully proud of the fact that we have more solar panels on our roofs than most other countries, and yet most of those panels were not built by Australians, even though the idea came from us. We want to support ideas on this country's shores; we want to manufacture that way. That's what this fund is about, and that's why we're willing to support the amendment.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (09:32): Just in brief, I thank the minister and I thank the Greens and all who will continue to speak on this important bill. I simply want to make a note, in noting that the opposition will be opposing this amendment, how disappointing it is that an agenda that is actually going to take the transition to renewable energy backwards has been proposed by the Greens and accepted by the government.
I simply refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister recently, underscoring without doubt that gas must play a key role in the transition to renewable energy. So your signature manufacturing fund has taken one giant step backwards from a key commitment made by this Prime Minister and relied on by every single manufacturing business in this country. The opposition will be opposing the amendment.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (09:34): I don't intend for this to go back and forth. We all have a lot on, and we want to get to the point of agreeing to the bill. I thank the shadow minister for her contribution. Obviously, we're at different points on this. I will just make this point: it is deeply disappointing we were not able to talk on this, or work on this bill together. I maintain that the invitation is open to the coalition. If they want to work with us on this, and there's still an opportunity to do so, we will do so.
I say this too, if I can extend this point to the crossbench: just because we work with the coalition does not mean we will not work with the crossbench. My point is that this is a national reconstruction fund. We welcome the opportunity to work with you on this. There are a lot of good things that can come out of this.
I make the point—and I acknowledge the presence of the former minister for industry at the table because, as you know, when you put things forward, we had disagreements on speed—that we didn't ever oppose moves to reinvigorate manufacturing in this country. So, if there is a point at which the coalition wants to re-engage, you have my personal commitment in front of this chamber and on the record. I'm not going to be crowing about it and laughing about the fact that we've found a way to talk again. I think it is important that we work on this, that we work with the crossbench and the Greens on this and that we build something that will ultimately be enduring, will work in the longer term and will be something that we can collectively be proud of.
I will not respond to every coalition position. The coalition has amendments to put up now, but I will flag in advance that we will not likely support them because the time to do this type of work was during the consideration of the bill early on and before they flagged an outright opposition to the bill, with no explanation given to us before the announcement on their opposition to it. But, if they change their mind, I commit that our door remains open and that we will work collectively.
The SPEAKER: The question before the House is the amendment moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.
The House divided. [09:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
Ms DANIEL (Goldstein) (09:45): I move the amendment circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 17, page 15 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) In performing its functions, the Board must have regard to the desirability of encouraging and improving economic participation by historically underrepresented groups, including:
(a) women; and
(b) First Nations Australians; and
(c) people with a disability; and
(d) people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
(5) Subsection (4) does not:
(a) limit the matters to which the Board may have regard; or
(b) by implication, limit the matters with respect to which the Board may be directed under subsection 71(1).
I was elected in part on a promise of promoting gender equality. As I said at the Jobs and Skills Summit, we're in danger of limiting ourselves to high-vis solutions to what is clearly also a pink problem. I believe that all legislation should contain a gender impact statement if we're to reboot the productivity we would get if more women, who are currently sidelined, were in the workforce in higher skilled, higher paying and more secure jobs. At a time of skills shortages and a tight labour market it is simply a no brainer. The minds and initiative are there. Women want secure jobs and respect. Women are not waiting to be asked. They don't want permission; they want the opportunity.
But given how far behind women are on wages and participation that will require active facilitation. Indeed, it's a systems change, a true culture shift. As Chief Executive Women said in its prebudget submission, 'Prioritising organisations with gender balanced leadership and forward looking policies in government procurement processes must be embedded in gender responsive budgeting. A whole of government application of a gender lens to consideration of all new policy proposals is required to deliver coherent, effective policy.'
The seven priority areas identified in this legislation are largely those requiring STEM skills, and in that Australia's record in getting women into science, technology, engineering and maths is poor, as is our lingering gender pay gap, as high as 30 per cent in some sectors. Encouraging women into the sectors identified in this legislation ought to be a priority but it's more than that. Government procurement, loans and grants should be geared to businesses and industries that find ways to elevate under-represented cohorts. This is yet another building block in the process to create true equality and that is why I'm moving the amendment circulated today.
As we enter a renewables revolution with all of its associated new trades, let's not fall into the same old habits and allow women to be left behind. Women and girls must be fostered into these new industries. It is about women, but it's not just about women. We also need to foster First Nations Australians, people with a disability and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds into the new cleaner, greener technologies, manufacturing and services if we are to have the prosperous Australia we want and that our children deserve, and encourage and foster businesses and industries to do so. That is how we will correct this imbalance. This is something that I know the minister understands, representing a highly diverse electorate. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, I promised the Goldstein community, especially our women and girls, that if I got into this room where it happens I would speak up for those who are not in the room. Perhaps if we did that, our daughters wouldn't be almost my age by the time they had true equality. I thank the minister for his genuine engagement, and I thank the House.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (09:50): We will be agreeing to this amendment because, through our work and the matters that have been raised by the member for Goldstein—I thank her for her work in this regard and for championing this amendment—a number of us across the chamber have seen firsthand that this is an issue that we have an opportunity to correct.
Last month, member for Goldstein, I was in the US. I had the very real honour of meeting with Australians and Australian companies doing incredible work there. One of the most eye-opening conversations I had was with Marissa Warren from ALIAVIA Ventures, a California based venture capital firm with Australians in it who are early-stage investors. Importantly, they're early-stage investors in businesses led by female founders. Marissa pointed to the fact that less than three per cent of venture funding goes to female founded companies, which is frankly a shocking number. Interestingly, investments in the ones that do get the investment deliver 35 per cent higher returns on the investment compared to those led by men.
Here in Australia, Women's Agenda issued a report recently which said that just one in three of the top VC firms here invested in a female founder in 2022, and that two-thirds of the country's top venture capital firms didn't invest in a venture led by a female founder in 2022. Again, this is something that has to be addressed. Clearly, we do need to acknowledge that there's a funding gap there. There's an opportunity for the NRF to crowd in funding, and there's also a need for a whole stack of underrepresented groups to have that chance to have the financial backing to grow their firms. We want to make sure the NRF can back these diverse businesses, to give people a sense that this is something that governments champion—the creation of these firms and these new enterprises. It's really important that this happens. We need that stream of investment made available for a wider group of people, and we also need to embark, as I've discussed with the member for Goldstein, on a culture change within the mindset of some VCs. If this can provide an opportunity to make that happen, let's see where we can go to progress that.
Again, I welcome the contribution. It is a great amendment, and we look forward to working further on this to make it a tangible reality.
Question agreed to.
Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (09:53): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Clause 5, page 7 (after line 20), after the definition of financial accommodation, insert:
former judge means:
(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or
(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or
(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.
(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) A person must not be appointed as a Board member unless:
(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:
(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and
(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and
(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment that are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and
(b) the person is one of the shortlisted candidates.
(3) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) Within 7 days after a person is appointed as a Board member, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification for the person (referred to in subparagraph (1A)(a)(iii)) to be:
(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or
(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.
I recently stood up in this place to speak about the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. While broadly supportive of this bill, I raised my significant concerns about the integrity of the fund's board appointment process. I also asked a question of the minister in question time about this, and I wasn't completely satisfied with the answer. So I bring forward these amendments today to inject into the bill a more robust and independent process for the appointment of members to the board of this corporation. After all, this board will be making investment decisions for a $15 billion fund.
Over the last decade, the integrity of many institutions that underpin our democracy has taken a battering. In recent years, we've witnessed the 'jobs for mates' culture flourish here in Canberra, as rates of political friendly appointments to public boards and entities have soared. Last term, one of those entities, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was so heavily stacked with political appointees—a rate of 40 per cent of those appointments—that the current Attorney-General has made the decision to abolish it. How can the Australian people trust the decisions that flow from institutions that have had their independence compromised in this way? We also recently heard about a minister who received donations and gifts from an industry she was conducting an inquiry into and was making regulatory decisions about. Last term, we saw millions of dollars in grants handed out for party political reasons without any semblance of proper process. It was no wonder, then, that at the time of the 2022 election Australia had dropped to its lowest ever level on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. This behaviour has to stop.
At the election, the people of Australia voted in droves for greater integrity in our political system. The best solution to this issue of corruption and cronyism would be the enactment of comprehensive legislation that requires a transparent, accountable and independent process for all major Commonwealth public appointments, such as I introduced earlier this week with my private member's bill, ending jobs for mates. This is a gold standard process, which balances an appropriate level of ministerial discretion as the final decision-maker with ensuring a shortlist of candidates is independently selected based on their expertise, experience and integrity.
In the meantime, however, I have no choice but to introduce this amendment to this bill. I will now go to the bill currently before the House and my proposed amendment. At present the ministers responsible for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation, the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance, have complete discretion over who is appointed to the board. The ministers are required to have regard to the experience, professional credibility and standing of the board members they propose to appoint. This is, of course, something that that is expected. However, there is no mechanism or oversight committee to guarantee that the board member selection process is actually competitive, fair and equitable, as would occur under my ending jobs for mates legislation.
My amendment to this bill requires that, in the selection of National Reconstruction Fund board members: the positions and selection criteria be publicly advertised for a minimum of ten consecutive days; the assessment of applications is undertaken by an independent selection panel with at least three members and a former superior court judge as chair; the panel shortlists at least three candidates for each position and certifies they meet the selection criteria; the minister chooses the successful candidate only from the shortlist; and, lastly, the certification of the successful candidate must be tabled in the parliament.
This amendment strikes the right balance between ministerial discretion and public accountability, and it will not result in undue bureaucratic burden or cost. What it will do is ensure the integrity of the National Reconstruction Fund board and, thus, the important decisions they make on the disbursement of the $15 billion in the fund. The people of Australia deserve a political system they can trust. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question is that amendments (1) to (3), circulated by the member for Mackellar, be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:10): by leave—I move Katter's Australian Party amendments (1) to (7) revised:
(1) Clause 5, page 4 (line 2), Before "In this", insert "(1)".
(2) Clause 5, page 10 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) A reference in this Act to a regional or rural area of Australia is a reference to a geographic area that is located outside major towns and cities, sometimes classified as the countryside.
(3) A reference in this Act to a remote area of Australia is a reference to an area that typically has a low population density and is considerably secluded, being geographically isolated or 4 hours or more drive from a large town or city and from the goods, services and facilities offered by large towns and cities.
(3) Clause 6, page 10 (line 27), before "The Ministers", insert "(1)".
(4) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) Investment in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia must be declared to be a priority area of the Australian economy.
(5) Clause 17, page 15 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) The strategies and policies followed by the Corporation, as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), must require there to be a focus on high priority allocation of funds for projects in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia due to the historical and existing disparity in infrastructure funding between city and country locations.
(6) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert:
(2A) Despite subsection (2), the Board members must include a person who is appointed to represent regional, rural and remote areas of Australia.
(7) Clause 70, page 41 (lines 24 and 25), omit "is solely or mainly Australian-based", substitute "only involves companies that are solely, or at least 50%, Australian owned and operated".
This bill is particularly relevant to the Kennedy electorate. The town with the biggest income for Australia of anywhere in Australia is Mount Isa. We, a little tiny town of 20,000 people, produce around $5 million a year in export earnings for our country. That's because we have minerals. We have the new-age minerals, massive lithium deposits, at Georgetown. We have massive vanadium deposits at Julia Creek and Richmond and, arguably, at Winton. If I just refer to my notes here, we have vanadium, lithium, cobalt, copper, lead, silicon, phosphate and uranium. All of those minerals, and many other rare earths which I'm not going to enumerate, proliferate in our area.
Now, you have a choice. We are not a mining country, even though two-thirds to three-quarters of our exports are mining products. We are not a mining country, because a mining country mines it out of the ground and sells metals. We mine it out of the ground and sell the ground; we are a quarrying country. We were once described as an advanced industrial country. Well, I can't see any evidence that we're an industrial country at all, let alone an advanced industrial country. But God bless the people of my homeland who were determined that Australians would sell pure copper, that Australians would sell extremely high-grade lead, that Australians would sell zinc—not ground.
We are on the cusp of opening up all these new minerals, and this parliament has the choice of letting the minerals go, as you have done with bauxite at Weipa. I cannot believe that the Queensland government and the government of Australia have allowed bauxite to go out of Weipa. Comalco approached the Queensland government, in the form of Sir Leo Hielscher—two of the six biggest bridges in Australia are named after Leo Hielscher, and quite rightly so—arguably, with Bjelke-Petersen and Les Thiess and three others, the architect of the Queensland economic miracle. When Comalco came in and said they wanted to export bauxite, Leo nearly killed himself laughing. How funny! 'You think you're going to export bauxite, do you! That doesn't happen in Queensland.' Now it does.
Gladstone is one of the most vibrant cities in this nation because that government spent a squillion dollars building the biggest power station in the world at the time at Gladstone. Economies of scale meant we could compete against anyone. And, unlike the governments of Australia, the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government said, 'We will take one per cent of your coal for free', so our electricity was run on free coal, negligible labour costs, even though they were on more money than members of parliament. They probably deserved to be on more money than members of parliament as well. But because there was so much power going and because the units were so big and so efficient the labour costs were minimal, the coal costs were nil—absolute zero. Now, we are sending out bauxite. All I can say is if this initiative makes a difference then that is a very good thing. (Time expired)
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (10:15): I really do appreciate the passion of the member who has moved these amendments. He is a regional MP. He has been in this place a long time and he does acutely understand his electorate, regional Queensland and the importance of manufacturing. He is right to point out that, in our history in Australia, we haven't always got things right. It does sometimes feel like a bit of reverse engineering. We are now talking about value adding when, really, we should have been value adding all along. He did point out the case of bauxite and iron ore. But that is exactly what we're trying to address in this bill, to be able to bring some of that value adding back on shore. There is a dedication within this, and one of the key areas is: How can we value add in our rare minerals and our mining?
To the importance of regional manufacturing, my electorate is a proud manufacturing electorate and, despite at the moment it only employs about 10 per cent of the local population, its output in economic value is and the jobs that are attached to it are so much more. One of the key areas in this bill that my manufacturers are very keen to tap into is that focus on mining. People may not realise, but we are going through another gold rush in Bendigo. We have found gold again. We have one of the richest seams of gold in the world and are producing such high-quality gold that we now have up to a thousand goldminers and workers underground. It is hard to believe that the gold is underground and coming back in towards Bendigo. On top, you would have no idea that we're finding all this gold underground. That mining is expanding manufacturing, which is looking at modern, innovative ways to mine that gold. It is an exciting time but what the manufacturers are keen for and what they have reached out to me about is that capital, that equity partner in government that they are looking for. That is what this bill really tries to do; it encourages innovation in our manufacturing. It encourages and supports that.
Deepcore Drilling is one of our mining companies that is working closely with Fosterville Gold Mine on how they can use their advanced manufacturing methods to develop new mining equipment. We have JL King, which is not in gold manufacturing but in food manufacturing. We have big food manufacturers in my part of the world. Sometimes those jobs get recognised as manufacturing jobs and other times they get recognised as agricultural jobs. We have more people working in food manufacturing in our area than all other manufacturing put together, over a thousand. Our biggest private employer in regional Victoria, KR Castlemaine, is in my electorate. They are really excited by what is being put forward in this bill—that ability to have cleaner, greener manufacturing—and are looking forward to see what opportunities they will have.
JL King have built a facility on the other side of town and are looking to expand. They do a lot of the ready meals that we now buy from IGAs and from other supermarkets and are being asked to get involved in aged care because they deliver good food that's nutritious and that is going to help aged-care facilities meet the needs of their residents. They need to expand but the cost of the equipment needed to expand is so high and the banks aren't interested. They just aren't interested. So they'd really like the opportunity that comes with this bill. Hofmann Engineering, which are known for their manufacturing and engineering operation in Perth, actually exist on the east coast in Bendigo. They refurb the wind turbines. They make them more efficient. They receive, in Bendigo, wind turbines from Europe. They're the best in the world at doing it—the ability to tap into the most modern forms of manufacturing capability, looking for that investment partner that this government's got.
This week, while we've been debating this bill, I've had two different manufacturers reach out and say, 'How do we get access to this fund?' I'm heartbroken to say, 'It's not through the parliament yet.' So I appreciate what the member's saying, but this bill, as it is, is going to deliver the best opportunity for our local manufacturers, particularly in regional Victoria.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:20): I just want to make the point that the minister has agreed to minority representation. You and I both know the biggest minority in Australia is the people that don't live in the big cities. What I want is that minority to be represented. We'll have all these other minorities, which really are not relevant to most of those people. They're not in Bendigo and they're not in Mount Isa. I don't think any of my first Australian people will be selected for the board, and I don't think any women from my electorate will be on that board, and I hate to tell you but I don't think there will be many from Bendigo either in those categories. The one category that's not there is representation from country areas.
The last government set the NAIF up, and they did not have one single person from northern Australia on the NAIF board; it was the Northern Australia Investment Fund and they had no-one from northern Australia on it. It was jobs for the boys, and that's what my colleagues over here are trying to overcome: jobs for the boys. If ever there is a group that should be represented here, it is the member for Bendigo and the member for Kennedy's mob, where the mining and the great opportunities for processing into a refined product take place.
In Queensland when you build a new house it has to have solar panels on it. That's great, but this government and the last government have done absolutely nothing to see any of those solar panels built in Australia. We don't even provide the high-tech silicon from Australia, yet we are the cheapest silicon source in the world. It's crushed up; it's in sand. We can provide the cheapest base product in the world, but we do no upgrading whatsoever. We just let it go, same as we're doing with the bauxite at the moment.
I fear that this money will go where it shouldn't be going. Where it should be going is to the areas that the member for Bendigo and I represent.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (10:23): There is a lot in what the member for Kennedy has said, and I think there will be a lot of people, regardless of their politics, who will agree. In this country the biggest problem has been a failure of ambition to think ahead and to go, 'Well, we can actually do this stuff.' We've just thought, 'Oh well, there are a lot of things that other countries do better than us.' I've often said, Member for Kennedy, one of the big things we've got to do is back Australian know-how. It's not a cute line; it actually flows through to a lot of other decisions that get made, particularly by investors that need to start thinking that what we do in this country matters, that it delivers longer-term economic value and commercial value—and where it happens too. I am very aware that failure of ambition and that failure to back know-how has affected people in your neck of the woods. It's effected people in the member for Bendigo's area. It's been particularly hard for people in remote and regional Australia to get a look in. We want to make sure that happens.
There are some parts of this bill which are priority areas, in particular, member for Kennedy, the value add in resources and the value add in agriculture. I'll come to resources: you made a hell of a lot of good points—maybe a heck of a lot; I don't know if 'hell of a lot' is parliamentary!—about value adding, and you made reference to bauxite. One of the other big things, as you well know, and as many other people know, is that we have so many of the critical minerals and rare earths that the rest of the world is chasing. But we're just mining it and not doing any value adding. That's part of the reason that we're developing the National Battery Strategy. We do the mining and refining really well, but the bulk of the processing gets done in another country and we don't do anything in terms of cell manufacture or recycle and reuse. So thinking about that longer term is really important, and we're backing in the things that you're saying—a billion dollars of this fund will go to value adding in resources, so we get that.
The other thing is that when we set this thing up, with the will of the parliament—obviously, I won't pre-empt that as this is going to the other place for a final vote—we aren't going to say, 'The NRF is done,' brush our hands and say, 'That's it.' A lot of other work needs to feed into this. For example: development of co-investment plans to line up with the priority areas is really important. The other thing we need to do is work out how we can have a thread running through those co-investment plans—a thread which is basically what you've said here today. Where does remote and regional Australia get a look in? We need to understand the strengths and otherwise of the regions and how can we give them a much better look in in the way the fund will make decisions. This will inform the board and, again, the board is independent and will make its own decisions.
Coming to the crux of your point: you've asked us to set aside a big chunk of money from the NRF dedicated solely to remote and regional Australia.
Mr Katter: I'm not saying that, with all due respect!
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kennedy will resume his seat.
Mr HUSIC: I'm not trying to misrepresent you, just let me—
Mr Katter interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Hang on, my friend—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. He can speak again during this process.
Mr HUSIC: I'm just making this point: there's this thing, constitutionally, which prevents us from providing mandated amounts in that way. It's not that we don't want to do it; we very much do, and I'm flagging to you my commitment to do so. You made some points, as did the member for Mackellar, about board representation. I'll let you know that I want the board to be diverse. I don't want it to be the same old, same old people who end up on the board, I want one that reflects the community. This is the 'National' Reconstruction Fund, as I said, and I want a wide range of people with a wide range of skills involved on that board. I apologise to the member for Mackellar that I didn't respond in detail to her points, but I get where she's coming from. We're working on the way in which we do the board selection process; the Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Sector is leading that work. But I can assure you that how we select the board is something which is very high in my thinking—in particular, to make sure that regional Australia gets a look in.
There are 900,000 workers who owe their livelihoods to manufacturing and 90,000 businesses, with one-third of those outside the capital regions. Your state, member for Kennedy, has the best record in the number of regional manufacturers that exist. In actual fact we should get the rest of the country to replicate what you're doing, and I'm very keen to see if we can make that a reality. Unfortunately, we cannot support your amendment, but I completely understand where you're coming from. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Kennedy be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (10:29): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Clause 6, page 10 (line 27), before "The Ministers", insert "(1)".
(2) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) Before making a declaration under subsection (1) in relation to an area (the proposed area) of the Australia economy, the Minister must arrange for the Minister administering the Productivity Commission Act 1988 (the Productivity Minister) to, under paragraph 6(1)(a) of that Act, refer to the Productivity Commission for inquiry and report the matter of the existence of a market failure or other economic rationale for the proposed area being declared to be a priority area of the Australian economy.
(3) In referring the matter to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Productivity Minister must, under paragraph 11(1)(d) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, require the Productivity Commission to make recommendations in relation to the matter, including recommendations for resolving the market failure.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, the matter mentioned in subsection (2) is taken to be a matter relating to industry, industry development and productivity.
(3) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:
(4) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a direction under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 2 and 3), omit "within 5 years after the commencement of this section", substitute "before any amounts are credited to the Account under subsection 52(2) or (3)".
I have three substantive amendments to the bill, amendments which I believe are constructive and will improve the bill. I support the bill, because I believe it is absolutely incumbent upon us to help drive the decarbonisation and digitisation agenda for this country to help our long-term productivity and prosperity. However, I'm putting forward these amendments because I believe we need to ensure integrity of government spending—because the money that goes through this parliament is not our money; it is the money of the people of Australia—and because we're facing interest rate costs on our borrowing that are extraordinary, so we must ensure every dollar is spent effectively.
The first deals with priority areas in which the fund can make investments. Under the bill, the minister can designate whatever industries he or she likes to receive investments from the fund. There is an opportunity to tighten the designation so that investments can flow only into those sectors where there's an economic justification for it. My amendment would require the Productivity Commission to consider potential priority areas before a designation is made. This would prevent public money being invested where capital markets are already working and where there is no justification for government intervention. It would also prevent Australia investing public money in propping up industries where the cost of making more things in Australia means consumers bear an unreasonable cost and the cost of decarbonisation increases. While, legitimately, this country would like to make more things in Australia, we need to be careful about continuing to support industries where we cannot be cost competitive with other countries in the long term.
The second deals with the investment mandate, which sets the rules by which the fund can make its investments. With this bill we're being asked to support the creation of the fund without knowing what the fund's investment mandate would be. I accept that there are circumstances where this is appropriate but I believe it is best if parliament has a power to disallow a mandate which would not be supported by one or other of its chambers. The counterargument to this is that the government's other off-budget investment vehicles do not have disallowable mandates and the National Reconstruction Fund should not be treated any differently. It's a fair point, but I believe there's an opportunity to improve the accountability of these vehicles through the disallowance process. Rather than allowing future investment vehicles to adopt an inferior practice, we should insist on improved practice and work to raise standards across the other, already legislated, funds.
The third deals with a statutory review of the fund. The bill requires independent reviews of the fund every five years, which is a sensible provision, but I would like to go a step further and require that the first review be completed before the government can provide any additional resourcing. Simply ensuring that the fund is working as intended before it is provided with an additional $10 billion of public money is a sensible and reasonable requirement.
As I said in the beginning, my goal is to be constructive. I believe that each of these amendments is constructive, sensible and reasonable. I believe the amendments would enhance the integrity of this off-budget spending and improve the confidence the community can have in this fund, and I believe they're worthy of the chamber's support.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:32): I note the amendments moved by all honourable members. The coalition have indicated from the outset that we will move and consider amendments to this flawed bill in the Senate. This is a bad bill that has been rushed. Parliamentary scrutiny has been side-stepped and industry consultation—
The SPEAKER: I'll just pause the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We are dealing with the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth—specifically her amendments—at this stage. Does she wish to speak about those amendments?
Ms LEY: About all the amendments, Mr Speaker?
The SPEAKER: The way consideration in detail works is that we go through amendments, and, under the standing orders, we go through the amendments one at a time and the debate follows the amendment. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her contribution.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (10:34): I also want to thank the member for Wentworth, who has engaged across a range of areas. This has obviously been one of many areas we have discussed, and I've noted her eagerness to understand in particular the various mechanisms of the bill and how they will work together. In respect of the priority areas, before I get substantively to your points but related to them, Member for Wentworth, I mentioned to you and I would like to reinforce to the House that the priority areas that have been selected in the bill have been informed by work of the CSIRO in their COVID-19: recovery and resilience report. They indicated that these areas were important for longer-term economic growth, and we also believe that a lot of the work that can be done within there will have a potentially huge impact in addressing some of the supply chain issues that we believe have driven inflation and have also set us on a trajectory for these interest rate increases that we've experienced. We've got to be able to tackle inflation and put downward pressure on interest rates.
These priority areas represent in large part the work that was put forward to us by the CSIRO. Some has been put in—for example, on transport—because, frankly, we have seen some state governments decide to offshore work that was being done onshore by existing firms, creating good work for people, who then missed out on those contracts before that work came back and had to be fixed anyway. We think that scaling up that manufacturing effort onshore to meet the need to improve the accessibility of public transport, particularly locally made, is a win all round and is really important, so we included that. I am sure you share that view. Obviously there's a lot of work being done not just on light commercial electric vehicles but on heavier industrial applications as well, so transport is important.
In setting those priority areas, we don't want them to be chopped and changed. There needs to be certainty for industry and there also needs to be certainty for the NRF board in making investment decisions. We do want to ensure that there is that degree of stability and allow for that momentum to continue. That has been something I have been very focused on as Minister for Industry and Science. I didn't agree, for example, with a lot of the things that the coalition did in the way they managed the MMI, but I was not, as a new, incoming minister, about to rip up contracts or announcements that have been made, because my view is to keep momentum going and keep building. I don't want to play politics with it; just make it happen. It's the same sort of thing here: certainty for investment and industry is something that we do need to do, so we're not going to chop and change priority areas.
I note there have been number of references to market failure. We are not talking about market failure here. We're talking about the capability that exists in these areas and the need to scale them up. If there are people working in these priority areas that have now commercialised a concept and are ready to scale up, we want to be able to provide that investment. The independent board, conscious of the priority areas, will make that happen. We do want to make that occur. We do want to ensure that, in making that happen, it's done in a healthy way that is that is across the board. It's not just the cities. It's not just one part of the country; it's many. There are a lot of things that we need to do if we want to support, diversify and transform the industry and the economy and deliver financial returns as well.
With regard to your point about market failure, I emphasise that it's a lot harder, as you can appreciate, Member for Wentworth, if you're trying to invest in areas of market failure without fixing the fundamentals beforehand. Getting a return on investment is incredibly hard. That's why I'm saying a lot of these priority areas reflect capability that currently exists and can be scaled up. In my contribution earlier in the debate, I was also very conscious of the fact that delivering a return is not just important for the taxpayers but will be important because those firms are successful on the ground and the communities in which they operate, providing jobs, economic and commercial viability and health for communities, and that is very important too.
So, while we can't support your amendment, I completely understand what is driving that and I look forward to our continued engagement. There's a lot of work to be done. As I said earlier, this is not the end of this work. There's a lot of work that needs to be done here. I open the invitation to the parliament: if they want to talk, we're happy to listen and work. (Time expired)
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (10:39): I want to make a few quick remarks in reply to the minister. Firstly, which I should have said in my first speech: thank you for your engagement on this. It has been incredibly constructive, and I appreciate your genuine openness to the conversations. The reason I'm focusing on market failure is we have a $3 trillion super industry in this country. We have a huge amount of private money. If private money can get behind these industries, they're going to have a huge opportunity to drive even further. I'm very supportive of private money getting behind there, and I don't want public money to confuse that. I want public money to enable that and then private money to take off. I'm focused on where public money can be spent to reduce market failure and then later enable private money to get in there. Also, from a policy and regulation point of view, I want to understand why, if there are opportunities there and there is no market failure, private isn't money getting in there and what we can do to help them drive that.
In relation to the areas that you identified, I appreciate it came from that CSIRO report—it's a very good report. My concern is it was written in 2020, some distance ago, and we were in a very different time. Secondly, as I understand, the fund has not been completely allocated, so there is still money that may go to different sectors. It's my particular concern that money that goes to different sectors is allocated effectively where there is market failure or on the basis of really rigorous analysis. Finally, on your point on inflation and trying to do inflation reduction, I take your point on that but I think we need to note that part of the driver of inflation in this country and around the world is very high government spending out of the pandemic. This is why I have a concern on this and all government spending now, because there is a public sector driver of inflation. We have, for good reason, spent a lot of money, but that is one of the drivers of inflation along with supply chain issues across the world.
I support local manufacturing. My family business manufactures locally, which makes us pretty unusual. But at the same time, I'm conscious that if making products locally—particularly in this green transition—means that they're much more expensive than they otherwise would be, or they are slower or harder to bring to market, then we will be costing ourselves more in this transition. We have to think very carefully about this balance and how to make sure that whatever we are supporting is, over the long term, either critically required from a supply chain reliability or is otherwise able to, at some point, stand on its own two feet so the government doesn't always have to step in.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (10:43): I know we're not intending to do a back-and-forth on this, but there were some very good points raised in that contribution and it is important to get it on Hansard. In terms of the priority areas, I take on board your point that there's a bit of time gone since the report that informed our thinking, but if you look at the priority areas—value-adding resources, agriculture, medical sciences, defence industry, energy, low-emissions technology, the transport arena, and enabling capabilities and critical technologies—the need for us to invest in that areas is still present and will be for some time. That will be important.
In response to your point about cost of doing that and whether or not the end cost will be very high if we manufacture locally, I have a number of things. Advanced manufacturing and the use of automation has changed the labour component in a lot of these areas, so the world has moved a bit. I mentioned batteries earlier—it has been suggested by the Future Battery Industry CRC that our capability to manufacture locally with batteries has been improved because of automation. The skills required to be paired—the human capital side—in an international context are, when you look at remuneration, very competitive. I don't think the concerns that you have will necessarily be the same as we experienced in times before, when we saw a lot of manufacturing go offshore—they went to one country because the wage rates were completely different. That was 20 years ago. The world has moved, and I think the world is also determined to reduce our dependence on those concentrated and broken supply chains.
I would also add, as you are well aware—I know this for a fact—the world is thinking differently about shipping and the emissions impact of that. If we don't have capability onshore and we're importing a lot of product, we will be importing that product at higher prices. As I've remarked in times previous, Member for Wentworth, given our manufacturing self-sufficiency in the OECD is amongst some of the lowest, we have a big job to do to repair that so we can sidestep that importation of inflation, if I can put it that way.
In terms of some of the remarks that have been made about the NRF potentially contributing to inflation, there are two points I would submit: (1) we're trying to deal with the very supply-side issues that have driven inflation through some of this work; and (2) this is investment in capability. It is investment. It's not us putting out grants and pumping out money into the economy. The propositions have to stand on their own two feet, they have to deliver a return to the taxpayer, and they're an investment in capability to address some of the inflationary issues. The way we have staged those investments, too, and the way we have put that money in, as we have privately discussed, is happening over a period of time—so there's that. It won't all be at once. We wouldn't have the ability to pump out those investment decisions in one year, anyway, because it's going to take a bit of time. So it gives that insurance on the inflationary side.
The final point I'd make in response to the points the member for Wentworth has made is that the member is absolutely right: we are proud of the fact that we have one of the largest savings pools on the planet because of superannuation. It's not just been important for people's post-retirement incomes; it's provided investment capital to help businesses here and abroad. We need to team up with them. VC, as you know, have been making re-evaluations of their investments and have pulled money out. We've seen that translate into job losses, where firms have had to lay off people because they don't have the investment runway that they once counted on. We need to change that. We need to have money in there that can pair up. We are crowding in; we are not crowding out. We will work with super, VC and PE—that's private equity—and make this happen.
I might remark on the number of times I've had venture capital firms say to me, 'Why don't we do what other countries do and set up a co-investment fund?' We are doing just that. We're making that growth capital available for firms to grow and, importantly—and I'll end on this point—to back Australian know-how. Do not have firms with good ideas leave our shores because they don't feel like they've got the support that they can get. The number of times I hear firms say they couldn't get capital here, but they could get not just other firms but other governments to invest in their propositions—that burns so much. I know it burns in a lot of people around this chamber, regardless of their politics. We should back our own, stand on our own two feet, build a stronger, longer term economy and not be the importers of other people's ideas but the exporters of great ideas that come from Australia.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (10:48): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Friends, this is a good day for Australian manufacturing. If you want Australia to be a country that makes things, this is a good day. If you are a manufacturer in regional or outer-suburban areas of our country who is looking for that growth capital to make sure that your firm is secure and grows, this is a good day. And this is a good day for jobs. This is a good day for people working across a range of different sectors who believe in the value of their work and want a government that believes in the value of their work.
We are championing Australian manufacturing because it's not just about making things here in this country. Australian manufacturing makes good jobs and good secure work. Nearly 900,000 people in this nation owe their livelihood to manufacturing, and 85 per cent of those jobs are full time, good-paying jobs. This is something that is absolutely worth fighting for. We had people on this side of the chamber fight for that. We had people on the crossbench and the Greens fight for that. We may not have agreed with everything, but in the end we had the bulk of this chamber say, 'Australian manufacturing is worth backing.' The ones who didn't are sitting opposite.
The ones who want to pretend that they back manufacturing are sitting opposite. The ones who chased off auto manufacturers from this country are sitting opposite. Many of the ones who pulled apart manufacturing programs when they were in government are sitting opposite, and many of the ones who scrambled to put manufacturing funding back in are sitting opposite. And then, when we called on them to support us to help Australian manufacturers, who are dealing with soaring energy prices, and we said, 'Join with us to help Australian manufacturers', they weren't there. And when we asked them to back in one of the greatest investments in manufacturing capability in living memory, they weren't there.
When those opposite were in government and said they wanted to bring in funds for manufacturing grants to help support Australian manufacturing and they put $1.5 billion on the table, what did we do? We didn't do what they did. We agreed with it; we supported it. They say they're the party of the working class but, every time they need to be there, they're not. They refuse to back our ideas. We said, 'We don't agree necessarily with everything you're doing', when we were in opposition, but we backed manufacturing because manufacturing matters. That's the test.
Those opposite failed the test. They had a chance to show that they truly do get it, that this is a time when it is hard to get capital at the price needed because they set us on a trajectory around inflation when they were in office. Their spending, their blowouts of the budget, their increases in debt—one trillion of debt—the way that they failed to deal with supply chains, the way that inflation went off the rails and the way it set us on an interest rate trajectory that we're having to deal with now in government, when we try to get that fixed, they are not there. The point I make, friends, is that they are never there to support manufacturing. They only support manufacturing when there's a camera around, when they can put on the high-vis and they can pretend to.
We on this side think Australian manufacturing deserves better than that. I look at my colleagues and I look at how many of them, in the outer suburbs and the regions, visit their manufacturers and are proud of what they do. Each and every one of you can go back and say, 'We back what you do.' We back Australian know-how; we back ideas. We don't want firms to feel like they have to leave this nation to get the support they rightly deserve from our own.
Why is it that we have so many firms that say they can't get capital from local investors but they get it from overseas investors or overseas governments that back manufacturing quicker than our own? Labor are determined to change this. We are determined to back our ideas, back our businesses, back our workers, back their growth and back them being able to grow communities and make a difference. We said in opposition, friends, that we would do this. We all lived the lesson of the pandemic, when the things we needed were not there at the time we needed them most. We said, 'We'll learn the lesson.' We didn't say, 'We'll learn the lesson,' and then do nothing and forget about it later. We said we would take concrete action. We promised the Australian people we would develop this fund. We promised that we would see that money available for communities that value manufacturing, and we are delivering.
We wish we had had the support of those opposite, but it's clear they are the fakes and flakes when it comes to manufacturing. They are never there when we need their support. But, friends, we will do it. We will get this job done. We will make sure that Australian manufacturing gets the support it needs. You all, as well as the crossbench and the Greens, can go back to your communities and rightly say, 'We've got your back.' And we are proud of this fact. I'm proud of the support. I'm proud of the fact that the House has endorsed one of the greatest investments in manufacturing capability. With that, I thank the House for its time.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:55): The minister has come to the dispatch box paper free, and I note that because it may not be well known that he uses foreign paper in his office. Here, on Australian made paper, I'm very happy to respond and make the point that his briefs are not worth the paper they're printed on.
Now, I note the amendments moved by honourable members. The coalition has indicated from the outset of this flawed bill that we will move and consider amendments in the Senate, because this is a bad bill that has been rushed. Parliamentary scrutiny has been sidestepped. Industry consultation has been all show and no substance. Let me tell you about the industry consultation process. It's been so farcical that the government would have you believe that, in just a few business days, after a receiving close to 200 submissions, they earnestly reviewed all of this important feedback. Indeed, the minister began debate on this bill before the Senate inquiry process had even held its hearings. It's clear the only consultation that matters to this government, the only interests they're seeking to represent, are those of their union paymasters.
The minister consulted just seven organisations prior to rushing this bill through the House. The Australian Council of Trade Unions topped the list. There was Industry Super Australia, chaired by Labor powerbroker Greg Combet, and the Australian Banking Association, run by yet another Labor powerbroker, Anna Bligh. There was the Law Council of Australia. I mean no disrespect, but what would they know about the challenges our manufacturers face? There was also the Australian Investment Council and their own department's statutory board. There was not a single manufacturer—not one.
The lack of consultation for a bill that's being rushed through in this manner and that is responsible for $15 billion of taxpayers' funds is beyond negligent. In fact, when asked at Senate estimates whether any modelling was undertaken as to the inflationary impact of the National Reconstruction Fund, the response was staggering: 'No, we haven't. It wasn't necessary.' Can you believe that? I've been in this place for more than 21 years, and in all that time I struggle to recollect such an egregious affront to the Australian taxpayer.
Today we've also seen the government selling out our manufacturers for a cheap deal with the Greens which prohibits investment in coal, gas and native forestry. As Australian households and small businesses are facing soaring energy prices right here, right now, Labor seems determined to make it worse, with Anthony Albanese caving in to the Greens and selling Australian manufacturing up the creek. Every expert in this country is calling on the Prime Minister to unlock more supplies of gas, but today's awful deal with the Greens is another demonstration that this government is utterly unable to deliver policies that will produce affordable and reliable energy. The industry minister always claims to acknowledge the importance of gas as a transition fuel, but today he's actually preventing investment in this critical area of our manufacturing policy and our manufacturing sovereignty.
This is a bad bill that has become even worse. We will fight Labor's recklessness all the way to the Senate, then to the election and beyond, because the resources industry is the only industry singled out for prohibition in this fund. It's a damning indictment on the priorities of this bad Labor government. On this side of the House, we know that a gas led transition is critical. Once again, this government breaks its promise. Once again, it demonises gas. It's another broken promise. It's another in the long list of people who are being left behind by a government and a prime minister who said they would leave no-one behind. Instead, they are leaving everyone behind, including our hardworking manufacturers. This dodgy, desperate deal sees the government's signature manufacturing policy take one giant step backwards. These concerns, as well as a raft of others in this flawed bill, were captured in the Senate inquiry process. I do acknowledge the good faith in which the Independents have heard our concerns with this bad bill. The coalition does look forward to considering the report from the Senate committee, and we will be moving amendments in the Senate.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Kennedy, and I didn't want to interrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the minister, I want to remind all members about third reading speeches. If I could bring this to the attention of the deputy leader, third reading speeches is not the time to reopen debates. Practice is very clear that the scope of the debate is more restricted than at the second reading stage, being limited to the contents of the bill—that is, the matters contained in the clauses and the schedules of the bill. It is not in order to repeat those debates on matters discussed in the motion for the second reading or during the detail stage. The time to debate amendments is at the time. It is not at the third reading stage to do that. It has been held for a long time that the debate on the motion for the third reading is limited to the bill as agreed to by the House. I didn't want to interrupt, but going forward, so all members can be aware of what happens during the third reading amendment, it is not the time to bring new material or to relitigate issues.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:01): I started off as a very enthusiastic supporter of the bill. I have very great respect for the minister. I think he is one of the finest ministers I've served with in this place—I'd go so far as to say that. Whether he has been forced to, or whatever the case may be, the bill has been watered down and watered down and watered down. If you put enough acid in a basic solution it will then become an acidic solution and that's what has happened here. The bill has shifted from a promotion of industry to serving the interests of minority groups and to serving the interests of the anticoal brigade. In India, which will soon be the biggest country on earth and the biggest economy on earth, there are 600 million people, and this is relevant to the change that has occurred in this bill through the government process. They have no electricity, so they have to use cow dung, grass and a bit of wood that they can find somewhere for all of their energy requirements—these poor people—and you're going to tell them they can't have coal. That's simply not going to fly. I am very sad to say that the bill which I started off with great enthusiasm for will now serve the interests of minority groups. It has got nothing to do with development. It has been corrupted to a point where it will fail to achieve its objectives. With very, very sad regret, I say that I will be opposing the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Rishworth.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (11:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am introducing the next step in the Albanese government's election commitment to reform income management—the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023.
This bill builds on changes made by the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022, which established the enhanced income management program and repealed the Cashless Debit Card program.
The amendments made by this bill will facilitate an effective and efficient transition to enhanced income management for existing income management participants who choose to access the superior banking product, and ensure that new entrants into the program are provided with the contemporary technology of the SmartCard.
This is to be given effect through three key reforms, to be implemented from a date to be set by proclamation.
Firstly, the bill extends the enhanced income management regime to include all of the measures that are in place for the income management regime. This will allow newly eligible participants to enter the enhanced income management regime, which offers improved technology and access to over a million outlets across Australia, as well as tap-and-go transactions, online shopping and BPAY.
Secondly, the bill gives people subject to the income management regime under part 3B the choice to move to enhanced income management from the commencement date, thereby allowing them to access the BasicsCard bank account and superior SmartCard.
Thirdly, the bill directs all new entrants to the enhanced income management regime, ensuring that no new participants are issued with a BasicsCard. All participants will receive a SmartCard, and we will undertake further consultations on the long-term future of income management. Former cashless debit card participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York and Doomadgee regions, and those who choose to remain on the cashless debit card program in other areas, transitioned to the enhanced income management program on 6 March 2023.
This bill offers the same choice to use the contemporary technology to more than 24,000 existing income management participants in the Northern Territory and other place based locations nationally. We will also ensure that all newly eligible participants will be part of the enhanced income management, to ensure no new participants are given the BasicsCard.
The more modern SmartCard provides banking functions, including, as I said, the tap-to-pay payments, online shopping and BPAY bill payments. Importantly, the SmartCard is delivered by Services Australia and has a PIN for added protection.
Our absolute priority is to ensure participants are supported and given access to a modem financial experience.
The service offering of the BasicsCard has become increasingly out of step with modem expectations. Submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of the Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022also gave us a clear message that the BasicsCard is out of date, and not sufficient to meet the needs of people in communities.
The former government did not invest in the BasicsCard because they were focused on pushing more people onto their privatised cashless debit card. We have listened, and this bill responds to a clear message that the BasicsCard is out of date and that it is important for this bill to be dealt with as soon as possible.
The Albanese government is working with communities on the future of income management and what it looks like for them. Any decisions about the future of income management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field. Until that time, this bill will ensure that income management is more in tune with the needs of participants based on the feedback we have already heard.
Further, this bill will specifically exclude age pensioners and special-needs pensioners as eligible payments for the vulnerable welfare payment receipt measure of enhanced income management. This reflects the Albanese government's strong view that it was never an appropriate measure under the existing income management program, and it ensures that any future government is unable to enact this change without standing here in this place and attempting to justify it. It will also specifically exclude veterans' payments as eligible payments for enhanced income management.
It is important to be clear here to provide communities with certainty about what these changes will mean for them. This bill does not remove the income management program or amend the underlying policy, which is based on applying restrictions to an individual's welfare payment when they meet specific eligibility criteria, to ensure a portion of their payment cannot be spent on restricted goods.
This bill does not change the eligibility criteria which determine whether an individual is placed on income management. As such, no participants will exit the scheme who would otherwise be subject to income management. Any new participants who will be placed on enhanced income management would otherwise have been placed on income management.
This bill does not change the portion of payment which cannot be spent on restricted goods, which will remain consistent with the portion currently restricted based on eligible measure.
It also does not change the items to be restricted, which are alcohol, gambling services, pornography and tobacco.
Importantly, it also does not change the current ability for state and territories to refer people to income management where there are concerns, for example, relating to child protection. This ability exists in the income management regime and will be protected by inserting the equivalent sections into the enhanced income management. I will also be consulting with my state and territory ministers on any additional referral pathways they may wish to have access to in order to refer an individual to income management, recognising that states and territories are well placed to respond to social issues within their own jurisdictions.
Feedback from First Nations community leaders told us more consultation was required on the future of income management. We heard that any change needs to be measured and responsive to communities' needs. Decisions that impact First Nations people will be made in partnership, involving extensive consultation.
As I said in this place when I introduced our bill to abolish the cashless debit card last year, we will continue consulting with and listening to a wide range of stakeholders, including First Nations leaders, women's groups, service providers, communities, people receiving welfare payments, and our state and territory government counterparts. These diverse perspectives on local needs will strongly inform what the future of income management looks like. Consultation is central to everything we as a government do. We want to ensure changes or measures we implement are actually helping those who need it.
Our focus and our objective as a government remains clear: to empower people, empower communities, and provide individuals and communities with a range of supports that they can choose to use when and how it best suits them.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr O'Connor
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Skills and Training) (11:13): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian vocational education and training (VET) sector delivers outstanding education and training through a variety of institutions, through public TAFE and private registered training organisations (RTOs), within universities, and through schools. It is a dynamic and responsive sector that supports millions of students each year to obtain the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in an ever-changing economy.
It provides flexible opportunities for individuals to engage in education and training as a starting point to a career pathway or as a solution to upskill or re-skill. At the heart of its agenda, the government is uplifting the VET sector, including by delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places in 2023, upgrading essential TAFE infrastructure through the $50 million TAFE Technology Fund, and supporting new energy apprenticeships for a modern economy.
Today, I introduce the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2023(the bill)to amend the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the NVETR Act). The amendments in the bill will:
support changes to the way VET activity data is collected and submitted by RTOs to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER); and
modernise the way that VET activity data can be accessed and used by authorised users.
More broadly, the amendments will support data reforms which will be implemented as part of the VET Data Streamlining program and which will help to deliver high-quality training outcomes.
The Australian government is working with states and territories and the NCVER to improve the availability and quality of VET activity data through the VET Data Streamlining program and its reforms. This reform will modernise the way TAFEs and other RTOs manage their collection, validation and submission of VET activity data.
There are currently data lags of up to 20 months in national VET activity data collection which is published annually. Current data lags make it difficult for governments to respond effectively to emerging skills shortages, or other policy and funding issues as they occur.
VET data streamlining will introduce:
modern technology that will enable progressive submission and validation of VET activity data;
an updated VET information standard to replace the current statistical standard which was first developed over 25 years ago; and
updated regulatory, legislative and governance settings that will support the objective of 'better data, faster'.
These important VET data reforms aim to:
enhance the transparency of changes and developments in the VET market, including responses to unexpected shocks;
make VET student activity data reporting simpler;
reduce reporting pathways for training providers;
reduce the time delay between the collection, availability and reporting of VET activity data;
improve data quality and business efficiency;
provide evidence to support key policy and funding decisions to the VET sector (such as fee-free TAFE and VET);
enhance governments' ability to assess the effectiveness of investment in VET;
improve consumer information on scheduled course offerings; and
ensure unique student identifier transcripts are updated sooner, assisting students and their employers.
'Better data, faster' will support government priorities for the VET sector including:
the work of Jobs and Skills Australia, which relies on VET activity data to inform its advice to the Australian government on current and emerging skills and training needs in the labour market and workforce.
ensuring that additional TAFE commitments are delivering skills in priority areas. World-leading training must be supported by quality information—and evidenced based assessment of the VET Sector.
The NVETR Act established the National VET Regulator and the framework to provide nationally consistent regulation across the sector. To inform the regulation of the VET sector, the NVETR Act places data provision obligations on RTOs to report data in accordance with the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Provision Requirements) Instrument 2020. The bill engages with this legislative framework.
I will now outline several aspects of the bill.
To ensure VET activity data remains responsive to the needs of governments and other VET data users, the bill will enable the Skills Ministerial Council (made up of the Commonwealth and state and territory ministers) to agree that a specified body or person can agree to amendments to data provision obligations of RTOs. Currently, the relevant Commonwealth minister and the ministerial council must agree to such amendments. This amendment will streamline future processes to update the new VET information standard, making the data standard more responsive to the needs of governments and other VET activity data users.
The amendments in the bill will authorise the access and use of VET activity data by ICT system operators engaged under a contract to collect, use and disclose VET activity data through a new legislative instrument, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (VET Data System Information) Determination 2023.
The amendments in the bill will remove an ambiguity by expressly incorporating the authorisation for the national VET regulator, ASQA, to make an administrative decision to exempt an RTO from providing specified data that is prescribed by the data provision requirements.
Finally, the amendments in the bill will permit the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to release information collected in accordance with the data provision requirements if agreed by the ministerial council or a specified person or body agreed by the ministerial council.
Improved VET data collection will also support other agencies and projects, including ASQA and the Multi-Agency Data Integration Project, and is aligned with the principle of open data exchange with states and territories under the Intergovernmental Agreement on data sharing between Commonwealth and State and Territory governments.
Consultation with these stakeholders, and peak bodies and training providers, has demonstrated the support for improving the quality and timeliness of VET activity data. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of these stakeholders in advancing these important VET data reforms.
Conclusion
The bill is a key step in modernising the collection and use of VET activity data. The data reforms in VET data streamlining are important: they will enhance both the quality and relevance of VET by making timely and quality VET activity data available to governments, regulators, training providers, students and the VET sector as a whole. This bill and VET data streamlining will provide the government with 'better data, faster' as it delivers its agenda to uplift VET, be it through fee-free TAFE and VET places, the TAFE Technology Fund, or the many projects which depend on reliable VET activity data.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Clare.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (11:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the government's election commitment to establish a 'Startup Year' program in our universities.
What happens in our universities can change the world.
They are ideas factories.
They are playing an ever bigger role in nurturing our startup ideas from concept to commercial application through higher education based accelerator programs.
Startups play an important role in job creation and in commercialising ideas.
In 2020, over 3,000 new jobs could be attributed to Australia's eight most successful startups.
The Technology Council of Australia estimates that new tech startups can contribute 30,000 new jobs and $7 billion in value by 2030.
But creating a successful startup requires know-how.
And we need to support the development of the skills needed to drive those businesses and technologies of the future.
That's what this bill does.
It will extend up to 2,000 income contingent loans each year to eligible students participating in higher education based accelerator programs.
These will be programs which build skills in entrepreneurship and connect students with the support, mentorship and facilities they need to develop their startup ideas.
The loans will be available to final year undergraduate students, current postgraduate students and recent graduates as a new loan type under our existing Higher Education Loan Program.
The amount of assistance will be tied to the maximum student contribution amount for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, which is set at $11,800 under funding cluster 4 of the Higher Education Support Act.
The bill also provides for guidelines, which will contain further detail on the operation of the loan, including the process of allocating loans and registering eligible accelerator courses under the program.
Places will be prioritised for courses which demonstrate greater engagement with, and participation of, under-represented groups.
Among them:
female entrepreneurs;
Indigenous Australians;
people with disability; and
community-based startups which are working on regional and rural issues.
Consistent with other HELP loans, startup year loans will be paid back through the tax system once an individual's income rises above the compulsory repayment threshold. This means that people pay what they can afford, and they don't pay more if they don't earn more.
This removes a significant roadblock to participation in accelerator programs, and will encourage a broader, more diverse range of programs to be available to a larger cohort of participants.
Eligible students will be able to receive a maximum of two startup year loans over their lifetime, and students who undertake an accelerator course and who access a startup year loan will be able to access a range of student payments, as long as they meet the other eligibility criteria.
These measures will help our bright young innovators to generate the game-changing ideas and jobs of the future.
The program will start with a pilot program commencing in July 2023, with a full rollout in July 2024.
The bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to list Avondale University as a table B provider.
Listing Avondale as a table B provider recognises the university's recent registration as an 'Australian university' by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, and will give Avondale greater access to grants under the Higher Education Support Act, such as research block grants.
The bill will also amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to apply current indexation rates to funding for the 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years and insert a new funding cap for the 2025-26 financial year, resulting in an additional appropriation to the ARC of just over $1 billion.
It will ensure that the Australian Research Council can continue to support Australia's research sector by funding the highest quality of fundamental and applied research to deliver real cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits for all Australians.
The measures in this bill further the government's commitment to supporting our higher education sector, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented byMs Kearney, for Mr Butler.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (11:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Labor Party has had a longstanding history of contribution to the legacy of universal health coverage in Australia. The Albanese government is committed to protecting and strengthening our world-class Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, known as the PBS.
The PBS has continually provided affordable access to medicines for all Australians for over 70 years and is respected and valued for the high-quality, cost-effective medicines it delivers.
Australian government expenditure on the PBS was $14.7 billion in the 2021-22 financial year.
For the PBS to maintain its ability to support the costs of an increasing number and range of medicines, it is essential that the government protects Commonwealth funds through ensuring its integrity and financial viability of the scheme.
The National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to support the effective operation of the PBS.
While the majority of pharmacists do the right thing when claiming PBS payments, there is unfortunately a small number that do not. In certain cases, it is a result of inappropriate claiming or, worse, fraud. Any pharmacist who has been prosecuted for PBS fraud should not be able to perpetrate further fraud against the Commonwealth.
Under the current legislation, an approval to supply PBS medicines can be held by a pharmacist as an individual or under a company structure.
Currently, if a pharmacist who is approved as an individual is prosecuted for a PBS fraud related offence, their approval can be suspended or revoked. However, if that same pharmacist operates under a company structure, there is no ability for that approval to be suspended or revoked.
This poses a real risk, as many pharmacists increasingly operate their pharmacy businesses under corporate structures. Such a pharmacist, if prosecuted of a PBS related offence, can continue to supply PBS medicines and perpetrate further fraud.
This bill introduces an amendment which will align with the original intent that the power to suspend or revoke the approval of a pharmacist who has been prosecuted for PBS fraud applies equally to all approvals. This is irrespective of whether the approval is held by an individual or under a company structure.
This bill will strengthen protection of the PBS regardless of the business ownership structure.
I would like to acknowledge and thank key stakeholders for their input and support for the amendments during consultation on this bill—in particular, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the Pharmacy Board of Australia and state and territory pharmacy regulators nationwide.
This government is aiming to ensure that Australians continue to have access through the PBS to affordable medicines when and where they need them. The proposed changes will contribute to the sustainability and continuity of access to PBS medicines by preventing abuse of the scheme.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Joint Committee
Approval of Work
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (11:33): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—Cultana Training Area Redevelopment Phase 2.
The Department of Defence is proposing to delivery infrastructure and facilities at Cultana Defence training area in South Australia. The proposed works will increase the Australian Defence Force training capacity through new and upgraded training facilities and infrastructure and provide an all-weather road network. The estimated cost of the works is $79.8 million excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence from late 2023 and be completed by early 2025. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry this out.
On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Approval of Work
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (11:34): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Australian Electoral Commission—Proposed fit-out of new premises at London Quarter Block 40, Section 100, Canberra City, ACT.
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Australian Electoral Commission are proposing to fit out a new office that will be constructed at London Quarter block 40, section 100, Canberra City, ACT. The new office, which will also be occupied by the Department of Education under a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, will consolidate staff from 11 buildings across Canberra. The proposed works will increase operational efficiency, promote greater collaborative work practices and reduce property operating costs. The estimated cost of the fit-out is $149.6 million, excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out works are expected to commence in September 2024 and be completed by March 2026. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out this project.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
The SPEAKER (11:42): The question is that this bill be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
Third Reading
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (11:47): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber with an unresolved question; certified copy of the bill and schedule of the unresolved question presented.
Proposed amendment—
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst welcoming moves to establish a Pacific Engagement Visa, the House:
(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because:
(a) permanent residency and citizenship of Australia should not be decided by a lottery; and
(b) Australia's immigration system should be nation-building with a key focus on the economic contribution immigrants
make to our country; and
(2) calls on the Government to develop a new approach to implement the Pacific Engagement Visa."
Unresolved question—
That the amendment be disagreed to:
The SPEAKER (11:53): The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The House divided. [11:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
The SPEAKER (11:57): The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [11:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
Third Reading
Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (11:59): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber with an unresolved question, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of bill and schedule of the unresolved question presented.
Proposed amendment—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item.
(2) Schedules 4 and 5, page 34 (line 1) to page 44 (line 12), omit the Schedules.
Unresolved question—
That the amendments be disagreed to.
The SPEAKER (12:04): The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The House divided. [12:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)
Third Reading
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (12:07): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I would like to thank the members who have been contributing to the debate. I would also like to take the time to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition.
Schedules 4 and 5 to the bill will enhance the integrity of the tax system and close tax loopholes that allow companies to allocate franking credits to shareholders in a way that is outside of the intent of the system. This is hurting the budget bottom line, and it's hurting taxpayers. The coalition used to believe in these things, and that's why the coalition wanted to do it first. On capital raisings in the 2016-17 MYEFO, the then Treasurer Scott Morrison announced:
The Government will introduce a specific measure preventing the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.
On off-market share buybacks, the then Liberal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said on 26 August 2019:
… share buybacks and capital returns are becoming increasingly prominent …
… … …
A more positive approach to investment and growth by Australian corporates would not only lead to a stronger economy but would contribute to the goal of capital deepening.
So one of these measures is theirs and one of them was supported by them. That just shows what rank opportunism we're seeing from an opposition desperately trying to whip up hysteria about one practice that has almost completely stopped since the then Treasurer announced it but will almost certainly start again if we don't close the loophole and about another that makes up less than two per cent of franking credit distributions.
These are measures we've consulted on, and we've responded to the consultation. Can I in particular make note of a large number of submissions that say we should not backdate the capital raising measure to the day that Scott Morrison first announced it back in 2016. In response to those submissions, we've made a change. We listened and we made a change: the measure will no longer be retrospective to previous financial years. These measures are targeted at big companies finding loopholes in our tax system, big companies that are getting discounted share buybacks paid for or subsidised by Australian taxpayers. Those opposite knew it. Let me say it again: these changes will have absolutely no impact on the franking credit distribution to everyday Australians. They know it. It will have absolutely no impact on the franking credit distribution to everyday Australians. And if your constituents are asking you this question, just ask them how many off-market share buybacks have you done in the last 12 months? The answer will be zero. How many of off-market share buybacks have mum and dad investors done in the last 12 months? The answer will be zero. They know it. The Australian people know it. Let's get on with making the system stronger and making the system operate in the terms that it was intended.
Franking credits were a Labor invention. We introduced them under the Hawke and Keating government. It ensures that we have an imputation system to save investors from double taxation. It's a system we believe in and we stand by. We commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms SITOU (Reid) (12:11): Before the last election and in the months since I've been out doorknocking all across my electorate. It's a diverse electorate with a range of diverse opinions. We don't agree on everything and I think that's good. I like that people in my area have strong views and beliefs that they are happy to share with me. But one thing that I heard loud and clear before the last election was that politics, politicians and the institutions of government have taken a real hit when it comes to trust. Recent research from the Governance Institute of Australia listed the least trusted occupations in the country. Let's take a guess where we ranked in that list. Three out of the top four spots were taken by politicians. No. 1 for least trusted were state politicians; No. 2 all those in the chamber here, federal politicians; No. 3 real estate agents and No. 4 local politicians. This is not a list you want to do well on.
These results are worrying because the lack of trust has real impacts on how this country runs. That's why I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It's part of this Labor government's determination to build back trust with the electorate. The bill goes to the heart of what this place does—that is, to the heart of responsible government. Responsible government are two words that in many respects are completely ordinary, but which have a fundamentally important role to play in this place and what we do here.
When the member for Cook went about appointing himself to five additional ministries he rode roughshod over those principles of responsible government, the very essence of what keeps this place ticking. Worse than that, he helped to burn through public trust, one of the most important ingredients to make our democratic institutions work. Let's rewind a bit to August 2022 when the news broke that the member for Cook, while holding the office of Prime Minister, had gone on a power grab unprecedented in this nation's history. I thank Justice Virginia Bell for her examination of the facts here. The member for Cook appointed himself the minister for health on 14 March 2020. A couple of weeks later he also appointed himself Minister for Finance. Twelve months go past and the itch returns and in April of 2021 this time he takes on the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. As we've all learnt, this is where he bundled the member for Hinkler out of the way, so he could make a decision on PEP-11. A month later, the member for Cook took both Home Affairs and Treasury. For those keeping score, that's one man with six portfolios.
One of the most astounding things about this episode was the secrecy with which these arrangements were made. At no stage did the member for Cook make the public or this parliament aware of his additional appointments. In fact, in the cases of his appointments to Health, Finance, Home Affairs and Treasury, the member for Cook didn't even inform the relevant ministers. What are the implications of this? David Crowe, the chief political correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, describes it succinctly: 'There was a blurring of responsibility, an absence of accountability.' One of the central tenets of the Westminster system is that of ministerial accountability. How is the parliament supposed to keep the member for Cook accountable for his actions when it didn't even know about his extra responsibilities? How were Australians supposed to keep him accountable for the extraordinary power he had, when he didn't publicly disclose those powers?
We all come to this place sent by the Australian people to exercise enormous responsibility. I feel that every day. I know the minister for early education, who is at the table, feels that too. We are accountable to the people who elected us to this place. I am accountable to the people of Reid, and I feel that weight of responsibility every day. For ministers, there is an additional layer of responsibility, to the parliament and to the public. It is extraordinary that the member for Cook, in his frenzy for power, never thought his appointment to multiple ministries might pose a problem with accountability.
Even more bizarre, in his response to the Bell inquiry, the member for Cook tried to make a virtue of this secrecy. He stated that because his colleagues didn't know about his appointment, this showed that he restrained from interfering. How generous of him. He still doesn't get it. It wasn't about your colleagues, though they too were understandably furious. It was about this parliament and, more importantly, those people who we are here to represent.
All of this has come from a so-called conservative. It was the member for Cook who, in his first speech, proposed a vision of Australia. I want to quote from his speech here. It was a vision of Australia that was 'strong in its sense of nationhood and in the institutions that protect and preserve our democracy'. How exactly did trashing the basic norms of constitutional government protect and preserve our democracy? I will save you the suspense, Deputy Speaker: it didn't.
And it doesn't stop there. Because, with the exception of just a few—notably, the member for Bass—so many of those sitting opposite backed the member for Cook's actions. We can all remember their response to this House's censure motion. They rose to their feet clapping and gathered around to shake his hand—a bit of solidarity with their old mate, a solidarity at the expense of the country's basic constitutional norms. They had a chance to condemn his actions, and they chose not to. All of them are allegedly conservatives. All of them are allegedly interested in protecting this nation's institutions and democracy. What frauds. We will never be lectured by those opposite on the importance of institutions and the preciousness of democracy in this House—never. With only a few exceptions, those opposite have given up that right. They are, and will continue to be, a party of radicals, not a party of modern conservatives.
And don't be mistaken. This has real practical impacts for everyday life in Australia, because this sort of action is corrosive: corrosive of trust and corrosive of that important relationship between voters and their representatives in this place. When trust fails, as we see increasingly all around the world, it can have an impact on people's lives, because a lack of trust breeds cynicism and, ultimately, degrades the foundations of democracy.
According to Transparency International, over the last decade, Australia has slid down the rankings of the Corruption Perceptions Index. In 2012, Australia scored 85 out of a score of 100. So we were doing quite well. By 2021, that had dropped to 73—a 12-point drop. That is less trust from the public and more cynicism. Even though it's extraordinary this bill needs to be passed by the House, it's worth examining what it does, to ensure such institutional abuses don't happen in the future.
The core of this bill amends the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide increased transparency into executive government appointments. This will require the publishing of appointments and revocations of ministers from ministerial offices as soon as it is practical—not months later and not after an election cycle. It's a simple change, but one that will mean no future Prime Minister can secretly appoint themselves to multiple ministries without the public being notified.
These changes will have the effect of building on this Labor government's determination to restore trust in this place. It builds on our work to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission. Because this is a government that knows we need to rebuild trust with the public. That trust is fundamental to making this country work, and that trust should never be taken for granted or diminished. That's why making sure the member for Cook's actions can't be repeated without extensive public scrutiny is so important.
To those opposite, I say: back this bill. It will show that you don't endorse the actions of the former Prime Minister, who trashed our institutional norms. It will show you support our democracy and its institutions. Thank you.
Ms LAWRENCE (Hasluck) (12:22): The attitude of every member of parliament towards the democratic institutions and conventions that we work within matters. Every member here receives messages every day from constituents and others telling us about the threats to democracy and freedom from all corners of the world. Democracy begins at home. We all need to work together, every day, to maintain our democratic system. Within that system our Prime Minister is sometimes referred to as 'the first among equals'. The former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, was not content to be first among equals. He quietly became first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth among equals.
This simple legislation, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, is designed to help ensure that this does not happen again—at least not quietly. Let's imagine for a moment what would have happened if every time the member for Cook had been appointed to another ministry, instead of doing it on the sly, he had actually let the Australian people and his cabinet colleagues know about it. There would have been disquiet, incredulity perhaps, disagreement, lively question times in this place, almost certainly a Senate inquiry and the odd resignation of an affronted minister. Perhaps more people would have voted against the Liberals last May. We don't know. We don't know because this didn't happen.
The real problem here is the secrecy. Members opposite have not yet managed to come to this, but they do need to, because our system of government requires transparency, disclosures, checks and balances. Even here in this place, every movement a backbencher makes is broadcast in advance, to the point where we are never really surprised about who is speaking when and even for how long.
Without transparency, democracy is at risk. The website freedomhouse.org states that 'democracy's resilience is inherently connected to the health of its institutions.' When a nation turns away from democracy it doesn't happen all at once. Rather, it is white-anted through attacks on one democratic institution at a time. In some countries the executive starts to attack the judiciary or to stack it with their cronies. In others, elections are postponed, promised, and delayed again and again. Gerrymanders and other unfair electoral laws eat away at confidence. In some places journalists are too fearful to criticise their government. Some governments carry out surveillance of their citizens without the safeguards we have here, and in some places the parliament starts to be ignored by the executive, just here and there at first with little things and then with greater matters. In these places, citizens can end up losing so much of their faith and confidence in their government that they end up having no respect or regard for it at all. Which trajectory did the member for Cook want us to be on?
We have an array of checks and balances in our system. They are there for a reason, and members of parliament are their first line of defence. This legislation is here because one person, inhabiting a position where everyone would have simply assumed a certain degree of commitment to democratic norms and conventions, was shown to be somewhat less committed to those norms and conventions than he needed to be. The member for Cook is still here. I don't mean he is present, but he is still the member for Cook. No-one knows why. The good people of Cook do not have a real representative here anymore.
In relation to his strange, irresponsible and undemocratic behaviour, the member for Cook stated variously that they were difficult times, that he had himself given secret powers 'just in case' and that they were never used. And then he said he used one, but that was different, and it was in the national interest anyway. It's the sort of intellectual and moral gymnastics that we have become used to from that member. It would have been more just if Australians had been able to pass judgment on this behaviour at the election last May. They couldn't, because he hadn't told them.
I do not want to merely address the failings of the member for Cook. There are more numerous failings to address in this matter. Last year, members opposite had the chance to censure the member for Cook for this behaviour. They failed to do that. The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. I must admit, I was a little stunned at the readiness with which coalition members forgave the member for Cook and failed to censure him for what was a flagrant behaviour at odds with our democracy.
This failure seemed to come down to one of three factors. Firstly, some members opposite may simply not understand how fundamental the need for transparency, for honesty, is in these circumstances. They need to go back to political school on that one. One of the workshops of the McKinnon Institute course that I and other new members completed last year challenged us to determine how we discharge our obligations and responsibilities in ways that preserve and guard against the erosion of fundamental values. I recommend, to all members present, the excellent professional development series offered by the McKinnon Institute.
Secondly, I'm sure some members gave it no thought at all. They simply followed the party line. They thought that party loyalty came before their duty to their electors and to the parliament. Party loyalty is a good and useful thing. On this side of the House, solidarity has been a large part of the ALP's success for over 120 years. Does it come before your duty to the Australian people? No, it doesn't.
Thirdly, there is the factor of friendship. Some members simply like the member for Cook. He is their mate, and they don't want to censure their mate. I am a new member but I've got some news for members: we don't come into this place to make friends. We may well make friends—and hopefully we will make friends on all sides—but we have a duty here to the 150,000 souls we each represent. We have a duty to the Australian people to do the right thing. We have to separate our personal attachments to each other from our work, both in considering each piece of legislation and with regard to each unparliamentary behaviour that needs to be brought to account. If that means you upset your friend, then you upset your friend. If that means you have to censure your friend, then you censure your friend.
I can quote usefully here from a friend of mine, one of my former bosses, once Premier of Western Australia, Mr Geoff Gallop. In his essay published in the Australasian Parliamentary Review in 2009, entitled The role of a member of parliament, Mr Gallop states:
In fulfilling all of these functions and responsibilities there is a legal, indeed a constitutional principle involved—the public interest.
… … …
It is up to the Member to make sense of all of this in a way that is efficient, effective and ethical.
Further:
… they should do all of this in the knowledge not only that the electorate is the ultimate authority but also with a full understanding of what is right and what is wrong in the way they go about their activities. These are important checks and balances which we ignore at our peril.
Before he entered politics in the 1980s, Mr Gallop was an educator, and he teaches still.
As members of parliament, we need to understand our duties. I'm still very much a student of this. It beggars belief, though, that members opposite were unable to bring themselves to censure the member for Cook. There is no real excuse. They had the Solicitor-General's advice that 'the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined' by the actions of the former government. They had the report the former High Court justice Bell, who noted that the lack of disclosure was 'apt to undermine public confidence in government'. They had opinions from respected academics such as Patrick Weller, emeritus professor of politics at Griffith University, who described the undermining of ministerial responsibility, and constitutional law professor Anne Twomey, who said:
He was like a ghost minister no one could see. It is conduct that is contrary to the level of transparency one would expect from a government.
They also had the benefit of no end of press, summed up well by reporter Katharine Murphy's conclusion:
… he disdained parliamentary and democratic conventions that are fundamentally important—conventions that exist to prevent abuses of power.
If only there were some authoritative source on such matters that members could refer to! The House of Representatives Practice: 7th Edition, page 34, says:
… the House of Representatives is the people's House and the inheritance of responsible government, through the Cabinet system, is the most significant characteristic attaching to it.
Members opposite—apart from the member for Bass, who is a credit to her party—ignored all of that. Some members also even managed to ignore themselves. The member for McPherson, upon learning that she'd been merely the co-pilot as Minister for Home Affairs, said:
I had absolutely no knowledge and was not told … This undermines the integrity of government.
She was quite right. Did she then vote to censure the member for Cook? No, she did not. The member for McPherson stuck her head up out of the trench for a moment, saw how lonely it was up there and got down in the trench again.
There were a few other interesting comments from the opposition early on. Senator Birmingham described the issue as 'curious, troubling and worthy of some explanation', while the now Leader of Opposition, the member for Dickson, had to admit he was unaware as to whether he also may have been merely a co-pilot as Minister for Defence.
As Minister Burke noted in his speech on the censure motion, many more gave their reaction off the record, but the Hansard is the record. Members opposite are recorded there failing to censure the member for Cook. Well, they had their chance, they made their call and they got it wrong. It's a failure and it's a failure in their duties to this place, to their constituents and to their country at large. The member for Dickson failed to censure the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, for misleading the parliament. The member for McPherson failed to censure the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, for misleading the parliament. The member for Maranoa failed to censure the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, for misleading the parliament. There were other members who failed, but they can breathe a little easy as I haven't the time now to name each and every one.
But let's look at the bill itself. This bill will make law the recommendations of the Bell inquiry. It merely requires public notice to be given in various ways about who is minister for what and for when. It's a simple bill for an act that seems to do very little. Someone wandering in from the street might look at it and say, 'Why do you even need a law to do that?' Well, for 120 years we didn't. For 120 years we had managed to get by with prime ministers who had enough knowledge of and respect for the institutions and conventions of government in this country that we didn't need such a law. Now, unfortunately, we do need it. I support the bill. For 120 years we have managed to get by with prime ministers who had enough knowledge of and respect for the institutions and conventions of government in this country, and we didn't need such a law. Now, unfortunately, we do need it. I support the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (12:35): A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of being at the opening of Sydney's Surf Life Saving Branch Championships down at Maroubra Beach on the south-east coast. The sun was shining, the sky was blue and there was crystal-clear water as far as the eye could see. Between the soft sand running, the sausage sizzle and the amazing performances by people from across Wentworth and the community, I was reminded of the stunning natural environment that we have such a privilege to enjoy. It's an environment that we have a responsibility to protect—for the nippers at the championship, for their children and for their children's children.
Protecting our planet for the next generation was one of the reasons I ran to be a member of parliament. It was one of the reasons that so many people lined the streets of Wentworth to waive a teal placard, and it was one of the reasons Australians across the country, regardless of past political stripes, voted for climate action last May. It is worth remembering this, particularly when we're debating complex and occasionally esoteric issues like the safeguard mechanism. With all the talk of carbon credits, baselines and offsets, it is easy to lose sight of the real reason we are doing this and why strong action on climate change is so important. If we want strong action on climate, getting the safeguard mechanism reforms right is imperative. This scheme covers only 215 facilities in a country of nearly 26 million people but, combined, these polluters account for nearly a third of all our carbon emissions. Around 40 per cent of this comes down to just 12 fossil fuel companies. Together, a small number of firms are a large part of our emission problem, but this means they must also be part of the solution. After a decade of dithering and delay, these long-overdue changes are a step in the right direction.
There are many positive aspects. Safeguard facilities have been told they must do a proportional share of the nation's emissions reduction task. That is only fair; our biggest polluters must pull their weight. The introduction of crediting and trading, which forms the basis of the bill before us, will lower the overall cost of emission reduction, and the government's commitment to consult on a carbon border adjustment mechanism—something the European Union is introducing—is a step towards preparing our economy for the future. It is critical that our businesses have policy certainty and the right financial incentives to invest in the technologies of tomorrow. This is an absolute minimum if Australia is to meet its emissions objectives, and it is the absolute minimum if Australia is to become a clean-energy superpower and if that is to be anything more than just a catchphrase. The proposed reforms go some way to achieving this, but let us not pretend that the reforms are anywhere near close to perfect. People in Wentworth know it, and the evidence shows it.
In the past few weeks, I've received many letters and e-mails from people in my community who are worried that the proposed changes don't go far enough. I've spoken to investors and innovators from manufacturing to finance to clean technology who say incentives to decarbonise are not strong enough, and I've seen the modelling which shows that the government's proposals present the narrowest path to stated emission-reduction goals. Over the course of these discussions, it has become clear that the safeguard reform embodies a choice about the kind of economy and the kind of Australia we want in the future. We can have an economy that continues to revolve around fossil fuel dependency, an economy in which we open up more and more coal and gas projects, an economy in which we ask our aluminium, cement and critical minerals producers to do the hard work on emissions reduction—or, we can have an economy that embraces the industries of the future, that phases out fossil fuels and that truly seizes Australia's opportunity to be a clean-energy superpower.
My community wants to seize the clean-energy opportunity, and I believe the government does too, but the reforms are not good enough. So it must be prepared to compromise and to accept sensible improvements to the bill and to regulations. The first improvement is for the government to legislate the total emissions budget for this scheme. This will enshrine in law the emissions reduction path between now and 2030 for our biggest polluters, and it will provide legislative certainty on this path in the very same way that the House provided legislative certainty for our 2030 and 2050 targets when we passed the Climate Change Bill.
It is particularly important to have this certainty and this guardrail, given the results of the modelling released by RepuTex earlier this month. That showed that even relatively small changes in the production of fossil fuels risk blowing out the safeguard's proposed emissions budget. If the government's estimates of emissions from just 16 well-advanced new coal and gas projects are even slightly out, we could see the budget blown by 35 million tonnes. That's equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.6 million Australians. We cannot take this risk, so we need a legislative guardrail. That is why I will move an amendment to legislate the emissions budget at a maximum of 1,233 million tonnes between 2021 and 2030. This will lock in at least 205 million tonnes of abatement by the end of the decade, consistent with the government's reduction target. This amendment is consistent with the intention of the scheme and consistent with the government's policy. There is no reason not to accept it, and I hope the government agrees.
Legislating the total emissions budget for the scheme is a step in the right direction, but alone it is not enough. We must also address the biggest issue raised with me by my constituents and by the experts, which is the decision not only to allow our biggest emitters to have unlimited access to carbon offsets but to cap the price of these offsets so that coal and gas companies can continue to pollute on the cheap. Reform of the safeguard mechanism might be complicated, but that doesn't even pass the pub test. Nobody is saying that offsets don't have a role to play in climate policy, but the science is clear: they are no substitute for genuine emissions reductions. So they must be used as a last resort to accommodate the small number of sectors where it's particularly hard to reduce emissions in the short term.
There is a fine line between accommodating sectors that are slower to transition and discouraging emissions reductions by those who can. The government's proposal falls on the wrong side of that line. By allowing unlimited access to cheap offsets for all 215 facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism, the government has created the real risk that some will choose to offset rather than abate. The European Union doesn't allow this, the United Kingdom doesn't allow this, New Zealand doesn't allow this; not even China allows this. The only other country in the world with an emissions trading scheme that doesn't limit offsets in some form is Kazakhstan. The government talks about being back at the international table on climate change, but if this is a plan for reducing emissions then we're at the wrong table. So we need to see change, and that's why I'll move an amendment which removes the price cap on offsets so that the true cost of carbon is reflected in investment decision-making and so our biggest emitters can't just continue to pollute on the cheap. We can't offset our way out of a climate crisis. I urge the government to adopt these constructive amendments.
I want to highlight three other areas of concern for people in Wentworth. First, while the safeguard covers our 215 biggest polluters, around 20 per cent of industrial emissions are not captured by this scheme. Given the continued absence of an economy-wide price on carbon, I therefore urge the government to commit to lowering the threshold for the inclusion of this mechanism at its next review, in 2026-27. Second, while it is right that the government provide financial support to those making investments that will reduce emissions, this funding must not be a further subsidy to fossil fuels. Third, this reform of the safeguard mechanism is designed to support only a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. We know that this is not aligned with the science. We know we must do better. So, when the scheme is reviewed in 2026-27, the government must commit to a scheme that supports a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035.
I also want to address the issue of new fossil fuel projects, which remain a distinct possibility under the government's proposed reforms. Let's be clear: an accelerated transition to clean energy is the best way to reduce our emissions, the best way to reduce our power bills and the best way to support our trading partners and become a renewable energy superpower. So we must aim for a scenario where we do not need any new fossil fuel projects. We should not be exploring for gas at PEP-11, we should not be developing new thermal coal projects and we should not continue to waste nearly $12 billion of taxpayers' money each year on fossil fuel subsidies. We should be very clear: every time we embark on a new fossil fuel project, we are asking everyone else to do more. For me, our goal must be no new fossil fuel projects. It must also be for a smooth and just transition. A decade of climate policy absence means we have been left with a lot of work to do.
Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (12:45): Action on climate change—it's one of the reasons I stood for federal parliament. That was a strong desire. I wanted to see action on climate change. In the last 12 years I've spent a lot of time in my professional career helping some of the largest companies on the ASX work out what their climate action journey is and how they need to reduce emissions.
I remember when the Abbott government attempted to tear down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and I remember the destruction of the Climate Commission. It was when the Abbott government didn't send a ministerial delegate to the Warsaw climate summit. Days after that decision the government doubled down on their policy of denial, destruction and delay, committing to only a five per cent reduction in emissions on year 2000 levels by 2020. That decision for a five per cent commitment came from the fact that the conditions were already in place for a five per cent reduction by 2020, thanks to the work of previous Labor governments. It was a commitment to do nothing—and that was only the tip of the iceberg for the denial, destruction and delay by the previous government.
When Prime Minister Abbott said that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation should not invest in established clean energy technologies, it sent massive chills through the clean energy sector. Finally, the previous government had to drag the Nationals kicking and screaming to agree to a net zero pledge. But even after that you had Senator Matt Canavan suggesting there were still wriggle room, and who would blame him for thinking that, when the previous government's policy didn't include a legislated target and allowed for voluntary reductions by major emitters?
All that the business community wanted was some certainty to help them decarbonise. Australians wanted action on climate change, and businesses were already stepping up and working to reduce their emissions. Where was the government? It was cowering in its duty to show leadership and fighting internal battles to try and reach consensus that climate change is real.
Sometimes you have to ask yourself how far the opposition have fallen when you feel nostalgia for Prime Minister Howard's approach to climate change. He recognised the need for action on climate change. He accepted the science and put first steps in place for a framework to manage our emissions. In 2006 we had Prime Minister Howard come out and say the following:
… I think the weight of scientific evidence suggests that there are significant and damaging growths in the levels of greenhouse gas emissions and that unless we lay the foundation over the years immediately ahead of us to deal with the problem, future generations will face significant penalties and will have cause to criticise our failure to do something substantial in response.
What a great previous Prime Minister! Prime Minister Howard may have come out years later and described himself as climate agnostic, but at least he was pragmatic enough to identify where the community sentiment was at the time, and he made the political calculations to stay out of the so-called climate wars.
Instead of attempting to mount a scare campaign, being obstructive and marching headways against community sentiment, I ask the coalition to join us in supporting this bill. One of the first bills passed by the Albanese Labor government was the Climate Change Bill. Australians were sick of delay, and the business community needed clear signals to inspire confidence and invest in our transition to net zero. This bill put an end the climate wars and restored national leadership on climate change by setting legislated and achievable targets. These targets created a clear road map to our pathway to net zero by 2050.
I support the safeguard mechanism bill because it creates a supportive policy framework for industry to meet their legislated climate reductions. It's predictable and known. It gives clear signals to business that they've long asked for and that previous governments have failed to provide. Under this bill, emissions will reduce by about four per cent each year to 2030: it aims to deliver 205 million tonnes of emissions abatement by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of cutting emissions from Australia's cars by about two-thirds over the same period.
Let's remember the theory of the safeguard mechanism. The previous government created the Emissions Reduction Fund, and the goal was to get companies to bid in a reverse-auction process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to pitch projects. So while they were reducing emissions in one part of the economy they wanted to make sure that they safeguarded emissions elsewhere in the economy from increasing. That was the purpose of the bill. However, what ended up happening was that the safeguard mechanism in the previous design didn't actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, baselines were calculated and set to be very generous—they didn't actually help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Setting half-hearted targets is ineffective, and might as well be the same as not setting a target. I could see, from my extensive experience in the private sector and in dealing with some of Australia's biggest companies, that that wasn't the signal they were looking for. It wasn't meeting community expectations either.
Our bill meets the expectations of people in the heart of Swan. When I was knocking on doors and listening to residents, they were looking for a plan to act on climate change. Time and time again, people said that they wanted action on climate change. In Forrestfield, High Wycombe, Belmont and elsewhere people were telling me that they were so distraught at seeing floods in one part of Australia whilst seeing fires in other parts at the same time. The thing that we know about climate change is that the intensity of events will increase. We can't say that a single event is necessarily related to climate change, but the thing that we do know is that where there's more energy in the system the intensity and severity will increase.
Our country can't afford to ignore the impacts of climate change. The earth's average temperature has risen by about 1.2 per cent, and the scientific consensus is that this has been human induced. The consensus is also that climate change results in our weather systems being affected. The patterns of wind and rain are changing, and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity. So we know that emissions are affecting our climate. We also know that 30 per cent of Australia's emissions come from 215 different facilities. It makes sense that the government meets community expectations and actually helps these big emitters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Our pathway to net zero requires a foundation built on a regulatory framework that incentivises these top 215 emitters with abatement measures—also known as greenhouse gas reductions. And it needs to disincentivise emissions that exceed baselines. This builds on the National Greenhouse Emissions Reporting Act, which sets out a mechanism to ensure that covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operations of a large designated facility—essentially, a facility with more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—don't exceed the baseline applicable. By creating a baseline that decreases predictably by four-ish per cent each year, this bill empowers the stick that exists in the National Greenhouse Emissions Reporting Act, while also disincentivising emissions. It also provides the carrot by rewarding and encouraging when emissions abatement measures are undertaken by the 215 emitters.
The opposition has spent some time in my home state of WA, trying to demonise these effects. I remember when the West Australian had an article about me: the headline was something like 'Labor star candidate linked to carbon tax'. That wasn't factual, but the overwhelming community sentiment was: 'Oh, this is a person who's an engineer and who has worked in climate change action. She knows what she's talking about—yes, we're going to vote for her.' That was because they wanted to see predictable climate change action. From my time in working in this professional area, I would say that companies understand their climate footprints and they understand their social responsibility. They need a legislative framework to decarbonise.
The truth is that there are many companies across Australia that are very supportive of this. Toll said: 'We believe that building upon the safeguard mechanism will promote policy certainty and stability, while delivering on the government's climate targets in a way that minimises costs and shares the effort across the economy.' Doesn't that sound fair? Rio Tinto said that they support the use of a reformed safeguard mechanism as part of a suite of policy measures to incentivise genuine industrial abatement. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:
The business community has been very clear in its support for reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism. This is the best way to secure the planning, investment and innovation that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy without sacrificing reliability or affordability.
Approximately 80 per cent of safeguard facilities are covered by corporate net-zero commitments and represent about 86 per cent of the scheme. How can those opposite continue to peddle the myth that this will harm the economy when industry is clearly rallying around this policy? There are so many great examples, and the member for Curtin has also been involved in doing some great climate-change-reduction work over the years.
One of my favourite examples of greenhouse gas reductions in WA is from Wesfarmers and CSBP. They have a nitric acid plant. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that has a higher warming potential than methane and carbon dioxide. They actually put a catalyser in their nitric acid plant, basically to abate the nitrous oxide emissions. It significantly reduced the emissions. They did this because they thought that it was the right thing to do, but they also knew that there was going to be a price on greenhouse gas emissions and that they needed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The thing that this bill will do is incentivise great industry examples like that. This scheme has the credit, which is the carrot bit, and the baseline, which is the stick bit, and will be a wonderful asset for companies going forward. It provides predictable policy, and it provides vision. The thing that I'd love the opposition to do is join us in bipartisan support. Let's do this together, let's give the business community what they want and let's give the Australian community what they want.
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (12:57): Thank you to the member for Swan for her contribution on this topic. As she mentioned, I take great pleasure standing here today knowing that, nearly a decade ago, the member for Swan and I were working on climate change issues. I was working at a big emitter, and she was working in a consulting capacity—supporting us on both reporting and abatement. It's fantastic to be part of that debate today. Back then, and now, the thing that was most important to business was certainty. That is why today I rise to provide my qualified support of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 and of the proposed safeguard mechanism rules, because certainty is really important here.
Australia has already warmed by about 1.4 degrees since pre-industrial times, more than the global average. If we want to slow the impacts of climate change, such as floods, droughts, bushfires, acidifying oceans, marine heatwaves and rising sea levels, we need to reduce emissions. To meet our current emissions targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050, the industrial sector must play its part. The industrial sector represents 28 per cent of our total emissions and so should bear the weight of at least 28 per cent of those reductions. I believe that markets are generally good at finding efficient outcomes, and it is government's role to set the rules within which markets can operate to ensure that the efficient outcomes are in line with the public interest. We definitely need to set the rules so that the industrial sector can effectively and efficiently play its part in decarbonisation.
The question is: will the safeguard mechanism in its current form deliver this? In reality, the most efficient and effective way to do this would be by setting a carbon price. This is acknowledged by nine out of 10 economists. It draws on principles, taught in year 10 economics all over the country, about the efficiency of putting a price on a negative externality such as pollution. Unfortunately, this is politically unpalatable after the last decade of polarising debate and scare tactics. So, instead, we have the safeguard mechanism, a compromise between previous Liberal policy and Labor government election promises.
Since the safeguard mechanism's introduction, in 2016, it has failed to reduce industrial emissions. Instead, emissions have increased as baseline limits have been set far above actual emissions, due in part to the practice of individual facilities negotiating their baselines with the government. An Australian Conservation Foundation investigation found that, even where baselines have been breached, no facility has ever been penalised by the Clean Energy Regulator for a breach.
There's no doubt that the safeguard mechanism is imperfect in its current form. Even with the changes proposed by the current government, it permits unlimited new entrants—baselined at global best practice emissions standards, which may be subject to negotiation—and it permits unlimited offsets of potentially variable quality. But the reality is that we need in place as soon as possible a mechanism that starts to turn the ship around. Government needs to provide certainty to business by setting the rules of the game and getting out of the way. We need to do this to ensure that Australian industry is incentivised to innovate and invest in technology that will ensure we remain competitive in a low-carbon global economy—and the member for Swan mentioned the example, from when we were working on this nearly a decade ago, of a large emitter investing in a piece of technology that reduced emissions on the expectation that there would be a price on carbon.
By establishing a framework for creating safeguard mechanism credits, the bill will incentivise facilities to reduce emissions below their baselines. It's a clumsy version of a carbon price. It does establish a mechanism for carbon trading, even if it does create some inefficiencies. I have no doubt that we'll look back on this version of the safeguard mechanism as a crude early draft. It doesn't do the brave work needed in shifting our economy away from fossil fuels by limiting new fossil fuel entrants. It perpetuates the idea that we can offset our way to net zero. But it is at least a start.
We will need a market for offsets. While offsets cannot be seen as a panacea and as permission to keep emitting, every credible pathway to zero emissions includes at least a small number of offsets, ideally limited to five to 10 per cent of total abatement. We do need to create and nurture this market and incentivise investments in offsets, and this bill will start to do that.
In the interests of committing to a path of action, rather than endless debate, I urge all parts of the parliament to pragmatically work towards trying, and continuing to improve, this mechanism, rather than either rejecting it outright, which makes little sense from the coalition opposition which invented this beast in the first place, or letting the perfect become the enemy of the good, which the Greens have heard a lot about lately.
Many of the mechanisms of the regulatory framework will sit in the safeguard rules, which are subordinate legislation and therefore won't be debated in parliament. But I will take this opportunity to discuss the aspects of the entire mechanism that need to be improved, preferably now but possibly down the track, to ensure that this regulatory framework is effective in delivering carbon emissions reductions. One of the biggest issues with the safeguard mechanism in its proposed form is that it creates room for new fossil fuel facilities to be developed. I acknowledge that new entrants to our industrial sector will be required in various industries. We'll still need to make cement, steel and other things, and we can't afford to freeze the profile of our industry as it is in 2023. Baselining new facilities in line with global best practice should mean that they replace less-emissions-efficient facilities over time through natural competitive forces. There are more than a hundred coal and gas projects at various stages of development across Australia. Many of these are export projects. These projects have no viable role in a clean, climate-safe future economy. The climate impact of these projects would be immense. Most of these projects have not yet been financed or received regulatory approval, and most will not be able to go ahead. The additional emissions generated by new fossil fuel projects would have to be absorbed by existing safeguard mechanism projects in order for us to reach our decarbonisation goals. This means that, by creating new room in our limited carbon budget, we're shifting the burden to everyone else. This makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not proposing that we shut down existing gas facilities; we will need gas as a firming fuel while we transition. But that doesn't mean we need new developments. There are multiple forecasts and experts who show that, globally, we have enough gas to see us through our transition. We have seen the US commit to the Inflation Reduction Act, potentially a trillion-dollar commitment to repositioning the US for prosperity in a net-zero economy. This is great for the planet. It will create scale and drive down costs. But we're massively underestimating the impact of this on Australia. By continuing to develop new coal and gas projects, we're free-riding, relying on other countries to do the heavy lifting on emissions reduction while we reap the profits from fossil fuels while they last. We're also reducing the likelihood that we can continue to be as prosperous as we used to be, as sooner or later our fossil fuel infrastructure will become stranded assets. We are accelerating towards a wall.
We have a small window in which to transition our economy and play a leading position in green energy. Instead, we're arguing over the details of a scheme that allows us to keep producing fossil fuels. We're even considering subsidising trade-exposed new entrants with access to the $600 million safeguard transformation stream under the Powering the Regions Fund. This makes absolutely no sense. There are various ways the safeguard mechanism can reduce the potential for new fossil fuel projects to better align with the economy we need to build, and I will continue working with the government to find opportunities to do this.
The unlimited use of offsets by covered facilities threatens to undermine the integrity of the safeguard mechanism by allowing absolute emissions under the scheme to increase. We cannot offset our way to zero. We must actually reduce the amount of carbon that we're omitting. Offsets should sit at the very bottom of a hierarchy that starts with avoiding, minimising and mitigating emissions. They should be a last resort and used only until mitigation technologies and operational changes can take effect for hard-to-abate-but-necessary industries. They should not be the primary means of achieving pollution reduction. Allowing 100 per cent of emissions reduction to be met with offsets puts us up there with Kazakhstan, the only other country that allows this.
The unlimited use of offsets is even more concerning when you think about it in the context of fossil fuel export facilities. Due to the globally accepted approach to accounting, as a country, we have no direct accountability for scope 3 emissions, or emissions from using the fossil fuels that we export. If we're allowing 100 per cent offsets on fossil fuel projects, we're effectively finding accounting loopholes to continue emitting and contributing to climate change globally. While this may make sense from an accounting perspective, it's hard to see how it's a good idea for the planet. There must be a limit on the use of offsets.
There are a number of ways this could be done, and I will continue to talk to the minister and the government about possible approaches. It could be done through a hard limit, a sector based limit or a weaker 'please explain' approach that depends on the public to drive accountability. I acknowledge that the opportunities for abatement vary significantly from sector to sector. This makes it hard to set hard caps on the use of offsets, but it may be something we need to consider after the first review, in 2026. At the very least, there must be a hierarchy of offsets to make it clear that abatement efforts must come first, followed by real abatement elsewhere in the industrial sector via safeguard mechanism credits, with ACCUs to be used only in limited numbers as a last resort.
On the quality of offsets, I am glad to hear that the recommendations of the Chubb review will be fully implemented. While there are some differences of opinion on the quality of existing credits, the Chubb review recommends changes that will improve the integrity of future carbon methodologies.
Given the flaws in the safeguard mechanism model, transparency will be vital. We'll need to be honest with ourselves about whether it's actually working. This includes the need for improved methane reporting. New measurement approaches are available and should be required. This may show that we're emitting a lot more methane than currently reported. As signatories to the Global Methane Pledge we're starting to acknowledge the vital role methane plays in climate change, but now we need to deliver on the pledge and improved reporting is a good next step.
The bill being debated only relates directly to the creation of safeguard mechanism credits, a necessary step to ensure that all covered facilities are incentivised to abate emissions, even if they're already below industry standards. Many of the changes needed relate to the regulations. Along with other members of the crossbench, I will be working with the minister and the government to find ways to address the issues that I've raised, specifically around new entrants, improving the use of ACCUs, and transparency and accountability. The things that I will be specifically advocating for: on new entrants I would like to see the definition tightened to ensure new gas projects disguised as expansions by using the same processing facilities will be seen for what they are, new projects. Existing facilities that are planning expansions or extensions to their current operations should be treated as new entrants if their expansion will create a significant new level of emissions. We cannot allow current coal and gas projects to continue to expand and explore and emit without regulation.
I would also like to see better measurement and regulation of methane emissions. There are more accurate measurement methods available and facilities should be required to use them. A specific methane reduction target would be good to see in due course, in line with our Global Methane Pledge. I will also support any amendments requiring new entrants to meet their baselines and targets without the use of ACCUs. On the use of offsets, I will be supporting any amendment that implements the Chubb review recommendations into law. I support amendments that create a hierarchy, as discussed, and if facilities do use SMCs or ACCUs they should be required to report on why abatement was not feasible. Lastly, I will be pushing for any amendments that improve the transparency and accountability of this bill. This includes beefing up reporting obligations and improving the appointments process. The review in 2026 will need to take an honest look at whether the safeguard mechanism is actually delivering on our targets.
In conclusion, there are many ways that this mechanism could be improved, and I will continue to work with the government and the crossbench to make those improvements. I appreciate the collaborative approach the minister has taken to working with the crossbench to genuinely improve this mechanism. It may not be perfect but it's a start. It's vital that we put something in place to give business some certainty, so facilities can invest in abatement technology as soon as possible. Turning the economy around is a huge challenge. We need to keep improving the mechanism and I urge government to keep trying.
Mr REPACHOLI (Hunter) (13:12): I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. This government cares about action on climate change, as any responsible modern day government should. Last year, we did what those opposite pondered about for so long and not only committed to our goal of net zero emissions by 2050 but we legislated it. These changes to the safeguard mechanism are the next step in this journey. An enhanced safeguard mechanism is a crucial building block for Australia's progression towards net zero.
What we are proposing is nothing radical and it's certainly nothing big business should be intimidated by. This bill will simply require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions gradually and predictably in line with our national targets. There are no demands for instant, significant changes risking the feasibility of the business but rather gradual, predictable, achievable changes that are beneficial for business and beneficial for emissions reduction.
This bill addresses one element of the reform: crediting. It aims to support and encourage industries to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient. Some businesses are even ahead of the pack and have low-cost opportunities to reduce their emissions available to them now. These businesses are ready to go and could reduce their emissions faster than required by the safeguard mechanism. We want to encourage this as much as we can. Businesses should go after the opportunities that are already available to them to reduce their emissions. To help encourage these businesses to do this, this bill enables these businesses to be issued with tradeable safeguard mechanism credits. But we also recognise that not all businesses have these opportunities for emissions reductions available to them just yet. These businesses with more limited options could buy these credits to help them meet their required emissions reductions.
This is also about making sure that Australian businesses are keeping up with their competitors in the international market. This bill will give the businesses encouragement to use the newest technology, including technology that will assist them in emissions reduction and that, in many cases, is already being utilised by their competitors in many parts of the world. It is a bit like weight loss: some of us have a goal to lose weight, and all our government is doing is providing an incentive and trying to help out along that journey. This bill lowers the cost of reducing emissions, it makes it more achievable and it helps increase the ambitions of businesses to do so. This is a scheme that is balanced. It is a scheme that is effective, equitable, efficient and, more importantly, very simple. This is a scheme that will assist businesses to grow and meet their targets of emissions reduction at the same time, without hindering their operations.
As a member who represents an electorate home to 10 large emitters—which comes part and parcel when your electorate is in the heart of the mining industry in New South Wales—I must address this one very important point. We hear a lot of chatter from those opposite about what this bill might mean for the mining industry. But that's all it is: chatter. Let me assure you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and let me assure this House and the mining communities in my electorate, that I will never stand in this place and support anything that poses harm to the mining industry or its workforce. I was a miner. My mates are miners, and much of my electorate is made up of mining communities. Let me make one thing clear: I support the mining industry and, more importantly, I support the miners in it. I want their jobs to continue, providing them with secure employment for decades to come. As long as there is a market that still demands coal, I want the last piece of coal burnt on this planet to be from the Hunter, as it's the cleanest coal in the world.
Mr Rick Wilson interjecting—
Mr REPACHOLI: Contrary to the chatter coming from those opposite, this bill is about supporting the mining industry. It is about supporting mines in my electorate to continue their operations nonstop, in a way which does less harm to the environment. This legislation is about supporting mines to meet their own net zero goals, which they all have, by 2050. These are goals they set on their own accord, goals no government forced them into making. Before the desperate voices from the 'no-alition' interject, I'd like to mention that I've spoken to all the major mine owners in my electorate, and they don't feel threatened by this legislation; they just want to know the details of it, which will be coming out in the near future. If the companies themselves don't feel like this bill will negatively impact on them, don't listen when those in the 'no-alition' begin to yell and shout with their scare campaigns, trying to convince voters that this bill will be bad for mining.
By introducing this bill, we are in no way saying or indicating that the way mining operations are conducted now is bad. Mining has given us our modern world, which we all of us enjoy. Every single person in this country should be grateful for mining, and it will continue to play a vital role in the coming decades. This is about acknowledging that we can conduct mining better and about encouraging this to happen. These reforms have been supported and even called for by peak bodies like the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has stated that business has been very clear in its support for reforms to the safeguard mechanism. This is the best way to secure the planning, investment and innovation that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy without sacrificing reliability or affordability. It seems as though the only ones opposing it are those in the 'no-alition'. But, of course, we can't forget that this was actually first proposed by the former government. Yes, that's right—they're the same bunch of people who now seek to oppose it. It was initially a recommendation of the 2020 expert panel, which the then government accepted. When announcing the safeguard mechanism in August 2021, the member for Hume, then minister for energy and emissions reduction, said:
The Morrison government knows the best way to reduce emissions across the economy is to drive innovation and technology, and we are doing this without imposing new costs that would hurt businesses and communities, or destroying jobs.
But now, in a shocking plot twist, the honourable member has turned against his own policy. I have trouble making up my mind on things from time to time, mostly when I am looking at the menu of a burger shop—it is quite hard—but this is really quite ridiculous from the member for Hume. Does he support the safeguard mechanism that he first introduced or does he not? This is their own legislation that those opposite now are voting against. Sometimes I really wonder how those opposite manage to stand up without having a backbone. So if you are in my electorate in the Hunter and you hear someone from the opposition saying anything negative about this legislation, remember this one thing: don't listen to the hypocrites whose values change depending on what is most likely to win them votes.
To finish, I have to give special mention to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who has been a huge support for me and the Hunter electorate. The minister has been there for me to speak to whenever I have needed assistance with this legislation. Any time a stakeholder in the mining sector has come to me with a voice of concern or has had a question regarding this proposed change to the safeguard mechanism, the minister has been available for me to go to straightaway. He has listened to the concerns and views of me and the mining industry in the Hunter. I know that he is committed to ensuring that this legislation will not harm the workforce in the mining industry in the Hunter Valley. For this, I thank the minister. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER (Griffith) (13:21): As it stands, the safeguard mechanism, which, by the way, is a reheated Tony Abbott and coalition policy, literally locks in a massive expansion of coal and gas. In fact, not only will it make the climate crisis worse but it will also guarantee that we fail to keep warming anywhere below 1.5 degrees. What would that look like? Not only would there be more bushfires, storms, floods and heatwaves but also collapses of food systems, increases in sea levels and a tideline that will capture in my city of Brisbane entire suburbs, especially if we hit above two degrees of warming.
The material consequences are already being felt. The recent floods and bushfires have devastated communities, taken lives and are the direct result of a warming planet. In 10 to 20 years' time, if this bill is enacted unchanged, we are going to continue to see more bushfires, more storms, more communities devastated by floods—hauling out furniture—and time and again being asked to pay for the consequences of a climate change crisis caused by big multinational corporations that often pay nothing in tax. That's what is at stake when the scientists and experts say we can't open new coal and gas projects. It is not the Greens, it is not some political line; it is the science and the basic facts of the matter.
The International Energy Agency, for instance, has been very clear. If we want a 50 per cent chance of reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting warming below two degrees then the world can't open a single new coal and gas project. Instead, this government has proposed a climate plan that could allow 117 new coal and gas projects. All they have to do is buy cheap offsets that would account for a fraction of their enormous—often tax-free—profits. Just last week, the environment minister approved 116 new Santos coal seam gas wells in Queensland, active until 2077, which makes a complete mockery of the net zero by 2050 target the government often touts. But it gets worse. Just one new giant gas project Labor is hoping will start in 2025, Woodside Scarborough Pluto climate bomb, will wipe out all the emissions reductions of the safeguard mechanism to 2030—just one project! There are still five more projects that the government forecasts to start before 2030, when the world is meant to have halved emissions and, hopefully, limited warming below 1½ degrees.
It's worth underlining this: just one of these gas projects will literally produce more emissions than the safeguard aims to save, and there are five of them. And when it comes to the offsets, there is now significant evidence that 75 per cent of Australian carbon credits are not actually resulting in real emissions reductions. For example, credits being claimed and sold for not clearing land that was never going to be cleared anyway are counted as emissions reductions.
We've heard the Prime Minister boast that the safeguard mechanism has been endorsed by Shell and Woodside as if it's a good thing. Of course they would support it. It allows them to make monster profits on oil and gas without changing a thing and buying a few fake accounting trick offsets in exchange.
What's driving this self-destructive behaviour? If you talk to the experts and scientists, you know that we can't open new coal and gas mines if we want to have any chance of limiting warming to below 1½ degrees. So why do that? We know that, in the most recent election, Labor received more donations from fossil fuel corporations than even the Liberals and Nationals—corporations like Woodside and Santos who benefit to the tune of billions of dollars as a result of decisions made by Labor in this place.
Mr Burns: Are you going to vote for this? It sounds like you're not.
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: The member for McNamara might think this is a joke. If you're watching at home, the member for McNamara is laughing and joking about that, when the city of Melbourne—the one that he apparently lives in and cares about—was hit by a flood that was made worse by climate change. How dare he!
Sixty-eight per cent of the emissions covered under this safeguard mechanism came from corporations that donated nearly $1 million to the Labor Party's election campaign. Corporations with major projects on the line, like Santos, Woodside, Whitehaven Coal, Glencore and Tamboran Resources, as well as peak member bodies, like APPEA and the Minerals Council, donated generously to both major parties, including the Labor Party.
I've seen Labor MPs get upset when we point that out, but why else would large multinational corporations make large donations to the major political parties, including Labor, if not to exert influence? They get angry about it, but the people that should be angry are the Australians and future generations who are being sold out for a couple of million dollars in donations from fossil fuel corporations who make billions of dollars in profits and often don't pay a single cent in tax.
One of the other lies and myths that's perpetuated by both sides of politics is that Australia can't really make much of an impact tackling climate change anyway, when we know that Australia is actually the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the developed world. In fact, the only two countries that export more fossil fuels than us are Russia and Saudi Arabia. The biggest impact we can have on climate change is to stop opening new coal and gas mines and exporting that around the world to be burnt, driving terrible climate change.
The tragedy is that one of the lies that both sides of politics tell is that, if we stop new coal and gas projects and we make sure that we engage in a sensible transition out of existing coal and gas, somehow this will hurt livelihoods. The only livelihoods that would hurt are those of the CEOs and shareholders of these massive multinational corporations who are currently raking in massive profits and often not paying a single cent in tax. In the last reportable tax year, the top 20 fossil fuel corporations in Australia made $150 billion in revenue, and they paid $30 in tax.
An alternative to this is making those corporations pay their fair share in tax and using that revenue and wealth to fund a transition that includes investment in manufacturing, health and hospitals, and schools, making sure that we invest in housing—
Mr Burns: What about social housing? Do you support social housing? Why didn't you vote for it?
Mr CHANDLER-MATHER: and in public and affordable housing, and that the life of every Australian is improved over the next 10 years as we transition out of coal and gas. It would be great, by the way, as the member for McNamara continues to laugh and chuckle through this without thinking about the consequences to the members of his electorate, if, at the next election, he could explain to the members of his electorate why he supports the opening of new coal and gas mines, and why he supports the opening of new coal and gas mines by massive multinational corporations that have donated to the Labor Party.
I think the question that Australians need to start asking is: who are they represented by in this place? The decisions that both major parties make, time and again, on climate change benefit the bottom line of their major corporate donors and not the material lives of the millions of Australians who are crying out for a government that actually starts to represent their interests.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Thank you. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If a member's speech is interrupted, they will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
See Differently
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:29): We all had the opportunity recently to meet with members of our law enforcement, border force and AFP—and, most importantly, some of the animals who help them perform their important role. I very much appreciated that opportunity, and it gives me the chance to highlight the Royal Society for the Blind, who have recently rebranded slightly with a new name: See Differently. They operate in my electorate in Gilles Plains, training guide dogs to assist those with vision impairment. I really want to take the chance to give them a great shoutout for all the wonderful work that they do, and I look forward to supporting them in the way in which they're rebranding for the next era of the great things that they do to help those with vision impairment.
The guide dogs are obviously a significant part of what they do. They also run a manufacturing facility at the same site in Gilles Plains in my electorate, which offers an opportunity for people with vision impairment to work for them, earn an income and do things that are appropriate for their capabilities, given their vision challenges and the support that they need in the workforce. Probably most importantly, they also do excellent work to help workplaces be more suitable for people with vision impairment. I thank them for the work that they do and wish them the best of luck in the next chapter of their brand.
Sydney WorldPride 2023
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (13:31): On 23 February I had the privilege and pleasure of attending the Connect Macquarie Park Innovation District's Sydney WorldPride Celebration. The fantastic Mark Ames invited local businesses like Optus, Sanofi and Unions NSW so we could hear how they were making their workplaces more inclusive for their workers and their customers. We also heard from the guest of honour and former resident of Bennelong Ken Davis. Ken is a 78er, one of the heroic activists who marched in the first Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 45 years ago.
Ken shared with us a powerful story of activism and solidarity. In 1973 a young man, Jeremy Fisher, was expelled from his college at Macquarie University in my electorate of Bennelong because he was gay. After an approach from the student union, the Builders Labourers Federation responded by putting a total ban on all construction work on campus unless Jeremy was allowed back. Way back in '73, they saw the injustice of what the college did, they stood together in solidarity, and they won. Bennelong had Australia's and possibly the world's first ever pink ban. The construction workers voted in favour of the ban because they knew that discrimination against one is discrimination against all. Those workers knew that human rights are workers' rights, just as workers' rights are human rights. We have come a long way since then, but there's still more to do both here and overseas. Let us rise to the example set by those in '73 and respond to discrimination with activism and solidarity.
Ukraine
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Opposition Whip) (13:32): Only a couple of days ago I had the privilege to attend a Friends of Ukraine event here in Parliament House, hosted by Senators Catryna Bilyk and David Van. We had Ambassador Vasyl Myroshnychenko, who is a very impassioned man, give a great explanation of where they are at the moment in this terrible war with Russia. We were also privileged to have the co-chairs of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Stefan Romaniw and Kateryna Argyrou.
It was Kateryna's address that particularly moved us. She spoke of her grandparents in Ukraine at the moment, living in a 13-storey apartment block on the 10th floor with no electricity, no gas, no water and no lift. They're 85 years old. Her mother is dodging air-raid sirens to try to fit some shopping in, and six of her family members are fighting on the front against the Russian invasion—none of whom were soldiers 12 months ago. For her, every day is a struggle to know how they are going and what we can do in Australia to help. It was wonderful; we had a good roll-up, and it showed that every corner of this parliament and the nation supports Ukraine.
Safety and Security Rebate
Mr LIM (Tangney) (13:34): Community safety has always been a high priority for my constituents. Having been a police officer, I take it very seriously. This is because crime is a concern that transcends age, gender, race and religion, as well as electorate boundaries. Last year, the WA Labor government brought back the safety and security rebates for WA seniors card members, which had been ripped out by the previous Liberal government. The $400 rebate has benefited so many of the pensioners in my electorate.
I came to learn last year that the idea to reinstate the rebate was credited to a constituent of mine in Leeming—his name is Bob Taddeo—who pushed and campaigned for its return. Bob, thank you for coming to contact me. I want to express my deepest gratitude because this is what community activism is all about—sharing ideas to benefit the people. To my constituents, I want to let you know that you can do the same: write to my office, come to my coffee catch-up and share with us what you want to see happen in the government. I'm here to serve you. Together, for Tangney, we can make things happen.
George, Ms Joline
Ms LE (Fowler) (13:35): Today I would like to shed some light on the work being done by Joline George, a mother of autistic children, a local who lives in my electorate of Fowler and the founder of Help You Cope, an organisation that provides support for mums whose kids suffer from autism spectrum disorder. Joline established Help You Cope to give local mums the chance to get together over a cup of tea and talk to each other about their experiences with autism. I want to recognise Joline's work in providing a safe, open and caring forum for parents who might feel alone, judged and misunderstood when caring for children with autism spectrum issues. We all know that a burden shared is a burden halved.
I have seen how autism can impact a multicultural, multilingual community like Fowler, where non-English-speaking families struggle to comprehend the complexities of navigating the health system. They are often wracked with guilt and blame because they can't provide adequate support for their children living with autism, and, often, they don't understand what's happening. It's through the generous work of people like Joline George that we can help to normalise the conversation about autism within our multicultural communities, especially at a time when we are seeing rising rates of autism in our children. Right now, it is estimated that one in every 100 Australians have some form of autism. We need more people like Joline George, who are working hard to remove the stigma associated with autism through acceptance, support and education.
Holt Electorate: Devon Meadows Cricket Club All Star Girls
Ms FERNANDO (Holt) (13:37): I'm very pleased to share some incredibly good news from my electorate with my colleagues in this place. Last night, the Devon Meadows Cricket Club All Star Girls team won the under-14s grand final. Though I could not be at the grand final due to the sitting, I think the next best thing to being there in person is to immerse their victory in our nation's parliament. A massive congratulations to the team: Ella, Indianna, Shanyah, Alisha, Isabella, Ella, Jasmin, Addison, Hope and club president Mick Floyd. I am sure I speak for everyone in Holt when I say we are all so proud of your achievement. The Devon Meadows Cricket Club has been going strong since it was established in 1969, with the club now fielding several senior and junior teams, including, of course, the amazing All Star Girls team. I am confident that these young ladies' success will inspire girls across my electorate of Holt to get engaged and participate in our local sporting clubs. Once again, congratulations, girls.
Brisbane Electorate: Housing
Mr BATES (Brisbane) (13:38): Last month, hundreds of renters in Fortitude Valley were told to leave their homes in the Utopia apartments, which are being rebranded as 'Kooii'. Landlords are evicting their tenants to convert existing rentals them into short-term accommodation. These predatory landlords are allowed to put profits over their tenants' rights to a secure home, because the government continues to prioritise housing as an investment and not a human right. Meanwhile, renters are locked out of buying their first home and are struggling to keep up with increasing bills. I hear from community members who have been pushed out of their home by unaffordable rent increases and are forced to attend countless inspections with dozens of other applicants.
Over 50 per cent of my electorate are renters—nearly 60 per cent now—but there is less than one per cent of properties available to rent. At the same time, new housing construction is set to fall to its lowest point in over a decade. The loss of rentals in the Utopia building is another blow to tenants trying to find a safe place to live. The government's housing bill does nothing for renters. It does nothing to stem the housing crisis and it does nothing for the evicted tenants in the Utopia apartments. The Greens will keep fighting for a national rent freeze, and we will keep fighting for a doubling in Commonwealth rent assistance. We will keep fighting for renters, and I will keep fighting for you.
Pearce Electorate: Homelessness
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (13:39): I rise to speak about the dedication of groups, including Rotary, in supporting communities in need. Yesterday, I attended the launch of a photographic exhibition presented by the Rotary Club of Perth called Eye Contact, which showcased the photos of Perth photographer Phil England. These touching and at times confronting large-scale portraits capture not only the faces of homeless Australians but their dreams, hopes and fears. The exhibition is a conversation starter and an advocacy campaign, encouraging measures and policies to end homelessness. I applaud the tireless work of my local clubs, the Mindarie and Wanneroo Rotary clubs, who also volunteer on Christmas Day to host the Wanneroo Christmas Day lunch for those who are on their own on Christmas Day. Equally so, the Joondalup Wanneroo Ending Homelessness Group is a collaboration between the two local governments. JWEHG is something I was pleased to help establish many years ago during my time serving the community at a local government level. I am proud to be a member of Rotary and a Paul Harris Fellow.
Now as part of the Albanese Labor government, I am so very pleased that we care for Australians and are working to fix the housing crisis. This is through a package of legislation that will deliver the single-biggest investment in affordable and social housing in more than a decade. It includes a commitment of 30,000 new social and affordable— (Time expired)
Live Animal Exports
Ms PRICE (Durack—Opposition Whip) (13:41): There have been significant animal health regulatory changes made to the live sheep industry: a moratorium on shipments to the Middle East during the northern hemisphere summer; increased space—up to 38 per cent more than in 2017—for each animal on ships, as well as improved ventilation requirements; the introduction of independent government observers to monitor the effectiveness of exporter shipboard arrangements; a heat management plan to identify ways to mitigate potential risks; phasing out older ships and upgrading others in response; automatic environmental sensors to log daily temperatures and humidity on each deck; and investigations into any voyage where the mortality rate is one per cent or more. That's pretty good news, you'd think. I think that's pretty good news, noting the member for O'Connor is in the House here with me today.
Labor's determination to shut down the live sheep trade, I believe—and I think is there for all of us to see—is yet another anti-WA Albanese government decision.
Honourable member s interjecting—
Ms PRICE: I know that Labor think that this is a vote winner for their east coast city dwellers and that it's simply to please the uneducated activists. But the live sheep trade is important to Western Australia, and it's very important to Western Australian farmers. It is worth at least $100 million to our economy. The question is, which important Western Australian industry will the Albanese government come after next? (Time expired)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:43): Last Friday, I had the honour of hosting a forum with my friend the Attorney-General in the Ipswich suburb of Leichhardt. The forum focused on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. It came about when respected local Aboriginal elder Aunty Vera Short approached me to help explain the Voice to local elders. I did one better and brought the Attorney-General to Ipswich. Up to 100 people were there—local branches of the Labor Party, members of the community and, of course, local First Nations people.
It was a very successful meeting. Everyone pledged to support the 'yes' campaign, and I recommit myself to supporting the 'yes' campaign in Blair. Thanks to the Leichhardt One Mile Community Centre for hosting a light breakfast—a big thank you to centre coordinator, Kym Tuuta, along with Dakota, Emma, Aunty Vera and all the staff and volunteers. I want thank local elders who came along. We discussed issues like the Voice in depth and a host of other issues, like child safety and the collapse of the Youpla funeral fund. I want to acknowledge some of the local Aunties, who make such a great contribution in Ipswich: Sheryl Thompson, Maria Baker, Ellie Conway, Aileen Orcher, Rebecca Mahar, Ruth Moffatt and, of course, the deeply loved Vera Short. I thank also Labor Indigenous Network Aunties Isabele Tarago and Rhonda Kelly, who came from the northern suburbs of Brisbane to make sure they were backing in the local Aboriginal elders. Thank you very much. Let's get this done for the people of Ipswich.
Deakin Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:44): I want to update the community on a number of very important projects funded by the former coalition government that are soon to be completed. The first is the Sportlink redevelopment in Vermont South, which is going to assist the Whitehorse Netball Association, and anybody associated with Sportlink will see that it's taking shape. The roof is on. The courts have been upgraded to ensure better lighting and a better outcome for spectators as well. The Sportlink redevelopment is due to be completed in March, and we'll very soon have our young netballers enjoy this new facility.
The Cheong Park Pavilion upgrade, which I kicked off with a half a million dollar grant a few years ago, is now completed. It's formally opening in April and is assisting the Croydon South Football Club, the Croydon South Cricket Club, and, of course, U3A Croydon will be able to get some use out of it as well.
The Dorset Recreation Reserve, which I think will be the best soccer facility in the eastern suburbs, is very soon to be completed, providing the Croydon City Arrows and our local Burmese community with an outstanding new facility.
Finally, the Heatherdale pavilion, which I kicked off with a $2 million grant, is going to assist the Heatherdale Cricket Club and the Heathmont Jets Juniors Football Club. We're very excited to open it.
Rare Voices Australia
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:46): Last week I was fortunate enough to attend the annual parliamentary event with Rare Voices Australia. Rare Voices Australia is an organisation that advocates and educates us about those who live with rare diseases. There are over 7,000 rare diseases in Australia, and an estimated two million Australians live with rare disease, that being around eight per cent of the population. Through this event, we had the privilege of listening and learning from all those who came here. I was proud to be at the event because we are dedicated to supporting those who live with rare disease, and we are continuously working with them to improve education and policy around health.
Labor knows the importance of having affordable medication. While we would hope and ask pharmaceutical companies to show some compassion for the people living with rare disease, we know that governments often have to step in to help relieve some of the burden. We have stepped up by fulfilling our election commitments we made to the people at the last election.
At the event, I was able to catch up with my long-time friend and fierce advocate Nicole Miller. Anyone who's ever met Nicole knows how passionate she is about supporting people with rare diseases but also how passionate she is about getting quality health care to everyone. I also had the pleasure of meeting with passionate Australian PCD president Caroline Kruljue, who is a friend and former constituent. She's now in the seat of Hawke. We talked about the issues they're facing in education and the inability to get medications that actually help them live a better quality of life and contribute to society.
Thank you to my friends the member for Macarthur and the member for Kooyong for doing such great work.
Toparis, Mr Con
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (13:47): I rise to pay tribute to a great friend, Con Toparis. Con was the owner of Greengrocer Cycling, bike shop and cafe, in Goulbourn, a place that I know many people in this place have frequented. Whilst driving his bike on the edge of Crookwell Road at the end of Goulbourn recently, he was killed in a tragic accident. Con was one of a kind, with a driven, determined and prodigious work ethic. When he committed himself to something, it was always 100 per cent. He had a great mind, and he built up his business in Goulbourn through periods of terrible adversity, most recently the pandemic and the fire in 2016. Like so many other small-business people, he was a real innovator.
Con contributed enormously to our local community and the cycling community more generally over a long time. Most of all, Con loved his family. His two talented boys, Eli and Costa, will continue to remind us of their father every time we see them. Con's wife, Lana, has been always an important part of their business, as has his father, Elley. The Greengrocer is a true family business in every sense. I know Goulburn will miss him. I can't imagine how much his family will miss him. I will miss him enormously. There will be a hole in my heart every time I jump on my Greengrocer bike. Rest in peace, Con.
Interest Rates
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:49): More than half of Australian homeowners have a mortgage loan. The average home loan is around $600,000. This week's 10th consecutive Reserve Bank cash rate increase, if passed on in full, will add to the financial pressures of homeowners with a loan, many of whom are already struggling. Over the same period, depositors with the major banks did not see their interest returns keep pace with the Reserve Bank cash rate increases. I note there's an ACCC inquiry into this anomaly.
Last financial year, the four major banks made $28 billion in profits. This year, they are projected to make $33 billion in profits, which will be a record. Adding to community resentment, while the major banks increase mortgage interest rates and don't pass on in full interest rates on deposits, they continue to close branches, remove ATMs and cut services. Australian banks have the benefit of Australian government guarantees on deposits. I call on the banks to stop profiteering, show some corporate social responsibility and not add the latest cash rate increases onto home loans just so they can boost their already very healthy profits.
Petition: Point Roadknight Erosion Protection Works
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (13:50): I speak today on a petition which has been put together by the residents of Anglesea, who have voiced their concern over the erosion at the hugely popular Point Roadknight beach. Anyone who's been to Anglesea will know the Roadknight beach. It's a magnificent beach with magnificent waves. People walk along it. It is the midpoint of the Surf Coast Walk. It is just one of the most wonderful beaches in my electorate.
Consultants have commissioned two reports, in 2015 and 2020, providing recommendations for a series of works to be done protect the beach, but the community are gravely concerns by the inefficiency of the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority in taking those reports and doing some work—looking after the beach, looking after the boat ramp and looking after the car park. This needs to be done. Moonah Woodland, which is listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, is threatened and also at risk because of the erosion.
The community of Anglesea want some action taken, with 697 people having signed a petition. I seek leave to table the purported petition on the Point Roadknight erosion protection works.
Leave granted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with standing orders.
Aviation Industry: Workplace Relations
Mr RAE (Hawke) (13:52): Yesterday Rivet workers who refuel planes for Qantas went on strike. They didn't strike because they wanted to but because they were left with no choice. After enduring the worst of the pandemic, and keeping Australia moving throughout, they've had three years without a pay rise. After a year of good-faith bargaining on their part, their employer refuses to agree to fair pay and conditions.
Qantas accounts for roughly 60 per cent of Rivet's refuelling work. Despite Qantas reporting a $1 billion half-year profit, the workers refuelling their planes have not received their fair share. The aviation industry has suffered immensely over the past few years. Those impacts have been made worse by industry leaders devaluing their own workforce by sacking their long-term staff and trying to rehire them on dodgy contracts with worse pay and worse conditions.
As Australians get back into travelling, we need an aviation industry that meets the demand and the standards that we expect. To do that, we need good, well-paid, union aviation jobs back. Rivet workers are courageously taking a stand for their industry, for their families and for all of our rights at work. Thank you to National Secretary Michael Kain, to my great mate Assistant Secretary Mem Suleyman, along with TWU officials Dissio Markos, Dean Sloan and Ash Stewart, and Rivet delegate Ross McCulloch, who have been leading the campaign on the ground.
Coomera Anglican College
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Opposition Whip) (13:54): I've spoken many times in this place about the importance of education and the major impression that teachers make on their students right across this great country. Last month I had the honour of attending the commissioning service for the new school principal at Coomera Anglican College. It was an honour in many respects—firstly, because it involves education but, secondly, because their new principal is only the second in almost 30 years of the school's history.
Coomera Anglican College was founded in January 1997 and caters for students from prep right through to grade 12. The founding principal of the college, Dr Mark Sly, has stepped aside after more than 26 years in the top job. When Mark helped to launch the school all those years ago, cleaning toilets and mowing lawns were all part of the job of the school principal. When the school began, there were only 60 students on the roll, a handful of teachers and support staff, and an empty paddock where the school now stands.
Mr Patrick Innes-Hill comes to Coomera Anglican College after roles in a variety of schools across the Gold Coast and in New South Wales. His vision is to enable all the students at Coomera Anglican College to make a real difference in the world. I look forward to working with Principal Innes-Hill in the future, and I'm sure that everyone at the school and in our community wishes him all the best in this new chapter as the principal of Coomera Anglican College.
Liberal Party of Australia
Dr CHARLTON (Parramatta) (13:55): The Liberal Party likes to think of itself as the party of business but, on issue after issue, business is showing leadership and leaving the coalition behind. On the Voice, companies like Wesfarmers are taking the field to support the Voice, while the coalition are sitting on the sidelines and can't even decide if they support it. On climate, businesses are moving forward towards net zero with concrete plans and targets, but those opposite are moving backwards and failing to offer business the certainty they so badly need. On gender equity, many businesses are achieving gender equity in their executive ranks and boards by setting clear targets and making leaders accountable, while those opposite fall further and further behind community expectations.
Those opposite like to think of themselves as the party of free enterprise. Well, enterprising businesses are freely walking away from them every single day! Businesses are walking away from them on the Voice, they're walking away from them on climate change and they're walking away from them on fairness and gender equity. It is sad to see a party lose and be outgrown by its core constituency. The reality is that if the coalition doesn't even understand business then they have no business standing in the way of the government's progressive agenda.
Queensland: Crime
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (13:56): Eight long years ago, under Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Queensland state Labor government watered down the state's youth crime laws. Queenslanders have been paying the price ever since. Thousands of victims later, after community rallies begging for change and sustained political pressure, the Premier has finally admitted she got it wrong. A couple of weeks ago, the state Labor government adopted our policy to introduce breach of bail as an offence for young offenders. It's a policy that they have said over and over again won't work. Now, at five minutes to midnight—before an election—we have a backflip of incredible proportions. It just goes to show that when the community is united and relentless, we can drag even the most useless government to action.
But how many thousands of frightening home invasions could have been avoided if this arrogant Premier hadn't held out on this? How many break-ins and stolen cars could have been prevented? How many lives could have been saved? The people of Townsville deserve better from their state government. Unfortunately, this move won't solve all of our city's crime woes. Labor still won't remove detention as a last resort from the youth justice legislation. That means a magistrate has to go through at least 10 other sentencing options before sending someone for detention.
And what is the federal Labor government doing? Cutting the Safer Communities program and raising the age of criminal responsibility. Labor is failing— (Time expired)
Superannuation: Taxation
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:58): Over the past week, those opposite have been doing the rounds of friendly media, claiming the sky will fall in because we're adjusting concessional tax rates for super accounts worth more than $3 million. But of course, the vast majority of Australians—199 out of 200—have much less than that in their accounts; most Australians have $150,000 or less. If they had a balance of $3 million or more, they would love to be getting less taxation discount!
I want to send a clear message to the people of my electorate: we are on your side! We are on the side of the people in the electorates. We are on the side of families in Deloraine, Bicheno and Dodges Ferry who want more access to social and affordable housing. This government is on the side of older Australians in Longford and Swansea who want stronger Medicare. We are on the side of families in Gagebrook, Perth and St Helens who want cheaper medicines, and who are enjoying cheaper medicines as a result of this government. This government is on the side of young people in Bridgewater, Sorell, Campbell Town, Cressy and Prospect Vale who can access fee-free TAFE and more places in regional universities. We are on the side of teenagers in Brighton and Westbury who want to go to university, and who can access incentives to study teaching and medicine. We know whose side we're on. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Superannuation
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (14:00): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and concerns the government's new super tax. I refer the Assistant Treasurer to his answer yesterday to the member for Grey. Was everything in his answer accurate, and does he need to inform the House of any detail that was inaccurate or misleading?
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (14:00): I thank the honourable member for her question. As I recall, to the best of my recollection, I was asked—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left. The minister is entitled to be heard in silence, just as the member for Bass was.
Mr JONES: I was asked by the member for Grey about a hypothetical situation with a small self-managed superannuation fund that had a farm in it. I made the observation that, under the existing law, under the existing superannuation administration act, trustees have obligations. Indeed, under section 52(b) of the legislation, trustees have existing obligations. They have obligations to have regard to the liquidity of assets within their fund, the diversity of assets within their fund and the ability of the fund to discharge its obligations, including taxation obligations. I stand by the answer that I gave yesterday.
Defence Procurement: Submarines
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (14:01): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. What is the importance of working with our partners in the United Kingdom and the United States to acquire nuclear-powered submarines?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:02): I thank the member for her question. Very shortly, the government will be announcing with the governments of the United States and United Kingdom the optimal pathway by which Australia will acquire a nuclear-powered submarine capability. This will bring to a conclusion the 18-month process under the banner of AUKUS which was commenced by the former government. I would like to acknowledge the member for Cook and I would like to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, because this is a moment that we want to be and that we know is a bipartisan moment of huge significance to our country. It is difficult to overstate the step that, as a nation, we are about to take.
Australia will become just the seventh country to have the ability to operate a nuclear-powered submarine. We have never operated a military capability at this level before. This will be a massive industrial endeavour which will see thousands of jobs created over the coming decades but, much more importantly, will contribute to the technological advancement of our wider economy. Clearly, these submarines will have the capability to operate at war, but the true intent of this capability is to provide for the stability and for the peace of our region—for the Pacific, for South-East Asia, for the Indian Ocean, for the broader Indo-Pacific region—because the defence of Australia doesn't really mean that much unless we can have the collective security of our region.
As a trading island nation, any adversary can do a whole lot of harm to Australia without ever setting foot upon our shores, which means, as a nation, we are deeply invested in the global rules based order which has underpinned the stability, the prosperity and the incredible economic growth of East Asia. The totality of our strategic intent is to defend that rules based order. I want to say at this moment to our neighbours and to our friends around the world that as Australia invests in its defence, as we acquire this nuclear-powered submarine capability, we do so as part of making our contribution to the peace and stability of our region and of the world.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): on indulgence—The Acting Prime Minister gave me the courtesy of letting me know that he would make a statement in question time today on what, as he rightly points out, is a very significant step for our nation.
I too want to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Morrison, without whom AUKUS wouldn't have been a reality. The approach to the United Kingdom in the first instance, and through the United Kingdom to the United States, was the vision of Prime Minister Morrison. I pay tribute to him and the work that the National Security Committee did through endless hours of discussion, the work of the then foreign minister, Marise Payne, and the work of others sitting around the NSC table. The work of those who make us most proud, those in uniform, at Russell and in posts in London and in Washington in particular, threaded this together. The work of our ambassador in the United States, Joe Hockey and Arthur Sinodinos, and also of course the work of George Brandis in United Kingdom, all played integral roles.
Our desire, from the very first day of our discussions with our dearest partners in the United States and United Kingdom, was to achieve capability for our country that would underpin the security that we require in the current age in our region for generations to come. As the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence rightly pointed out, our neighbours should hear the very clear message that this is about providing peace and stability for our future and for theirs. Australia is a friend and partner—a valued friend and partner—to people within our region and across our partnerships, including the QUAD and our Five Eyes partnership, and that will always be the case. We are not an aggressive nation. We're a nation that strives for peace, and we have gone to the aid of allies and people who share our values, including most recently in Ukraine.
I commend the work of the defence minister and the engagement that he has had with our very important partner—with Lloyd Austin and Ben Wallace, two people for whom I have a great deal of regard and with whom I worked very closely. Their systems, the support they have provided us, those people in the White House, some of whom would want to be recognised, others who I suspect are happy to fly beneath the radar—they made this a reality for our country. This is an effort where the Australian public can see the two major parties in this country working together in our nation's best interests. We will support the decisions of government under AUKUS, and we will fight to make sure that the outcome is achieved as quickly as possible.
Superannuation: Taxation
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Leader of the Nationals) (14:07): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. If a family farm or business asset is held in a self-managed super fund as part of a diverse portfolio, meeting liquidity requirements, could increases in asset value during the financial year see that family pay additional tax on the paper gain under the government's superannuation changes?
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (14:08): I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. I can't be clearer. Yes, it is true that there are going to be a very small number of individuals' funds who are going to be paying more money under this arrangement. Yes, there are. We wouldn't be doing it otherwise, and the object of the change is to ensure, on the one hand, that we maintain the integrity of our superannuation system, and, on the other hand, that we also make a contribution to the $1 trillion worth of debt that those opposite have left us.
In relation to any self-managed superannuation fund that has assets in excess of $3 million, the earnings on those assets under $3 million will continue to attract the concessional tax rate of 15 per cent. The earnings on the assets above $3 million will still attract a very concessional tax rate, but not as generous as existed before the change. That's the point—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Page! The Leader of the Nationals!
Mr JONES: That is the point, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!
Mr Hogan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Page is warned.
Mr JONES: I'm asked about cash flow. These are very simple concepts: earnings above $3 million, a concessional tax but a tax rate of 30 per cent; earnings on assets below $3 million, 15 per cent. It is still concessional. The reason that we are doing it is to ensure the integrity of the superannuation system and to plug the $1 trillion worth of debt that the mob over there have left us.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! When the House comes to order, I'll hear from—
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Groom will cease interjecting immediately.
National Reconstruction Fund
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (14:10): My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How has the National Reconstruction Fund legislation been progressing through the parliament?
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Minister for Industry and Science) (14:11): Thanks to the member for Lyons. I'm happy to report this is a big day, a great day, with great progress made on bringing in the National Reconstruction Fund, one of the greatest investments in manufacturing capabilities in living memory. And it was driven by the Prime Minister's vision of a future made in Australia, a vision that this country should make things—that a country that makes things makes great, secure jobs. Eighty-five per cent of the jobs in manufacturing are full time. That's very important.
Australia is a land of plenty, as we know. We've got resources, both natural and human, that are the envy of the world. The government wants to put those resources to work to unlock our nation's full potential, working across government to improve skills, deliver research and secure natural resources. With the passage of the NRF legislation through the House, we're on the cusp of transforming Australian manufacturing. It's something to be proud of, something that people here are very proud of and are willing to fight for. It's something that those on the crossbench believe in and recognise as something worth fighting for.
But, in trying to progress the legislation, we had to deal with the 'no-alition'.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The minister can resume his seat. I've ruled on this previously. The coalition are to be referred to by their titles, including their 'coalition' name.
Mr HUSIC: Understood, and I totally withdraw. But what we did have to deal with was Liberal and National parties who haven't used the time going into opposition to reflect, to think about doing things differently. Instead, they've blown the dust off the old Tony Abbott handbook and are doing exactly what Tony Abbott did—say no to everything.
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Can I just say, on behalf of an anxious nation, Leader of the Opposition: please don't become this generation's Tony Abbott.
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals will calm down.
Mr HUSIC: Stay away from the swimwear. Don't be eatin' them raw onions. Remember the difference between 'repository' and 'suppository'. It's very important to do, because it is important that you do not morph into that.
We remain committed—and I say this to you, Leader of the Opposition—to working with the coalition on this if you're interested. But you cannot—in all seriousness, friends—claim to be the party of the working class and then vote against Aussie manufacturing. You cannot vote against blue-collar jobs. You cannot vote against making sure that people do well. No party of the working class votes against manufacturing, at all. You have a chance to redeem yourselves, and you can. We'll work with the Senate, we'll continue this, and we will deliver a great, nation-building piece of legislation.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Kidney Health Australia
The SPEAKER (14:14): I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are representatives from Kidney Health Australia, including Australians living with chronic kidney disease. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr BATES (Brisbane) (14:14): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Confronted by rising inequality and the cost-of-living crisis, the government has made a welcome shift on tax breaks for the super wealthy. But, if the government can shift on superannuation, will you shift on the stage three tax cuts, which also disproportionately benefit the super wealthy?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. I call the Treasurer.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:15): Thank you to the member for Brisbane for his question. As he knows, as the Acting Prime Minister knows and as I think everybody in here knows, our position on that hasn't changed.
Climate Change
Ms MASCARENHAS (Swan) (14:15): My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the safeguard mechanism the preferred model for business and investors?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin—Treasurer) (14:15): Thank you to the member for Swan for her characteristically considered contribution to the debate on the safeguard mechanism today, which draws on her deep experience in the private sector before the good people of Swan, in their wisdom, sent her here to work with us in this place. The safeguard mechanism is all about cleaner, cheaper, more reliable and increasingly renewable energy, which is all about creating new jobs and new industries at the same time as we maximise our areas of traditional economic strength.
For too long in this country, big employers and investors haven't had the certainty that they need to invest in cleaner and cheaper energy, which will power the future of our economy and power future prosperity as well. The energy transition is absolutely critical to the future of our economy. That's something that we recognise, that the member for Swan certainly recognises and that the business community recognises as well. That's why it beggars belief that those opposite—the so-called 'party of business', as the member for Parramatta said a moment ago—are voting against their own safeguard mechanism for base political reasons. They do this in the face of overwhelming—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Ms Catherine King: Really?
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting, and so will the minister for climate change, so that I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was: 'Why is the safeguard mechanism the preferred model for business and investors?' I'll give credit that it's a tight question, but there was no reference to the opposition and no reference to alternative policies. The Treasurer should be brought back to the question.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer is halfway through his answer. I ask him to return to the question.
Dr CHALMERS: Australia's business community, including the biggest employers in this country, support the safeguard mechanism. In today's Financial Review, the president of the Business Council urges the parliament to support the legislation. He says, 'The safeguard mechanism is the best shot that we've got for providing the certainty that business and investors need.' In the same article, Origin Energy chief executive, Frank Calabria, says, 'It's a mechanism that industry can work with, and it does create certainty.' Andrew McKellar of ACCI says, 'We are strongly urging that there is a bipartisan approach on this and that we get a reasonable outcome that will encourage investment.' Innes Willox of Ai Group says that it is essential policy infrastructure. The Ai Group's Tennant Reed says it is greatly desirable for the bill to pass.
Business is urging this Leader of the Opposition and the coalition to back the safeguard mechanism in this parliament. It's not an unreasonable request, given it is the former government's policy in the first place. For too long in this country, the opportunities of cheaper, cleaner and reliable energy have gone begging in our economy because of the pig-headed approach of those opposite and all of the investment uncertainty and policy uncertainty that that has created. This Leader of the Opposition is proving that he is more negative than Tony Abbott and more divisive than the member for Cook. He's showing that all of them are willing to trash the reputation of those opposite as being the 'party of business'. If those opposite vote against this legislation, they are voting against cleaner and cheaper energy and the future prosperity that— (Time expired)
Superannuation: Taxation
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:19): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. It concerns the government's new super tax. Can the minister advise the House of how many primary producers and small and family businesses have been identified in Treasury modelling as being impacted by the government's new super tax?
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (14:20): For context in answering this question, the average superannuation balance for a retiree today is $150,000. For women, it is around about $130,000 to $140,000. For men, it's around about $180,000. So I've got to say that, in this debate, I'm enjoying the focus on superannuation. But I've got to say that, for the party which aspires to be the representatives of working people, they have a laser-like focus on the interests of multimillionaires. Not one, not two but three questions in a row have been focused on the interests of a half of one per cent of Australians.
This is the person who wants to be—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. Direct your remarks through the chair. I'll hear from the member for Capricornia on a point of order.
Ms Landry: It is on relevance. We want to know how many small and family businesses have been identified by Treasury modelling.
The SPEAKER: The Assistant Treasurer has been going for one minute. The question was very tight. I will ask him to return to the question of the number that he was asked about, and I give him the call.
Mr JONES: I'm asked about the impact of the government's very reasonable, very modest superannuation proposals, which are supported by over 65 per cent of Australians, including the majority of Liberal Party voters and many on the other side. If you want to know what the impact is, it's about a half of one per cent of Australians. And, yes, of course, given that this won't come into effect for another two years, we will engage in a meaningful consultation, including with the farming sector, to ensure that any unintended consequences, including those of the type that the member for Capricornia is alluding to—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hume will cease interjecting.
Mr JONES: and that the other members have alluded to—we will engage in meaningful consultation with all of these groups to ensure that unintended consequences are not falling upon them. But let's be very, very clear: when you've got a trillion dollars worth of debt, you can't twiddle your thumbs, and we won't be twiddling our thumbs.
Government members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: Has the Assistant Treasurer concluded his answer? He has.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right. Members on my left. When the House comes to order—I know it's Thursday—I will give the call to the member for Adelaide.
Energy
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government taking action to put downward pressure on energy prices? What has been the response to these actions?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left! The minister will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I'll issue a general warning if this behaviour continues. I could not hear the member for Adelaide. I want to hear questions in silence because, if I get questions or points of order, I need to know what the question was. I think that's pretty clear. I give the call to the member for Adelaide.
Mr GEORGANAS: My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government taking action to put downward pressure on energy prices? What has been the response to these actions?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:24): I thank the honourable member for the question about the government's action on power prices. We heard some of the response just then from those opposite. The response of those opposite is to see this as a laughing matter and something to play politics with. But Australians know that governments around the world are dealing with high power prices and the Albanese government is dealing with high power prices. We dealt with them last December and we saw the same response from members opposite then, when they came in and voted in this chamber against lower power prices. When you walk through these doors, when the bells are ringing, you're making a choice; you're choosing a side. This side chose lower power prices; that side chose higher profits and higher power prices.
We acted to cap gas prices and worked in concert with the governments of Queensland and New South Wales to cap coal prices. This is having an impact and it will have an impact in what we will see next week. We know that at the time of the budget we made very clear, transparently, that the Treasurer was expecting a 36 per cent increase in power prices in 2023-24. When you're faced with such evidence you have a choice: you can hide it, you can change the law to keep it secret—option A—or—option B—you can be transparent about it and take action to fix it. We chose B on this side of the House. Others have previously chosen other options, but I don't intend to dwell on such matters. I intend to dwell on what we are doing and the impact it is having.
Since that intervention in December, we have seen the wholesale price of electricity fall by 46 per cent in Queensland, 41 per cent in New South Wales, 48 per cent in the honourable member's home state of South Australia, and 34 per cent in Victoria. These are reductions which this side of the House and the crossbench voted in favour of and the opposition voted against. That's what they voted for last December. The shadow minister likes to hold up a sign. He might as well hold up a placard saying 'What do we want? Higher power prices. When do we want it? Now.' That is what the shadow minister for energy is promoting. That is what they say on the other side of the House.
The increases we will see in next week's draft default market offer will be tough, but we and the Australian people know just how much higher they would have been in the absence of decisive action by this government and how high they would be if those opposite had their way. They had their choice last December, they made their choice last December and they made very clear whose side they're on.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much noise on my left. A general warning is now issued. If that noise continues, people will leave the chamber.
Superannuation
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:27): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and concerns the government's new super tax. If an Australian who owns an asset through his or her superannuation fund receives a tax bill because of an unrealised gain in one year but this asset is subsequently revalued resulting in a loss, will that Australian be eligible for a refund of the tax paid?
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for his question. It's a good question. It's why, when we have announced the policy to ensure that we can maintain the integrity of superannuation and superannuation tax concessions, which are costing the budget in excess of $50 billion a year—more than we spend on Medicare, more than we spend on the NDIS, significant budget expenditure—we put in place a lengthy period for the implementation of it and a lengthy period to ensure that we can consult on some of these details, including details which go to the question that the honourable member has asked about the capacity to bring losses forwards or backwards. We will consult on the specific design implementation of these issues, as any government would and, indeed, as the previous government did when they introduced their $6 billion worth of taxation changes to the superannuation system.
Domestic And Family Violence
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help end domestic and family violence?
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston—Minister for Social Services) (14:29): I'd like to thank the member for Canberra for her question and also her advocacy over many years towards ending family and domestic violence. Now, we know that this issue of family and domestic violence doesn't just impact individuals. It doesn't just impact families. It impacts whole communities. On average, every week, Australian police deal with 5,000 domestic violence matters. That's one every two minutes, which means that, before I finish this answer, one of those calls is likely to be made. This is unacceptable, and we are working to turn this around.
Along with states and territories, our national plan to end violence against women and children, which was released in October, set a vision to end violence in one generation. As I said at the time and as I've said since, it's an ambitious vision, but, with all of us pulling in the same direction, it's achievable. I would like to thank this parliament for the support that has been shown for ending this terrible scourge.
Our government is making women's safety a national priority. We are providing the focus and national leadership needed to deliver change. We've invested a record $1.7 billion for women's safety to support the implementation of the plan. This investment is in all of the four domains of the national plan: prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing. Alongside that work, our government has already taken steps to ensure women are not disadvantaged in the workplace as they deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence. We never want a woman to have to choose between their economic security, their job or their safety. This is why we've successfully introduced 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave.
We also know that family and domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women and children, and that's why we're providing $100 million for up to 720 additional safe places for women and children leaving violent situations.
Of course, our government is also committed to supporting 1800RESPECT, which supports people impacted by family, domestic and sexual violence, and we are working to improve this service to cover sexual harassment at the workplace as well as provide support through SMS and video calls.
In my final few seconds, I want to say that, if anyone is concerned about their behaviour or that of someone they know, I encourage them to contact the Men's Referral Service on 1300766491. For anyone experiencing sexual, family or domestic violence, help is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week from 1800RESPECT. You can call 1800737732 any time or visit their website.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:33): on indulgence—I want to associate the coalition with the fine words of the minister. It's an abhorrent crime type and it's massively underreported, so the figures read out by the minister don't represent the true picture, as we all know. I commend the minister for the action she's taking. We've supported every measure that she outlined in her speech, and it builds on a very significant investment that we made when we were in government, particularly over the course of COVID, where people were confined in small spaces, in one-bedroom units and environments they might otherwise have been able to spend time away from during the hours of work et cetera.
There are many aspects to this. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation is an incredible success with the work they do there and the children they save. In addition to the advice that the minister's provided, I direct people to their website because it's a great resource for a conversation at home with your children, with your young daughters. We will support every measure that the government puts forward to end this scourge in our country.
Taxation
Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies) (14:34): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister identify any act of parliament that currently has a provision to impose a tax on unrealised gains?
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. The object of our change is to ensure that we maintain the integrity of our—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The House will come to order!
Mr JONES: The objective is to maintain the integrity of our superannuation system.
Mr Pike interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Bowman then left the chamber.
Mr JONES: We will ensure that, as we implement our reforms to the superannuation system, we will have—
The SPEAKER: The Assistant Treasurer was asked a very specific question. I'm asking him to address that in the answer.
Mr JONES: This is a new reform. There is no doubt about it. And it is absolutely true that we are doing things in a different way.
The SPEAKER: I'll call the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.
Mr Dutton: The Assistant Treasurer has responsibility for tax laws.
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Mr Dutton: Clearly, it's relevance, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Okay. Resume your seat. I've addressed the issue. I've asked the minister to be relevant, and he was within seconds of my giving that direction.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs will leave the chamber under 94(a). A general warning has been issued. It applies to all members in the chamber. And members will be referred to by their correct titles. I ask the minister to return.
Mr JONES: This is a new reform. We are doing things in different way. I am asked by the honourable member if there is another part of the taxation law where unrealised capital gains are taxed. Yes, there is: corporations tax.
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme
D r FREELANDER (Macarthur) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What has the royal commission into robodebt revealed about the harm the former government's unlawful robodebt scheme inflicted upon the most vulnerable Australians?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:37): I thank the member for his question. Analysis of data provided to the royal commission into robodebt reveals that a majority of robodebt victims were women. In fact, at least 226,780 Australian women were served unlawful debt notices over 4½ years by the former coalition government. These are their stories.
Angelica says that, soon after she had a robodebt debt raised against her, she had to deal with the grief of her father passing away. She said she did haven't money in the bank and had her daughter to think of. 'My depression became very bad while dealing with the robodebt. I wanted to kill myself. I started drinking heavily—a couple of bottles of wine each day. It caused liver problems. I had to go to hospital, and my doctor wasn't happy with me. I started seeing a psychologist. To this day, I still get anxiety when I think about my robodebt. The government should care about people who are struggling, people who have depression or money troubles. They shouldn't make their lives worse.'
Then there's Isabella. She received a robodebt at a particularly difficult point in her life. 'I was living day to day when I was hit with the robodebt. I was homeless due to fleeing from family violence. What little money I was receiving from Centrelink payments went towards my food and my medication. Then one day there was less money in my account when I was expecting my Newstart allowance. I thought it had been a mistake. I called Centrelink. I was not met with concern for my wellbeing. Instead they told me I had a debt and needed to prove I didn't owe money.'
In a submission to the royal commission by a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, she explains how she was a young single parent, working, when she received her robodebt. 'I cried myself to sleep for two weeks, thinking about where my daughter would go if I went to jail. I contacted her father for help financially, after never receiving child support from him while she was fully in my care. He then decided to take me to court and obtained shared custody of my daughter. Robodebt caused myself depression, anxiety and financial stress, which resulted in me having my daughter taken from my full care. To say robodebt ruined my life is a complete understatement.'
These are stories that were never heard by the coalition when they were in government. Like a lot of members on this side, I've represented people who have been injured at work. Compensation is important, as expected, but it is never the full story. Accountability matters too. The royal commission cannot reverse the pain of these brave witnesses. It can't bring back loved ones. But it can make sure that those who did the wrong thing answer for it. It can and it must make sure that no government ever unlawfully bullies vulnerable Australians ever again.
Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism
Ms TINK (North Sydney) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. This week New South Wales is again being besieged by bushfires while the Northern Territory and Queensland have had serious flooding. Genuine climate action requires us to rapidly reduce gross emissions. The safeguard mechanism in its current form does not guarantee this. Minister, what would you say to the people of North Sydney who are saying this legislation will allow Australia's biggest polluters to buy their way out of responsibility by purchasing unlimited carbon credits?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:40): I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and for her engagement —as late as today—that she has had with me on the safeguard mechanism and reforms. The first thing I say to the honourable member is that the most important thing we can do as a parliament in coming weeks to ensure onsite abatement in the facilities covered is to pass the Safeguard Mechanism Reforms (Crediting) Amendment Bill. The safeguard crediting bill actually provides a huge incentive for facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism to reduce their emissions, because if they reduce their emissions by more than the baseline they get a credit which they can use in future or sell. That means that there is an incentive for them to invest in technology to reduce their own emissions. Honourable members opposite used to believe that. This side of the House still believes that. That's the first thing we can do to encourage onsite abatements.
The second point I'd make, more broadly, is that the safeguards reforms put these facilities on a very important pathway to net zero and provide an ongoing incentive for them to invest in abatement. It is important for them to have flexibility in how they do so because we are requiring a 4.9 per cent reduction each year, and different facilities will have different technologies available to them at different times. The 215 facilities cover a wide range of industries—airlines, aluminium smelters, fossil fuel extraction and many others. I understand the intention behind the honourable member's question, but these are the key points.
The final point I would make is this: last year the government commissioned the Chubb review of Australian carbon credits to ensure their integrity, after questions were raised. Not everyone loves everything in the Chubb review, but it was conducted by the former Chief Scientist of Australia, Professor Chubb, supported by the Hon. Dr Annabelle Bennett AC, SC, Dr Steve Hatfield-Dodds and Ariadne Gorring. He has done an exhaustive review and recommended changes that even critics acknowledge will be world's best practice going forward to ensure the integrity of ACCUs. I do not accept that carbon credits are some lesser form of abatement. I do agree we need to focus on onsite abatement, but whether it's Indigenous savanna-burning or other methods, there are real and very important projects supported by Australian carbon credit units, and they will be supported even more by the rigorous safeguard mechanism that I will be putting before the House—and in the regulation and in the Senate. I welcome the support of all honourable members for these important measures, and I remain available to honourable members who wish to discuss improvements in good faith.
Cybersafety
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (14:43): My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security. How is the Albanese Labor government improving cybersecurity for all Australians?
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security) (14:43): I thank the member for Gilmore. She is the most passionate advocate for her community, and it's a huge privilege to sit with her in the Labor caucus. I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to speak a little bit about the huge volume of work that is happening in cybersecurity within the Australian government at the moment. I've said that Australia is about five years behind where we need to be on cybersecurity, so the first task of our government is to try to play catch-up to get us to where we should be by 2023. The future is going to hold a lot of differences in this really important policy space. We have very dangerous geopolitical circumstances that we face in our region; we have a very fast-changing technological environment, including things like AI and quantum computing, which will change the complexity and speed at which cyberattacks occur; and our lives are increasingly being lived online. These three trends are going to combine to create a very difficult challenge for us to confront in 2030, and the government is very focused on making sure our country is prepared for that.
As part of the cyber consultations for the cyber strategy, I joined the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago at a round table of business leaders. If I can distil the comments that were made in that, they come down to this: there is enormous demand from the business community, big and small, for government to show leadership on this, and I think there's a sense of genuine relief that we have a Prime Minister who sees the urgency for us to address this really critical problem facing our country. Last year, we had the two biggest cyberattacks in Australian history, on Medibank and Optus. I think the consequences of the 'cyber slumber' that we had been in was laid bare for all to see. There were enormous consequences from those attacks. Literally millions of Australians had data stolen from them, and shared in some circumstances. It became really clear through those attacks that we had a patchwork of policies, laws and frameworks that simply were not keeping up with the challenges presented by the digital age. Voluntary measures and poorly executed plans are not going to get Australia to where we need to be by 2030. The ANAO found that three-quarters of government agencies do not meet the most basic cybersecurity obligations.
I desperately wish that those on the other side of the chamber had done more about this in the decade that they were in government but, like in so many of the portfolios behind me, it falls to us to clean up this mess. Since we were elected, we've declared 82 systems of national significance. We've set baseline security standards for critical infrastructure sectors. We've set up a collaboration between the ASD and the AFP. We've seen the Attorney-General reform privacy laws and undertake a serious review of the Privacy Act, and, importantly, the PM announced a couple of weeks ago a new coordinator for cybersecurity across the Australian government. I'm really proud to be part of a government that's taking this so seriously for the future.
Energy
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:46): My question goes to the Acting Prime Minister. Will electricity prices go up by 20 per cent over winter?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:47): Whatever happens with electricity prices in the future, they would have gone up a lot more if those opposite had had their way last December. Last December, those opposite were given an opportunity to vote on behalf of the household budgets of the Australian people by supporting a $1½ billion package, which is working. If you look at the forward electricity prices announced in February, they are half of what they were in November. Those opposite are the ones who stand to increase electricity prices.
The SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister will pause. The Acting Prime Minister was asked about electricity prices. He is talking about electricity prices. I'll hear from the member for Fairfax on a point of order.
Mr Ted O'Brien: It's on relevance. The question was tight. Will electricity prices go up—
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr B urke: Mr Speaker, I'd suggest that the member making that point of order knew it was out of order. He was simply standing up for the purpose of trying to get an extra grab in. There was nothing there that added to the ruling you made immediately before he stood up.
The SPEAKER: I'll deal with this issue before I call the Acting Prime Minister. It was pretty clear when the Acting Prime Minister was talking about electricity prices, and the question is about electricity prices, that that point of order was out of order. And I think the member knows that. He's on in the MPI; I'm going to call the Acting Prime Minister, but if the member interrupts again he won't be here for the MPI. I call the Acting Prime Minister.
Mr MARLES: Be it the failure of those opposite to act on behalf of Australian household budgets last December, or be it the fact that over the course of their government they had 22 failed energy policies—because they found themselves down this bizarre cul-de-sac of climate change denial which meant they were utterly paralysed in doing anything about electricity prices—both mean that the party of higher power prices is the Liberal Party, and they stand condemned as such.
Tertiary Education
Ms SITOU (Reid) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese government doing to set up Australian higher education, including international education, for the future?
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Education) (14:50): I thank my friend the member for Reid for the question. International education is the biggest export we have that we don't dig out of the ground. It makes us money, but it also makes us friends. In the world we live in, that's important. This is a $40 billion industry that was smashed by COVID. It was basically cut in half. It's coming back now, but there's a lot more work to do.
Think about this: there are half a billion people in India under the age of 23—half a billion—and the Indian government has set a target to get half of all young adults into tertiary education by 2035. That's massive. That's nation-changing stuff. They want our help, and that includes Australian universities setting up campuses there in India. Overnight the Prime Minister announced that Deakin University is the first overseas university to be approved to set up a campus in India. That's a big deal. An Australian university has become the first in the world to be approved to set up a campus in India. Hopefully the University of Wollongong will be next. It's good for Australia; it's good for India. It shows how good our universities are, and it shows how strong and deep the partnership is between our two countries. It builds on the agreement that I signed in Delhi last week that will make it easier for students in both countries to study in our countries and have their qualifications recognised in both countries. That's the broadest agreement of its kind that India has ever signed with another country to date.
Here at home, we're working on our own higher education plan: the Universities Accord. A big part of that is making sure that more Aussies get a crack at going to university. At the moment, about one in two young Australian adults have a university degree, but not if they come from a poor or rural background. Only 20 per cent of young adults from a poor background have a uni degree, and only 20 per cent of people from the bush have a university degree if they're in their 20s or 30s. It's only seven per cent if they're Indigenous Australians. We've got to change that. The first step there is the 20,000 extra uni places that we've funded to help people like that—people from poor backgrounds and the bush, and Indigenous Australians.
One of those 20,000 is a bloke called Dylan. He worked as a labourer last year, building the new Western Sydney University campus in my neck of the woods in Bankstown. And this week, he started there as a student. At the same place he helped build, he's now studying to become a schoolteacher. It's something that won't just change his life but will change the lives of thousands and thousands of people in the years ahead. That's the power of education, the most powerful cause for good right around the world. I'm sure I'm joined by everybody here in wishing Dylan, and everybody starting university this year, all the very, very best of luck for the future.
Regional Australia
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:53): Acting PM, Australia applauds O'Brien's CopperString after 20 years of PM Rudd's national energy grid. I built the other grid line in two years, but humility precludes me from spotlighting such extraordinary achievement! Hughenden's owner-occupier thread irrigation, HIPCo, is scheduled for 16 other towns, which means half a million people into golden but empty Australia and untold prosperity for 5,000 farmer-contractor families. Will $30 million be budgeted for HIPCo to draw up tenders, or is it another 20 years?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (15:54): I thank the member for his question, and I spotlight his extraordinary achievement.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr MARLES: A little shameless! In doing so, I acknowledge his advocacy on behalf of his electorate but, more significantly, on behalf of regional Australia. It's really important that that is done, because the story of our nation is not just written in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. It is written in places like Mount Isa, Rockhampton, Newcastle and, indeed, in Geelong. As an inhabitant of regional Australia, I understand how important it is that we do everything we can to provide opportunities for people to make their lives and to raise their families in regional Australia, and that's at the heart of what you are describing in your question.
There are huge opportunities which the honourable member is describing in terms of his own electorate where that development can occur. I say to him, on behalf of the Albanese government: regional Australia is front and centre in how we see the development of our nation. We will continue to engage with him on this.
As to the question of the budget, you'll have to wait until the second Tuesday in May and the words of the Treasurer for what is, ultimately, committed there. I can say that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and I will continue to work with you to make sure we are delivering the development and the benefits in regional Australia that you are such a keen advocate for.
First Nations Australians
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Lingiari) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. What does the latest data on closing the gap show? What practical actions are being taken by our government to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians?
Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:56): I thank the member for Lingiari for her advocacy for her community and for her passion around these issues. Mick Dodson was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner between 1993 and 1998 and one of the things Mick said has stayed with me ever since that time. He talked about a type of 'industrial deafness' that had descended upon us as Australians about the dreadful social justice statistics when it came to outcomes for Aboriginal people in this country. I think there is something true in what he says in terms of those statistics washing over us and flowing on.
The latest data from the Productivity Commission is an example of what I hope everyone will listen to. Some of the Closing the Gap targets are going backwards. I know many people are frustrated by this lack of progress; I know that I am. On the existing data, 11 targets are now not on track and four are on track. The one that really concerns me, where the statistics have gone backwards slightly, is the healthy birth weight of babies. It has gone backwards and this is a major concern when you think about all the things that need to sit underneath a baby being born at a healthy birth weight. It is not good enough, and I know everyone in this House agrees with that.
We do need to do things differently. That means listening to communities about the solutions that work best for them. It's not about what we think as politicians and it's not about what bureaucrats think. We need to listen to what communities are actually saying.
The Closing the Gap implementation plan launched last month is a practical way forward. It lays out a plan for us to achieve the targets and priority reforms set out in the national agreement. It includes more than $400 million for additional spending by this government for safe and reliable water supply, better buildings in remote housing, improving food security and boosting family violence prevention legal service providers, which I know the Leader of the Opposition is most concerned about. One bright spark is that the Northern Territory police have advised that violence related activities have fallen by 30 per cent, and so has domestic violence, since the implementation of the alcohol restrictions in the Northern Territory.
Superannuation: Taxation
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:59): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and concerns the government's new super tax. Can the minister explain to the House whether the capital gains tax discount, ordinarily applicable for assets held within superannuation, is available for either realised or unrealised gains under the government's new super tax?
Mr JONES (Whitlam—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (14:59): I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the question. As all honourable members, and particularly the member for Forde, would know, as a non-licensed financial advisor, I can't give financial advice either here or anywhere else. But I do welcome the opportunity—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dutton: I have been here 22 years and I thought I had heard it all!
The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. That is not a point of order. We just had that conversation from the member for Fairfax. It is highly disorderly, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. We cannot have question time in that way. That is the last time the standing orders will be abused. I give the call to the Assistant Treasurer.
Mr JONES: Thank you. As I was saying, I was being invited to give financial advice. But what I can say, in general, is that the capital gains discount is available when there's a capital gains tax event.
Melanoma
Health Care
Mr LIM (Tangney) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians who are seeking treatment for melanoma?
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:01): I thank the member for Tangney for his question and for joining me at the Southlands Pharmacy in Willetton last month. We were able to talk about, firstly, the fact that he campaigned so hard at last year's election on a promise to deliver cheaper medicines and, secondly, the fact that he has delivered on that promise.
In July, we slashed the maximum price that pensioners and concession card holders would pay across a given year for medicines by 25 per cent. In September, we cut the price of more than 2,000 brands of medicine, putting $130 million back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. In November, the Minister for Social Services gave access to the seniors health card, already, to more than 10,000 self-funded retirees around the country. As members of this House know, on 1 January we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Already, in just the first two months of operation of the new price, the price of 3.2 million scripts has come down, delivering $36 million in savings to hardworking Australians. We are also working very, very hard to make sure that Australian patients have affordable access to the most modern, most cutting-edge medicines available anywhere in the world. Since July, we have made 65 new or amended listings to the PBS to cut the price of the most modern, most effective medicines from, sometimes, tens and tens of thousands of dollars just for one course of treatment to just $30.
Last week, I announced the expanded listing of Opdivo and Yervoy to be used particularly as a combination therapy for recurrent stage 3 or stage 4 malignant melanoma. As members know, Australians tragically lead the world in melanoma diagnosis rates.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr BUTLER: I hear some interjections about melanoma diagnosis. I don't think that's particularly appropriate, because all members of this House know that Australia leads the world in melanoma diagnosis. This new treatment, which would otherwise cost patients more than $10,000 for a course of treatment, now costs just $30, giving new hope to patients like Natalie. Natalie was diagnosed with melanoma when she was 23 weeks pregnant. She had to delay her treatment to protect the health of her baby. Tragically, three days after birth, she was advised that her cancer has spread. But now, with this new treatment, she's able to tell us that she has a bright future ahead.
Cheaper medicines aren't just good for the hip pocket and the household budget—although they are—they're also good for your health and, ultimately, they save lives.
New South Wales: Election
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:04): My question is to Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Is it true that the minister took time out from the task of tackling rising energy prices to hold discussions with Western Sydney mayor Frank Carbone ahead of Mr Carbone announcing he would not run as an independent candidate in the New South Wales election? Did the minister discuss any federal government funding or support with Mr Carbone?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I refer you to the list of prohibited questions on page 553 of the Practice—the first dot point.
The SPEAKER: I'm ruling that question out of order. I give the call to the member for Macnamara.
Labor Government
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (15:05): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for Australians, and what challenges does the government face?
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (15:05): I thank the member for his question. This week, the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme passed the Senate. Today, the National Reconstruction Fund legislation passed the House of Representatives. On Tuesday, we took another step towards recognising our First Nations people in our Constitution. Every one of these was about honouring our commitments that we made to the Australian people at the election last May.
It builds on the promise we made in relation to cheaper medicines, which now are in place. It builds on free TAFE, which has now occurred. It builds on legislating the cut in emissions reductions, which we've now done. And it builds on increasing the minimum wage, which we have now achieved. At every step since the last election we have been completely committed to honouring the commitments that we made to the Australian people to ease the cost of living and to increase the productive capacity of our economy.
But this week we've also learnt a little bit about the opposition. It's an opposition which refused to stand up for manufacturing jobs, an opposition which refused to support building houses for the most vulnerable women, an opposition which has not moved one inch in taking meaningful action on climate change and an opposition which, last December, voted against support for household budgets. But we have learnt what the opposition actually cares about, what really gets them going, and that's maximising the concessions on the earnings of the one half of one per cent of Australians who have more than $3 million in their superannuation. That's what ignites their passions. That's what flames their soul. That's the moment when they say that the government is breaching the covenant on political and civil rights. That's when they say the government is burning the Magna Carta. The fact that they have decided to fight on that ground says everything about how they have completely lost touch with the mainstream of Australian people and—not just that—with their own party.
Of the 14 people who have previously led the Liberal Party, before the Leader of the Opposition, the seats of 11 of them are no longer in their pile. If you want to look at a political party which is completely disconnected from its roots, it's that party opposite. I always understood they were about national security and managing the economy, but they were the most inept national security government in our history, and they were one of the most profligate, high-taxing governments that we've seen. They were a rabble. We were elected to fix their mess, and that's what we are doing. (Time expired)
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Parliament House Flag
The SPEAKER (15:09): I want to update the House regarding the flag above Parliament House. As I stated to the House yesterday, I understand and recognise the importance of the Australian national flag. I'm pleased to advise the process to replace the flag has been expedited. Weather permitting, protocols will be put in place to replace the flags within the next two days. Furthermore, I've requested a review into alternative options and contingencies should this ever happen again in the future.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House) (15:10): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Energy
The SPEAKER (15:10): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to deliver on its promise to reduce energy prices.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (15:11): There's no doubt that every government comes to office having made promises. The coalition came to government and it made some promises: greater access to medicines, delivered; lower taxes, delivered; lower unemployment, delivered; more funding for infrastructure, delivered; more funding for mental health, delivered; more investment for energy assets, delivered. But the Albanese Labor government has a very different track record with its promises.
Let's have a look at the track record of the Albanese Labor government after only about nine months in office and ask whether or not they've delivered or they've broken their promises. They promised cheaper mortgages. Broken. They promised lower inflation. Broken. They promised no changes to superannuation. Broken. They promised no changes to franking credits. Broken. They promised no new taxes. Broken. But here is my favourite of all—my favourite broken promise so far, favourite because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party, but it's not a favourite in terms of me enjoying it, because the Australian people are the ones who feel the pain—the Albanese government promised the Australian people that household power bills would be reduced by $275. Has that been delivered or has it been broken? Broken. Absolutely broken.
In the lead-up to last year's federal election every single member opposite, every single member on the government benches, was very happy to share social media posts of the Prime Minister committing to the Australian public that he would ensure their power prices came down by $275—every single member of the Labor Party and every single senator. Yet here they are today still knowing they have broken a promise and they will not deliver that. Instead of delivering a $275 reduction in power bills, since they came to government the average power bill has increased by $700. Think about that: an increase of $700 for households. You promise a decrease by nearly $300 and you deliver an increase by $700. What's the variation? What's the difference?
Mr Wallace: It's $950.
Mr TED O'BRIEN: It's $950. Thank you very much, member for Fisher. That is nearly $1,000. Members on the government benches are dumbfounded. They're not good at the detail. They're not good at the maths. But that is a variation of around about $1,000. In other words, you have already cut it short; there's already a shortfall between what you promised the Australian people and what you are delivering by $1,000 after only nine months in office. In the midst of the cost-of-living crisis of all time, this government makes purposeful decisions that in fact drive up the price of energy.
From our end—from the coalition's end—did we seek to get energy prices down? We sure did! Absolutely! And in the last term of government alone, we did. In the last term of government alone, we saw energy bills coming down for households by eight per cent. For businesses, under the coalition they came down by 10 per cent and for industries they came down by 12 per cent. The coalition delivered lower energy prices. The Labor Party promised to go even further, but prices are skyrocketing.
Today became another day of revelation. This morning we read that power bills are going to go up yet again over winter. They will increase by 20 per cent—an additional 20 per cent from where they are today. This is where power bills are going over winter. Let's not forget that just before Christmas the Prime Minister recalled parliament after having power prices blow out, and he made a second promise to the Australian people that he would fix this—power prices would be coming down and relief would be flowing as of April this year. It isn't going to happen! And now we find out that it's going up even further, by 20 per cent.
We can stand in this chamber and bang the table about this but, in truth, the ones who really count on this are the ones at home. We don't know who is listening to this, but there are bound to be senior citizens—probably the same senior citizens who have contacted MPs in their offices, I bet on both sides of the chamber. They're struggling; they're genuinely struggling to put food on the table. We are talking about seniors, and a lot of them don't know if they're going to be able to turn the heating on in winter. This is Australia, for crying out loud! We're one of the most prosperous nations on earth, but we have our most vulnerable worrying about whether or not they can put the heating on in winter because of Labor's power bills.
This is so concerning for families and for businesses. I was speaking to smelters and steelmakers in the second half of last year. They were telling me that they might have to close shop and move—or relocate to China or India—because of the power bills. And what was the answer to this from the Labor Party's policy suite? They decided to introduce a carbon tax; they decided to actually make it more expensive for manufacturing businesses, risking a loss of businesses and closures.
This comes down to a fundamental divide between the way that the coalition looks at the world and the way that Labor looks at the world. On the coalition side, we absolutely get the need to reduce emissions. That's why we smashed all our targets out of the ballpark. We reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on 2005 levels, right? The Labor Party are already falling behind their own target. They had a target which they legislated but they never did any economic modelling for. We struck a balance, because we knew that in order for us to tackle that challenge that we couldn't hurt the Australian people or botch the Australian economy. But that's precisely what Labor is now doing. It's on them after the amount of times we have said, 'Do not go down the path you're on.' On this side, the coalition, we back industry, we back enterprise, we back technology and we back the innovative genius of Australians. But the Labor government believes in big government, big unions and big taxes.
At no point has this socialist-like approach helped to reduce power prices or make life easier for Australians. And yet today, of all days, when we found out this morning that power prices are going up by 20 per cent over winter, the Labor Party had a dorothy dixer in question time and the minister was given an opportunity to show off about power prices! I do not know of any government that has been so removed from the reality that the people are feeling at home. We had the minister celebrating the fact that power prices are going to go up even higher. This is a minister who has not done one day of work outside of politics in his entire life. He does not get how it works in the real world. But, of course, in cabinet he sits across the table from the Prime Minister, who, by the way, has never done a day's work in his life outside of politics. They look across to the Treasurer, who might know the numbers, but the Treasurer has never done a day's work outside politics in his entire life.
The Prime Minister talks about a new era in energy policy, saying the Treasurer is redefining capitalism. The minister for energy thinks it's the new industrial revolution. They're ushering in new eras and redefining capitalism. There's a new industrial revolution, but not one of them knows how the real economy works. This is why Australia is in the problem state it is in today. Every single time it's the Australian people that pay. They're paying again under Labor. You promised $275. The Australian people expect it to be delivered and so does the coalition.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (15:21): In Australia, the last six Liberal leaders have lost their jobs, one way or another, because of climate policy. We saw the Howard government thrown out in 2007 in part because of inaction on climate. We saw the Morrison government turfed out in 2022 because of inaction on climate. We saw the double defenestration of Malcolm Turnbull because they just couldn't cop his approach to climate change. As Malcolm Turnbull has put it, 'The Australian Liberal Party just isn't capable of dealing with climate change.'
It doesn't have to be this way. If you look around the world, everywhere except Australia and the United States, conservatives are taking action on climate change. The UK conservatives have committed to a fully decarbonised power sector by 2035 and a zero-emissions vehicle mandate, have established the UK Green Investment Bank and have put policies in place that, if members opposite were sitting in the House of Commons, they would have all voted against. Instead, those opposite, in this place, brought to us 22 failed energy policies. They saw four times as much dispatchable power leave the grid as come back in. If those opposite want to know their failures on climate, they need look no further than the crossbench, where the members for Wentworth, North Sydney, Mackellar, Kooyong, Goldstein and Curtin are now Independent. Those opposite have decided to put in place the member for Fairfax has their climate spokesperson. Trent Zimmerman has said, 'There's a driving desire in the communities I represent for greater action on climate change,' and yet the coalition has gone from climate deniers to nuclear fanatics faster than uranium decays into thorium.
There are lots of questions about nuclear—its cost, its safety, its location—but the big question is: if you're such fans of nuclear power, why didn't you do anything about it in nine long years in office? Those opposite are voting against their own safeguard mechanism. They're voting against a 43 per cent emissions reduction target. They're voting against a tax cut for electric vehicles. They're voting against electricity price relief. Business are shaking their heads. You've got the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry all saying: 'Why on earth is the coalition living in the dark ages?' We have seen the member for Fairfax choosing the Hiroshima peace park and Fukushima power plant as the backdrop for promoting nuclear energy as the panacea to Australia. This snollygoster thinks that the answer to Australia's power problems is nuclear, and perhaps this is the member for Fairfax's lowest moment in politics—which is, frankly, saying something for a bloke who lost an election to Clive Palmer. The coalition are living in Peter Pan's Neverland. They'll never support real action on climate change, because they don't want to grow up.
We on this side of the House took action to take some of the sting out of higher power prices. We weren't willing to have Australian businesses go to the wall and pay wartime gas prices because of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine. We've seen evidence of the impact of those changes. The AEMO quarterly report said:
Following these announcements, ASX Cal23 electricity futures prices fell steeply for each of the mainland states through to the end of the Quarter …
Treasury analysis reported that forecast wholesale electricity prices have dropped by 44 per cent in Queensland, 38 per cent in New South Wales, 32 per cent in South Australia and 29 per cent in Victoria.
This is the record of those opposite. First, they helped create the problem with their decade of energy policy chaos. Second, they kept power price increases a secret until after the election. Then, third, they tried to block direct energy bill relief for households and businesses. That is the coalition's trifecta. If those opposite had their way, households would be paying $230 more on their power bills than they would otherwise have to. That is why the coalition are the parties for higher power prices. Households would pay $230 more in power bills if they had had their way last December, when we brought back the parliament in order to put in place direct energy bill relief, which will put downward pressure on power prices and downward pressure on inflation.
We're working with the states and territories on the delivery of the energy bill relief package, working with their timetable to ensure that the relief is in the May budget and starts flowing not long after that. Those opposite are complaining about when the energy bill relief will flow, which is a bit rich given that they didn't want any electricity bill relief at all. Their view is that there should be no direct relief to households.
We on this side of the House are committed to the power of renewables. In Denmark, offshore wind is providing a vast share of the energy needs of that country. Australia has a much larger coastline and there is much more potential for us to benefit from offshore wind. Just one spin of an offshore wind turbine—as you know, Deputy Speaker Claydon—produces as much energy as 24 hours of rooftop solar. Not even Vladimir Putin can stop the wind blowing and the sun shining.
Those opposite seem to think that we can't have renewables because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. They must be flabbergasted that they can get water out of the tap when it's not raining outside. It must be a real mystery to them. It turns out that batteries can do for the grid what tanks do for the water system. Advances in battery technology are going to benefit Australia and allow Australia to develop an industry that will benefit the world. With half the world's lithium, we have huge potential to be a major battery producer. We've embarked on a major task of revamping the Australian energy generation system. Right now, renewables are just 30 per cent of production, and under our plan they will be 82 per cent by 2030. That will make electricity cheaper, because the marginal cost of renewables is close to zero. But it will also make us less vulnerable to geopolitical threats.
We saw right here in the ACT, which is 100 per cent renewables, that we were the only jurisdiction last year where electricity prices went down. They went down by one per cent but still went down. That is because the ACT, at 100 per cent renewables, was not vulnerable to Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine. We know that, if we don't act on climate change, Australia is the advanced country most vulnerable to the effects of unchecked climate change. Estimates from scientists suggest that the atrocious Black Summer bushfires we saw in the summer of 2019-20 could become the norm by the 2040s and that 2019-20 could be a good year by the 2060s. That's if we do nothing, and that is why it is in Australia's national interest to act on climate change abatement. We know our Pacific neighbours are vulnerable. You won't hear members of the Labor Party, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, making jokes about how climate change affects the Pacific. That had a real geopolitical impact on Australia's influence in the Pacific because climate change has a real impact in the Pacific.
We know, if we don't act, that the dangers of volatility in Australia's electricity grid could cause crises bigger than the 1970s oil crisis. That's why Labor is committed to an EV charging network, to community batteries, to the Marinus Link, to the Climate Council of Australia, to our energy apprentices and to ramping up the safeguard scheme. We are working with business and we are working with the community in order to ensure that Australia tackles climate change and puts downward pressure on power prices. Those opposite, after nine failed years and 22 failed energy prices, have now become the hucksters of Australian politics. The former climate change minister, who is as miserable as a bandicoot, sits there spruiking nuclear and failing to move with the times—failing to acknowledge the benefits of the renewables revolution for Australian households.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (15:31): There's one person walking around this parliament at the moment who is very, very happy, and that is the Greens leader. Even though the Prime Minister is off watching the cricket in India, the Greens leader has done a dodgy deal with Labor to get through the National Reconstruction Fund. Why is he happy? It's because there's no coal or gas as part of that legislation, so he's had a win. Earlier this week we heard the member for Brand, the Minister for Resources, answering questions in question time, and the Greens were absolutely into her for all they were worth. You saw this bit of a lovers' tiff between Labor and the Greens. Things were going a little bit rocky. But they patched it up! They've patched it up with some dodgy backroom deal, because that's what Labor and the Greens do.
The economist we just heard from, the minister at the table—the first part of his contribution was all about the politics. That's all well and good. He was talking about the Liberal leaders who he claimed had to go because of climate policies. Well, emissions came down under the coalition. We met and we beat all of our international obligations and we didn't bankrupt the economy while we did it. We didn't send businesses to the wall and we didn't force farmers to stop growing food and fibre whilst we were lowering emissions. We did it in a practical, balanced, sensible, methodical way—the coalition way. But what this mob opposite want to do is push power prices up.
I didn't hear the minister at the dispatch box talking about the mum who's going to be worried this winter about how she's going to pay the power bills at home. I didn't hear the member opposite talk about the truckie who's going to be worried about whether he or she is going to be able to put their road freight transport out there to make sure that they can continue to deliver the goods around Australia, even though they're going to pay 10 per cent more at the bowser and they're going to pay a hell of a lot more than that when they turn on the power switch. This is reckless, reckless politics by those opposite. But they're always about the politics. They're always about doing dodgy deals with the Greens. They're never about the family. They're never about the small business—those operators who are worried about whether they're going to be able to make ends meet.
We heard in question time today from the Minister for Education. He mightn't have realised it, but he was talking about higher education, and I thought it was the best answer, to be honest, in question time today, if not the whole week. He talked about the fact that we can make money out of higher education without having to dig something up out of the ground. He belled the cat—he absolutely did—because he acknowledged by that very phrase that we make money by digging things up out ground, and we've been doing it for decades. I tell you what—digging things up out of the ground has paid for a lot of schools, has paid for a lot of hospitals and has kept the lights on. It has made us—and kept us—one of the great nations of the world. But those opposite, with their reckless disregard for ensuring power prices are kept low, have ditched households and small businesses.
It wasn't that long ago—in fact, it was prior to the last election—that Labor said they were going to reduce power prices. Ninety-seven times—a Bradman-like number—the Prime Minister said that they were going to reduce power prices by $275. We haven't heard that number come out of the Prime Minister's mouth since, and for good reason, because we heard today that power prices are going to go up. And when are they going to go up? They're going to go up in the coldest months, in winter. How are people going to pay their power bills when prices go up by as much as 20 per cent? They were going down under us. The fact remains that this is going to send a lot of businesses to the wall. This is going to make it so hard for families who are already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. This is not good.
Each and every one of the Labor members opposite is no doubt getting constituent calls about what they're doing. They ought to be honest, look those people in the eye and say: 'Well, we're going to be closing power stations. We're turning our back on coal and gas. We're turning our back on the very industries that keep the lights on, keep power prices low and keep the country running.' I say: shame on Labor members. They ought to think long and hard. That $275 reduction was a great big fib.
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (15:36): Here we go—another day, another MPI when those opposite feign outrage at the problems they created; another day, another MPI when they fail to acknowledge the plans of this government to fix the energy policy failures they left the country. All of those opposite know that we are taking urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of the Liberals' energy price spikes.
I hope the member for Riverina tells his constituents how he voted against energy price relief when we came back here in December last year and put a cap on coal and gas prices and provided targeted energy bill relief, which was backed by every premier in every state and territory. We know that since the announcement of that price intervention forward prices are significantly less than what they would have been under the Liberals.
Those opposite voted to make power bills for families hundreds of dollars higher than they needed to be. They voted against targeted energy bill relief for thousands of Australian households and businesses, they voted against energy bill relief for pensioners and families doing it tough, and they voted against energy price relief for small businesses and manufacturers. Those opposite think it's fine and dandy for Aussie manufacturers to shut as they get slogged with upward-spiralling gas prices from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
We've done more than our energy price relief plan. We've just rolled out our small business energy grants. These grants will support businesses to upgrade and replace inefficient equipment, improving their energy efficiency. These grants, from $10,000 to $25,000, are available right now for small and medium-sized businesses to upgrade their facilities. They'll enable industry to reduce its energy prices, manage energy costs and improve its viability in the long term. This will contribute to Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030. And—get this—the objective of this program is to reduce power bills for small and medium-sized businesses.
Then, of course, there are this government's huge investments in renewable energy, not only direct investments from government but also investments from the private sector because of the certainty that we have provided to the energy market. I'll let the opposition in on a little secret, Madam Deputy Speaker: the cheapest form of energy right now is renewable energy. Everyone knows it—the world knows it; Australians know it—but those over there refuse to accept it. To put downward pressure on energy bills, Australians need to invest in the cheapest form of power today. Since we came to power, large-scale wind and solar farm investments have grown. They grew by 50 per cent in 2022, totalling 4.3 gigawatts of new, cheap power. The second half of last year also saw a step up in rooftop solar investment by families, with over 300,000 small-scale rooftop systems adding 2.8 gigawatts of power, and all we see from those opposite is energy chaos. ARENA is investing $176 million in eight large-scale batteries. Then, of course, we have the $400 million investment in community batteries, which will help those communities store energy overnight and use free power at night. We're investing in renewable energy because it's cheap and it's good for the planet.
Contrast that to what those opposite want to do: they want to revive nuclear. They've been talking about nuclear energy in this place since 1955. Senator Spooner spoke about it in this place in 1955. There was not a peep about it in their last nine years in government. They dangle this radioactive carrot every couple of years. They bring it up and they all talk about it. It's all talk, no action. Let's have a look at what they're talking about. Two reputable organisations have costed the small modular reactors at $5 billion a reactor. We need 80 across the grid, they predict. That's $400 billion for their nuclear folly. It'd be cheaper to go to Wakanda and mine some vibranium than it would be to invest in nuclear power. We've had 'Kooyong Forever'. They're now going 'Wakanda Forever'.
The solution for cheap energy is investment in renewables. Those opposite want to go nuclear, and it will be bad for our country.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (15:41): I'd like to bring this MPI down to the granular level and the reason we're here, and that is our people—our people and those people who run businesses in our electorates. I cannot believe for one moment that the members sitting opposite haven't spoken to their constituents on this very issue of their power bills going through the roof. I don't believe for one second that you haven't had emails or telephone calls saying, 'My bill has gone up 20 per cent,' or, '40 per cent.' We'd all have examples, but for some reason—and that reason would be a broken promise of $275 said by the Prime Minister on 97 occasions—you're not bringing those stories to the fore.
Cynthia and Allan Ross from South West Rocks in my electorate are two pensioners. They live frugally. They don't go out spending money at the pub or putting it through the pokies. They live frugally because they're on the pension. Recently we saw an increase in the pension of $44 a fortnight. They just got notification that their electricity bill is going up 44 per cent. That equates to $11 a week for them. So that automatically takes away half of that increase to the age pension that they received. Imagine their terror when they heard that the bills are going to go up another 20 per cent in winter. That's not us saying that; there's a report in the newspaper today from Origin Energy—on 1 July, 20 per cent. So you can wipe out that increase to the age pension for Allan and Cynthia Ross in South West Rocks.
Worse is yet to come if we then talk about businesses. Peter Feros owns the Dorrigo hotel. Dorrigo is not awash with money. He gets his regular clients in there. He called me recently. He had to renew his contract. His bill is going up $25,000. What does that mean? He might have to lay off workers. He might have to lay off staff.
These are just examples from around the country and, as I said, I do not believe for one moment that these examples aren't happening in the electorates of members opposite. It's happening in all our electorates. If that's the price that the Dorrigo Hotel has to pay, imagine what the people living in Dorrigo are having to pay? I can tell you right now that Dorrigo gets very, very cold in the winter. People will be rugging up with blankets and jumpers rather than switching on their air-conditioners because, come 1 July, that 20 per cent goes straight onto their bills.
Add that to cost-of-living pressures. I'm more than happy to say that I actually do the shopping at Coles on a Sunday, and that I know what things cost. In the past 12 months I've seen that go up by 30 per cent—I can guarantee you that. People out there are hurting, and when they're lied to by the Prime Minister, who said, 'We're going to save you $275 a year,' that hurts. It hurts because they believed him, and that's why he's the Prime Minister. He broke that promise to the Australian people and they're out there hurting. But Labor are sticking their heads in the sand about power prices and the cost of living, pointing the finger at the coalition. In reality, we pushed prices down: we pushed electricity prices down.
They can hurl headlong into ideology, but on the street, at that granular level, those people who we represent and those businesses we represent are hurting. The Prime Minister broke his promise.
Ms FERNANDO (Holt) (15:46): The Albanese Labor government was elected on a mandate to deliver immediate cost-of-living relief to millions of Australians who were struggling due to the mess left behind by those on the other side of this chamber. This includes rorts—too many to name—and a trillion dollars of debt. As a nation, we're also faced with crises at home and across from our shores which impact on our economy. First was the global pandemic, which put severe pressure on supply chains across the world. On the other hand we have the year-long war in Europe due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which is creating havoc in energy markets around the world and pushing electricity prices higher at home. I understand the impact that higher energy prices are having on households and businesses, and wish that the previous government had been aware of the risks of playing games with our nation's domestic energy policy. Instead it was left to those who did nothing but leave a decade of chaos and delay behind them.
Last December, we took action to take some of the burden of higher power prices off in order to support families, small businesses and Australian manufacturers. After nearly a decade in government, one would expect the opposition to be more aware of the way that government and the government's policies work. I guess that expectation only holds if they took action during those nine years. Unfortunately, the impact of government policies are rarely felt overnight and it will take some time for the benefits of the Albanese Labor government's policies to flow through fully, but there are encouraging signs that our actions are starting to work. We're seeing a big reduction in the price increases that were forecast for 2023.
After seeing a decade of energy policy chaos, the opposition voted against action on power prices and tried to block direct energy price relief. That's correct: the very same opposition that accuses the government of failing to deliver reductions on energy prices actually failed to support reductions on energy prices. They can talk the talk but they can never walk the walk. If the opposition had their way, power prices would be even higher and households would get what they got over the past decade of inaction: nothing. They are hopelessly out of touch to think that Australian households, businesses and manufacturers should not get the support that they need and deserve. The opposition's record is stellar in leaving no stone unturned to make life harder for honest, hardworking everyday Australians. First, they helped create the problem with their decade of energy policy chaos. Then they kept power price increases a secret until after the federal election last year.
Finally, they tried to block direct energy price relief for households and businesses. If we had let them get their way, families across this country would be paying over $230 more on their power bills than they would otherwise have to, without a cent of extra support.
We on this side are taking urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of these energy spikes. Since the announcement of the intervention, forward prices have dropped significantly from what they would have been. According to the latest AEMO quarterly energy dynamics report, energy feature prices began trending down in November in anticipation of the government's intervention. We will have further announcements in the near future about the remaining elements of the plan, including targeted rebates for consumers and small businesses. We are wasting no time in delivering a stable policy framework to reduce volatility in the market, put downward pressure on prices and encourage increased investment in transmission. I applaud the Albanese Labor government, particularly the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, for providing effective, efficient energy price relief for all Australians. I thank the House.
Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (15:51): One of the simplest premises of Australian public life is you only make promises you both intend to keep and are capable of keeping. As a new candidate in 2022, I, like my friend here, the member for Menzies, endured the most rigorous of process to ensure that every single promise I made for the betterment of the lives of the good folk of Flinders could be funded and implemented within the responsible boundaries of a future coalition government. It was a process that was thorough, if not bordering on torturous, but it meant that both I and, more importantly, my constituents could be confident that whatever I said I could deliver, I would actually deliver under a returned coalition.
So it has been with some shock that I have observed the callous indifference to the promises made to the Australian people by the Australian Labor Party during their 2022 campaign. Nowhere is that disregard more stark than in energy prices. Last year the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, promised all Australians their energy bills would go down. His promise wasn't broad or in general terms. It wasn't a throw away, 'They will be less under Labor' or a 'Blah, blah, I don't know what the number is.' It was a categorical promise, a calculated and clear categorical promise electricity prices would go down by $275—$275, not by $200, not by $250, but by $275, on the money, not a penny more, not a penny less. It wasn't something he said once—a slipped remark, a hasty promise, tongue-twisted moment of forgetfulness. He said it 97 times. Part of me is tempted to stand here and say it 97 times or find 97 different ways of saying it so no-one misses the intent. 'Electricity prices will go down by $275 under Labor. Labor will reduce your electricity prices by $275. You will save $275 on your electricity bills under an Albanese government. Albo's going to underwrite your electricity bill by $275. Need a break from your electricity bills? That is okay, because we are going to pay the first $275 in 2023.' That's five. Technically, to be on par, I still have 92 to go. But in instead of delivering anything like a $275 or even $2.75 reduction, the Prime Minister has delivered the most expensive average wholesale electricity prices on record. This week we heard it is going to get worse, with expectations the Australian Energy Regulator will announce a 20 per cent increase in the default market offer for electricity prices next week, to take effect on 1 July.
I am perplexed. If I am perplexed, the Australian public has every right to be absolutely flabbergasted. I have a vague recollection of being recalled to Canberra last December. We had risen for the parliamentary year, said our farewells and had all returned to our electorates to care for our constituents and provide support across their activities in the lead-up to the Christmas break. Then the PM called us all back to Canberra for a single sitting day on 15 December. It cost more than $1 million to bring us all back, and the parliament passed the Prime Minister's Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan ) Bill 2022. At the time, the ABC described the outcome as follows:
Gas prices will be capped for a year in an effort to restrain runaway electricity price increases, after a last-minute meeting of parliament before the year's end.
'Oh, goodie!' you could be fooled for thinking, watching the news that night. And then the letters started to come from power companies across the nation to our kitchen tables, telling us we faced 30 per cent increases in the next year: 'Dear Elizabeth, on 1 February 2023, your natural gas rates are going up. We understand this isn't the news you want to hear'—or perhaps expected to hear—'and we're here if you need to talk to us. What's happening at a glance? We estimate it will cost you an additional $730 a year, $900 a year, $1,000 year.'
I got an email from a pensioner, Eddie, in my electorate, dated 11 January: 'I would like to express my concern re the recent price increase as advised by my service provider. On the information provided by them, I have calculated the current charges for domestic supply will increase, in my case, by 39.6 per cent effective February 2023.' A couple of days later, I got an email from Joe and Julie in my electorate. It read: 'We just received notification from our gas supplier advising of the new charges for gas supplied to our residence. Based on past usage it is estimated that our cost of gas will increase by $667.62, representing an over 50 per cent increase.'
These increases are as a direct result of the ALP, state and federal, demonising gas and, in particular, the Andrews government's ban on all types of exploration in Victoria for the last eight years. On the money—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Thank you. Member for Cunningham.
Ms BYRNES (Cunningham) (15:56): If the member for Fairfax wants to talk about failure to deliver on energy, then maybe he needs to pick up a mirror and have a really good, hard look into it. By doing that, he will see there is a trail of mess and mismanagement that was left behind by his former government and its three prime ministers.
Reconstruction in the wake of the Liberal-National destruction won't happen overnight. It will take some time. But I can reassure the House and the member for Fairfax that, in the Illawarra, this Labor government isn't wasting a second in making the investments we need to rebuild the grid, lower energy prices and create the jobs of the future. These investments include $10 million to establish an energy future skill centre, located at the University of Wollongong so we have the skilled workforce to build the grid of the future; $2.5 million for a renewable energy training facility at the Wollongong TAFE, which will include upgrades to equipment and teaching aids; investing more than $1 million in a University of Wollongong study finding ways to keep Australia's grid secure through the renewable energy transformation; and investing in an Australian-German collaboration to reduce the cost of green hydrogen production and support cutting-edge technology in the industry, including close to $9 million to Hysata to work with Fraunhofer IPT to develop a new capillary-fed electrolyser to deliver low-cost hydrogen in Port Kembla. All of this is in addition to the New Energy Apprenticeships program, which will support Australians to train in the jobs of future and help power Australia's path to net zero emissions. Apprentices training in eligible occupations in the clean energy sector can now attract up to $10,000 in direct support, helping them to manage the cost of living while they train in the sectors essential to Australia's transition to a clean energy economy.
But, wait, there is more. This government is taking the lead on driving household electrification by committing $224.3 million to support 400 community batteries to store excess energy from rooftop solar generation. One of these batteries will be in Warrawong in my electorate, which is one of the lowest socioeconomic areas. This is a great win for the people in Warrawong; that's over 500 households. It is a suburb with some of the most vulnerable people, who will benefit from the Labor government's investment in a community battery. That's households that wouldn't be able to access clean energy technologies. They will be supported to gain the benefits of rooftop solar and other technologies, helping them to overcome the upfront capital costs of electrification.
We have also committed $100 million for the community solar banks program, which will support 25,000 households to access the benefits of community-scale solar, rooftop solar and clean energy technologies. These are real investments and real actions which are supporting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets of a 43 per cent reduction by 2030, net zero by 2050 and 82 per cent renewables into the grid by 2030. This is real and tangible action on climate change, which those opposite refused to take for far too long.
What are the Liberals listed investments to rebuild the grid, lower energy prices and create the jobs of the future for the Illawarra? They are outlined here: nothing. But, don't worry, the Greens party isn't much better. Their climate and energy plan and their Job-for-Job Guarantee, looking after coal communities, completely overlooks the Illawarra. The Hunter got a look-in, the Latrobe Valley got a look-in, Gladstone got a look-in, the Bowen Basin got a look-in, and even Collie in south-west WA is there. But the Illawarra doesn't even rate a mention in a Greens Party plan for the future.
Clearly, with the Liberals and the Greens parties, there isn't any respect for the workers of the Illawarra: the steel workers, the miners, the manufacturers, the educators and the innovators who are going to help us drive Australia to rebuild the grid, lower energy prices and create the jobs of the future.
After nearly a decade of neglect, the Albanese Labor government is roaring ahead, making up lost ground and getting on with the job. We are taking immediate action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of these energy price spikes. The plan is about taking some of the sting out of higher power prices to support families, protect local industries and save jobs.
Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies) (16:01): This issue may seem like an entertaining exercise for us to shoot invective across at each other, and it's good to see that new members are getting on their feet and doing that. Maybe we can't call ourselves new anymore; we're into the new year.
But we must never forget that what we do and say in this place affects real people, real people and real businesses. I will give you an example of one. In my electorate, there is a small business—or maybe a medium business—called Fratelli Engineering. Fratelli, for those who speak Italian, means brothers. It is a family business that was formed in 1996. We hear from those opposite that you want to make things here again. Guess what? Fratelli Engineering makes things here. It employs 20 people, many of whom have physical and mental disabilities, who work for a family business.
For the first time ever, that family business is now seriously questioning whether they can stay open. They have been there since 1996. I spoke to the owner, Sam Leo, just before I came in here for this debate. I asked him, 'What would you like to say to those opposite?' He said—and I didn't prompt him—'I trusted you. I trusted that you would help bring power bills down'. Trust matters. Trust matters because it goes to the heart of integrity. We are in opposition here, and that means we must reflect upon lessons learnt from that election last year. Integrity was one of them.
You may say that that's just about a corruption commission. We've heard a lot about that, and that was supported by this House and in the Senate. But it's not just about corruption commissions; it's about what we do and what we say. It's about trust. At the core of trust are promises. You can look at promises in two ways. You can look at a promise in a contractual way, in that there are consequences that may lead to a cause of action in a court. That's not what we're dealing with here. We're not dealing with promises that Australians can take you to court over. If we could, I would encourage Fratelli Engineering to go to court and have all of you as the respondents. We are talking about a moral obligation and a moral commitment. We can argue that is an even more important commitment for integrity and for trust. There is no cause of action, but it is about morality and moral consequences. People like Sam Leo and the pensioners that we heard about from many of the other speakers, who may seriously question whether, because of their power bills, they can turn the heating on, keep themselves warm and look after themselves and their families. They are going to make decisions this year, because they relied upon what was promised.
I don't know about those opposite, but I had a visit from the Edelman Trust Barometer. They spoke about a survey they did in this country on institutions and trust. There are some alarming conclusions. I encourage those opposite, if you have not read this, to listen to what I'm about to say. No institution is trusted by Australians anymore. Our institutions are out of balance. Government and media fuel a cycle of distrust and are seen as a source of misleading information. We are more divided today than we were in the past. This is a global survey: it's not just a problem here, but we must focus on what we can do in this country. Forty-five per cent of Australians surveyed think we are more divided than in the past. When asked about our social fabrics, 61 per cent said this: 'The lack of civility and mutual respect today is the worst I have ever seen.' The question of whether the social fabric that once held this country together has grown too weak to serve as a foundation for unity and common purpose—54 per cent. This is a problem that we must all face.
Leading up to an election, political parties make promises because there is a reward if that promise is believed. The reward is that you get to sit there and you get to occupy the blue-carpet offices. But people rely upon what you say. It's not just what the Prime Minister said but also what some of the candidates said. I'm going to single out one that happened in my electorate. The Labor candidate in the seat of Menzies in a quote to the Warrandyte Diary said that you, as a government, would match the fixing of the '5 Ways' intersection, where a young girl died. People in my electorate relied upon that promise that was made, then when I went to visit the minister about that commitment, guess what? It wasn't matched because the candidate didn't submit the paperwork. Guess what? Australians know you don't submit paperwork and they are onto you.
Dr CHARLTON (Parramatta) (16:06): Governments around the world are dealing with higher power prices. Australian is not immune. We're dealing with higher energy prices as well. It's painful and it's tough on the family budget. In this circumstance, Australians want two things: first of all, they want action; secondly, they want honesty. Unfortunately, they didn't get any of those things from those opposite when they were in government. They didn't get action—instead they had four gigawatts of generation leave the system and only one gigawatt come back in. They certainly didn't get honesty. The previous government hid the information that energy prices were set to rise.
We have had decades of denial and delay from this side, across four Liberal leaders. Leader number one, Tony Abbott, said that the science of climate change was 'crap' and that climate change was 'probably doing good'. That was Tony Abbott's hot take on climate change. He had a few corkers. The second leader, Malcolm Turnbull, described Liberal policy as 'an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing'—that's what he said about his own party. In 2009 he said that his fellow members of the Liberal Party 'do not believe in human-caused global warming'. After he left politics, Turnbull said that his biggest regret—and it was a long list, I assume—was a failure to secure meaningful climate policy. Who did he blame for this regret? He didn't blame Labor or business or any stakeholders. He certainly didn't blame himself, characteristically. He blamed his own party.
Then, we had Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, who brought a lump of coal into the parliament. He said the coalition's policy was for coal power stations 'to run as long as they possibly can'.
A government member: It wasn't even a decent sized piece of coal.
Dr CHARLTON: Thank you for that important interjection. He stood up in front of the world at COP26 and claimed that the government was acting on climate change the Australian way—which in his world meant doing nothing. What he meant was, 'the Australian government way' at that time. Leader number four is Peter Dutton, who thought that the devastation of rising sea levels in the Pacific was a joke. He joked about the risks of climate change for our important neighbours in the Pacific. This shows decades of disgraceful denial and disgraceful delay. They had 22 different climate change policies, and they didn't deliver one of them.
The saddest thing about this chaos is that it has left them so isolated. The Liberal Party like to think of themselves as the party of business—they think that's their natural constituency. But on this issue, businesses are leaving the Liberals in the rear-view mirror. On this issue, businesses are acting. They are putting in place targets to get to net zero. They are putting in place concrete plans. They are putting in place renewable energy. What they need is certainty. What they are crying out for is certainty. They have been waiting for decades for certainty, but it has not come from the so-called party of business.
In fact, the Liberal's climate policy is kryptonite for their core constituency. Businesses are walking away from them on climate, just like they're walking away from them on the Voice and just like they are walking away from them on fairness and gender equity. It is sad to see the Liberal Party, the party that thinks of itself as the voice of business, to be so distant from business. It must be embarrassing for the Liberals to see that their own constituency is so far out ahead of them, leaving them behind in its wake. If the coalition don't understand business's position on climate, if they don't understand the position of conservation groups and they aren't in touch with mainstream Australia, who is their climate policy for?
By contrast, we have taken strong action. We have been working with the states and territories on the delivery of the energy bill relief package; we have been taking action to limit coal and gas prices; we have been taking action to increase renewables in the grid; and we've been taking action to ensure that we get a sensible target that can be delivered in a way that will support jobs, support growth and support Australian industry.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The discussion has now concluded.
BILLS
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Schedule 10, item 1, page 29 (lines 6 to 8), omit subsection 61(13), substitute:
(13) The Secretary is not required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to:
(a) releasing information under subsection (5C) if:
(i) the release of the information is in the interests of public health or safety; or
(ii) the information relates to the safety of one or more therapeutic goods; or
(b) releasing information under any other provision of this section.
(2) Schedule 10, item 1, page 29 (line 11), after "this Act", insert "(including this section)".
(3) Schedule 10, item 1, page 29 (after line 11), after subsection 61(14), insert:
(15) For the purposes of subparagraph (13)(a)(i), the release of information is not in the interests of public health or safety if the information:
(a) relates to the quality or efficacy of therapeutic goods; and
(b) does not relate to the safety of the therapeutic goods.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper—Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) (16:11): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, or the bill, amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, or the act. The measures in the bill are intended to improve patient safety, support timely access to therapeutic goods, reduce regulatory burden and strengthen post-market compliance and enforcement activities.
The bill, as originally introduced into the House, included a measure to clarify that the natural justice hearing rule is not required to observed in relation to the release of therapeutic goods information. This is because an obligation to observe the natural justice hearing rule prior to releasing information could directly prevent or delay the release of health and safety information to the public or relevant stakeholders. Delaying the release of this information could risk the health and safety of patients, frontline healthcare workers and the public.
The government amendment to this measure will limit the exclusion of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the release of information to the public, under section 61(5C) of the act, to the release of information that is in the interests of public health or safety, or where the information relates to the safety of one or more therapeutic goods. These amendments balance the provision of the natural justice rule with the need to ensure the timely release of health and safety information to the public.
If the bill were to specify that the natural justice hearing rule is only required in relation to the release of critical or urgent safety information, this would present a risk to the safety of Australian patients, health professionals and the public as some safety information may not be available to them in a timely manner. The release of safety information is necessary to prevent harm and even potentially death. In some instances, TGA safety information is combined with information from other sources—for example, state and territory health departments—in order to recognise that the information concerns health or safety issues.
Overall, the release of therapeutic goods information under the act is a critical element of Australia's regulatory framework for therapeutic goods, as its use underpins community and healthcare industry awareness of the safe use of therapeutic goods, compliance and enforcement activities and cooperation with international regulators to bring new treatments to Australia as quickly as possible.
I thank the Senate for their support of this amendment and I commend the amendment to the House.
Question agreed to.
Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms MILLER-FROST (Boothby) (16:15): I rise today to speak to the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. As I have said many times in this place, there are few issues that were raised with me more often on the campaign trail than climate change—not just climate change itself but, more specifically, the previous government's failure to take the issue seriously and their actual standing in the way of climate action. My community were so frustrated at the denialism, the head-in-the-sand approach they saw from the previous government, as they watched one-in-100-year floods happening month after month in the eastern states and powerful storms wreaking havoc in areas that had never seen them before. They were frustrated at the previous government's failure to talk about the issue with any sense of reality, their failures to deliver on just one of the 22 failed energy policies, their failure to reckon with arguably the greatest challenge of our times. It was a complete policy vacuum. Even my South Australian colleague, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, burst out of the blocks the morning after the election to concede that the former government should have taken more serious action on climate.
This brings me to the current position of those opposite. After the election, we heard noises from the opposition that they got it, that climate was a key issue and played a huge role in the loss of so many of their heartland seats. And yet here we are: a Liberal National coalition in this place is actively opposing and criticising sensible, achievable climate policy that is backed by business, is backed by industry and is in fact an enhancement of their own policy.
This bill is part of a broader climate change policy that this government is committed to implementing. As I remarked during the debate of the Climate Change Act 2022, which enshrined our commitment to reach 43 per cent reduction in net emissions by 2030, we need to take action in a way that brings the community and business and industry with us. That bill, which was passed by this parliament on 8 September, lays the critical groundwork needed to deliver our promise on real climate change action. Make no mistake: that target is an ambitious target. It is going to be difficult to get there. We should have started a decade ago. So we need practical measures that will move us towards 43 per cent by 2030 and then towards net zero.
An enhanced safeguard mechanism, something this bill will allow, is essential to supporting Australia's transition towards net zero. It will help steer Australia's largest industrial facilities smoothly on the path towards reducing their emissions gradually, predictably and in line with our national targets. This bill supports a crucial element of the safeguard mechanism: crediting. Issuing businesses that have ready-to-go, low-cost abatement opportunities with tradeable safeguard mechanism credits incentivises climate action and is a way of tangibly rewarding those who are future-ready and able to reduce their emissions faster than required.
Australian businesses and their investors know the world is changing. Anyone in this place who is serious about engaging with their community knows that business knows this too. Those opposite might try to play them for fools, selling them a fantasy in which nothing is changing and no action needs to be taken, but Australian business and industry aren't buying it. They can see what's happening all around us. They know that following through with credible targets is necessary not just to remain competitive but to innovate and thrive in a dynamic market. That's why the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has backed our net-zero target and said that, in order to achieve it, changes to the design of the safeguard mechanism are essential. It's why BP—not exactly a climate hero; sorry BP—supports reforms to the safeguard mechanism to provide incentives for large emitters to reduce their emissions. And it's why the Clean Energy Council and Energy Efficiency Council both support reforms to the safeguard mechanism to drive innovation in new technologies like green hydrogen. Many businesses operating facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism have already made long-term climate commitments that surpass Australia's targets. These reforms will provide a strong investment signal to them as well as an effective, equitable, efficient and simple scheme to bolster their action.
We simply can't afford another wasted decade. This is always how real action on climate change was going to be achieved in the first place: by finding a sensible middle ground, by finding something workable, which maybe everyone doesn't love—that is perhaps too much to ask in a democracy—but something that people can live with and work with, something that will reduce the emissions and that will give industry certainty.
Above and beyond everything else, the people of Boothby last year voted for action on climate change. It was for real action on climate change, which meant that groups who for too long have been pitted against each other—industry and environmental advocates, people in cities versus people in regions—could find a reasonable, sensible solution that brings us all on the journey to net zero in a way that protects Australian jobs and Australian competitiveness. I say to those opposite, both to our left and to our right: are you really going to once again vote against real climate action?
To those on our political Right, I'm quite stunned that—after the election of 2022, after the fires, the floods, the cyclones, the droughts with increasing frequency and intensity, the dire warnings, the scientific consensus, and industry, business and agriculture calling for climate action—those opposite simply refuse to engage on this issue. It's the defining challenge of our time, and the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite simply have nothing to add, nothing to contribute. They will even oppose this policy—a policy based on one that they implemented, albeit in a toothless form, in government.
I cannot tell you how many people have approached me and continue to approach me across Boothby. People are telling me that, until last year, they had only ever voted Liberal, and, until last year, Boothby had not been held by the Labor Party for 73 years. I've had people of all ages and from all walks of life tell me that, while they had only ever voted for the Liberals in the past, they just couldn't this time. They couldn't live with themselves because of the obstinate, irrational, antiscience, climate change denial position of those opposite, and those opposite still haven't got the message.
There are plenty of reasons why the last election results were the way they were, and many with more political experience than me have analysed the results. From my observations, it was due to a decade of neglect and denial on a whole range of issues, from a failure to ease the pressure of the cost of living, to a lack of integrity from the top down and their appalling failures in the treatment of women. But the lack of action—indeed, a failure to even take the threat of climate change seriously—was to my mind the driving reason they lost so many seats. What are they doing differently? Nothing.
Katharine Murphy from the Guardian has described the Leader of the Opposition as a 'microwaved Tony Abbott'. Of course, I would never say such a thing, but she is referencing what is becoming increasingly obvious to all: the opposition's standard response to everything is just to oppose everything, irrespective of whether it's good for the country.
To those on our political Left, I too want more ambitious climate action, and I'll push for it wherever I can, but I did not come here to stand in the way of the possible or to stand in the way of the first steps. It may not be perfect—almost nothing that comes through this place is—but that is the nature of democracy, and it's not something to be ashamed of. This action will drive down emissions, and that's important. It will be the proof of concept that we can drive down emissions and support business, industry and agriculture—indeed, even create more opportunities for them. It will mean Australia can hold its head high on the world stage, and it's a huge step in securing our environment for future generations.
It's well past time to take real action on climate change, and I'd like to finish by reading a few of the submissions to the consultation. The Investor Group on Climate Change said:
A reformed safeguard is essential to Australia's competitive advantage.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry:
With the new climate change legislation committing Australia to reduce national emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050, changes to the design of the Safeguard Mechanism are essential.
The Grattan Institute: 'The federal government has a mandate for reform and it should seize it.' Toll: 'We believe building on the safeguard mechanism will promote policy certainty and stability while delivering on the government's climate targets in a way that minimises costs and shares the effort across the economy.' The Australian Aluminium Council:
The focus of policy design for safeguard mechanism should be on establishing a framework to maintain industry, jobs and competitiveness while also decarbonising, through the period to 2030 and beyond to achieve net zero by 2050. The success of this policy will not be measured in 2030 alone, but in the transformation of Australia's industry in the biggest clean industrial and economic revolution this country has seen.
BP:
…reaffirms its support for reforms to the safeguard mechanism to provide incentives for large emitters to reduce their emissions in support of Australia's emission reduction targets. We support the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and believe ambitious climate policies, like the safeguard mechanism reforms, will be essential to enable the world and Australia to meet these goals. We look forward to working with the government as the reforms are finalized.
The Clean Energy Council:
A strong emissions reduction policy for the industrial sector can also be a catalyst to the development of new net-zero industries, such as green hydrogen, green ammonia and green metals.
The Energy Efficiency Council: 'We strongly support the government's proposal to enhance the safeguard mechanism by declining facility baselines. Overall, the EEC believes the reforms to the safeguard mechanism should make a substantial contribution to Australia's emissions targets and jump start the transition to achieving a net zero economy no later than 2050.' Rio Tinto:
… supports the use of a reformed Safeguard Mechanism as part of a suite of policy measures to incentivise genuine industrial abatement.
Origin Energy is, 'supportive of developing a policy framework that is consistent with ensuring safeguard facilities deliver a proportionate share of national emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, having regard to the relevant contributions of all sectors of the economy'. Woodside:
A fair, robust and transparent Safeguard Mechanism…can support a reduction in Australian emissions, as well as encourage businesses and industries to further innovate and adopt smarter practices and technologies in line with our collective emissions reduction targets.
APPEA: 'While the safeguard mechanism is not an economy-wide approach, appropriately designed it can form part of an economy-wide package of measures that encourage low-cost abatement whilst supporting economic growth.' AGL:
We strongly support the strengthening of the Safeguard Mechanism to meaningfully contribute to these climate targets and to meet Australia's overall emissions reduction task.
Carbon Market Institute:
At its core, the enhanced Mechanism should be designed to drive industrial decarbonisation in order to strengthen Australia's competitiveness in a carbon-constrained global economy.
This is a bill that has the support of business, of industry and of the community. It is the first step on our way forward to 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero. It not only offers us the opportunity to decarbonise it offers us the opportunity to transform our industry. I commend the bill to the House.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER: It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Eating Disorders
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (16:29): According to the Butterfly Foundation, one million Australians are currently impacted by or living with disordered eating. I have had constituents reach out to me with their concerns about the prevalence of eating disorders and seeking help for treatment of their children. Globally, one in five children and adolescents have signs of disordered eating. There is a shockingly high volume of Australians who are impacted by these complex and dynamic disorders. Less than a quarter of those people are receiving the help, support and intervention they need. More needs to be done to extend the existing targeted mental health support and treatment to those who need it. My team and I have engaged with experts in the youth mental health space, and I wish to thank Professor Pat McGorry, Professor Maree Teesson and organisations such as ReachOut Australia and the Society for Mental Health Research for their work in this space and for sharing their insights with us.
Disordered eating can be incredibly varied, and the symptoms may not always be apparent. While anorexia is the most talked about disorder, binge eating and bulimia are actually the most prevalent. We need to break down the stigma around these ailments and enhance public awareness of them. Symptoms can be incredibly subtle. We need to know the warning signs, including meticulous calorie or kilojoule counting; ritualistic eating times or routines; excessive exercise; fear of eating in front of people; or fixating on safe foods only, including strange combinations of foods.
Every member in this parliament represents people in their electorates who are living with eating disorders. It's our responsibility to address the rise in cases urgently and, just as importantly, the amount of treatments that are available. Genetic vulnerability, psychological factors and sociocultural influences have all been identified as leading causes of disordered eating. Some areas of our community are at higher risk than others—for example, in sport. Athletes have a higher prevalence of disordered eating, and up to 45 per cent of female and up to 19 per cent of male athletes experience disordered eating. The National Eating Disorders Collaboration has been working with the Australian Institute of Sport to tackle this issue, which was exacerbated when training programs shut down during COVID.
But we saw COVID impact our youth in general as well, because those lockdown periods meant that young people turned to what they thought they could control in circumstances where so much was beyond their control. Unfortunately, we've seen a dramatic increase in numbers. Since the beginning of the pandemic, some hospitals have recorded an increase of between 80 to 104 per cent in children with anorexia. It's also well known how impactful social media can be on young people. Young people are bombarded by perfect people, with perfect bodies and perfect lifestyles. The constant exposure to significantly filtered and edited images does indeed warp our perception of what is authentic and what is augmented.
There are treatments that can help, although some eating disorder journeys can take a long time towards recovery. We know that these impact not just on those who are impacted directly but also on their families—the wider circle. It often means parents take time out of the workforce. It means disrupted studies and disrupted ability to work and support the rest of the broader family. We know there's a severe shortage in the mental health workforce, and the workforce treating eating disorders is factored into this. General practitioners are generally the first point of contact for treatment but, again, there's a shortage here, which is widely acknowledged. Currently, Australia only has one dedicated residential treatment centre for eating disorders in the entire country.
ReachOut's research suggests that friends, family and the internet are where young people are turning to when seeking mental health support. A simple Google search can often be the first step to connecting with a service that can make a profound difference to someone's mental and emotional wellbeing, so more attention should be given to digital connection and interaction with mental health services. These innovations, whether it be telehealth or ReachOut's peer chat program, see really promising results in access to services. Some people prefer the discretion, anonymity and comfort of accessing support in their own time from their own home. I welcome the commitment of $20 million by the previous government to creative treatments for eating disorders and encourage further focus by this government on increasing access to services.
Dwyer, Ms Christine
Australian Capital Territory: Community Events
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (16:34): I rise today to acknowledge one of my constituents, Christine Dwyer. Christine has been a member of the Canberra community for over 40 years and has spent many of those years volunteering for organisations like Meals on Wheels and the Canberra Hospital ICU. However, it's the informal service she gives to the Canberra community that I want to acknowledge today.
Christine is a friend to all, but particularly a friend to the elderly in Canberra. She has supported many elderly Canberrans who have no family here to their end of life. She does this not just for friends of many decades but for strangers who she makes into friends. She takes them to coffee, to lunch, to the doctor and to hospital appointments. She has helped move them to nursing homes and thoughtfully taken care of household possessions and affairs, tasks that are not easy and that most of us will only ever do for our parents. But Christine steps in when there is a gap and a need. She is a true friend who knows how to ease the burden of loneliness in old age, mostly with visits, cake and listening. She has sat with so many friends in their final hours and given them companionship and peace.
She has also been a constant presence for friends who are caring for their own elderly family members, offering an understanding shoulder to cry on when this task gets too heavy. And she has supported children who have lost their mothers too early, children who are now young adults but who have had Christine watch out for them and mentor them throughout their lives. On behalf of the Canberra community and on behalf of, in particular, Trish, Christina, Olive, Constance, Bette, Carole, Margaret, Harry and the many others who we do not know about and who are not here to say it for themselves: thank you, Christine.
It was great to participate in and support the Epilepsy ACT Walk for Epilepsy on Sunday morning with Fiona Allardyce and ACT Minister for Health Rachel Steven-Smith. Epilepsy ACT makes a significant difference in the lives of families living with epilepsy. There are over 2,340 people in the ACT currently with a diagnosis of epilepsy and hundreds more will receive their diagnosis this year. Epilepsy ACT brings hope to those living with or impacted by epilepsy throughout Canberra and the region. They provide psychosocial supports, education and training, and policy advocacy work to ensure the voice of people with epilepsy is heard.
Last year the Albanese government announced more than $250 million in funding, through the NHMRC and across three different funding streams, to support 258 exceptional health and medical research projects. This includes funding for a team of researchers to investigate therapeutic targets for epilepsy. In one-third of people with epilepsy, currently available therapeutics do not control seizures. As recurrent seizures have significant impacts on patients and their families, there is a clear need for new anti-epileptic drugs. I'm proud to be part of a government funding programs that encourage important medical scientific innovation and supporting organisations like Epilepsy ACT, which do so much for Canberrans living with epilepsy.
February was a busy month in my electorate of Bean, with the launch of my 2023 Bean retiree and seniors kits. This booklet contains high-quality, up-to-date information on services that are available to meet the needs of senior citizens living in Bean. For the first time in three years, we were able to launch this booklet in person rather than online. It was great to meet so many of the senior constituents of Bean, the people who have made our electorate the place that it is today. But it was also great to see the attendees at the event asking questions and connecting with the services that are available to them in Bean, such as the new aged-care specialist services offered by Services Australia.
I would like to thank the staff of Woden Seniors Inc and the team from Communities at Work at the Tuggeranong Community Centre for all the assistance they gave in organising these events. I would like to thank the community groups, local organisations and government representatives who joined us at this event. I was impressed by the depth of knowledge shown by service providers and organisations on the issues faced by the elderly today and by their ability to assist constituents with the problems that they are facing.
As we finish this week, I thought at the beginning of the week that sorry was the hardest word for the opposition to say. But, clearly, when we should be backing Australian know-how, the only know-how that the opposition seems to have is in knowing how to say no.
Bowman Electorate: Community Infrastructure
Mr PIKE (Bowman) (16:39): As another parliamentary sitting week draws to a close, I want to update the House on my progress to hold the government to account on the promises they made to my electorate of Bowman. During last year's federal election, the Labor opposition made $4.6 million in local sporting and community commitments to organisations within the Redlands. These clubs and associations have been waiting anxiously for news over the subsequent 10 months to find out if and when these commitments will be honoured by the new government.
Despite a long campaign of letters, media pressure and speeches in this place, it was only this week that I finally got confirmation from the government that funding for these commitments will come from the $349.9 million contained in the budget under the Investing in Our Communities Program. I note that these commitments were made for this parliamentary term, but this funding stream is over five years, extending not just beyond this term of parliament but beyond the forward estimates. Given the uncertainties of the world and our economic situation, I worry that funding commitments made beyond the budget cycle offer little certainty to these organisations within the Redlands. Given we are 10 months into this three-year term and the government is yet to engage with these groups on the delivery of these projects, I have little confidence that these projects will be delivered before we next go to the polls, but I will be working with these groups to try to expedite the delivery of this funding over the coming months.
But let's look at the entire quantum of funding for my electorate. If you look at the total funding for closed grants programs contained in the budget which are earmarked to deliver the government's election commitments, projects in Bowman represent a mere 0.341 per cent of the total funding within these two streams. When I put that into an Excel spreadsheet, the calculation actually came up as zero; I had to change the settings to find that number. I stand here as one of 151 members of this chamber. My community should be receiving a 150th share of the funding. Instead, we are receiving a one-in-293 share. So why does my community get about half of what we're due? Is it something to do with the fact that the Liberal Party has held the seat of Bowman for the past 19 years? I think we all know the answer to that one.
I also want to update the House on some big commitments made by the former coalition government for projects within my electorate which the new government is required to honour in order that these projects may be completed. The previous federal government announced $3.4 million over four years to deliver a new Head to Health facility in the new satellite hospital that's being built at Weinam Creek in Redland Bay. When I wrote to the minister to ask what's happening with this funding, I was informed that they're going back to the drawing board. They're going back to ask the state government and the primary health networks to resubmit their proposals for this funding. I wrote to the minister again last month, with no response to date. Despite my continual requests for an update on this program, there's been no word and no clarity on the future of this funding from this Labor government.
We've also got the Redland Hospital stage 1 expansion project. Back in May 2019 the federal Liberal and Nationals government committed $30 million to this project. I understand that $13.2 million is yet to be paid and is expected to be payable upon acceptance of a progress report for that project. I'll be working to ensure that the federal government is held to account on honouring this commitment and that the state government is held to account in delivering this project. I'm sure, Mr Speaker, that if you could pass that message on to anyone you know within your networks who control the purse strings within the Queensland government, that would be greatly appreciated.
Another concerning silence from this government is on the future of projects contained in the South East Queensland City Deal. The promised implementation plan was due at the end of last year and has failed to materialise. For my community, the city deal contains a commitment of $41 million for the Dunwich harbour upgrade on North Stradbroke Island, along with other projects that would be suitable for funding under the city deal's liveability and planning funding pools. This year is supposed to see the first annual progress report for the South East Queensland City Deal. I can only imagine that the progress report is currently a blank page, because we haven't seen any progress from the new government in delivering these projects or even an outline of who is going to pay for what.
Unfortunately, this is becoming a pattern for the new government; they promise one thing before the election and pursue quite a different agenda afterwards. We know what is happening to all these national promises that have occurred. I won't run through them now due to time, but I will continue in my efforts to hold the government to account on the promises that they've made to my community. (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: Health Care
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (16:44): I rise today to speak about the difficulties that too many Australians are having in accessing bulk-billed GPs and general practice more generally, and the need for strong action from the government in this area. After 10 years of inaction from the coalition, the Albanese Labor government has taken the reins of a health system in crisis. That's not surprising; we know that the coalition have a pathological and ideological obsession with gutting our universal healthcare system. We know it always falls to Labor to ensure that our healthcare system has the funding it needs. Labor knows that health care is a human right, that it should be universally available and not just there for those who can pay. While the problems left to Labor are wide ranging, today I want to focus on the particular area that impacts my community of Canberra deeply—and that is bulk-billing.
When the coalition came to power in 2014, under then health minister, Peter Dutton—who doctors voted as the worst health minister in living memory—GPs were under immediate attack. In the horror 2014 budget the coalition tried to impose a $7 tax on every single Australian who wanted to see a doctor. And they tried to impose a $5 tax on every PBS script billed. When Labor blocked that radical agenda in the Senate, Mr Dutton imposed a six-year-long freeze on the Medicare rebate, making it harder and harder for our doctors to bulk-bill. The results today are abundantly clear. In my community, the ACT has the lowest GP bulk-billing rate in the country.
According to the 2023 Cleanbill Blue Report, only 5.1 per cent of GPs in Canberra bulk-bill. That's compared to a national average of 42.7 per cent. The result means that every time one of my constituents needs to see their doctor they'll be out of pocket by around $50 for a 15-minute consultation, or $66 or more for longer consultations. This is unsustainable and, for people with chronic conditions, this is a crippling cost. One of the key reasons for this frighteningly low rate of bulk-billing was the 2020 decision by the former government to remove ACT and Queanbeyan doctors from the eligibility criteria for rural incentives. That meant that doctors were paid 34 per cent less when they bulk-billed children and concession patients. As a result, naturally, our bulk-billing rates plummeted further. Obviously, I understand that Canberra is not a rural area, but when it comes to bulk-billing my constituents cop some of the worst outcomes in the country. Justifiably, my constituents want to see this change.
In my 2020 Canberra community survey, 416 Canberrans listed health care as one of their top issues. When asked to expand on this, the vast majority of those said that the lack of bulk-billing was their key concern. Joan said: 'It's impossible to find any bulk-billing GPs in the ACT. Every time I go to the doctor I get charged a gap of $60 to $80 for a 15-minute consultation. This is a huge hit to our family budget.' Zoe said, 'Due to the Medicare freeze, bulk-billing GP practices simply don't exist in Canberra anymore.' Morgan in my electorate wrote to me about being slugged for out-of-pocket costs of $95 to see his GP and by $200 for imaging services. These are things I hear about all the time.
This needs to change, and I'm so heartened by our progress in reforming health care in Australia already. On 1 January this year we delivered the biggest cut to the price of PBS medicines in the 75-year history of the scheme, slashing the price of general patient scripts from $42.50 to just $32. And in just the first two months of this year the prices of more than 3.2 million scripts have already come down, delivering more than $36 million into the pockets of hardworking Australians.
I have also been heartened to hear Minister Butler talk about the need to fix bulk-billing in Australia, and I want to thank the minister and his office for their engagement with me on this issue so far. I continue to urge him to consider the needs of my community here in Canberra if a regional solution is proposed, because Canberrans can't afford the coalition's bills anymore.
Superannuation: Taxation
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore—Second Deputy Speaker) (16:49): Self-funded retirees make a significant contribution to our nation and its finances, however, their interests are often overlooked by government and they become the targets for revenue raising to prop up budgets. The recent announcement of increases in tax on superannuation is a prime example. Despite stating that there would be no changes to the taxation arrangements on superannuation before being elected, the Prime Minister has gone back on his word. The finance minister has since exposed the impact of the Prime Minister's broken promises on super by admitting that up to one in 10 Australians could be affected by Labor's changes to super, not just the top 0.5 per cent initially claimed. The government has not only broken its superannuation promises to Australians but has also been deliberately tricky and misleading about how many people will be affected by the superannuation tax. In contributing to the adjournment debate, I wish to advocate for the interest of fully and partly self-funded retirees living in my electorate who have made prudent sacrifices to provide for their retirement. I wish to thank Mr Ron de Gruchy OAM, representing Western Australia Self Funded Retirees Incorporated and the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers' Association (WA) Incorporated, who met with me last week to discuss their 2023-24 pre-budget submission in detail.
The first recommendation in their submission is that the pre-1 July 1988 taxation arrangements for the 1922 pension scheme, the PNG scheme and the CSS, PSS and ComSuper pensions be treated in the same manner as all other superannuation schemes. The second recommendation is that pensioners in receipt of the Centrelink age pension be allowed to engage in paid employment with no corresponding reduction in their pension amount. The third is that the mandatory minimum drawdown percentages of superannuation funds applicable to people over the age of 60 be reviewed with the intention of lowering them. The fourth recommendation is that the work test applicable to retirees for personal concessional contributions to superannuation be abolished. The fifth recommendation is that retirees be able to transfer funds into superannuation at the prescribed contribution levels irrespective of their age.
The sixth recommendation is that Australian citizens over the age of 65 and with a disability recognised under the current NDIS legislation be accorded the same benefits, both financial and otherwise, as are accorded to those people under the age of 65. The simplest way for this to happen is for the NDIS legislation to be amended to include those aged over 65. If this is not practicable, then the aged-care legislation should be amended so as to produce the same desired outcome. The seventh recommendation is that the Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net thresholds for single retirees be restructured so that access to them becomes available at 65 per cent of the levels applicable to couples and families. The eighth recommendation is that the seniors and pensioners' tax offset, currently at $2,230 for singles, be adjusted annually to account for increases in the cost of living, and that the SAPTO rebate 'shade out' income thresholds should be increased immediately so as to be equal to the Medicare levy low-income threshold. They should then be reviewed annually so as to always be equal to the Medicare levy low-income threshold. The final recommendation is that the components of a retiree's income derived from an untaxed superannuation scheme and from other sources be assessed separately for taxation purposes, as is the case for the retirees who derive an income from a taxed superannuation scheme.
I commend the 2023-24 pre-budget submission by Western Australia Self Funded Retirees and the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers' Association (WA) to the House.
Paterson Electorate: Roads
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (16:54): One of the most important things anyone can do is deliver on their commitments. At the last election, I committed to my community that an Albanese Labor government would work to end the chaos on the M1 at Raymond Terrace and deliver the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace.
One of the biggest frustrations in my community—and it's often referred to as the last choke point on the Pacific Highway, or the M1, as we now know it, between Sydney and Brisbane—is the Hexham Crossing. Coming south it's an old bridge and going north it's a flyover that no longer serves the volume of traffic that it sees. Many locals say it should have been done 10 years ago. Well, it wasn't, but the Albanese government are delivering on our commitment to do it, and we are doing it now. True to our word, our federal government is delivering on the commitment, contributing $1.68 billion of the $2.1 billion project. The New South Wales government will invest $420 million.
Since the election in 2016, when I first ran for parliament, I've campaigned fearlessly for this piece of road. I welcome this work, and I really want to say thank you to everyone in our community who has joined me and the Labor Party on the hunt to get the road fixed. I also want to thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister Catherine King, for supporting the project and committing to me last year that we would fast-track the M1 at Hexham. Well, we've done that. We are delivering on that important commitment. Minister King understands the importance of delivering the Hunter region's biggest-ever infrastructure project. I want to thank her and her team for working so hard, alongside me and my community, to see this project become a reality.
Sadly, the New South Wales Liberals have been complacent on this project in the past, not progressing it as quickly as they should have, but at least we've got them moving now. In December last year, with the New South Wales government, we announced John Holland Gamuda Australia Joint Venture as the contractor for the southern section of the project, covering the 10 kilometres extending from Black Hill to Tomago, and Seymour Whyte Constructions to deliver the northern section, completing the five-kilometre section that will bypass Heatherbrae. Once complete, the extension will create more safe and efficient journeys, bypassing five sets of traffic lights and removing about 25,000 vehicles daily from key congestion and merging points between Newcastle and Maitland.
This exciting project—and it really is worth having a look at on the website—will deliver a 15-kilometre extension to the M1 Pacific Motorway from Black Hill to Raymond Terrace, including a 2.6-kilometre bridge over the New England Highway and the Hunter River. It will be a magnificent stretch of road and it's going to save so much time not only for our locals, who are just trying to commute between Maitland and Newcastle, but for people who are trying to drive between Sydney and Brisbane: truck drivers, transport drivers and other people, who are all sick of being stuck at this one point in the road. In fact, I had someone from Sydney, when I told them where my electorate was, say to me: 'When are they going to fix that Hexham stretch? It's dreadful. I'm sick of being stuck there. Every time we try to go north we get stuck at Hexham.' It is the last choke point, and the Albanese Labor government is doing something about it.
Also, the surrounding network is going to be upgraded. That includes the Hexham Straight Widening project, which will widen around six kilometres of the Pacific Highway's Maitland Road section to three lanes in each direction between the Newcastle Inner-City Bypass at Sandgate and the New England Highway at the Hexham Bridge.
I'm really proud to be delivering on this Albanese Labor government commitment to delivering a safer, more practical, faster road network not only for people trying to get north and south but also for our local community, who are just trying to get to work, get their kids to school or get to our beautiful Port Stephens or vineyards areas. Bring on the M1 extension to Raymond Terrace!
House adjourned a t 17:00
NOTICES
Presentation
The following notices were given:
Mr Georganas to move:
That this House:
(1) reaffirms the importance of restoring the Parthenon Marbles to their rightful home in Greece;
(2) demands that the United Kingdom make every effort to facilitate the return of the Parthenon Marbles, which are of immense cultural value to the people of Greece;
(3) notes that the Parthenon Marbles are part of a unique cultural treasure that is an intrinsic feature of the Parthenon in Greece, and that the architectural and cultural integrity of the Parthenon continues to be compromised by the fact that the marbles cannot be viewed near the Parthenon; and
(4) recognises and commends the fact that the Vatican and Greece are finalising the return of three sculpture fragments from the Parthenon that have been in the collection of the Vatican Museum for two centuries, and that the fragments are expected to arrive in Athens in March 2023.
Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Payne ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Brisbane Electorate: Stafford Bowls Club
Mr BATES (Brisbane) (09:30): In 2019, a 20-year lease was issued to Crushers Leagues Club for the Stafford Bowls Club site. By 2022, they were no longer able to proceed or fulfil the conditions of the lease, and they failed to maintain the site, resulting in it becoming unkempt and increasingly dilapidated. The LNP-dominated Brisbane City Council should have taken the site back to tender, but, instead, in October 2022, they voted to transfer the lease to Brisbane Racing Club, in a closed-door deal without tender or community consultation.
Brisbane Racing Club plans to install 76 poker machines on this publicly owned land. Brisbane City Council does not need any more pokies. In 2021-22, Queensland actually surpassed Victoria as the second-biggest pokies state in the country, with more than $2.7 billion in losses, with the residents of the Brisbane City Council area alone losing $591 million. Local residents, namely the Stafford Community Hub not Race Club group, have done an incredible job opposing this development and demanding better for their community. In fact, their petition to Brisbane City Council garnered more than 900 signatures from locals before it closed.
In February of this year, my office wrote to the Brisbane City Council and the Queensland government amplifying the concerns of these residents and calling out our government's gambling problem, including advocating for the Queensland Attorney-General and the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation to deny Brisbane Racing Club a gambling licence for the site. But, alarmingly, I'm hearing reports from the community that the Queensland government's commissioner for liquor and gambling might actually waive the standard requirements for a gaming licence application to include a community impact statement in its submission and to advertise to seek community consent.
Over the last few years, the LNP has accepted thousands of dollars in political donations from Brisbane Racing Club, resulting in three sitting LNP councillors abstaining from the vote last October to transfer the lease to the club, due to that perceived conflict of interest. In fact, both Labor and the LNP have accepted more than $9 million in donations from the gambling industry over the last two decades, with political donations from the gambling industry amounting to $2.165 million in the last year alone, representing a 40 per cent increase on the previous year. This is legalised corruption. Is it any wonder these decisions are made behind closed doors?
It's understandable that the Stafford community feel absolutely betrayed by the LNP council and the Labor state government regarding the site. The Greens don't accept corporate donations, including from the gambling industry. I'll continue to support the local residents who are fighting for a better outcome for the Stafford community, as well as the Greens campaign to clean up our democracy.
Richmond Electorate: Feros Care Village Byron Bay
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence) (09:33): I rise today to talk about Feros Care's decision to close their Byron Bay village. This is a residential aged-care facility, but it is so much more than that. This is home for the 36 residents who live there, and for many of them it's been their home for a considerable period of time. For others it has only been their home for a short period of time. It has been such a distressing period in which Feros Care announced the closure of this village.
It was announced in such a sudden way, and it's caused a huge amount of distress for the elderly residents, many of whom, of course, are incredibly vulnerable, given their age and medical conditions. It's also been very stressful for their families as well. Of course, it's been an incredibly difficult time for the staff and, indeed, for the broader community because Feros Care is such an integral part of the Byron community, especially as George Feros himself, for many years, walked the streets to raise money to build this facility, and so many locals donated huge amounts of money to see this facility operating. In fact, it has been there for over 30 years and is dearly loved by the community. That's why this sudden decision to close it, without any notice to anyone—to the residents, to their families or to the staff—was obviously met with incredible distress. I share that distress as well, because it is such a difficult time for everyone involved.
I have spoken directly with the Minister for Aged Care in relation to this. She shares the concerns. Like me, her main concern is for the wellbeing of those residents at the moment. I have in fact spoken to residents, and they are besides themselves because of the sequence of events and how fast this has been. Now they are all having to look for somewhere else to live. As one of the residents said to me, moving at any age is difficult but moving when you're in your 90s is incredibly hard, particularly on top of the events that have happened. I've made it very clear to everyone involved that I am here for them every day, every step of the way, in terms of any support I can give them and their families. I know Feros is working with the residents to try to find a new home for them to live in.
As I say, it's a very distressing time for everyone involved. I again say to everyone at Feros: I am here for you. Please contact me or your families so we can provide any assistance you may need in this incredibly difficult time for you primarily. That is my main focus for all the residents in Feros at the moment. I also share the distress of the community in terms of the suddenness of this announcement. It has been such a difficult time for everyone, but our main focus is, and should remain, on those elderly residents, ensuring their wellbeing is looked after.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 09:36 to 09:4 8
Menzies Electorate: Volunteers
Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies) (09:48): Sometimes the things that we do in our electorate and the things that we do here have a connection that we didn't realise. There are two that have connected for me. The first was a Pink Stumps Day by the Warrandyte Cricket Club. It's an event put on in support of the McGrath Foundation and their support for women with breast cancer. When I walked into that room, it was a sea of pink—pink balloons, women dressed in pink. I want to congratulate the wonderful women who put that on and thank you for all that you do. To the speakers, many of whom are suffering from breast cancer themselves or have family and friends who are suffering from breast cancer: you are nothing short of inspiring. It was a fantastic event.
Then, at the International Women's Day Breakfast, an event put on by Sarah Cullens and her team, there was a panel with Major General Ana Duncan, Senator Hume and Clare O'Neil. All three women spoke about resilience, and Major General Duncan said something that made me think about that event at the Warrandyte Cricket Club. From her dealings at Defence for the support to Operation COVID-19 Assist and the bushfires, she made the observation that, where communities have strong volunteerism, they're more resilient. I think that's a really important thing for us to think about.
When I think of that football club and what they do, coming together, that is a resilient community. And they're resilient not just through their sporting clubs but through the four CFAs: North Warrandyte, Warrandyte, South Warrandyte and Wonga Park. But there are so many other volunteer groups that make my community resilient. Groups like CareNet; Manningham Toy Library; Doncare; SES Manningham, who have celebrated a significant anniversary; the Rotary clubs; the Lions clubs; the Cubs and the Scouts: all of you make our community more special.
When I speak at citizenship ceremonies, we talk about the rights and obligations that come with being citizens, but there are wonderful opportunities that come with being a citizen, and there's no better opportunity than joining a volunteer organisation and giving back to your community, because you will benefit from it, our community will benefit from it and as a society we will be stronger and more resilient. We need more of that now more than ever. I had a briefing from the Edelman Trust Barometer, and they noted that we feel like we're more divided than we were, and part of that is emanating from the rhetoric in this place. I think we can rise above that. But I think volunteer groups do the best job of connecting us as a community, and I congratulate and thank them.
Moreton Electorate: Volunteers
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (09:52): Mere words are a cheap way to thank people for a valuable contribution; nevertheless, here I go. The Moreton Volunteer Awards are a proud feature of the community calendar on Brisbane's southside. I've been running these awards that acknowledge and celebrate local volunteers for the last 15 years. We had a wonderful ceremony on Sunday 25 February at the Wellers Hill Bowls Club in Tarragindi, who let us hold the event there for free.
The awards celebrate the spirit of volunteerism in our local community, and we thank some of these dedicated, reliable and kind people, who actually ask for nothing in return. They are the lifeblood of community organisations in my patch. They volunteer in community centres, schools, community groups, not-for-profit organisations and sporting groups. These people volunteer to make a difference, and I would like to acknowledge some of them here today: Amar Khan from the Islamic school of Brisbane; Di McRae from the Lions Club of Sunnybank; Sue Kerr from Meals on Wheels Sherwood and also from the Oxley Bowls Club; Arturo and Mahoney Buonocore from Tocco Italiano, who actually opened up their restaurant and fed people during the floods; Farouk Adam from Muslim Charitable Foundation; Cathy Bartley, Nelly Erbacher, Irene Marshall, Gieng Sun, Ally Wood and Carol Bowie, all from St David's Neighbourhood Centre, who do incredible work; Patricia Brannigan from Meals on Wheels Sherwood; Iree Chow, Pasifika Women's Alliance; Shanjeshni Deo, Kanya Wati Pradham and Kanthi Wijesoma from the Damani Women's Association of Queensland; Michael Eddiehausen from the Graceville Croquet Club; Andrew Fisher from Moorooka State School; Ian Forrester from the Community Connection & Belonging project at Community Plus+; Jennifer Kruger; Julian/Sulieni Layt from the Brisbane Tongan Community; Jan Neville from Omega International; Nykoal Rentsch; Aida Salcedo from the Sunnybank and district pensioners club; Brooke Sinclair from the Clubhouse Moorooka, which is having a second life; Jon Smith from Coopers Plains State School; Gary Summers from the Sherwood Indooroopilly RSL Sub-branch, Cecilia and Mauro Somodio from the Filipino-Australian Foundation of Queensland; Jessica Tovey from the Australian Breastfeeding Association and Corinda State School P&C tennis committee; Shay Tovey, Corinda State School and Oxley Community Festival; Elsa Van Haeght from the Community Connection & Belonging Project at Community Plus+; and Koula Gerbanas from Foodbank. They're just some of the people, but I also thank Mark Bailey, James Martin, Peter Russo and Jess Pugh—the state MPs—and Councillor Nicole Johnston for helping out with these awards. I thank all the nominators for helping acknowledge our local heroes and I give a huge shout-out again to the Wellers Hill Bowls Club for their continued support of the awards. It's very generous of them.
Hume Electorate: Agricultural Shows
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (09:55): Show season is in full swing in Hume, and over the last few weeks I've had the opportunity to enjoy a range of shows across my electorate. Country shows are an ingrained part of the Australian culture. They're essential in promoting, celebrating and supporting our agricultural sectors, as well as our broader communities. I've been at shows in recent weeks at Crookwell, Gunning, Goulburn, Boorowa and Tarago, and I'll be heading off to the Camden show later this month.
These shows allow farmers, producers and rural communities to come together to showcase their products, produce, livestock and skills—and we're seeing fantastic skill building going on there. I give a particular shout-out to all the shearers in the shearing competitions we've seen in a range of those shows. Young shearers are getting involved in the industry. It's absolutely fantastic to see.
Shows provide a platform for networking, knowledge exchange and sharing insights—and, of course, farmers have always loved to do that. They also educate the public. It is hugely important for agriculture and rural life that the public understand where their food and fibre comes from. As communities get more and more disconnected from those sources of our food and fibre it's so important that they understand more about them.
Shows contribute significantly to the economy—and we see that in the people that they draw in, as well as the innovation and growth in the industry. They preserve our great agricultural heritage, and that is something we should all be very proud of in a region like mine and right across Australia. Our agricultural producers in regional areas are the powerhouse of the economy and that is why they're so important in attracting investment and workers to the area.
Whilst in government, we recognised the vital role that agricultural shows play in our rural communities. We backed them through the worst of the pandemic. This year we're clear from that, and that's why we're having such a wonderful show season. We did have to back them because, at the end of the day, they're supported by volunteer communities. In Hume, the Camden and Picton shows both received financial support to help them bounce back after COVID. We also invested heavily in agricultural show infrastructure through our Regional Agricultural Show Development Grants Program, and we need that continued support. There have been fantastic local projects like upgrades to the shearing shed arena in Gunning, which I was able to see in action when I visited a few years ago. We want to continue to see that support for agricultural shows.
I want to see the shows in my electorate get the support they need to survive and prosper into the future. They're nearly always run by dedicated volunteers, and this is very important to remember. I finish with a shout-out to all the wonderful volunteer committees right across my electorate who make their shows happen. They are tireless workers for their communities.
Franklin Electorate: Neighbourhood Houses
Ms COLLINS (Franklin—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (09:58): I want to speak today about the important work that neighbourhood houses do right across the country and give a particular shout-out to the neighbourhood houses in my electorate. As a member of federal parliament, I've been visiting neighbourhood houses in my community for 15 years now, talking to them about issues impacting their local communities and seeing the important work that they do to support their local communities, particularly those in the community that are doing it tough. We had a recent visit to a More than a Free Lunch event in Warrane Mornington neighbourhood house, where people come along and learn to cook simple, nutritious and affordable meals—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 09:5 9 to 10:14
Ms COLLINS: At the Geeveston community centre, known by locals as GeCo, I heard how the centre is helping one particular young community member who's working hard to complete her high-school education and regularly travels to GeCo to use the internet to attend classes remotely.
I want to talk today about another project at the Clarendon Vale Neighbourhood Centre and the Clarence Plains community shed. It's a program called Petit Angels. It's about little coffins for stillborn babies. The group builds the little wooden coffins, and they're decorated by locals at the community shed. Sue, Marie and a group of volunteers painstakingly line the coffins, which go to the Royal Hobart Hospital for parents who have experienced the tragic miscarriage of a child before the 20-week gestational period, who otherwise wouldn't have access to such a service. Parents who are dealing with these horrific circumstances often feel isolated and alone, and it's not often talked about openly, but the grief and the loss is very, very real, and these handmade, bespoke coffins go a long way to providing dignity and respect to the baby that is lost but also to the parents and the family who are working through their trauma.
This is a terrific project that is being run by this community group. They have recently been fundraising to buy an embroidery machine to help create the interior linings of the little coffins and to allow Sue, who does most of the embroidery work, to pass on her extraordinary skills to the others so that they can scale up their operation to provide more coffins to the hospitals, because they're so critically needed. I was pleased to personally support this project. We also contacted some of the local funeral homes, who I'm pleased to say are now supporting the project. I want to thank Millingtons Funerals & Cemeteries and Philip Stephens Funerals, as well as other members of parliament who have joined to make a donation towards the cost of the new embroidery machine. It's so wonderful to see my local community, particularly this local community, giving back to others. I want to see this project really grow and expand, and I want to do a big call-out to the neighbourhood centres and community centres right across our electorates.
Portland District Health
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (10:16): I rise today to ask some very serious questions on behalf of the community of Portland in my electorate and of broader south-west Victoria. On 27 February, the helipad next to Portland District Health was closed. This followed the suspension of the use of the helipad before Christmas. This helipad came into operation in 2014. It came into operation because the community fundraised and agitated to get a helipad in the centre of town. Before then, patients had to go to and from Portland Airport, which is about a 25-minute or 30-minute drive. There are about two flights a week in and out of the helipad next to Portland District Health. It is a vital community service, and the community has been left in the dark as to why it has been closed and what is being done to reopen it.
It seems that it has been closed because there is a CASA regulation now in force which has meant that the type of helicopter which is used now by Air Ambulance can't land at this specific helipad. This is meant to have impacted other helipads. What I would like to know is: what is the Albanese Labor government doing to help and support the local community to deal with this CASA regulation? CASA is a federal regulator, and when it makes these types of decisions, obviously, the government has to be on top of them and make sure that they don't impact local communities. I've spoken to the hospital CEO and I've also spoken to the local government in the area to make sure that they're aware and doing everything they can to fix this issue, but I would like to know what the Albanese Labor government are doing to assist Portland District Health and the shire to address this issue.
Every week that goes by while we're not allowing flights into the helipad next to Portland District Health is a week when we are putting those in the community at risk. The time that it takes to get out to Portland Airport, compared to a helicopter coming in to Portland District Health, could be the difference in saving someone's life. I hope that we will be able to get this fixed, and I hope that the Albanese Labor government will be able to play its role to get this helipad open as quickly as possible.
Hasluck Electorate: Arts and Culture
Ms LAWRENCE (Hasluck) (10:19): Art represents who we are as human beings and who we are together as a society. On Monday 20 February this year, I hosted an arts roundtable at the Midland Town Hall in Hasluck, attended by the Hon. Tony Burke, the Minister for the Arts. We had representatives from the full spectrum of art, media, screen, music, craft and writing. It was incredibly hot that day, but it didn't stop the attendees turning out in force to learn about the government's commitment to our arts and to let the minister hear their ideas and their vision of telling our nation's stories through many mediums. My thanks go to the Darlington Arts Festival, Mundaring Hills Open Studios, Midland Junction Arts Centre, Mundaring Arts Centre, MAOCHRE, Screenwest, Ellenbrook Cultural Foundation, Katharine Susannah Prichard Writers' Centre, City of Swan, Shire of Mundaring and Chamber of Arts and Culture Western Australia as well as the many individual artists who participated.
Minister Burke shared his vision for the arts sector with the attendees and demonstrated his clear enthusiasm both for the arts and for the government's comprehensive policies. Within the new Creative Australia, there will be four new bodies. There will be a new First Nations-led body that will give First Nations people autonomy over decisions and investments in art. One way this will assist locally is in promoting Indigenous arts in our local communities, schools and galleries. Music Australia will be a dedicated new body to support and invest in the Australian contemporary music industry. Australian music doesn't just have a proud history; it's a moving feast with great young talent emerging every year. Writers Australia will support writers and illustrators to create new works. I was particularly pleased when the minister announced a poet laureate as well. Minister Burke acknowledged that many writers and artists don't make a living wage from their art. The previous government's attitude seemed to be that the arts are just a hobby. Our written testaments are essential to our nation's sense of itself, developed through telling its own stories, as people have told their stories of Australia for 65,000 years. And there will be a new Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces, to ensure creative workers are paid fairly and have safe workplaces, free from harassment and discrimination. This was warmly welcomed by the group.
Art representatives in Hasluck agreed that, across the spectrum of arts, there is a real eastern states bias that makes it difficult for WA makers to break into the national scenes. Minister Burke heard this and has taken it on board. I had my own direct experience of this, in fact, when choosing art in my parliamentary office. While proud representations of red-tailed black cockatoo feathers, by Ian Jowett, adorn my electorate office, it is hard to find a great deal of the excellent art from Western Australia here in Canberra, and this needs to change. It was a wonderful meeting which I hope to repeat in the future. There was terrific feedback and huge support from our Minister for the Arts.
Herbert Electorate
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (10:22): Townsville has been invaded by politicians over the last couple of weeks. First it was the state opposition and its shadow cabinet meeting with community members at the end of last week, talking about crime, housing, cost of living, all the issues that regularly fill my inbox and are raised with me when I'm out and about. Then—surprise, surprise—there was a snap visit from the Queensland state Labor government's cabinet on Monday. Premier Palaszczuk said she had brought her ministers to listen to locals. Maybe that's because her three local Labor MPs don't take local issues down to Brisbane. Maybe she didn't want to be shown up by the state opposition. Either way, if they came to listen, they left their ears down south, and politics, not people, was the winner. As usual, the Premier spent her time in Townsville telling the people what they were getting instead of asking what they needed and bought favour with her allies in the process.
State Labor has now taken control of the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct, with fast-tracked approvals and plenty of taxpayer funding, just in time for Jenny Hill's recent burst of energy as she tries to keep Labor in the mayor's office. CopperString 2.0 is fully funded, but the costs have blown out a little bit, and we're asking why. These are both projects that we supported when we were in government. In 2020 we committed $12 million to CopperString to do the work to get to the point where a final investment decision could be made. We secured another $12 million for Lansdown through the Townsville City Deal.
People tell me they're sick of Townsville being treated as a political plaything for Labor. Here's a perfect example. Instead of letting their constituents know about their great CopperString announcement on social media, the local Labor MPs made it all about the state opposition and how they somehow had refused to back it in. Who cares that they'd called for it in the media the day before! Facts don't need to get in the way of a good story. Meanwhile, the alternative government spoke with people struggling to pay their bills; they heard from victims of crime, and kept pushing for the tougher penalties we've so desperately needed for years.
To add insult to injury, this morning the Premier announced she is opening an office in Townsville. Why? No details have been released on how much this office will cost—an office that is likely to be unoccupied for 99 per cent of the time. It's pretty disgraceful and completely tone deaf. This state Labor government doesn't listen.
But my promise to the community is: I will always listen. Thank you to the many people who continue to contact me about what's important to them. Together, our voice can and must be heard.
Shortland Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Shortland Electorate: Sport
New South Wales State Election
Mr CONROY (Shortland—Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (10:25): I'm thrilled to be able to update the House for the first time in 2023 on some truly remarkable achievements from the people of Shortland. Nine residents of Shortland were recognised in the Australia Day 2023 Honours List, and it's a privilege to acknowledge and thank them for their service to our community.
Professor Clare Collins AO was awarded an Officer of the Order of Australia for her distinguished service to nutritional health and dietetics research and to scientific organisations. Dr Robert Morgan AO is also now an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to the Indigenous community, to tertiary education leadership and in health advisory roles. Mrs Nancy Dwyer AM is a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to netball.
The following have all been recognised with Medals of the Order of Australia: Mrs Jennifer Butters OAM, for service to the community through charitable organisations; Mrs Dianne Lindsay-Simpson OAM and Mr Peter Simpson OAM, for their service to the performing arts as entertainers; Mrs Dawn Lovett OAM and Mr John Lovett OAM, for their service to community health; and Mr Alan Rankins OAM, who I've known for many years, for his service to business and to engineering, and that's after a distinguished naval career.
Shortland is home to some of the best beaches in all of Australia, and I am very proud also that two of my younger constituents, Kyla Renes and Jackson Woolnough, recently competed in the Lake Mac City Pro Junior, which was held at Redhead Beach—one of my family's favourite beaches, I might add. Congratulations, Kyla and Jackson, on taking part in this competition, and good luck with your future surfing endeavours.
I also acknowledge Simon Hoffman of Belmont, who is currently in Spain competing to qualify in the 49ers 2023 world cup, which is the lead-in event to qualify for the next Olympic Games. So I send him Shortland's best wishes as well.
I am very proud of the people of Shortland, who I have the privilege of representing in this place. Those I've recognised today are amongst the finest of them.
Finally, I send my best wishes to my state Labor colleagues for the upcoming New South Wales election. The people of Shortland are ably represented at the state level by Jodie Harrison, the member for Charlestown; Yasmin Catley, the member for Swansea; and Sonia Hornery, the member for Wallsend. I look forward to them all serving in a Minns Labor government.
I'd also like to acknowledge Labor's outstanding candidate in the seat of Lake Macquarie, Steve Ryan. Steve is a barrister, and, before that, he had a long career in journalism. Steve is a genuinely decent man who cares deeply for his community, and he will be a wonderful representative for the people of Lake Macquarie, who, hopefully, will have an MP who is part of a Labor government. I have enjoyed campaigning with him and I look forward to working with him in the future.
Best of luck to all involved and best of luck to state Labor in the upcoming state election.
Golder, Mrs Doris Eileen, OAM
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (10:28): I rise to pay tribute to the late, great Doris Eileen Golder OAM, who passed away at Lockhart on 4 February at the grand old age of 97—a life well lived. She was raised on a farm at nearby Boree Creek, and she was known far and wide as an exceptional wool artist, which is not that easy to do—weaving wool and making sure it can be an artistic piece.
Her stunning work has been exhibited throughout New South Wales and Victoria, and even in this place. But, most importantly, a gallery featuring 26 examples of her wonderful work created between 1982 and 1993 is one of the feature attractions at the Green's Gunyah Museum at Lockhart.
Doris was no ordinary artist. She used naturally coloured sheep wool to create extraordinary artworks, including portraits, landscapes and animal poses. Amongst her portraits are Doris's former local federal MP, deputy prime minister and Leader of the Nationals, the late Tim Fischer AC; former prime minister the late Bob Hawke AC; former member for Farrer and Hume and federal minister the late Wal Fife, who was also a member for Wagga Wagga in the state parliament; Paul Hogan; the late Slim Dusty; Ita Buttrose; Greg Norman; Evonne Goolagong Cawley; and the late Fred Hollows, his wife Gabi and their twins, Ruth and Rosa.
Some who have visited the Doris Golder gallery have said that they were absolutely impressed—almost blown away—by the intricacy of her portraits. Others have described the collection as amazing and incredible. It took Doris 18 months to create the Hollows piece. It was her last artwork. According to the artist herself, it was the most difficult to do. She was a perfectionist. If you ever go to Lockhart and see the portrait, you will see perfection.
As a devout Christian, Doris followed what is described as the four Ps to make her wool pictures perfect—patience, persistence, perseverance and prayers. Doris used one of the Riverina's and, indeed, one of Australia's greatest resources—wool—for her art. The wool was naturally coloured. She used no dyes, yet in the eyes of some of the animals there is the illusion of greens and yellows, such was the magic of her talent. She once said that it took a long time to get the eyes right, the expressions correct and every little detail on the face. 'Every wrinkle on their face had to be their wrinkles and their eyes had to be their eyes. It took a long time,' she said.
Doris as an artist was largely self-taught, although she took some art classes with renowned Wagga Wagga artist Heather Bell in creating fine pencil drawings and oil paintings before a friend sent her a newspaper clipping of another person who was doing wool art, which inspired her to take on the medium.
We owe her a great tribute and credit. I certainly hope that those going to the veranda town of Lockhart visit her collection at the Greens Gunyah Museum. You can see her amazing works at 45 Urana Street, Lockhart, the veranda town. We pay tribute to her. May she rest in peace. Vale, Doris Golder.
Bombing of Darwin
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:32): When war came to Darwin skies 81 years ago a city's fate rested in the hands of a few patriots. They were outgunned, the enemy was overhead and reinforcements were far away. With nothing but their arms to save the innocent from terror raining down, their anti-aircraft guns and rifles fired back at hundreds of screeching Japanese aircraft that were strafing and bombing them, the port and civilians. As well as killing an estimated 236 people and reducing buildings in Darwin to rubble, this first of 90 air raids on our homeland during the Pacific war left an indelible mark on our nation's psyche. The attack was designed to make us feel strategically isolated and cut off from our allies, but it backfired.
While on an extended visit to the Northern Territory to tour our defence facilities, Assistant Minister for Defence Matt Thistlethwaite reflected on the bombing at the Adelaide River war cemetery on 20 February. The assistant minister, the member for Kingsford Smith, remarked that this may have been the first time that our flag was fired upon on home soil. He said:
The flag was torn and stained and slashed by shrapnel, but the symbol it represented remained unscathed.
… … …
Torn and stained and slashed by shrapnel, we endured that first attack, and would endure the others that followed.
By bringing the war to Australia's north and constraining our strategic options, the bombing taught us the hard-earned lessons that we needed to be able to secure our sovereignty independently, that we needed more allies and that we needed to be able to keep our adversaries at bay. It kindled a realisation in our people that our salvation would not be secured by Britain, whose forces had fallen in Singapore weeks earlier, but by our own defence policy.
The Darwin raid also reshaped modern Australia by forging our enduring alliance with America after a US destroyer, the USS Peary, was sunk in the attack. As a sovereign state, Australia's highest priority must always be to deter and defeat armed attack on our territory. The bombing of Darwin reminds us of the high cost of failure and why we must work tirelessly to grow our Defence Force and work with our allies to learn from the lessons of our darkest hour.
Casey Electorate: Environment
Mr VIOLI (Casey) (10:35): It was wonderful to invite shadow minister for the environment Senator the Hon. Jonno Duniam to Casey recently to show him our magnificent part of Australia. We hosted a roundtable in Olinda. Many environmental issues were discussed, from endangered species to weed and pest control, deer control, fire management, the need to support and promote volunteering, and the passion for our environment and community—which was clear to see from all those in attendance. I would like to thank representatives from the Friends of Sherbrooke Forest, Sherbrooke Lyrebird Study Group, Monbulk Landcare, Northern Yarra Landcare Network, Bungalook Creek Wildlife Shelter, Fly By Night Bat Clinic, Friends of Sassafras Creek, Olinda Creek Landcare Group, Friends of the Helmeted Honeyeater, Emtrain Fire and Community Safety and Southern Dandenongs Landcare Group, not just for attending but for their passion and dedication, volunteering time to our environment and our community.
After the roundtable, we visited Healesville Sanctuary. The sanctuary isn't just a big contributor to local tourism; it's doing incredible work to fight extinction. It was great to visit the Fighting Extinction Aviary to hear about the sanctuary's work in breeding and releasing the helmeted honeyeater as well as swift and orange-bellied parrots. The helmeted honeyeater is found in only one pocket of the world, and that's right in my community of Casey at Yellingbo. We are so fortunate to have environmental groups and the Healesville Sanctuary fighting for our local wildlife and environment.
This June will be two years since the devastating storms that hit the Dandenong Ranges and surrounding communities in my electorate of Casey. The impacts to the hills communities are still evident, and the recovery is ongoing, particularly in Kalorama, the epicentre of the storm. Many of my constituents, such as Jan and Philip, and Paul from Kalorama, are still trying to rebuild. I had the opportunity to visit their houses, and they're facing many hurdles in rebuilding those houses. They raised with me the need for continued support for residents, including ongoing mental health support, particularly for our youth, as we continue to deal with the traumatic events of that evening.
I also visited Natalie and Lee Guest, other Kalorama residents who are trying to build a new home where their previous home was located after it was destroyed in the storms. However, their planning permit was denied due to bureaucratic planning schemes and policies. Their property was declared uninhabitable because of the potential risk of a one-in-100,000-year land slip. As I said, they are trying to build a new home where their previous home was located—same place, same location. I'm calling on the Victorian state planning minister to intervene and resolve this unacceptable situation.
Paid Parental Leave
Mr LIM (Tangney) (10:38): At every stage, from the moment a child is born, all a parent wants to do is to raise their child well, to teach them right and to watch them grow into their potential, whatever that may be. Tangney is home to many hardworking families, each of whom will benefit under this government and its desire to deliver for all Australians. I'm so proud to stand in this House, excited about a positive change through the passing of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 in the Senate. This is such a welcome development for growing families. It is hard raising a young family. I have had multiple careers in my life, and my wife and I have had to face many challenges. We brought up three children during a time when parental leave did not even exist. The challenges of looking after a small child are not lost on any parent. We all have sleepless nights. We cannot overlook the critical role that paid parental leave plays in supporting families during this special time.
This legislation ensures that parents can access paid parental leave more easily, allowing them to spend more time bonding with their newborn child and less time worrying about how they will make ends meet. This bill also recognises that both parents have a role to play in raising children and provides for greater flexibility in the use of paid parental leave entitlements. This is a critical step forward in our efforts to promote gender equality and ensure that all parents are able to take an active role in the early years of their child's life. My constituents are already very excited at the prospect of being able to have access to this.
This is a part of Labor's commitment to support Australian families with the cost of living. I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to supporting families and that recognises the importance of paid parental leave in achieving this goal. I want to commend Minister Rishworth for listening to the concerns of parents across the country. The minister has acted decisively to make the changes necessary to provide the support that parents need. In conclusion, I want to say thank you to all my colleagues who worked so hard to make this legislation a reality. Together we have made a positive difference in the lives of families across Australia.
National Library of Australia: Trove
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:41): In the past three months, many constituents have written to me expressing their deep concerns about losing access to Trove. These constituents have provided me with examples of how they utilise Trove for the resources and research and, in some cases, to produce historical content for their local community. I thought I'd share some of these important stories so we all have a really good understanding of how important Trove is and the impact it could possibly have if the funding is cut.
These groups maintain local history archives used through Trove, including the Macclesfield History Group, who use Trove to maintain their history website; the Port Milang Historic Railway Museum, who locate and preserve relics from our past; and the Victor Harbor local history group, who host tutorials for local residents regarding the use of Trove to research their own family histories.
One constituent from Coromandel Valley, who was previously involved with the South Australian education department, conveyed to me how Trove has allowed him to keep his brain stimulated through retirement and facilitate access to library archives for schoolchildren in their homes. Another constituent from Strathalbyn used Trove to trace her family history from their arrival in South Australia in 1839, just three years after the establishment of the South Australian colony. Trove enabled her to investigate various family members' involvement in the Vietnam War of which she was previously unaware. A constituent from Encounter Bay has utilised Trove for several years to write and publish books on the local football and SANFL clubs and the establishment of Victor Harbor. This constituent shared with me their real fears of being unable to complete this research if Trove funding is cut, jeopardising years of research and creation.
Trove is widely used by a significant cohort of musicians in my electorate. One constituent in Lenswood notes that Trove enabled him to research theatre productions and locate CDs relating to genres of Australian music from classical to folk to progressive rock. And my constituents in Kangaroo Island also enjoy Trove's resources to enhance their knowledge of the history of shipping around the island. This has assisted their community group in seeking out and collecting maritime artefacts to display in a boathouse museum visited by schoolchildren and tourists alike.
Trove funding is under threat. We heard some very positive words from the minister when I asked him a question in question time, but there is no guarantee of funding beyond July. We know there are people halfway through their PhDs and they rely on Trove. Trove is a national treasure, and it's a treasure that we can't afford to lose. I would implore the government to come out now, to come out early, and guarantee this funding.
Little Bay
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith—Assistant Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Assistant Minister for the Republic) (10:44): The fight to save and protect Little Bay from overdevelopment is back on. On 17 February, it was revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald that Meriton is trying for a third time to get approval from the New South Wales Liberal government to develop at Little Bay cove. They've been knocked back twice for this development, both by the council and by a planning panel, and they've been knocked back because it's simply overdevelopment. What they are proposing for the site cannot be catered for with limited infrastructure and public transport. But, no, Meriton won't accept that. They're now trying to bypass the council and the planning panel using a little-known state-assessed planning proposals pathway that enables developers to nominate projects for rezoning approval by the New South Wales government.
The most disgraceful thing about this is that it's a secretive process. The community is not informed of who the developer is that's proposing it. Council representatives have been told that they have to sign confidentiality deeds to view the documents associated with this proposal. That is disgraceful. The community deserves to know who the developer is for this proposal and what they are proposing. Meriton and the New South Wales government should stop trying to bend the rules. There is a long-established master plan for this site that has community support and allows development to five storeys. It is reasonable and within the character. Every other developer has had to develop to those guidelines, and so should Meriton. Seventeen storeys, as proposed by Meriton in their last proposal, is overdevelopment. There is inadequate infrastructure, particularly public transport, to cater for that increased number of residents.
I want to congratulate the Save Little Bay group, which recently uncovered through FOI a letter sent by the CEO of Meriton, Harry Triguboff, on 30 June 2022. It contains some remarkable findings. It says:
For many years we are trying to develop Little Bay. A few years ago I was told by the Planning Department that a state lead precinct will be made for the whole area, the prison, the housing commission and me.
It goes on to say:
I consider this to be a fair proposition and I am waiting for your reply. For you to prepare the plan you don't need to have another site for the prison, buses or trains. But, if you will prepare them, we can all start moving. You need the money and we need the money too.
It is unbelievable. This guy is a billionaire, and he says that they need the money. It is pure greed. Our community should not be ridden roughshod over by the New South Wales government and by Meriton. This proposal should be rejected because it is overdevelopment.
Defence Procurement
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (10:47): We understand, particularly through media reports, that it is imminent that our Prime Minister will be meeting with the US President to make an announcement within the AUKUS framework around the pathway for our future nuclear submarines. As a member from the city of Adelaide, I'm very interested and anxious to see this announcement and to get some certainty around that program. Of course, it was the Morrison government that struck this historic AUKUS deal. The most eye-catching part is, unquestionably, having hunter-killer nuclear powered submarines in the Royal Australian Navy, but, of course, there are a lot of other opportunities and elements to technological collaboration that we can bring with our allies: the United States and the United Kingdom.
There are opportunities for Australian technology and commercialisation. There are also enormous capability opportunities for our armed forces to access technologies that have significant restriction upon them, understandably, particularly by the United States. Whilst we've always been a very trusted partner, this takes things to the next level. As I say, the most tantalising capability outcome for our armed forces is nuclear propulsion submarines. Of course what's very important not only within the capability gain of that is the Australian industry outcome of that decision, and I look forward to—and, frankly, expect—that we will have confirmation that the number of the nuclear submarines will still be eight and that Adelaide will be the manufacturing centre for all eight of those boats.
We have a very proud shipbuilding industry and history in South Australia, but the future, if promises are honoured, is even more exciting. Beyond question, Adelaide will be the shipbuilding centre of the Southern Hemisphere. The most sophisticated shipyards for surface and submarine vessels is out there at Osborne. I visit there regularly, and it fills me with great pride to see the work Adelaide workers, many of whom live in my electorate of Sturt, are doing on the programs already there, particularly on the BAE Hunter class frigate program. But the future submarines are clearly going to be the jewel in the crown, and that is from an industry point of view as well.
Clearly, working with nuclear technology and nuclear reactors means we need very significant, stringent, regulatory safety measures in place. But they present an excellent opportunity. Because we need to invest in that capability there are civilian opportunities for nuclear generation at a dramatic cost reduction because of the change in framework that will have to happen through us having small modular reactors in the building of eight submarines. They are exciting times out at Adelaide, and I look forward with anticipation to those commitments being made by the Prime Minister in the days ahead.
Corangamite Electorate: Veterans
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (10:50): Defence personnel veterans and their families in the Surfcoast, Bellarine, Geelong and Golden Plains, across my electorate, are set to receive better access to support through the establishment of a brand new veterans and families hub. This hub is going to be an amazing opportunity for veterans to get the help and support they need, and the Albanese government is doing that.
Recently I held a forum with the Minister for Veterans Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, the member for Burt, and the Victorian Minister for Veterans, the Hon. Natalie Suleyman. Together we met with about 60 veterans. We shared stories, we gave advice and support, and, importantly, we spoke about the new hub and the role it will have in our region. It will provide tailored services, including: support to civilian life, which can be very challenging; advocacy services; social connection; physical and mental health services; and a range of community activities, including volunteer and sporting opportunities. This will be support for not only the 3,500 veterans and defence personnel who live in my electorate of Corangamite but also the broader region.
We know veterans often find it difficult to share their stories. It was a very emotional forum. There was a fellow there—six foot two, a big fellow—who stood up to speak and was brought to tears. It was a very challenging to see that. We must do more to help our veterans. I am hoping this facility will be of great value, and I'm working with my veterans community to make sure that it will be the best it can be and that we have it in the best location. To everyone who was there: there is an opportunity now to provide a submission, and from that submission we will determine the best location. I wish everyone well in their endeavours.
I would just like to point out that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has found that we need to do more for our veterans in terms of giving them the opportunity to speak. The latest bill, the Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023, will mean veterans can share their personal stories and sustain their privacy, which is another great thing the Albanese Labor government is doing. I look forward to working with the veterans in my region to support them so they can do well and thrive.
Nicotine Vaping Products
Gambling Advertising
Ms SPENDER (Wentworth) (10:53): Today I want to address two issues of great concern to my community and where this government and the previous government haven't shown the courage and political will to do what's right. The first is the tobacco industry's aggressive marketing of vaping products to children. In my electorate of Wentworth, I was appalled to see a tobacconist set up shop four doors down from my old high school in Edgecliff. In shops like these, vapes are marketed in bright colours and in flavours like bubblegum and banana milkshake, and are stacked on shelves alongside lollies and chocolates. Parents in my community are outraged, and they have the right to be.
Sadly, this is not a story unique to Wentworth. Across New South Wales, one-third of 14- to 17-year-olds have used vaping products. More than half of them have used a product they knew contained nicotine. It is clear the current regulations are not fit for purpose. So the government must show courage and take the urgent action needed to end the tobacco industry's shameless and insidious marketing of vaping products to children, as well as address the completely unregulated flow of vaping products into our communities and into our borders that is driving the take-up of these vapes by our young people.
The other issue I would like to address is gambling. I received an email from a man I'll call Tim, and it was quite a heartbreaking email. He was a successful member of the community, a businessperson and a family man. He described in his email how he had lost it all because of a gambling addiction—an addiction that was fed by some of the most rapacious, immoral elements of our society. After a heart attacks, seizures and, in his own words, repeated awful behaviour, Tim is now on the long road to recovery. His is a success story, but these stories are rare. They happen in every single part of this country, including electorates like mine which are wealthier than most and including those with the most vulnerable people, who have the least amount of money to lose.
We need reform, and we need to focus on prevention rather than cure. Gambling advertising is at the heart of this. There is an unholy combination of saturation advertising and ubiquitous gambling apps which makes it impossible for some people to resist the urge to bet. We need to ban gambling advertising, as we've with tobacco. We need to ban gambling donations, to remove the influence of these businesses on regulatory decisions. We need to tax those gambling companies which are registered in the Northern Territory and evade paying taxes.
The community is over this. They are absolutely sick of it. It is time for the government to catch up with the community and take real action.
Lalor Electorate: Multiculturalism
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Chief Government Whip) (10:56): The electorate of Lalor and the community that I represent has an extraordinary challenge and an extraordinary opportunity. We have people coming from all over the world and have had people coming from all over the world for 40 years. We are building a multilingual, multifaith, multicultural community from the ground up, street by street, subdivision by subdivision. You walk into schools in my electorate, and it is the most pleasant thing to see: a school assembly with children from all over the world in the same room together, learning together and working together, demonstrating the ideal world that we want to live in.
We have a unique challenge, a unique opportunity, and, as I say to my community, and I'll say it again now: what I want for the city of Wyndham, for the community that I represent in the electorate of Lalor, is for us to be looked upon as the exemplar of multiculturalism—as the success story of multiculturalism. I want to thank all of those people in my community who do this really difficult work every day: the teachers, the sports coaches and the people working in community groups.
In the last two weeks in Lalor, this is something that has been in my face in schools and at a Holi event. In Tarneit, people from all religions came together to celebrate the Indian festival of Holi. Extraordinary. I'm reminded of that, of course, because our Prime Minister is in India. There are photos today of Prime Minister Albanese celebrating Holi in India. My electorate has the largest Indian diaspora in the country. They're part of this journey with me and with everyone else in the community. I want to acknowledge the terrific announcements today, too, about higher education in the negotiations with India—around the notion that Deakin University is going to have a school in India and the notion that we're going to get an agreement between the two countries about recognising qualifications. I know what that means in that community, when so many have come to Australia as international students.
I want to talk, too, about a particularly special person. I held my International Women's Day event last week, and this year the Lalor woman of the year is Say Htoo Eh Moero. She came as a refugee from Myanmar many years ago. She works in settlement services. She's a hero. She does this work every day.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Ananda-Rajah ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Joint Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (10:59): It gives me great pleasure to speak on this Report 201: free trade agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For those who may not know, I had the great honour of negotiating this free trade agreement with the United Kingdom with Liz Truss and then Anne-Marie Trevelyan. It is a very, very good free trade agreement for Australia. I welcome the fact that the committee has looked at this agreement and has recommended that it come into force as a treaty.
As the report clearly outlines, there are significant aspects of the Australia-UK FTA for Australia. Some of these are detailed in section 2.14:
reduction in tariffs—currently 89 per cent of Australian goods are exported to the UK duty free, whereas on entry into force (EIF), over 99 per cent of Australian goods exports by value would enter without tariffs
simplification of customs procedures including making it easier for traders to prove the originating status of goods—
less red tape when you export.
enhanced opportunities for Australians to live and work in the UK (and vice versa)
That's so we can rebuild and strengthen those people-to-people links, especially amongst young Brits and young Australians, which is incredibly important to keep building that wonderful special relationship we have with the UK.
liberalisation of the rules for services and investment
provisions to support mutual recognition of qualifications
Not only will we see those people-to-people links strengthened; you'll also see those business-to-business links strengthened with the mutual recognition of qualifications, making it easier for people to travel between the two countries to work.
greater access to government procurement opportunities
support for small and medium-sized enterprises
This is making sure that our young, dynamic, smaller businesses can benefit from this.
commitments to support women's access to the benefits that flow from trade and investment—
a unique aspect of this free trade agreement.
commitments to advance Indigenous interests and deliver new opportunities and revenue streams for Indigenous exporters—
once again, components new to FTAs.
the establishment of a Strategic Innovation Dialogue.
If our countries are going to continue to build and strengthen an economic relationship for the next century, then having this Strategic Innovation Dialogue will be absolutely critical for that.
But it's not just Australia that will benefit from this free trade agreement; it's also the UK that will benefit from this. The report details this as well. It's worth remembering that free trade agreements aren't about winners and losers; they're about everyone winning, and this agreement is absolutely true to that. For the UK, there is:
greater legally-guaranteed access to Australian government procurement opportunities than provided in any other trade agreement, expected to constitute around 10 billion pounds of new opportunities each year
removal of all tariffs on UK exports to Australia while retaining protections for sensitive UK sectors for a number of years (beef and sheep meat, dairy, sugar) and providing a general bilateral safeguard mechanism to provide a temporary safety net for industry (tariffs on long-grain milled rice, pork, poultry and eggs remain in the long run)
minimisation of red tape by modernising rules of origin, ensuring transparent and efficient customs procedures, reducing technical barriers to trade and sanitary and phytosanitary measures
business mobility arrangements for UK professionals to travel for work
on food standards—no new permissions for imports from Australia, and hormone-treated beef would remain banned
non-regression and non-derogation clauses on animal welfare standards, and a strong statement recognising animals as sentient beings
tackling barriers to digital and online trade, including commitments on electronic contracts, e-authentication and trust services
ambitious intellectual property provisions
exceptions and exclusions for the National Health Service.
So there are wins for Australia and wins for the UK, and overall both our countries benefit. There are numerous ways that we do that. We benefit because we send a strong signal to the rest of the world that free trade, liberalising your economies, strengthens those economies, strengthens links across the world. If we are to continue to see our economies grow, especially as we come out of the pandemic that we've been through, in this post-pandemic period, making sure that we continue to liberalise is absolutely crucial. One of the things that we're seeing around the world—and it came out of the pandemic—is a push for greater protectionism. That is not in the interests of Australia and it's not in the interests of the UK, especially now that the UK have come out of the EU.
What this agreement does above all else is make sure that those economic links between our two economies will now continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Those of us with long enough memories remember what happened when the UK entered the EU in the early seventies. It cut itself off economically from Australia, and that caused a lot of hardship, especially in the Australian agricultural sector. But this agreement rights that wrong and, in particular, will provide access for Australia's agricultural sector the like of which it hasn't seen since before the early seventies—access for our beef, our lamb, our sugar producers, our dairy producers, our rice growers. I'll just give you one example of how this will benefit both countries. We will now be able to ship sugar out of Queensland across to the UK, up the Thames to a sugar mill where they will turn that sugar into products such as golden syrup—adding manufacturing value in the UK, adding export value here in Australia. It is a true win-win outcome.
This negotiation was difficult because it was done during the pandemic. That meant that the normal consultations and negotiations that you would undertake, especially in face-to-face meetings, couldn't take place. I just place on the record again the wonderful job that Australian negotiators and UK negotiators did in finalising this free trade agreement. I think that here in Australia we have the best trade negotiators in the world, and we must ensure that we continue to empower them and give them jobs so that we can continue to push for liberalisation. With their negotiating skills, we're always going to get good outcomes. I give a big shout-out to the UK negotiators too, because, as part of the EU, the UK didn't have a trade negotiation department or section, and so they had to, from the ground up, build a negotiation capability. They were able to build that up from scratch and make sure that we got an outcome which benefits both countries. I also give a big shout-out to Liz Truss, the UK trade minister, with whom I negotiated the interim deal—which basically was the framework that we then made sure was recognised and respected in the final agreement—and to Anne-Marie Trevelyan, with whom I sat down and dotted the i's and crossed the t's and made sure that what had been agreed in principle was finalised correctly in the final product.
This is an excellent free trade agreement. It's the best free trade agreement we have negotiated since our negotiations with New Zealand. It will set both countries up for the future. I'll finish on this note, because it's incredibly important. It is also going to help the UK with their further economic engagement in the Indo-Pacific. It will help them in their accession to the CPTPP. It is in Australia's interests that we see that economic engagement from the UK enhanced in the Indo-Pacific. We will continue to work with the UK to make sure that that accession takes place because a stronger, more economically secure Indo-Pacific is also in our interests. I commend this report to the House.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (11:10): I seek leave to speak again without closing the debate.
Leave granted.
Mr JOSH WILSON: I welcome this report, which I had significant involvement in as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It has recommended ratification of the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. On the Australian side that has occurred, and the enabling legislation has been through the House of Representatives as well. We are still waiting for some of the process that needs to occur in the UK to take place before it comes into force, and we hope that that can happen as soon as possible.
I will follow some of the remarks just made by acknowledging the work that the former minister did under the previous government. That was very significant, particularly in the COVID circumstances. I believe that it was actually concluded by a virtual signing, which obviously was one of the virtual events that we all had to make the best of through a difficult period. But I acknowledge the work that the former minister did in concluding what was a very significant agreement. It's the first trade agreement the UK has signed post-Brexit that is completely new and, as the previous speaker, the member for Wannon, said, it's the most ambitious trade agreement we've concluded with any country other than New Zealand.
There's just no question that trade is critical to Australia and that trade with the UK is critical to Australia. They're our fifth-largest two-way trading partner. They're our third-largest services trading partner. The UK is both the second-largest source of foreign direct investment and the second-largest recipient of outgoing Australian foreign investment. That gives you some sense of the significance of the relationship and the value that will be achieved when we improve the terms on which we trade with the UK, both in goods and in services.
As the member for Wannon said, when this agreement comes into force it will take the tariff-free access for Australian goods exports from 89 per cent to 99 per cent. That is a pretty significant jump, particularly for the goods that constitute the highest value exports from Australia to the UK, which are gold, alcoholic beverages, lead, pearls, gems and so on. Obviously, from our point of view, the United Kingdom is very significant also as the fourth-largest source of inbound tourism. We'd like to see that keep growing, especially in the post-COVID world. There are aspects of the agreement that make it easier for citizens of Australia and citizens of the UK to travel to, spend time in and work in our respective countries, and I think that that's something that's very worthy.
Some other things about the agreement are pretty significant. It has a world-first chapter dedicated to promoting innovation—and this is the first time such a chapter has been included in any agreement, and that's certainly worth noting—and it has an Australian-first chapter that looks to enhance women's access to the full benefits of trade and investment. I think that's notable in the week that we mark International Women's Day. It's true that in lots of areas of social and economic life that women haven't had the opportunity to participate fully and equally in trade and investment. So that chapter in this agreement between us and the UK is an Australian first. Those are features of what can be described as WTO-plus agreements, in the sense that they go above and beyond the sort of content that is traditionally covered through the WTO.
There are also provisions in this agreement that seek to advance Indigenous interests in a number of ways and to open new opportunities for First Nations exporters, and that's welcome. One of them that I can point to goes to the artists resale royalty arrangements. We have a scheme like that in Australia, which the previous Labor government put in place. The UK has a scheme as well. It's envisaged under this agreement that those arrangements will become reciprocal. That's pretty significant for people who may not have turned their minds to resale royalty arrangements. You can understand that for an artist who sells their work initially—perhaps when they are developing they might also sell their early works for a relatively low price—as their artistic talent comes to be established and recognised the value of their work increases, and then the work is sold and onsold. But the benefit of the increase in value—a significant part of which is due to the reputation and artistic expertise of the person who has created that work—is never seen by them. Resale royalties essentially mean that, as that asset increases in value and moves from owner to owner, some of that increase in value is returned to its creator. I think that's appropriate. You can imagine that First Nations art being sold into the United Kingdom is not insignificant and probably will grow. If we can end up with those reciprocal arrangements it will mean all artists, but certainly First Nations artists, will benefit from that. That's something we really welcome.
It's never the case you get everything you want in a trade agreement. The member for Wannon was right to say we have excellent negotiators. The public servants who work in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are excellent people, and they do great work behind the scenes when parliamentarians and ministers get to be in the flash of the camera light, signing agreements; that, of course, occurs off the back of years and years of work of dozens and dozens of people, and it's absolutely right we recognise that. There are some things we won't get in agreements just because that's the nature of negotiations. There are some areas that, through the course of the inquiry, we were alerted to in which, while improvements were made, there are further improvements we would like to see, and they tend to go to agricultural products. Australia is essentially a free and open import destination; people can bring goods into Australia tariff free in almost any category whether or not they have a trade agreement with us, frankly. The UK, like a number of countries, including the US, who sometimes style themselves as champions of the free market and liberalisation, continue to practise some self-interested protective measures. There continue to be some areas in agriculture, around beef, sheepmeat, dairy and sugar, that could be further liberalised, going further from what has been achieved under this agreement.
There was some significant improvement in terms of access to wine. That's significant because the UK has become the No. 1 export destination for Australian wine, because, sadly, China is not allowing the export or import of Australian wine. Our exports of wine to China were at the top of the list, around $1 billion annually. That has fallen away very significantly, and that means the UK, at about $500 million a year, is our top wine export. Through this agreement, the tariff of two pounds and 20 pence that used to apply per bottle of wine with less than 15 per cent alcohol by volume has disappeared, and the tariff of three pounds per bottle of wine or alcoholic beverage with over 15 per cent alcohol has also disappeared. Australian Grape and Wine have told the committee their best guess is that that will deliver a $43 million benefit to our industry here. That's really important, particularly when you see all these arrangements in their context. We want many opportunities for our exporters, not least because when things go wrong, as has occurred, and we find ourselves on the end of unjustified and, I would say, from China's point of view, self-harming geoeconomic coercion—it's China and their consumers that are missing out on the wonderful joys of Australian wine. But, when we find things like that happening almost overnight, it's really important that Australian producers, exporters and manufacturers have other options. This change will no doubt expand the export of alcoholic beverages, particularly wine, to the UK.
For all of the reasons that I've identified and that the member for Wannon has mentioned, this is a really significant agreement, and I'm glad that it has been achieved. We've done our part, and we look forward to the UK doing their bit, and it'll come into force.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean—Government Whip) (11:20): I also rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report on the UK free trade agreement. I do that both as a proud member of the Albanese Labor Party and in my capacity as chair of the United Kingdom parliamentary group.
The Australia-United Kingdom free trade agreement is the first full trade agreement the United Kingdom negotiated from scratch following Brexit. This agreement will deepen our already strong economic relationship with the United Kingdom and offer greater opportunities for our businesses to diversify their trade markets. The implementing legislation for the agreement has already passed our parliament, and we stand ready for implementation.
As the Prime Minister said, this agreement will strengthen our existing trade and economic relationships. This new agreement will create new opportunities for trade diversification and great outcomes for Australian business and Australian families. Beyond trade, we have the all-important AUKUS relationship. AUKUS applies our mature and trusted relationship to the geopolitical challenges we face in the region and further abroad. As we stand up for democracy and the rules-based international order here, closer to home, the task for Australia is much easier knowing that the United Kingdom will be standing alongside us.
With the ongoing war in Ukraine, we have seen stronger collaboration between our nations. We have seen British and Australian armed forces training members of the Ukrainian armed forces to help them defend themselves against Russian aggression. In a powerful reflection, the Deputy Prime Minister, on a recent visit to the UK to attend AUKMIN meetings, said of our two nations' collaborations:
In Eastern Europe, in the Indo-Pacific. There is a very high degree of alignment in the way in which we see the world, and we are thinking about it, and thinking of what we need to do as two nations working together. A sense of shared mission is really what characterises the way in which Australia and United Kingdom are going about its work and there was no better example of that and what all of us here witnessed yesterday when we saw our Defence Force personnel working together to train Ukrainian forces.
Our two countries always have had shared interests. We share history and we share values. We have been shaped by each other and we shape each other today. The trust and openness with which we engage with each other, which is so important at this time, is critical to the challenges that we face. Australia and the United Kingdom have a shared vision for what our world looks like. It is a world which is peaceful, stable, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty, and one in which the rule of law, international law and norms, is protected. But the relationship between the UK and Australia runs deeper than just economic and security issues. The most important part of our relationship is its enduring value to both sides. The deepening of our relationship has withstood a change of government here and the turnover of prime ministers in the United Kingdom. In spite of these changes, the relationship continues to deepen, and the values which underpin it continue to endure.
At the heart of that relationship is a commitment to equality and fairness at home and abroad. It also involves, as the UK high commissioner Vicki Treadell said in a fine speech to the Press Club yesterday, understanding our own history and colonial past. A key to our shared relationship is projecting who we are today: nations that are both magnificently diverse, where we strive for inclusivity and we stand up for democracy and for fairness in a challenging world. As the high commissioner rightly put it:
We do not forget history but we must learn from it to inform our present and our future, to be a force for good we wish to be.
The Australian parliamentary UK country group has an important role to play in this regard. Like many Australians, I have strong family connections to the United Kingdom. On my mother's side, I have family links back to Wales, with my grandmother leaving as an infant during the rural depression in South Wales in the late 19th century. I lived and worked in the UK, in Slough, a place most of the people in the House might be more familiar with as the home of The Office. It's much better than in The Office, I should say.
On a personal level, I've found political inspiration from United Kingdom political figures such as John Smith, Roy Jenkins and Clem Attlee. Indeed, John Smith is a great reminder of the honour we have of serving in a democratic parliament such as our own. Understandably, the Australia-United Kingdom parliamentary group is a popular one. Its popularity stems from not only the relationship Australia historically enjoys with the United Kingdom but also our capacity to refresh it for today and the shared future we look forward to. The opportunity we have to work on the good work that has been achieved through this free trade agreement is the goal that we have over the rest of this parliament for that parliamentary group.
I was reminded of the closeness of the relationship between our countries last year as I hosted the Minister for State for Indo-Pacific, the Rt Hon. Anne-Marie Trevelyan. With Her Excellency the British High Commissioner, I took the minister on a tour of Parliament House. We looked at the relics from Westminster from the Blitz and she even got to meet and interact with a visiting school from South Australia, I think. The minister's visit here and the reception she received were an example that our relationship is far from being in a set-and-forget holding pattern; rather, it's at the forefront of foreign policy and the trade agenda for both governments.
This free trade agreement will be a gold standard trade agreement that will drive increased trade, two-way investment, economic growth and job creation. The agreement will enhance our already strong economic partnership with the United Kingdom and will contribute towards Australia's export diversification and economic recovery from COVID. The agreement represents substantially increased opportunities for market access for Australian exporters, particularly agricultural exporters. When it enters into force, over 99 per cent of Australian goods exports will enter the UK duty-free, including sheep meat, beef, dairy, sugar and wine. Building on our strong people-to-people links, the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement includes measures designed to increase the mobility of skilled workers and young people in both directions. It also includes commitments to liberalise access to all service sectors including professional, business, financial and telecommunications services. The agreement is innovative, as previous speakers have mentioned, with a world-first chapter dedicated to promoting innovation, and an Australian-first chapter to enhance women's access to the full benefits of trade and investment. It is the first wholly new free trade agreement the United Kingdom has completed since it left the European Union.
It's clear we are separated not only by geography. We are two independent nations with strong independent futures, but we share a rich history and rich values and now, thanks to this free trade agreement, we are deepening economic trade, further collaboration with industry and taking the Australia-United Kingdom relationship further. Outside of these parameters, I will continue the work of our interparliamentary union to further build our relationship for the remainder of this parliamentary term.
I thank the hard work of the joint standing committee and for their report, but I particularly thank the hard work of our trade officials from both countries on achieving this historic trade agreement.
Debate adjourned.
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (11:29): It's a great honour to speak on Report 202: Australia-India economic cooperation and trade agreement. It is particularly poignant that we are speaking about this Australia-India trade agreement today, because, as we are all aware, the Prime Minister is in India at the moment with a trade delegation, building on the work that has been done through this trade agreement. If you want to see the benefits of the Australia-India free trade agreement coming to the fore already, you don't have to look any further than what is occurring in India right now. The Prime Minister is over there, building on the work that was done last year through the signing of this agreement. All of us, I know, wish the Prime Minister and his delegation all the very best and the greatest of success, because, if that trade delegation is a success, it means that we're going to see more success into the future. We all know and understand how important the economic relationship with India is, and is going to be, into the future.
This report sets that out. There are a number of details in this report as to the types of benefits that will accrue as a result of the Australia-India free trade agreement. They are across the board, but there is one figure that I think is worth all of us noting. The national interest analysis says there will be a net gain for the Australian economy because the Australian government expects exporters to save approximately $2 billion over the forward estimates, to 2025-26, as a result of this agreement.
There are a number of areas that we can specifically turn to that will benefit Australian exporters. When it comes to lentils, almonds, oranges, mandarins and pears, all these products from Australia will benefit in terms of their access to the Indian market. When it comes to coal, LNG, alumina, most metallic ores, certain non-ferrous metals, manganese ores, tungsten ores and concentrates, rare earth oxides, zirconium concentrates, pharmaceutical products, certain medical devices and sandalwood—all these and more—Australian exporters will benefit.
But, like any good free trade agreement, it will also benefit Indian exporters. We have to welcome that. You can't have a free trade agreement which only goes one way. Then it's not free trade. You need that agreement to benefit both economies. When it benefits both economies, it lifts both economies up. There is no more important economic player in the world today than India. India's economy continues to grow at a phenomenal rate. India continues to be more and more outward looking. India continues to understand that it has a key role to play in the Indo-Pacific and ensuring the economic development of the Indo-Pacific. That is why this agreement is so important.
There have been a lot of attempts at negotiating an Australia-India free trade agreement. As a matter of fact, when I became Australia's trade minister and I floated the idea that we should have another go at it, I received phone calls from people saying: 'Don't waste your time. It's been tried and, every time, it has collapsed at the last hurdle.' But, I've got to say, when a challenge is put to you, and people say to you that you'll never be able to do something, it does inherently raise the competitive juices a little bit more, and you go: 'Well, I'd like to prove you wrong.' I give a big shout-out to my good friend Piyush Goyal, the Indian commerce minister. I know he felt exactly the same way. That is why, during the pandemic—which made it incredibly difficult—we set about the task of negotiating this free-trade agreement. We did it because we wanted to prove the naysayers wrong, to prove that we could negotiate an agreement which would benefit both countries.
That's exactly what we did. Over a period of about three months, we spoke almost daily. If we didn't speak every day, we spoke every second day, to make sure that we could get this agreement done. That investment of time that Piyush put into this agreement should always be recognised. You have to remember that, for us, I was a trade minister for 25 million people; he's a commerce secretary for about 1.4 billion people. So the competition for his time is immense. But he was determined to see this agreement come to the fore, and that is exactly what took place. He needs a big shout-out when it comes to what was achieved here.
We should also recognise Prime Minister Modi and former prime minister Morrison, because the unique relationship they had meant that, when the hard decisions had to be made, when we needed to discuss those very sensitive issues, we could do it knowing that our prime ministers had our back. That's incredibly important, because self-interest always comes to the fore when you are negotiating these agreements, but the support of both our leaders meant that we could put that aside and we knew that they would support us.
I also want to give a shout-out to former prime minister Tony Abbott, who also has a very unique relationship with Prime Minister Modi. I made him the special envoy for trade with India, and he was able, through the pandemic, to help me in terms of the travelling to and from India to make sure we could keep progress going on this agreement. And that is exactly what we were able to do.
I once again give a big shout-out to our negotiators. It was done, as I've said, through the pandemic, so a lot of the negotiations were done via Zoom or other secure links to make sure that we could keep things pushing along. We also had to travel to India three or four times during the pandemic, and that obviously brought with it its own risks. In particular, it meant that we had to do a couple of weeks quarantine when we returned home. But our negotiators had a single-mindedness in their approach to this to make sure that we got the job done. I give all of them a big shout-out, not only those on the Australian side but also those on the Indian side.
I think, of all the free trade agreements that Australia has done in the last 10 to 15 years, this agreement, over time, will be seen as one of the most important. Just think about the potential of the—
A division having been called in the House of Representativ es—
Sitting suspended from 11 : 38 to 12 : 10
Mr TEHAN: Before the suspension, I was talking about the significance of this agreement for Australia's future, for India's future and for the ties between our two nations into the future. This agreement will build a foundation which I think will enhance our relationship like no other agreement that we have seen. The economic potential of both economies and the complementary nature of both economies mean that this agreement will continue to grow and grow. There is still more to be done on the economic relationship, but this is a fantastic start. I am so pleased that this report recommends that that agreement be signed and put into treaty status so we can reap the benefits of it.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (12:11): by leave—Like the member for Wannon, I'm really glad to make some remarks on Report 202: Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which recommends that Australia ratify the agreement. Indeed, that's already occurred, and the enabling legislation has passed through the House. It's a very significant agreement, as the member for Wannon was saying, and I acknowledge that he was the minister in government when the agreement was signed.
It's the first agreement of its kind in 10 years that India has settled with a developed nation like Australia. It does include most favoured nation clauses, which will have the effect of ensuring that, when India settles some other trade agreements that it has under contemplation, Australia will have the same kinds of benefits that might be extended to Canada and other nations, in addition to what's been achieved by this agreement.
It has been referred to as an 'early harvest' agreement. It's called an economic cooperation and trade agreement rather than a full-blown free trade agreement, and that is in acknowledgement that there's a fair bit more that can be achieved. But it is significant, and that's because India is incredibly significant on its own terms in our region and globally—but particularly for Australia. India's currently the fifth-largest economy. There's some speculation that it could overtake Germany in the course of the next year or so to become the fourth-largest economy. There's no doubt that it will become the second-largest economy in due course; it's just a matter of time. It's already the second-most populous country and will become the most populous country.
The scale of India's market and economy is therefore enormous, and so the opportunities for Australian investment and export in goods and services are enormous. At this stage we have barely tapped the potential. India is, I think, our seventh-largest two-way trading partner, and there's a lot of upside in lots of areas. One example would be wine. We did have wine exports to China that were in the order of $1 billion annually, until China decided to shut that particular door. After a long, painstaking effort by wine producers and exporters in Australia, the quantum of our exports to that market still sits at only about $20 million per annum, so that gives you a sense of just how much it could grow.
There are some other things about India that are significant, in relation to the nature of its population. I'm sure that people who have an interest in this trade agreement and our economic relations with India would have paid regard to the An India economic strategy to 2035 report that Peter Varghese produced in 2018. That speaks to the specific characteristics of India as a nation, in addition to its scale, that make it significant. From that report:
The drivers of Indian growth are deeply structural which suggests they are also sustainable. They include the urbanisation of the world's largest rural population, the gradual movement of the informal economy, currently comprising 90 per cent of India's workers, into the formal economy, a young demographic with a mean age of 27, considerable investment in infrastructure, and the beginnings of an ambitious program to upskill 400 million Indians.
That gives you a sense of how the growth that India currently experiences—somewhere in the order of six to eight per cent per annum—can be expected to be maintained for the next 20 years. The fact that they have a relatively young and unskilled population gives them some very, very significant productivity upsides but also creates some opportunities for us.
Obviously, our two key service exports are tourism and education. People often think of education in terms of university education, but it includes the TAFE sector as well. India is already a significant participant in both of those, particularly education, but the scope for that to grow is really enormous. The Varghese report suggested that we could see inbound tourism from India quadruple by 2035 to 1.2 million visitors annually. That would be really significant.
As the member for Wannon mentioned, there is a structural complementarity between the Australian economy and the Indian economy. Again, I'll quote from the Varghese report:
Scale encourages ambition but it is the structural complementarity between the Indian and Australian economies which is the key to translating ambition into opportunities. Put simply, a growing Indian economy will need more of the things Australia is well placed to provide from education services to resources and energy; from food to health care; from tourist destinations to expertise in water and environmental management. Indeed services are likely to be the fastest growing segment of our future economic relationship with India.
That's very welcome. It's quite an achievement for us to have service exports like tourism and education, but we need them to keep growing and becoming stronger over time.
It's timely to make a contribution to this debate when, as the member for Wannon said, the Prime Minister is in India. It's a sign of our commitment to strengthening and advancing that relationship. The relationship doesn't just consist of an economic or trading relationship; obviously, there have been very significant people-to-people links for a long time, and they are also growing. India is not only a significant source of income and tourists but also a very significant source of migration. In most state and territory jurisdictions, India is the largest or the second-largest source of incoming migrants presently, and that's only going to make those links stronger.
There are challenges in investing in and trading with India, and they haven't all been overcome through this agreement. India has a history of being wary of the impact of liberalisation, and that continues. The fact that this is the first agreement of its kind with a developed country in 10 years tells you a little bit about that. It's also the case that India, like Australia, has a federal structure, and so to some degree businesses operating in India and wanting to export into India have to manage regulations and requirements at both the national level and the state level. Some of those are difficult to deal with through agreements like this, which are negotiated and settled between the two national governments.
There's no question that we have a lot to gain from a stronger economic, social, people-to-people, diplomatic, development, assistance, regional cooperation, disarmament and peace relationship with India. They are already one of the most significant nations in the Indo-Pacific. We perhaps don't talk enough about India and Indonesia with the Indo-Pacific because of the extent to which we talk about China, which is understandable up to a point. But we need to maintain our focus looking west; I say that as a Western Australian on the Indian Ocean coast. The more we can explore and strengthen the existing and future potential parts of our relationship with India, the better it will be for Australia's national interest.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak again on this report. I welcome the recommendations that it made. As I say, we have already ratified the agreement and the enabling legislation has already passed the House.
Dr CHARLTON (Parramatta) (12:21): I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 202, a review of the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. The potential of the Australia-India relationship is enormous. On paper our two countries are highly compatible: two young nations both born in the 20th century with common heritage, geographically proximate, shared democratic values and similar sporting passions. But building and maintaining relationships isn't easy. The uncomfortable fact we have to face in our relationship with India is that for most of our history our relationship hasn't fully realised the potential or the high expectations we had for it. Our trade was lower than expected and our investment was even lower.
For most of the last 75 years of our joint relationship, India was the 20th trade partner to Australia—down from the third-biggest trade partner to Australia in the first 100 years of our relationship before Indian independence. Almost every Australian Prime Minister, from Menzies to Gillard, saw huge promise in the relationship but just couldn't quite realise it. A report to the Hawke government said that Australia's relationship with India was 'distant but cordial'. In the Howard government, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer described the relationship as 'sporadic and insubstantial'.
I'm relieved to say that today we are at a turning point in this relationship. After decades of unrealised potential, the Australia-India relationship is finally getting the attention and care it needs to lift off. The relationship has never been in a better place. This year we have nine ministerial visits from India. The Prime Minister is in India right now, along with a trade delegation, and Prime Minister Modi is coming to Australia for the Quad in May. It's true to say that, in the 76 years of our formal diplomatic relationship, no year has been a stronger one for our relationship than this year.
But maintaining relationships isn't easy. It takes more than common values and international trips and good diplomatic relations to enable a lift-off in our economic relationship. In the case of India, we've had historical challenges. Our economies were never as complementary of each other as Australia's economic relationship was with many East Asian countries. East Asian countries took the export oriented growth model, required a lot of raw material inputs and were producing a lot of manufactured outputs. That was incredibly complementary to Australia's economy, which imports a lot of manufactured goods and exports a lot of commodities. India took a different economic pathway, one of economic self-reliance, that led it to focus on its domestic capabilities and to erect high protectionist barriers around its economy. One of the consequences of that was a weak economic relationship between Australia and India, and that weak economic relationship was the missing ballast in our bilateral relationship. All the goodwill and high-level visits and diplomatic rhetoric couldn't make up for the fundamental lack of mutual economic interests.
In his 1973 speech in New Delhi, Gough Whitlam said, 'There is something missing in recent years in the recent relationship between the two countries.' Well, commerce was the missing piece, but today we're at a turning point—not only because of the ministerial visits and not only because of the concrete diplomatic attempts to improve relations, but because of significant advances in our economic engagement, and the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement is one of those steps. Entering into force last December, the Australia-India ECTA and further tariff cut on 1 January 2023 have meant that around 85 per cent of Australia's exports to India now enter duty free. In its first month, Australian businesses claimed ECTA's lower tariff rates on over $2.5 billion worth of exports.
It's no surprise that Australian businesses have been keen to take advantage of these outcomes. Our top lamb exporter, Mulwarra Export from New South Wales, will benefit from the elimination of India's 30 per cent tariff on imported lamb. Our fresh rock lobster and wool exports will benefit from an immediate elimination of tariffs. In the services sector, exporters like Global Study Partners will capitalise on the predictability of ECTA service outcomes, allowing them to expand into India with added certainty.
The Australia-India ECTA is often described as an 'early harvest', and that's right; that's a fair description. ECTA is a step in the right direction, to give the Australia-India relationship what it needs to ferment and grow. But, compared to other trade agreements signed by Australia, ECTA is not as comprehensive in scope; it's not as comprehensive in coverage. As a result, the outcomes of ECTA alone fall far short of the changes needed to take this relationship to the next level in the 21st century.
That's why it gives me great confidence to see that negotiations are now underway for a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement, so that, beneath the diplomatic visits and rhetoric, the Australian government is getting to work and adopting a long-term approach to realising the potential of this relationship. We're finally adding the missing piece in the relationship with India—commerce.
Mr LAXALE (Bennelong) (12:26): In November last year, our Prime Minister met with the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, to celebrate the rich connections between our two countries and our peoples. They discussed the finalisation of the economic cooperation and free trade agreement between Australia and India and its importance for expanding our economic relationship. Our two countries share a deep and abiding bond based on common values and interests and a commitment to promoting regional peace and prosperity.
India's economy is just extraordinary. The opportunities in India are enormous. Its society is dynamic. Its economy is diverse. India's economy has become the world's third largest, measured in purchasing power parity, and is considered to be one of the fastest-growing large economies. India's GDP has grown from an average annual rate of less than three per cent in the 1970s to an incredible seven per cent in recent years.
We have a large Indian diaspora in Australia, particularly in Bennelong. That represents a big plus for our business relationships and a big opportunity for enriching our multiculturalism. It serves as a national economic asset as well, providing a microcosm for the world, showing that people can live next door to each other in harmony, with different religions, different backgrounds and different political views. It's a great thing that, in Australia and in Bennelong, we can have all faiths living next door to each other in harmony. Our ability to all get along and relate to each other as human beings is a really strong value for us and for our nation.
Because of the work our government has been doing to ensure that those values are front and centre, Australia is back at the table as a trusted partner, engaging with the world. Growing our economic trade and investment flows with India is a key priority for this government. The entry into the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement in December last year takes us one step closer. This agreement is India's first free-trade agreement with a major developed country in over 10 years, and it provides Australian exporters a valuable advantage in the world's fastest-growing large economy.
The quality of this agreement, in terms of market access and opportunity for Australian businesses, demonstrates India's commitment to our bilateral economic partnership. Australian businesses are already excited to take advantage of the outcomes of this ECTA. Medtech companies—and there are many of those in Bennelong—such as Connect2MyDoctor have expressed their confidence that ECTA will help make their digital health platform more accessible in India. Tariffs on premium wine to India were slashed by half from over 150 per cent to 75 per cent, dropping even further to 70 per cent on 1 January 2023 and phasing down to 25 per cent over nine years.
India presents unparalleled growth opportunities for Australian businesses across a range of sectors from food and agriculture to technology—medtech, as we heard—but also, importantly, to green energy, health and education services. India's young population, economic demand and growth trajectory present enormous opportunities for our exporters. This trade agreement capitalises on this by delivering strong, immediate market access outcomes for Australia in goods and services. This agreement will eliminate tariffs on over 90 per cent of Australian goods exports to India by value. India's high tariffs on agriculture such as sheepmeat, wool, cotton, seafood, macadamia nuts and avocados will be removed. India will also substantially reduce its 150 per cent tariff on bottled wine above US$5 and has guaranteed to extend to Australia any deeper access provided to future free-trade-agreement parties.
More than 6,000 diverse industries from India, including textiles, leather, furniture, jewellery and machinery, will have duty-free access to the Australian market. It presents an enormous opportunity for companies and professionals accessing the Indian market. India has guaranteed Australian service suppliers in 31 sectors and subsectors the best treatment afforded to its future trade-agreement partners, benefiting suppliers of higher and adult education, business services, R&D, communications, construction and engineering services, as well as the traditional insurance, banking, health services et cetera. As I said earlier, Bennelong has a huge, growing South Asian community, and it's a true honour to be a representative of them here in this place.
It's so exciting to see Australia and India's strong people-to-people links strengthened because of this agreement. The labour mobility outcomes embedded will support trade and business and contribute to further cultural exchange. India's labour mobility commitments to Australia are consistent with the best of our existing free trade agreements. As our Prime Minister said last week, Prime Minister Modi is interested in increasing educational interaction between our two nations. He wants Australian universities to have a presence in India and Indian students to be able to study in Australian universities over there. We also encourage them to come back to Australia. I would, of course, encourage them to come to Bennelong, where Macquarie University is situated and has huge links with the Indian community.
This free trade agreement and the Prime Minister's ongoing discussions with India—he's there right now—represent just the beginning of our fruitful and prosperous relationship with them. The Prime Minister's current trip to India alongside the Minister for Trade and Tourism and Minister for Resources signals our very strong commitment to our countries' relationship and to fostering our economic, social and cultural links. Later this year, our Prime Minister will also attend the G20 Summit, an important visit that will continue to upgrade the relationship between our two countries, and, of course, Prime Minister Modi will visit Australia next year for the Quad leaders meeting.
The Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement is a significant milestone in economic relations between India and Australia. It will remove barriers to trade in goods and services, improve market access for Australian businesses and create a more transparent and predictable business environment. It's ambitious, it's comprehensive, and it will promote greater cooperation and collaboration not only in trade investment but also in education, tourism, science and technology. It will allow us to develop a stronger, more prosperous relationship between our two nations, and it's testament to our shared economic values and our deep common interests. By reducing tariffs and eliminating non-tariff barriers, we are creating a more level playing field for our businesses to compete and succeed in each other's markets.
India is a fantastic economic partner, and I'm so excited to see our relationship prosper and our relationship continue. More trade is a key part of how we build the economic future in Australia that we want. Australia's open for business to India, and we're always looking at ways to create opportunities for Australian businesses to grow in India. Together we can build a more vibrant, dynamic, and prosperous future. By working together, we can harness our respective strengths and contribute to regional peace and prosperity, creating a better future for Australians and Indians across the world.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr KHALIL : I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Hillsong Church
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:35): Last year a whistleblower provided me with financial records and board papers that show that Hillsong is breaking numerous laws in Australia and around the world relating to fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. For example, this document shows how, in 2021, four members of the Houston family and their friends enjoyed a three-day luxury retreat in Cancun, Mexico, using $150,000 of church money. These other documents show former leader Brian Houston treating private jets like Ubers—again, all with church money. For example, in one three-month period, Brian Houston's trips cost $55,000, $52,000, $30,000, $22,000 and $20,000. Meanwhile, the new head of Hillsong, Phil Dooley, has told church followers he only flies economy, but these documents show him clocking up $58,000 in business-class flights for him and his daughter to Guatemala, $42,000 in business-class flights to Mexico and $32,000 in business-class flights from Cape Town to Sydney via the US.
Hillsong followers believe that the money they put in the poor box goes to the poor, but these documents show how that money is actually used to do the kind of shopping that would embarrass a Kardashian—for example, a $6,500 Cartier watch for Bobbie Houston, $2,500 in Louis Vuitton luggage, a $2,500 watch for Phil Dooley, two watches worth $15,000 for Joel and Julia A'Bell, shopping sprees for designer clothes at Saks Fifth Avenue and even $16,000 for custom skateboards. Then there are the cash gifts—for instance, $15,000 for Darren Kitto's 50th birthday, $36,000 for Gary Clarke's 30th anniversary and $4,300 for his 60th birthday, plus up to $30,000 to board members, some of whom allegedly helped cover up the sexual abuse carried out by Frank Houston, Brian Houston's father. There are also the curious payments of $10,000 each to Paul de Jong and Chris Hodges, the external pastors who investigated allegations of Brian Houston's 2019 sexual misconduct in a Sydney hotel room involving a female parishioner.
The documents also show church donations being used to pay more than a million dollars a year in royalties to Hillsong musicians like Joel Houston, who's Brian Houston's son. Moreover, the documents show a $15.7 million loan from Hillsong—very unlikely ever to be repaid—which funded the purchase of Festival Hall in Melbourne. At face value this appears unremarkable, except that this is a commercial venture run by Hillsong's Community Venues company and is ineligible to benefit from tax-deductible church donations. All of this is in the context of the documents also revealing that Hillsong earns $80 million more in Australian annual income than it reports publicly.
The criminality isn't limited to Australia, as evidenced by these further documents which show how honorariums are used to disguise income and avoid tax. For example, US pastor Joyce Meyer enjoyed honorariums of $160,000, $133,000, $100,000 and $32,000, and US pastor TD Jakes received $71,000 and $120,000, with a staggering $77,000 worth of airfares to and from Australia thrown in. In return, Mr Houston goes to America and receives—you guessed it—his own eye-watering honorariums. Moreover, sending millions of dollars of Australian charitable donations overseas is illegal in some circumstances. The documents also show disgraced former head of Hillsong New York Carl Lentz being paid a salary of $220,000, most of it tax-free, and tens of thousands of dollars of church donations to run the New York church's celebrity greenroom to cover catering and the cost of gifts for visiting celebrities. The documents show that Hillsong Australia guaranteed a $5½ million loan for Hillsong London to purchase the former Hippodrome nightclub, all from tax-exempt Australian income at a time when London was experiencing serious financial trouble.
I've verified that these documents are genuine. I'm shocked that, when offered to the ATO, ASIC and ACNC last year under whistleblower legislation, not one of those agencies acted. That is a failure of regulatory oversight every bit as alarming as Hillsong's criminality. To remedy this, I now seek leave to table the evidence provided to me by the whistleblower.
Leave granted.
Windsor Town Centre
Menopause
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:00): Whenever residents in the Hawkesbury are asked what they value in their region, right up the top of the list is heritage. That has came through in numerous surveys in the last decade—Greater Sydney Commission research, tourism research and surveys that I've done. Back in 2020 the Hawkesbury City Council said that its survey revealed that people value the heritage buildings. The council itself committed to retaining the waterwheel and the gaslights in Windsor Mall as part of the $18.5 million Liveability Project. Some $15 million of that funding comes from combined federal-state funding under the 2017 city deal. It was described as a project that would focus on river heritage, civic boulevards and vibrant people places to reinforce strengths of existing village identity, heritage and setting of key town centres.
There has been enormous investment of time and energy by community members, local businesses and some councillors involved since the original working groups. I think that's why there's such disappointment about some of the aspects of the plan for Windsor—primarily, it's hard to see how the stated ambition around enhancing heritage actually translates into the plans. I think the expectations of the business owners whose livelihoods depend on this work being done effectively are very reasonable. As one business owner said, the fact that thousands of people visit the Windsor Mall, the Sunday markets, Thompson Square and surrounds despite the run-down conditions proves Windsor is not in need of modernising just rejuvenation. As another business owner said, the real aim of improving the ambience of the area and then maintaining it is to draw people to the area so that businesses can thrive.
I commend the residents and business owners who are persisting in explaining yet again to council that they'd like to be heard. They are the economic lifeblood of Windsor. They recognise that this may be the one shot to get it right for the next 25 years. They deserve to be genuinely listened to.
Is it hot in here or is it just me? That is something that many women over 45 or 50 find themselves asking. Yes, I'm talking about menopause. In fact, we're really talking about perimenopause, menopause and postmenopause. Perimenopause begins when the menstrual cycle becomes consistently irregular and it's when women experience things like hot flushes, night sweats, poor sleep and sometimes mood changes, anxiety and brain fog. Then we hit menopause, which is just a day. We don't know the date until 12 months have passed, but menopause itself is one day. Then we get to postmenopause, and all the symptoms of perimenopause can continue plus women experience increased cardiovascular disease risk, the threat of diabetes and a higher risk of dementia and osteoporosis. But there are things we can do to help inform women and empower them as they move through this phase of their life.
I want to thank the people who took part in the Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health forum this week and congratulate the member for Dunkley for her organisation around it. My friend Shelley Horton shared her horror story of perimenopause. There are things that need to happen. More information is needed to empower women to understand what is happening to them. We also need to educate healthcare professionals so that they understand the different aspects of menopause and midlife women's health. Of course, there's always the need for more evidence. We need more research into this aspect of women's health so we understand it better. That is why I'm very pleased to see that we as a government, the Albanese Labor government, are taking women's health seriously with our announcement of the National Women's Health Advisory Council, which will give expert advice to government on women's health matters.
We've done a number of things around women's health. There's $5 million to improve support for women after a stillbirth or miscarriage. We're establishing specific endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics around Australia. That's something that is affecting a large number of young women and has potential impacts on fertility. We're also extending access to MRIs for women who are struggling to conceive. A really significant announcement is that 50 per cent of all medical research grants will go to women because we know it's women who investigate women's health.
These women's health issues should be spoken about in this place. There shouldn't be a taboo on it. It's going to happen to every woman as she ages, and I'm very proud to be able to put this on the parliamentary record.
Cystic Fibrosis
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (12:45): It has been more than 100 days since the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, PBAC, approved the use of Trikafta for young Australians aged between six and 11 suffering with cystic fibrosis. This government unfortunately continues to leave sufferers and their families waiting to access this life-saving treatment.
In Australia, one in more than 2½ thousand babies are born with cystic fibrosis annually, and there is currently no cure. The median life expectancy for Australians with cystic fibrosis is 47 years. Tragically, treatment is out of reach for most Australians. Without the PBS subsidy, around 1,900 Australians are forced to pay more than $250,000 a year for access to this drug, Trikafta. I've been contacted by a doctor in my electorate who is concerned that the Labor government is not acting fast enough to list this medicine on the PBS. Frankly, I'm worried Labor won't do it at all, given their dubious track record in this regard.
The listing of Trikafta would be life changing for many Australians with cystic fibrosis, and I urge the government to make it available on the PBS so patients will only pay a maximum of $42.50 a script or as little as $6.80 on a concession card. Unfortunately, Labor's history with the PBS is clear. When last in government, they couldn't list all medicines recommended by the PBS, let alone make them cheaper, because of their appalling budget management. In fact, Labor stopped listing medicines on the PBS in 2011, cutting funding for mental health and private health insurance rebates because they couldn't manage the economy. My fear is that history is about to repeat itself, with the Treasurer continuing to make excuses instead of plans to manage the economy and plans to get these life-saving and life-changing drugs listed. We've seen cuts to mental health again, and now the government has had more than three months to make this life-saving treatment accessible to suffering children.
In December the health minister tweeted, 'We'll move quickly to make Trikafta available for our younger Australians.' Superb, Health Minister, I agree with you completely, and I hope and pray that you'll honour that and move quickly. I assure the minister that, at a cost of $20,000 per month for treatment, three months down the track is not what families call 'quickly'. Families are now out of pocket $60,000, Health Minister, while they've been waiting for you as the health minister to move quickly. Minister, 'quickly' means quickly. It doesn't mean a hundred days. These are children that are desperately in need of life-changing drugs. Please honour your word: move quickly. Every month that the government waits costs sufferers and their loved ones money and precious time together. Early intervention is the key to help reduce the long-term impact of cystic fibrosis by preventing lung disease before scarring and inflammation take hold.
On our side we've got a strong record of delivering affordable, life-saving medications for all Australians, listing every drug recommended by the PBAC. From 2013, the coalition government approved more than 2,800 new and amended listings—an overall investment by government of $15 billion. I'm very proud that one of the final treatments listed on the PBS on the coalition government's watch was Trikafta for those aged 12 and above. This listing made access to treatment within reach of thousands of Australians with cystic fibrosis. I urge the Albanese government to make this a priority and stop the suffering that these children, who don't have the luxury of time, are currently enduring. I urge the health minister: Honour your word. List it quickly. You've had 100 days. Time is up. List it now. List it this week.
Sri Chinmoy Peace Run
Dr LEIGH (Fenner—Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) (12:50): Since 1987 more than seven million people worldwide have held the Sri Chinmoy peace torch, including Pope Francis, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Bob Hawke and John Howard. The 2023 Sri Chinmoy Oneness-Home Peace Run started in Brisbane and came to Canberra today. As ACT patron of the peace run, I was pleased to welcome the team to Parliament House, along with members and senators from across the parliament.
The team carrying the torch in relay has included Abhijatri Robinson, South Africa; Annabel Hepworth, Australia; Ashadeep Volkhardt, Australia; Bayarkhuu Batbayar, Mongolia; Fatima Caal Caal, Guatemala; Gabriel Quintana, Guatemala; Gesiane Nascimento, Brazil; Grahak Cunningham, Australia; Harashita Sunaoshi, Japan; Harita Davies, New Zealand, a three-time finisher of the world's longest race, the Sri Chinmoy 3,100-mile race; Joe Ward, Australia; Liana Tibaquira, Colombia; Mirabel Gonzalez Lopez, Guatemala; Narantuya Batsaikhan, Mongolia; Paramananda, Indonesia; Prachar Stegemann, Australia; Salil Wilson, Australia, global CEO of the peace run; Sarankhuu Jargal, Mongolia; Shasti Aston, Australia; Stacey Marsh, New Zealand, the national coordinator of the peace run for Australia; Susan Marshall, New Zealand, women's winner of this year's Sri Chinmoy 3,100-mile race; plus thousands more Australian school students and members of community groups and clubs, along with citizens from all walks of life who have held, walked or run with the peace torch.
The organisers are inspired by Sri Chinmoy, founder of the peace run. As they put it, his 'vision of a dynamic global event in which each and every citizen can participate and offer their hearts' aspiration for peace continues to grow and offer ever-blossoming inspiration, hope and happiness.'
Peace has always been important to me. Among the earliest political activities that I joined were the annual Palm Sunday peace marches from Hyde Park in Sydney to the Domain. I enjoyed conversations with our family friend Kevin Clements, now Foundation Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies at the Toda Peace Institute and foundation director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago. Kevin has devoted a lifetime to research on reducing conflict around the world, inspiring scholars and policymakers to devote more attention to peace building.
One aspect of peace building is crime prevention. On International Women's Day, yesterday, parliamentarians stood in silence to honour the women and children who are the victims of domestic and family violence. We also need to reform the criminal justice system to ensure prisons do a better job of rehabilitation and are not a revolving door to reoffending. Another aspect of peace building is averting wars. As wise generals know, one way of averting war can be through effective diplomacy and strong foreign aid programs. Australia also has a proud track record of working to reduce the scourge of nuclear weapons. In a 2021 book, What's the Worst that Could Happen? Existential Risk and Extreme Politics, I highlighted the danger that nuclear war could end humanity. The odds of this happening in the coming century are around one in a thousand. How many of us would get on a plane with a one in 1,000 risk of crashing? I commend the campaigners who are working towards a nuclear weapons ban, encouraging the world's nine nuclear states to relinquish their weapons.
We talk a lot in this place about the military, but avoiding conflict should be the ultimate goal. In Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Congo and Nigeria, conflict claimed thousands of lives last year. Australia has a powerful role to play in supporting peace around the world.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the special work of Prachar Stegemann in supporting not only Sri Chinmoy but also Canberra's endurance sport community. The first event I did, which was organised by Prachar, was the 1989 Canberra long-distance triathlon.
Since then I have done dozens more, including a 12-hour track run last year at the AIS, a 100-kilometre ultramarathon around Canberra and a 10-kilometre Lake Burley Griffin swim. Prachar's ever-smiling generosity and organisational nous are a gift to those of us who enjoy pushing our bodies to the limits. Finally, on Canberra Day, Monday 13 March, I hope that all Canberrans will join the Sri Chinmoy Fun-Runs at Acton park, coinciding with the official closing ceremony for the Australian leg of the peace run for 2023.
Forde Electorate: Floods
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:55): I rise today to speak about the plight of a group of constituents in my electorate of Forde led by Cameron and Alexandra Hoswell of Greenbank. As we all know in this place, we've had several years of floods and cyclones across large parts of Australia. Also, in Logan we had the floods that hit in February last year. Cameron and Alexandra were unaffected, just like their neighbours on the surrounding properties. Their property had maybe some water over it from the local stormwater drain. Many of these homeowners have now lived in their homes for nearly 40 years, and in that time never have they been affected by flooding.
It wasn't until they started shopping around for some different insurance policies that Cameron and Alexandra were told they could no longer be insured with a normal insurer. They of course asked the sensible question why. As it turned out, it's because their property has now been classified as being on a flood plain. Not long after this, they all received letters from Logan City Council advising them that due to 'flood risk' and 'updated flood mapping' their properties were at risk of flooding.
It is a matter of fact that Logan City Council has quite rightly sought to update its flood mapping as a result of the floods of last year and also the floods of 2017, and I have no issue with the council doing that. However, having visited these properties and having grown up in Logan City and experienced floods in my younger years, can I say that if these properties flood the way they are apparently supposed to we will all be in an ark.
The biggest flood risk to these properties is the fact that the Logan City Council have failed to clear and keep clean the stormwater drain that runs between these properties. There is no way on earth that these properties can even remotely be classified as being on a flood plain and having a flood risk. As I said, I fully accept that it's council responsibility to ensure that the flood mapping of the city is appropriate and up to date, to ensure that the flood impacts we've seen on many properties are not repeated, but these are not some of those properties. It is the stormwater drain that they are next to. If the council actually took the time to go down there and get their contractors to clean out the stormwater drains and remove all the rubbish and dead trees and crude gravel and all sorts of other things, and maybe fix some of their pipes in the process, this would not be an issue for these properties, let alone any other matter.
I call on the Logan City Council to actually take the time to go out and meet with these residents, because these residents have been seeking meetings with council officers and their local counsellors to have this issue resolved. To this day, sadly, they have not been successful, which is what resulted in them approaching me in the first place. I can't understand why Logan City Council is not prepared to go and meet with these residents and address their concerns and, more importantly, take on their responsibility of ensuring that the storm drains and watercourses that they are responsible for—through what would be an inexpensive fix of cleaning out these drains and properly maintaining them to prevent any of the so-called risks that they have apparently identified—are being dealt with. The nearest river to these residents of Greenbank is the Logan River, and there is no way that any flood height—even the record 1887 flood—would reach anywhere near these properties. So I call on Logan City Council to do their job, look after their waterways and storm drains and properly maintain them, to reduce any risk to these properties and allow people to get on with their lives unaffected by ridiculous flood mapping.
Local Journalism
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (13:00): I'm here today to speak about the importance of local journalism and local news. I have a great appreciation for the work that journalists do—and there is a little bit of self-appreciation in that, as I started my working life as a journalist. I spent a number of years working in community radio and at the ABC, including working at regional services for the ABC. So I have a great appreciation for the job of journalists to hold people like us to account and to make sure that there is scrutiny of the work we do and that communities are informed about what is happening, and particularly that communities are informed about what is happening in their place locally. I think there is a really important job that journalists and local community news outlets do which helps to build a sense of community and a knowledge of what is happening in your area.
Journalists tell the stories of people—the stories of those we can celebrate for doing wonderful things, the stories of those who need an advocate in their corner helping them make the case for change. They keep us informed of vital things such as bushfire and emergency warnings but also things that help build our community like local markets, local events. However, what we've seen recently is an acceleration of what has already been a trend: local newspapers and local news outlets are closing their doors. Local media has been struggling for some time. With the shift to online, the money just hasn't been there for local newspapers to continue to operate. People are changing their news habits, and advertisers, more importantly, are shifting their dollars.
So the model that we used to see, where a community like mine in Jagajaga would have had two or three local papers, just doesn't exist anymore. The local papers that were there in my community are no longer there. I have people in the community come up to me and say how much they miss this service, that it was a place where they found out what was going on locally, where a lens was held over the local council so that they knew what was happening there and where they found out how they could get involved in their neighbourhood. Getting that information from Facebook is obviously just not the same. It is a different context. It is not filtered through the professionalism of local journalism and local news.
I am pleased to say that there is a green shoot of hope in my electorate, in the north-east of Melbourne. CopperLine News is a new monthly newspaper covering the Eltham area, and its first edition was published at the end of 2022. I'm really proud to be a supporter of its team and the work they do. CopperLineactually came about after the community got together and identified that they wanted and needed a local paper on the scene in Eltham. Those people got a committee together and, as a result of that, they have established this local newspaper. I'm really pleased to supportCopperLine, and I know that, across my electorate, there are many other areas where people would be keen to do similar and are probably looking for support to do similar. That is something that, across Australia, we should absolutely be looking at as a government and thinking about how we can support these initiatives and make sure that local news continues to be a part of our landscape.
It's not just in my electorate that there are some green shoots. There are stories of local journalists who have had their local paper axed by one of the media companies but who have now said: 'Hang on. I can still tell my local stories. I can still be a part of this really important resource for my community, whether this be in print or online.' There are a number of communities where this is happening. But of course it is a tough ask for these people to step in where once established news were and to set up their own newspaper, whether that be online or in print.
Here in Canberra I recently had a meeting with the Local & Independent News Association, LINA, who have recently formed to try and help local operators of independent news online and highlight the fact that these people really are trying to fill that gap and they are doing it with not that much support. They also want to encourage others to do this in their own communities. So I place on the record my support for the work they're doing and my encouragement for them to continue.
I am a proud supporter of public interest journalism, and it is something our government is investing in. We have delivered a dedicated $15 million grant program supporting over 200 publications operating in the regional and local news space, and we are doing work to get a better idea of our news media landscape and what that looks like in our country. There is more work to be done. It is important for our communities. It is important for our democracy. It is important for how people get to see the work we do in this place and the work that happens in their local communities. I am hopeful that we will see more initiatives like CopperLine in my community to bring us our local news.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:05