﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2022-09-07</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 7 September 2022</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Durham, Ms Judith, AO</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to the death of Judith Durham AO be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>In doing so, I also advise the House that we were represented last night at the memorial service by the Special Envoy for the Arts, the member for Macquarie.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Newton-John, Dame Olivia, AC, DBE</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements on the death of Dame Olivia Newton-John AC DBE be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>3</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 2 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 12 September 2022. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 6 September 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 6 September 2022, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 12 September 2022, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSI NESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MRS ANDREWS: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the criminal law, law enforcement and proceeds of crime, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 S</inline> <inline font-style="italic">eptember 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR M RYAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">National Disabili</inline><inline font-style="italic">ty Insurance Scheme Act 2013</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Disability Insurance Scheme (Faster Approvals for NDIS Housing and Supports) Bill 2022</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must </inline> <inline font-style="italic">be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS COKER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's commitment to fix the mess the former Government made of aged care and that this is a priority for the Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's support for a pay rise for Australia's aged care workers as recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recommits to delivering a better standard of care for Australians in aged care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Coker</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MRS ANDREWS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that 17 September 2022 is the start of National Police Week, which culminates with National Police Remembrance Day on 29 September 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the crucial, and often challenging and dangerous, work that the men and women of our state and federal police do on a daily basis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) remembers those police who have lost their lives in the line of duty, and their families who are forever impacted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) thanks the men and women of our state and federal police for their ongoing dedication to keeping Australian communities safe and maintaining the rule of law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2022)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Andrews</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Commi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ttee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR TUDGE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that in Government, the Coalition invested significantly in research and development, including an estimated $4.3 billion in 2020-21 through the education portfolio;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia stands internationally as one of the highest performing contributors to foundational research, being responsible for 2.7 per cent of the world's scientific output, compared to being home to 0.34 per cent of the world's population; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in terms of research translation and commercialisation, Australian does not meet the same high performing reputation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the previous Government:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) agreed in February 2022 to a ten-year Research Commercialisation Action Plan to drive greater utilisation of research and collaboration with industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) budgeted $2.2 billion to support its Research Commercialisation Action Plan to boost Australia's economic recovery, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) $1. 6 billion for Australia's Economic Accelerator to establish a stage-gated program to support translation and commercialisation in the six National Manufacturing Priority Areas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) $243 million for the Trailblazer Universities Program to select universities to partner with industry to work on research; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) $296 million to support greater collaboration through 1,800 industry-focused PhDs and 800 industry fellowships over ten years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to commit to implementing the Coalition's Research Commercialisation Action Plan in full and on-time, first with introducing legislation to establish Australia's Economic Accelerator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 2 August 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Tudge</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should conti</inline> <inline font-style="italic">nue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR NEUMANN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) many veterans struggle to find work when they transition to civilian life, which can lead to other problems, such as mental illness, homelessness, incarceration and even suicide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) some veterans can experience stigma and discrimination in the job market;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government will deliver a comprehensive $24 million veteran employment program to provide greater support to defence personnel as they transition to civilian life; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this will aim to help veterans into good quality jobs by doing more to boost recognition of their skills and experience, and provide support for further education and training for veterans wanting to move into the civilian workforce; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes a number of outcomes from the recent Jobs and Skills Summit to support veteran employment and training, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a one-off income credit so that veteran pensioners who want to work can earn an additional $4,000·over this financial year without losing any of their pension; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) improved access to jobs and training pathways for veterans and other disadvantaged groups, through equity targets for training places, 1,000 digital apprenticeships in the Australian Public Service, and other measures to reduce barriers to employment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Neumann</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS STEGGALL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are around 2.5 million families with dependent children aged under 15 in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia has one of the least generous paid parental leave schemes in the OECD;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) McKinsey & Company found that in Australia, participation in early childhood education is lower and costs over 40 percent more than the OECD average; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) perinatal discrimination is the top discrimination complaint in Australian workplaces;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia lags developed countries in the provision of best practice, evidenced-based policies that support families and children;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the Jobs and Skills Summit there was broad agreement from trade unions to the Business Council of Australia, and advocacy groups that improving paid parental leave and childcare were essential to improving women's workforce participation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there is significant economic benefit to Australia from increasing female workforce participation, gender equity and outcomes for children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide for at least 26 weeks of paid parental leave with a use it or lose it provision to incentivise shared use of leave where there are two carers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) set 1 January 2023 as the start date for lower the cost of early childhood education for all families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) improve access to paid carers' leave for parents of sick children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS STANLEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is on 15 October 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this day is an opportunity for parents, families, friends and healthcare workers to mark their shared loss, whether through miscarriages, stillbirth, and infant death; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) it is also a day that increases awareness about preventative measures to reduce perinatal mortality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) losing a baby at any time in pregnancy, birth or the neonatal period is devastating to families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) each year, 20 to 30 percent of women who are pregnant experience a miscarriage;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) stillbirths and perinatal death rates are a combined 9.4 in every 1000 births, these figures have not changed for over 20 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) stillbirth occurrence is higher in Aboriginal and culturally diverse communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) these families go through further issues after experiencing such a tragic event, such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, changes in relationships and anxiety that may be underestimated by healthcare providers, friends and family; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) further research is required to support the creation of programs that help lower the overall mortality, and to provide support to those families that have experienced the loss of a baby as well as help them overcome their trauma in a healthy and meaningful manner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for providing $6.8 million funding to assist families dealing with the grief of stillbirth;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses sympathy to all families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) further commends each and every person who has supported parents and families through the loss of a baby; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) thanks support groups like Red Nose, Still Aware, SANDS, and Miracle Babies for the work they do to support families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2022.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Stanley</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR THOMPSON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that on 16 August 2021 soldiers from the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, along with other military attachments, were deployed to Afghanistan to rescue Australian passport holders and those who supported our nation throughout the war on terror;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the brave soldiers who put themselves in harm's way to rescue more than 4100 people from the chaos;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that when the Taliban took back Kabul, the soldiers returned to the belly of the beast to evacuate thousands of civilian men, women and children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the Afghan people may have lost their city and country, but our Australian Defence Force heeded the call to ensure that they did not lose their lives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) honours the brave, selfless actions of those deployed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to honour the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment with the appropriate battle honours to highlight the unique operation that was conducted in the most hazardous, chaotic and challenging circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 5 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 mi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">nutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Thompson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS DANIEL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate Environment and Communication References Committee with the support of the Labor Senators recommended to the 46th Parliament that the Commonwealth initiate a judicial inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission to investigate the concentration of media ownership in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) according to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, 255 media outlets across the country closed down between the beginning of 2019 and March 2022, nearly 70 per cent in regional Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the transfer of ownership of APN led to 112 local print newspapers being shut down;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) according to a comprehensive international study of international media ownership and concentration by Columbia University, only Egypt and China have greater concentration of newspaper ownership of the countries studied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) one company has a 59 per cent share of the metropolitan and national print media market by readership and the second 23 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) 3,000 journalists had lost their jobs in the decade to 2018 and more since then;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) unlike the United Kingdom there is no longer a 'fit and proper person' test in the <inline font-style="italic">Broadcasting Services Act 1992</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the public interest test does not apply to cross-media mergers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) supports and calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) initiate a judicial inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission, to investigate and report on the state of media diversity in Australia with the following powers, to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) call witnesses and require the production of documents and information equal to those afforded the Royal Commission into the banking system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) seek expert advice and make recommendations to broaden media diversity, especially in rural, regional and suburban Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) seek expert advice and make recommendations on the state of self-regulation of media in generally available in Australia, in particular, whether the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority are fit for purpose;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commit to the long-term and adequate funding of Australia's only independent newswire, Australian Associated Press;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) establish an independent and permanent trust to assist emerging news ventures, especially in regional areas, including the funding of journalism traineeships; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) abide by the independent process for appointments to the boards of the ABC and SBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Daniel</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR HOGAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the European Union (EU) is Australia's second largest two-way trading partner of goods and services worth over $74 billion; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) with a high-income population of almost 450 million people, the EU represents an incredibly significant market opportunity for Australian exporters;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the significant work undertaken by the former Government to pursue an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) prioritise the negotiation and completion of the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) deliver a commercially significant agreement with liberalised access that is in the national interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hogan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Next Member speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">AGED CARE: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Coker—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's commitment to fix the mess the former Government made of aged care and that this is a priority for the Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's support for a pay rise for Australia's aged care workers as recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recommits to delivering a better standard of care for Australians in aged care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR PIKE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the increasing costs in the construction industry are creating significant strains on Australian building companies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) rising costs are creating serious delays and further exacerbating substantial housing shortages in many communities across the country; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) these shortages are perpetuating the current rental crisis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) union lawlessness is on the rise in the commercial construction sector following the Government's announcement to abolish the construction industry watchdog, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) this lawlessness is further undermining the housing industry and compounding the strains felt across the sector;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) implement measures to reign in rising costs, assisting businesses, renters and Australians who are building or have bought their own home;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) move to curtail the underhanded and illegal actions of the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining Energy Union (CFMMEU) throughout the commercial construction sector; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) reinstate the ABCC in its role as the construction industry watchdog.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 4 August 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Pike</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minu</inline><inline font-style="italic">tes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 September 2022</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6912" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<para>That this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Today, I introduce the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. The amendments made by this bill will cut the cost of medications by reducing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or the PBS, general patient charge, commonly referred to as a co-payment, from the current maximum of $42.50 per script to a maximum of just $30 per script.</para>
<para>The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or the PBS, was established back in 1948, as a limited scheme then, to ensure that Australians had equal and affordable access to 'life saving and disease preventing' medicines when they need them.</para>
<para>Establishing the PBS was not easy. It was John Curtin and Ben Chifley who fought hard to create this essential pillar of our healthcare system. It took two High Court challenges, two referenda, constitutional changes and long battles with the British Medical Association, as it was then called, with the Liberal Party, and with many others over 15 years to make it what it is today, which is a genuinely universal system and, perhaps, the best medical system pound for pound, or in terms of bang for buck, that we have in the world.</para>
<para>It was a Labor government that first introduced the legislation to make life-saving drugs more affordable, back in 1944, and the Albanese government remains utterly committed to ensuring that the PBS enables Australians to access affordable medicines well into the future.</para>
<para>The PBS is a key component of our health system, providing significant direct assistance—that amounted to $13.8 billion in 2020-21—to make medicines affordable for Australians.</para>
<para>As minister I am absolutely committed to making sure the PBS continues to work as well as it possibly can well into the future.</para>
<para>After nine years of neglect and drift from the former government, costs of living are soaring and many Australians are cutting back on essentials just to make ends meet. This bill will help ease the squeeze on household budgets for millions of Australians.</para>
<para>This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the maximum general patient co-payment under the PBS from the current maximum of $42.50 to just $30.00. This reduction of $12.50 for each script represents a saving of almost one-third—of 29 per cent—for general patients.</para>
<para>From 1 January 2023, around 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions over $30 will benefit from this Albanese government initiative. People filling a prescription for one medication per month, for example, will save up to $150 a year, while a family filling prescriptions for two or three medications per month could save $300 to $450 per year.</para>
<para>Approximately 19 million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill, with total savings for consumers calculated to be almost $200 million each and every year.</para>
<para>This bill will ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australian households are feeling right now right across the country.</para>
<para>But this bill will also have a profound benefit for public health.</para>
<para>High medicines costs have meant that patients are currently choosing between the health care they need and providing for their families. The PBS co-payment for general patients has doubled since 2000, and, according to ABS figures, more than 900,000 Australians delayed or did not get a prescription filled in 2019-20 due to the cost.</para>
<para>Pharmacies have told me time and time again of their experiences of having to deal with patients that come to them with multiple scripts and seek advice about which ones they really need to fill, because they can't afford to fill them all. Patients are often deciding to fill a script that might give them immediate relief, for example pain medications, but not filling a script that's actually very important for their longer term health.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government will keep the costs of medicines down and help to ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing right now. All Australians should have access to universal and world-class medical care. No-one should have to choose between filling a prescription that their doctor has said is important for their health, for lifesaving medicines, or providing for their families.</para>
<para>To make sure the PBS is sustainable, patients contribute a co-payment towards the cost of their PBS subsidised medicine, with the Commonwealth paying the remaining cost. While many PBS medicines cost significantly more than the patient contribution, the patient co-payment for the 2022 calendar year is currently $42.50 for general patients, that is, patients who are not concession card holders.</para>
<para>This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the maximum general patient co-payment under the PBS from the current maximum of $42.50 to just $30.00. This reduction of $12.50 represents a saving of 29 per cent for general consumers (excluding brand premiums, which are optional charges that might be imposed by manufacturers).</para>
<para>Approximately 19 million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill, with total savings for consumers calculated to be almost $200 million per year.</para>
<para>No longer will general patients taking Eliquis, for example, for the prevention of stroke or Advair for asthma or Janumet for diabetes and so many other life-changing medicines have to choose between their script and their other household expenses. This bill will ensure they receive the essential medical and pharmaceutical care needed to prevent severe illness and keep them healthy.</para>
<para>The bill will also ensure that no patient is worse off under this change, by allowing pharmacies to continue offering optional discounts where the Commonwealth price is between the new and current co-payment amount. The amount paid by the patient under these arrangements will still be counted towards the general safety net threshold, ensuring that no Australian is adversely impacted by these changes.</para>
<para>Every year, and in fact almost every month, this government is adding new medicines to the PBS and expanding access to existing medicines for new patient groups in line with emerging evidence about the safety and the effectiveness of those medicines. Treatment options for patients are ever expanding and the PBS has continued to expand with them.</para>
<para>Some subsidised medicines that are available through the PBS can otherwise cost thousands of dollars per prescription. The PBS provides, however, these medicines to patients at a significantly reduced cost, where general patients will now only pay a maximum of $30 per prescription with the government covering the remaining cost.</para>
<para>The general patient co-payment will continue to be indexed on 1 January each year in line with existing indexation arrangements. Indexing from 1 January 2024 will be calculated off the new general co-payment amount, securing savings for Australian general patients well into the future.</para>
<para>Right now, Australians are paying the price for a decade of missed opportunities and drift. Through this bill, we will make a real difference to household budgets for millions of families.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is taking action. We are tackling the day-to-day concerns of Australians. We have plans to make medicines cheaper and to make it easier to see a doctor.</para>
<para>Millions of Australians will benefit from cheaper medicines under an Albanese government. Just like Medicare, it was Labor that built the PBS and Labor will always protect it so that all Australians can access affordable medicines when they need them.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6903" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill delivers on an important election commitment of the government to provide real support to older Australians confronted by the challenges of rising prices and soaring cost of living. It delivers amendments that will remove a potential barrier to pensioners downsizing their principal homes by reducing the impact that this has on their social security means testing.</para>
<para>The bill will reduce the impact of selling and buying a new principal home on pensioners and other income support recipients, consistent with the values of the Albanese government. It is yet another important step to ensuring that no-one is left behind and no-one is held back in our government's vision for the future of this country. It works in concert with the government's separate commitment to allow people aged 55 or over to make a one-off downsizing contribution of up to $300,000 into superannuation when they sell their principal home. It also works together with this government's decision to freeze deeming rates for a period of two years.</para>
<para>These measures, working together, encourage more older Australians to downsize their homes, reducing the impact of downsizing on older Australians' access to the pension at the same time as improving housing access and affordability and enabling growing families more opportunities to find suitable housing options.</para>
<para>From 1 January 2023, this bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to double the period of the automatic asset test exemption for the principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use for the purchase of a new home. It also ensures the financial assets of pensioners are calculated on the lower deeming rate, recognising the high prices and values of home sales at the moment could mean that a high deeming rate would apply and discourage downsizing.</para>
<para>Under existing arrangements, an income support recipient's principal home is exempt from the social security assets test. When a person sells their principal home, these sale proceeds are exempt from the assets test for up to 12 months, so long as the person still intends to use the proceeds to purchase, build, rebuild, repair or renovate a new principal home. During this exempt period, the person continues to be treated as a 'homeowner' for means testing purposes for income support payments meaning that they remain eligible for their income support payments.</para>
<para>The rationale here is that the asset test exemption works to protect an income support recipient who's moving between homes from the potentially significant impact the sale proceeds could have on their support payments if the house sale were to be counted in their assets.</para>
<para>Given the currently high values of Australian real estate, in many cases an individual or couple wouldn't continue to be eligible for any income support payment if the full value of their home were to be counted. In the past, the exemption period was considered to be a reasonable amount of time for people to find or build a new principal home.</para>
<para>The exempt period generally ends when the income support recipient no longer intends to use the sale proceeds for a new home, or when they move into their new home. The current situation is that there's an additional extension available of up to 12 months in extenuating circumstances, such as when there are building delays due to a natural disaster.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill that I'm bringing forward today will extend this assets test exempt period for principal home sale proceeds from the current maximum of 12 months to a new maximum of 24 months. The additional 12-month exemption for extenuating circumstances will continue, meaning that in exceptional cases, home sale proceeds could be exempt from the social security assets test for up to 36 months from the date of the house sale.</para>
<para>Now let me turn to the second part of the means testing arrangements that this bill addresses. The second limb to social security means testing considers income. In this part, the value of the home sale proceeds that are intended to be used in buying and the financial assets of the individual are 'deemed' by applying a uniform amount of assumed interest gained from the person's financial assets working. This saves the recipient the complexity of having to bring forward evidence of their actual income derived from their financial investments. This component of means testing can also affect a person's rate of income support, based on the threshold applied.</para>
<para>Financial investments might include a person's bank account balance, managed investments, shares and superannuation. Investment income is assessed by applying the deeming rates to the total market value of a person's financial investments. The actual returns from the investments aren't used and any excess returns above the assessed income do not affect a person's payment rate and generally benefit individuals if their financial investments are performing better.</para>
<para>From a policy perspective, taking into account some level of deemed income on principal home sale proceeds is appropriate, because if the proceeds were placed in a savings account or other financial investment, they would generate returns which a person could use to support themselves.</para>
<para>Under the current deeming rules, the lower deeming rate of 0.25 per cent is applied to the value of the financial assets up to a deeming threshold of $56,400 for singles and $93,600 for couples combined. The upper deeming rate, presently at 2.25 per cent, applies to the value of financial assets above these thresholds.</para>
<para>These thresholds apply to the principal home sale proceeds—even when they are exempt from the assets test—in the same way that funds placed in other financial investments, such as shares or bonds, are treated.</para>
<para>Again, given the high value of most Australian homes, this means the bulk of the home sale proceeds are often subject to the upper deeming rate. This can have a significant negative impact on a person's pension or other payment rates and works as a considerable disincentive for pensioners considering downsizing their principal homes.</para>
<para>This bill will substantially reduce this barrier and disincentive for pensioners by ensuring that only the lower deeming rate is used to assess income on principal home sale proceeds which are also exempt from the assets test for up to 24 months, with the possibility of a further 12 months for extenuating circumstances.</para>
<para>This legislative change will significantly reduce the amount of income deemed on assets test exempt principal home sale proceeds. It builds on the doubling of the exemption period by further reducing the impact on a person's payment rates during the process of selling and purchasing a new principal home.</para>
<para>As I noted earlier, the government has separately committed to freezing the deeming rates at their current levels for two years to 30 June 2024. This means that, for the next two years, principal home sale proceeds which a pensioner or other income support recipient intends to use to purchase a new principal home will generate deemed income at a rate of only 0.25 per cent per annum.</para>
<para>Let me share with the House two practical examples that illustrate how this bill helps pensioners downsizing and reduces the impact of selling and buying a new principal home on their payment rates.</para>
<para>The first illustrates the benefit of extending the assets test exempt period and the application of the lower deeming rate. Consider a maximum rate pensioner couple who choose to downsize by building a new, smaller home that better suits their needs.</para>
<para>Under the current rules, if the couple sold their existing family home for $1 million and intended to use $800,000 of that amount to purchase, build, rebuild, repair or renovate a house of equal value, then the $800,000 would be exempt from the pension assets test for up to 12 months.</para>
<para>Without the changes in this bill, assuming the couple put the full sale proceeds of $1 million into a savings account and had no other financial assets, the deemed income assessed on this amount would be at the upper deeming rate of 2.25 per cent on the $1 million less the couple's deemed threshold amount of $93,600, which would be deemed at the lower rate. This would have an effect of reducing this couple's payment rate by about $229 a fortnight. The other significant impact is that the sale proceeds of $800,000 which the couple intends to use for their new principal home will be set aside from the assets test for only 12 months.</para>
<para>On the other hand, with the changes to the deeming and the assets exemption period in this bill, the $1 million less the deeming threshold area of $93,600 would be deemed at only 0.25 per cent, with the effect of reducing the deemed income on this couple's home sale proceeds to well below the income-free area of $336 per fortnight, meaning they would remain on the maximum pension rate.</para>
<para>In terms of the assets test which could knock out their eligibility for the pension entirely, what if a building delay outside the couple's control prevents their new home from being completed within 12 months? Under the current arrangements, they could apply for an additional 12-month asset test exemption due to extenuating circumstances. But if there are further complications such as flood or other natural disaster preventing the couple's new home from being completed by the end of the second year, the assets test exemption would expire and their home sale proceeds of $800,000 would be subject to the assets test. Under the current arrangements, after 12 months they would no longer be treated as 'homeowners' for means testing purposes.</para>
<para>Assuming they had no other assets, under the assets test for a non-homeowner couple, their pension would be reduced by a very significant $1,069.50 a fortnight to a part rate pension of $419.30 per fortnight.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, some people do face such repeated setbacks to the completion of a new home. We know, with the pressures on the economy, labour supply and supply chain issues due to the impact of COVID-19, there have been significant impacts on the building sector across the country, and many areas of Queensland and New South Wales have experienced repeated bouts of severe flooding over the last two years.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill will allow the asset test exemption to be extended to a total of 36 months in extenuating circumstances, giving these people more time and certainty to complete the building or purchase of their new home and to have greater peace of mind.</para>
<para>Let me share with the House a second example that illustrates the benefit of the changes to the deeming rules in this bill. Let's consider the case of a single pensioner—let's call him Nick—who sells his home for $600,000, intending to downsize to a smaller unit of equivalent value. As he intends to use the full amount to purchase his new home, the assets test exemption applies, and the $600,000 is exempt from the pension assets test for up to 24 months under the changes in this bill.</para>
<para>Nick then deposits the sale proceeds into a savings account. He has no other financial assets.</para>
<para>Without the change to the deeming rules in this bill, deemed income would be calculated on Nick's home sale proceeds at the lower rate of 0.25 per cent for the first $56,400, and the higher rate of 2.25 per cent for the remaining $543,600. As a result, Nick would have assessed income of $12,372 a year, or around $476 a fortnight.</para>
<para>Pensioners benefit from an income test free area, which for singles is currently $190 a fortnight. This means the first $190 a fortnight Nick receives from any source, including the deemed income from his financial investments, does not affect his rate of pension. Nick's remaining income will reduce his pension by 50c for each dollar over $190.</para>
<para>Without the changes in this bill, Nick's pension would be reduced by about $143 a fortnight.</para>
<para>However, with the benefits of this bill, the full $600,000 of Nick's home sale proceeds will be deemed at the lower rate of 0.25 per cent while they remain exempt from the assets test.</para>
<para>This would result in Nick having assessed income of only $1,500 a year. As he has no other income, this would not be enough to impact upon Nick's age pension rate.</para>
<para>In Nick's case the amendments in this bill would leave him $143 per fortnight better off during the period between selling his old principal home and moving into his new, smaller unit.</para>
<para>We know that people weigh up many factors in making a choice to sell a home and downsize to something smaller. One of the considerations that people make is how this transaction will impact on the income support that they receive. The changes in this bill will assist older Australians contemplating downsizing who are concerned about the impact on their pension rate during the process of selling and buying a new home.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill will apply to all people who sell their principal home from the later of 1 January 2023 or one month after the day the bill receives royal assent.</para>
<para>These changes are beneficial for affected pensioners and other income support recipients, and are expected to cost the budget $61.4 million in underlying cash terms over the next four years.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill build on the government's separate commitment to allowing people aged 55 years or over to make a one-off downsizer contribution of up to $300,000 into superannuation when they sell their principal home. By encouraging more older Australians to downsize their home, these measures will improve access to appropriate housing for all people in our community, including growing families.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to serving all Australians and ensuring that no matter what your circumstances, we do everything we can to make sure that you are supported. This measure is yet another building block in what we're putting in place to help ordinary Australians manage in challenging economic times. This will ensure that we are removing the barriers that could negatively affect pensioners when they downsize their homes. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6901" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I'm pleased to present the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022.</para>
<para>Those gathered in the House now know that due to climate change Australia is facing longer and more intense natural disaster seasons.</para>
<para>We have already seen the devastating consequences of not being prepared when unprecedented natural disasters hit. Think of the Black Summer and the long recovery time that that's taken or the recent floods in South-East Queensland and in New South Wales.</para>
<para>It's a sad national conclusion that the Morrison Government failed to prepare for these events. They ignored extensive warnings in the lead-up to Black Summer and left their $4.8 billion Emergency Response Fund untouched for years.</para>
<para>Over three years, Scott Morrison's Emergency Response Fund didn't complete a single mitigation project. They did not release a cent in recovery funding, and meanwhile that fund earned the government at the time $800 million in interest.</para>
<para>At the election earlier this year, Labor committed to making a big change to how this area of government is managed, and I want to talk about some of those changes and the bill that's before the House.</para>
<para>One of the commitments that we made was to create a Disaster Ready Fund out of this failed Emergency Response Fund.</para>
<para>Part of doing that was a commitment to improve Australia's disaster readiness by investing up to $200 million per year in disaster resilience and mitigation projects. We're only three months on from the election, but the bill that's before the House at the moment makes good on this commitment. The bill will transform the former government's Emergency Response Fund into a dedicated ongoing source of funding for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives.</para>
<para>The bill will allow the new Disaster Ready Fund to provide up to $200 million per year for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives. To ensure that the level of funding remains appropriate, this limit will be reviewed at least every five years. If it is determined that the limit should be changed, the responsible ministers will have the flexibility to do this through a disallowable legislative instrument. Prior to making a legislative instrument, the Future Fund Board of Guardians will be consulted to confirm that any proposed adjustment will not impact the board's ability to continue to comply with its obligations under the Disaster Ready Fund Act and the Disaster Ready Fund investment mandate. The responsible ministers will consult the Minister for Emergency Management as part of this process.</para>
<para>Funding for natural disaster recovery efforts will continue, most notably under the Australian government-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018. These arrangements provide for disaster recovery funding to be delivered through state and territory agencies to disaster affected communities. This, along with the recent appointment of Senator Tony Sheldon to the new role of Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery, demonstrates the government's commitment to strengthening disaster recovery and emergency management.</para>
<para>Dedicating the Disaster Ready Fund to natural disaster resilience and risk reduction will provide a clearer distinction between the different funding sources for recovery and resilience and enhance the focus on building resilience for future natural disasters.</para>
<para>In saying that, the government will honour the 2022-23 Emergency Response Fund commitments announced by the former government, including the recovery elements. This will ensure that important resilience projects, such as the $50 million Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program, which is designed to reduce the impacts of natural disasters and coastal hazards such as storm surges and coastal inundation, can achieve their objectives. The bill will also allow the government to provide the $150 million announced for the 2022-23 budget to fund recovery and post-disaster resilience measures in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales.</para>
<para>To ensure that these commitments can be met, while also promoting the long-term sustainability of the Disaster Ready Fund, the government will make new commitments to fund natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives from the fund from 1 July 2023.</para>
<para>On 1 September 2022, the new National Emergency Management Agency was established, merging the functions of Emergency Management Australia and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. The agency is administratively responsible for all disaster related functions, including expenditure from the Disaster Ready Fund. To facilitate this change, the bill will transfer responsibility for Disaster Ready Fund expenditure to the new agency.</para>
<para>Combining the functions of Emergency Management Australia and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency ensures that all natural disaster programs and funding, including under the Disaster Ready Fund, can be administered effectively and efficiently to strengthen Australia's ability to prepare for, manage and recover from an increasing number and severity of natural disasters.</para>
<para>The bill will also streamline arrangements for transfers from the Disaster Ready Fund special account and make administrative improvements to the operation of the fund consistent with other Australian government investment funds.</para>
<para>In summary, this bill makes important amendments to ensure that Australia is appropriately funded for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives. Investing up to $200 million per year on resilience projects was recommended by the Productivity Commission in its report into natural disasters, and it is supported by insurers, local government and disaster relief bodies. The bill provides the flexibility to change this limit, if appropriate, while promoting the long-term sustainability of the Disaster Ready Fund. The amendments made by the Disaster Ready Fund bill will improve Australia's disaster readiness into the future.</para>
<para>An Albanese government will be better prepared to respond to, recover from and prepare for the next natural disaster. The establishment of the Disaster Ready Fund is a really crucial step in this.</para>
<para>Having dealt with the detail of the bill, I want to make some broader contextual comments about the environment in which the Albanese government introduces this bill. We just had a federal election where the Australian people sent us a crystal-clear message, and that is that they are desperate for this parliament to draw a line under nine years of inaction and delay on one of the most important issues that faces our country: the management of climate change. In the work that I did leading up to the election, talking with my constituents about what mattered to them most, there was absolutely no contest. The set of issues around our changing climate is the No. 1 concern of the people that I represent in this parliament. They're worried about the natural environment that they see deteriorating around them. They are worried about disasters. We all remember, just a few short years ago, when my city of Melbourne was covered in unbreathable smog because of fires that were burning right across this country. And they are worried about their children, as I am worried about my children. Our obligation as citizens is to leave this country better than we found it. On climate change, we are failing, and we must stop failing.</para>
<para>We had nine years of disgraceful behaviour from those on the other of the House, where they failed to show a shred of leadership on these issues. There were 22 failed energy policies. That means not only that our country has been left with very little credibility globally in this discussion but also there is the very practical reality that people in my community are paying vastly more for power than they should be, when we have in abundance the cheapest source of energy that there is in the world.</para>
<para>We are starting by trying to clean up some of the mess that was left for us. It's no mistake that the bill I present today is happening in concert with the work that those in the other place are doing on Australia's principal approach to managing climate, which is to set a proper climate reduction target for our future. We are going to continue that important work of acting on climate change, but the tragic reality is that as humans we have let this go on too long and our climate is now warming in ways that we cannot manage. We cannot wind back the clock. We are dealing with a climate that is warmer than it should be and that will continue to get warmer no matter what we do about it today. We have set ourselves on a course where the future will have more floods, more fires and more natural disasters. We can't put our heads in the sand on that problem. So, while the Albanese Labor government is doing the important work of thinking about how we're going to confront our climate future from a policy and political point of view and how we are going to help our industries make that big switch to renewables, we also need to manage the brutal reality that our beautiful country is going to be subjected to more natural disasters than should have been the case.</para>
<para>How do we manage that? We are doing a lot about it. The bill that I'm presenting today is cleaning up what has been an abject failure of the former government to manage this issue of natural disasters. I want people to understand that the former government set aside $4.8 billion in an emergency response fund and didn't release a cent for recovery funding. During a period in which millions of people in our country suffered because of disasters, the former government had this money sitting there and didn't use it. We are going to take a very different approach. I really want to commend Senator Murray Watt, the relevant minister in the other place, who is leading this very important work.</para>
<para>The way that this parliament has conducted the debate on this matter over the past period of time is a record that leaves us nothing to be proud of. My fervent hope as a parliamentarian, as an Australian and as a parent is that we can do better in the years ahead. We finally have a Prime Minister in charge who wants to take on that leadership. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6876" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition will not support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, but the coalition's opposition is not about low-emissions vehicles; it's about the stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer money that should be used for the best possible policy impact. This is a piece of legislation that has no sunset to it. The Parliamentary Budget Office has said that the bill will cost well over $2 billion over the next decade. The government cannot say what this bill will deliver in terms of emissions reduction. It cannot say what it will deliver to the low-emissions vehicle market. It cannot even say what criteria will make it a success.</para>
<para>We know that demand for low-emissions vehicles, pure electric vehicles and hybrids is rising fast, with figures from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries showing sales of pure battery EVs last month were the highest market share ever recorded. The bill, if it's effective, will simply increase demand in an already tight market. The best thing the government can do with this money is invest it in practical measures to drive EV infrastructure investment, because we know that's where the bottleneck is, in order to get greater uptake over time and, at the same time, deliver real cost-of-living relief for Australians when we are facing a cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>In government, the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy was part of our plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The strategy detailed a technology led approach to reducing transport emissions whilst ensuring Australians can drive their preferred type of vehicle, be that petrol, diesel, hydrogen, electric powered or hybrids. It's all about customer choice. It's our side of the House that has always believed in customer choice, because customers know what is best for them. The strategy detailed the technology led approach with three principles underpinning the policy. The first principle was partnering with the private sector to support uptake and stimulate co-investment in future fuels. Second was focusing on reducing barriers to the rollout of future fuel technologies, not adding taxes. And third was expanding consumer choice by enabling informed choices and minimising the costs of integration into the electricity grid.</para>
<para>In government, we committed $2.1 billion to help increase the uptake of low-emissions vehicle technologies, and that included $250 million to ARENA to roll out fast-charging stations across the country. Round 1 of the program resulted in a sevenfold increase in the fast chargers in our cities and in our regions. Importantly, we outlined the detail of what our policy would deliver. We actually laid it out. Unlike this government, we outlined that our policy was estimated to deliver the following: first, emissions would be reduced by over eight million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2035. Those are specific outcomes. We haven't seen that for this legislation. We haven't seen it, which is extraordinary. Secondly, charging infrastructure would be deployed in over 400 businesses, 50,000 households and 1,000 public access fast-charging stations. Third, convenient access to public fast charging would be enabled for up to 84 per cent of the population. That's about choice. It's about ensuring people have choice, so they have that infrastructure when they need it. Fourth, over 2,600 new jobs would be created. Fifth, electricity network upgrade costs of $224 million would be avoided by 2030. This is important: making sure we've got the smart charging infrastructure in place so that you pre-empt now the costs that will come at you down the track if you don't do it. We are always thinking ahead on the cost of living, and it's something that those opposite could learn something from. And, finally, the strategy would create the environment for 1.7 million electric vehicles to be on the road by 2030, although that will ultimately be the choice of consumers as to what is right for them.</para>
<para>We absolutely want to see the uptake of low-emissions vehicles in our transport sector for those who choose to do it, but this is not to diminish the need for effective, quantifiable and responsible policy development which is outcome oriented. This is even more important in a global economic environment which is challenging, with increasing pressure on inflation and a requirement for well-designed, well-targeted government spending. Despite that this is being referred to as 'tax reform' by the Treasurer—a very loose use of that phrase—the Senate inquiry suggests this bill is high cost and low impact, and has been designed with no consultation with industry, government or civil society. A number of experts have raised serious questions about equity, fiscal sustainability and price pressures that might be created by this legislation. Evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee from Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water showed the impact of this policy on emissions reduction has not even been quantified—it hasn't even been quantified. Its impact on EV supply has not been quantified. Third-party evidence suggests this bill's impact on both is negligible. Perhaps that's why it hasn't been quantified. The Institute of Public Accountants has said that this measure will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emissions from the transport sector—damning. The Institute of Public Accountants also went on to say that there are other measures which would have a far greater short-term benefit to the environment than this measure. This is at a time when we need to make sure every dollar of taxpayers' money is spent well, because if it's overspent, we're going to see more inflationary pressures; we're going to see more cost-of-living pressures on all Australians.</para>
<para>Professor Miranda Stewart is a respected tax expert, Director of the Tax Group at the University of Melbourne Law School and fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU, just down the road from here. She has literally written the textbook on taxation. She said that the design of the measure must be changed 'given its fiscal cost, unequal benefit and uncertainty about the electric car market and the best policy to transition Australia'. Again that is damning from a tax expert who is second to none. She said that the policy 'will deliver the subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners'. That's modern Labor policy.</para>
<para>UnitingCare, a large fleet user, when asked a dorothy dixer by the Labor Chair of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee about the impact of the bill, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As it is currently modelled, the bill, we're not certain it would necessarily change anything.</para></quote>
<para>They are a fleet owner. They are the target of this policy.</para>
<para>Given the high ongoing cost of this measure—a cost that Treasury have confirmed that they expect to grow over time—the government have failed to establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy. The government have failed to ensure that the expenditure is temporary, proportionate and linked to tangible productivity gains. This has got no sunset clause on it. They have failed to quantify any benefit of the policy to EV uptake, to emissions reduction or to the budget bottom line. They have failed to tangibly address the biggest constraint on EV uptake, which is supply and infrastructure—getting the charging in place I talked about earlier—and they have failed to consult extensively with business and civil society. These failures make it irresponsible and fiscally reckless to support this bill in its current form.</para>
<para>The Treasurer might have felt like he was playing Paul Keating by calling this tax reform, but it is really nothing more than ineffective tinkering at the fringe. The coalition senators pointed out in their Senate Economics Legislation Committee dissenting report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Most Australians will be unable to benefit from this tax policy change which is extremely narrow. It will mean that people working in small businesses are less likely to access the proposed tax policy change due to the lower level of usage of salary packaging in small and medium businesses.</para></quote>
<para>For these reasons, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) with this policy the Government has failed to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) ensure the expenditure was temporary, proportionate, and linked to tangible productivity gains;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) quantify any benefit of the policy to EV uptake, to emissions reduction, or to the budget bottom line;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (d) tangibly address the biggest constraint on EV uptake, which is supply and infrastructure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (e) consult with business and civil society on policy design; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the Coalition supports increased uptake of low and zero emissions vehicles and our focus was on enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) the Coalition is focused on partnering with industry to support the uptake of new vehicle technologies and create the necessary enabling environment to support uptake which includes helping to support the infrastructure roll-out and ensuring that our electricity grid is ready; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to invest the substantial medium term cost of the measure in supporting practical EV infrastructure and cost of living relief for hard working Australians.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs Marino</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022, Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6880" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6881" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak today in support of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022. The bill establishes Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body to provide independent advice on current, emerging and future workforce skills and training needs. This is important. We need to start planning better. It replaces the National Skills Commissioner. The key difference in scope of the organisation is the remit of Jobs and Skills Australia to undertake workforce planning and research future industries and opportunities. I support this bill because, as highlighted at the jobs and skills summit, collaboration across all sectors and workforce planning are critical to addressing both the immediate labour market issues and skills shortages in some areas.</para>
<para>We know these shortages are both immediate and forecast for the future in the long term. They're both geographical and sectoral. In some areas we have high unemployment, and we have underemployment in others. We have a critical shortage of workers in certain industries in areas like Warringah. It's true in cities and regional centres alike. In my electorate of Warringah, businesses and chambers of commerce, especially in hospitality and retail, are crying out for workers, yet in other electorates such as Fowler, just on the other side of the city, there's over 10 per cent unemployment. Clearly there is a disconnect in how our employment services are working at the moment. We need to look at ways to bridge the barriers to relocation for work and the affordability of transport to better connect workers with where the jobs are available.</para>
<para>During the recent Jobs and Skills Summit, I would say government supported much talk around migration, and that was mostly the elements and actions that came away from it, but, whilst I raised the question that we must first address housing and infrastructure, there really was very little focus on that. We need long-term planning. To plan for the long term and for a future workforce that addresses the key labour market challenges of decarbonisation and ageing population, participation rates for women and First Nations people that must rise, digitisation of nearly all professions and the rise of AI. We need an agency that coordinates a system of education and training support for workers as they navigate a portfolio of jobs and careers throughout their working lives.</para>
<para>As a mother of teenagers and university students, I'm well aware that our current young people are being told they will have several careers—not just several jobs but several careers—in their working lifetime. We need to make sure the education system is actually preparing them for that. We know workers won't have a job for life. We cannot even imagine the jobs of the future, so we need to implement an adaptive and dynamic process to ensure Australia thrives, developing the skills required. We know two-thirds of Australia's top 50 economists have said that education and skills was a top issue that needed to be addressed at the jobs and skills summary. I would have to say I was a little disappointed with my time there. I was there Thursday afternoon and Friday. There was very little discussion about education, in particular around the university sector and what was going to be done to support and increase its capacity to meet those skills and education needs.</para>
<para>We must develop research and development capabilities to capitalise on the opportunities in our industries. I raised, during the Jobs and Skills Summit, just how far Australia is falling behind when it comes to innovation and R&D. Research and development makes up only 1.8 per cent of Australia's GDP; in comparable nations in the OECD, it's some 2.5. We are falling behind, and we won't be competitive in the world of the future.</para>
<para>The government needs to set the guidelines for what our industries are and provide the necessary incentives for investment to congregate around those skills and research and development. Jobs and Skills Australia improves on the National Skills Commissioner in its remit to undertake research into and analysis of emerging and growing industries, such as the green economy and areas such as carbon sequestration, clean energy and green manufacturing. These are all huge opportunities, and at the Jobs and Skills Summit we heard discussion around the megatrends report as to global trends in terms of future skills. We need to start growing and training the workforce required to develop these industries, and—whilst I acknowledge that there are shortages now that need to be addressed, and I know the government is looking at those through a migration lens—we must also develop those skills locally. We must ensure education and opportunity exist here at home.</para>
<para>Obviously, there have been disruptions to skilled labour supply because of COVID and closed borders, and there's a disconnect between Australia's skills acquisition and training system, including through migration, and the needs of industry. And we know that disconnect is widening.</para>
<para>But the big issue I want to raise is women's workforce participation. We have also seen barriers to using our most skilled and trained labour force, which is women. And for too long it's been a side story—a story that, in this place, gets mentioned occasionally but never really focused on. We had the pink budget to try and remedy the blokes' budget under the last government. But, with an increased number of women in this place, I'm very, very focused on making sure that women's participation in the workforce is absolutely made a top economic priority of this government.</para>
<para>We know that it's fairly equitable for women in the workforce until they have children, and then the slide starts—then the discrepancies and the discrimination and disadvantage start, because women are required to bear that much heavier burden. There are so many structural barriers to women rejoining the workforce after childbirth. Paid parental leave needs to be increased, as do the incentives for partners to take up parental leave and share a greater proportion of caring duties. Child care needs to be made more affordable and accessible. And we know there are critical workforce shortages in those very sectors, creating even more barriers to that participation. We know there are workforce shortages prevalent across our highly-gendered care economy, so better understanding those needs of the childcare sector is incredibly important.</para>
<para>It was interesting that, at the Jobs and Skills Summit, while there was a nearly universal call for improving parental leave and childcare costs, it's the one area the government refused to actually move on when it came to an immediate action plan. From 1 January, child care should be made more affordable. There should be no delay in implementing those measures. And, knowing that there is a budget coming, I call on the Albanese government to act on making child care more affordable for women, to enable them to participate more in the workforce. Ensure that there is more than just talk: that there is action.</para>
<para>There are potential improvements to the bill. The legislative requirement for collaboration is good, but I wonder if this requirement should extend to the tertiary education sector. At the end of the day, we won't develop that skilled workforce without engaging with the education sector. Universities Australia highlighted in their submission to the inquiry that there could be a case for section 10(c) of this bill to be amended to explicitly include universities and the tertiary education sector as key stakeholders to be consulted—particularly given recent research by the National Skills Commission suggesting that nearly all new jobs will require a post-secondary qualification and lifelong learning. This addition would reflect the importance of lifelong learning but also Australia's commitment to upskilling its workforce, in conjunction with a skilled migration strategy, to address the current skill shortages. There needs to be that kind of long-term planning. Now, I know that the previous government really attacked the tertiary education sector, making changes that have made it incredibly difficult for young people to pursue those education goals, and I think these are some of the aspects that really need to be reviewed. So I do support this bill on the understanding of the need to enact an interim measure with detail on a permanent model to follow.</para>
<para>The collaboration and consultation between stakeholders is ultimately key, and we need to understand the mechanism for that and who will have a seat at the table, so I call on the government to acknowledge the call that the university and education sector have that seat at the table.</para>
<para>I welcome the start to a complex and critical issue. We need to look forward to seeing further detail on this, on the structure and composition of Jobs and Skills Australia, and I look forward to seeing the Albanese government move on important issues like parental leave and childcare support, increasing those cost. We need to remove the barriers to over 50 per cent of our population truly, fully participating in the workforce. As a professional woman, I find it incredible that in 2022 I am still having to push for that, that we still have to argue for that. I know, with many women on this crossbench and in this parliament, this is not a topic that we are going to drop. Many women around Australia have said, 'Enough,' and it is time that we remove those barriers to participation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022, a very important bill introduced as the very first piece of legislation of the 47th Parliament by the Albanese government. This government is wasting no time in getting on with the business of government and delivering on its election commitment in establishing Jobs and Skills Australia. It's a solid reflection of where our legislative priorities are, and I want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training, the honourable Brendan O'Connor, for taking immediate action to help address the significant skills and labour shortages by introducing both the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill and the parallel bill to the House.</para>
<para>We've had nearly a decade of lost opportunities with successive Liberal-National governments residing over the decline of some of our most important national industries, not least of which is Australia's local manufacturing. This decline wasn't an accident of fate. Nobody is more aware of this reality of decline than the people of my electorate of Calwell, a community that was once home to our very proud automotive manufacturing industry before, as we all know, the previous coalition government shut it down. This was a result of deliberate calculated policies driven by an ideology and a government that spoke of Australian jobs and Australian workers in rhetoric only, all the while targeting Australian workers and the unions at the expense of addressing some of our most pressing economic challenges.</para>
<para>We can now see its effect. The smoothed four-quarter average estimates relating to unemployment data have shown my electorate of Calwell to have amongst the highest rates of unemployment across Australia. At the same time, according to the latest OECD economic outlook, Australia is experiencing the second-most severe labour shortages in the developed world. This double edged reality is because we've had an economy presided over by a coalition government that ignored sector shocks and the state of Australia's skills when it came to areas such as manufacturing and the new economy. Such is the myopic view of jobs and the economy from those opposite that their impact has been wide and far-reaching, especially in my own electorate.</para>
<para>In their ideological potholes they failed, while in government, to see that a skilled workforce is a more productive workforce and that, if you put in place policies that shock entire sectors, there is a need to ensure that those workers are reskilled so that they can continue to contribute to our future economic growth. What I find most encouraging about these bills is not only the preparing capacity studies for industries and the review of the training of vocational sector but the commitment to undertake specific plans for targeted groups. For my community especially, these include older workers who need to retrain or upskill, having been victims to industry decline and shut downs as well as our young people, in particular, our young women, who need to be not only trained but also given the confidence to build their future within the emerging and growing industries of the future economy. I'm hopeful and confident that Jobs and Skills Australia will look to futureproof our economy through a workforce and skills analysis that creates a pathway to the jobs of the future as well as to those needed today—to the current and emerging sectors and industries that will help drive our future economic growth. By that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I mean real and active workforce planning with an active approach to addressing skills and training to help support the vital sectors.</para>
<para>These are the issues most important to the people of my electorate and to our national economy. It's heartening to see that we as a government are starting off our national agenda with a focus on Australia's labour market. It was the first policy announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as Leader of the Opposition and it's the first piece of legislation introduced by him as Prime Minister.</para>
<para>The previous government's decade of inaction was made worse by its approach to skilled migration. As Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the previous parliament, I saw the inadequacies of previous approaches firsthand. The committee's inquiry into Australia's skilled migration program took place at a time when labour market gaps were emerging while our borders were shut as a result of the COVID pandemic. Instead of recommending that the government identify skills shortages and deliver urgent training and reskilling opportunities to Australian workers so that they could fill these jobs, the then government members turned to temporary migration as a short-term fix and solution. It was a missed opportunity to rethink our skilled migration program and to help create real, impactful change in two areas very close to my own heart and interest: migration and national skills and jobs policies.</para>
<para>What was the result? Data from the National Skills Commission shows that the number of vacancies listed in Melbourne was 65.8 per cent higher in April 2022 compared to its prepandemic level. Yet we have industry uncertainty across the board. We have skilled workers pleading to be retrained or upskilled into job opportunities in areas that will fuel our economic growth into the future. It's amazing how informed one can become simply by speaking to ordinary men and women working on shop floors across industry sites. It is their capacity to help shape our future economy that we should use to inform and drive policy on skills and labour shortages.</para>
<para>This bill is a beginning, which is why I am pleased that this bill lays the foundation for second-stage legislation for a permanent structure and governance arrangements that are informed by employers, unions and education providers. That's what we need—a tripartite approach to skills and training supported by a government committed to addressing Australia's current, emerging and future labour market needs and delivering on the policies to meet those needs. It is indeed just the beginning of our commitments in this area, with a further suite of policies designed to make real, impactful change. These policies include the Australian skills guarantee, which will ensure one in 10 workers on major federally funded government projects is an apprentice, trainee or cadet. This translates to a commitment to training thousands of workers. Our fee-free TAFE policy will deliver 465,000 fee-free TAFE places, including 45,000 new places that include those for students studying in industries of national importance and industries facing skills shortages. The TAFE Technology Fund will ensure that at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth and VET funding is for public TAFE. Public TAFE has been the backbone of training for our young and mature-age workers and in skilling and reskilling, and I'm absolutely delighted that this government has placed public TAFE at the centre of our programs going forward.</para>
<para>A number of commitments made as part of the government's $1.2 billion A Future Made in Australia skills plan will help close the gap on key areas of skills shortage, and the new energy apprenticeships will encourage Australians to train in the new energy jobs of the future and will provide the additional support they need to complete their training. That's a funding commitment of $100 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships and a new energy skills program to develop fit-for-purpose training pathways for new energy industry jobs. I note that, rather than shooting from the hip, we will be a consultative government, working in partnership with the states and territories, industry and unions to support this progressive agenda to prioritise growth and investment in the renewable energy sector.</para>
<para>I saw how these policies are inspiring confidence on the ground last night, when I had the opportunity to speak online at an event called Women in Trades, which was held in Broadmeadows in my electorate. I want to thank AMWU Victoria for the amazing work that they are doing in working towards getting more women into the trades. I also want to acknowledge the support of a very fine TAFE institution in my electorate, the Kangan Institute; the federal government's National Careers Institute; and all our local employers, career practitioners and tradeswomen, who were represented yesterday and who were there to give young women an opportunity to ask questions about their futures should they pursue a trade.</para>
<para>We don't need to increase the representation of women in manufacturing, but we do need to increase the representation of women in the manufacturing trades. The work and initiatives of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union in supporting workers across the manufacturing and trades sector is to be commended. I look forward to working far more closely with the AMWU and other unions that share a common purpose in training young people, especially young women. A big thank you goes to Courteney Nunn, who is AMWU Victoria's Careers for Women in Trades Project Officer, for the work she has done so far in helping women advance in historically male-dominated trades and industries and explaining to young women that this is a genuine career option for them.</para>
<para>Ours is a government that will look to prepare Australians for the jobs of the future, to improve the quality of work and to tackle issues of underemployment, casualisation, job insecurity, long-term unemployment and stagnant wages. I certainly welcome these measures and look forward to working with all the relevant ministers and the government and helping contribute to shaping these policy frameworks, because, ultimately, they are to the benefit of the people in my electorate and to the benefit of Australia as a whole. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak today in support of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022. I support this bill because it will provide a plan and a road map at a time of great challenges, change and opportunity. However, in this context, as I said at the recent Jobs and Skills Summit, I am advocating for direct and achievable actions, particularly when it comes to women in the workforce. At a moment when we have more women in this parliament and indeed on this crossbench than ever before, we must not let this moment slip past with talk and without action. I, for one, will not. Empowering women to work must cut across all legislation, and all policy and legislation forthwith should include a gender impact statement. As I said at the summit, women are done with being secondary. This legislation is highly relevant to this conversation. Jobs and Skills Australia and its commissioner must be laser focused on empowering women to enter the workforce. At a time when we have chronic workforce shortages, there's no better time to finally shift this dial.</para>
<para>The good news is that we know how to do it. The minister says that Jobs and Skills Australia will have an important role in planning, forecasting and developing a pipeline for skilled workers—great. More good news: we already have them. Our women are an untapped resource. As the Grattan Institute's Danielle Wood said at the Jobs and Skills Summit:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I can't help but reflect that if untapped women's workforce participation was a massive ore deposit, we would have governments lining up to give tax concessions to get it out of the ground—</para></quote>
<para>the quote of the year! Women around Australia nodded their heads furiously, I'm sure.</para>
<para>Businesses large and small across my electorate of Goldstein are crying out for staff. So what can we do? The government's childcare measures must be brought forward. If we can afford stage 3 tax cuts, we can afford this. The numbers say that expanded child care would contribute billions to economic growth. These changes to child care, though, must cater for women who do not work nine to five Monday to Friday. Tens of thousands of women cannot access child care due to irregular and short shifts. Government, business and unions need to reach agreement to ensure that major employers upgrade their rostering so that part-time and casual workers know their work hours ahead of time and can plan their care responsibilities. No woman should be left behind. Getting more women working, at their full capacity, is central to a healthy society while improving productivity and, in the current circumstances, alleviating workforce pressures.</para>
<para>Despite all the progress that we've made, women still tend to be the ones who stay home or work part time, because they usually earn less, and when child care is expensive, inflexible or unavailable that becomes the default position. This is not good for fathers, in heterosexual families, either. Traditionally, being the family breadwinner creates a habit in which men find it hard to stay home with the baby, because they commonly have a higher income than their partner. Only true equality will create real choice for men and women in this space.</para>
<para>Highly feminised care industries must be revalued. This means closing the gender wage gap by recognising the importance of their jobs, and then providing cheap, accessible child care and early childhood education so that both women and children—indeed, families—can thrive. Currently, women in feminised industries with a bachelor's degree or a certificate IV earn roughly a third less than men in male dominated industries. This is not because they don't work hard or add just as much value; this is simply a societal mindset issue. And it's time to change it. This is where Jobs and Skills Australia can channel its energy.</para>
<para>Recent data from a partnership between Chief Executive Women and Impact Economics and Policy found that increasing women's participation in the paid workforce would address Australia's current skills shortage and have a long-lasting impact on productivity. The study found that engaging women in paid work at the same rate as men could unlock an additional one million full-time skilled workers. Grattan Institute data also estimates that a six per cent increase in female workforce participation would add $25 billion to Australian GDP. Yet we continue to focus on the cost of child care rather than the blindingly obvious opportunity that is staring us in the face.</para>
<para>There is also the opportunity to enable women to retrain, with subsidised study in mid-life and possibly a study wage to enable families to cover financial commitments while expanding skills. We also need to consider the fact that the current structure of the workforce means many women do not work nine to five and are grappling with short and fragmented shifts that, in many cases, make working more expensive than not working, due to the cost of care.</para>
<para>The sandwich generation, in which women are frequently caring for not only children but also elderly parents, also requires consideration and flexibility to enable women to work while managing their personal responsibilities. Paid parental leave must also be expanded and superannuation paid on it, in order to close the gap between women and men. At the jobs summit I suggested amendments to the Fair Work Act to strengthen an employee's capacity to request flexible arrangements. Currently, a request can be made by an employee but no appeal is available. Women of the sandwich generation are caring for children and elderly parents, and true flexibility is key. There's also a need to improve the unpaid parental leave provisions in the Fair Work Act to make them more flexible and shareable.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia must also focus on apprenticeships in feminised industries. Apprenticeships are traditionally male dominated. We must not be blind to this. Australia's fashion industry, for example, has had out-sized success overseas. Foster it. Women should get a fair crack at apprenticeships, if that is a focus of this government.</para>
<para>We must also develop a strategy now to channel girls and women into the industries that will emerge from the coming renewables revolution. If we don't, we'll have yet another trades based sector that is neither attractive nor, indeed, safe for women. We need our girls talking about working in renewable energy and climate risk mitigation industries with their parents around the dinner table. We need these discussions happening in schools from an early age. Girls care about climate and they want to do something. It's incumbent on us and Jobs and Skills Australia to foster those girls.</para>
<para>I will say this: we must equalise the conversation that often focuses on hard infrastructure like roads and bridges and shift our gaze to our growing service industries, the biggest growth areas of our economy.</para>
<para>I also placed on the jobs summit agenda pay gap transparency, and I was pleased to see it included in the summit communique. This is a space for Jobs and Skills Australia to administer and monitor performance reporting for employers, public and private. Transparency on performance on the gender pay gap, women in leadership and workforce flexibility is appropriate. This transparency has led to substantial pay gap reductions in other countries. In Denmark, for example, this simple measure led to a 13 per cent increase in women's wages. This is a no-cost measure that creates natural competition between organisations, public and private. In my view, it should be led by the Commonwealth Public Service as a leader of best practice.</para>
<para>I close by saying that lip-service has been paid to equality and safety for women. That is a big part of why I'm standing here. This representation deserves and requires substantive action. I look forward to Jobs and Skills Australia delivering on this. Rest assured that I will remain the squeaky wheel throughout my time in this parliament as an advocate for the empowerment of women and girls.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no bigger issue for our economy and our society at the at the moment than the skills shortage that we face. That is why the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 was the first bill introduced by this government, that is why the issues raised by this bill were central to the Jobs and Skills Summit that was so successfully held last week and that is why it is so important that this bill passes through this House and why I'm so pleased to speak in favour of it.</para>
<para>The skills shortage that we are facing creates many issues for our economy. First and foremost, it adds to already existing inflationary pressures which in and of themselves are creating so many issues for households and businesses across our community. Secondly, the skills shortage is impeding the growth of businesses and corporations throughout our economy and hampering the ability of not-for-profits and, indeed, government to provide services. This is something which I'm all too familiar with, having held a roundtable in my electorate in the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. I heard from businesses that are very successful already and wish to grow but are not able to. So, clearly, the skills shortage we are experiencing is a significant handbrake on our economy at this point.</para>
<para>The other dimension of the skills shortage which I think is of first order importance is that it means that we are not matching people to positions in the way that we should. When the labour market is not working effectively, we aren't using people's skills and we aren't giving people the opportunities that they deserve to reach their potential in the best way possible in the workforce and, more broadly, in society.</para>
<para>This skills shortage is having so many negative effects both for our economy and socially. We see this in a range of statistics. Seventeen per cent of businesses reported recently that they did not have enough employees. Many of those businesses are not able to easily acquire the employees through the labour market that they need in order to grow. This is a first-order-of-importance issue and it's not something that we're going to be able to turn around immediately, but this government has taken action on a whole range of fronts already. As has been discussed, very broadly, there are a whole raft, dozens, of positive actions that have come out of the Jobs and Skills Summit. But there is so much more to do, and this is an example of the longer term changes that are needed in order to get our job market working more effectively.</para>
<para>Another issue which I think is worth putting on the table for context is that our labour market is changing. We have this short- and medium-term skills shortage, but we also have a labour market that is changing, where people are going to be expected to have many more jobs or occupations throughout their lives. It is estimated by some that Australians will have as many as 13 occupations across their lifetimes, very different to the experience that so many had in the period following World War II and before that. If you're under 25, others have estimated you are likely to have 17 employers across your career. This is, again, reinforcing the importance of our training institutions. Our training institutions are going to be front and centre when it comes to overcoming the skills shortage, because they will be critical to training people up who can fill the positions our job market is currently unable to fill. Our training institutions, our VET institutions and, indeed, our higher education institutions are going to be absolutely critical when it comes to helping people navigate a career and a life cycle where they have so many more jobs and occupations.</para>
<para>Now, of course, what I talked about there is a raft of statistics, which can become very sterile, but what I'm also very conscious of is that what we're talking about here are opportunities and quality of life for real people. My interaction with the skills sector of late has reinforced that to me. When I walk around Victoria University's St Albans campus and see the cybersecurity training facility that is giving kids an opportunity to be trained in cert III and IV courses in cyber, what I see is people being given an opportunity to enter the labour market in areas where their training will allow them to get good-quality jobs and in a sector that is going to be growing for decades to come.</para>
<para>When I was fortunate to represent the Minister for Skills and Training, Minister O'Connor, recently at William Angliss, I met somebody in the kitchen who was providing a remarkable lunch for all of the people in attendance to celebrate skills week, and she was from my electorate. It reinforced to me that what we're talking about isn't just numbers and statistics; when we talk about fixing the skills shortage and training people up so they can take advantage of opportunities in the labour force, we're talking about giving people opportunities. These are people who are just finishing school and trying to enter the labour market. It is such a difficult hurdle. And, of course, so many people need to change their career. So many people's firm might have closed, or their skills might have been automated out of existence. So many people are in industries that might be in decline. There are often middle-aged people who are particularly vulnerable; they also need a well-functioning labour market and need skills.</para>
<para>For me, what we're talking about today is so important for individuals and for families—and often for the most vulnerable individuals and families. To get this right means incredible things for people in electorates like mine and the people that I've met at skills functions and training facilities. Indeed, employers reinforce that to me every day that I'm in my electorate.</para>
<para>What does it mean to set up Jobs and Skills Australia, an entity that will provide advice to government along many dimensions but which for me will, critically, dramatically improve the quality of data that is provided to government. This is an area where data is absolutely paramount. Why is that? Sometimes we describe different parts of our economy as markets. I'm probably more guilty of that than most, being an economist by training. But I'll not describe this as a market; I will describe it as an ecosystem where a number of actors have to make decisions that are very complicated. The people who are seeking training—students-to-be or existing students—are making decisions about what courses to do that are based upon their expectation of jobs in the future, on their judgement as to what types of jobs they will like and their expectations as to where the economy will evolve in the future. Those choices are very difficult for individuals to make. The more information individuals have about where jobs exist and are ready for people to enter and the more information students have about where jobs and industries are emerging and growing, the better the decisions they will be able to make. It is absolutely critical for individuals, students or students-to-be that they have the best information possible.</para>
<para>Then, of course, there are the providers of services. It is absolutely critical that the system works well so they have the best information about which jobs are emerging. For a TAFE or a VET provider in a community to know that a large employer or a sector is growing in their community means that they can pivot and offer a course that provides students with the skills necessary to enter that growing firm or cluster of firms. It is absolutely critical that we provide the best possible data to the people providing training.</para>
<para>Next, of course, there's government. Government needs the best data possible in terms of both the existing labour market and also, of course, forecasting where the labour is going—an extremely difficult thing to do. Forecasts are extremely important for government because government is often making long-term investments. It is critical that the government makes those investments with the best possible understanding of how the labour market is evolving.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia is being set up to help all of those different parts of the labour market ecosystem—students and people who might soon be students, the providers of services and, of course, government, which is a critical funder of so much of the training that goes on in the sector. Of course, employers are another important part of that. These Jobs and Skills Australia bills will put in place the first stage of a two-stage process. There are a number of things it is absolutely imperative we get underway right now. This legislation will do that. It will establish the machinery of Jobs and Skills Australia, it will establish the Jobs and Skills Australia Director and it will set up an organisation that can hit the ground running and provide a number of important services, such as producing data, producing workforce forecasts, producing capacity studies, informing the public and putting in place mechanisms whereby the data that is produced can be not only provided to government but also shared with users, providers of services and employers. That is critical. There's not much point producing high-quality data if you don't set up mechanisms to share that data.</para>
<para>In addition to Jobs and Skills Australia being set up so that it can hit the ground running and provide data where needed immediately—and there are a number of different areas where government is undertaking services where this data will be needed immediately—it's also critical that there is a two-stage process because there are elements of the ultimate architecture that the government wants to consult on. There is going to be exhaustive consultation on a number of elements of the ultimate governance architecture that government will now consult on before a second tranche of legislation is introduced. It is absolutely important that we start this process. We will see results from JSA being implemented very quickly indeed, which is very necessary.</para>
<para>I think it's also important to put on the record that in this first tranche of legislation Jobs and Skills Australia will replace the functions undertaken by the National Skills Commission and will expand on those functions to include a broader and more strategic focus. The work of Jobs and Skills Australia will be economywide and will not be limited to VET. This will be absolutely imperative to the advisory functions, the data-collecting functions and the forecasting functions that it undertakes.</para>
<para>The legislation does not limit the scope of the work that Jobs and Skills Australia will undertake. Clearly it will set out a number of functions that Jobs and Skills Australia will have to undertake in relation to informing the VET sector and informing those people who interact with the VET sector—students, employers and service providers. It is important to put on the record that the way in which it will operate will not be limited in scope and that Jobs and Skills Australia will have the capacity to look at the jobs market and the skills required in our economy much more broadly. It will be able to look at, for example, the university sector and the way in which skills are developing and the demand for skills is changing right across the economy.</para>
<para>That is absolutely critical because we have an economy where people are going to be moving between different types of post secondary school training. Some students will have an interaction with the university sector and then have an interaction with the VET sector midcareer to obtain some additional skills if they need to pivot. Some people will start with VET and undertake further VET down the track. We need an advisor to government—Jobs and Skills Australia—that is capable of broadening its focus where necessary.</para>
<para>This is extremely important legislation. This is an extremely important institution that we are establishing today. It is an overdue reform. It is critical at this point in the economic cycle that this government prioritises significant, meaningful, substantive reform in this area.</para>
<para>As I mentioned at the start of this speech, we can talk about any number of macroeconomic statistics in relation to why the skills shortage is so important in the economy at the moment: it is inflationary; it is hampering growth in a number of sectors; it is limiting the opportunities for individuals in a number of sectors; and it is creating suboptimal and inefficient matches in a number of areas. But, for me, moving beyond these statistics, there are the individual stories as well. These are the people I've been meeting in my electorate in my everyday interactions but also even more intensely in the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. It's for those people, who need opportunities, who need to get the best possible start after finishing school or who need opportunities after they've suffered an unfortunate mid-career disruption, that we need to do everything we can as a government to get our labour force working more efficiently. I'm very pleased to speak in favour of this bill today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 will establish Jobs and Skills Australia, a statutory body which will advise and publish data on Australia's current and emerging labour market and skills needs and priorities. With its sister bill, the Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022, it will repeal the National Skills Commissioner Act, which performed similar functions when it was established in 2020, with a focus on the workforce outcomes and training courses from the vocational education and training system.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia will research workforce trends using data, evidence and analysis to provide impartial advice to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Skills and Training. The goal is for the government to better match investment in training and education with industry needs. As a former rural health researcher, I'm committed to ensuring that decisions made by government are based on data and evidence. It's positive that this agency will be collecting data to inform decisions in this crucial area.</para>
<para>It's absolutely crucial that we understand what data points we need to collect. The government is promising this agency will be dedicated to consultation, including with employers, unions, state and territory governments and the training and education sector, in developing outcomes. It's crucial to do this because we need to ask the right questions to determine the data we need to answer those questions. We need to be able to analyse, to interpret, to find meaning, to adapt and to review again in order to find the answers we're seeking. We need to include people with disability. We need to include people on the margins in thinking about how we ask the questions to find the jobs and skills answers we're looking for. This is positive. Improving the number of quality jobs in Australia is vital to growing our economy, and it won't happen without improving our skills and training in Australia.</para>
<para>This bill repeals the National Skills Commission, an agency that's existed for less than two years. In fact, it's just over two years since I stood in this place and spoke on that bill. The added challenges we face in regional and rural Australia, especially when it comes to vocational education and training, have only grown. Everywhere I go across my electorate of Indi, people speak to me about jobs and skills. Those constituents, those businesses and those organisations that employ them are facing enormous challenges. Across the board, in our large regional centres, in our bustling tourist hotspots, in small towns, employers are struggling to find staff. Job ads go unanswered or the staff available don't have the required skills.</para>
<para>There are also notable times when employers find someone willing to take up a job, perhaps moving from Melbourne or Sydney or another regional town to make a tree change, but it's simply impossible to find somewhere to live. This is happening again and again, whether it's a brewery, whether it's a school, whether it's a medical practice, whether it's a meatworks, whether it's a logistics trucking company.</para>
<para>This is a very different challenge to that faced in many other areas of Australia. In Indi the unemployment rate is below the already historically low national unemployment rate. People are not talking to me about creating jobs; they're talking to me about filling jobs, about how the lack of workers and housing for workers is dampening productivity. It is forcing restaurants to leave tables empty due to a lack of staff and other businesses to knock back clients because they know they simply can't fulfil orders. It's my hope that this agency will take a holistic look at jobs and skills in this country and all of the drivers and barriers that come into this, especially in rural and regional Australia, where the issues we face are, indeed, quite different to those in the cities.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, though, I must say that this bill repeats a mistake from the initial National Skills Commission legislation from just two years ago which I will seek to rectify. I will move an amendment to the bill to include an additional function of JSA to provide specific advice to the minister and secretary in relation to skills, issues, training and workforce needs in rural, regional and remote Australia.</para>
<para>The barriers that constituents like mine face are different, as I've said, to those in metro centres. Likewise, our skills and training opportunities and workforce development needs are unique and require a dedicated focus. In reviewing this bill, I was concerned to see that this rural and regional focus was not carried across into the new body. I was also concerned that, while the explanatory memorandum said that the JSA will be required to consult and work genuinely with key stakeholders including regional organisations, regional organisations were not actually included as a key stakeholder in the bill. For too long regional Australia has been sidelined in the policy-making process as an afterthought or represented by a headline statement. This isn't good enough. As a parliament, we need to show our constituents that they are not forgotten and that they'll not be left behind as we prepare our workforce for the future.</para>
<amendments>
  <para>I moved a similar amendment to the National Skills Commissioner Bill 2020 which was voted down by the former government, including the National Party, who claim to represent the interests of regional Australians. Imagine my surprise when the bill returned from the Senate with a near-identical coalition amendment which mirrored my amendment! This eventually became law, and I was very pleased to support it. I'll always support good policy that backs regional Australia and my electorate of Indi irrespective of where it came from. However, I noted that the former government only supported regional Australia when the arithmetic was against them. So it was disappointing that they weren't on the front foot with regional communities like mine, and I'm seeing this again which is why I seek to change it. This needs to change, and it needs to change now with this government. There are massive opportunities in regions like Indi that can be unlocked if we have the right data, information and advice to back robust bills, training and workforce development policies.</para>
<para>I'm very pleased to have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Skills and Training and his team about this amendment. I'm also very grateful for the involvement from the member for Kennedy, another longstanding representative of rural, regional and remote Australia. The town of Julia Creek in his electorate is classified as remote. They have a brand-new medical centre but they can't get a GP, and this is simply terrible and, ultimately, unacceptable. I look forward to continuing to be a strong voice alongside the member for Kennedy to make sure our regional workforce is not forgotten.</para>
<para>While we have challenges in my rural and regional electorate of Indi, we also have some really terrific, innovative programs that are opening doors for our willing workforce, and the JSA would be very, very well placed to have a look at these programs. The Country Universities Centres in Wangaratta, Mansfield and Corryong provide opportunities for people to study courses at universities across the country while staying close to their rural home. These centres provide state-of-the-art study space, an informal area where students can gather and bond, including a student kitchen; space for tutorials; video conferencing; good, solid, effective internet. Students have access to campus-level technology, facilities, tutors, supportive administration, academic staff and, importantly, a network of fellow students. This opens up a whole world of higher education to people who previously needed to move far away from home or leave their employment or leave their families to access it.</para>
<para>The Girls of Steel program in Wangaratta provides women with a Certificate II in Engineering Pathways and a Certificate I in Work Skills. It aims to open up job pathways for women in engineering, a sector that is predominantly male. The course is project based, including the manufacturing of park furniture for councils, sculptures, trailers, signposts, bespoke letterboxes—you name it. I've met with the program director, Brendan Ritchens, who exemplifies the very, very best in innovation and the very, very best in including people from the margins and the very, very best in ensuring that that enormous, great big, untapped workforce in skills such as engineering—women—are included.</para>
<para>I note with encouragement that the member for Fraser talked about the multiple jobs that people will be taking on in the future. When I was at the Jobs and Skills Summit last week we heard a lot about the skills needed for now and the skills needed for the near future. While I'm pleased that the government has increased the number of free TAFE places, we need to do a whole lot more in our TAFEs around ageing infrastructure. We simply can't take on skills development in rural and regional TAFEs for these jobs of the future while we've got 1970s infrastructure. I was recently at GOTAFE in Wangaratta, speaking with Travis Heeney, and I'm often at the Wodonga TAFE, speaking with the CEO, Phil Paterson, and repeatedly I see ageing infrastructure. If we wish to train our rural and regional workforce for the huge transformation that renewables are going to be in rural and regional areas, we need to have the infrastructure in those TAFEs that can allow our students to work on batteries, to work on electric vehicles had to work on renewable technology more broadly.</para>
<para>I speak to employers who are dedicated to training and retaining their staff—bosses who take on apprentices and trainees, giving them a foot in the door to a lifelong career. I commend them. I speak to people every day who love their jobs and who are looking for opportunities to improve their skills and secure themselves a career pathway which will give them security and fulfilment. And they want to stay in the regions. I also speak to many young people who want to find a secure, well-paid job close to home in the country towns where they grew up. Students at our local university—La Trobe University in Wodonga—at CSU, at TAFE and on school campuses right across Indi are leading innovative programs, and I really encourage JSA to consult with these groups when establishing what their dataset should be.</para>
<para>Rural and regional Australia is ready for the workforce of the future if we put in the support that it needs. We have the energy, we have the commitment, we have the vision and we have the smart people; we do need the infrastructure and we do need to be included very, very carefully in the analysis of jobs and skills. I want to see this government step in and support the hardworking students, workers and employers to realise the incredible full potential of rural and regional Australia and truly build our economic prosperity.</para>
</amendments>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there were ever a day to be debating the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 in our parliament, it's today. Today we have the early childhood education sector in Australia taking a big, bold step to close childcare centres early. One of the main reasons why is because they're stressed, overworked and struggling because they don't have enough skilled staff to fill vacancies and to help them educate our youngest Australians. Today is also the day we thank our aged-care workforce for the amazing work that they do—another sector that is struggling with workloads, lack of staff and facilities. Quite often they raise with us—as do the union and the workforce—that they can't find enough skilled workers to work in the sector. And yesterday was National TAFE Day, when we celebrated the role that the public institution of TAFE plays in our country.</para>
<para>Those are three examples, just from today and yesterday, that demonstrate why this bill before us is so critical. We are in a skills crisis in our country. It's not something that happened just because of the pandemic and it's not something that happened because Labor won the last federal election. It didn't just happen since May, it's been building in our country for the best part of a decade—nearly a decade of inaction by the previous government: a decade of cuts, a decade of mismanagement and a decade of chaos that was created that exacerbated the problem. This was exacerbated particularly by what they did during the pandemic: decisions that the previous government made, like not extending JobKeeper to casual workers who work in those critical sectors, saw many of those skilled workers in aged care and early childhood education leave, and they haven't come back. The funding cuts that they had to vocational education and training meant that many courses in regional areas were not run because they couldn't get enough students in those regional areas to fill very large class numbers. There's a litany of examples of how the previous government exacerbated the skills shortage that we have in our country.</para>
<para>But our government is acting to address the skills shortage that we have, and one of the key parts of that is creating this independent, transparent body which will be made up of many stakeholders, to help give us the data we need to address the skills crisis. The Albanese government is taking immediate action to address the urgent skills crisis.</para>
<para>The very first piece of legislation that was introduced into the parliament was to create Jobs and Skills Australia, an independent agency. It is critical that our government, the Australian community and economy and employers have independent, transparent data to help provide us with the advice that we need to address the current, and emerging and future, labour market and workforce skills and training needs, to improve employment opportunities. It's critical that we have accurate data. That will be one of key functions of Jobs and Skills Australia. It will work closely with state and territory governments, not against them.</para>
<para>JSA will work with industry, employers and unions. 'Unions' may be a dirty word to the opposition, but it's a word that we should not fear. Unions and their members know full well the skills challenges that we have, and it is quite often unions advocating in this place, articulately, on how we can solve those workforce issues.</para>
<para>One of the key reasons that educators are taking action today is that there's simply not enough of them. They are stressed; they are tired—the same as our aged-care workforce. They have ideas and solutions on how we can fix these skills gaps. And we, as a government, are keen to work with them, to ensure that we meet those gaps and those challenges.</para>
<para>The background of this bill is quite simple: it's the government's commitment to establish this new body and to work in partnership, which is different to the previous approach. It is critical that we work with our state and territory governments, who have a critical role to play—particularly in the delivery of TAFE. They have a role and a relationship with employers that we shouldn't be working against but working with.</para>
<para>I'll give just a few local examples of this skills shortage that we have, as we all know; we all hear it, from talking to local businesses. In February 2022, 17 per cent of businesses reported that they did not have enough employees and that recruitment was difficult. For higher skilled occupations, it was sitting at 67 per cent. In my electorate, I feel like that's the same. I haven't spoken to an employer in recent times who didn't say they were looking for staff. We are a large regional centre, but we still struggle to recruit, like many other regional areas. I've mentioned early childhood education and care, or ECEC. Just last week, I was at Goodstart Strathfieldsaye. They're currently at a 65 per cent occupancy. They could open more rooms but can't because they don't have the qualified staff to open those rooms. It's the same situation at Shine and Bright. In Maiden Gully there's a great new centre with fantastic facilities and amazing staff; there's just not enough of them.</para>
<para>The skills shortage in our care sector should not be underestimated. In aged care, I was alarmed to have the report that, at a few facilities, nurses were being asked to work a 24-hour shift. After finishing their 12-hour shift, they were being asked to stay on until the facility could find a replacement nurse because somebody had called in sick, so it had ended up being a 24-hour shift. That's unacceptable. It's unreasonable. But that is the skills crisis we're in.</para>
<para>It's not just the care sector in my electorate that's struggling with skills shortages. At Bendigo railway yards—a proud business that goes back many decades—we still manufacture and refurbish locomotives and rail in our electorate. They are looking for staff across the board. They have a good union agreement and good rates of pay, but, because we haven't invested enough in apprenticeships and young people, as our older filters and turners and boilermakers retire there aren't people with the adequate skills to replace them. They have a great apprenticeship ratio but they're always looking for more people to work. As we start to bring more of those jobs back onshore, we need to make sure we have the skilled workforce to do the job.</para>
<para>So we've got skills shortages in rail manufacturing; in fact, in all manufacturing. We have skills shortages in food manufacturing. DON KR is the biggest private employer in my electorate. 'The bako', as it's called in Castlemaine, will hire anyone who passes their entrance test. They are keen for a workforce. They always have a recruitment ad in the local paper. They've taken the step of engaging Pacific islands workers because they cannot fill their jobs locally. The jobs that they have range from engineers through to people in accounts and people on the factory floor.</para>
<para>Hospitality is one that's often raised. Smashed by the pandemic—the stop-start nature of what we did for health reasons—businesses are still opening only a few days a week or closing their doors at lunchtime because they can't get enough staff to fill shifts. Hospitality is a rewarding job but it's still a tough job. You're asked to work late nights and casual shifts. Not everyone has the skills required in hospitality, and we don't have enough people to fill hospitality jobs.</para>
<para>The vet shortage isn't something that happened overnight; it's been growing for a long time. Vets continue to be on the skills shortage list, and they have been for probably 20 years. It raises the question of why the previous government didn't address this one sooner, given that they claim they are the representatives of regional Australia. It's not just farmers and the live export industries that are raising concerns; it's also piggeries and processors. Any member with a regional electorate that has livestock or larger animals would know about the drastic shortage of vets that we have in our country and the need to train more locally.</para>
<para>What tended to be the practice under the previous government's model was for skills shortages to sit on the list forever. They would never come off. Once they went on, it was hard to get them off. We weren't investing properly in developing our own people to fill the gaps. Another example of that, of course, is GPs. A number of MPs have raised this issue. We have a chronic shortage of healthcare workers, in particular GPs, in our region. I acknowledge that it's complex. It's not as simple as just creating more university medical places. My local primary health network tell me that about 70 per cent of the university medical graduates currently going through our system stay in the state public hospital system and about 30 per cent go on to be GPs. At that rate we'll have very few doctors left for general practice in our region as our ageing workforce continue to retire.</para>
<para>It's a complex problem and an issue that an independent body like Jobs and Skills Australia could look at. With the previous government it was patchwork—a couple of places here, a little extension there, but no overall, comprehensive workforce strategy to help tackle the crisis we have not just with the number of GPs but in our rural health workforce. This agency will be able to work with other agencies to address the problems that we have across our country.</para>
<para>This bill, essentially, also lays the groundwork for future legislation that would establish a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia and include a full range of functions and structures and governance arrangements. It is just the beginning. It is part of our broader plan.</para>
<para>There are other key parts. Free TAFE places that were announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit will work in partnership with the state governments and their free TAFE commitments. The announcement of $1 billion in a co-funded national skills agreement that will deliver 180 free TAFE places in 2023 is a good start. It will give Australians the opportunity for a vocational education in the area where we need people to work. The Australian Skills Guarantee will train thousands of workers by ensuring that one in 10 federally funded major projects have an apprenticeship, traineeship or cadetship—critical to making sure that we have the boilermakers and tradespeople that we need in the future for these jobs. A further commitment guiding the principle will be an underpinned five-year national skills agreement from 2024—not just the makeshift stop-start of the previous government—making sure we have that five-year comprehensive plan.</para>
<para>Probably one of the most important commitments from our government has been that at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth VET funding will go towards public TAFE, helping to rebuild our much-loved public TAFE institutions whose primary role is not profits but the education of Australians. The TAFE Technology Fund will help improve facilities—workshops, laboratories, telehealth and simulators—across the country. We've had lots of good investment in Victoria at the TAFE level from the state Labor government. This fund will help fill the gaps.</para>
<para>This is just the beginning. I could go on about the importance of skills. It's an area which is close not just to my electorate but to many electorates. It's an area where there are lots of answers, but now it's time for action. We do need to get working if we're going to address the skills crisis that we're having in our country. The crisis is a handbrake on our productivity and hurts our recovery from the pandemic. I strongly encourage everybody to support this bill and to reach out to workers and give them hope, to reach out to businesses and give them hope, that we will work with them to solve these issues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nurturing future jobs and skills is vital to Australia's prosperity, and we know it. This legislation establishes Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. It will provide advice and collect, analyse, share and publish data and other information on Australia's current and emerging labour market, training needs and priorities and the adequacy of the Australian system for providing vocational education and training.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Casey, I see thriving businesses, that collectively employ thousands of people, tradespeople, struggling to fill jobs. Whether it's Miglas glass or Mainstream Cabinets, from construction to hospitality or agriculture to electro-engineering, Casey has a wide spread of industries. I see the frustrations of businesses with skills shortages every day. In fact, I saw it when I visited a great local business, Hutch and Co., on Father's Day. The staff were working so hard, in a full restaurant, to give everyone a great experience. Half their restaurant was closed because they didn't have the staff to fill the demand.</para>
<para>Last week I visited Ranges TEC, a campus of Mount Evelyn Christian School, designed for hands-on study with year 10, 11 and 12 students, through VCAL, with the goal of achieving year 12 and a pathway to trade, TAFE or the workforce. I took along the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. During that visit, I ran into a young man named James. James and I played soccer together about two years ago at Lilydale Montrose United soccer club. I remember a time when I had to drive James to a game in the city and he was talking to me about starting at Ranges TEC. He was in year 10 and he was taking part in their taster program, which gives students the opportunity to try many different trades and understand what they like so they can specialise in year 11 and 12. It was extraordinary to see James two years later—how much his confidence had developed, his growth and development as a person and how he was enjoying learning to become a chef. It's a testament to the amazing work that Ranges TEC do. I know James was just one example of thousands of young people in Casey that they have helped.</para>
<para>There is an open enrolment at Ranges TEC. They draw students from every sector, including state, independent and Catholic schools; Steiner schools; and even homeschool. They usually have almost 100 students enrolled annually. Ranges TEC is an innovative model working to assist young people who struggle with the traditional school system. They create a pathway to employment for many young people and help them develop vital life skills.</para>
<para>On the same day, we visited Mainstream Cabinets, a family run business in Lilydale specialising in custom designed, high-quality kitchen, laundry, bathroom and office cabinetry. Matt showed us around and explained the challenges his business is facing at the moment. They included the increasing price of materials, but most worrying were the skills and worker shortages. He told us this was the biggest barrier to continued growth in his business.</para>
<para>The Labor Party inherited a booming skills and training sector from the coalition government. I passionately believe that if we invest in and support young people it is supporting not only them but also the wider community now and into the future, which is why I will always support legislation that helps our young people. We handed the Albanese government a skills and training system that was backed by record investments. There was real momentum in skills and training, thanks to the Liberals and the Nationals. We'd established a National Skills Commission to provide evidenced leadership on the skills we need for our workforce today and tomorrow. It invested a significant $13 billion in skills over the past two years alone.</para>
<para>While the new government's goal for better information, coordination and leadership of Australia's workforce and skills needs is important, it was already being provided by the National Skills Commission. You can see this with no funding being increased in the budget for this change. It's a name change. The NSC reformed and increased training incentives through the new Apprenticeships Incentive System, including introducing direct payments to apprentices to see them through their studies and into a job. Apprenticeship numbers were up to record levels. For the first time in our history, we hit over 220,000 Australians taking up a trade apprenticeship.</para>
<para>We support the jobs and skills sector fully and absolutely, but we remain sceptical of the Albanese government's plan for the new arrangements, given there is still no clarity on how the organisation will be structured or the responsibilities that Jobs and Skills Australia will hold. We did not know—and still do not know—the full scope of this agency, nor how it will operate, before Labor pressed ahead with establishing a new part of the bureaucracy, but I am sure that they had a media release they had to send out or a speech that the Prime Minister had to deliver.</para>
<para>The few announcements that Labor have made have been delayed to align with the much-hyped Jobs and Skills Summit, where the Prime Minister announced an additional 180,000 fee-free TAFE places for 2023. His much-vaunted training blitz is nothing more than marketing spin, with the vast majority of funded positions not new or additional at all. Reports in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline>suggested that, of the 180,000 committed places, over 66 per cent already exist and will only be further subsidised. Just 45,000 will be new, and all of them were already announced as part of Labor's fee-free TAFE pre-election commitment. As I have begun to notice as a new MP, this government will always put politics and optics over the interests of Australians.</para>
<para>I must admit I'm also worried about the signals coming out of the government when it comes to the role of unions in the JSA. What is also concerning is the Prime Minister's explicit statement that funding will go to public training providers only. This is particularly worrying for the industry-led training providers. We know private RTOs currently do 70-80 per cent of training across the VET sector. This could open up the possibility of unions dominating the JSA's direction just like they did at the jobs summit and turning it into an entity that backs public providers only. We need an even-handed approach to the entire skills sector so it provides choice to our next generation.</para>
<para>While we accept that this bill will pass, I will be keeping my eye on the details that, hopefully, will be released soon. We know just how vital jobs policy is for the strength of our economy, and I really hope this Labor government get it right for once. However, Labor's poor record on skills is not new by any means. I am quickly realising that Labor do not have a plan to address the skills shortages in Casey outside of spin and optics. That's why I'm committed to working hard to ensure that we have short-term and long-term solutions to these skills shortages. This will include working visa extensions across all of Casey, which I will continue to advocate for, and partnering with Yarra Ranges Council to implement a designated-area migration agreement to help our businesses address their skills shortages.</para>
<para>We can't wait around for Labor to get their act together. That is why I invited the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship to Casey last week to meet with industry groups, including Wine Yarra Valley and Agribusiness Yarra Valley, as well as to visit businesses such as Cherry Hill, a thriving agricultural and tourism business that is facing worker shortages right now, today. As they are looking to staff up for their busy summer, they don't have staff. They would normally get over 600 applications for a role. They received 120 to fill 200 places. So we must work on both short-term and long-term solutions.</para>
<para>We want this agency to succeed because if it hits its mark, Jobs and Skills Australia will play an important role in the skills system. There's been a lot of talk about skills from Labor over the past week, but, as any tradie will tell you, it's getting the job done that matters. That's the important part.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to be supporting the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022, which tackles an area that is holding our economy back. It's holding back businesses in my electorate of Macquarie, in the Blue Mountains and in the Hawkesbury. Having a planned, thought-through, collaborative approach to jobs and skills and to how we make sure we're training people for the jobs of the present and future is crucial.</para>
<para>Before I go into the detail of it, I want to point out a theme that's been coming from those opposite. It's an ill-informed view that there have been no specific additional programs and funding attached to the policy and the legislation that we're doing. The member for Casey repeated this. I really urge the member for Casey not to take the talking points he's given but maybe do his own research so he can fact check.</para>
<para>One of the things that this agency is going to be tasked to do is to look at the future challenges that we have around a clean energy workforce. We have made an announcement that there will be $1.9 million of additional funding—you can shake your head as much as you like, Member for Casey—absolutely targeted by Jobs and Skills Australia to deepen the understanding of the workforce issues and provide foresight on what the future challenges are going to be. So I really encourage those opposite to check their facts before they stand up in this place and tell us what we have or haven't done.</para>
<para>What we're doing here is a game changer for employers and workers in my electorate and around the country. What is going to be different about it is that we're going to work collaboratively. I know that's a word not much understood on the other side. Had there been better collaboration, we may not have ended up with the urgency of this skills crisis that we currently face. In my roundtables in the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit, every single employer talked about the challenges that they're facing in trying to find skilled people or even finding the training options to skill-up people. That's why on coming to government we have taken immediate action to do this. It was the very first piece of legislation we introduced. Here we are, only a couple of weeks into our parliamentary sittings, debating the detail of it now.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia will be an independent agency and it will be responsible for providing advice to government on our current, emerging and future labour market and workforce skills and the training needs that go with those skills. Here's where the collaboration comes in. It's working closely with state and territory governments, as well as industry, employers, unions and training providers, to ensure that there really is a shared understanding of what the key issues are. It's also tasked to look at the adequacy of the vocational educational system that we have in delivering those skills, making sure that training and job opportunities are available to all Australians, irrespective of their background.</para>
<para>We particularly noticed the gaps in a peri-urban community that I represent, where you can't study some of the things that are needed in our very community. Only just last year, a key course that goes to the heart of our equine community was removed from our TAFE system. You can no longer do basic safety training to work around horses. We have a racehorse industry. We have a dressage and equestrian industry. We have a polo sector. They all require people who are able to work very safely around these potentially lethal animals. We need to make sure that our vocational education system provides training in the places where the work is and where the workers are and complete that triangle.</para>
<para>This is the first of a two-stage legislative process. The second part of the legislation will require detailed consultation. We're committed to doing that, working across state and territory governments, industries, employers, unions and training providers, to make sure that we get those details right. This is a terrific start. This is just the start of our commitment to ensuring that there are the training pathways and the trained workers that are needed. That's the outcome that we're looking for.</para>
<para>There has been a lot of focus on the sorts of trades that this will support, such as clean energy trades and construction trades, and all the people we will need for them. I want to talk about another set of workers, and that is the arts workers that we need. There are the technicians that we need to work in our theatres with all those technical skills. Things don't just appear on stage without a whole lot of technical stuff happening behind the scenes, from lighting to sound, equipment and things like safely moving sets in, let alone the construction of those sets.</para>
<para>What I keep hearing as Special Envoy for the Arts, travelling around the country to regional areas to consult around our National Cultural Policy, is that the arts sector cannot get the workers it needs. Given how many of them were treated during COVID and how hard it was for them to receive any government assistance, they left the sector. They had to eat, and they left the sector. Now there are severe shortages particularly in regional areas, although I know those shortages exist in more urban areas as well. For jobs and skills, I want to be clear: we're talking about every sector where technical expertise and skills based expertise is needed. That is what our government's objective is—to make sure we can train people up who are workers in every one of those sectors.</para>
<para>There are many things we need to do to set right what has happened in the last nearly 10 years. There are a range of commitments we've made—things that will shape how people interact with us when they're doing government tenders or projects that come under Commonwealth funding and the way we work with the states in terms of determining TAFE places. All those things will matter. Let me run through a few of the things that build off the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill that is the first step along the way. We have our Australian Skills Guarantee, which is about training thousands of workers by making sure that one in 10 workers on major federally funded government projects is an apprentice, trainee or cadet. We're going to look at how to include digital skills in that; this is something that came out of the Jobs and Skills Summit. We're also looking at targets for women so we can see some shift in those more traditionally male dominated sectors.</para>
<para>Another key objective we have that we'll be working on is around our fee-free TAFE places. The Jobs and Skills Summit, following the national cabinet meeting immediately prior to that, made the announcement of over $1 billion of co-funded money for that national skills agreement. That will deliver 180,000 fee-free TAFE places next year. That's a really good start. It's particularly a good start when you think it's daunting for a lot of young people to even know what pathway they're going to take, and to be able to do it and know they're not carrying a huge debt right from the start can be a game changer.</para>
<para>On some of the other plans we have: one mentioned by those opposite, with a lack of understanding, is the assurance we have given that at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth vocational education training funding will be for the public TAFE sector. Yesterday was National TAFE Day. We should be celebrating what is delivered in the public sector to students by incredible teachers in the TAFE system. It is right and proper that 70 per cent of Commonwealth funding goes there. That doesn't mean there isn't really good quality training happening in the private sector. We need to make sure that what is delivered in both sectors is to the standard that people deserve. That means it should be at an exceptionally high standard. A key area is obviously going to be around clean energy, which is why we've made a commitment of an additional $1.9 million to really understand what the needs are there. We will have new energy apprenticeships to encourage Australians to train in the new energy jobs of the future. There will be a new energy skills program in terms of developing for future pathways.</para>
<para>Something that sometimes gets left out is the foundation skills; TAFE teachers talk to me about these. It's all very well to put someone in a fee-free TAFE training course, but if they lack the literacy or numeracy skills or the digital literacy you're setting them up for failure. One of the outcomes of the summit was that the Commonwealth will work to redesign the foundation skills program, so we can make sure it best serves adult learners as well as supports vocational education providers and employers. Without those skills, it's very hard to get through your course.</para>
<para>I want to finish by taking a couple of minutes to talk about an incredible local program that has been not just talking the talk but walking the walk in terms of getting young people into an apprenticeship or a training program, and that is the Inspiring the Future Australia program from the Schools Industry Partnership. I met with Adrian, Ian, Jennie and Vanessa last week in Springwood to find out how they had been working with students within the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury to inspire them to think about becoming apprentices. What they are really aware of is that you can't be what you can't see.</para>
<para>They have some fun ways of engaging with young people in schools. The one that they say has huge success is this: they get all the kids in the school and they get a bunch of employers who have quite diverse backgrounds, and they play a game called 'What's my line of work'. There might be eight people onstage; they've each got a number. The kids get to ask questions—they have to be yes/no questions. We've all played that sort of game. What that does is help the students to guess what occupations or industries the volunteers work in. It was held earlier this year at Springwood High School. I'm told the students' reactions were priceless when they uncovered what the professions were. The way they find out what the profession is is that the professional or worker goes off into the wings and comes back with props or some of their costume. It's a way of getting students to think really widely about all the different roles and all the different training courses they can do.</para>
<para>Here are some of the occupations they were exposed to by this 'What's my line of work' game. One volunteer was a welder. One was a youth worker. One was a plumber. One was a childcare worker. Another was a beekeeper. There was an author, a horticulturalist, an allied health business owner and a landscape apprentice. There was a pilot and a correctional services officer. There were a vast range of things. For me, that's one of the things we also really need to work hard on: engaging with our young people in their school environment and supporting our careers advisers and teachers to do that.</para>
<para>The Inspiring the Future Australia program, which, of course, is run on the smell of an oily rag, is doing an incredible job encouraging young people. This year alone, they've been at a number of schools. At Colo High School, a former student, Jim Balchin, went back to the school as an industry guest. What a delight to see someone from your school and see what they've become!</para>
<para>There's a lot that we can do. On this side, we have an absolute commitment to getting this right. This is how we move our economy forward. It's how we make the most of our human capital, our people—we give people an opportunity to really excel in an area of work that they're well suited to. I absolutely support this bill, and I encourage the House to give it its full support.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Northern Australia Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senators Birmingham, Ciccone, Paterson, Marielle Smith and Walsh have been appointed as members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and that Senators Dodson and Green have been appointed as members of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6874" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that, of the aged care providers who do not currently have a registered nurse on site, and on duty, at all times, 53% are based in regional and remote areas and 86% are small providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to ensure that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) when amending the Quality of Care Principles to make provision for an exemption to the new responsibility relating to registered nurses, the disproportionate impact on providers in regional and remote areas, especially small providers, is taken into account; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) further consideration of the bill is deferred until two sitting days after a draft of legislative instruments relating to the following matters are made available:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) exemption from the responsibility related to registered nurses as proposed in section 54-1A of the bill; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) information about aged care services that must be publicly available as proposed in section 86-10 of the bill".</para></quote>
<para>The coalition supports the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and we want to make that very clear. In response to the recommendations of the royal commission, the previous coalition government invested $19.1 billion to improve aged care and to fund new homecare packages, respite services, training places, retention bonuses and infrastructure upgrades. This bill continues our work on the fundamental and generational reform of the aged-care system to ensure that it meets the needs of senior Australians both now and into the future.</para>
<para>This bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill, further responds to the recommendations of the royal commission which are contained in three schedules that amend the Aged Care Act 1997. The opposition is disappointed, however, that this legislation lacks any details on how the schedules will be implemented. It also dismisses the full details of one of the key recommendations of the royal commission. Schedule 1 of this legislation seeks to deliver on a Labor Party election commitment to have a registered nurse on site at all aged-care homes, 24/7, by 1 July 2023. Recommendation 86. 5 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… from 1 July 2024, the minimum staff time standard should require at least one registered nurse on site per residential aged care facility at all times.</para></quote>
<para>The opposition supports the implementation of the requirement for a registered nurse on site 24/7 at every aged-care facility, in line with the royal commission's recommendations.</para>
<para>The royal commission took into account a range of factors when recommending their time line, recognising workforce shortages, the pressure placed on aged-care homes throughout the pandemic and the time required to train or access this additional workforce. Despite these undeniable factors the government has brought the time line forward by a year, in conflict with the royal commission's recommendations. The opposition has genuine concerns regarding the impact this will have on the aged-care sector, particularly on small aged-care homes and those in rural, regional and remote Australia. And everyone would acknowledge that on this side of the House we have more representatives of rural, regional and remote Australia. The bill fails to demonstrate where the additional workforce will come from and how this workforce can be accessed in the short time frame set by this bill, and whether this will have significant impacts on other care sectors which are competing for the limited number of registered nurses available.</para>
<para>I note the testimonies from the Community Affairs Committee's hearing into this bill, where many witnesses, including aged-care peak bodies, providers and unions, anticipated that accessing additional registered nurse will be difficult and, in some cases, not even possible in the foreseeable future. The written submission from the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation stated, 'There is a risk that many services may need to close or that providers will leave aged care, especially in areas where there are no other services available. There is a known undersupply of health and care staff across the sector. In aged care, this includes registered nurses, and the aged-care industry needs adequate time to recruit and train additional staff.' Without access to the details that will be contained in the delegated legislation, it is unclear how providers, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providers and those in rural and regional Australia, will be supported to ensure that their aged-care services will not be closed due to this requirement.</para>
<para>These concerns are heightened by the lack of detail surrounding the exemption clause for schedule 1, which will create uncertainty for many providers. The lack of transparency surrounding this subordinate legislation also avoids parliamentary scrutiny and has been highlighted as a key issue for aged-care providers and other key stakeholders. The government must provide answers to the significant questions surrounding this exemption clause. Providers deserve to know the details of the exemption mechanism: who will be eligible, the length of the exemptions, the penalties of noncompliance and who the decision-maker will be. The opposition is particularly concerned about the impact on regional and rural providers of the uncertainty that exists until these questions are answered and the delegated legislation is seen.</para>
<para>We note the unique circumstances of rural and regional providers due to their geographic locations and the challenges they face in finding the additional workforce to meet the requirement, exacerbated by the time frames set out in this bill.</para>
<para>These concerns were also shared by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, as I announced earlier. They said, in order to meet the recommendations of the royal commission and the national agreement and ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receive aged care from the most appropriate organisations, consideration must be given to alternative staffing models for services in urban, regional, rural, remote and very remote locations. So the opposition believes it is essential the delegated legislation outlining the details of the exemption mechanism should be tabled before this bill is further considered.</para>
<para>In recognition of our concerns, the opposition will seek to move an amendment, which I have circulated, to ensure that the draft subordinate legislation is presented to parliament prior to the passage of this legislation. The cost to providers of a poorly drafted exemption clause has the potential to be significant, especially for providers already facing difficulties accessing adequate workforce and whose viability is already under pressure.</para>
<para>It is also unclear whether the subordinate legislation will consider the acuity of care required by individual facilities in the implementation of the requirement for a registered nurse to be on site 24/7. I note testimony from Dr Brooke, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Community Care Alliance, who said the other problem is, if you have one registered nurse for a whole facility, you're not defining the level of experience suitable to the level of acuity in those residents. You can have one registered nurse who's a new graduate who's been out for two weeks and that will fulfil that requirement, but the level of acuity with palliative, dementia and delirium isn't going to be supported by an inexperienced nurse or a nurse who's not familiar with the residential aged-care facilities.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill enables the government to cap charges that approved home-care providers can charge care recipients, and it removes home-care providers' ability to charge exit amounts. In government, the coalition implemented for the first time a requirement for information to be published relating to the median prices charged for home-care services to support older Australians and their families make more informed decisions on home care and the associated costs. The coalition government began the process of providing greater accessibility of information to assist with informed decision-making on home-care services and to put downward pressure on home-care prices. We support the government's continuation of our reforms to support older Australians access important home-care services, allowing them to remain independent in their homes for longer.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to publish information in relation to aged-care providers with the aim of further increasing transparency on aged-care services and allowing Australians to make more informed decisions on aged care. The publication of additional information to increase sector transparency and increase consumer understanding of the sector is supported by the opposition. We absolutely agree on the importance of increasing transparency in the aged-care sector, and we're happy to see the government continue our reform work in this area. However, we note that, like schedule 1, the details of this schedule are subject to delegated legislation that has not been released by the government. There are still questions regarding exactly what will be published.</para>
<para>So, in conclusion, and to speak to my amendment, the opposition strongly supports improving the aged-care sector and the care provided to our older Australians. However, the extreme reliance of this bill on delegated legislation, the details of which have not been released by the government, denies the parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the impact of this legislation. That's why our amendment has been introduced—to ensure the government, who was elected on a platform of transparency, provides the necessary information to allow for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of this bill. We propose that further consideration of this bill be postponed until such time as the draft legislative instruments relating to schedule 1 and schedule 3 of the bill are tabled in parliament.</para>
<para>We also note that 53 per cent of all aged-care homes who currently do not have a registered nurse on site at all times are based in regional and remote areas, and, of this, 86 per cent are small providers. Considering this, we're calling on the government to ensure that, when amending the quality of care principles to make provision for an exemption to the new responsibility relating to registered nurses, the disproportionate impact on providers in regional and remote areas, especially small providers, is properly taken into account. So the opposition calls on the government to provide greater transparency on the details that will inform the implementations of the schedules of this bill.</para>
<para>Nothing in the introduction of our amendment should detract from our real and genuine passion for reform of the aged-care system. This is something that the royal commission picked up on, that we ran with, that we funded and that we want to see done incredibly well and properly. Failures in that system have brought members of this House to tears on many occasions, both within this chamber and outside it, when they've looked at the circumstances of their own families and when they've seen the struggles of the providers in their own, often rural and regional, communities. The level of care and concern is very high. And in no way do we want to politicise what should not be a political debate.</para>
<para>But what we are saying is that the government must stick with this promise of being transparent—of demonstrating the detail of the legislation. Where they have changed the royal commission's recommendations, and where that change could have a deleterious effect on rural and regional and remote providers, as demonstrated by the committee hearing, then we must see the detail, because uncertainty only adds to insecurity—insecurity of our wonderful community based providers. The member for Forrest, who's at the table, has many in her own electorate that she has spoken about on many occasions. Personal examples have been brought forward on many occasions. We need to see that detail so that we can reassure our community based providers, who work under incredible pressure and do what they do incredibly well, and also reassure our older Australians and their families. I thank the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs Marino</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to address the House on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. This bill implements a number of our government's important election commitments that will improve integrity and accountability for aged-care facilities. The bill puts nurses back into nursing homes and caps home-care administration and management charges. This will ensure that older Australians receive the aged care they deserve, and that security, dignity and humanity are put back in the system.</para>
<para>These reforms must be done urgently. This is because hundreds of thousands of families have seen the aged-care system in crisis and they need to know that the system is changing for the better—that it will be fixed. It is reforms like these that only happen under Labor governments, and it is reforms like these that are precisely why I am standing here where I am. I am so honoured, as a registered nurse who's worked in aged care, to be here today, speaking in the chamber about the importance of these reforms. These are reforms that I have worked on with my colleagues and have played a role in nurturing, from the idea stage through to legislation, and that those in the mighty union movement—in the ANMF, the UWU and the HSU, with other unions—have worked on collectively, along with their members, the hard-workers in aged care, and with providers and consumer advocacy groups, because when we do things together we get things done.</para>
<para>This bill also responds to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and demonstrates another step this government is taking to address these shortcomings in the care provided to older Australians. In the history of aged-care facilities in Australia, there will be a 'before this legislation' and an 'after this legislation'. The 'before' is a terrible national tale of neglect, where older Australians—mums and dads, grandmothers, grandfathers, neighbours, friends and community members—were left to languish in a system that was not geared to protect them. Under the previous government, we saw COVID rip through these facilities. Under the previous government, aged-care facilities didn't have an adequate supply of personal protective equipment or enough RATs. There was a failed delivery of booster shots. There was a cynical cash bonus incentive for poorly-paid workers. But they would not commit to any real wage increases. We saw facilities struggling to fill shifts, with a stampede of workers leaving the sector for less stressful and better-paid work elsewhere. There was a failure to act decisively on the royal commission's recommendations, including in making sure that workers had enough time and resources to care for residents appropriately.</para>
<para>I want to paint this 'before' picture, which is a bleak portrait of the sector that was almost on its knees. While there are many great examples within the sector, by and large, it was one that had been failed by the government and was failing Australians. The picture we are working to paint, with these reforms as a significant part of that, will be very different. These reforms will shift the way aged-care facilities fundamentally run and operate and the way people are supported to age in the community and residential care settings.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of this bill will introduce a new responsibility for approved providers of residential care. From 1 July 2023, aged-care providers will need to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at each residential facility, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Put differently, we are putting nurses back into nursing homes. Nurses offer so much. They're a highly skilled set of hands. They offer expertise. They're a steady and measured presence that many other staff often look to for guidance and support.</para>
<para>The royal commission found unacceptable staffing levels in over half of all nursing homes. For too long staff have been stretched too thin, and the consequence of this has been that our older Australians are not guaranteed the care they deserve. By putting nurses back into nursing homes, we are implementing a crucial election commitment. This will save thousands of unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments and will ensure that older Australians living in residential aged care have access to the nursing care they deserve. It will lift care and quality standards and improve health outcomes. Crucially, this will put expertise in house.</para>
<para>The dedicated women and men who work in aged care are so critical to getting the settings right for this sector. These workers, the personal care workers, cleaners, cooks, nurses and administrators, are such exceptional people who've had to work in incredibly difficult circumstances. After enduring the pandemic and its massive implications for the sector, they are bone tired. They've worked around the clock to care for their elderly residents. They've often taken on additional responsibilities to keep residents cared for and safe. They've been spread so thin, looking after way too many residents, and these workers have had to make extremely difficult decisions about how to prioritise care. They've worked double shifts covering colleagues out sick with COVID. They've taken yet more shifts as colleagues have left the sector for less stressful and better paid work.</para>
<para>The ANMF released a survey of nearly 1,000 aged-care workers in March this year. Thirty-seven per cent of these workers said they planned to quit the sector within the next one to five years, with another 21 per cent planning to leave within the next 12 months. These workers said they were feeling hopeless and abandoned, exhausted, demoralised and resigned. Being both overworked and underpaid is not only a terrible position to put workers in but it's potentially dangerous for the residents, as it leads to a rapid exodus of workers.</para>
<para>The previous government must be held accountable. The sector has been haemorrhaging staff and we need to stem the flow. We need to get these people back and encourage a pipeline of the next generation of aged-care workers. One of the ways we plan to do that is also a part of these reforms. We need to give aged-care workers the time and resources to provide appropriate care for residents. This is why we will be mandating care minutes for aged-care residents.</para>
<para>Everyone who works in aged care is there because they want to be there, they want to provide care to our older Australians, and they must be given the time to do that. That is why the government will mandate that everyone living in residential aged-care facilities will receive an average of 200 minutes of care per day by October 2023, and this will increase to an average of 215 minutes of care per day by October 2024. This, crucially, includes 40 minutes with a registered nurse. This will fulfil our election commitment and is in line with recommendation 86 from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.</para>
<para>By mandating these care minutes, workers will be able to dedicate an appropriate amount of time to look after each person in their care. It will make sure that residents get an average of 35 additional minutes of care above current levels. It will mean that workers don't need to make a difficult decision about whether to feed someone or follow a resident who is wandering and keep them safe, because they will be able to look after everyone in their care. It will mean residents aren't put to bed at 4.30 in the afternoon because there are not enough staff on an evening shift. It will mean they can spend the time talking to the residents and assessing their mental health, their cognitive awareness and their wellbeing and give them some much-craved company. It will mean more care for every resident every day and not just for essential medical treatment. It will mean they can help a resident have a shower, get dressed or even phone a loved one. We know this will improve the lives and wellbeing of residents immeasurably. It will improve not only their health but also their mental health.</para>
<para>Another part of this suite of reforms is capping administration and management charges for people receiving home care. When charges are capped it means that more of the funding will go directly to care. Too many older Australians who are living in their homes have crippling high management and admin charges. Currently approaches to charging vary significantly across providers. While they are required to publish prices for care and package management, there is little transparency about how these prices are set and there is no cap on the amount that may be charged. Our government is reducing the high levels of administration and management charges and will remove the ability of providers to charge care recipients for ceasing care.</para>
<para>Evidence to the aged care royal commission demonstrated some organisations gouge as much as 50 per cent from people's packages. These historically high charges have had a significant impact on the amount of funding that can actually be spent on care while people are living at home. This has meant older Australians are missing out on care. Ultimately we want to be keeping people in their homes as they age as long as it's safe and they are comfortable. We've listened to older Australians and we will keep listening to them and their families. So many older people want to stay at home as long as they can. They want to stay in their communities, stay where their family and friends can drop in, stay where they can make tea and coffee in their own kitchen and sleep in their own bed, and live on a familiar street with neighbours who know and love them. When someone is well enough to stay at home it encourages their independence. Light physical activity is important and it supports general wellbeing and connectedness. It's so important to have the support systems and services in place so that people can stay in their homes.</para>
<para>A Labor government is not afraid to put the quality and safety of home care first by reining in unscrupulous providers who are charging exorbitant management and admin fees. These reforms put transparency, integrity and accountability into aged care. For too long under the previous government the aged-care sector was encouraged and rewarded for opaque, greedy and even deceptive fees. This has to change. We were very clear that a Labor government will stop this. We'll ensure that older Australians and their families have access to more comprehensive information about aged-care services and providers, including how money is spent on care. The Labor government have long said that we will improve transparency, integrity and accountability in this sector. We'll shine a light in the dark corners in areas where poor behaviours and practices have flourished.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 3 of the bill will ensure that older Australians have access to more and better information. These amendments will ensure information is published in a format that is clear and able to be understood. This will empower older Australians and their families to make better decisions about their care and will strengthen the integrity and accountability of providers and incentivise best practice. This will deliver improved nursing care and provide for improved pricing and transparency. It demonstrates this government's commitment to putting security, dignity, quality and humanity back into our aged-care system.</para>
<para>This bill takes several important steps towards fixing the aged-care crisis. Change takes time, and we don't believe things will be fixed immediately, but change means fixing many things, monitoring them and continuing to talk to workers, residents and other people in this sector to understand how the reforms are progressing. However, at its heart it is all about dignity; it's about restoring humanity and respect to the sector; it's about standing up for workers and their conditions; it's about enshrining integrity and transparency; it's about improving people's lives as they age, both in their homes and in aged-care facilities; and it's about reforming the aged-care sector to do what it is meant to do—care for people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. I support the aims of this bill and believe that it shows the crossbench continues to be an engine room for key reforms. That is because the measures in this bill mirror two private members' bills which I introduced in the previous parliament and another measure for which I strongly advocated. However, unlike my bills, this bill places an overreliance on subordinate legislation with key—indeed, almost all—details of the measures not yet known because they will be comprised in subordinate principles under the Aged Care Act.</para>
<para>Based on the bill before us, members will be denied any opportunity to debate the devil in this detail. I know very well that many of these provisions could be included in the primary legislation, because I have previously introduced private members' bills that did precisely that. That is why I will move a second reading amendment, which has been circulated in my name, to the amendment moved by the member for Farrer. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) has concerns that the bulk of the substantive measures comprising the bill are to be detailed in subordinate rather than in primary legislation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provide an opportunity to review the Quality of Care Principles, User Rights Principles and Information Principles proposed to be made under the <inline font-style="italic">Aged Care Act 1997</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) include in the Quality of Care Principles under Schedule 2 criteria for the exercise of exemption powers which provide for smaller and regional providers taking into account critical workforce shortages among other considerations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify in Information Principles under Schedule 3 financial and non-financial information of value to older Australians, their families and the community that must be published by the Secretary, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) expenditure on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning and administration;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) profits;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) payments such as rent to third parties; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) expenditure on executive salaries".</para></quote>
<para>I call on the government to provide parliamentarians with an opportunity to review these subordinate principles. It is my view that I deserve, and that every other member in this place deserves, the opportunity to properly represent our constituents and ensure that changes to the age-care system are to the benefit of all older Australians.</para>
<para>My second reading amendment also calls on the government to take into account in those subordinate principles that smaller and regional residential aged-care providers which are experiencing critical workforce shortages have flexibility. Many terrific smaller regional providers are already reporting struggles with workforce shortages and, indeed, just to break even. They are really struggling due to the ongoing management of COVID. So I would like to see some recognition by the government that additional funding and support are needed to ensure the regional facilities where older Australians live and where they want to go into care in their communities so that they can continue to age in place.</para>
<para>My second reading amendment also sets out to be inclusive, not exclusive: a list of matters which I believe should be published by the secretary, including executive salaries and such as payments to third parties. This is so that we can avoid, for example, a provider paying well above the market rent to an affiliated third party, and we have seen instances of that. In addition, my substantive amendment to the bill, again, that has been circulated in my name, addresses the risk that the imposition of a cap on administration and management fees for home services doesn't result in gold plating of fees and services or of equipment in other areas—essentially, cost- or profit-shifting.</para>
<para>My constituents tell me that providers have required them to obtain costly occupational therapist reports to secure equipment such as a basic shower chair and, in one case, a hanging basket for the shower, just to contain soap bottles. While such assessments are probably advisable for high-value items, they can cost up to $700 out of a package in a month, only for people to be told that, really, they just need a very simple piece of equipment. Other constituents have been forced to use expensive third-party providers, paying a 10 per cent premium to their aged-care provider for the privilege, or prevented from purchasing identical items, such as hospital beds or showering chairs, which are available more cheaply elsewhere.</para>
<para>When contacting the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, my team has been told that these are matters for providers. So anything that we can do in this place to prevent rorting and to prevent gold plating should be pursued here. I therefore urge members—the government, the opposition and of course my fellow crossbenchers—to support these amendments.</para>
<para>To the bill itself: schedule 1 amends the Aged Care Act to require approved residential and flexible-care providers to have at least one registered nurse on duty in residential aged-care facilities at all times. This is consistent with aged-care amendments secured by former senators Stirling Griff and Rex Patrick, for South Australia, in the other place in the last parliament. I advocated for the amended bill in question to be brought back to this place on budget reply day, and I was disappointed that it lapsed with the proroguing of the parliament and wasn't brought on for debate, unlike other amendments that tend to come down from the Senate.</para>
<para>While it's pleasing to see that this measure progressed, I'm concerned that the details of exemptions with respect to the quality-of-care principles made under the act will be absent from parliamentary scrutiny and debate in this place because it's all going to sit in subordinate legislation. These examples will be of immense importance to smaller regional providers in electorates such as mine which are already reporting huge challenges with respect to critical workforce shortages. The risk we run is: if appropriate exemption criteria is not set, smaller regional providers may be forced to close. This could leave regional residents unable to access care in their communities close to friends, close to family, close to where they know and where they grow up—their homes.</para>
<para>The idea that the exemption provisions will be buried in subordinate legislation really does concern me. As the Law Council has pointed out, the primary legislation should identify the decision-maker, prescribe the circumstances in which exemptions should be granted and provide that exemptions can only be granted if safe, quality care can otherwise be ensured. The Law Council also submitted that the bill should set out a mechanism for merits review of exemption provisions. I therefore urge the minister and the department to listen to older people, particularly those in the regions, and to their families, providers and advocates, including their elected representatives, when establishing these exemption provisions.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill introduces a cap for home-care administration and management charges from 1 January and to ban exit fees for people wishing to change home-care providers. This is an excellent measure but we need to make sure that we get it right. On 25 October last year I introduced my Aged Care Amendment (Making Aged Care Fees Fairer) Bill. My aim was to improve transparency for charges for aged care at home to ensure that home-care fees would be spent on home care rather than on administration management fees, and, I also put in that bill, to ban exit fees. I really do welcome this move by the government. The genesis of my bill was through surveying more than 15,000 residents in Mayo aged over 75. We had more than 1,200 people respond, half of whom said they were really unhappy with their administration and management fees. We saw that respondents were reported paying administration management fees of up to 48 per cent of their package; that would be month on month, even when there was absolutely no change at all to their package. Capping these fees, I think, will make a real difference. We need to make sure, though, that profits and charges are not then transferred to other areas.</para>
<para>At the time when I introduced my bill, it set a cap of 25 per cent on lower-value packages and 20 per cent on higher-value packages which could be charged for administration or care or package management, clearly defined to prevent fees being hidden elsewhere. Following the introduction of that bill I was overwhelmed by the number of older Australians from right across Australia who made contact with me, expressing their support. We know capping fee provisions can be imposed through primary legislation because that's what I did in my private member's bill, so I don't understand why we are not seeing this in this bill here before the House.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Aged Care Act to allow for subordinate information principles to specify information about providers and their services that the secretary must publish. The government states that information to be published may include certain financial information, profits, expenditure on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration and non-financial information. But the bill does not provide this detail at all, and I would prefer to see the publication requirements included in the primary legislation and extended beyond the information proposed by the government to include executive salaries and rents. We know that there have been cases where more than double the commercial rent has been charged to an aged-care facility that sits on land owned by other parties. We need to make sure that that sort of gouging stops.</para>
<para>My Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Financial Transparency) Bill 2020, introduced on 19 October 2020, also required residential aged-care providers to disclose their income, food costs, medication, staff, staff training, accommodation and administration moneys paid to parent bodies each year, and to include financial information in annual financial statements. Aged-care providers have this information; it's just a case of disclosing it to the public. That needs to be as transparent as possible for families and for those who are entering aged care. The fact that these requirements were specified in my private member's bill means that the government, with its considerably greater resources than what a crossbencher has—including departmental resources—could specify these requirements in primary legislation if it chose to do so.</para>
<para>So, while I do feel a sense of relief that older members of our community will finally benefit from these practical measures to improve aged care, my gratitude is tempered by the lack of transparency provided in the legislative process, through over-reliance on the use of subordinate legislation. This is my third parliament, and I have heard other members in this place complain bitterly when we saw huge swathes of decision-making put in subordinate legislation, essentially at the discretion of the minister. I am always of the view that there is much to be decided on through debate in this chamber by all of us, not through the pen of the minister.</para>
<para>I thank the government for processing these long-awaited reforms. I do commend this bill, and I seek support for my substantive amendment to the bill and for my second reading amendment, which I have already detailed. We need to ensure that there is prompt implementation in order to make a difference for older Australians living in residential aged care and older Australians who are in receipt of, or desperately seeking, a home-care package.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment put forward by the member for Mayo—a strong voice for regional Australia and an incredible advocate for the elderly and their wellbeing, and for her constituents and the broader Australian community. Like regional Australia, my electorate of Fowler in Western Sydney is often neglected for key services relating to aged care and health—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Fowler, are you just seconding the amendment at this stage and reserving your right to speak, or do you want to speak to the amendment now?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. Like regional Australia, my electorate of Fowler in Western Sydney is often neglected for key services relating to aged care and health in favour of the cities and electorates more politically favourable for the major parties. Every Australian deserves dignity and the right to access affordable and high-quality aged care, regardless—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Sorry, Member for Fowler, if I can interject for a moment, the convention of the House is normally that, once the mover of an amendment has spoken, the next speaker would come from the other side of the House. If you would bear with me so we can observe convention, I'll do some housekeeping. The amendment is now seconded. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Farrer moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Mayo has now moved an amendment to that amendment—that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer be disagreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of this bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, which will stop the neglect and return security, dignity, quality and humanity to aged care.</para>
<para>For too long older Australians have been forgotten and neglected, and for too long they have suffered. All of us in this place have heard too many heartbreaking stories of a system that has let down many of the most vulnerable Australians. The royal commission found that 30 per cent of people in aged care have experienced substandard care. That's one in three of our parents and grandparents who have been robbed of their dignity in the final years of their lives. Australians in aged care are not a burden, and they deserve the proper care and support that they need in their later years. Aged care affects us all—our parents, grandparents, partners and friends—and many of us most likely will rely on it at some point. These are our loved ones. These people are Australians, and they deserve to be treated as we would want to be treated. That's why we need to get this right.</para>
<para>Over the last decade we saw 23 reports, inquiries, studies, committee reports and a royal commission, and they all told us the same story—that the aged-care sector was in crisis; that older Australians were being robbed of their security, dignity and quality of life in their later years; that aged-care workers were underpaid and overworked, and the system was being pushed to breaking point. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety challenged us to be better and do better. I want to say, again, thank you to those people who shared their stories through the royal commission, because they shone a spotlight on the true depth of the crisis. They told stories of malnourishment, of maggots in wounds and of older Australians being physically restrained for hours on end. I've spoken before in this place about my own family's experiences with aged care and the fact that, while the stories that were brought to light by the royal commission were completely unacceptable and shocking, for anyone who had had an experience with aged care they were, devastatingly, all too commonplace. They were not that surprising for people who'd had firsthand experience with the sector.</para>
<para>But Labor has heard these stories, and I am proud to be part of a government that has listened to those findings and is now taking action to fix this crisis. I'm proud to be part of a government that has a plan and will deliver on those commitments. I really want to acknowledge the work of the shadow minister for aged care in the last term, the member for Hotham, and acknowledge our Minister for Aged Care for the incredible work she has done in hitting the ground running. I know that she will give her all to fixing this crisis. Labor's plan will put nurses back into nursing homes, lift wages for workers in the sector and give carers more time to care. It will deliver better care, it will improve transparency and accountability, and it will cap the fees paid for home care.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge again in this place the incredible work of aged-care workers, the true heroes of the pandemic, who fronted up day after day to care for older Australians in spite of being underpaid and, in many cases, not properly protected with the things that they needed for their own safety as the pandemic hit. These people have been brave and strong, and they got us through. I also want to thank them for their advocacy over all the years that finally bring us to addressing these problems.</para>
<para>From 1 July next year, providers of residential care and of specified kinds of flexible care will be required to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at each residential facility, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is something that people—unions and others—have called for over many years. This will give older Australians living in residential aged care access to the nursing care that they deserve. It will also have flow-on benefits to our health system, which has been struggling with the pandemic, because this proactive care will prevent thousands of stressful, expensive and ultimately unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments. Labor understands facilities in rural and remote areas face a tougher time in attracting and retaining staff, so there is an exemption framework within the legislation for specific circumstances. However, all exemptions will be time limited to ensure that providers do not use an exemption as an excuse to stop seeking staff or to circumvent the need to deliver quality care.</para>
<para>The Department of Health and Aged Care and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will work with exempted providers to help them work towards meeting their new responsibility. But the Labor government recognises that older Australians living in rural and remote areas deserve the same quality of care as those living in metropolitan areas. Importantly, rural and remote providers are still required to meet a standard of care and, if subject to an exception, would still need to demonstrate that they have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure quality and safety of residents.</para>
<para>We recognise the difficulties that some facilities have in attracting their workforce so have established a wide range of programs to attract staff and support retention. These include initiatives such as 1,900 scholarships, support for 5,250 clinical placements and the nurses retention payment of up to $6,000 annually.</para>
<para>Labor wants to make aged care a place where people want to work, where they will be respected and valued for the important work that they do, and wants their pay to reflect that. That's why we are also backing a real pay rise for aged-care workers and have made a submission to the Fair Work Commission in support of increased wages for aged-care workers. We are committed to funding the outcome of the case. Increased wages for registered nurses are expected to close the gap between supply and demand. These improvements are long overdue for these incredible workers in the aged-care sector.</para>
<para>This bill also reflects the government's commitment to fixing home-care charges. That's why this bill will cap the amount that can be charged for administration and management to people receiving home-care packages and remove exit charges altogether. The royal commission heard of astronomical fees, that up to 50 per cent of some home-care packages were being eaten up in administration and management fees, charges that reduce care rather than improve it. That's money that should be going into care. These unacceptably high fees lead to older Australians missing out on the care that they need to keep independence and continue living at home.</para>
<para>This legislation will enable the government to cap these charges and maximise funding available to address the care needs of more than 210,000 older Australians currently receiving home-care packages. These proposed changes are intended to provide all-important pricing transparency for consumers and providers and greater clarity about direct and indirect costs.</para>
<para>We are totally committed to improving integrity and accountability in the aged-care sector. The royal commission found that a lack of transparency is a pervasive feature of the current aged-care system. We want to provide greater transparency on what aged-care providers are spending money on and other valuable information about providers' operations. The royal commission found that there is a lack of transparency and accountability about approved providers and that good quality comparative information about aged-care services is not publicly available.</para>
<para>The bill requires the secretary and the department to make publicly available information on residential aged-care services and provider expenditure, including information on labour, care, food and nutrition, cleaning, administration, maintenance and profit or loss. This information will be published online, empowering older Australians and their families to make better informed decisions about their care. It will also strengthen integrity and accountability of providers and incentivise good practice. These important measures respond to public concerns about the aged-care system and ensure that older Australians are receiving the care that they deserve.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge the providers in the sector that are really doing their best to deliver for their residents and the people that they care for, including those in my electorate that I have spoken to, throughout the last term, about these issues.</para>
<para>Significant consultation is underway to inform robust and evidence based policy that will be set out in delegated legislation. Consultation is being conducted with a range of stakeholders, including older Australians, their families, representative bodies, advocates, industry peak bodies, industrial organisations, aged-care providers and, in some cases, the general public. All amendments to delegated legislation will be subject to disallowance and, therefore, continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.</para>
<para>The previous government wilfully neglected older Australians and the aged-care system. Labor will not turn its back on the crisis in aged care. This is not a political problem to be fixed; this is a human crisis and needs genuine commitment and a genuine solution. With this bill we are taking the right steps to ensure we leave no stone unturned and help implement all practical measures to guarantee that older Australians receive the highest standard of aged care they deserve.</para>
<para>Older Australians have worked hard their entire lives. They've contributed to their communities and helped to build this wonderful country. We've all benefited from their sacrifices, hard work and achievements. We can repay them by giving them support to live with dignity and humanity in their twilight years. This bill will ensure we are able to do that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aged care, its quality and accessibility is one of the key concerns in the Goldstein community. There are 22 aged-care providers in Goldstein, and, in preparation for this legislation, I had face-to-face meetings with six and received detailed submissions from five others. The key concerns expressed by the providers I consulted are as follows.</para>
<para>Because of increased uptake of home-care packages, people are entering aged care at older ages and therefore requiring increased care from the time they're admitted. The indexation of the subsidy doesn't reflect this increased care requirement, and the wage disparity between the public hospital and disability sectors and the aged-care sector is a problem. The providers also expressed concern about their inability to borrow from lenders, as return on investment is too low. There was much discussion of the AN-ACC funding model replacing the ACFI model, with providers providing this feedback: the quarterly reporting by the AN-ACC external assessors places an unreasonable burden on smaller facilities that do not have the advantage of the economies of scale enjoyed by the larger, multi-facility organisations; this may result in the closure of community-run and regional facilities, and, indeed, it already is. These providers are already under stress with staff shortages. And the health department has already revealed, in answer to questions on notice, that, based on the latest data, fully 86 per cent of small providers—46 per cent in the regions and 40 per cent in the major cities—do not have a 24/7 registered nurse. The resulting decrease of providers is worrying and is reflected in the feedback that I have had from providers in Goldstein.</para>
<para>So, while I am broadly supportive of this legislation, the opposition has proposed an amendment calling on the government to reveal the impact of this on small providers in the cities and the country, in rural, regional and remote Australia. It's a sensible amendment that I support. All members of parliament should have the ability to scrutinise the effect of legislation—whether it does what it's intended to do or falls short—and I urge the government to take a look at what I believe is the intent of this amendment. I note that the member for Mayo has also raised other concerns that warrant investigation.</para>
<para>The pre-assessments required with the AN-ACC model have highlighted significant variations on assessment of individuals. A quality standard needs to apply to the assessors, not just to the facility and residents being assessed—a quality standard that reduces subjective assessment variations. There's a lack of transparency as to how the AN-ACC tool works, as the algorithm has not been made public. This is a problem, particularly for small facilities who do not yet understand how this system will work. Reassessments are expensive, and providers cannot check to see if initial assessments were done correctly.</para>
<para>On 1.7 per cent indexation, providers in Goldstein say that the increasing uptake of home-care packages means that people are entering aged care at an older age and entering with increased morbidities due to that increased age, translating to an increased care requirement of that individual by the time they're admitted. The indexation of the subsidy does not reflect this increased care requirement. Resident care is being compromised, due to indexation not being matched to increased award rates, increased superannuation and increased payroll tax for the mental health levy. There is a significant disparity between wages in the aged-care sector and those in public hospitals and the disability sector. This is leading to staff leaving an already contracting aged-care workforce. Staff shortages were previously filled by agency staff; now those agencies cannot supply staff either.</para>
<para>On 24/7 registered nurses: 85 per cent of aged-care facilities in Victoria already have 24/7 registered nurses in place. And there is no argument—RNs should be on staff 24/7. But, as I said, small providers do have concerns. Ahead of an increase to 215 care minutes, it's also almost impossible to fully staff each shift. It's very hard to find personal care assistants, enrolled nurses and registered nurses, and there's also a concern that these changes could force enrolled nurses out of the system. The definition of what is and is not included in care is challenging. Lifestyle and allied health are not included. These areas provide cognitive and physical support beyond basic care.</para>
<para>There needs to be a clear definition of the care minutes. There's been a failure to recognise the import of enrolled nurses as part of the registered nurse component. Enrolled nurses are generally medication endorsed and do a majority of wound care. Many facilities provide a career pathway for personal care assistants to become ENs and some RNs, and there's a fear that those enrolled nurses will be lost from the aged-care sector due to budget constraints, leaving the lowest paid, less experienced, level 1 nurses and PCAs in charge of the ward. The 215 care minutes needs to be a more nuanced schedule.</para>
<para>Personal care assistants are also not eligible for skilled migration through the mainstream visa program for providing skilled and compassionate care. The Committee for Economic Development of Australia, or CEDA, estimates the industry needs an additional 8,000 workers to meet best-practice standards to combat the 65,000 workers leaving the sector each year. There's a need to make aged care more attractive by removing HECS debt and providing tax incentives. I, as well as the providers in my community, strongly support preferential visas and other incentives to attract staff to aged care to meet the requirement of these legislative changes.</para>
<para>Providers have also spoken about needing to refurbish after 25 years. To remain viable, bigger facilities are refurbishing as soon as 15 years after building, and this expense is coming out of depreciation allocations by the bigger providers. New homes are debt funded and run at a loss for 18 months or so. However, to attract investment in lending, the industry needs a consistent and commercial rate of return. The current rate of return is too low to be attractive for investor or bank funding. Solutions suggested include increasing the rental rate or daily accommodation charge, removing exemptions on the homes value on assets and means test or reinstating the bond or retention. Other comments from providers include overzealous and adversarial regulators, which has staff operating under stress and leads to many leaving the sector for better-paid alternatives in the public health and disability area. There is a deep need to make aged care more attractive to school leavers and to adopt recent CEDA recommendations to make training cheaper.</para>
<para>Finally, aged care is a critical sector and this is critical legislation, but we need to do this the right way and not rush with amendments that have been put forward and not fully considered. Looking after valued older members of our community requires care and respect. Aged care also has an image problem. We must change the reputational problem that, along with rostering and wage issues, is a major disincentive for staff to work in aged care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms M</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>URPHY () (): Just a few weeks ago I visited Benetas St Paul's Terrace, which is an aged-care facility in Frankston. I was accompanied by the Prime Minister and the minister for aged care. When we were there, I was able to introduce the Prime Minister and the minister to a range of not only residents but also aged-care workers—workers like Simbi, who moved to Australia in the year 2000, starting work in aged care first as a carer, then as a nurse and now as a manager, someone who has lived that industry, knows the sector inside out and was able to provide the Prime Minister, the minister and me with insights that only people who have been in the sector for a long time and done all those different roles can give about the problems we need to fix.</para>
<para>They were people like Andreya, who is the clinic services manager, responsible for clinical leadership and care at the home. She came to Australia as an international student, completing her bachelor of nursing at Deakin University, and has now worked at St Paul's for four years. She was initially a casual employee on Nurse Bank and looked for career advancement, taking on a permanent role in her current position when it became available. Andreya speaks to the need to support people to be able to have a career in aged care, to see it as a profession that is valued and that people can look at for the potential for advancement.</para>
<para>We talked to Jess, who I first met at pre-poll, when she came up and asked me what Labor's policies were about fixing the neglected and broken aged-care system so that she could decide how she was going to vote. She's responsible for administrative functions in the home, but, like so many people that work in the aged-care system, even if they don't have caring responsibilities, her heart and her passion is for the care that is given in the residence. Jess started at St Paul's on a placement when completing her personal-care certificate III, got her qualifications, took on a fixed term maternity leave role at St Paul's and—again—then became a full-time worker.</para>
<para>One of the things that the Prime Minister, the minister and I know—one of the things that the Labor government knows—is that good reforms start with listening to people like Simbi, Andreya and Jess. They start with listening to the people that live in aged-care facilities or live with home-care packages and the people that care for them. That's what we did in opposition. That's what the royal commission was about, and that's what we're doing in government. You only need to see the travel itinerary of the Minister for Aged Care and the facilities that she has visited since becoming the minister to know that for her this is not an academic exercise solely about implementing recommendations from a royal commission; this is about the people whom those recommendations and their implementation impact.</para>
<para>I wanted to start by acknowledging those three women, who are examples of the people, predominantly women, who work across the aged-care industry, because they are the people whom these reforms will impact and they are the people who are dedicating their lives to creating a better life for older Australians. These reforms can assist in those older Australians getting better care.</para>
<para>Other contributors to this debate have gone through the detail of the reforms, so I don't intend to do so, apart from noting that, of course, an important aspect of these reforms is ensuring that there are registered nurses on shift 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The 2020 Aged Care Workforce Census suggested that 80 per cent of residential facilities already had a registered nurse. Certainly, Benetas St Pauls Terrace does have one onsite 24/7. We know as a government that the ambition to have a registered nurse on at all times at every facility is a difficult one because of the problems in the workforce—because of the 10 years lack of workforce planning that was allowed to occur. That was then exacerbated during COVID, when many migrant workers and people on working visas were told by the government, 'We're not going to help you out; go home,' if they couldn't work.</para>
<para>We know that there is a lot of work to do to build up the workforce, not the least of which is to make working in aged care more attractive by making sure that aged-care workers are paid something at least close to what they deserve to be paid and what they're worth. That's why, as a government, we have put in a submission to the hearings before the Fair Work Commission, supporting a pay rise for aged-care workers. But, just as importantly, we have done what good government does and said, 'Not only do we say we support a pay rise; we are willing to be at the table for our share of funding of that pay rise.'</para>
<para>We've also established a wide range of programs to attract staff and support retention, such as 1,300 transition-to-practice positions in aged care for newly graduated nurses; 1,900 scholarships; support for 5,250 clinical placements; and the nurse retention payment, which provides annual payments of up to $6,000. I have no doubt that the significant announcement made at the start of the Jobs and Skills Summit last week about over $1 billion worth of investment in free TAFE courses combined with the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia and this government's commitment to skilling up Australian workers in the areas that we need workers will go a long way to encouraging more Australians to get the qualifications that they need to work in the aged-care sector. This legislation also caps home-care charges, as the chamber has heard. Astoundingly—and I spoke to the parliament about this last term—there are people for whom up to 50 per cent of their home-care packages are being eaten up in administration and management fees, when it should be about care.</para>
<para>While I'm noting the reforms to home-care packages, I want to touch on the groundbreaking work that the National Centre for Healthy Ageing in my electorate of Dunkley is undertaking. It's a collaboration between Monash University and Peninsula Health. There was bipartisan support for significant Commonwealth investment into the establishment of the National Centre for Healthy Ageing, and I acknowledge the delivery of that funding by the previous government. What that centre has been able to do, under the stewardship of the director, Professor Velandai Srikanth, one of the smartest and most amazing men I have ever met, is to establish a unique combination of Australian-first capabilities in living labs translational research. They use large data systems and data analysis in a way that I sort of understand when they're telling me about it but which I can't pretend to be able to explain, as well as other facilities. And all of that is done to lead research, testing and delivery of innovative solution development for healthy ageing, including ways to help people age healthily at home and stay at home for as long as possible, which, of courses, is what the home-care packages are about.</para>
<para>They're ready to go on to another phase. The Minister for Health and Aged Care came and met Professor Srikanth and had a tour of the centre before the election. He has now been provided with a proposal for what this transformational centre in my electorate can achieve. They want to do more research and more work to prevent premature transition of people into residential aged care, to boost the quality of health care in residential aged care and to build the resilience and adaptability of the aged-care workforce—three priority ambitions of this Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Peninsula Health has a program called MePACS, which is a health and wellbeing alarm system for people living in their home. They are able to press a button and speak to someone—almost all women—in a call centre if they have needs or in an emergency, but they are also often able to just ring and check in and know that there's always someone on the other end of the phone who will listen to them and be concerned about their wellbeing.</para>
<para>The National Centre for Healthy Ageing has a proposal to enhance the MePACS response to have a concierge-driven care navigation so that it's a solution able to find best-fit solutions for an individual's health and care needs, including linking them up with primary care and allied health. It's a program that tackles social isolation and safety. As I said, it gives people who have a MePACS device the reassurance there's always someone on the other end of the phone, and it integrates responses with system providers. The proposal from the National Centre for Healthy Ageing would allow rigorous and robust evaluation of health utilisation outcomes and economic value, and, with their ability to use big data, there's an opportunity for it to be translated and scaled up.</para>
<para>They have the capacity to improve healthcare access and outcomes for residents in aged-care facilities by integrating primary care models that link GP, nursing and allied health services. They have the capacity to use their Residential Aged Care Research Network to identify and reduce redundancy in system responses, to ensure best practice and quality of health care, to reduce unplanned hospital presentations and to inform needs and policies.</para>
<para>They want to work to enhance capacity and capability within the aged-care workforce and to establish occupational, psychological, cultural and social determinants of health amongst workers themselves. It's very important to look after the health of the workers. They will look at the changes in health and wellbeing of aged-care workers relative to other healthcare workers and determine the quality of care being delivered to carers when they become ill or injured, determine the burden of disability attributable to work related disease and injury in the aged-care sector and, therefore, improve aged-care workforce satisfaction and retention. One only has to talk to aged-care workers in our electorates who worked through COVID to care for vulnerable people to know how exhausted they are and to know that they, like many others, are struggling with mental health and physical ailments but are often unable to have them attended to because they need to care for other people.</para>
<para>The proposal from the National Centre for Healthy Ageing is, as I said, potentially transformational. I don't just say that because it is based in my electorate. It has been put together by brilliant researchers, academics and people with practical on-the-ground experience. It is something I have provided to the Minister for Health and Aged Care and to the Minister for Aged Care and it is something I will continue to speak about and advocate for because this is the sort of smart, innovative, translated research that the Albanese Labor government wants to support for this country to be again a country known for not only innovation and research but also great delivery.</para>
<para>I'll just conclude. This legislation improves transparency of information. It improves integrity and accountability in aged care so that we know what aged-care providers are spending money on and it provides valuable information about providers' operations. There will be consultation—it's already underway—about delegated legislation to form robust and evidence based policy. This is a system that we have to fix. We can't afford not to. There's a moral imperative and there's an economic imperative. The people we represent want this done. The government will do it steadfastly and as swiftly as possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 1968 I moved to a small community called Pakenham and started my own business as an 18-year-old. It was probably unusual for an 18-year-old to be beginning a business, but I came out of a family of entrepreneurs and it was normal for us. That's what you do—create yourself a job. That community was an integrated community, which we didn't understand. It was 1¼ hours from Melbourne CBD, so it was a country community. It was built around sport and business—the horse racing club, football clubs, the town hall committee, women's groups and the CWA. It had all the things of a small country community. Everybody was linked, so a young person who came into the community was integrated into that community straightaway.</para>
<para>Then you had the Pakenham Bush Nursing Hospital. That was provided by local doctors and the whole nursing regime of that time. The most feared woman in the town was the matron of the hospital, because she ran the show. They provided paediatric services and palliative care services and looked after breaks and scratches and cuts and bites; it was all done within this community by the local doctors as part of the bush nursing hospital system.</para>
<para>Because I've got the time, I'm going to tell you that the bush nursing hospital system in Victoria was created by council and state governments, who got together because 25 per cent of women in country communities were dying in childbirth, compared to about five or six per cent in the city in those times. So these country communities right across Victoria got together and created bush nursing hospital systems and drove the rate of death in childbirth down to that of the city. And that's what these bush nursing hospitals were all about. They were really important to women in community.</para>
<para>As an 18-year-old, I realised that the vast number of patients in our bush nursing hospitals were elderly people either needing care or in palliative care, and that usually they were needing care because they could no longer cope at home. What did we do? We drew them into the heart of the community, and they went to the bush nursing hospital and were cared for there. That was probably not going to work, because if all your beds were filled up with ageing residents and there was nowhere for your new babies to come—a few years later my twins were born there and my beautiful daughter, Emily, was born there at the bush nursing hospital—you're never going to have enough beds for the reasonable support of the community.</para>
<para>So the community decided we needed a dedicated aged-care facility right next to our bush nursing hospital. Of course, a fundraising committee was created, and I think my idea was to call the fundraising program 'A cry from the heart: from the elderly to the rest of the community'. That's what we did, and we raised the money to build the dedicated facility on site, which is still flourishing today as an aged-care facility. The hospital, sadly, is gone; the paediatric services are gone; the palliative care services are gone. The cuts and scratches and bruises are now done by the doctor, or it's off to Casey Hospital in my dear friend the member for La Trobe's electorate. It's a marvellous facility, along with St John of God next door to it. Healthcare services and provision have changed dramatically, but we raised the money for the aged-care centre.</para>
<para>I'll tell you a story about aged care, because I've been connected to aged care for all of my life—not only in my political career but in my business career as well. At the same time, I chaired the local disability centre, where we needed a day care centre for people with disabilities—and that's another whole story in itself. My greatest learning experience ever was living the life of chairman at Minibah, our disability centre. That's where you learn how people really do it hard, when they've got disabled children.</para>
<para>Aged care has been evolving for a long time, and I make the point that I now come to today. We've only recently had an election campaign where aged care was an item of discussion amongst the parties. In fact, aged care was used as a stick to beat the former Morrison government. But I'll take you back to 1998, when I was the member for McMillan, and the Howard government had then decided to reform aged care. They were actually very good reforms but politically very dangerous. The Labor Party picked up on that very quickly in that campaign in 1998 and used it very effectively as a stick against the then Howard government. I had said to Mr Howard, the Prime Minister at the time, 'Please do not do these reforms in your first term; wait till your second term.' That was because, in my knowledge of the interaction between families and their inheritance, moving a person who has a home as an asset into an aged-care facility and using that asset as a bond was seen to be removing the children's inheritance.</para>
<para>So part of my loss in that campaign was a very strong campaign by the Labor Party against those reforms. The sad part about that was that because of that loss and losing that battle over aged care, the good reforms were not put into place. This is playing out today and has played out ever since that time. That's even though we have reforms, and have reformed that transition from your home to a new living home in aged care very well. Aged care should be a another step in life. It is not the end or a death sentence, it's just a different way of caring for people in our community. That's how it should be and how I believe it is today.</para>
<para>The last campaign, especially by the nursing federation—which branch, I'm not sure—said that all aged care is terrible: don't go there. And they said that all the people working in aged care are under pressure with this or that—of course they are! I pay tribute, like the member for Dunkley did, in regard to those people who worked through COVID and all the issues around facilities and the provision of aged care. But, mostly, they sent a message about all aged-care providers to the community, that things were terrible in aged care. There were some areas that the royal commission pointed out, very clearly, that needed addressing, and both sides of the House have committed to addressing those issues. My point is that because of the 1998 campaign there were consequences for aged care that were negative. And because of the last campaign there are consequences for aged care now, and I believe they're negative. If we can get a positive out of it, well and good, but we left a stain: why would you choose to go into aged care if all of these arguments around aged care and all of these propositions are that this isn't a good place to work? Things are crook in aged care, why would you go to aged care?</para>
<para>The people who have a real heart for delivery of services to the clientele in aged care are praised by me right across my electorate. I even got to the point where I had to send each organisation a note to say how much we have high regard for the services that they deliver and to apologise for all the negativity that had surrounded the debate around aged care, its delivery and its service.</para>
<para>I think I can say this now, a long time after the event: Prime Minister John Howard said to me just before his government was defeated, 'Russ, do not ask me for any more money for aged care, because we have delivered in buckets.' And he had! But the need in aged care, the exponential growth that came, was something which the Labor Party knew about in 1998. We all knew the exponential growth was coming. That's why that negative campaign then and reforms that couldn't be introduced then had long-term consequences: we're still catching up, still catching up and still catching up. It has been for the whole of the time I've been in this House: we've been catch up, catch up, catch up, because the need was always greater than the government's ability to keep up with that need. So we're paying the price today for bad decisions, probably made by both parties, because we were fearful to make the reforms we needed to make. That was a political decision, and when you make those political decisions there are always consequences.</para>
<para>It may, in my case, have been one of the causes of my demise in that election campaign. However, we face the consequences today for those decisions that were made by political parties during the heat and battle of an election campaign. But, remember, that every decision that you take has consequences. When the royal commission says that you need a registered nurse 24 hours a day in every aged-care facility, that sounds great for those facilities that can afford that. They already are delivering that service. But there are other communities where, because of the size and scale of their organisations, they just cannot afford to have an RN. Secondly, they may not have access to an RN in remote communities or even in regional communities like mine because of the competition from the local hospital, the local GP clinic and especially from other aged-care facilities.</para>
<para>These are all the issues that I as a local member have to look at, rather than blindly giving blanket support to a proposition. I need to know how that proposition is going to affect the aged-care facilities in my electorate on the ground. What will be the outcome of a blanket decision like that? The government said, 'We're offering you exemptions, Russell.' But there's no detail around the exemptions. I already have an issue with my aged-care facilities because of the pressure that COVID has put on them and with our access to human resources because of our regionality where we are. You can't just go down the street in Foster and grab another RN or aged-care worker, because they're not there. They have to come from the districts. So you are competing with other districts for the minimal resources that are there as far as an aged-care workforce goes. It's quite different in the cities, but for us it's difficult.</para>
<para>We've just had an EBA that claims the wage increase is going to come out at around 3½ per cent. But the government's given them only a 1.5 per cent increase, so you're already 1.75 per cent down in the outworking of the finances of the organisation. Worse than that, when you need somebody on deck in the aged-care facilities and you can't get anybody, you have to go to an agency. Of course, the agency cost is far higher than the wage cost of a permanent worker.</para>
<para>So there are a lot of issues around aged care. I'm asking the government to address those very carefully, having regard to the impact it will have on regional facilities. I have to stand with my regional facilities. I have to stand with my own people. That's because I want ageing in place. It has been a tenet of mine for as long as I've been in this place that the aged-care facility needs to be in the community in which a person lives. Therein lies the great difference. If we can have ageing in place, that is my desire.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very fond of the member for Monash, but I want to touch on a couple of things that he said. The first thing is around wages. It really is important to point this out to the House. Those opposite are talking about the wages of those in our aged-care sector without referring to the fact that they weren't even willing to make a submission to the Fair Work Commission to increase the wages of our overworked aged-care sector. That should be their primary focus. They should be apologising to aged-care workers right around the country for not being willing to have their back on the significant wage decision that the Fair Work Commission needs to make.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear a bit of chirping from those opposite, but the fact remains that they weren't willing to even make a submission on the pay increase that our aged-care sector workers deserve. That's changed, thankfully, with the change of government.</para>
<para>The other thing that the member for Monash was talking about was the difficulties, exemptions and a whole range of things around nurses. We need to have nurses in our aged-care facilities. That's what the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 is about. I understand there is a shortage of nurses right around the country. Of course there are. That was part of the conversations that were happening at the Jobs and Skills Summit, which the Nationals were happy to attend but the Liberals were not: how do we increase the amount of essential workers in this country? You can do what the previous government and the previous aged-care minister did—hide under a rock, pretend nothing is wrong and neglect a sector that desperately needs help—or you can have a go at fixing this vital sector, giving older Australians the dignity, respect and living standards they deserve.</para>
<para>This bill, on something the previous speaker didn't speak about, goes to implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. In asking how the Labor Party, prior to this election, came up with a suite of policies it was going to implement in order to lift the standard of care in our aged-care sector: it wasn't something done in the back rooms of the party; it was in direct response to the recommendations of the royal commission report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. We committed to the royal commission's recommendations. Those opposite did not. They have a chance in this place to support the steps taken to implement the recommendations of the royal commission, like 24-hour nurses, or they can stand here, oppose them and do nothing, just like in their nine years in office. There shouldn't have had to have been a royal commission in our aged-care sector, but there was. The previous Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to set up the royal commission, and then he ignored it. This bill is a significant step forward in delivering our commitments and our promises to improve the standard of aged care.</para>
<para>The first part of the bill I'm going to speak about is the requirement for a registered nurse to be on site in every residential aged-care home 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I was speaking to the head of one of Melbourne's prominent emergency departments in one of our finest hospitals. I can say this: our emergency health department workers are exhausted. They have had a really difficult winter, with the high number of coronavirus cases but also with the significant number of presentations. The demand for our emergency department has gone up and up, and they're tired. They are looking for policies that are going to assist in managing the demand and the presentations to our emergency departments.</para>
<para>Having 24-hour nurses in our aged-care facilities is going to be one of the most significant things we can do not just for the residents in our residential aged-care sector but for our emergency department personnel, for the Australians who are working on the front line in our hospitals and seeing patients that should have been cared for in a residential setting. For many vulnerable people who are in residential settings, it is quite traumatic to be transferred from the aged-care facility to the hospital. If the journey itself can be avoided, and if the treatment, like administering of oxygen or a range of other medical procedures, can be administered in the residential aged-care setting, that is usually the preferred case. It's far less traumatic, it's far more comfortable, it keeps demand in our emergency departments lower and it gives people care in the settings they are most comfortable in.</para>
<para>I want to take the House through one example of a residential aged-care facility in my electorate, the Emmy Monash Aged Care facility, that I'm extremely proud of. I was pleased to have visited it with the new Minister for Aged Care after the election. The reason why we went to Emmy Monash to speak with Tanya and the staff is that Emmy Monash is one of the centres around the country that already has a 24/7 registered nurse on site. Tanya, this incredible CEO who has spent decades dedicated to looking after our senior Australians, basically said to us that this is a no-brainer—it's a no-brainer for their organisation, a no-brainer for the health and wellbeing of the residents and a no-brainer to have 24-hour nurses supporting the hardworking aged-care staff who are working around the clock.</para>
<para>When we walked through Emmy Monash, it was abundantly clear that this sort of setting is best practice. It's a home, a real home, for people. It's a not-for-profit organisation, and it's a nicely decorated place that is very clean, very comfortable and very welcoming. You could tell that from the residents. They feel at home, they feel at ease and they feel like they have the support that they need to live as independently as they can in a safe and caring environment. It is a place of dignity, a place of respect and a place where the staff work extremely hard.</para>
<para>I pay tribute to not only the staff and the team who are working at Emmy Monash but also all staff who are working in our aged-care settings. They are truly heroes of the pandemic, many of whom turned up to work when the vaccines weren't yet being administered, putting themselves at serious risk. The staff at Emmy Monash and the staff of aged-care facilities right around my electorate and around the country are truly heroes. They deserve our support and they deserve a pay rise.</para>
<para>The other part worth mentioning, in the few minutes I have to conclude, is that this bill will also take action on our election commitment to improve transparency in the aged-care system. It will introduce measures to monitor the costs associated with aged care and place greater responsibility on providers to be transparent and fair. There are many great providers in our aged-care sector, but there are some providers whom it won't hurt to put a little bit of extra transparency and responsibility on.</para>
<para>The legislation also delivers on our election commitment to stop the rorting of home-care fees by placing a cap on how much can be charged in administration and management fees. This will mean that those Australians who are accessing home care can be confident that their money is going directly to care and not to the bottom line of providers. These are important measures that are about addressing some of the public concerns of our aged-care sector. These are important measures that the previous government had an opportunity to implement but never did. These are measures that we are implementing, doing the hard and slow work of restoring dignity, respect and resources to our aged-care sector.</para>
<para>Our aged-care staff, as I said, are heroes. They put themselves on the front line looking after our senior Australians when they themselves weren't protected. They turned up, they turn up and they do their best. You can earn more stacking shelves in Coles or Woolies than you can working in some of our aged-care settings. I am absolutely in awe of our supermarket workers as well—they do hard, physical work—but our aged-care sector and our aged-care workers are remarkable. My grandparents have all been in residential aged care, and the support that they received, and are receiving, is something that gives my family great comfort. I know that many members around this House feel a great sense of gratitude to our aged-care sector.</para>
<para>This bill clearly makes the important reform of getting 24-hour nurses in our aged-care settings. It makes the important reform of providing more transparency in our aged-care sector to give people more confidence. It takes an important step on the road of answering and implementing the recommendations of the royal commission report, titled <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">eglect</inline>. Our older Australians, our senior Australians, have given everything to this country. The least this country can do is give them a bit of respect and a bit of dignity and support those who are looking after them by providing better pay, better conditions and a better aged-care sector that we can all be proud of.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being almost 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted, they will be given leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rusty Iron Rally</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the weekend I was lucky enough to open the annual two-day Rusty Iron Rally in Macksville, in my electorate of Cowper. This great event celebrated its silver jubilee milestone this year. Whilst on the first day we saw torrential rain, it certainly didn't dampen the community spirit. It was fantastic to see machines, from factors to steam engines, bikes, cars and even classic radios—hello, John Simon—reconditioned to their former glory, putting Australian mechanical history on full display.</para>
<para>Events like this are not just about a fun day out; they're also about recognising and respecting our past and celebrating an era when things were built to last, when you could recondition something by hand and elbow grease and not be worried about incompatible software. Add to that fact that all proceeds are donated to charities, like the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service and Make-A-Wish Australia, and to regional oncology units and it takes the feel-good factor to a whole new level.</para>
<para>A huge thanks and congratulations to President John South, Vice President Ross Scott, Secretary Anne Pade and all 280 members of the Mid North Coast Machinery Restoration Club for creating this great weekend for families and for fostering amazing community spirit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today United Workers Union early education members are taking action to highlight how critical it is that more support be given to ensuring the sector can attract more educators and retain the ones it has; that there's rightful recognition of early education for what it is—education, not child minding; and that children are placed above profit.</para>
<para>With 75 per cent of workers in this highly skilled, feminised industry considering leaving, it is vital to act. That is why the Albanese government is making changes to cut the gender pay gap, making changes to the Fair Work Act and bringing forward fee-free TAFE places.</para>
<para>My door is always open to stories from educators and stories from families, and I look forward to continuing to work together to find better ways to support educators and to recognise how vital the sector is and the importance of the work they do every single day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hermidale Future Farmers</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to bring to the attention of the Australian parliament a wonderful project that's happening in my electorate in the village of Hermidale. Hermidale Public School has seven students. Due to the generosity of a neighbouring farmer, they are now growing a crop of wheat on 85 hectares adjoining their school. Through this process—and through some very generous donations of machinery, fertiliser, chemicals and the like from the local community—these students are learning about a whole range of things: agronomy, budgeting, the fact that something worthwhile takes planning and time to develop, and the rewards that come from hard work.</para>
<para>I was really thrilled to be out there a couple of weeks ago in the paddock with these kids. To have a kindergarten lad tell you about how a GPS works is a bit of a thrill, really. They are genuine country kids. Hermidale is about 50 kilometres west of Nyngan in the Central West of New South Wales.</para>
<para>I'd like to mention the Hermidale Future Farmers: Ruby Mudford, Oliver Sheather, Abbie Smith, Marlie Jensen, Matilda Mudford, Jimmy Smith and Ned Gunning. They're doing a great job. They're real country kids. The skills they learn will not only set them up to be future farmers but set them up for a future as whatever they want to be. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Guildford Songfest</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This weekend I'll be here and not in my Hasluck electorate in Western Australia, and so I'll be unable to attend the Guildford Songfest. The Guildford Songfest is an annual coming together of community choirs of all shapes, sizes and dispositions from near and far across Western Australia. It is ably run by its committee, led by the unstoppable Yvonne Henderson. Over the weekend of 10 and 11 September, people from Guildford and surrounds will be entertained by perennials like VoiceMale and Bernard Carney, amazed by A Cappella West and Spirit of the Streets, left dazed and confused by the Men of the West and Alfalfa Males, taken across the world by the Echoes of Ukraine and the South African Gospel Choir, and abandoned far out at sea by the Lost Quays and the She Shants.</para>
<para>Community choirs are fascinating, vibrant and wonderful parts of the lives of each of our towns and localities. They engender connection, friendship, learning and joy within each group, and then generously share that regularly with their lucky audiences. Choirs, of course, were closed down during the height of COVID. I'm pleased to see that they are back with a vengeance, and I wish the Guildford Songfest all the best for their big sing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Anti-Corruption Commission</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Next week we will see the government's legislation for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It will be a significant moment in the national push for an integrity watchdog at a federal level in Australia. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to implement an integrity commission that holds politicians to account and creates a better level of transparency and governance at the federal level.</para>
<para>I've been in regular contact with the Attorney-General, and I'm pleased that we are in agreement on many points, but the job is far from finished. We need an independent whistleblower commissioner, sufficient independent and protected funding, strong oversight mechanisms that protect its independence from the government of the day, proper jurisdiction over third parties and the ability for own-motion investigations. We also need a significant pro-integrity agenda, including education, capacity building and prevention. I've been fighting for a strong integrity commission since the moment I stepped into this place. The government has acted swiftly and I applaud that. But I don't consider the introduction of the legislation to be 'job done'. I'll be working hard to make sure we get it right. I'll work in good faith, and I'll be constructive and fair, but I won't stop, I won't cut corners and I will never stop fighting for integrity in politics.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petitions: Paid Parental Leave Scheme</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents Peta and Shane Arthurson, who are here today.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The petition read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Parental Leave Pay (PLP) policy is currently up to 18 weeks paid at minimum wage. The WHO and UNICEF recommendations for breastfeeding of infants, is for children to be exclusively breastfed for 6 months. One of the main objectives of the Australian National Breastfeeding Strategy: 2019 and Beyond; is to increase the population of babies who are exclusively breastfed to around 6 months of age by 2025, particularly in priority populations and vulnerable groups. The most recent ABS Breastfeeding report shows that at 4 months of age 61% of children were exclusively breastfed but at 6 months of age this dramatically drops to only 29% of children who were exclusively breastfeeding. There is strong evidence from diverse countries that longer duration of paid maternity leave increases breastfeeding duration and improves maternal health. Increasing access to paid maternity leave will have a direct positive impact on these national and worldwide health objectives. This structural policy change is in the direct ability of the Commonwealth Government to achieve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We therefore ask the House to immediately increase of the Australian Parental Leave Pay (PLP) Policy from 18 weeks to 26 weeks in line with the WHO recommendations and Australian national breastfeeding objectives.</para></quote>
<para>From 8,461 citizens (Petition No. EN4056)</para>
<para>Petition received.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This petition asks the House to immediately increase the Australian paid parental leave policy from 18 to 26 weeks in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation and UNICEF and the goals of the Australian National Breastfeeding Strategy, which aim to increase the population of children exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives. Much of the paid parental leave debate centres on the economic benefits of increasing the generosity of the scheme, as it would increase women's workforce participation.</para>
<para>This petition and 8,461 signatories argue for this change from an equally, if not more, compelling angle: the health of our children. Evidence from the ABS shows that there is a sharp drop-off in breastfeeding rates after paid parental leave finishes. So increasing paid parental leave is essential for the health of our children and our economic prosperity.</para>
<para>I urge the government to do more than just acknowledge the recommendation and the push at the recent Jobs and Skills Summit to increase parental leave to 26 weeks and, in fact, to implement, without delay, 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I commend this petition to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales Government: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I bring to the House's attention the continued incompetence of the New South Wales government and Sydney Water, as well as their lack of support and provision for infrastructure for Austral. When I was elected in 2008 to the Liverpool council, planning was already well established for significant development and growth, for more than 300,000 new residents. Fourteen years later, we see the New South Wales government and Sydney Water act like they're surprised about it! It was in fact the New South Wales government approving these releases and plans for Austral a decade ago. They've known that infrastructure would be required to support this growth.</para>
<para>The people in Austral have had to endure unreasonable delays in key infrastructure that was meant to be completed in 2018 by Sydney Water. They've planned new houses and bought land, with the expectation and promise that stormwater and wastewater systems would be ready to handle the thousands of new residents.</para>
<para>The incompetence of the New South Wales government has caused unreasonable stress to so many. We have people who, due to sunset clauses in their contracts, stand to lose their dream of ever owning a home. We have older Australians who want fair compensation for the acquisition of their land. It is incredible that, 50 years after Whitlam fought for sewerage in the suburbs, the fight still has to continue. I call on the New South Wales government to provide the infrastructure to make their dream homes come true. It's about time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legacy Week</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Monday I attended the launch of Legacy Week, an event that was a first, in taking place at the HMAS<inline font-style="italic"> Cairns</inline> base. It was a great opportunity to engage with the defence community and come together and celebrate Legacy Week. We all know that Legacy does some great work supporting veterans and their families, and I'd encourage all members to consider supporting Legacy if they haven't already. We have a whole new generation of veterans coming through now, and it's critical that important organisations like Legacy receive our support. Get out there and buy a Legacy badge or pen or one of their signature teddy bears.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank and reference all of those who made this event possible: from FNQ Legacy, Executive Officer Rebecca Milliner, Wellbeing Officer Simone Keats and other Legacy Legatees and beneficiaries in attendance; Cairns RSL sub-branch members, board director Craig Maher, executive officer Mal McCullough, events and marketing coordinator Lucy Cahill and youth development coordinator Michelle Hegan; Cairns Defence Community Support Group Chairperson Joanna Minuzzo and Coordinator Belinda Nosworthy; War Widows Association chair Lyn Bennett, and the North Queensland Defence Member and Family Support area manager Rachel Baker.</para>
<para>Particularly I'd like to make special reference to Commander Alfonso Santos and his entire team at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Cairns</inline>, who made the event possible by opening up the combined— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Lalor Electorate: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to update the House on more good news for the community that I represent in the federal seat of Lalor. Today I know that it will be music to the ears of locals that the Albanese Labor government is going to make prescriptions cheaper for every Australian. This is really something that my community will be celebrating, along with other health announcements that I've outlined here this week.</para>
<para>But that's not all. In Lalor they're also celebrating, because on Sunday I had the pleasure of joining Deputy Premier of Victoria Jacinta Allan and the member for Werribee, the state's treasurer, Tim Pallas, to announce that the state and federal government would combine to build the Ison Road Bridge, an $114 million project that will take commuters in the west of Wyndham across the railway line and land them on the M1. This is fabulous news for my community. It's going to mean that people aren't driving into Werribee only to come out the other side and take an extra 15 minutes to get to the M1.</para>
<para>I know that the people of Wyndham Vale and all of those people in the Harpley estate who've moved into those new homes will be absolutely thrilled when they see more work being done, because, of course, the state government had already started the prepatory work, and Wyndham City Council had been doing work as well. So now they'll see that moving really quickly, and it won't be long until there's a real reduction in travel times for people in my community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyne Electorate: Small Business</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to congratulate Tom Christie and Dominique Northan, owners of the Flower Shop at Dungog, who sold bunches of daffodils for Daffodil Day and donated $6 from every bunch sold to the Cancer Council. What a fantastic effort from Tom and Dominique!</para>
<para>Another small business in nearby Clarence Town is the iconic Shaw's Williams River Bakery that Jane and Danny Shaw have run for 20 years. Congratulations on 20 years in business! They have sponsored so many sporting groups and community groups in the area. They're an integral part of the community—congratulations.</para>
<para>Also the people of Bobin have just celebrated 100 years of running the Bobin School of Arts. The hall for the school of arts was the nerve centre during the Black Summer bushfires. It was a place of refuge, communication, food, support, washing and cooking. It really kept families going. Deanna Oxley spearheaded the Bobin Sew and Sews textile art project, and now there's an amazing large piece of textile mapping out Bobin at the rear of the hall. Also, Audrey Crowfoot crocheted a tapestry in the Bobin School of Arts logo format. It's terrific to hear of this milestone celebration.</para>
<para>Local legends the Laurieton Hotel Stingrays are through to the Hastings League grand final after defeating the Kendall Blues. They will play the winners— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Africa</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Africa right now. In 2019, 135 million people were facing acute food insecurity. Today, that number has exploded to 345 million. Fifty million people in 45 countries are now on the verge of famine, and 10,000 children are dying every day of hunger. The reality of COVID, conflict, climate induced drought and the inability to import grain from Ukraine has made a bad situation so much more dangerous. In countries such as Somalia, 90 per cent of their grain comes directly from Ukraine.</para>
<para>This century, famine has been declared twice. The first time, in Somalia in 2011, the global response was far too slow. By the time famine was declared, more than 100,000 people had already died. The second was in Sudan in 2017, when the response was faster and the damage was limited.</para>
<para>Today I met with the Micah women's delegation. They and other humanitarian organisations, such as Oxfam and World Vision, are calling on the government to commit $150 million to prevent famine. Their message is simple: if we act now, we'll save lives. Australia must act, and we must act now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sandakan Day</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was honoured to attend the commemorative service to mark Sandakan Day on Sunday 21 August at the Sandakan memorial in Kings Park. We paused to remember the sacrifice of more than 3,400 Australian and British servicemen who were held as prisoners of war in Borneo during the Second World War and did not return home. Many perished during the infamous death marches, with as few as six survivors. It was particularly moving for me as I lay a wreath at the Australian memorial in Borneo in 2018.</para>
<para>The well-organised service was conducted by students from Carine Senior High School, who are the custodians of the Sandakan memorial, and members of the North Beach RSL sub-branch. I would like to commend the principal, Damien Shuttleworth, members of staff and prefects Tyson Wright, Sophie Shuttleworth, Dakota Hinch-Woods, Jennifer Robb, Erica Powrie, Kai Marchetto, Arav Patel, Neva van Geffen, Janine Kho and Tea Heathcote-Marks. I was very proud to have Carine Senior High School join my electorate at the last election. The school has earned a reputation for its academic excellence, and students of Carine exemplify the qualities of good citizenship and active community involvement.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When William Cooper advocated for representation of First Nations people to our parliament over 80 years ago, he did so because he understood the power of representation, the power of a voice. The voice as requested in the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a generous opportunity for Australia, for decency and for good manners to simply consult and listen to First Nations people on the issues that relate to them and to bring our nation closer together. It does not come at the expense of services but rather is a chance to strengthen them.</para>
<para>As we know, changes to our Constitution are hard. They require unity from all sides of politics. They require a choice between the bigots and those advancing truth-seeking and advancing a voice. So I extend a hand of cooperation to the Leader of the Greens and the Leader of the Opposition: Stop looking for reasons to make this harder. Stop looking for reasons to divide us. Instead, start helping. Help our country achieve this historic reform. Help recognise in our Constitution the 65,000 years of history of our First Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Burstow, Mr Graham Stephen, OAM</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'd like to pay tribute to a much-loved member of the Toowoomba community who, sadly, passed away last month, Mr Graham Stephen Burstow. It would take more time than I have here to list every achievement of this talented local photographer and family man, but I'll do my best to condense his highly decorated and well-lived life into these few moments.</para>
<para>Graham started his journey behind the lens at the age of 17, being introduced to photography by his younger brother, Sydney, who had joined the Toowoomba Grammar School's camera club. He honed his talents and over the years was showcased at the National Library of Australia, the State Library of Queensland, the Queensland Art Gallery and, of course, Toowoomba's own Cobb and Co museum. He published several books of his prints and shared his immense knowledge of photography with other like-minded folks through the Toowoomba Photographic Society, of which he was a driving force. In fact, it was a member of this society, Mr Tim Dunn, who thoughtfully collected a history of Graham's life to prepare me for this speech. Part of that history includes a lengthy list of honours spanning from 1960 through to 2017. In 2004 Graham was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for his services to photography, a magnificent achievement.</para>
<para>Graham's photos, particularly those of his family, allow us to see a little of life through his eyes. He captured raw moments of everyday life in Queensland that I believe will continue to change the way that we see the world. To finish with some of Graham's own words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our world is diverse and ever changing, filled with wonderfully interesting people. Let it touch you. Seek the profound meaning of life.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged-Care Employee Day</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is Aged-Care Employee Day. It's a day where we stop to say, 'Thank you for working in aged care.' But we on this side of the House stand with the workers and say that 'thank you' is not enough—it is time for action. That is why I'm really proud to be part of a government that is bringing that forward and doing that. We have said that we will implement the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission, which is why so many aged-care workers are relieved that Labor is in government. Today we stand with you and say, 'Thank you for what you do.' We stand with you to turn those thankyous into action.</para>
<para>It is frustrating, today, that it has taken so long to see action and justice for these workers. I am still contacted on a weekly basis by workers who are relieved and desperate for change—relieved and desperate because they know that there are skill shortages in the sector, they know that there are worker shortages in the sector and they know that pay is one of the reasons why people are leaving the sector. Aged-care workers work hard, they love their residents and they care for their residents, but they simply aren't paid enough to pay their bills. That is why it is great to see the actions that our government is taking. We are working with these workers, and we want to see the Fair Work Commission increase their wages. People who work in aged care are special people and deserve our support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Health Care</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In July, I rose to speak about the McGowan government's failure to address WA's hospital crisis, including at my local hospital, the Peel Health Campus. In the six weeks since, nothing has changed. Ambulance ramping continues to soar, setting a new record at nearly 7,000 hours last month and hitting new records at Fiona Stanley and Royal Perth hospitals. Nurses are still working double shifts to make up for staff shortages, and still Premier Mark McGowan is slow to listen and slow to act on this issue.</para>
<para>The evidence is right in front of him. There is a human cost to this. The inquest into seven-year-old Aishwarya Aswath's death at Perth Children's Hospital last year has laid bare stories of understaffing and nurses faced with impossible workloads, yet just six days ago Mark McGowan repeated his claims that the hospital was sufficiently staffed that night, despite calls for him to apologise for his comments. That's the thing with this Premier, he is so arrogant and so out of touch that even a tragedy like this won't compel him to take action. So I ask again: how can we trust the Premier when he refuses to see what we all can see, that the WA hospital system is broken? And how can Western Australians rely on the same system that failed a little girl like Aishwarya?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McEwen Electorate: Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After nine years of neglect by the hopeless mob over there, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday finally acknowledged one of the sad results of their inaction and useless time in office, raising the lack of mobile services in the Macedon Ranges and its effect on people's businesses. Well, surprise surprise! What? She couldn't get onto real estate.com in the middle of the day? This was after nine years of Labor and the community banging down their doors and trying to get them to invest in mobile coverage.</para>
<para>It's a conversion on the road to Macedon by the failing member for Farrer, but a conversion that is nine years too late. Not after floods, not after fire and not after storms would they listen. They deliberately ignored their own guidelines so that they could feather the nest of the member for New England and other Liberal-National members with their dodgy Mobile Black Spot Program. And what did Labor do in its first 90 days? We have already funded a new tower in Gisborne South, we are delivering a new tower in Mernda and we will deliver the tower in Woodend.</para>
<para>What a difference 90 days makes, compared to the nine years of hopelessness, mismanagement, neglect and rorts that they were covered with. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has kicked more own goals than Richard Dunne from Manchester City! This is a government that is actually getting on with the job of delivering, and that's why the people of the Macedon Ranges are happy to have a government that's on their side, not a government that has done everything to fight against them like they had under that lot over there.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm getting up to give some friendly advice to the new government. There has been a lot of hubris on the other side of the chamber since the election, but I just want to look at some statistics about the new government. Firstly, given they have a two-seat majority, they are in the weakest position for an incoming government from opposition since 1913. And with a 32 per cent primary vote, they have the lowest for an incoming government from opposition since 1903. So let's just put that into perspective: the public certainly weren't in love with them when they voted them in.</para>
<para>Their first hundred days: what have we seen from this government in their first hundred days? What we've seen is that they're paying the piper. They're paying the master. As we know, the unions control the factions. We know that the unions control the preselections of the Labor Party and we know that the unions fund the Labor Party. So the unions control the new government—it makes sense. What actions have demonstrated this? What actions from the new government have demonstrated this?</para>
<para>One of the first pieces of legislation they had was to abolish the ABCC. It was the first thing they had to do. There was the jobs summit as well. The jobs summit wasn't a love-in, it was a union gathering: 14 per cent of the population are represented by unions but they certainly had a bigger representation than that at the jobs summit. So I say to the other side: be brave! Break the shackles from the union movement! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>President of Timor-Leste</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge that the President of Timor-Leste, Jose Ramos-Horta is in Australia at the moment. He spoke today at the Press Club. I wasn't able to watch that but I look forward to catching up on the great news that the Australian government has established a defence cooperation agreement with the country of Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>I was fortunate enough not only to serve as a member of the Australian Army with the Defence Cooperation Program in Timor but I also worked as an adviser to the president when he was the president previously, around 2008 and 2009. He is a man of great integrity, and a great friend of Australia. Through this, as the Prime Minister said today, we will increase and deepen our working relationship with the armed forces of Timor-Leste and—as we share a sea together—in the maritime domain, specifically through the Pacific Patrol Boat Program, our deepening ties with Timor-Leste are in both our interests.</para>
<para>So I welcome Jose Ramos-Horta, 'Presidente of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste' to Australia and wish him well during his time here.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. The <inline font-style="italic">Code of Conduct for Ministers</inline> was published online on 8 July 2022. Had the minister taken any action to comply with the Prime Minister's code before the media reported her breach almost two months later?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank you for your question. I don't shy away from these issues at any stage. As I said yesterday and the day before, I initially transferred shares to my husband. When I found out that wasn't an appropriate divestment, I took all steps possible to transfer those shares. That is now done. At no stage was there a conflict of interest present. I take my disclosure requirements very seriously, which is why I disclosed them—a lesson perhaps those opposite could learn.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6912" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government's cheaper medicines bill impact Australian families and help people with rising costs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much to the member for her question. Today we introduced legislation to provide cheaper medicines in accordance with the commitment we gave at the election campaign launch at Optus Stadium in Perth. We know people are doing it really tough, and we know household budgets are under pressure. We know they've suffered from rising prices but they've also had a decade of deliberately low wages, so we're slashing the price of medicines by a third. For the first time in its 75-year history the price of medicines on the PBS will go down next year. Labor created the PBS; now we're making the price of medicines cheaper. The maximum price will be $30, saving $12.50 per script. A family that has three prescriptions will save around $450 every year.</para>
<para>This morning, I met Greg Ryan, a single parent whose son has type 1 diabetes. Medicines are a big part of their family budget. This is what Greg had to say to me at the pharmacy in Kingston this morning: 'Insulin is a non-negotiable cost for type 1 diabetes. You're never going to want to choose whether you can afford this particular medication or can afford something else. Insulin is non-negotiable. Any help to reduce the cost of it is greatly appreciated. It's going to make it easier for lots of families like ours.' It was indeed very good to be with him and with Trent, the head of the pharmaceutical body here in Australia. We've worked closely with pharmacies in delivering this policy because we know in particular that Australians, if they needed any reminder, were given a huge reminder during the COVID pandemic, which is ongoing, when pharmacists kept serving people, kept providing those services and kept their relationships up with their GPs. Pharmacists are the centres of their local communities, and we are taking action to provide meaningful, lasting cost-of-living relief in medicines.</para>
<para>Next week we'll have our childcare legislation, which is also very important in lowering costs for families and bringing employers, unions and civil society together, as we did last week, to lift wages and boost productivity. We want to make sure we bring people up in terms of their economic security so they can live the lives they aspire to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister For Regional Development, Local Government And Territories</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is again to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Since she became a minister, for how many days did either she or her husband hold shares in breach of the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer and my answer yesterday and the day before. As soon as I became aware, I took steps to transfer those shares. At no point was there a conflict of interest. At no point have I presided over anything that required further disclosure than what I've already made. Now that those shares are sold, I consider the matter closed, and so does the Prime Minister.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL (</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>) ( ): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to make medicines cheaper for millions of Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Spence for his question—a terrific new advocate, for the northern suburbs of the great city of Adelaide, arguing for better health care, making it easier to see a doctor, and cheaper medicines, which increasingly have become unaffordable in this country.</para>
<para>This morning, as the Prime Minister has said, we introduced legislation to implement one of our key election commitments: to slash the price of medicines for millions of Australians and improve their health at the same time. For the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS, the price of medicines will actually fall by almost one-third for general patients. From 1 January the maximum cost for PBS medicines will fall from $42.50 a script down to just $30, delivering savings immediately to more than 3½ million Australians. For a patient filling two scripts a month, that's a saving of $300 a year; for a family with three or four scripts a month, a saving of maybe $450 or even $600 a year.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister said, this morning we met Greg—a terrific fellow who told us about his family experiences at the Capital Chemist down the hill in Kingston, a terrific pharmacy run by Sandra, where, I must say, the Prime Minister and I were able to stock up on some of the vitamins and supplements that middle-aged men like us need to get going every day. Greg told us—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition's pretending he doesn't need them! He just gets by on good charm.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will take a break. The Leader of the Opposition.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just wanted to give our support to hear more detail of what the minister's speaking about, what colour those tablets are, the frequency with which he needs to take them. We're happy to hear the detail.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may resume your seat. I will ask the minister to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to have a private meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Speaker. Seriously, Greg told us about the cost to his household budget of buying the medicines that literally keep his son alive, and of the relief that this measure will provide to his household budget that experiences the cost-of-living pressure that Australian households right across the country are experiencing right now.</para>
<para>This is not just an important cost-of-living measure. It's also good for public health, because the ABS tells us that every year almost a million Australians go without a script, that their doctor has said is important for their health, because they simply can't afford it. Pharmacists tell us of patients coming to them asking for advice about which scripts they really need to fill and which they can go without. These are terrible choices that no Australian should have to make. If this bill passes, delivering the biggest cut to the price of medicines in Australia's history, then we can help ensure that no Australian has to go without the medicines that they need.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Worden, Hon. Kate, Council of Capital City Lord Mayors, South-East Queensland Council of Mayors</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Since June, my office has received 48 urgent inquiries from anxious constituents waiting for their passports to be processed. Some have waited several months. The government announced the recruitment of an extra 250 staff in June. How many have been recruited and when will the six-week processing time advised by the department's website be met?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for that very important question. I will come back to the member with the precise answer on the number of those who have been recruited and when we can expect that six-week duration to be put in place. But I would point out that the lack of support that was provided by the former government in relation to this area over the preceding nine years has led to the situation that is now facing so many Australians. It has led to the situation that so many Australians are facing right now. It's not surprising to me that you have had inquiries coming in to your office about this question, because such inquiries have been fielded by all of those on this side of the House and I suspect in the electorate offices of those opposite. What occurred under the former government in relation to this was an absolute disgrace. The Albanese government is completely committed to rectifying this—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Barker, I'm trying to hear the Manager of Opposition Business. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, there was nothing in the question about the record of the previous government. On relevance, you should direct him to the terms of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about the timelines and when they will be met. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With respect to those opposite, the record of the former government is precisely what has given rise to the facts of the inquiries which were referred to in the question that was asked by the honourable member to me. The Albanese government is completely committed to rectifying the problems which have been given rise to by the performance of the former government. We will be doing everything we can to get that, and I will return to the honourable member with the details that she's requested.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What are the implications of today's national accounts, and how does the Albanese Labor government's economic plan respond to the challenges facing our government and economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Paterson, who I know will also want me to recognise the Beyond the Broncos mentoring program friends who have joined us in the gallery today. It's nice to see you here.</para>
<para>Today the national accounts for June were released. What they showed was that our economy is growing relatively solidly but that some of the challenges in the economy are growing solidly as well. We have an economy which grew 0.9 per cent in the June quarter and has grown 3.6 per cent over the year. This, as I said, is solid growth, but it doesn't tell the full story of our economy and it doesn't reflect some of the substantial volatility we've seen in our economy over the last couple of months since this data was recorded.</para>
<para>The big drivers of growth in the quarter were consumption and net exports. Again, there's a pretty solid story on both of those fronts. But there were some challenges when it came to investment in dwelling and engineering construction. There was also a lot of evidence of the skills shortages, labour shortages and supply-chain pressures in our economy, which are holding the economy back. There was also more evidence, at a time when we have record profits, that real wages are falling, as they have been for some time. That is a fact from the data that this parliament cannot ignore.</para>
<para>What we want to see, and what our economic plan is all about, is largely three things. First of all, we want to provide responsible cost-of-living relief where we can and where it also provides an economic dividend. Child care eases the cost of living but provides an economic dividend. Easing the cost of medicine makes life easier for people who are getting lots of scripts but delivers a health benefit as well. Fee-free TAFE is obviously part of the story, as are tax cuts for electric vehicles and getting wages moving again. That's how you provide responsible cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>Secondly, we need to deal with the issues in our supply chains which are pushing up inflation and forcing the independent Reserve Bank to raise rates. That's why we're investing in these skills and labour shortages, that's why we're investing in TAFE and that's why we're investing in cleaner and cheaper energy right across the board—a future made in Australia.</para>
<para>Thirdly, we need to begin to deal with the legacy of rorts and waste and wasteful spending that we've seen in the budget for too long—the defining feature of the budget under those opposite for far too long. Whether it's responsible cost-of-living relief, dealing with issues in supply chains or making sure that Australians get genuine value for money in their budget, these are the key concerns of this government, key components of an economic plan and key parts of the Jobs and Skills Summit last week, and they'll be the key components of the budget that I hand down from this dispatch box next month as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, before the election, you looked the Australian public in the eye and promised on 97 occasions that you would reduce their power bills by $275. Yesterday, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, 'The statement of $275 by 2025—we stand by our commitment.' Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Labor Party has now recommitted, without qualification, to a $275 power bill price cut?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I've said absolutely consistently from this dispatch box—I think, on every single day that I've stood here—that we stand by the modelling that we did, the RepuTex modelling. And what the modelling showed was that with our plan, which includes Rewiring the Nation, making sure that you make the grid 21st-century ready, if you actually enable renewables to fit into the energy grid through the integrated systems plan that's been developed by the Australian Energy Market Operator then what you will do is promote investment in renewables, which are the cheapest form of energy. Our modelling showed very clearly what the impact of that would be on households, but the modelling also showed what it would do for businesses as well.</para>
<para>This is not a complex question. That is why the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group, the National Farmers Federation, the Clean Energy Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Investors Group—all of these groups, all of these disparate groups—when it comes to energy, have all been united in supporting the position that we took to the election. The reason why business supports our plan is that it will result in lower prices, because if you have a shift in the energy mix towards cheaper energy, as opposed to more expensive energy, then you lower energy prices.</para>
<para>What those opposite want to do, after 22 failed plans, is to go towards nuclear energy. That's what they want to do. And they can say, if you like, where the plants are going to be. I look forward to their review—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why don't you say 275?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>letting us know where the nuclear power plants are going to be, because we know that they've got to be in urban areas and we know that they've got to be near water.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Summit</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the Albanese Labor government build on the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit to encourage agreements and to get wages moving again?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Solomon for the question. Cost of living, and the challenges being faced by cost of living, is the interaction between prices and wages, and part of being able to deal with cost of living means that we need to get wages moving. And that needs to apply to workers, in particular those who have not had the benefits of bargaining in a significant way. And they are the workforces where there are disproportionately women: aged care, the independent education sector, early childhood education, community services, health services.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moncrieff will stop yelling.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Only today I had land on my desk—and this is how much red tape is in the system at the moment when businesses want to bargain together—something from 22 different employers, employing dental hygienists, dental therapists and health therapists, needing my permission to be allowed to bargain together. So the workers want to bargain with these employers, the 22 employers want to bargain together and yet we have a red-tape system where it has to go all the way to the minister, where I have to take into account six different conditions. And there's actually a seventh condition, which is 'anything else you want to consider'. After I give permission for it, which I did today, it then has to go to the Fair Work Commission for them to give permission as well. Those opposite will publicly rail against red tape, unless it's red tape that holds wages back.</para>
<para>In Victoria, we had 70 not-for-profit early childhood centres that wanted to be able to bargain together but the current system didn't allow them. These are all workplaces with about 20 to 30 staff, overwhelmingly female workplaces, and not one of them with its own HR department. Those opposite, who wanted to do the bullying of different small business organisations recently—saying, 'How dare you try to get rid of red tape and try to be able to bargain together?'—might take notice that small businesses don't have their own HR departments. If they want to be able to have an agreement that is tailor made for their style of business, multi-employer bargaining is the only way they're going to have that sort of opportunity. And yet in that case, every one of those centres had to individually—all 70 of them—go through the process of registering an agreement and making their own applications. But what was the outcome? You were able to get 16 per cent above the award for those workers, and for the employers to be able to get the sorts of agreements they want. If we can get those sorts of outcomes without the red tape, it gets wages moving and it's good for business.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister: In the last week, the government has: re-announced changes to make medicines cheaper, that the coalition actually promised in April; celebrated a pension increase that occurred automatically due to skyrocketing inflation; and released a half-baked version of the coalition's plan to allow pensioners to work more days, which expires in just nine months time. With Australians facing a cost-of-living crisis now, why doesn't the Prime Minister have any new initiatives to provide cost-of-living relief before Christmas?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I do thank the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party for that question. I note the number of interviews that have been given by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party where she has said, in response to the number of initiatives that the new government has taken, 'Why didn't they do it 100 days ago?' Why didn't they do it 100 days ago! We've got to have something to amuse ourselves when parliament's not sitting and we're not in here. We've got to have something to amuse ourselves with.</para>
<para>If only the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been in a position to do something at one stage. If only! If only, in the April that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers to, she was in a position to do something. Or maybe in 2021, or 2020, or 2019, or 2018, or any of the other times that the member was sitting in the cabinet—in between, of course, that sabbatical that she took from being in the cabinet.</para>
<para>But what we did, of course, in the election campaign, was go to Perth and announce a decrease from $42.50 to $30 for pharmaceuticals on the PBS. And we didn't just announce it: we did it. We did it! We did it, and we've introduced the legislation here today. We promised cheaper child care, and that legislation will be here, of course, next week. Of course the policy that they announced during the election campaign was less than what we announced, and was about nine years too late. I find it beyond belief that there's no self-reflection at all in saying 'Why didn't you do things earlier' when you sat on these benches for nine years and watched the cost-of-living pressures rise at the same time as you were putting downward pressure on wages, at the same time as low wages were a key feature of the economic architecture.</para>
<para>The truth is that those on this side of the chamber now—the new government—are acting based upon the commitments that we made. Those opposite are lamenting the fact that they didn't do anything to alleviate cost-of-living pressures in their nine long years in office.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to ensure more Australians have more choice and better access to electric vehicles? Why is policy change in this area so important?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question and her very strong interest in energy policy. Of course in the Albanese government we're getting on with the job of providing Australians with better choice of electric vehicles and cheaper electric vehicles. Important is our electric vehicle tax cut that the Treasurer is shepherding through the parliament. That will save a fleet buyer $9,000 a year on average for their employees if they buy them an electric vehicle, and it will save an individual $5,000 a year on average if they lease their electric vehicle through their employer.</para>
<para>I was a little surprised to read this morning that the party of tax cuts is against this tax cut. The party of tax cuts over here has decided they're opposing making electric vehicles cheaper. This came as a considerable surprise to the government. It just shows they will go to any lengths to stop Australians getting cheaper and better electric vehicles. But even better when I read this article this morning was the excuse, the explanation. The shadow minister for finance said, 'We've looked at this, and the real issue and concern is actually supply.' The problem is supply, they said. The trouble is they're against even discussing policies to improve supply of electric vehicles to Australia.</para>
<para>A couple of weeks ago, Minister King, the minister for transport, and I announced the government would issue a discussion paper on how we could improve supply of electric vehicles to Australia. The opposition was against it, against discussing better supply. The Leader of the Opposition knows that Australia and Russia are the only two developed countries without fuel-efficiency standards, and he says: 'Nyet. We're not going to discuss that.' It's his nyet-zero policy! It's the only one he's got. He's against it.</para>
<para>But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came out. She had a good reason. She said in another one of those interviews, 'There is no firm in the world that's making electric utes at the moment.' No company in the world! She has a point—I'm always fair—but there are some small, boutique firms making electric utes. Honourable members might not have heard of them: Mitsubishi, Ford and General Motors. But, apart from them, there are very few! It's only a small group making electric vehicles.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House want better choices. Electric vehicles are better for the environment and better for cost of living, and we want all Australians, regardless of where they live, to have the right to a good electric vehicle. That's what we're getting on and delivering.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister: Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to rule out increasing taxes on Australian families. With Australians facing five consecutive increases in interest rates, will the Prime Minister rule out any new or higher taxes on Australian families, businesses, or retirees by Christmas?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It pays to pay attention to what happens in question time. I thank the member for Hume for his question. I say to the member for Hume that, at half past two, you shouldn't necessarily ask the question that was decided upon whenever tactics met this morning, because we just had in this chamber an answer about taxation. We on this side of the House have legislation before the parliament right now to lower taxation. Imagine the discussion of those opposite in the party room yesterday. Some of them would have followed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and said, 'It's not really relevant, because these electric vehicles don't exist. Electric utes don't exist.' But others would've said, 'No, we have to hold the line here. We have to try. We've blown out $1 trillion of debt. Why would we worry about these issues? Remember, if we vote for a tax reduction'—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on relevance. He was asked if he will rule out taxes on Australian families, businesses and retirees. That's not an invitation to speculate about what occurred in the opposition party room.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was also about the cost-of-living crisis and impacts on businesses and retirees being higher.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm completely addressing taxes. On this side what we have done is introduce legislation to lower taxes for individuals but to lower taxes as well for businesses by changing the FBT provision. But those opposite have made a decision to support higher taxes, and it's not surprising, given they were all over the shop. It probably came down in the end to the key, killer point raised by one of those opposite, perhaps the member for Hume, 'We can't do this, because remember, if more people have electric vehicles, it'll end the weekend'—remember that?—'and no-one wants to do that.' That is the former government's position and quite clearly what the current opposition's position is as well. What they need to do is to recognise the fact that there has been a change. This is a government that's about efficiency, that's about delivering for Australian families, that's about delivering for Australian workers and that's about shaping the future, not being shaped by it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6876" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">M</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>r JOSH WILSON () (): My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's electric car discount benefit Australians, and what are the risks to these benefits being realised?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for his important question. We are really excited about our policy on electric vehicles. It's been a pleasure to work closely with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, because we're proud to be delivering something which will make electric cars cheaper in this country. We've got an electric car discount, which does two things: first of all, it removes the tariff; and secondly, it provides a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible cars made available by employers for employees. The legislation before the House right now seeks to achieve the second part of this policy, and what it will do is cut the cost to employers of providing electric cars for people to use, cut the cost for workers of entering into these arrangements and help grow the market for affordable electric cars in Australia. For a model valued at about $50,000 it means a $9,000 benefit to an employer and a $4700 benefit to an employee. I want to thank members of the crossbench, who have been engaging with me and the minister not because we've got an identical view on every aspect of the policy but because we share the broader objectives on this policy.</para>
<para>The question for this House is: who could possibly oppose a tax cut to make electric vehicles cheaper for businesses and for workers in a way that increases the stock of electric vehicles in our country? The answer is obvious. It is disappointing but not especially surprising to learn that the geniuses opposite assembled in their party room yesterday and decided, after spending years and years talking about how taxes should be lower, that they would oppose a tax cut for electric vehicles. It says something about the bubble of bumbling incompetence that the shadow Treasurer floats around in that he has the nerve to ask a question of the Prime Minister immediately after the minister explained that we are trying to get our tax cut through this parliament.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is the Captain Clunker approach to electric vehicle policy. It's to pretend that they love lower taxes until they're asked to actually vote for it. They pretend they like lower taxes until it interferes and collides with their outdated, obsolete, out-of-touch ideology. There is no reason to oppose this legislation except that they physically cannot bring themselves to support a good idea, and this is what we see from the leader of the leftovers over here—a pretty clear pattern. He boycotted the jobs summit and now he's boycotting the future. They aren't the Liberal Party anymore; they're the Luddite party. They have a leader who is deadset on division, defined by his denial, his division and his destruction, fronting the dregs of a departed government that the Australian people ditched for a reason.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a question for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The government recently approved the release of 10 new fossil fuel exploration sites, demonstrating that it's willing to continue developing fossil fuel projects into the future. This is incompatible with Australia reaching its 43 per cent emissions reduction target and incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. If new oil and gas projects are to be developed, which sectors will be expected to cut their emissions more deeply to make room in our carbon budget for these projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question and, as I have before, thank her for her engagement on these issues in a very constructive way. As the honourable member knows, our climate change bill should, if all goes well, pass the Senate tomorrow and become the climate change act of Australia, and it will enshrine that 43 per cent emissions reduction in the law of the land, which sensible honourable members agree is a very good thing. It provides that certainty and that signal to the rest of the world.</para>
<para>As the honourable member also knows, 43 per cent is an economywide target to be achieved by the whole country, but we do have policies that achieve that on a sector-by-sector basis: rewiring the nation when it comes to electricity, the electric vehicle strategy when it comes to transport, and the safeguards mechanism when it comes to big emitters, particularly oil and gas. The safeguards mechanism is an important way for oil and gas emissions to be reduced. We have a discussion paper out there at the moment, and all honourable members are encouraged to make a constructive suggestion, if they have any. I know honourable members of the crossbench may well do that, because it's a sensible process to go through, including how new proposals are dealt with in the safeguards mechanism. And we're open to constructive advice. The Minister for Resources did, a couple of weeks ago, release for exploration an invitation to explore those areas. It's an annual process which occurs every year. The Minister for Resources has done that in an appropriate way.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Summit</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the . How did the Albanese Labor government take the views of local government into account at the Jobs and Skills Summit?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. The member is a former mayor for the Surf Coast Shire and a strong advocate for local government in this place.</para>
<para>The Jobs and Skills Summit provided me with an additional opportunity to engage the sector, which is an important voice, and their views were loud and clear. They are the closest level of government to the people. They reach into every town and village across this country. I know firsthand that over the last nine years local government felt like its voice was not heard by those opposite. It took an Albanese Labor government to prioritise and respect the sector. As a former mayor, I have a unique understanding of the connection that local government have to their community, and they bring the voice of the community to government. They also employ over 190,000 people over 400 different occupations.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the summit, I hosted a number of local government roundtables and met with representatives from local government, state and territory associations and local government professionals. A key theme that I heard was the lack of training opportunities and course offerings. For example, in South Australia there is no longer a tertiary course for planning. This will lead to the sector suffering wideranging shortages of a number of professions—town planners, engineers, building surveyors and project managers in particular. That was loud and clear in the job summit as well, and one of the outcomes that we are particularly pleased with is the 180,000 fee-free TAFE places that are going to be offered across the country.</para>
<para>Local governments have been very good at being innovative and agile when it comes to meeting the expectations of their communities. And when the Prime Minister announced that he was bringing back that local government voice to National Cabinet, it was well received and I was incredibly proud—proud because collaboration between all levels of government is critical. It is critical in delivering for our communities. What I heard during my round tables is that there is a renewed sense of collaboration and partnership. Indeed, I am incredibly proud to be delivering back the Australian Council of Local Governments, first introduced by the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>I'm excited about the future of collaboration and partnership with local government, a sector that delivers for all of our communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity: Lumpy Skin Disease</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How many Indonesians have now been trained to protect Australia from the dangerous cattle disease, lumpy skin, as promised by the government on 9 August?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much for your question and for raising this. I think it's the first time we've actually been asked a question about lumpy skin disease, which, of course, is another biosecurity threat to our agricultural sector.</para>
<para>I am pleased, as I know the other members of this House will be, that we remain LSD free. And long may it that stay in that way, because an outbreak of lumpy skin disease or foot-and-mouth disease in Australia would have a devastating impact on our economy. I know that the government and the minister are supporting Australia's livestock industry and responding in a calm and methodical way. We've been doing that both with foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease, and all the way along will be continuing to make sure that our biosecurity is strengthened. We're taking, again, a three-pronged approach to these, strengthening measures at the border and working with our partners in the region—particularly in Indonesia, but beyond—to prevent the spread of these diseases and to make sure that we've got doses of vaccine. Some 435,000 doses of LSD vaccine have been delivered to Indonesia and we continue to provide technical support to that country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women in Sport</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Sport. How is the Albanese Labor government working to promote women's participation in all aspects of sport, on and off the field?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Dunkley for their question. She is the first-ever female president of Squash & Racquetball Victoria and she has been decorated for her contribution to increasing women's participation in sport. I also acknowledge the other female athletes who are elected to this place: the member for McKellar and the member for Warringah, who I hope will join with the Albanese Labor government in bringing integrity and equality back to sport.</para>
<para>We want to increase opportunities for women's participation in sport. We want to support elite female athletes and we want to encourage more women to take up leadership positions in sport at all levels. Instead of continuing to try and retrofit women into a system built for men, we want to build a system now that acknowledges and accepts everybody in sport at all levels. Instead of continuing to try to retrofit women, we are going to start anew. We are going to close the gender pay gap.</para>
<para>The Albanese government stands for closing the gender pay gap whether you work at a desk, in a factory or in an arena, and we want to address that for female athletes and female administrators who are leading in Australia. I chaired the Women in Sport Workforce Roundtable edition facilitated by the Sexual Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, to fit in with the broader Jobs and Skills Summit held recently here at Parliament House. Repeatedly raised with me at this round table was how the infrastructure of sport is still heavily geared towards men, both on and off the field. That is unacceptable for those on this side of the House and, particularly, as we are now on the green-and-gold runway to Brisbane 2032. That's an event that I know you, Mr Speaker, feel very passionate about.</para>
<para>There are too many one-off programs rather than long-lasting systemic reforms in sport. There are too many times when women are punished for daring to excel in sport. Opals star and GOAT, Lauren Jackson, joined our workforce round table and she spoke passionately about how many awful slurs had been directed at her, her teammates, junior players that she helps and female referees. This was not just during her career but to this day.</para>
<para>We must do more to protect them, and we will. We will do more to create sporting infrastructure that treats women with equality. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer leading a national debate on employment and the workforce provides us with an important opportunity to correct a sports gender imbalance as well, and that is now what we are seeking to do. Women bring a diversity of skills and experience, but they continue to be underrepresented in decision-making in sport, and that is now what we on this side of the House are working to change.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Integrity Commission</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Attorney-General. Ahead of the anti-corruption legislation being introduced next week, will the government also establish an independent whistleblower protection commissioner as a one-stop-shop to support and protect the brave people who will report corruption to the anti-corruption commission and across the entire public sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Indi for her question. I'm looking forward to introducing to the parliament next week the legislation to establish a national anti-corruption commission, fulfilling a commitment that our government made at the last election and, indeed, at the election before that. To remind those opposite, it's a commitment those opposite made at the last election and at the election before that. It's long past time that this parliament moved to establish a national anti-corruption commission.</para>
<para>Going to the question from the member for Indi, the government is of course committed to ensuring that Australia has an effective framework to protect whistleblowers. Frameworks to protect whistleblowers are critical to supporting integrity and the rule of law. I'm very proud that when we were last in government, we brought to this parliament the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, and I was equally disappointed to see that, after the statutory inquiry—that we legislated for when passing that act in 2013—took place, and which was carried out by an eminent Australian, Mr Philip Moss, who reported to the former government at the end of 2016, there the report sat. Mr Moss made a number of very sensible suggestions for amendment to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Regrettably, the former government simply sat on those recommendations by Philip Moss. I have said, since coming into office, that we have picked up Mr Moss's report and we are going to be looking hard at the recommendations that he has made. I am hopeful of bringing to the parliament, in coming months, amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act which pick up, and will, almost certainly, need to update the recommendations that Mr Moss made in 2016. Whether or not it goes to a whistleblower protection commissioner is something that the government is still considering.</para>
<para>I know that the member for Indi has a very keen interest in this matter. I know that in her anti-corruption commission bill that she had in the last parliament, she had provided for a whistleblower protection commissioner. That's why we are taking that particular idea very seriously indeed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Minister, how will the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit deliver proper jobs and wages for Indigenous Australians in remote communities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lingiari for her question, and recognise that she has a very deep interest in this issue and an intimate understanding of a community development program.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government believes that the CDP is broken. It has been broken for a very long time. Communities tell us it is broken. It does not result in employment. It does not result in people participating properly in the scheme, and the scheme needs rebuilding. It needs replacing, in fact, and that's precisely what we intend to do.</para>
<para>There are 40,000 people in 1,000 communities who are on the Community Development Program, and 85 per cent of those 40,000 people are First Nations people. It is a program that is not fit for purpose and has caused real hurt and real harm in communities, and it has certainly not ended up with people getting employment. We believe the CDP should be replaced, and that's what we're moving to do. It should be a scheme that is about real wages, decent conditions and real jobs. That is what the outcome will be.</para>
<para>Just last week I held a round table in the lead-up to the skills summit, to address these issues directly. There were representatives from peak bodies, alliances and unions, community leaders and local councils, and all had an opportunity to have a frank conversation about this failed scheme. Mr Micky Wunungmurra, from the Arnhem Land Progress association, warmly welcomed our approach, describing it like this—and this is a person that knows this scheme very well: 'It is a way to build sustainability and a better future for our people.'</para>
<para>We will be holding more targeted consultations; in fact, that is being planned as we speak. We know the previous government did not listen to people who knew this program well. We believe in self-determination. That's what we will put in place. Most importantly, we have freed up providers by 25 per cent of the current funding to try new things, to trust them to be able to do new things in community, to deliver real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Does the departure of the former chief executive of Snowy Hydro indicate the minister is unwilling to accept frank and fearless technical advice as to the viability of the Kurri Kurri plant operating with hydrogen from day 1?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Personnel</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring our defence personnel have the skills and training to operate our future naval capabilities and defend Australia's economic and security interests?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wills for his question and acknowledge the contribution he's made in this place and, indeed, in his pre-parliamentary life to our nation's security.</para>
<para>Last week I was in the United Kingdom and was present at the commissioning of HMS <inline font-style="italic">Anson</inline>, an Astute class submarine in the Royal Navy, at BAE's facility in Barrow-in-Furness. I had the opportunity of being shown around that facility and was presented with the way in which BAE build both the Dreadnought and Astute class submarines. It really was a sight to see.</para>
<para>I met with my counterpart, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, and the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and we talked about the very solid progress happening in respect of AUKUS. This builds on a visit back in July to the United States, where I met with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, where we also spoke about the progress of AUKUS. Across all three countries there is a sense of shared mission, which has us on track to making a decision in the first part of next year about which platform will be the basis of Australia's nuclear-powered future submarine.</para>
<para>It's important, as the physical submarine is, that there is a human dimension to this challenge. We need to be growing a submariner cohort able to operate this submarine from the first day it enters the water. I spoke with Ben Wallace about providing the opportunity for Australian submariners in the very early part of the life of HMS <inline font-style="italic">Anson</inline> to be a part of that submarine's crew. And this is in addition to opportunities that we're pursuing in the United States, where I met with two Australian students who are participating in the US reactor engineering school. They're in Washington.</para>
<para>As we build this defence—the submariner cohort—it's being reflected also in those opportunities that we're providing to those who will be building our submarines and our surface fleet. Indeed, I met with a couple of Australians who, right now, in Gubbin and in Glasgow, are building HMS <inline font-style="italic">Glasgow</inline>, the first of the Type 26 frigates in the Royal Navy. Type 26 frigates are the reference class of ship for the Hunter class, which are the future frigates that we will be building. They're part of a group of 80 Australians who have participated in building HMS <inline font-style="italic">Glasgow</inline> and will be coming back to Australia in the years ahead to build HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Hunter</inline>. It is inspiring to speak to these young Australians, and, be it by operating our submarines or building our ships, all of these Australians are making a huge contribution to our nation's security.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—I'd like to associate the coalition with the Minister for Defence's comments on AUKUS. It was the former coalition government who struck AUKUS in September of last year. AUKUS is the biggest defence and foreign policy achievement since ANZUS 70 years ago. We want to see AUKUS realised as quickly as possible. In fact, our strategic circumstances require exceptional leadership from the Minister for Defence, and we're going to be holding him to account to make sure—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. Resume your seat. We're moving to the next question. That is not how indulgence works, member for Canning, and it's a lesson—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. If you wish to take indulgence, you need to make it clear and concise—not stray into partisan politics.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the latest ABS data, the average Australian mortgage is just over $600,000. A homeowner with this mortgage is now paying more than $760 more a month. When the Prime Minister said yesterday the impact of interest rate rises was just $95 to $145, was the Prime Minister misleading the House, not across the detail or trying to downplay the cost-of-living crisis Australians are facing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I said yesterday was 'the average mortgage', and the average mortgage outstanding balance is $330,000. A 50 basis point increase adds up to $409 as a result.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Seasonal Workers</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. How is the Australian government building a more prosperous region and supporting Australian businesses through improvements to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bendigo for her question and for working with local employers to access the scheme and also, importantly, for welcoming all those Pacific workers that are right now in Bendigo contributing to the local economy.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to a stronger economy and to deepening our relationship with the Pacific. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, or PALM, is critical to that. It was created by Labor in 2012 through this SWP, and we're improving it now that we're in government again. We're improving it by reducing the travel costs for employers utilising the scheme. We're improving it by allowing workers on long-term visas to bring their families. We're improving it by increasing protections against worker exploitation. And we're improving it by expanding the number of sectors that can access the scheme. And I'm proud to inform the House that this is already paying off. We've got a record number of Pacific workers in the economy already—over 27,000—and nearly 400 employers are accessing the scheme. This is critical to filling our labour shortages while we train Australians right now. It's making a huge difference in the Pacific. One-third of the 15 million Pacific islanders live on less than $20 a week. In contrast, the average worker in this scheme, on a long-term visa, sends back $15,000 to a year. Imagine the impact for their families and communities with $15,000 going back to them each year.</para>
<para>I've had the privilege of seeing the impact of this scheme firsthand. I recently visited the Solomon Islands and met Joeseph and Gerard, who had returned after three years in Australia. Not only did they benefit from that scheme; they developed critical skills that are now allowing them to set up new businesses in the Solomon Islands. I met people training to be meat workers and hospitality workers who are so excited about this scheme. While I was in Suva with the Prime Minister, I visited a training centre where 40 enthusiastic women were training to be aged-care workers in Australia. They are now in Australia doing their practical training in the lead up to working in regional Queensland. I'm delighted to say there are 40,000 pre-screened workers ready to go.</para>
<para>We anticipate that, each year, this scheme will inject over $360 million into the economies of the Pacific islands, which will be vital in some countries where remittances make up up to 40 per cent of their GDP. This is a vital scheme that helps the Australian economy, lifts families out of poverty and strengthens our relationship with the Pacific.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, after 22 questions, the productivity dividend of this government is on show for all, and I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">otice </inline><inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">aper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to advise the House that, as part of the relaunch of the Parliamentary Friends of Orchestral Music, a string quartet made up of members from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra have been performing at Parliament House throughout the day, bringing the sounds of Australian composers and classical music to the marble foyer and the reflective pool by the members' hall. This evening, the minister will be speaking at the event to officially relaunch the Parliamentary Friends of Orchestral Music group, co-chaired by the Special Envoy for the Arts, Susan Templeton—the member for Macquarie—and Senator Claire Chandler, senator for Tasmania. I'd like to thank Services Australia and the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra for bringing classical music to Parliament House for the day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>BURKE ( — ) ( ): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade Unions</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The role of the unions in setting this government's priorities.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the </inline> <inline font-style="italic">standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government is responding to the agenda of the union movement. This is a government of and for the unions, doing the bidding of militant unions such as the CFMMEU. We've seen that in their conduct at the so-called summit, and we've even seen it when it comes to the agenda in relation to disclosure by superannuation funds.</para>
<para>At a time when Australians are facing cost-of-living pressures and higher bills, this Labor government is choosing to back its mates in the CFMMEU over backing ordinary Australians. It speaks volumes about the priorities of the Albanese Labor government that one of their first orders of business was to abolish the construction watchdog and, by doing so, effectively give a green light to union thuggery. We know that, when there's a problem with costs in the construction industry, it has a flow-on effect right through our economy, and it is consumers who end up paying the price. This government's been busy engaging in backslapping in a talkfest, but businesses across the country are no closer to getting the policies that they're crying out for.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There's far too much noise in the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The track record of the cosy and close relationship between the union movement and the Labor Party is very clear, particularly the thuggish, militant unions the CFMMEU and the MUA. Over the past two decades, the Australian Labor Party has received, on average, nearly $1 million a year from these two militant unions—in total, $16.3 million in donations over 20 years. Total funds going from the union movement to the Labor Party across fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2020 was $19.3 million. So it is perhaps unsurprising that the Labor Party in government will always seek to implement the agenda of the union movement, jumping to the tune of their paymasters.</para>
<para>We see the evidence of this in one of the very first acts of this government, from the minister at the table, through the move to weaken the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to execute their policy to abolish it. They are doing it for a simple reason: this is what the CFMMEU wants. They are turning a blind eye to findings from royal commissions and countless rulings from the courts that have highlighted the lawlessness of and use of intimidation by the CFMMEU and the need for strong workplace relations regulation. The Labor Party in government is happy to hand the keys to the front gate and the lunchroom at building sites back over to the CFMMEU.</para>
<para>We know that many of the cases that the ABCC has been taking action on involve thuggish behaviour, harassment of women or worse, but that is of no concern, it would seem, to this government. They just want to shut down the ABCC, as was done by previous Labor governments. Unlike this government, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government at least acknowledged the need for a specialist building regulator, albeit the one they came up with was highly ineffective. But this government has wasted no time in jumping to the tune of the CFMMEU and other unions.</para>
<para>We have heard an enormous amount about the summit, but it is very instructive to look at who was there and what it tells us about the agenda of this government and what it tells us about the priorities of the Albanese Labor government. We know that less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce are members of unions. There were 33 union officials, 33 representatives from the union movement, at the summit. Out of 142 people in total, 33 seats went to the union movement. Most Australians don't have unions in their lives. Most Australians have very little to do with unions. And yet, should they care to look at what actually happened in terms of the attendance, it sends a very clear message. When this government looks out at the Australian people, it sees one group who it says need to be disproportionately represented when it comes to making its policy, and that is the union movement, the union sector and union bosses. Of course, it is no coincidence that those are the people whose donations are key to the operation of the Labor Party. But, even more critically, those union bosses are critical to the preselection of every one of these people on the other side of the House. They represent less than nine per cent of private sector workers, but they have a deeply disproportionate influence on this government and a very backward-looking mindset when it comes to understanding the composition and structure of the economy.</para>
<para>This was not a summit for people to come together and talk about policy ideas. This was a summit to get people together to remind them that, under this government, any policy needs to be endorsed by the ACTU and it needs to be endorsed by the union movement. Apparently no decision could be made about immigration without first running it carefully past the ACTU to ask in tremulous terms: 'Would you agree to this? Please?' 'Would you please let us,' says the government, 'increase the number of people who are entitled to come to Australia under the immigration agreement?' Apparently that is the way things are now working under the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Let's turn to some of the high-quality individuals who were given a coveted seat at this summit. We heard from the Prime Minister just the other day that he has nothing to do with John Setka—'No, we booted him out of the Labor Party. He's completely disgraceful.' But who was sitting at the table? It was CFMMEU boss Christy Cain. When John Setka launched a vulgar attack on domestic violence advocacy hero Rosie Batty, what did Mr Christy Cain do? He leapt to the defence of John Setka. Apparently Setka's actions were bad enough to be kicked out of the Labor Party, but Mr Cain's still free to turn up and participate in these policy deliberations. His personal track record includes promoting criminal activity by telling his members 'laws need to be broken; you're going to get locked up.' He's been charged with assault and has been found in contempt by the Victorian Supreme Court, but this quality individual was given one of the 141 slots. He—this quality individual, Christy Cain—has described John Setka, who the Prime Minister says is so distasteful he needs to be kicked out of the Labour Party, as 'one of the most fair-dinkum people in this country.' No doubt, if you need somebody to come and bash in some windows or vandalise a car, he is quite the man for that job.</para>
<para>Mr Kane said recently to his members in a circular that went to the members of the CFMMEU: 'It was the power of collective unionism that won the day and make no mistake it is now the Australian Labor Party's turn to deliver. The job for all of us is far from over. We have to actively keep our foot on the throats of every politician until they put through our demands.' This is a man who the Prime Minister invited to join in this summit, and it is no surprise that the outcomes of this summit have been the announced implementation of a range of matters that have been on the ACTU's wish list for a long time. Indeed, the call to reintroduce industry-wide bargaining threatens to take us back to the very worst of the bad old days of strike action across multiple sectors in our economy.</para>
<para>What else have we seen from the union movement? Unions New South Wales, from my own home state—I don't claim any association with them—want to introduce bargaining fees for non-union members when negotiating enterprise agreements—standover tactics from unions New South Wales.</para>
<para>It's not just with regard to these traditional industrial matters that this government has been jumping to the tune of the union movement. What's the Assistant Treasurer been up to? The Assistant Treasurer has been doing the bidding of the industry funds and the union movement. He put out a consultation paper wanting to do away with terrific reforms introduced when we were in government which would have increased transparency by requiring the disclosure by superannuation funds when they made donations to unions. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, $12.9 million was paid from super funds to unions in the 2021 financial year. Forty million dollars went to Labor Party affiliated unions in the past four years. We legislated for transparency on this because it's a pretty grubby connection, but the new Assistant Treasurer, in one of his first acts, said, 'We're going to try to reverse that,' jumping to the tune of their union masters across the full sweep of policy. That's the basis of how this government operates.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I dearly want to think Manager of Opposition Business for bringing this forward today, because the extraordinary thing isn't that the government listens to various voices among trade unions; the extraordinary thing is that for 10 years those opposite wanted to shut out those voices completely.</para>
<para>Let's not forget what happened when the pandemic hit. When the pandemic hit, all of a sudden their normal motivation of just driving wages down wasn't the only motivation. All of a sudden they realised that we needed to get changes through every workplace in the country. So what did they suddenly do in the crisis? For the first time since we lost power, they picked up the phone to the ACTU and said, 'Can you help us?' And the ACTU said, 'Yes.' We had a completely constructive relationship, and at this very dispatch box one of the former leaders of the house—not the one who is now the Leader of the Opposition but the former Leader of the House who also held my portfolio—stood here praising and thanking the ACTU for the cooperation that allowed the changes to go through, that made sure that every workplace could function as best it possibly could.</para>
<para>With all of that cooperation during the pandemic, the moment the shutdown period of the pandemic was over, they went back to type and said, 'Oh, you can't talk to any of these organisations.' And what's the reason?</para>
<para>The reason is simple: the only motivation they have, now that they're not dealing with lockdowns, is wanting to keep wages low—that's the motivation. For 10 years, keeping wages low was a deliberate design feature of the economic strategy of the people who ran this country. And now it's not. Now a deliberate design feature of how we manage the economy is: we want to get wages moving.</para>
<para>So I am amused that, at a summit of 143 people, they found one they objected to and that was the reason that they couldn't come. The other thing I'm amazed by is this. And maybe I've missed this point, because we'd made a bit of a fuss over the fact that the Leader of the Opposition decided to cut himself out of any of the conversation about the future. But maybe that's the reason the summit worked. Maybe it was because the Leader of the Opposition wasn't there. Maybe it was because, when you take the wreckers out of the equation, the rest of Australia actually gets along reasonably well. When you take out of the equation the people who are determined that everything is about pushing people into their corners and finding as much division as possible, you actually get a situation where you do find levels of agreement. You find levels of agreement, for example, which really made those opposite angry. We saw the reports in the paper about how angry they were that COSBOA stood up for the interests of small businesses. They got really upset that the small business organisation said that, if small businesses want to be able to negotiate together, they should be allowed to. But that wrecked the narrative of those over there, of wanting to say, 'No, no! We want people in their corners.'</para>
<para>What this government is about is not more disputes. We want more agreements. The reason the BCA forged an agreement with the ACTU that went into the summit was that they want more agreements. The reason COSBOA forged an agreement with the ACTU that went forward to the summit was that they want more agreements.</para>
<para>With those opposite, what it comes down to is that they don't want people agreeing. And what's the key? Objection. Why would they have a problem with workers and businesses reaching agreement? It's really simple: those agreements put upward pressure on wages. Those agreements are part of getting wages moving.</para>
<para>There's the example I gave today with respect to the Victorian childcare centres. Those workers ended up 16 per cent above the award. When people talk about cost of living—I'm sorry: you can't have a conversation about how much living costs without also looking at how much money comes in. Wages are an essential part of the cost-of-living problem. The problem isn't only that at the moment we have inflation running at 6.1; it's also that we have wages running at only 2.4 per cent. People are going backwards by 3.5 per cent on average. Putting downward pressure on inflation is what the PBS legislation that was introduced today is about. Putting downward pressure on inflation is what our childcare policy is about. Putting downward pressure on inflation is what our skills program is about. Those things put downward pressure on inflation—all things that those opposite had no interest in doing.</para>
<para>But you also have to be willing to get wages moving again. No-one will forget that the moment that made them angriest during the campaign, which they thought was a gaffe, was when the now Prime Minister was asked: 'Would you support a pay rise for people on the minimum wage that keeps up with the cost of living?' and he answered: 'Absolutely.' They saw conviction and thought it must have been a mistake. They weren't used to looking conviction in the eye. Then we were told it was the 'loose unit' language—remember that? We were told what a disaster this would be. We were told that this would trash the economy. And they said it should be left to the experts. What did the experts then say when the Fair Work Commission came back with its decision? Five point two per cent! That was what came back from the annual wage review.</para>
<para>So, if you want wages moving, you need to act in three ways. There are three things you need to do. You need to use the commission. We've used the commission with respect, putting in our submission and arguing for pay rises on the annual wage review. We've used the commission in respect of the aged-care wage review, which is on as well, putting in a submission—which those opposite refused to do—to say these workers deserve a pay rise. Similarly, the commission is a critical part of the pathway towards trying to get closer to gender pay equity in this country. This side of the House and this government say a 14.1 per cent pay equity gap is not satisfactory at all, and we need to act to close that gender pay gap.</para>
<para>The first thing you need to do is use the commission; the second thing you need to do is to close the loopholes that are in the act. Those opposite say, 'Oh, but it's your legislation.' Can I ask: how many major acts went for 10 years with no serious amendments when courts found new loopholes in them? When loopholes were found in the tax act, four or five times a year, new pieces of legislation were brought in here to bring the act up to date and to close loopholes because no-one wanted to see government revenue fall. But when loopholes appeared, through different decisions of the courts, in the Fair Work Act, the decision of the previous government was to let it go: 'Don't act. Don't legislate. Don't do what we do with any other piece of legislation.' And why? Because they wanted to drive wages down. So, as the new rorts came through with respect to people doing the same job but being paid radically less, they just let it be. When the gig economy arrived in Australia, we had ministers and a Prime Minister standing here saying, 'It's complicated as to whether or not Australians should at least be paid the minimum wage.' They didn't act to close the loophole. I raised this issue only a few weeks ago: when some workers, who had previously been described by Liberals as heroes, were facing a potential 40 per cent cut in their pay, those opposite said, 'Oh, no; you shouldn't change that.'</para>
<para>The third thing you need to do to get wages moving is to get agreements moving. The parties at the summit came together on that. I don't know how those opposite think that if you only have the business leaders around the table somehow that's both sides at the bargaining table. I guess if you want to drive wages down maybe that's what you do. But at the summit, even all the business organisations, without exception, accepted that we need to get wages moving. Getting bargaining moving is part of that.</para>
<para>We need to be able to update the act and bring the Fair Work Act up to date with the modern economy. If you don't want to do that, by all means, vote against each change that comes forward. Continue the policy that 10 years of low wage growth as a deliberate design feature wasn't enough. If those opposite want to fight for a second decade of low wage growth and people going backwards, they can argue for that, but don't think they'll ever have credibility on cost of living. If you want to act on cost of living, you have to act on wages.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After 100 days in office, I'm happy to give the government some free advice today on how they're going. There's a lot of hubris on the other side of this chamber. We wish them well—we're all Australian citizens and we want any government of Australia to do well—but my review might show that I don't think they are doing that well.</para>
<para>To put the hubris on the other side into context, we need to be reminded that this new government had the weakest support of any government incoming from opposition that we've seen for a long time. I am repeating myself, but I like some of these stats, so I will. I'll remind the government that they are in the weakest position of any incoming government with a two-seat majority since 1913. They got a 32 per cent primary vote—that's the lowest for a government incoming from opposition since 1903, so they nearly broke some records there. That's just to show the support they didn't have in the community. The public certainly weren't in love with them. Almost begrudgingly, they were voted in.</para>
<para>How has the first 100 days gone? Well, what we're seeing is that they've paid the piper. They've paid their master. That's what's happened in the first 100 days. The unions, we know, control the factions of the Labor Party. The unions control preselections, and the unions fund the Labor Party, so that means the unions now control the government. The unions control this new government. We've seen the actions that have demonstrated this. Within the first two weeks of sitting, what did the new government—controlled, owned and funded by the union movement—do? They abolished the ABCC in the first two weeks. What does the ABCC do? It's an independent umpire in industrial relations and on the workforce. They didn't like the independent umpire, so they obviously had to reward the people who fund them.</para>
<para>The jobs summit—there's an interesting stat here: 14 per cent of people in the workforce are unionised. I can tell you what, if you look over to the other side, the percentage there is a lot higher than 14 per cent. More than 14 per cent of that lot have been unionised. Probably 94 per cent of the people on that side have worked for or been involved in the union, not 14 per cent, which is actually reflective of the Australian public.</para>
<para>I encourage the new government to stand up to the union movement, because this Labor government does have some precedence where a previous Labor government has actually done that. If you look at the Hawke and Keating governments, you will see they actually did some quite progressive things economically and in the industrial relations system. I think Keating, with all due respect to him, will probably go down as one of the better Treasurers that the country has had—not as good as some of the Liberal Treasurers we've had but certainly better than any other Labor Treasurer. What he did was liberate the tariff system—or he progressed that along and the Howard government progressed it as well—opened the economy up and even did some movements with the industrial relations system.</para>
<para>What we have in the new government, of course, is a leadership that is taking us back to the seventies. What did the now Prime Minister say about Keating in 1987, when the then Treasurer was liberating some of the industrial relations system and our financial system? This is what Anthony Albanese said in 1987 about Keating:</para>
<para>Someone like Keating can put himself up as a possible Labor PM, but he is more comfortable mixing with millionaires and business executives than he is with working-class people .</para>
<para>That's what the current PM thought of a great Labor leader liberating our economy. That's what his core beliefs are. Nothing changes there.</para>
<para>I say to this new government—they don't understand this, because they can't understand why only 14 per cent of the Australian workforce belongs to a union. They don't understand that, because they're born of the union movement, they're funded by the union movement and their careers are controlled by the union movement. But I encourage members opposite to show some courage and to show some real strength of character: don't just kowtow to your union masters. Show some strength, like the Hawke and Keating governments did, and don't just do what you're told.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll tell you what, if stupidity were flight, that contribution would be done by a squadron of jet fighters. You've never seen anything so pathetic in your life in this place. The Labor Party is connected with unions—unbelievable!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're a fool!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The ridiculousness of that fool over there to come in here and carry on about all this stuff when they have nothing to stand by.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're a—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ten years of that government delivered nothing but low wages.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hogan</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're an insulting fool! Stop your insults!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! This is not a two-way conversation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, seriously. If I throw a stick, will you go and catch it? They had 10 years of deliberate policy to stagnate and lower wages, and they still do it today. Even the member opposite scurrying out of the chamber wants to do nothing but cause division and chaos, because that's all they know. They couldn't do anything about working together and delivering things. Let's think about the government that we've taken over from and what they did. We had 10 years of a government that kept wages low, 10 years of division and 10 years of doing everything they could to suppress the ability of Australians to pay their bills and get a better life.</para>
<para>They hate aspiration. They sit there and use these terms like 'union thugs'. Let's think about it—union thugs. They were happy to stand here over the last couple of years and say: 'Aren't they great, our nurses, who we send out there and make work during a pandemic? And the people delivering food to the stores?' With our truck drivers, they fought against a road safety tribunal to deliver proper wages and conditions for the people that carry this country. They just hate workers. There is nothing more they like than to see workers suppressed so they can sit back and feel superior, but in fact they are very inferior to the people that went out there, joined unions and worked together.</para>
<para>Collective bargaining is so important. I can remember when I worked at Mercedes-Benz. A 16-year-old kid came in to become an apprentice. He had to sit there with the entire might and negotiate and bargain with one of the largest companies in the world's HR department, lawyers and managers. That's why you have a union representative there. Unions fought to give those guys overalls, toolkits, safety and all the other things that matter to Australian workers right across this nation, but they sit there proudly saying, 'We should be against that.' It beggars belief that someone can come into this place and claim to be as intelligent as they do but then sit there and fight against the idea of protecting people and giving them safe workplaces.</para>
<para>Yes, we're getting rid of the ABCC, and a damn good decision it is, because it has done nothing to improve health and safety. You have got to ask: what is it you've got against stickers on helmets? How does that impact the economy or destroy the nation, if somebody puts a sticker on their helmet? But that's the pettiness you have in this modern rump of a leftover coalition we have sitting there. You think about everything they've fought against over the last 10 years. They fought against wage theft. They were quite happy to see people get their wages illegally docked and do nothing about it. They fought against collective bargaining. They've done that all the way through.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Broadbent</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is rubbish.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'That is rubbish'—seriously? They've fought against improving safety in workplaces on every single occasion. I say this now: why would anyone with any modicum of intelligence and support that party over there when at every single opportunity—and we'll go back to the previous member's views; even back in the eighties with the Industrial Relations Commission and then the Fair Work Commission—it has done nothing but fight against every single attempt to improve the wages and conditions of working Australians?</para>
<para>It's in their DNA to fight against it, because all they can do is attack people on low and middle incomes. We saw that through the last tax cuts. Remember those? You wouldn't give low and middle-income earners tax cuts unless you could give the high-income earners one. That was what you fought for vehemently. You couldn't find time to bring an anticorruption commission in; we know why. But you fought against supporting Australian workers on low and middle incomes getting tax cuts. So the next time you sit there and talk about union thugs, think about those people in the hospitals, the cleaners, the people who have worked their backsides off day and night through this pandemic, the people that deliver the food and the people that look after child care to keep this country running while you sit there your backside and attack them.</para>
<para>Your own leader was a former union member. He was a member of the police association. Do you call him a union thug? He's not a member of the union now, so you can still call him a thug but not a union member. Each and every one of these organisations works hard and fights strong for Australian families and workers, and you should be ashamed for bringing this to parliament. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government's priorities are clearly misaligned. This government has again and again chosen to back union bosses over hardworking Australian businesses and families. The recent Jobs and Skills Summit showed where the Albanese government's loyalties lie. The union movement represented 25 per cent of the participants at the summit, in contrast to the less than 15 per cent of private sector employees that are unionised. Why are unionised workers afforded so much representation at this level?</para>
<para>This is especially shocking considering small business represents 41 per cent of our workforce but had one seat at the summit. We know small business is the heart and soul of the economy. They create opportunities in local communities and employ around five million Australians, the largest employer in this country. This group of hardworking Australians is being left behind by the Albanese government. It is an insult to all Australian small-business owners and employees that they were given one seat at the summit that Albanese labelled a huge success. A huge success for whom? The union donors is the answer, not hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>We want union bosses to be more transparent and accountable. When we restored the Australian Building and Construction Commission we had it in mind to protect Australians from predatory union behaviour. Now the Albanese government has decided to close this commission. This body protects 1.1 million construction workers and around 380,000 small businesses from the thuggery of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union.</para>
<para>In the past six years there have been countless cases of misconduct and law-breaking by this union. CFMMEU officials have physically and verbally abused workers, made homophobic and sexist slurs and intimidated people, with verbal threats of violence. These union officials have also exposed strikebreakers' identities on social media, a move a judge said was the modern-day equivalent of placing a person in the stocks to face abuse and assault.</para>
<para>These unions are supported by the Albanese government irrespective of their misconduct. It seems everyone but the Labor Party is aware of the CFMMEU's manipulation tactics. A union official has said, 'What we're actually going to do is take ownership and responsibility of the ALP,' and that they will demand influence. These unions use powerful manipulation tactics over the Labor Party, and the Albanese government have fallen into this trap.</para>
<para>The Australian Building and Construction Commission has been successful in substantially reducing days lost to industrial action in the industry. The commission has served its purpose well, protecting workers from the harmful side of unions. And guess what the Albanese government is doing to this commission? Dismantling it. Against the advice of industry leaders.</para>
<para>The government sides with the CFMMEU, time and time again, promoting militant unionists over Australian businesses, families and workers. The Labor Party has received nearly a million dollars every year from the CFMMEU and the MUA. In the last two financial years, unions have funded nearly $20 million to Labor, ensuring that the Albanese government will also be on the side of these groups over ordinary Australians. It's clear how the CFMMEU thinks they can demand influence from the Labor Party, when the Albanese government is more than willing to accept huge amounts of funding from these organisations.</para>
<para>Productivity will decrease for small businesses. This group of Australians risk it all to foster businesses and bring success and wealth to their families. Yet, again, they've been slapped across the face by this government, bearing the brunt of a union-led burden. It is time for the Albanese government to set its priorities by and for the success of Australians without the influence of harmful unions. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
<para>Government members interject ing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the next speaker, can I just remind those on my right that we're not having a two-way conversation. So, please, the members are entitled to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It never ceases to amaze me that every time those opposite bring up trade unions, in the context of the ALP, they act as if they've lifted the lid on some salacious secret. It is truly baffling. People are sick to death with the opposition's addiction to conflict.</para>
<para>While our government is prioritising getting wages up and bringing the cost of living down, with cheaper medicines and child care, the opposition clearly has different priorities. Let's talk about the types of people who are striking fear into the hearts of those opposite: the terrifying, menacing faces of teachers, university and TAFE lecturers, nurses, orderlies, aged-care workers, public administrators and public servants, essential service workers, electricity, gas, water and transport workers, and retail, construction and mining workers. The average union worker is a woman in her 40s. On average, union members earn 32 per cent more a week than nonmembers. Furthermore, the gender pay gap closes for union members. The median male nonmember earns $2.70 more per hour than his female equivalent, but for union members this difference is only $1. Union members are people from diverse backgrounds carrying out a diverse range of professions. They are Australians, and it is those Australians who are setting this government's priorities. They are the Australian people who voted for a majority Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>It is unfortunate in the extreme that the Liberal and National parties have not developed proper and respectful relationships with unions and their members. I am meeting too many people, both union members and others, who consider the last nine years to be the lost years, full of lost opportunities and stagnation. A different set of attitudes amongst those opposite might have yielded different results. Of course, a different set of attitudes sometimes requires a different set of people. The WA Liberal Party are looking for a different set of people!</para>
<para>The question is directed to the role of unions. A union is a society or association formed by people with a common interest or purpose. The power of collectivisation is so persuasive that we see it harnessed by business and industry large and small. That's why even the member for Dickson was a proud member of the Queensland Police Union. I quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I was proud to be a member of the QPU. I was a member from the day I joined QPS and remained a member until I left the police. Every industry employs lobby groups and attempts to put their argument forward whatever way they can to their elected representatives and police unions and associations are no different in their role.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ryan</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who said that?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it was the member for Dickson.</para>
<para>From the local chambers through to the BCA and the AIG, the old adage 'stronger together' really does ring true. A government needs to meet and talk with peak bodies. This should apply regardless of whether the peak body is representing employers, industry organisations, community groups or workers. For example, yesterday I met with delegates and frontline workers from the Australian Services Union. I came out of that meeting better informed—better informed by John and Wayne of the fact that over the last nine years the NDIS has been turned into something else by the previous government and not something better; better-informed by Wendy, Julie and Jodie of the difficulty of retaining people in caring professions, where there is job insecurity, low wages and poor conditions.</para>
<para>On 23 August, in the lead-up to the government's very successful Jobs and Skills Summit, I hosted a green energy jobs and skills roundtable in Perth. Around the table were representatives of business, large and small, unions, governments and training organisations. If the union representatives had been missing, it would have been a poorer roundtable for it.</para>
<para>In the earlier debate in the House today we heard from members of all persuasions just how important workers are in aged care. More recently, my friends the member for Bean and the member for Bendigo quite properly emphasised the importance of unions working in the fields of aged care and health care. I encourage all workers to go and join their union. I encourage union members and anyone else to come and join the Labor Party because it represents the working people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A couple of home truths: (1) I have been a member of a union; (2) when the CFMEU forestry division needed help in my electorate many years ago, who did they turn to? They didn't turn to Labor. They didn't turn to a Labor senator. They turned to me for help. They turned to me. A further home truth: if 45 per cent of unionists in my electorate didn't vote for me, I wouldn't be here. What I'm saying to you is this: there's a place for all of us in our communities.</para>
<para>In the short term, in the election campaign, I can understand the CFMMEU putting $100,000 into my Labor candidate to get rid of me. That's part of the process we're in. If I'm vulnerable and you can see a way to get to me, go for it. In the last election, sadly, they used the aged-care sector as a battering ram against me—I, who have been a solid supporter of those people that work in aged care for all of my career. The union came along and said, 'This guy, Liberal—bad.' Except my aged-care sector said, 'This guy, Liberal, good,' and I survived when others didn't because of our commitment to those people who work in aged care, work in the hospitals and work in all of those areas the member for McEwen mentioned. If we don't care for our least paid, our most vulnerable, our disabled and our elderly, we are the lesser for it.</para>
<para>The point I'm trying to make here is this. If I go back not too far, probably only 30 years, I remember there was a program run by the union to say that the education system in Victoria was a disgrace. You'd say to parents, 'In your school?' and they'd say, 'Oh, no, not in my school—in someone else's school'. The last campaign was: 'Aged care is in complete disarray. It's a disgrace.' 'Oh, in Mirboo North?' 'Oh, no, no, not in Mirboo North. It's wonderful in Mirboo North.' 'Do you mean down in Foster?' 'No, no; Foster's fantastic.' 'What about Lyrebird at Drouin?' 'Oh, no, no. Lyrebird's fantastic.' 'Well, what are you on about!'</para>
<para>There was one particular nursing home—a new nursing home in my electorate, which has never asked me once to come and visit—where there was a problem that the union could identify. There was one nursing home, in all my not-for-profit and for-profit nursing homes—one place where there was a problem. But that was all shock-horror and, 'Aged care in Monash is a disgrace.' We have this national campaign rolling through, telling everybody that their nursing homes are a disgrace, and they're not.</para>
<para>As I mentioned in a previous address to this House, the morale amongst workers in my aged-care centres was so low that I had to write to every aged-care centre to tell them how much we appreciate them, that they're doing a fantastic job and that the families of the people they're caring for appreciate everything they do and every move they make. Even those who don't have families and don't have visitors and don't have friends, when they go into those nursing homes, go into a family. That campaign was negative because it besmirched every aged-care centre, and that's what the workers felt.</para>
<para>That's what the union did. They ran a very strong campaign. They had demonstrations outside my office. They did the lot. During an election campaign, I've got to accept that, if that's the way you want to go. But there are always, always long-term consequences for those sorts of campaigns—like 'Mediscare', which was just an outrageous scare campaign, but it worked. The Labor Party said, 'No, no; it was good campaigning from us,' but there are consequences for everything that you do, and I appeal to everybody to be very careful of that type of campaign.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Monash is right: there are consequences for every decision a government makes. Australia has always been an egalitarian society, a society where we are at our best when we all work together. Australia has a strong history of workers fighting for fair pay and safe working conditions. Their efforts are what created our weekends, our public holidays, our sick leave, and most importantly the safety regulations that mean that people who go to work in the morning come home at night. Those opposite are saying that the movements that brought about the economic prosperity of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s—which their government benefited from—were brought about without workers and that now the workers should be undermined and crushed.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government seeks to listen to all sectors of our community while we develop our policies. You saw that in our policy for climate change: the new government received approval from the Business Council, from small business, from the union movement, from educators and from universities—all the people that make a difference in our society. The Jobs and Skills Summit last week brought all sections of the Australian people together to find ways to improve the economy and the lives of all of us—small business, large business, families and pensioners. Yet the Leader of the Opposition chose not to join that. While we commend the Leader of the Nationals for being part of that debate, everybody needs to be there. Everybody needs to get together and find the things that make a difference.</para>
<para>Union members come from all parts of our society. They are our aged-care workers, they're our nurses, they're our police and they're our teachers. In 2020, in fact, the industries with the highest membership were in education, public administration, health care, electricity and transport. The membership of those industries ranged from 20 to 30 per cent of workers. It is clear that Australians think that unions are somewhere where they can have their cases heard and find support.</para>
<para>Workers in this country have suffered for nine years under the previous government, experiencing the worst decline in real wages since records began in 1998, a decline of 3.2 per cent. The previous government didn't advocate for aged-care workers. Perhaps if they had listened to the unions and the workers that were giving them that information, they wouldn't have been subjected to a royal commission that showed the neglect that was going on under their watch. Union members were talking to our side of the House and to their loved ones who were being looked after in aged care about all the things that were going wrong.</para>
<para>The previous government has admitted their policy on wages was built on intentional wage suppression. But wages aren't the reason we have inflationary pressures at the moment. The Australia Institute in May 2022 estimated that a five per cent wage increase across the entire economy would mean a price increase for a cup of coffee of about nine cents. It is not the reason why we have problems at the moment.</para>
<para>When the rest of the country came together last week for the Jobs and Skills Summit to find real solutions that the country needs, the opposition decided to live in their own reality. Are the opposition seriously saying to us that business, government, advocacy groups and individuals—and, yes, the unions—didn't have an important part to play and an important story to tell? What the opposition fails to understand with the way that they have embarked on their period in opposition is that the Australian people have conflict fatigue. The members of my electorate and electorates all over the country voted to have us talk to each other and talk together. We need to be together, and that includes unions, who represent such a large part of the Australian people—the people who, like the member for Monash said, voted for everyone.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the member for Sturt.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Leichhardt! I did think that the new government would be a little bit more careful than they have been, from a reputational point of view, as to how they appeared in the early days of government. First impressions last, and how you look in your first 100 days is probably going to be an enduring view of you and your government—what the people of Australia think of you and of who controls you. That is why initially I was extremely surprised that this new Albanese government was so comfortable and happy to be viewed as being completely controlled and puppeteered by the union movement.</para>
<para>But, to be fair, I don't think that first suspicion of mine is very reasonable, because I do think it is embarrassing to this new Prime Minister and it is embarrassing to this new government that they have to be shown so publicly to be controlled by the union movement. Then, of course, you remember that they don't really have a choice, because they are controlled internally by the union movement. Despite their own judgement as to how things look publicly, in escapades like last week's, if that's what the union movement wants then that's what the union movement will get.</para>
<para>This also reminds me of just how deep the wounds of the 2019 election loss are for the union movement. Had Bill Shorten been elected in 2019, it would have been a very different government for the union movement—a union leader in charge of the country, working with the unions to do what the unions wanted from the Prime Minister's office. That, of course, was not the case, and the unions had to wait three years longer than they were expecting to take over the country and run it again. So we have a situation now where they're not wasting any time and they're not worried whatsoever about perception. They will flaunt and brag about the complete control they've got over this new government. There's some political benefit to this side of the House in that, but it is very disappointing to see the reality of it in full view of the people of this country—the unedifying display of the government being controlled by that narrowcast group.</para>
<para>In my home state of South Australia, we have a very regrettable situation right now thanks to the CFMMEU, which has been taken over by the Victorian branch. There was a guy called Aaron Cartledge who was the state secretary of the CFMMEU in South Australia. By all reports, he was a pretty good, reasonable guy, which meant he had no future leading that union. He was driven out of that union, and the Victorian branch have taken over the South Australian branch of the CFMMEU, because Aaron Cartledge didn't live up to the expectations of the CFMMEU when it comes to doing things like, you know, not breaking the law. So he's gone. He's been thrown overboard—poor old Aaron Cartledge—and John Setka is now running the CFMMEU in my home state of South Australia as well.</para>
<para>What we've seen in the period of time since that has happened has been extremely frightening. Criminal activity is occurring in South Australia. Senior members of the Master Builders Association have had their offices and their private premises vandalised. They've had to hire personal security because they fear for their safety and that of their families. That's the sort of low-level, bikie-gang-type tactics that you on that side of the House condone and that you're proud to be associated with. It's Tony Soprano and his mates in the CFMMEU in South Australia, and you want to come in here and defend them. You could be doing yourselves a favour by saying—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I'd ask the member to address remarks through the Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite want to come in here and defend that behaviour, when they'd be better off calling it out and saying, 'We don't want to have anything to do with the CFMMEU.' But the monetary cost of that for the Labor Party is too big a price to pay. Having any moral compass is much too high a price to pay for the government that is in power, because the CFMMEU funded them into power and if they want to stay in power they need the CFMMEU to keep picking up the bill for that. That is the moral compass of the government we have right now, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of unions like the CFMMEU. That means that people engage in criminal behaviour. That leads to the things that are happening in my home state of South Australia, where people are hiring security guards to secure their personal safety for fear of personal violence against them because they work for the Master Builders Association. That's the kind of people this government happily cashes the cheques from.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>RAJAH () (): Colleagues, you all know that I'm a frontline doctor, and you all know that I've worked in one of the busiest hospitals and I've been a public servant my whole life. What you may not know is this: a few years ago, it came to my attention that I had been underpaid by my workplace. It was an inadvertent mistake, but it took a lot of advocacy to try and get this rectified. One of the groups I turned to, along with my two colleagues who, incidentally, happen to be other female doctors, was my union. I've been a member of a union my whole career. I joined when I was an intern 26 years ago. My union is called the AMA. It's still a union; it certainly advocates for doctors. The only difference is we have nicer shoes! That's it! Thanks to their advocacy, this wage problem was rectified.</para>
<para>The thing that's important here is I'm a doctor. I've gone through medical school and 12 years of specialist training. I even have a PhD. And it was hard. It was hard for me. It was hard for my colleagues. Imagine how much harder it is for our nurses and how much harder it is for our childcare workers. Imagine how much harder it is for the people who stack our shelves and put food on our table.</para>
<para>In my maiden speech, I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Healthy, happy workers make the economy hum …</para></quote>
<para>I meant every word of it because I was talking about my own lived experience. And what do unions do? Unions are the voice for workers. Their mission statement is basically to keep workers healthy and keep workers happy. There is nothing radical about that. It is the right thing to do. And you know what? There is an enormous social and economic benefit that comes with that. We have seen through this pandemic what has happened. It has exposed the fault lines in our society—fault lines that were already there but have now been rent wide open. And what are these fault lines? Poor pay, poor working conditions and, for healthcare workers and aged-care workers and even teachers in schools and our childcare workers, probably suboptimal work health and safety. I have a lot of lived experience in that field.</para>
<para>Those opposite would rather pit Aussie against Aussie. They would rather pit workers against business, workers against industry, schoolteachers against their governments. That's what they peddled for nine long years. It was toxic division. And what has been the end result? The end result is it has weakened us all. It has nearly brought down the house. We as a government are not here to dwell on the past; we are in repair and recovery mode, and we are focused on rebuilding those foundations that have been crumbling under those opposite. We're going to rebuild them, we're going to make them stronger and we're going to rebuild this house called Australia.</para>
<para>I want to speak specifically about health care, aged care and child care. It's one ecosystem. As a working mother I could never have reached the heights that I did without the service and the dedication of childcare workers who looked after my two children. I couldn't have done it. They were like oxygen for me and my career. In health care I have watched nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, pharmacists and all the support staff be run down during this pandemic. There is only one government that is going to bring people together, and that is us. We are working in the national interest to repair these divisions so we can all prosper and we can stop this attrition from these critical industries. That only comes by valuing our essential workers, who, after all, as our Prime Minister said, are a national asset. Without them, mission critical industries like health, aged care, child care and logistics cannot function.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report: Report 3 of 2022</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights third scrutiny report of 2022<inline font-style="italic">.</inline> Before speaking to the substance of this report, I would like to start by saying that I am honoured to have been elected chair of this important committee, after having briefly served on it as a member in the last parliament. I also would like to congratulate the member for Banks, who has been elected deputy chair, and I'm looking forward to working with him and all of the other committee members in this important committee.</para>
<para>As members may be aware, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been in operation for 10 years, having recently celebrated 10 years of human rights scrutiny in August this year. The committee has a unique statutory mandate. It examines all bills and legislative instruments that come before either house of parliament for compatibility with Australia's core human rights obligations and any human rights matter referred to it by the Attorney-General.</para>
<para>The committee's legislative scrutiny function is to inform both houses of parliament as to the compatibility of proposed and existing Australian legislation with international human rights law—it does not consider the broader policy merits of legislation when performing its scrutiny function. But it has been established to contribute meaningfully to the consideration of human rights by our parliament. The committee generally pursues its scrutiny through dialogue with the executive and, where legislation raises a human rights concern that is not adequately explained in the accompanying statement of compatibility, the committee often seeks further information from the minister, including whether a limitation on human rights is justifiable.</para>
<para>This model is evidenced in the committee's third scrutiny report. In this report, the committee has considered 39 new bills and 816 new legislative instruments and, of these, the committee is seeking further information in relation to one bill and three instruments.</para>
<para>In particular, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. This bill seeks to abolish the Cashless Debit Card program and transition certain individuals to the income management regime following the closure of this program.</para>
<para>For many years the human rights committee raised concerns regarding the compatibility of the Cashless Debit Card program with multiple human rights. In particular, the committee has previously considered that the CDC program impermissibly limits the rights to social security, a private life and equality and non-discrimination. As such, abolishing the Cashless Debit Card program is a rights-enhancing measure that addresses the many human rights concerns raised by the committee in relation to the program—in particular, those removed from any welfare restrictions. Abolishing the CDC program ends the adverse impact of the program on people's human rights.</para>
<para>However, the committee also notes that by transitioning certain participants to the mandatory income management, the bill would limit a number of human rights. To better assess the human rights compatibility of this measure, the committee is seeking further information from the Minister for Social Services.</para>
<para>In this report the committee also made some short advisory comments regarding the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. This committee considers this bill, by removing the prohibition on the territory governments legislating for voluntary assisted dying, promotes the rights of citizens to take part in public affairs. As the bill does not itself make voluntary assisted dying legal, the committee considers that it does not directly engage in any other human rights.</para>
<para>I thank the committee secretariat for their diligent work in preparing this report. We have outstanding human rights legal advisers and experts working for the committee. It's one of the great parts of this parliament to have such people of high calibre willing to serve it. And I look forward to working with all members as we work through other bits of legislation in the 47th Parliament. Thank you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am speaking in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report as the deputy chair and I want to thank the chair for his constructive and professional management of the committee and also thank the secretariat for all of their work in putting together the report.</para>
<para>While the coalition members of the committee do support the vast majority of the content of the report, we do differ with the majority on the issue of the characterisation of the cashless debit card. I will explain the reasons for that difference, Mr Deputy Speaker. At paragraph 1.36, the report states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For many years the committee has raised concerns regarding the human rights compatibility of the CDC program with multiple human rights. As such, in abolishing this specific program the committee considers this bill is a rights enhancing measure.</para></quote>
<para>I and the other coalition members do not agree with that conclusion. We're of the view that the benefits of the cashless debit card are substantial and constitute a permissible limitation on human rights.</para>
<para>Without going into immense detail, there is a four-limbed test in relation to human rights issues. Many aspects of government legislation—in fact, probably most aspects of government legislation—touch in some way on human rights issues, but when those issues are touched on in a way which is permissible under the four criteria, that legislation can go forward. We certainly believe that this legislation complies with those four criteria, the first of which is that the limitation is prescribed by law. That was done very clearly with the cashless debit card with the provisions in part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. It's very clearly set out, so that limitation test is clearly satisfied.</para>
<para>The second criterion is that the limitation seeks to achieve a legitimate objective. The objectives of the cashless debit card are very clearly set out in the legislation. They are very significant and important objectives—that is, to reduce spending on alcoholic beverages, gambling and illegal drugs; to support program participants and voluntary participants with their budgeting strategies; and to encourage socially responsible behaviour. So they are quite reasonable objectives.</para>
<para>The third limb is that the limitation is rationally connected to that objective, which it is. Indeed, the University of Adelaide's report on the card demonstrated some very positive outcomes of it, including that over half of the respondents were in favour of the cashless debit card and that 45 per cent of respondents said that the card had improved things for themselves and their family.</para>
<para>The final criterion is that the limitation is proportionate, which it is. There are more than a million retail outlets at which the card can be used, demonstrating its accessibility, and more than 4,000 people have voluntarily taken up the card, demonstrating its proportionality because clearly people are taking it up voluntarily. They are doing so because they believe it is in their best interests.</para>
<para>For those reasons, we do believe that the cashless debit card legislation was a permissible limitation on human rights, and I, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Nampijinpa-Price have included some dissenting comments to that effect.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6882" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>In doing so, I want to thank all members for their contributions in this debate. Many of the contributions that were made by members were not easy speeches for people to give. Where there have been different views on the best way forward, those views have been put very respectfully, and it's been a fairly extraordinary moment for the parliament. Various issues have been raised where people have suggested different forms of amendments, and there has been a Senate inquiry that has come back and reported during this time as well.</para>
<para>First of all—to remind the House—the bill in front of us provides employees with 10 days of paid leave to deal with the impacts of family and domestic violence. The test that we've used in how we've made the decisions is a really simple principle: that no-one should have to choose between their pay and their safety. And that has taken us down some pathways that do not ordinarily apply to leave entitlements. It's why there is a form of entitlement that is there for casuals. It's why the rate of pay is at the actual hourly rate rather than simply the base rate of pay. To do anything less, in either of those situations, would have reopened the challenge, where workers were being asked to choose between their safety and their pay.</para>
<para>The Senate inquiry has recommended that there be a review in 18 months. The Senate inquiry, specifically, has asked for that review to be given in terms of the impact on business, particularly small business. The government is happy to take up the recommendation that there be a review in 18 months, although the review would deal with the full scope of the impact of the legislation because there are other issues that have been raised where some have suggested that the scope could be widened further.</para>
<para>The legislation in front of us is world leading. We are taking a step that hasn't been taken in this way by other governments around the world. I would like us to take it and the government would like us to take it, and, then, in 18 months time, do the review to see whether questions need to be raised about the scope. But we don't want to take the scope further than we have. Everything we've done so far has been based on that very simple test of making sure that workers are not choosing between their safety and their pay.</para>
<para>Some of the opposition members have raised the prospect of whether the review could be in 12 months time rather than 18 months time. The reason the government will stick with the 18-month recommendation is that we have delayed the implementation for small business for a further six months. Effectively, we wouldn't get the full scope of 12 months of operation if we were to bring forward the review in the way that's been requested by some members of the opposition. That said, I want to thank everybody for their contributions.</para>
<para>I would remind the House of the other actions that the government is taking, in this area, because different contributions during the debate have raised this. I want to thank the Minister for Social Services for the critical work she's doing in her portfolio, including $1.3 billion in women's safety for initiatives to support the implementation of the national plan, delivering on our election commitment to provide 500 additional frontline and community workers to support women and children experiencing domestic violence, $100 million for crisis and transitional housing to assist women fleeing violence, and establishing the new Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Commission.</para>
<para>The bill won't solve the problem of family and domestic violence by itself, but it's one of the things that can be done and it's something that's before us now. I'm very mindful of the fact that the first employer to introduce this form of leave in Australia—actually, the first place in the world—was a Victorian council. The mayor who did that is now the member for Corangamite. One of the early campaigners on this, when she was assistant secretary of the ASU, is the person who then became secretary and we now know as Senator Linda White. So, in terms of each of the houses, with some of the very early campaigners on this issue, one has been here for the debate in the House of Representatives and we now have the opportunity to send the bill across to the Senate.</para>
<para>I expect it will come back to us briefly. There is a technical amendment still being drafted, as a result of the Senate inquiry, which will be moved as a government amendment, but I hope we are in a situation very soon where we see this legislation go through its final stages and Australia is able to take this step.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022, Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6880" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6881" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all members for their contributions to this very important debate. There has never been a greater need for an independent statutory body such as this to advise government and to identify skills shortages in our labour market and in our economy, and also to forecast more precisely areas of emerging demand. That's so that when we make very significant investments in education and training, we do so with an understanding of what's happening in the labour market—what the skills are that employers need to fill vacancies and what the skills are that workers need so they have skills in demand, which of course will provide more secure work and, indeed, capacity to progress through their working life.</para>
<para>As we know, Australia is experiencing acute skills shortages. Tightening labour market conditions have exacerbated existing workforce pressures. Indeed, as we heard at the Jobs and Skills Summit, employers around the country are experiencing significant challenges in finding suitably skilled staff to fill vacancies, and many workers don't have those skills that align with the current needs of industry and businesses. There is a genuine and growing need for a workforce with relevant and high-quality skills in traditional sectors like construction and the care workforce, and in emerging sectors such as clean energy and digital technology.</para>
<para>We need to act now. The initial creation of Jobs and Skills Australia will enable the essential work that's needed to find solutions to these skills and workforce challenges to start as soon as practicable. We also need to work in partnership with industry, unions, the education and training sector, and students to ensure we get this right. We will engage widely, including being informed by the Jobs and Skills Summit, before introducing further legislation to establish the permanent Jobs and Skills Australia. This approach will ensure that this body is designed in a way that considers the needs of all key stakeholders in our workforce and in our skills sector. We need to make sure it is informed by those in the real economy and we need to make sure that states and territories, which deliver much of our education and training, are also involved and engaged.</para>
<para>The passage of these bills through the parliament will also allow work to begin on the workforce capacity study into Australia's clean energy workforce, as announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit, with additional resourcing of $1.9 million. This is an area that's transitioning now, but which will but will require a very significant increase in so far as new workers are concerned—a new set of skills required for a sector that is changing dramatically. These are shared challenges, and all levels of government, industry, business, employers, unions and education providers must work together if we want to unlock the full potential of Australia's workforce and ensure that Australians have the skills and training for the jobs of today and indeed for the future.</para>
<para>I also note that the second bill will effectively repeal the National Skills Commission. The National Skills Commission did some good work in collecting data, but its remit was rather narrow. I want to say through this place to the Australian people that I spoke with the National Skills Commissioner and I thanked him for the work he undertook in terms of identifying shortages and that I appreciated the engagement we have had. but I do believe that the new body will be broader and be informed by the real economy and I think that engaging with state and territory governments will provide more effective means to identify and forecast skills shortages. I'd also like to note the consultations with the members for Indi and Kennedy and Senators Faruqi and Pocock. I thank them for their engagement and the constructive discussions that we have had on this matter. The issues raised by them will be addressed in consideration in detail, which most likely will be tomorrow, as I understand it.</para>
<para>Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who has engaged in and contributed to this debate, particularly those who put forward very constructive proposals. Whilst I didn't agree with all of them, the spirit in which they were put and the fact that many of them will add value to the direction of the government, after the enactment of this legislation, is a good thing.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6881" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6874" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. It's heartening that this government is moving quickly on the recommendations arising from the royal commission into aged care. The royal commission's findings were a wake-up call to the nation. They called for fundamental and systemic reform, but I was frustrated by the pace of reform from the former coalition government. System reform, I understand, is hard, but it doesn't mean we delay, especially not when so many Australians live in a broken system and in conditions that the royal commission referred to as neglect.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill will require approved providers of residential aged care and certain kinds of flexible care to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at each residential facility for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at each facility operated by them. This goes towards implementing recommendation 86 of the royal commission.</para>
<para>A long, long time ago, I was a director of nursing at a bush nursing hospital and aged-care centre. More recently, prior to coming to parliament, I was a volunteer director at a larger aged-care facility. In both places we always had 24/7 registered nurses, and I'm really proud that we did because the quality of the care in those places was greatly enhanced by their presence. We did that because when the bell rings in an aged-care facility in the middle of the night you can't know if the bell is ringing because a resident is thirsty and can't reach their water, because a resident has fallen and needs complex assessment of their needs, because a resident needs their pain relief carefully titrated, or because a resident has a woken confused with unstable blood sugars from their diabetes or, indeed, any number of a multitude of significant health needs. The complexity of care and the unpredictable nature of an acute exacerbation require highly trained professional expertise from a registered nurse.</para>
<para>Having worked as a nurse and a midwife across the north-east of Victoria for decades I know how important it is to respond quickly to calls for help. Aged care is frail care. To respond to that care with a registered nurse prevents unnecessary emergency department admissions, it prevents unnecessary transfers of elderly frail people to other locations and it prevents unnecessary distress to their family and their friends. I know that in the daylight hours, as well as the night-time, how important careful clinical assessment, review and planning are for early intervention in things like urinary tract infections and delirium and to provide evidence based dementia care and palliative care. It prevents not only pain, suffering, distress and ED admissions but also GP call-ins, and we know how precious our GP resources are.</para>
<para>It's unacceptable to leave older Australians in residential care without the highly trained registered nurses that they need. I've been calling for the full implementation of the royal commission recommendation since that report was tabled, because the findings on this aspect were particularly woeful. The statistics speak for themselves: one in three people in residential care have experienced substandard care, nearly one in five have experienced assault and one in two have concerns about understaffing and calls going unanswered.</para>
<para>With Australians living longer and having more complex healthcare needs into old age it is becoming increasingly important to deliver registered nursing care in our aged-care centres. Our aged-care population have increasing co-morbidities and chronic disease. Many aspects of daily care of course don't require a registered nurse—they can be undertaken by well-trained, compassionate personal care attendants—but the round-the-clock supervision of a registered nurse is critical to the quality of that care. Registered nurses provide clinical assessment and decision-making, surveillance, intervention, leadership, education, research and support for personal care attendants, for allied health professionals, for GPs and for families by providing expert and timely advice by bringing together a holistic model of care that caters to the needs of residents in their entirety.</para>
<para>I know that having nurses on site benefits residents, families and staff. I know that it benefits the acute health sector, by avoiding unnecessary admissions. The impacts spread well beyond the front door of the facilities. As I said before, we have an overstretched, overworked and stressed GP workforce. To have 24/7 nurses in our residential aged-care facilities prevents out-of-hours GP calls.</para>
<para>When I talk to providers about this change many of them ask me, 'Where are we going to find the staff?' We have a workforce crisis in my electorate and it's very difficult to fill the vacant spots that already exist, let alone the ones to come. Last night I spoke to an aged-care provider CEO who told me exactly this and recently I visited a small aged-care facility in Alexandra who told me exactly this. 'We're running really short on registered nurses,' they told me. So we need to see more detail from this government about how the legislation will impact small providers in rural, regional and remote locations. I know my colleagues in this House from across rural and regional Australia have similar concerns. My residential aged-care centres already have registered nurses constantly on call, but for many this isn't just an issue of rostering staff. Our aged-care health workforce is overworked and underpaid, and aged-care centres often don't roster registered nurses to work into the night; they simply keep them on call. So finding the workforce to fulfil this requirement will not come easy, because of the long-term erosion of the sector and I'm fearful that some small providers simply may not be able to find a registered nurse workforce by the time the requirement comes into force, and this could mean that they have to close. So we need to be really careful about this. We can't let there be the unintended consequences of small aged-care facilities closing in the regions when there already is a thin market. We don't want to have a situation where our elderly rural residents have to move to another town for their care, so we need to be pulling out all stops to train and retrain registered nurses in regional areas.</para>
<para>We need to be thinking about things like HECS forgiveness and scholarships. We need to be taking action to support our regional universities. We need to make sure that in rural and regional towns we have the child care available to enable our workforce to train or retrain. And we need to make sure that we have the availability of housing to enable clinical placements—to name but some of the barriers we're facing in the regions.</para>
<para>The legislation says that there will be exemptions to this requirement, and the Minister for Aged Care is currently consulting with providers, advocates and people in care about exactly when those exemptions will be granted. However, this doesn't give much peace of mind right now to small providers, who may support the intent of the policy wholeheartedly, as I do, but who simply can't recruit in time. I would urge the government to act expeditiously to bring these recommendations forward so that we know with certainty in the regions how we're going to manage this.</para>
<para>I will be supporting the second reading amendment tabled by the member for Farrer, which said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… notes that, of the aged care providers who do not currently have a registered nurse on site, and on duty, at all times, 53% are based in regional and remote areas and 86% are small providers.</para></quote>
<para>This second reading amendment requires the draft subordinate legislation setting out the exemptions to these requirements to be provided by the government to the parliament so that they can be scrutinised by members and senators. I hope that the minister also sees fit to bring the subordinate legislation setting out the minutes of care part of recommendation 86 to the parliament as well, as this will have a similar effect.</para>
<para>In supporting this amendment I acknowledge the minister's desire to get this legislation through and to get on with reform. I also note that I don't want to see rural, regional or remote registered nurses having a second-rate quality of care caused by long, long delays in implementing this change. What I want to see is support to the regions to get these nurses into our aged care. There are some terrific examples of how we're doing this in Indi, and I specifically want to call out the Alpine Institute, which is run by Alpine Health, a multipurpose service in my electorate. They've been growing their own aged-care workforce for some time, but they need investment, particularly in student accommodation so that they can upskill their personal care attendants and division 2 nurses up into division 1.</para>
<para>I want to briefly touch on nurse practitioners. This is the most untapped resource in aged care, and I spoke to Minister Butler about this recently. We need to look carefully at the skill mix more broadly, and we need to be looking at nurse practitioners. The expertise of these highly skilled nurses could completely transform our aged-care sector. I've had considerable experience with older persons nurse practitioners and with mental health nurse practitioners. They're an incredible resource and they could be mobilised across our aged-care sector if policy levers were shifted now to allow them to operate to their full scope of practice. Their access to Medicare items needs addressing urgently, and I brought this to the former government. I want to see action on this, and I call on the government to work closely with the College of Nurse Practitioners to get this happening.</para>
<para>Nurse practitioners get better symptom management in a timely way; they avoid complications; they take pressure away from our public health system; and they, too, take pressure off our overstretched GP workforce. That's a lost opportunity, but it's one we could fix. So I really call on the government to get on with this. The other thing that nurse practitioners do, of course, is provide expert medication management, and anyone who's worked in aged care knows the challenges of polypharmacy with elderly people. Our nurse practitioners are experts with this.</para>
<para>The second schedule will require the secretary to publish information in relation to aged-care services. These services will be specified in subordinate legislation and can include information about how much providers spend on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration and profits. This will allow consumers to make an informed decision. This information is already provided to the department from aged-care services, and it makes sense that it's also made public so that families and people considering entering aged care can evaluate their options. I have long called for this and a star rating system for aged-care providers, and this data is a crucial building block in creating an honest, transparent system for consumers to learn what applies. This is sensible reform, and I am pleased to support it today.</para>
<para>The third schedule will enable the government to cap the management and administration fees that approved providers can apply to home-care package recipients, and remove the ability of approved providers to charge the care recipient an exit amount. Up to 45 to 50 per cent of the costs of home-care packages go to management and administration fees. There's no way to tell if the reasonable fees that providers are allowed to charge bear any relationship to the actual costs involved. It's time these costs were properly regulated. In the area of Hume, which closely mirrors my electorate, there were 2,224 people on home-care packages earlier this year. Ageing at a home is clearly the preference of many of my constituents, so this change will be welcome news to them and their families and will hopefully stop them getting ripped off. They will know that the fees they are paying are going directly to their care, rather than other administrative purposes.</para>
<para>I want to take a moment here to acknowledge the work of the member for Mayo, who has been a dogged advocate on behalf of older Australians. I was honoured to second her private member's bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Making Aged Care Fees Fairer) Bill 2021, last year. Like the member for Mayo, I'm concerned that a lot of the details of this reform will be set out in subordinate legislation, which does not allow us as a parliament to scrutinise whether they go far enough to prevent the risk of cost shifting and gold plating of other services and equipment charges. I will be pleased to support her amendments when the time comes.</para>
<para>There is still so much to be fixed within the home-care package system. The wait still gets longer and longer, tens of thousands of people long. In north-east Victoria the number of people on the waiting list is getting larger, not smaller, and that's unacceptable. I call on the government to commit to meeting that standard too, set by the royal commission. Immediately deliver home-care packages for all who need them and cap waiting times for home-care packages at one month.</para>
<para>In conclusion, right now, all around the nation, aged-care workers are providing care to older Australians, whether that be home-based care or residential aged care. When we go to sleep at night, aged-care workers will be continuing that care, and when we wake up in the morning they'll be there still, and I thank them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Nothing highlights the failures and incompetence of the Morrison government more so than its handling, or should I say mishandling, of aged-care services, a sector that has been in crisis for years. The sector has been the subject of some 20 aged-care reviews in the past 20 years, including a review by a committee of this parliament. Indeed, the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport held an inquiry into the quality of care in residential aged-care facilities in Australia, and it was only some three years ago that we handed down our report. The report had 14 recommendations, which in turn had many other parts to them. Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, you would be very familiar with them because you were on the committee, as was I. Many of the issues that have subsequently been raised by the royal commission and others were matters that the committee closely looked at and reported back to government about, yet we saw little from it in terms of any real action from the Morrison government.</para>
<para>The problems with aged care were not only well known because of so many of those reports; in particular, the Oakden inquiry in South Australia lifted the lid on much of the practices that were then subsequently exposed both by our committee inquiry and the royal commission. Indeed, Oakden was not an isolated case. There were so many other examples of similar bad practice. Perhaps we'll never get to them all, because the truth of the matter is I suspect many of them went unreported and were covered up in different ways and were never fully exposed, as they should have been.</para>
<para>Finally, when the Morrison government reluctantly implemented a royal commission, it used the royal commission, in my view, as an excuse to defer action it could have implemented at the time. There were many things that could have been done, as a result of the previous inquiries and what the government was aware of, that would have changed and improved the system, even if it was as interim measures at the time; in other words, allow the royal commission to proceed but carry out interim measures that would have helped people much more than what the government actually did. Instead, we saw not only the royal commission be used to defer any real action from the government; from memory we had about 100,000 people still on waiting lists for appropriate home-care packages, and too many people in aged-care facilities poorly cared for.</para>
<para>The poor care was through no fault of the people who work within the sector. Those staff who work within the sector do an extraordinary job under very difficult conditions. As you would know, Deputy Speaker Freelander, they are underpaid, overworked and under-resourced, and, at times, they have to do work which they are unqualified to do. If they were given the support they need, they would be able to deliver much better services. I know that most of them—in fact, all the ones I've spoken to—are people that are very passionate about their work, love doing the work they do and have a genuine care for the residents they look after. But the reality is they have not been given the support they need. I say to all those workers in the aged-care sector, particularly with the last two or three years when we went through the COVID pandemic, when there were additional restrictions which prevented family members and visitors going into those centres and providing a little bit of extra support as well: the aged-care workforce did a magnificent job in caring for the people under their care.</para>
<para>We have around 277,000 people who work in aged-care facilities. They deserve our gratitude and recognition for what they do, but they also deserve the increased support that this legislation begins the process of delivering for them. The requirement for providers to provide transparency about how much is spent on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration and profits will make providers accountable. As the member for Indi quite rightly pointed out, it will also give families important information when making choices about which facility best suits their needs. The accountability process, I believe, will also add to ensuring providers of aged care lift their own standards in order to be competitive because they know potential residents will look around before they sign up with a particular provider.</para>
<para>With respect to that, I note the member for Indi touched on the star rating system. In 2019 there was a study by the Centre for Health Service Development which used a five-star rating method to define adequacy of staffing care in facilities. That study found that more than half of all Australian aged-care residents are in homes that have, in their view, a one- or two-star rating level for staffing. In a five-star system, that, to me, indicates it's a pretty poor level of service. Twenty-seven per cent of residents were in homes that had a three-star rating, and only 15 per cent were in homes with a four- or five-star rating. In fact, only 1.3 per cent were in homes with a five-star rating. It just shows that, yes, there is a difference, and there are some very good homes out there, but the overwhelming majority of residents within those homes simply were not being provided the care that this study suggests they should have been provided. Transparency will bring competitiveness and accountability back to the system and, in my view, that can only lift the standard of care that is being provided.</para>
<para>The bill will also ensure that a registered nurse will be on site and on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week at each residential facility. That responsibility will apply from 1 July 2023. It's just under a year away and it provides providers some time to get the additional staff that they need. I accept that that in itself will be a challenge, but I don't believe that the shortage of staff is solely because there are not enough nurses out there. Indeed, referring back to the study from the Centre for Health Service Development, I also note that, when it came to their assessment of registered nurses in aged-care facilities, they found that between 2003 and 2016 the number of registered nurses in residential aged-care facilities fell from 21.4 per cent to 14. 9 per cent—by a third. The number of enrolled nurses fell from 14.4 per cent to 9. 3 per cent—again by about a third. Those reductions in nursing staff over that period didn't result from a shortage of nurses available; they resulted from cost-cutting measures that were implemented by many of the providers.</para>
<para>Again, as others have quite rightly pointed out, enrolled or registered nurses within these facilities actually save communities and governments a lot of money. If you have a nurse on site at all times, it will very likely prevent a hospital admission. It may well prevent even a doctor's attendance, because there might be medical needs that can be provided by a qualified and experienced nurse. As such, not only will the patient benefit, because they will get immediate service; it will mean that there will be a savings at the other end that would otherwise be a cost if the person is admitted to hospital or if a GP has to come out.</para>
<para>Indeed, on the subject of the GPs coming out, Deputy Speaker Freelander, you would be well aware that it was becoming increasingly difficult for GPs to attend aged-care facilities, because the remuneration they were receiving for their service was also becoming inadequate for the time that they were spending out there. That in itself became a problem whereby having an enrolled or registered nurse on deck would have made a difference to the wellbeing and care of the resident.</para>
<para>The bill also caps the amount that home-care providers can charge for administration and management. That is an issue that has been brought to my attention as a member of parliament and perhaps has been brought to other members in this place on many occasions. It seems to me that an issue of providing funds for packages and services to people that require aged-care services is that much of the funds are used up in administration fees. Just as badly, if residents try to switch provider, they are charged a fairly exorbitant exit fee, which makes it almost impossible for them to switch, because they would lose much of the funding that was provided to them. That has to come to an end. Quite frankly, the funds were provided for services, not for admin costs. I believe there were at least some providers who were exploiting the system, making good money out of the admin costs and providing little in the way of services. I'm pleased to see that, again, this matter is being addressed.</para>
<para>All three of the matters I have touched on were recommendations of the royal commission. It is not surprising; they were matters that I think many of us were aware of, should have been addressed and could have been addressed much earlier.</para>
<para>I will wrap up by saying this. Many of the residents who enter aged-care facilities today do so towards the end of their life, when they are in a situation where they need much greater care. Many prefer to stay at home for as long as they can and, with the support of government services, have been able to do so. So they enter these aged-care facilities at a time of very high need. That is the time when the staff in those centres need to be able to spend more time with them in order to support them. And yet, what we're seeing is the reverse. Staff are run off their feet, not having time to look after them in the way that they should, and, in turn, the level of care diminishes. Again, that is not through any fault of the staff, but simply through the pressures that are put on them to provide the services that they would like to otherwise provide. As higher care needs more time and more skills, in my view that also means that we need to appropriately pay and remunerate those people who work in the aged-care system for the services that they are providing, because, if we don't, as we have already seen, many of them will exit that particular sector because the remuneration simply isn't there. And nobody can blame them for that.</para>
<para>This legislation picks up on some of the recommendations of the royal commission. Yes, there is a lot more to do. And, yes, delivering on even the requirements within this legislation can be challenging. But it's a start in the right direction. I'm pleased to see that the government is making it their priority and I'm more than happy to say: 'Let's work through these issues one at a time so that we can ensure that the Australians that ultimately end up in aged-care facilities get the services and the support they need.' In this country, we have over a million people today that are over the age of 80 years. Many of them will end up in one of these facilities and many of them, unless they are given the care that they need, will also spend their last three years living in a way that I don't think any one of us would want for ourselves or for our own parents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome early implementation of some of the royal commission recommendations. It's a step in the right direction to protect our most vulnerable. However, I note that this bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, is introducing only a few of the 148 recommendations made by the royal commission. Even within the limited scope of this bill, there are many substantive issues that are likely to inspire differing views that are intended to be addressed in delegated legislation and so will not be subject to rigorous debate and scrutiny in this House.</para>
<para>This bill sets out some good changes. The government's commitment to 24/7 nursing is welcome. We need to ensure that the elderly in our community have access to immediate medical assistance if required. However, my electorate and I are concerned about how this commitment will be fulfilled. In this climate of severe skills shortages, where will all these nurses be found? How will the compliance of providers be enforced? How do we ensure that smaller providers can comply? What does it mean for the training levels of other staff? I understand that exemptions may need to be granted, given the current staffing challenges, especially in rural and regional areas, but there's no visibility of how exemptions will be given.</para>
<para>The amendments to the bill proposed today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Mayo require greater detail on these potential exemptions, which would allow appropriate scrutiny and discussion. I will be supporting these amendments. It is important that the implementation of these changes not be delayed, but proper scrutiny of the proposed exemptions is required to ensure a balance between access to better care and practical and geographical constraints.</para>
<para>The issues addressed in this bill are a good start, but just a start. I look forward to seeing the government respond to the rest of the recommendations as soon as possible. In my electorate, both experts and those with lived experience of aged care are looking forward to the broader review of the aged-care legislation. They've asked me to advocate for a better system. For example, I've had multiple aged-care advocates contact me expressing concern about related clauses in the recent Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. Constituents have told me they were particularly worried about schedule 9 of the royal commission bill, which legislates on restrictive practices in aged care.</para>
<para>The question of consent—for example, for chemical restraint—needs to be aligned nationally. In Western Australia, facilities can give consent for chemical restraint even if a family member has guardianship. A constituent told me of her mother, who was made to take tablets that caused nausea and a number of falls. The facility told the family the pills were required, as the woman was aggressive, but this seemed unlikely to the woman's daughter. They were concerned to arrive in the middle of the day to find their mother asleep.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the drafting of the new Aged Care Act, my constituents want to know that there will be a robust and extensive consultation. They want to be informed as soon as possible of the community engagement process that will be undertaken to ensure that the new legislation is written with a human rights lens and consumer focus, to ensure the inclusion of a range of issues such as mandatory reporting of sexual assault.</para>
<para>Another area of reform needed is cultural safety. Recommendation 3 of the royal commission was that the act should incorporate this principle. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are entitled to receive support and care that is culturally safe and recognises the importance of their personal connection to community and country. Neither of the recent aged-care amendment bills address this principle.</para>
<para>Accepting this principle would require three things: firstly, the use of culturally appropriate assessment tools to understand needs; secondly, supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to use aged-care funding through home-care packages to maintain their connection to country; and, thirdly, supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access aged-care support from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged-care providers. There are few of these and many providers are church based, with whom Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may have difficult histories of forcible institutionalisation.</para>
<para>It's worth noting that the aged-care access rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Perth is half the national average, for capital cities, at 8.5 per cent. This goes to a fundamental principle that needs to inform the broader review of the aged-care legislation of ensuring that service development is informed by the people affected by it.</para>
<para>There's also work to be done on the public reporting of complaints and incidents. One story brought to my attention was of an elderly lady assaulted by a staff member. The incident was reported to police, and the staff member consequently resigned. But as there's no public reporting or record, the family fears that the worker could go on to be employed by another aged-care facility.</para>
<para>While this bill is a start, I look forward to these recommendations and others from the royal commission being adopted in further legislation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo be disagreed to. I call the member for Lyons.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>) ( ): Can I say from the outset how proud I am to be standing here, on this side of the chamber, as a member of the Albanese Labor government. During the 2022 federal election, Labor took strong aged-care policies to the people that would ensure we are able to support our older Australians. The people gave us a mandate, and we are wasting no time in fulfilling it.</para>
<para>Labor understands the need to reform the aged-care sector. The royal commission into aged care provided a sobering insight into the flaws in the aged-care system, flaws that had been allowed to continue for far too long. Too many older Australians have been suffering due to issues in the aged-care system, a lack of care and attention by people who are charged with providing care and support, and a lack of standards and accountability to prevent the lack of care we have witnessed and, sadly, our older Australians have experienced all too often.</para>
<para>The report acknowledged neglect in a system where it should not exist. It uncovered severe problems that need response from a strong government, and that's what we are providing. Labor is that government. We are working as quickly as we can, with the aged-care sector, to rectify the issues that have been identified and to fulfil the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission into aged care.</para>
<para>The passage of this bill will ensure the implementation of several important and urgent aged-care reforms. These reforms were pledged by Labor at the 2022 federal election, and, as I said, the Albanese Labor government is wasting no time in delivering on the promises it made to the Australian people. Importantly, this bill responds to key recommendations of the royal commission's final report, recommendations which this government is committed to adhering to, to ensure a better, safer and more fair aged-care sector.</para>
<para>The bill will lift care and quality standards in aged care and, importantly, will create the mandatory standard to have a registered nurse on site at all times in residential aged-care facilities. This was a core recommendation of the commission report, a core pledge from Labor at the election, and, as a government, we are delivering on this pledge. The significance of this change cannot be overstated. This will immensely improve health outcomes in aged-care facilities. A 24/7 RN presence in our aged-care homes means more people can receive qualified medical assistance when they need it no matter what time of the day or night that support is needed. It will save thousands upon thousands of stressful, expensive and often unnecessary trips to hospital and emergency departments, ensuring that there is less pressure on our hospitals and that older Australians are able to get support when they need it and, critically, where they live.</para>
<para>I note concerns have been shared with me about the ability to recruit and retain RNs, particularly in the regions. The Albanese Labor government, through the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, will work with providers to ensure they are able to meet this obligation. The government has established a wide range of programs to attract and retain nursing staff to aged-care homes. This includes 1,300 transition-to-practise programs for nursing graduates, 1,900 scholarships, support for 5,250 clinical placements and an annual retention payment of up to $6,000. The government is working to address the issues that we currently face, and the issues that we may face into the future.</para>
<para>I must note also that this bill will provide a mechanism in extenuating circumstances for an exemption framework to apply, which will be further specified in consultation with experts and the aged-care sector. This exemption, in extraordinary circumstances, is particularly important for facilities in rural and regional Australia, like in my electorate, that are justifiably concerned about obtaining and retaining staff. The last thing they want to do is to fall foul of the new standards and the new law, but this government will work with them to meet the requirements they need to. We won't leave them behind.</para>
<para>The bill will also place a cap on the amount that home-care providers can charge for administration and management, as well as prevent providers being able to charge exit fees for their services. Time after time, I've spoken with constituents in my electorate who have provided me with bills from their aged-care provider that include absolutely huge administrative fees that are completely out of touch with the care that they are provided with but that's incorporated into those bills. It's completely out of whack. No sensible person could look at those invoices and think this makes any sense at all.</para>
<para>The rorting of the system is affecting older Australians who are trying to remain in their homes for longer, and it is limiting the services that they can achieve from the home-care package system. The government is about giving power to the people and ending the rorts and extortions that we saw far too often under the previous government. Labor is ensuring that home-care packages are able to be used to their maximum, to support people at home and enable them to remain in their homes for as long as they can. Home-care packages should not be sucked up by unnecessary and overbearing administrative fees. This change that is about ensuring bang for buck and service being delivered under those packages. This bill ensures that happens. It makes another strong commitment from the federal election into a reality.</para>
<para>Finally, this bill will fulfil the desire that all Australians want more of: transparency and accountability. This government pledged to the people that, if elected, we would be a more transparent and accountable government, and we are. We pledged to implement a federal anti-corruption commission. We heard from the Attorney-General today that that will be next week. That will ensure transparency and accountability; we are doing that. And we pledge more accountability and transparency in aged care.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is today delivering on this pledge with the passage of this bill. This bill will require the department secretary to publish certain information about aged-care providers and their services. This will improve transparency by ensuring information is available to the public on how much providers are spending on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration, and how much profit they're making. This will help rebuild trust in the sector and ensure that providers are publicly held to account for the funds they spend on caring for their residents.</para>
<para>This bill also ensures that those living in rural and regional aged-care facilities are not left behind. People in our regions—like those in my electorate of Lyons—deserve the same standard of care as those living in aged-care facilities in our major cities.</para>
<para>In my electorate, I have been meeting with aged-care providers about Labor's plan for the aged-care system and what the changes might mean for them. From the outset I must say: I'm incredibly proud of the level of care that is being given across the board to aged-care residents in my electorate. Most of the providers in Lyons are community based, with volunteer boards. They're not-for-profit providers who pride themselves on offering a high level of care to their residents and ensuring a safe and enjoyable workplace for staff. They have an enviable record for staff retention and for care of residents. They have a high reputation in their community and they're well-sought-after places to live. These aged-care facilities will often go the extra mile for residents, families and staff alike, and they do not hesitate to forgo higher returns if it means a higher quality of care can be achieved. I'm pleased to say that none of the aged-care homes in my electorate were named in the royal commission—none of them were named. So the royal commission isn't targeting them.</para>
<para>But of course the new compliance measures that we're introducing will have an effect on them because they increase their costs. I'm dealing with the aged-care minister and her office at the moment about that, because we all want to make sure that compliance is stringent—we absolutely back that in—but we don't want to see the good providers being unnecessarily burdened when of course the target is those who have not been providing the appropriate level of care over the years.</para>
<para>The staff of the providers in my electorate work hard, and they're dedicated to their jobs and the residents of their facilities. It's quite opportune that I'm standing here this afternoon on the national aged-care workers' day, and I shout out to all those aged-care workers—many of them women; many of them in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and doing very physical work—who are absolutely dedicated to their residents and workplaces. I give a big shout-out to them. But of course, this government is also committed to not just thanking them but making sure that they get the pay they deserve, because they do extremely hard work for relatively low pay. And we are going to back in a wage case for them soon.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the work of aged-care facilities in my electorate, such as Medea Park in St Helens, Toosey in Longford, Kanangra and Grenoch in Deloraine, and of course Corumbene in New Norfolk, as well as a few others. They all go above and beyond for their residents. They are well-respected institutions within their local communities. They have the respect of the people, and, in turn, they show respect to their people. It's a good model of care. I'd love to see it rolled out across the country.</para>
<para>Over the past month, I've been meeting the CEOs, board members and staff at each of these facilities, talking to them about the challenges they face and the changes that are being implemented by the government. From the outset, Labor has been committed to working with the aged-care sector to ensure that the changes that are implemented in this place, and through the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission, can be achieved, and that no facility is left behind and no good facility, no good provider, is unfairly or adversely impacted.</para>
<para>Aged-care facilities in Lyons have done it tough, especially over the past few years of COVID. They've borne the brunt of the increased costs, of immense changes to circumstances and of staffing insecurity and lockdowns, as the pandemic continued to take its toll. They have been weathering the storm, however, and I remain committed to them—to fighting in their corner with them and working with them, to ensure that they can succeed in our joint aim of providing world-class care for our older Australians.</para>
<para>I do not pretend for a second that challenges do not lie ahead. Change always brings challenges. Aged-care providers in my electorate have shared their views with me, on Labor's reforms; their anxieties, as to the varying levels of change and what it may mean for them; and their thoughts on how government can best work with them to ensure that the recommendations of the royal commission are fulfilled and that providers can continue to provide the best possible care for our loved ones. And we have a shared, joint vision about that: that at the heart of everything we do is the welfare and care of people who live in these facilities.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government will keep having these important conversations and working with aged-care facilities to ensure that the changes to the sector are implemented efficiently, effectively and fairly. It's a big job but one that we are up for, and, I know, one that will be well-orchestrated by our very dedicated new Minister for Aged Care, Minister Wells.</para>
<para>This bill before the House today is a keystone in Labor's plan to fix the aged-care system. It ensures that some of the most significant changes to the aged-care structure can be implemented, thereby adhering to the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission and ensuring that Labor uphold the commitments we made to the people at the election. Importantly, this bill has been brought forward in communication with the aged-care sector. The requirement for 24/7 RN staffing will not come into effect until 1 July 2023 so facilities have time to make the appropriate staffing and budgetary changes and prepare for this significant change. Labor is assisting the aged-care sector with this change and ensuring that our older Australians living in aged-care homes are given the respect, dignity and care that they deserve so that we can put behind us that word 'neglect' and hope it ever again surfaces with respect to aged care. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians want and expect that our older Australians are well supported and cared for in a way that brings dignity and respect to them. They want to stay in their communities. That is why the coalition when in government called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to ensure our senior and most vulnerable Australians receive the care that supports and respects their dignity, which recognises the important contribution they have made to society.</para>
<para>The final report of the royal commission makes 148 recommendations, which the coalition supported and continues to support. Twenty-three public hearings and over 10,000 public submissions produced a report which is the product of wise and compassionate scrutiny of Australia's aged-care system. In response to the royal commission the coalition committed $19.1 billion to a five-year plan to improve aged care, with new home-care packages, respite services, training places, retention bonuses and infrastructure upgrades. We in the opposition remain committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians and understand the important role that aged-care providers, care workers and nurses play in ensuring this support is provided in residential aged-care settings.</para>
<para>Paragraph 5 of recommendation 86 of the royal commission's final report calls for:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… from 1 July 2024, the minimum staff time standard should require at least one registered nurse on site per residential aged care facility at all times.</para></quote>
<para>That is 24/7 registered nurse, or RN, care. I am regularly contacted by aged-care service providers in Mallee and I meet with them. They tell me how desperate they are for workers and how impossible it is to find nurses. This is called having a thin market. Those of us who live in regional communities are very familiar with what that means. They also talk to me about the issues with the current and proposed funding models—workforce issues, thin markets. I wrote to the Minister for Aged Care raising concerns of the funding shortfalls that will occur because of the government's indexation rate. I have also written to her regarding the challenges aged-care providers in my electorate, some of which are the only ones in a town, have in finding staff to meet their compliance obligations. While I thank the minister for her reply, it does not solve the ongoing crisis occurring in regional Australia.</para>
<para>I've spoken to many aged-care providers in Mallee. This is some of the feedback they have provided:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There are no floating RNs in Mallee ready or able to supply the workforce required. There are simply not enough RNs to fill shifts in smaller regional town settings.</para></quote>
<para>The CEO of Sunnyside Lutheran Retirement Village in Horsham, Denise Hooper, told me that they have an RN on morning and afternoon shifts and have been advertising for four months for an RN and have not been able to attract one. That's four months. Horsham is not a small town. I know Sunnyside. It is a large establishment and employer, and while they have concerns about attracting staff, it is nigh-on impossible for towns such as Nhill, Warracknabeal or Ouyen to find any. As Denise said, it is challenging enough finding RNs for the hospital, let alone for aged care, where conditions and salaries cannot be matched.</para>
<para>Denise told me that aged care is becoming a subacute care facility, as people are entering facilities older and with more complex needs than they did several years ago. Yet they are not funded for that level of care. While the royal commission recommended that a registered nurse must be on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by 2024, schedule 1 of this legislation establishes a new time frame for providers to do this by July 2023. Make no mistake: our nurses have worked tirelessly on the frontline through the COVID-19 pandemic, protecting lives and keeping Australians safe. I recognise the amazing support that nurses provide our older Australians, particularly their critical work in aged-care homes since the outbreak of the pandemic. These were not easy times, yet our nurses stood up when it mattered most to protect so many older Australians—and I am grateful for their work. I note today, even speaking with another aged-care provider, that we have yet another COVID outbreak in one of our facilities. However, we've come a long way, and the vaccination rate and the care rate have increased so that the conditions of older people are absolutely so much more improved.</para>
<para>This legislation will seek to ensure that every aged-care home in Australia has a registered nurse on site 24/7 by July 2023. However, this time frame is not consistent with the royal commission's final report, which recommended this occur in 2024, with an accompanied minimum care minutes requirement under recommendation 86. The minimum care must be provided by RNs, not ENs. The royal commission took into account a range of factors when recommending the July 2024 time line, recognising the current workforce shortages and the time required to train or access the necessary additional workforce. Given the government has brought the start date of this recommendation forward by a year, it must specifically outline what support will be provided to regional and rural providers, and to other providers already struggling with viability and workforce challenges.</para>
<para>The opposition notes the unique challenges faced by our aged-care providers in rural and regional Australia, particularly regarding access to the RN workforce. Does the Labor government? The government must outline how they plan to get additional nurses into aged-care homes following their talkfest jobs summit. The opposition supports the royal commission's recommendation on 24/7 RNs, but there are realities that must be faced. Regional and rural communities struggle to get a basic workforce. What is the government planning to do to assist these vital local services? I note that 53 per cent of aged-care providers are based in regional and remote areas, and 86 per cent are small providers. However, the fact that exemptions will be required for rural settings but will not be known until the legislation is passed, and will be a delegated legislation, means that the government can decide, without scrutiny and without any transparency, to make the exemptions as narrow and short lived as they wish. This is concerning. It provides no stability nor security to our small providers.</para>
<para>The other concern I have is that to give exemptions in regional settings while demanding urban aged-care facilities provide that 24/7 RN capability will make a two-tier aged-care system. If the bar is lower in regional and rural settings, what is that saying about the dignity and the quality of care required for aged-care residents in regional settings? I find it troubling.</para>
<para>The opposition calls on the government to provide oversight of the delegated legislation that puts in place the mechanism and details of possible exemptions. The government has not been transparent with any of the details of this exemption clause, with significant questions still to be answered, such as: What is the exemption mechanism that will be contained in the delegated legislation?</para>
<para>Who will be eligible for an exemption? For how long will they be eligible? What will be the penalties for non-compliance with schedule 1? Will there be provisions that seek to prevent providers from using the exemption process as an excuse not to fulfil the royal commission's recommendations to provide high quality care to support its residents? Who is the decision-maker?</para>
<para>This lack of transparency creates uncertainty for providers who are already under stress from the COVID-19 pandemic. This information is particularly critical for rural and regional providers, who will likely be subject to significant difficulties in finding the additional workforce to meet the requirement within the timeframe. I have spoken to other aged-care providers in Mallee who have expressed their thoughts and concerns, Darren Midgley, from Chaffey Aged Care in Merbein, while agreeing that exemptions are warranted, argues that the current legislation fails to endorse current highly trained ENs—enrolled nurses—in the care minutes that are now going to be required. He also states that the modified Monash 4 centres such as his, which are 15 kilometres outside the buffer zone of MM3, which receives more funding, is unfair and does not comprehend the higher costs for delivering quality aged-care services a great distance from urban centres such as Melbourne, 550 kilometres away.</para>
<para>One of the key challenges, he acknowledges, is that regional services have zero access to agency nurses. Even if they managed to find the staff required, when a nurse calls in sick, there is no agency nurse around the corner to replace them, unlike in Melbourne or Sydney—or Bendigo or Ballarat. There are 90 aged-care services in Mallee, with just over 4,000 nurses and midwives in the whole of outer regional and remote Victoria. No-one—not the federal government, not the state government, not the universities, not the aged-care service providers themselves—has been able to explain to me how they will meet the requirement for these extra nurses in the time frame Labor wants.</para>
<para>Labor should stick to the previous government's time line for the implementation of 24-7 nurses as recommended by the royal commission for 2024 and put in place incentives for training the needed RNs for regional settings in a regional setting. Labor should reveal the details of its proposed delegated legislation so it can be scrutinised by parliament and the parliament can determine if it's suitable for aged-care providers, especially rural ones. Labor needs to state its plan to get more nurses into the regions so regional aged-care providers can provide this quality care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. I'm very proud that the government has brought this bill forward and honoured its commitment to older Australians and to implementing the royal commission. I think the government is taking the right steps in ensuring that we implement all practical measures to guarantee older Australians get the aged care that they deserve. For too long we've seen neglect in this area—neglect from the previous government, neglect from a whole range of media attention that aged-care homes were getting and neglect for our older Australians, which is shameful in a nation such as Australia, where we don't have the proper care to look after people who have worked all their lives. They've paid their taxes. Some have fought in wars. In years to come, we will be measured for what sort of a nation we were by the treatment of our older Australians.</para>
<para>As I said, older Australians have worked hard all their lives. They've contributed to our society, our communities and our economy. They deserve nothing short of being supported with dignity and humanity in their frailer years. That's the least that governments can offer. This bill will ensure that we are able to do that. This goes hand in hand with our commitment to fight not only for a better system for our older Australians but also for a pay rise for Australia's aged-care workers. We know that a lot of the problems stem from not giving dignity, as well, to people who work in the aged-care sector. We recently made a submission to the Fair Work Commission that supports a wage increase for aged-care workers.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was clear that one of the problems was the undervalued, underpaid and highly casualised workforce in aged care, and the previous government ignored that recommendation. On this side of the House, we won't. We will fight for a better future for those aged-care workers, the carers, and the most important people, the residents of aged-care facilities. If we don't start paying aged-care workers properly, we won't be able to attract and retain enough staff to care for our loved ones as our population ages.</para>
<para>The government's committed to stopping the neglect in the aged-care sector. We want to ensure that older Australians are cared for with security, dignity and humanity. We acknowledge the hard work of dedicated staff in aged care and a lot of aged-care facilities that are doing great work. We know that the pandemic made it even harder, and we saw some of those horrific pictures on our TV of people dying from COVID-19 in many of the aged-care facilities around the country. I think that increasing wages and job security and encouraging more people to work in aged care will give nurses and carers more time to care.</para>
<para>This is more important than ever, given the sector shortages that were created over the last few years by the pandemic and, of course, by the inattention to this area by the previous government. This problem is also contributing to the gender pay gap—to low pay and poor conditions in care sectors like aged care, where the majority of workers are female. This is a serious problem, as we heard again during the recent Jobs and Skills Summit. So increasing wages in aged care is essential to ensuring that men and women are paid equally and continue to contribute equally to Australia's productivity.</para>
<para>As I said at the beginning of my speech, we're also delivering on our election commitment to improve this sector. One way we're doing that is through transparency in the aged-care system. This bill will introduce measures to monitor the costs associated with aged care. Providers will have greater responsibility to be transparent and fair; they will need to publish more information about their operations, including what they're spending money on. We will also be delivering on our election commitment to stop the rorting of home-care fees. This will be done by placing a cap on how much can be charged in admin and management fees. In addition, we'll remove the exit amounts altogether. This is very important.</para>
<para>In my electorate, I—like all of us in this chamber—have heard from many older Australians who are receiving home-care packages. One of the things that comes up time and time again is that they don't understand where the fees are going when they're not getting the service that they signed up for. They find the system confusing and fear that a big chunk of what they're paying is not actually going to the services that they require for assistance and help in their homes and not going to the services that they are receiving.</para>
<para>This measure will enable the government to cap these charges and maximise available funding to address the care needs of more than 210,000 older Australians currently receiving home-care packages. We want to ensure that there is pricing transparency for consumers and providers and greater clarity about direct and indirect costs. In short, home-care users need to be confident that the money is going directly to care, not to the bottom line of providers.</para>
<para>Other measures that we're introducing include the star rating system. This means that the Department of Health and Aged Care will, in future, publish a comparison rating for all residential aged-care services by the end of 2022, giving users and their families more peace of mind. In addition, the secretary of the department will make information on residential aged-care services and provider expenditure publicly available. This includes what is spent on labour, workers, care, food, nutrition, cleaning, admin, maintenance, and profit or loss. The information will be published online and will help inform consumers' choice of residential aged-care services and providers.</para>
<para>In addition, from 1 December 2022, approved providers and their governing bodies will be required to meet new responsibilities that will improve governance. They will need to notify the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission of changes to key personnel. The current disqualified-individual arrangements will also be replaced with a broader suitability test. We're also extending the Serious Incident Response Scheme to all in-home care providers from 1 December 2022. This is because of the horror stories we heard during the royal commission. We need to increase protection for older Australians from preventable incidents, from abuse, from neglect and from those horrible things that were reported in the royal commission. We'll improve information sharing between care and support sector regulators, as well—in other words, streamlining so that they both have the information. This will enable proactive monitoring of risks across the sectors and better protection of the participants from harm. That was one of the issues that came up—that people who had been disqualified from one particular aged-care provider could quite easily move into another one without these checks and balances. We're also introducing a new code of conduct for approved providers, their workforce and governing persons.</para>
<para>We take this responsibility very seriously, and I think each and every one of us in this chamber has a duty to do so. As I said, we must fix the aged-care system and we must provide the care that elderly Australians require so they can live with dignity in their frail years, whether it be in home care or whether it be in a facility that looks after them. We must fix this system.</para>
<para>This bill goes a long way to protecting the safety, dignity and wellbeing of every older Australian accessing aged-care services, and it demonstrates that there is a willingness from this government, a commitment to ensure a fair, transparent system for older Australians, their families and their carers and a commitment to the welfare and conditions of these incredible people who care for older Australians. In short, we're putting security, dignity and humanity back into aged care. I'm proud to be speaking on this bill and to be part of a government that takes the care of older Australians very seriously, because all Australians need to have trust in the system that looks after some of our most vulnerable people. They deserve nothing less.</para>
<para>This bill also goes on to include many measures that will provide additional protections directly to older Australians. These protections are long overdue. The bill implements three of our government's urgent election commitments, as well—to put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care.</para>
<para>As of 1 July 2023, the bill will introduce the requirement to have a registered nurse, for example, on site and on duty at each facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is incredible that at this point there is no requirement for a registered nurse to be available to administer particular medicines or drugs in a nursing home. What happens if there is a requirement to administer a drug or a medicine, or some of the care that's required that has to be done by a registered nurse, and there isn't one onsite at 1 am, 2 am or 3 am? Normally, they may ring a doctor if they can get one. If they can't, the residents are put into an ambulance and sent off to the public hospital. This would help clear two angles: (1) waiting times at public hospitals and (2) giving the care that's required right then and there for those residents in the aged-care facility. The royal commission made this a clear recommendation because it recognised the value of having on-site nursing care. It will save thousands of stressful, expensive and ultimately unnecessary trips to emergency departments all around the country.</para>
<para>Consistent with recommendation 86 of the royal commission, the bill will also provide a mechanism for some exemptions. These will be finalised once experts in the residential aged-care sector have been consulted. However, it's important to note that any exemption framework will provide for tightly targeted exemptions. They could perhaps be in rural and remote areas. They could be in areas where the workforce is very hard to find. They could be in towns where it is the only aged-care facility for a radius of many kilometres. There will be many very important and strict conditions to the framework.</para>
<para>We must recognise that older Australians have contributed to this nation. They've worked, they've paid taxes and, as I've said many, many times in this place, they have built the foundations that we stand on today to enjoy a wonderful life in this wonderful country. If we have got a great country, it's because of those that came before us, those that fought in wars, those that did hard labour and those that had the foresight to build those foundations for the next generation of Australians. We have a duty to those people that they will live out their last few years with dignity, humanity and respect.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The responsibility to ensure every older Australian receives the care that they need falls upon us all. It's our duty. It's our duty as sons, as daughters, as caring citizens and as local communities. It's absolutely our responsibility as lawmakers in this place. Whether you live in the city or in one of the thousands of rural communities across Australia, like mine, everyone deserves the right to live their senior years connected to family, loved ones and local community. Our seniors deserve to stay in the communities where they have lived and built their lives. That's what they wish to do. Our senior Australians have the right to feel safe. Our seniors have the right to live their lives with dignity. And our seniors should know that, when it's needed, their care will be of the highest quality possible.</para>
<para>On the back of the royal commission, it was our government that started the journey to make aged care better. It was the Liberal-National government that implemented the largest investment in aged care in Australian history. The core principles of our response were founded in the pillars of respect, care and dignity. Our investment provided an additional $17.7 billion to deliver generational change in the aged-care sector. That was absolutely the right thing to do.</para>
<para>But our government wasn't solely focused on implementing the recommendations of the aged care royal commission. As well as implementing a once-in-a-generation improvement to the aged-care sector, the Liberal-National government focused on the specific aged-care needs within local communities and rural and regional local communities at that.</para>
<para>A great example is within my electorate of Braddon, on the west coast of Tasmania. It's a rugged and great part of the world. It's the resource and economic heart of Tasmania. It's rugged and isolated. In the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, I secured $1 million in order to invest in aged care in a place called Queenstown, a mining town on our west coast. During my time as the federal member, it became apparent that there remained an unmet need in aged care across the west coast of Tasmania. So I worked with the West Coast Council and on behalf of their local community to secure that funding. In the lead-up to the 2022 election, the federal Liberal government pledged to address the shortfall of aged-care beds in Queenstown on our rugged west coast. Our $3 million commitment would have funded the extra beds in the region that are so desperately needed.</para>
<para>Regrettably, this important commitment to aged care on the west coast of Tasmania was not matched by the Albanese, and this decision has left the west coast community without certainty around the provision of these desperately needed services. I promised the west coast community that I would continue to fight for them, and they know that. The aged-care service in their region is important to them. The Minister for Aged Care has repeatedly promised that the safety and wellbeing of older Australians, who rely on these aged-care services, is the No. 1 priority of the Albanese government. If that is the case, I look forward to the Labor federal government matching that $3 million commitment to ensure the west coast receives these desperately needed aged-care services.</para>
<para>The current government's commitment to aged care must continue the once-in-a-generation reform that was undertaken by the former Liberal-National government. Their program must continue the important work of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Aged Care Reform) Bill 2022 is part of that process. The first reform under this bill is to legislate that every aged-care centre have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by July 2023. This is a key Labor election commitment. It should be noted that the scheduling brings forward by a full calendar year the royal commission's recommendation No. 86, which was that 24/7 registered nurses be provided in all aged-care centres by July 2024.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I do have concerns. Firstly, I'm concerned around workforce. The aged-care minister has said that she will need just 900 more registered nurses to meet this important election commitment. However, the CEO of the Aged & Community Care Providers Association, Mr Paul Sadler, says it's his belief that it could be double that. Everywhere I go in my electorate, the most urgent need of employers is workforce. It's across all sectors—no exception. It's across hospitality, agriculture, mining, trucking, tourism, public service, health and, yes, aged care as well. No sector can find the workers it needs to do the work that is set in front of it, let alone meet a legislated requirement in 11 months to increase the workforce. If you live in a regional or rural community, that concern is amplified and exacerbated many times over. Where is this workforce going to come from? How will these regional communities across the north-west, the west coast and King Island—in the middle of Bass Strait—find, train and attract these RNs in a 10-month window?</para>
<para>Mr Sadler also calls out the Albanese government's lack of transparency with regard to the workforce numbers that they're quoting. 'I don't have visibility of how the department advised that number,' Mr Sadler said. 'It would be good if they shared that with the nursing colleges and unions and providers.'</para>
<para>My second concern is the lack of detail around the exemption clause contained within the schedule. Again, the minister talks about the necessity for transparency in the aged-care sector, and yet the Labor government is expecting us to vote on an exemption clause about which there is no detail. It's important to note that most of the 34 submissions received by the recent Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the drafting of these exemption clauses. The scope of the exemption forms a crucial part of the schedule, so it makes sense that we must see the detail prior to voting on it. If not, it appears that the government is seeking to retrofit an exemption clause to their election commitment because they know that the commitment is undeliverable without it.</para>
<para>Implementing reform to cap the fees approved home-care providers can charge and the removal of exit fees were matters considered by the royal commission. This schedule is widely supported by the sector and is also supported by the opposition. Schedule 3 of the bill responds to the royal commission's recommendation 88 in order to improve provider governance. This was a recommendation fully accepted by the previous Liberal coalition government and was being processed through a $27 million investment. Again I call for greater transparency in this schedule. The need for better public reporting of data in the aged-care sector is crucial—it's vital—however, at this point we don't know what information will be reported and made public. They haven't said. If transparency is to be the hallmark of this government—and they claim this every day—then these details must be made clear before we vote on the bill.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill contains the work commenced by the Liberal-National government and our delivery in response to the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission. There are, however, many questions clearly left unanswered. There is the need for more information, the need for more detail and the need for more costings around schedules 1 and 3 of the bill. How is it going to work? How much is it going to cost? When does it need to happen? There are eligibility concerns relating to the discretionary considerations provided before an instrument of exclusion is granted. What about the hardships regional and rural communities have in order to source, retain and train RNs in their regions? The government hasn't taken into account the discrepancy between the large aged-care providers in the leafy green suburbs of the big capital cities and the small rural aged-care facilities in the bush that still require one RN.</para>
<para>I'd like these questions answered before we vote on this bill. I can guarantee you that there are a lot of caring providers out there that would like to see exactly the same information provided.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I remind him of the procedures of the House. The consideration in detail stage provides the environment to ask those questions.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. As a society and a community we have a duty and a responsibility to care for those vulnerable amongst us. Over a long period of time we have failed one particular group of vulnerable Australians to an unacceptable degree. Like all Australians, I was shocked and appalled by what I saw in the <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> special that aired in 2018 titled 'Who cares?' and I welcomed the announcement of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The final report handed down in April 2021 detailed 148 recommendations. I was proud to run as a candidate for a party that made election commitments on aged-care reform designed, in line with the royal commission recommendations, to address the shameful neglect of our older Australians.</para>
<para>This bill implements three of the commitments that were made in response to the royal commission. They are, firstly, to lift care and quality standards and ultimately health outcomes by making it mandatory to have a registered nurse on site at all times in residential aged care. The fact that this is controversial boggles the mind, given that aged-care facilities were once referred to as nursing homes. This commitment, if this bill is passed, will take effect from 1 July 2023 and will introduce a new responsibility for approved providers of residential care and of specified kinds of flexible care to have a registered nurse not only on site but also on duty at each residential facility 24 hours a day seven days a week.</para>
<para>This policy is designed to raise the standard of care to a level that our older Australians deserve and that I think we as a community expect. Having a registered nurse on site and on duty 24/7 is expected to save thousands of unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments. For instance, a urinary tract infection is extremely distressing and can quickly escalate to delirium, and older people can rapidly become very unwell, deteriorate and become disordered. You wouldn't want to go to hospital for a UTI and you certainly wouldn't want to be hanging around waiting to be seen. You need rapid diagnosis and treatment. A nurse on site can facilitate that. Likewise, a nurse on site would be able to triage residents after a fall or an illness, again preventing unnecessary ambulance trips and hospital visits. These trips can, of course, be extremely unsettling and disruptive for patients, particularly for those with cognitive decline. Any step that can be taken to assist in dealing with minor ailments within the aged-care setting is to be welcomed.</para>
<para>This is also part of the solution to addressing the very serious issue of ambulance ramping and bed block in hospitals that we're seeing across the country. I note that there are going to be some exemptions to that on a case-by-case basis, I understand. Certainly I have heard from local providers who have facilities in rural and remote areas that they will be seeking that. They understand that, while we have to have the right level of care, there are some areas where workforce shortages will be a considerable issue. In particular I'll note one that was mentioned to me: Booleroo Centre, which is in very remote South Australia—and certainly not in Boothby.</para>
<para>Secondly, this bill ensures that government funds going to aged care are directed towards their real purpose: providing a better standard of care for residents. The bill introduces a power that will enable the government to cap the amount that home-care providers can charge in administration and management, as well as remove the ability for providers to charge exit amounts. In practice, this means that the government has committed to capping the amount that can be charged for admin and management to people who receive home-care packages. Given that over 210,000 older residents currently receive home-care packages, this measure ensures that government funds go towards improving quality of care, rather than being chewed up by additional and unnecessary administration fees.</para>
<para>Of course, we recognise that organisations providing home-care services do need funding for administration functions, and most services do the right thing. However, I hear from many older people about their distress at being unable to access or fund the services they need, despite what they consider to be very generous aged-care packages. As a government, we have a responsibility to ensure that our funding goes to the outcomes that we have designed it to reach, and they are the actual services to our residents in the community.</para>
<para>Thirdly, this legislation implements our commitment for greater integrity and accountability in aged care. Specifically, it fulfils the government's election commitment to increase transparency about how much providers spend on care, nursing, food, maintenance, cleaning, administration, and profits. This amounts to much greater transparency and insight into what aged-care providers are spending government money, taxpayer money, on, and this is a crucial step in improving public trust in our aged-care system. Again, many providers are doing the right thing, but, as the royal commission highlighted, some are not, and this has a significant effect on the quality of life and the health of our aged-care residence.</para>
<para>During the campaign I had from a local man, Salvatore, about his mother's, Maddalena, terrible last month in an aged-care facility. Sal had been horrified at the bland, unhealthy, innutritious and inadequate food she was provided—and he actually gave me some photographs, which were pretty horrific—as well as the poor quality of her room. The family ended up helping out with minor maintenance and cleaning, including mould removal. In a nursing home situation, where we have people who are, in many instances, already of poor health, to actually have mould in their rooms is unacceptable. Sal was very distressed that, despite his very best efforts, despite being a frequent visitor, along with other family members, to his mother, he was still not able to ensure that her care was even adequate, let alone what he wanted for her last months. This is for you, Salvatore, and for your mother, Maddalena. I'm so sorry for your experience and your mother's experience.</para>
<para>The electorate I represent, Boothby, is the home of many major aged-care centres. Indeed, my husband is the chair of the advisory committee to one, Alwyndor Aged Care, which was founded by his stepgrandmother. Many of them perform well and provide excellent care that is of the standard that residents and their families rightly expect. I certainly heard some fantastic stories of people finding that what their relatives were being offered was exactly what they had wanted and what they would have wanted to do if they could have kept their relatives at home. But, as with the rest of the country, when you visit aged-care sites or talk to aged-care workers, a core theme of exhaustion and frustration comes through. It's no wonder workers are leaving the sector in droves.</para>
<para>During the campaign, I also welcomed the then shadow minister for aged care, Clare O'Neil, to a forum on aged care held in Marino, in the south of Boothby. We had a large number of local residents come, many of whom had family in aged care, but we also had a lot of workers come and tell us their stories. We heard harrowing stories from aged-care workers from the United Workers Union, who were sick with guilt and worry at not having the time or the resources to provide the care that they wanted to provide to residents. We heard from exasperated and often desperate family members just like Salvatore—relatives of older Australians who could not navigate the system or find practical solutions to the need to find affordable care.</para>
<para>We note that aged care has changed very much over the past decade. A decade or so ago, people would stay in aged care for five or six years, maybe longer, and we're now in a situation where aged care is often more of a palliative service. The average stay is often around the six- to eight-month mark. That's changed things significantly. It does mean that we have a higher need for care. We do need to have a nurse on site so that people are getting the care they need in their final months and so that we can ensure that they're getting the pain relief they need. We need to ensure that when something happens—when there's a fall, when they're deteriorating or when they're ill—they get the care they need, whether that's something that happens in the nursing home or whether they do in fact need to go to hospital via ambulance. Obviously, that's a very important part of palliative care. A very important part of living in a nursing home is that you can access that care when you need it. This aims just to ensure that people are not going unnecessarily to hospital, both because of the trauma and the distress that that causes the residents themselves and because it often results in long waits at the emergency department or in ambulance ramping.</para>
<para>These are some of the first steps in what is going to be a long journey to fixing aged care in this country. We know that older Australians have worked hard all their lives. We know they deserve a better situation than what was found by the royal commission, which was summed up in the title of its interim report as, simply, <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. The previous government presided over this neglect of older Australians and the aged-care system. There were multiple reports into aged care before, finally, a royal commission following that <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> report. The royal commission's report was handed down in April 2021, and the recommendations have still not been implemented. This government, the Albanese Labor government, is determined, under the fine leadership of our Minister for Aged Care, Anika Wells, to leave no stone unturned in helping implement all possible practical measures to guarantee older Australians get the care that they deserve—the care that we, as their family, as their friends and as a community, expect that they can have.</para>
<para>I don't know anyone who isn't impacted by aged-care at some point in their lives, whether they be residents themselves; those in middle age who are facing the daunting task of figuring out how to get adequate and affordable care for their ageing parents; or those now looking at their own future in aged care, either through home-care services or in residential aged care. The aged-care system and the aged-care services that we provide our community impact us all. Even beyond that, the current situation in aged care that we have inherited should outrage us all.</para>
<para>All Australians deserve to be supported with dignity and humanity in their twilight years. This bill is a strong start towards making that a reality for all older Australians, their friends and their loved ones. We understand that aged care is a system, from home care to residential care, the intensive services provided for dementia and palliative care, but it needs to be a system that can be navigated easily. When people are putting their loved ones either through services at home or into aged-care facilities, they should feel confident they are getting the care they need, they are getting the food they need and that they'll have quality of life in those last years. That is what we all expect for ourselves and our loved ones. I commend this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support the amendment proposed by the member for Farrer. The concerns the opposition have about the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 are shared by providers in my electorate of Nicholls. The bill does not contain adequate detail or an acknowledgement of the complexity of the many issues. It fails to outline an exemption framework that would give comfort to small aged-care providers, ensuring that they won't be unfairly impacted by the changes. This is a loose legislative framework, and there are aged-care providers that have tried and failed to find out from this government what their fate will be when the full regulations are finally implemented.</para>
<para>Here's a practical example of the challenges and uncertainty faced by small regional aged-care facilities predominantly in regional Australia. Nathalia is in my electorate of Nicholls, a beautiful township of 2,000 people with a long history of taking care of its own. Barwo Homestead is a community-run aged-care facility reflecting the desire of residents from the district to remain in the district when they can no longer look after themselves at home. I recently visited Barwo Homestead and spoke with Lynda Walker, the CEO.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was a landmark commission, and the Morrison government responded to the recommendations in May 2021, announcing a $17.7 billion aged-care reform package to respond to the 148 recommendations and deliver sustainable quality care and safety in the home and in residential aged-care services.</para>
<para>One of the measures recommended by the royal commission was for an Australian National Aged Care Classification—which people are calling AN-ACC—care funding model to replace the aged care funding instrument from 1 October 2022. This measure, AN-ACC, includes a mandatory care-minute standard for residential aged care. The royal commission identified staffing levels as vital to the quality of care that older Australians receive and recommended that the care minutes be introduced to drive increased care time. Consistent with the royal commission recommendations, from 1 October 2023, the initial care-minute requirements will be set at a sector-wide average of 200 minutes per day, including a minimum of 40 minutes of registered nurse time. This will be based on care provided by registered nurses, enrolled nurses and personal care workers. The 200-minute overall target and the 40 minutes of registered nurse time will be an average target across the sector. In practice, each residential aged-care facility will have its own care-minute target reflecting the AN-ACC case mix of residents.</para>
<para>In relation to aged care, the goal of dignity, quality and safety in aged care is one that we in this place should all share. The issues I raise are not a criticism of the response to the royal commission or the goal of providing quality care nationally, but there is, as I will outline, a need for a nuanced response given the specific circumstances we find ourselves in as we emerge from the disruption of the global pandemic, particularly in rural and regional Australia, such as in places like my electorate of Nicholls.</para>
<para>In the case of Barwo Homestead, there are currently 17 residents in a 20-bed facility. All are low care, and the absence of chronic care needs means they are adequately cared for by personal care staff, with the support of two registered nurses. The transition to a formula of minimum care minutes poses a significant challenge for small, low-care facilities, as does the requirement for 24/7 registered nurse cover addressed in this legislation. They will need to provide 40 minutes of registered nurse time from 1 October, but in the current environment a place like that just cannot recruit registered nurses. Nathalia has a wonderful environment; it's a beautiful place. But registered nurses don't grow on trees. For a small facility like Barwo Homestead, currently at less than 70 per cent occupation, there is also a serious issue with affordability of additional registered nurse hours and the additional administrative burden placed on a small number of staff who would otherwise be engaged with residents.</para>
<para>There is also the issue of reporting on care minutes, which will be one of the measurable indicators used to inform a new star rating system on the My Aged Care website, which will be introduced from December 2022. Given the difficulties faced by small, low-care facilities—and Barwo Homestead is just one of these—they are unable to respond as efficiently or as comprehensively as larger facilities, especially those in the big population centres with larger pools of qualified labour. What smaller facilities want is time to adjust and, in particular, to be exempted from the star system in the interim so that they are not tarred with the stigma of a low rating through no fault of their own—one that isn't reflective of the wonderful care that they provide.</para>
<para>The longer-term issue is one of financial viability for small community providers in our rural towns. Mr Paul Sadler, the interim Chief Executive Officer of the Aged & Community Care Providers Association, said the following to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 25 August 2022:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we would say that, until we know the detail of how exemptions are going to operate, we do run a risk that we could end up with unintended consequences, even up to the closure of aged-care services across regional Australia if they cannot obtain the staff that are going to be required.</para></quote>
<para>I'll repeat that line: 'even up to the closure of aged-care services'.</para>
<para>The Nationals understand rural communities and how important it is that residents remain connected and cared for in their twilight years. We don't want to see important community based facilities gobbled up by big operators or, worse, disappearing altogether simply because of the financial burden of minimum requirements. We don't want aged-care residents who are happily being cared for in the communities they love being forced into care in larger towns where they lose that connection to family, friends and the community.</para>
<para>The opposition supports the royal commission's recommendation on the 24/7 RNs in aged-care facilities, where it is possible, by 2024 and in line with the recommendation. This government wants to legislate much earlier but has not been transparent with any of the details of any exemption clause. Significant questions are still to be answered, such as: What is the exemption mechanism that will be contained in the delegated legislation? Who will be eligible for an exemption? How long will they be eligible? What will the penalties be for noncompliance?</para>
<para>The Nationals and our coalition partners have a longstanding commitment to aged care. In government, our total investment in response to the final report of the royal commission amounted to $19.1 billion. Our 2022-23 budget responded to 10 recommendations of the royal commission and built on our existing five pillars of aged-care reform. We delivered record investment across the aged-care system over the forward estimates. It went from $13.3 billion in 2012-13, under Labor, to $30.1 billion in 2022-23—growth of 126 per cent under the coalition.</para>
<para>The government must continue our generational reform of the aged-care system for the benefit of all Australians and stop playing political games with older Australians and their families, particularly in small regional communities such as those in my electorate of Nicholls. I urge the government to ensure that places like Barwo Homestead in Nathalia—and there are many of them—whilst still held to account for the quality of their care, are provided the flexibility to continue to operate as they always have and provide the quality of care in small regional communities that is so valued.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. I will give a bit of advice to those opposite: you know you're not going well and your government hasn't handled an area well when the interim report of a royal commission you initiate is titled <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">eglect</inline>. You want to have a read of the foreword of that report. You don't even need to read the final report titled <inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">are, dignity and respect</inline>, which called for far-reaching and fundamental reform, to know the coalition, in nine long years, failed abysmally in terms of the aged care of our people, whether in residential aged care or in home care or of those people getting the Commonwealth Home Support Program.</para>
<para>This was a government that went through aged-care ministers like throwing confetti. I think it's important to look at where we've come from. One of the first acts of the former government—they think they're now a government in exile but they're actually in opposition—was to get rid of the Aged Care Workforce Development Fund, which we brought in as part of our Living Longer, Living Better package. It was a $40.2 million fund. I heard the previous member talking about developing aged-care workers and people who can work in regional areas. Well, you don't get rid of the fund that was there to assist as one of the first acts of your new government back in 2013. This is a Liberal Party and National Party grouping that decided they would demote aged care out of Health and Ageing and put it into the mega portfolio of Social Services. Eventually, after Labor campaigned for years—the stakeholders did—to bring it back into a DOHA situation, they finally did so.</para>
<para>One of the first acts of the coalition government back in September 2013 was to get rid of the workforce supplements. To those opposite: we're crying out for workers in aged care. In none of their speeches do they talk about what they really did. They didn't develop an aged-care workforce strategy. They abolished the panel for positive ageing, which was led by Everald Compton, Susan Ryan and Brian Howe, which went ahead and did its report anyway. If you're interested in positive ageing, you don't abolish that panel. They got rid of $1.2 billion straightaway. That was funding to go to residential aged care to assist in increased wages, training and workforce development. That was one of the first acts of the Abbott government in 2013—$1.2 billion of funding cut. When Labor opposed that, it took them 32 minutes in this chamber—I was the shadow minister for ageing, in the opposition—to cut $1.2 billion in funding in aged-care workforce development. That's all it took them. Then, in June the next year, they cut the dementia supplement and the veterans supplement to help people stay in their homes and get the care they needed. That was to help providers support people living with dementia and veterans staying in their homes.</para>
<para>So don't come into this place and give us sermons about aged care as if the last nine years didn't happen. They certainly happened. That's why there was a royal commission. That's why the interim report was titled <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">eglect</inline>. That's why the final report talks about far-reaching and almost traumatic changes that need to happen in the sector, because those opposite neglected it again and again and again. They can barely find a budget or a MYEFO where they didn't cut funding again and again. This is what the 2016-17 budget papers said.</para>
<para>This is the coalition government: 'The government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years'. That's not the $1.2 billion I was referring to before; that's additional cuts of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the aged-care funding instrument that determines the level of funding paid to aged-care providers. So they cut $1.2 billion directly from the sector and they wondered why there was neglect. They wondered why people were leaving the sector when they weren't being paid enough and didn't have career development, training or opportunity. People were malnourished. There were maggots. They were literally starving in soiled bedsheets and soiled clothing under the Liberal and National parties' watch. Those two royal commissions are damning.</para>
<para>This Labor government is trying to correct the failures, the follies and the foibles of those opposite, who failed the aged-care sector and failed those people who were going before us who needed care. They were vulnerable, living with dementia. More than half the people living in residential aged care are living with dementia, and those opposite failed them monumentally. They shuffle money around all the time. We saw situations where, for example, they would take money off 26,000 packages from residential aged care and they would give it to home care for 10,000 packages. There was no new money; it was sleight of hand. That's why the sector was crying out for reform. Only this Labor government is taking reform and taking seriously the recommendations of the royal commission.</para>
<para>If the recommendations were taken seriously by the former coalition government, they should have had a look at the fact that the interim report, titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>, was handed down in October 2019. And what did they do? They continued to use sleight of hand to cut funding. And they did things just before the interim report was handed down to see if they could provide a bit more money in the sector to satiate the aged-care providers and, effectively, to con people. We're putting more money—billions of dollars extra—in aged care because those opposite failed the sector and failed our senior Australians. <inline font-style="italic">Care, dignity and respect</inline> is the title of the final report. That's what those opposite failed to do—provide the care, dignity and respect that those older Australians deserve.</para>
<para>This government is taking steps and acting on the recommendations of the royal commission. We know that it's backed by the sector. I noticed those opposite not quoting the sector. COTA, the Council on the Ageing, suggested to the Senate inquiry looking into this bill that it welcomes the commitments made in this legislation and supports its intentions. 'We warmly welcome priorities which the Albanese government and the minister for Aged Care has given this bill in the legislative program. This is unprecedented.' That what COTA said. National Seniors Australia commented to the Senate inquiry:</para>
<para>The peak consumer body for older Australians, National seniors Australia, as long advocated for improvements to aged-care services and, as such, we support the intent of proposed amendments.' The HSU, the Health Services Union, supports the bill in its quick passage through the Senate, welcomes the new government's prompt and decisive action in aged care in making it a first order of business for their members. I praise the members who work in aged care: the nurses, the personal carers, the administrators. The 'heroes of the pandemic' those opposite called them but never supported them. The HSU said, 'This bill addresses the deepening workforce crisis, and the public's trust deficit in the sector is long overdue and therefore most welcome in terms of this legislation.'</para>
<para>The coalition has no good track record. John Howard in 1997 produced the Aged Care Act, which governs this particular sector, and those coalition members opposite who were in the dregs of the previous government should hang their heads in shame for what they've done to the aged-care sector in this country. They never saw a budget or a MYEFO where they wouldn't cut funding. This bill goes a long way, but it is a first step for transparency and accountability. It makes sure that those in the sector know they have to deliver the care that they espouse in their propaganda and their advertising.</para>
<para>This is about committing extra support. We're making sure that, from 1 July 2023, approved providers of residential aged care and the specified kinds of flexible care have a new responsibility to have a registered nurse on site. This will help alleviate pressures on public hospitals and GP clinics. The sector has been crying out for 24/7 care for years, and the coalition refused to listen to them. Again and again, people from the sector would come to this place and speak to Labor and coalition members, and the coalition government would refuse to act on it. The member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, was the Minister for Social Services for a long time. He cut billions of dollars out of the sector when he was the Treasurer and also when he was the Minister for Social Services. The previous government neglected older Australians.</para>
<para>What about clarity? There was virtually no clarity at all in the sector in terms of where they spent money. At one stage, the previous coalition government, knowing full well that they'd failed the sector, decided to throw some money at it. There were no conditions on workforce development training and no conditions on how the money would be spent in terms of food, standards of nutrition or quality of care. Nothing like that was done. It was just, 'We'll throw some money here and there, because we know we've got a political problem.' Aged care was a political problem for the previous coalition government. They knew it—they had a royal commission. They didn't act on the recommendations quickly enough. They got the interim report in October 2019, and they didn't do what they needed to do.</para>
<para>We're going to cap the amount that can be charged to people receiving home-care packages for administration and management. We're going to make sure that we cap these charges and maximise the funding available to address the care needs of the 210,000 people currently receiving home-care packages. I can't count the number of times I've stood in this place or up in the Federation Chamber giving example after example of people who had to wait for assessments, then, when they got an assessment that they needed a level 4 home-care package, they could only get a level 2 and then only eight to nine months—sometimes even 12 months—later. People were dying before they got the care they deserved. Families were in distress. It wasn't just Labor MPs; I guarantee coalition MPs got the same entreaties and urgings for help that we used to get. I gave example after example in speeches I made in this place. I think I've spoken more on aged care than I have on just about any other topic, but the coalition government failed.</para>
<para>For 14 years before I came to this place in 2007, I sat on the board of Carinity, an aged-care provider in Queensland. As a lawyer working in private practice, I and my colleagues at Neumann & Turnour Lawyers acted for many, many aged-care providers. I worked with and for the sector. After I became Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing, I remember going to a conference and speaking on aged-care reform and what we were doing. I saw so many of my clients in Queensland—in Brisbane, at the time—sitting there. They urged reform.</para>
<para>I want to commend the current Minister for Health and Aged Care, because he was the architect of Living Longer Living Better, which was prostituted and abolished, effectively, by the previous coalition government when they came to power in 2013. I'm so glad to see him as the minister now in this place, along with the member for Lilley as the Minister for Aged Care and the Minister for Sport, to make sure that we can do it better.</para>
<para>We need people to live longer and live better in this country, and we need to make sure that the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing and the things that people like Everald Compton, the late great Susan Ryan and Brian Howe said about turning grey into gold are taken up. I want to commend the former member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, who had the vision to put forward that panel on positive ageing, and I'm pleased that the current member for Lilley is now the Minister for Aged Care, taking up that step.</para>
<para>This government is absolutely committed to remedying the failings of the previous government. They should have a look at themselves and what they've done. It's no good coming into this place and acting as if the last nine years didn't happen. They were there; they were on the treasury bench. It's no good being in office and in power if you're not doing things.</para>
<para>This government will act. We will act on aged care. We will give people the dignity, the security and the humanity that they deserve. I'm pleased to support this legislation. It's part of the first steps that the Albanese Labor government is taking to address the myriad failings of those opposite on aged care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to start by praising our aged-care workers and thanking them for the work that they do in often very difficult circumstances. Due to recurrent cuts to investment in our aged-care system for too long, Australians in our aged-care system have been neglected and not treated with the care they deserve. As a society, we now need to decide how we want to treat our older Australians. I believe that, if implemented, the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 will play a role in ensuring older Australians are treated with dignity and respect and that they will get the care they need when they need it.</para>
<para>As we stand here today, the aged-care system is in crisis. It is a crisis that has been developing for many decades because of poor policy. Back in 2018, the ABC's <inline font-style="italic">Four </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">orners</inline> program shone a light on the neglect and abuse in our aged-care system. As a consequence, a royal commission was instigated. The royal commission's final report is sobering reading. There has been a systemic failure. Over the last few years, the crisis in our aged-care system has been further compounded by the pandemic and ongoing staff shortages. As Peter Rozen QC told the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the aged care system we have in 2020 is not a system that is failing. It is the system operating as it was designed to operate.</para></quote>
<para>That is to say, our aged-care system has evolved over time so that its primary purpose is profit. Older Australians are viewed as a commodity to be monetised, as opposed to respected citizens who deserve our care.</para>
<para>This bill focuses on three key areas and implements recommendations 86 and 88 of the royal commission. It requires a registered nurse to be on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at every aged-care facility. It limits the amount of money that can be charged on administration for home-care packages and requires greater transparency through greater public reporting standards. It also requires the capping of fees by home-care providers. These changes will lead to greater fairness and transparency and help our older Australians receive better care.</para>
<para>Thousands of my constituents in Mackellar live in aged-care facilities, and I want to ensure that they are well cared for. As a doctor, I know that aged-care facilities house people who have high rates of health complexities and comorbidities—people who, at any time of day or night, may need the medical assistance of a registered nurse. A 24-hour, seven-days-a-week onsite registered nurse will not only give aged-care residents the care they require but also support an overrun health system by reducing the need for ambulances and hospital visits.</para>
<para>Improved aged-care services is a major issue for my community. Concern about aged-care services is something that I heard voiced repeatedly throughout the 2022 election campaign. One of those people I recently spoke to is an aged-care nurse who has worked across multiple aged-care facilities and has provided home assistance in the Mackellar electorate for the last six years. She recently wrote to me, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Even after the Royal Commission I still see people in appalling unhygienic and undesirable living conditions. Clients who are left unattended for long periods of time, even after pressing their call buttons for help and clients who are overmedicated as a way to manage.</para></quote>
<para>Today I'm speaking on behalf of the thousands of Mackellar residents in aged care, on behalf of their families and on behalf of all the aged-care workers who care for and love their residents, and who want to see them live a life of dignity and respect—and also to help them in their last days. I'm also speaking on behalf of every Australian who believes that we can and should treat our older Australians better. I hear and understand the concerns that some aged-care providers have in relation to the lack of available registered nurses and the financial implications of mandating a 24/7 on-site registered nurse. We do have a skills shortage; we are in crisis. Just in the aged-care sector alone there is a deficit of 14,000 nurses. Fixing this skills gap will require the new government to increase wages and improve training opportunities for aged-care workers at an economy-wide level. I am satisfied, however, that the legislation provides sufficient support to assist with the transition. I do agree, however, with Senator Pocock's concerns outlined in the Senate report that there needs to be further rigour around exemptions.</para>
<para>This bill goes to the very heart of what it means to be a caring society. Of course we all want to see our older Australians living with dignity and respect, and enjoying their golden years. Let's bring care back into our aged care. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's great to hear a member for Mackellar speak in a positive light! It's been a long time since we've had that, so I welcome that and appreciate the words that she said because I think she has actually got to the core of it. This Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 is about how we treat our older Australians.</para>
<para>I, for one, know that as I get older I have a closer look at aged-care facilities. Which ones are good, which ones are not so good? Which ones have the best opportunities! It's something that's so important to all of us—for our loved ones, for our friends, our families and our communities. I guess this goes back to how we as a nation stand up and say, 'The way you judge a nation is in the way it treats its most vulnerable.' People who are living in aged-care homes do deserve the respect and dignity that they've earned.</para>
<para>I think about the time of my journey in this place and of going to the different aged-care facilities across my electorate, where you see some amazing people doing amazing work and getting very little credit. I think about what we learnt through the royal commission report—and it had that awful title, <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. It's one simple word but it summed up everything that was happening. It was neglect of the people living there. As the member for Blair pointed out, we heard the horror stories of people with maggots in their rooms and people not getting fed. We'd see pictures of an aged-care resident getting a hotdog without bread and a little dob of potato, and that was their lunch. That's just not fair; it's not right and it's not what we should be about.</para>
<para>I think about the time I spent at Goonawarra during the pandemic—during the lockdown. They had 170 cases of COVID and 20 Australians lost their lives. And there was silence from the then government in supporting these people who were doing it extremely hard. Anyone who has spent time wearing full PPE knows just how uncomfortable it is and how difficult it is to work in—and how easy it is to make a mistake. I know I did it myself—I had to scratch my nose and bang! You have to go straight off and redo it. These aged care workers don't get paid a lot of money—and I'm also talking about the kitchen staff and the cleaners—but they're the ones who are out there, day in, day out, dealing with families. Many people who they deal with are from migrant backgrounds; they didn't have a lot of friends and family and didn't have an understanding of what was going on. Suddenly they were locked in their rooms 24/7, couldn't see their families and couldn't see their friends. But each and every day those aged-care workers turned up and did their jobs, and did them exceptionally well.</para>
<para>They put everything they had on the line. They were kept away from their own families; they went through and did that. And they copped the feigned praise from those opposite, calling them 'heroes'. But when it came to the crunch, when they needed help and support, the former government went missing. We know that that because we learned through the royal commission what was going on and the difficulties that were being faced, yet the former government still just stood there and kept kicking back against it, not wanting to support the royal commission and, in effect, not wanting to support our older Australians.</para>
<para>What this bill today is doing is putting in place three of the government's urgent election commitments. It will put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care. I'm proud to rise and support that, because it's so important. There is more than a great urgency. This is an absolute need. It has to happen very quickly.</para>
<para>I am on the record in this place raising the issues of aged care and the issues that we were left with by the previous government. During the election campaign, we ran hard on the fact that Labor would reform the aged-care system, mainly focusing on the dignity and health of residents. I remember having the then shadow minister, now the Minister for Home Affairs, in my electorate to speak with residents and staff firsthand about what we had planned for aged care and what we were committed to do, and it was very well received. I think they appreciated that someone was listening.</para>
<para>We went to one place in Kilmore, a beautiful spot. We sat around and had a chat to the residents—no fanfare, no nothing. That's what the minister is like. She's just a wonderful, warm person. We got to meet a lady there. If you ever get the chance to go through an aged-care home, talk to the residents. You find wonderful stories about the things that people have done over their lives. I remember I went to one in Healesville back when that was in McEwen. One of President Eisenhower's secretaries was in that home. I just wish I'd had a tape recorder to record some of those stories. At the one in Kilmore, we met a lady who was related to someone who's probably a little bit less well known but in my circle was a bit of a legend. That was Burt Munro, who Anthony Hopkins played in the movie <inline font-style="italic">The World's Fastest Indian</inline>. When we sat there and listened to her stories, we could see her eyes light up because someone was talking to her about her history and what she'd been through. I asked her specifically, 'Was Burt as cheeky as what the movie portrayed?' She said they were very kind to Burt in the movie! He was a legend in New Zealand, a man who rode around the world. He rode a 1938 Indian and became the world's fastest on a motorbike of that class. It is an amazing story, and an amazing story by someone who is in our community, someone who came here and spent her life here.</para>
<para>These are people who have worked hard, paid taxes, helped build our communities and generally been the foundation of the great country that we have today. We should respect them and give them every ounce of dignity, because they have earned it. It's not something they are putting their hands out for as some sort of entitlement. They've actually earned it from the work they've done and the opportunities they have given us. We only have to think back to people like our war veterans and their families. We often talk about the men and women of our ADF over the years but also their families and what they went through. These people did it hard, they did it tough and they built what we've got. All of us should say, 'Aged care is so important, and we should make sure that people are looked after and given dignity.'</para>
<para>This bill is about delivering on what we promised. Think about having a registered nurse in an aged-care home 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most of us would think that that should be in place. It's a no-brainer, really. Why hasn't it happened? Why did we go through years of cuts to aged-care budgets, cuts to staff and cuts to the treatment of the workforce there? From July next year the legislation will introduce a new responsibility for providers of residential aged care and specific kinds of flexible care to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at each home 24 hours a day, seven days a week.</para>
<para>You will hear cries from the leftover former government members about the cost. They always talk in terms of cost, but they never talk in terms of investment. What does having a nurse available 24/7 mean? It means less stress on our ambulance system, doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency departments. We know that they are getting overrun at the moment right across the country. Despite what some newspapers say, Victoria's not alone in this. New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia—everyone is dealing with the same thing. They're dealing with COVID and the effects of that. So emergency departments are being overrun. Having access to 24-hour nursing at an aged-care home means taking pressure off our ambulances and the emergency staff at our hospitals. This investment in putting nurses in place saves us money at the other end—at our emergency services. It saves our ambulances from being ramped. Victoria proudly—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, this is the idiocy of the argument that gets put by those opposite. I'll gladly take that interjection, because Victoria has the highest number of paramedics in the country. The whole issue that we're dealing with is the result of a pandemic. If you lot had invested money in aged care instead of cutting it in every budget, maybe we wouldn't have had a royal commission report that was simply titled, <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. You might be funny and cheeky and thinking, 'Ha ha! Look at me! I'm going stick my nose in and carry on,' but you're making a goose of yourself, because—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>this legislation and what we're putting through is addressing the nine years of what your mob did when you were in government, and it's something that you should be ashamed about.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's the goose, not you, Chair!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely! No, no. I'm never going to—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the honourable member knows that he needs to go through the chair, without a doubt. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we know that the chair has my absolute respect. It just shows the ignorance from those opposite on what this is about and their seriousness about aged care. I think he's the member for Casey. Healesville is in Casey. We actually went to those places to look after them—to actually go and see what was going on and see what they were dealing with. It's interesting that you find the ability to laugh about the idea of having nurses back in hospitals and trying to take pressure off ambulance systems—that's a really intelligent thing to do! But it's not unexpected, I guess, because, when we talk about investing in health and aged care and bringing people together, the only people who sit in this place who don't want to do that are those sitting in the leftovers of the LAP.</para>
<para>The 2020 Aged Care Workforce Census reported 80 per cent of residential facilities having registered nurses, but we need to get those numbers up, and to recognise the difficulties, as mentioned by previous speakers, about the shortages. These are not people you can just turn a tap to get—'Do a four week course and away you go.' These are people who have very special talents and the ability to work in a very tough area. It's not easy to find people with the compassion and the ability to work in aged care. I know. When I see them doing it every day, I'm in awe of it. The ability to do the things they do is just something special.</para>
<para>Today I met with workers from the ASU about what's happening there, and in my area we've seen a lot of growth in the aged-care facilities but what we also see now in our communities is councils walking away from this. Victoria has the best community care sector in the country, and councils are walking away from that. It's easy to sit there and say, 'Oh, we'll just get an outside provider to come in.' But I'll tell you what: it doesn't happen. Outside providers focus on one thing: profit. As to the idea that people are going to drive an hour and a half out of Melbourne to go to a regional area to give people care—it just doesn't happen. You can absolutely go to private providers, but they are not there in the regions, in the small towns, in the country communities where we need them. And that's not something new. It has been happening for a long time. And it's harder and harder to get people. We use this analogy about people working in aged care: they get paid less than someone working at Bunnings on a Sunday. That's not right.</para>
<para>It goes back to what I said at the start: this is about how we, as a country, see ourselves. It's about how we treat and respect the most vulnerable in our community.</para>
<para>This is an issue that has been developing for a long time, and this House should be supporting every opportunity to help this government deliver its promises and help deliver better aged care for our communities, because it's one thing that we are all going to face one day. We're all going to get there, hopefully, or our families are going to be in aged care. And what we need to be able to do is stand back and say, 'We've done everything we can do to help make it better, safer and more dignified.' If that means making sure that they get proper food and proper care and that they have face-to-face contact with people, then that's the least we can do for the generations of people that have built this country and made it what it is. With those remarks, I commend this bill to the House and wish it a very, very speedy passage.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to begin with a message to the residents in aged care across the country—the seniors of our nation, who deserve our deepest respect. At times the political debate about the many issues in aged care, so brutally exposed by the recent royal commission, is necessarily focused on the very important issues of funding, regulations and the workforce, all of which I will speak about today.</para>
<para>In this building, aged care can sometimes be talked about like it's a burden, a budget blowout, a massive red tape, the work of staff who are deemed unskilled. Aged care is not a burden. The treatment of our elders is how we should measure the greatness of our nation. In this political forum, the people at the heart of what we're talking about are often left out of the conversation.</para>
<para>So, on the off-chance that there are some folks watching the live proceedings of the House of Representatives from their aged-care home, I want to say that your care, your happiness, your wellbeing and your dignity matter. I want to extend my deepest respect to you and the contributions that you've made to this country in your lives.</para>
<para>The royal commission's report on the state of aged care in Australia was simply titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. It spoke of neglect in federal funding, neglect in regulatory oversight, neglect of the workplace conditions and remuneration of aged-care workers—who provide highly skilled, crucially important work—neglect of care for the people who raised all of us.</para>
<para>When the former Liberal government deregulated aged care, to the extent where aged-care providers did not need to have anyone onsite with nursing qualifications, nurses and specialist geriatric doctors spoke out in alarm. They knew that people living in care facilities were some of the most vulnerable in our communities and that, without the oversight of a dedicated, qualified nurse, their health, wellbeing and lives would be put at risk. We've seen the full dangers of this during the COVID pandemic in the last two years and the dreadful things that have happened in aged-care facilities around this country.</para>
<para>The royal commission into aged care heard testimony after testimony that laid bare the worst of their warnings, horrors that no-one could wish upon their worst enemy let alone their sick, elderly mother or father, their uncle or their aunt. That report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline> is a national shame but is also an opportunity. The full suite of recommendations from the royal commission must be implemented, and I'm pleased today to support the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 to get started on doing just that.</para>
<para>We have to mandate that residential aged care and care approved providers provide a registered nurse onsite in appropriate facilities, and that nurse needs to be on duty 24/7 from as soon as possible—from 23 July as mandated. It's important that we cap home care. It's important that we limit the prices of aged-care packages. It's important that we limit the ability of approved providers to charge exit amounts. Older people, vulnerable people, need to understand the cost of the care that they're committing to when they enter a facility. Transparency of information regarding the provision of aged-care facilities is extremely important.</para>
<para>I'm particularly proud to support my colleague from Mayo's amendment to this bill. Subordinate legislation is important. We know that legislation at the discretion of the minister has its advantages and opportunities. It's important, though, that parliamentarians are provided with an opportunity to review their subordinate principles. The community deserves transparency over what the government is providing for us.</para>
<para>The framers of the Constitution vested legislative power in the Australian parliament because they felt: 'The people's elected representatives are particularly well-suited to the exercise of the open-ended discretion to choose ends, which is the essence of the legislative task.' The process of executive lawmaking by subordinate legislation lacks transparency. It lacks the publicity of the parliamentary process. It therefore reduces the accountability of the exercise of legislative power. We need to have greater transparency of the legislation that we see and, on those grounds, I'm very proud to support the amendment of my colleague from Mayo.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a real pleasure to speak today on this Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. I've got to say that today is' thank an aged-care worker day', so I think it can be no more an applicable time for this to come through than today. As I said, it's a real honour to speak on this today.</para>
<para>I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our aged-care workers. Everyone who works in our aged-care homes, whether they're our aged-care workers, our cooks, our cleaners, our nurses, our people working in admin: you are all important. I want to thank the Health Services Union also for raising this as well—in terms of 'thank an aged-care worker day'—and for all the work that you do every day to support aged-care workers and raise awareness of what's happening. I also want to thank the many aged-care workers who have raised these issues in this bill today. They have been tireless and fearless over many years. They've never given up. I am really, really proud to be here today to talk on this because it is so essential, not only for our aged-care workers but of course, most importantly, for our aged-care residents.</para>
<para>I come from one of the oldest age demographics in Australia, the electorate of Gilmore. Our aged-care residents are much loved, and they deserve that dignity and respect that they should have. I think that's why there is so much passion from our aged-care workers to reform the system and to make it better. As I said, it is about our aged-care residents. I also want to thank our aged-care nursing homes as well. I meet with a variety of nursing home representatives across my electorate, and we've had many a roundtable discussion about how we can improve the system. It is really good to see people working together.</para>
<para>Of course, I was absolutely devastated and heartbroken at the revelations of the aged-care royal commission, although it shouldn't come as any surprise because of those many discussions with aged-care workers. I know that many people in my electorate of Gilmore were also devastated by what came out of the aged-care royal commission and the harm particularly for our residents. 'Neglect': a powerful word and a truly devastating one. That was, of course, the summation of the royal commission. Older Australians deserve better than neglect. They deserve a system that is there for them as they age, to give them dignity and to care, to really care. That's what aged care should be: care, not neglect.</para>
<para>I have heard so many heart-wrenching stories over my time as the member for Gilmore, both in aged care and in home care. I hear lot of stories and a lot of people contact my office. As I said, my electorate has one of the oldest populations in the country. There are a lot of people who have come up to me, particularly people who might have their parent in an aged-care nursing home; they're worried about them, for their care. Sometimes they're children who might be in another state, but they just want to know that their parents are being looked after. It is a really huge issue that impacts so many people.</para>
<para>Of course, we know the electorate of Gilmore, on the beautiful New South Wales South Coast, is a place that many people want to retire to, and I can completely understand that. It is a beautiful place. It's a beautiful coastline. It's made up of around 100 individual villages, each with their own personality. Of course, we have many aged-care homes that are truly beautiful and really well loved in their communities. But it also means that there are a lot of people that have firsthand experience of our deteriorating aged-care system.</para>
<para>Since I was elected, one of the most common complaints I've heard is about the home-care system. In a regional area like ours there are limited providers, and it's really hard to find the right services. I just want to talk about some of the most recent examples. Patricia from Berry contacted my office just yesterday. She was receiving cleaning services but, without explanation, they have all of a sudden stopped. My office is working with her to find out what's happening. But complaints about access to providers and the fees they are charging are complaints I hear often.</para>
<para>In another example, a 95-year-old lady from Ulladulla had been waiting since January for her level 4 package, which she really needed. Her daughter told me that she's been on a level 2 package but her mobility is failing and she needs more equipment to help with her quality of life. The good news is that my office helped get that package through, finally, but this, unfortunately, is such a common story.</para>
<para>Sadly, many people have also told me they simply couldn't afford the prices charged under the package. Some home-care providers were charging incredible amounts in administration charges. A Burrill Lake resident told me one provider was taking 46 per cent of their package. They tried to find one that was cheaper, but there simply weren't any. Too many people are waiting too long, struggling to find services and being charged too much when they do find them. The system is broken.</para>
<para>This bill will place a cap on the amount that home-care providers can charge for administration and management, as well as removing the ability for providers to charge exit amounts. That is good news in our community. I know it will be very well received. Local people should feel confident that their money is going directly to care. After all, that is what it's for.</para>
<para>All up, this bill implements three key changes to fix our aged-care system. The second change this bill will make is to ensure that residential aged-care facilities have a registered nurse on site and on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is in response to another of the key recommendations of the royal commission.</para>
<para>We need to stop unnecessary hospital trips for our older Australians. We have a hospital system buckling under the pressure of COVID-19, combined with a GP crisis and a health system that has been mismanaged at a state and federal level for years. Just last week I attended the nurses rally at Shoalhaven Hospital. I note that there were many rallies across my electorate, and we had many nurses from Milton, Moruya and Batemans Bay as well. Many of those nurses came up to me to thank me and Labor for the changes we are making to aged care. It's given them hope for their future and hope for their patients. I wished them well in their fight for better pay and conditions from the state government.</para>
<para>I just want to take this moment, as well, to say that the hospitals in my area—the nurses, the hospital workers—are absolutely brilliant. They do a fantastic job, and I think there's general consensus right across the community in our region that that is the case. But they need more support from their state system; they absolutely do. I've lost track of the number of times I've been called about the bed block outside Shoalhaven Hospital. I say this as well because the nurses and the healthcare workers want a better system. Everybody wants a better system, and that's why nurses were rallying in a state system—because they want better for their patients. They want ratios. When we look at what we've achieved through this bill in implementing recommendations from the royal commission, we're actually moving forward, and I think there's great frustration that the New South Wales state Liberal government are just not providing that support or those ratios for their nurses. At the federal level we have taken leadership in that, and I'm proud of that.</para>
<para>I'll tell you who else was at that rally at Shoalhaven hospital: Katelin McInerney, the Labor candidate for Kiama. She's a mum, and she will absolutely stand with nurses, and she was there. There was no sighting of the Liberal state member for Kiama—or for South Coast—and that really disappoints me. We need to be supporting our nurses, just like we, federally, are supporting our aged-care workers. Everyone—our nurses and our workers—deserve better. I do want to say thank you to all our nurses across the health system for everything they do. We will absolutely keep working hard for you.</para>
<para>We need to make sure that, if there is a way that we can stop older Australians ending up in hospital unnecessarily, we support that to happen. So I'm really pleased about these changes. I know that registered nurses won't fix everything; they won't solve everything. In many cases, they certainly do need the support of good GPs. I'm also having the conversations with local GPs, like Dr Kay, who are delivering great GP services in our local aged-care homes. But she also needs support to keep doing this. We need to support our GPs more to do that important work in nursing homes to support our registered nurses. But this bill is a really good place to start.</para>
<para>We need to make sure that, when people living in aged-care homes have a problem that can be dealt with quickly and easily, there is someone there to do it. It just makes sense, and it is what the royal commission said needs to happen. We are doing it and we are doing it quickly. There is no time to waste. I know that this means we need to find the nurses—amazing, wonderful, beloved nurses. We need to upskill our workforce and we need to get the nurses we lost during COVID-19 back into the industry.</para>
<para>How do we do that? We start with a pay rise. Our nurses shouldn't be moving to other industries because they pay more for easier work. They should be paid fairly for the work they do, and that's a key part of Labor's aged-care plan: making sure that happens. We've also announced fee-free TAFE as part of the outcomes of the jobs summit, targeted at skill shortage areas, starting with nurses. Fantastic news. It will help, absolutely. It's one more step, one more piece of the puzzle, in fixing a system left to disintegrate for too long.</para>
<para>The third change this bill will make is to help ensure greater transparency on what aged-care providers are spending their money on. Once again, local people in my electorate of Gilmore want to know that their money—and aged care isn't cheap!—is going to care. That's what residents moving into care want to know. It's what their families want to know. This bill will ensure that this is transparent and that there is accountability in aged care.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be part of a government that is working every step of the way to ensuring that every Australian has dignity, humanity and support as they age. The families of older Australians in my electorate deserve to have confidence in the facilities that they entrust to look after their loved ones. They shouldn't have to worry about whether their mum, dad, auntie, uncle is getting fed, is having their bed changed, is getting help to go to the toilet, if they need it. Not one single person should lose someone they care about because they didn't get the care they needed when they needed it. So I am delighted to support this bill. I support it wholeheartedly. I want us to get on with putting the care back into aged care. I am proud to be part of a government finally delivering dignity and humanity for our older Australians. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 and support the amendment that was introduced by the member for Farrer. I want to make it very clear right from the start that I support the concept of as much highly-qualified professional support in aged care as possible, and the idea of 24/7 nursing care is an honourable goal to aim for.</para>
<para>My concern, though, is: if it's legislated, particularly in some of my more regional smaller communities, and the aged-care provider can't find the staff, and if they are then in breach of legislated conditions, what happens then? Are they going to be closed down?</para>
<para>I watched very closely the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and there were some tragic stories. But I've got to say that, in my part of the world, I didn't see too much of that. A lot of the providers in the Parkes electorate are smaller and they're community owned or maybe run by the local council. We have seen some amalgamation of late. McLean Care, for instance, have come in and taken over the Alkira and the nursing home in Gunnedah. We've seen Whiddon homes that are servicing Narrabri and Wee Waa and out at Burke, and they've just taken over Fairview in Moree. But my experience from visiting these places is that the folks that are residents there are getting great service from very dedicated staff. They're doing the best that they can to attract the staff that are available. Quite frankly, they should take, and recognise, the people who have come from overseas to work in aged care. Just out of interest, the second language that's spoken at home in the Parkes electorate, that's not English, is Nepalese. We've got people from Nepal, the Philippines and the subcontinent countries who are doing a great job filling in that workforce gap.</para>
<para>We are also doing a lot of work locally, and I want to give a shout-out to my home town and the Gwydir Learning Region, an organisation that I used to be chair of, that is training people in a cert III in aged care at the local school, because there are no tertiary facilities in Gwydir Shire. Over the last 15 to 20 years, maybe a couple of hundred people have been trained up and are now working in aged care. They are fantastic. When my father was a resident at Naroo—a facility that he was actually instrumental in building, and he was chairman of the committee, and ultimately became a resident—the local people who had had a career change later in life, as mature people, did an amazing job.</para>
<para>The most important thing is that there are services within local communities. A lot of my towns are more than 100 kilometres apart. I've been working with the Lake Cargelligo all-care committee now for probably more than a decade. It was started by a couple of gentlemen whose wives had dementia and there weren't any services locally. They'd been married to their wives for over 60 years, and their wives were in facilities 120 kilometres away. These chaps, who were in their 80s, couldn't be there every day, as you need to be if you've got a family member with dementia, to help with the feeding and just the continuation of being in the life of someone who's going through the terrible experience of dementia, and it was just terrible. All those years together and, in the final years of their lives, they're separated. My concern for other towns that I have is what happens if they have to provide nurses 24/7 and they can't.</para>
<para>Over the years I've worked very closely with many of the aged-care facilities in my electorate. There is Cooinda at Coonabarabran; I've been helping them by working with some capital grants to upgrade their facilities so that they can do what's necessary. Another great example is Cooee Lodge at Gilgandra. The community of Gilgandra has actually made aged care and disability care an industry that actually droughtproofs the community. They've constructed duplex villas for people to go into for retirement, there is a hostel nursing home and then dementia care. So people are actually moving to Gilgandra because of the care that's offered in that community.</para>
<para>But over the last, probably, 15 to 20 years we've seen a change—we've seen more aged-care packages delivered at home. A lot of these facilities were built basically as hostels, where people might go and spend five or 10 of the later years of their lives, but they're now going in as high-care patients. The funding model allowed for a bond—and the low interest rates have also impacted on aged-care facilities' viability, because the return on those bonds hasn't been as high over the last few years—and now that people are mainly there for end-of-life care that model has broken down. So most of the facilities in my electorate now are in financial difficulties. We're going to have to look at that funding model because it's just not working the way it did. Also, a lot of my communities have a higher proportion of older folk who are on pensions. They don't have a house that's worth $500,000 or $600,000 which they can sell to pay for the bond. Many of the homes in these small country towns are not worth anything like that. So funding is particularly difficult.</para>
<para>Despite all of this, I believe that the people in my electorate are getting good care through the dedication of the staff involved. Obviously, in the bigger centres like Dubbo we have some great facilities. Basically, there are retirement suburbs. There are nursing homes supported there—three or four of those. A lot of people are actually coming into Dubbo now to retire. But the ones I'm particularly concerned about are these smaller towns of 1,000 or 2,000 people and that are a hundred kilometres apart—places like Bourke, where Whiddon provide the services now. Cobar has Lilliane Brady Village, which was driven by the local council and named after the very determined and famous hardworking mayor, Lilliane Brady, who, sadly, passed away in her 91st year. These communities have banded together to build facilities so that they can care for their loved ones at home. That's what we've got to do.</para>
<para>I do recognise and understand the reasons for the legislation in the way that it has been presented; I just don't think the government understands that there could be unforeseen consequences in this. I'm hoping that the government will support the member for Farrer's amendment so that the exemptions mean these smaller regional facilities can continue.</para>
<para>This is seriously one of the biggest issues we're facing as a country. By the time baby boomers, like me, need that higher care, not only is the expense going to be higher for the government; we're also going to need a workforce. That's the other side of it. I am supportive of reform now because the issues around aged care are only going to multiply as baby boomers need that higher level of care. I am just expressing extreme caution on putting legislation that may ultimately lead to some facilities having to close. That would be a complete disaster.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBRIDE</name>
    <name.id>248353</name.id>
    <electorate>Dobell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Aged care matters. It matters in communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales, where one in five people are aged over 65, and it matters in every suburb, town and city across the country, where old Australians and those who love them deserve better. That's why it's crucial this legislation, the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, is supported and urgently implemented.</para>
<para>I want to start by saying to the many people in my community who live in residential aged care, are receiving home care or know someone in aged care: you deserve better. As a government we're acting on the recommendations handed down by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. In doing so I acknowledge those who shared their experiences with the royal commission and the people of my community who encouraged me to share their stories in this place—stories which are familiar to so many of us, which are often heartbreaking, disturbing and deeply personal. I also acknowledge the members of the Health Services Union, who stood up for older Australians and those who care for them.</para>
<para>Nicole, from Chittaway Bay, in the electorate I represent, contacted my office earlier this year to talk about her experience with aged care. She told me that we need urgent change to fix our broken aged-care system. Nicole said that aged care is overstretched and older people are paying the price. She told me: 'My mother is currently in a nursing home, and every time I visit her I can see quite clearly that there is a shortage of staff available to help her. I often search around for someone to assist me if help is needed. It worries me, and I often worry she is being neglected.' Elizabeth, from Bateau Bay, also contacted me, in July this year, about her husband, who is living with dementia and is in residential aged care. Elizabeth told me she has to spend hours a day caring for him herself because there aren't enough staff to give him the care he needs. She said she's desperate for aged-care reform. And that's what the Albanese government is doing. This legislation is a big step forward in fixing our broken aged-care system. It will respond to recommendations from the royal commission's final report and will help us as a nation to put security, dignity and humanity back into aged care.</para>
<para>This bill introduces a responsibility for approved aged-care providers to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at every aged-care home across Australia 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This will give older Australians the care they need and their families the comfort and assurance they need. It will also prevent thousands of avoidable and distressing trips to the hospital emergency department.</para>
<para>I've spoken often in this House about my father and his experience living with younger onset Alzheimer's. The particular situation was this: my father was at a cottage having some respite so that my mum, his full-time carer, could have the break she needed. Dad had a history of kidney stones, and he had an episode whilst he was in respite care. He wasn't able to communicate his distress or the pain he was in. The staff there were capable and dedicated, but it was beyond their experience and what they were able to do. I had to rush and collect my dad from respite and take him to the emergency department at Gosford Hospital, where we spent hours in a busy emergency department. It's not a place that any older person, particularly someone living with dementia, should be in. It was very unsettling for my dad, it was very difficult for my mum and it is something that happens to so many older people and their families every single day. That's why it's so important that we have the right care at the right time—so that people can get the support that they need and so they don't end up in distress and with complications, where their situation progresses, they become worse and they end up in emergency departments or having long stays in geriatric or rehabilitation wards in hospitals.</para>
<para>This bill also introduces a cap on charges for the administration and management of people receiving home-care packages, and it removes exit fees altogether. There are currently more than 210,000 Australians receiving home-care packages, and they deserve quality care. They need to know that the care will be of a standard that they can rely on. Their families need that reassurance and that comfort. In capping these charges, the Albanese government will make sure providers are spending more of their funding on care, making sure that that investment from all of us goes into supporting staff and providing quality care.</para>
<para>The last measure of this bill is the government's commitment to improving integrity and accountability in aged care and providing greater transparency. We know that aged-care staff, the many capable and dedicated people who are working within our aged-care system, are as much the victims of aged care as the people that they're trying to support. So that integrity and accountability is absolutely integral in underpinning the reform to aged care, which is so desperately needed and which our government is determined to achieve.</para>
<para>This bill requires the secretary of the department to make information on residential aged-care services and provider expenditure publicly available, including information on labour, care, food and nutrition, cleaning, administration, maintenance and profit or loss. This information will be published online and will help older Australians make more informed choices about residential aged-care services and providers. These measures respond to increasing public concern about the aged-care system, and they'll improve transparency for those living in residential aged care, for those who love them and for the providers. This is an important step in making sure that older Australians get the care they deserve and that, as a community, we are determined to provide.</para>
<para>These measures build on legislation passed by the House in the previous sitting fortnight. For me, personally and as a local MP, I'm so pleased to say that that legislation, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, has now passed the Senate. This was the first bill—and I think this is not just symbolic but practical—passed by the 47th Parliament, and it addresses a series of urgent funding, quality and safety issues as recommended by the royal commission. It will provide additional protections for older Australians living in residential aged care and a series of measures to increase transparency and accountability, something which all Australians have called for. The royal commission's interim report into aged care was titled <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">eglect</inline>, and, after close to a decade of inaction under the previous government, Australia's aged-care system has fallen into crisis. We need to act, and we need to act with urgency because people's lives depend on it.</para>
<para>Another one of my constituents, Frank, from Mardi, wrote to me last year saying—and this reflects the former speaker: 'Every baby boomer we know dreads the thought of having to go into a nursing home. Just look back at the issues uncovered by the royal commission and, more recently, the shocking handling of infection control with COVID-19. We have all had experience with parents and relatives experiencing substandard care in nursing homes, so, absolutely, everybody plans to stay home for as long as possible.'</para>
<para>We need to make sure that older people, and those who love them, aren't fearful about the prospect of being forced into aged care; that they know with confidence that, if they enter aged care, they will get quality care; and that they will get the care that we all want for our parents, for our grandparents, for every older Australian.</para>
<para>I'd also like to reflect that later this month we'll be marking Dementia Action Week. In doing so, I recognise the work of Dementia Australia and, locally, the Central Coast Dementia Alliance. As many of you in this House know, dementia impacts close to half a million Australians, and almost 1.6 million Australians are involved in their care. People living with dementia are some of the most vulnerable Australians. They have been tragically let down by our broken aged-care system. Older Australians who have worked hard their whole lives—raised families, supported communities, run businesses, contributed, had meaningful lives—deserve to be treated with dignity. They deserve respect.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>105</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bunbury Primary School</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">M</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>rs MARINO () (): I want to congratulate the Bunbury Primary School. It is a school of around 450 students in my electorate and recently took out two national awards, being crowned Education Perfect Australian School of the Year and also Primary School of the Year, government category awards, at the recent Australian Education Awards ceremony for 2022. The excitement at the school was palpable when I dropped in a couple of days later. They recently held an afternoon tea for the staff and volunteers together just to celebrate this amazing achievement. It was striking to see the joy they shared in receiving this national accolade for excellence that they have been delivering for students and the community for many years. It's a testament to the leadership of Bunbury Primary School, which has able to engender a remarkable culture that is a testament to the very dedication of the staff who work there.</para>
<para>It's an independent K-6 public school with 15 per cent of students from language backgrounds other than English, and 32 per cent of students have a medical, imputed or diagnosed disability. The school's motto is 'Strive to achieve,' and they've been delivering through a holistic approach to each child. A key part of the performance is a strong and stable leadership team under Principal Shane Doherty and associate principals Franca Dillon and Adriana Palermo, who have all been at the school for well over 10 years. Under the IPS structure, Bunbury Primary has a school board that has contributed to the school's outstanding performance in close alliance with the parents and school community. The board includes the principal, P&C representatives, two teachers and three parent representatives. That structure enables parents to be closely involved in key planning and decisions affecting the school.</para>
<para>There's an all-encompassing approach to doing the very best they can for the school and the community. They don't give up on students or families. They look for ways to support and nurture them outside and within the school. It's backed by positive behaviour support, which means Bunbury Primary teaches social skills in the same way as academic skills: through explicit instruction. There are well-defined strategies for identifying, supporting and monitoring students at educational risk. The school's expectations of behaviour are: 'Be responsible, be caring, be respectful and be your best'—a great message for Bunbury Primary and surely one for our society as a whole. It is that holistic approach I referred to earlier.</para>
<para>It's an undisputed leader in delivering curriculum outcomes paired with social, emotional and behavioural outcomes. All practices and strategies applied are evidence based. They love data at Bunbury Primary. It's a digi-tech school, leading change in teaching and learning using digital technologies, embracing the use of technology from the perspective of student learning, teacher assessment and professional development as well as growing partnerships with the community. A fascinating digital technologies project the staff and students developed is the outdoor e-library, an interactive virtual e-library featuring student developed content covering a wide range of topics. Posted around the school are ebooks, which are locations with QR codes. With your smartphone or tablet you can download content covering subjects from Aboriginal heritage to water conservation to the Anzacs to recycling to road safety to health and wellbeing to fostering resiliency to SunSmart messages to solar energy—a wide range.</para>
<para>I am really proud that Bunbury Primary School have been recognised for their long-term dedication to their students—proud that this has been recognised on the national stage with these two awards. Commendations for the school, in this process, actually came from the school gardener—to mention one—the cleaners, the parents, the volunteers, through to education leaders and experts. And I am particularly proud of the people who have done the work for so many years. Their holistic approach is a very sound way that they have been able to influence the lives of young people in and around Bunbury.</para>
<para>I want to commend all of those involved and who have been involved for so long at Bunbury Primary School. You deserve this award, and the young people whose lives you've changed will always be grateful for the influence you've had on them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change, Population Growth</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the past 75 years, since World War II—after which the world embarked on a massive rebuild and growth phase—climate change, environmental degradation and global population growth have had a very similar trajectory. That should come as no surprise, as the three issues are entwined. Climate change contributes to environmental demise, environmental degradation in turn contributes to climate change and population growth contributes to both. There are now many who believe that, on all three issues of climate change, population growth and environmental loss, the world reached a tipping point some years ago.</para>
<para>Over the past 75 years, global population has trebled from 2½ billion people to over 7½ billion people. Carbon dioxide levels have now exceeded the highest point in human history. Environmental losses have reached critical levels. Since 1970—in just half a century—humanity has wiped out two-thirds of animal populations. Thirty-four per cent of the world's tropical rainforest, referred to as 'the lungs of the planet', have been lost, and another 30 per cent are partially degraded. Throughout the world, rivers and oceans are heavily polluted and depleted of fish, and coastal seagrasses are dying. Even here in Australia, an advanced country, the <inline font-style="italic">State of the environment </inline><inline font-style="italic">2021 </inline>report reveals the critical levels of flora and fauna loss. There are many other statistics I could refer to that point to a world that is extensively degraded, depleted and declining.</para>
<para>Regrettably, however, over the past two decades, the global response has focused on climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions, with much less attention placed on environmental losses and the impact that population growth has had on climate change and the environment. Population growth and better living standards increase consumption, which in turn adds to carbon emissions and environmental depletion. The reality is that population growth and increased human consumption are the underlying causes of both climate change and environmental degradation. Yet the pursuit of economic growth, which is driven by population growth and consumption, dominates both corporate and government thinking. Thankfully, the rate of population growth appears to be slowing down. In several countries, natural population growth has plateaued or is in decline. But, even so, total population growth around the globe is projected to reach around 10 billion people by 2059. That means an increase of around two billion people, or a 25 per cent increase on the current population. With that level of increase, and a growing middle class, achieving emissions reduction targets becomes increasingly difficult.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the scarcity of water and land resources is leading to more human conflict, as desperate nations struggle for survival. Across the world, natural environments that sustain critical flora and fauna are being lost to urban growth, farming, industrialisation and climate change related extreme weather events, in what has become an out-of-control cycle of demise. Simultaneously, human conflict escalates as people fight for precious land and increasingly scarce resources—all of which bring power and wealth. The incremental Israeli land grab of Palestinian territory is a stark example of that, but it's happening elsewhere as well. Likewise, the flood of refugees from impoverished countries is frequently linked to overpopulation and the fight for survival.</para>
<para>To date, I understand that 2,268 jurisdictions in 39 countries have declared a climate emergency. It is the one issue about which there is widespread global consensus. It presents a common threat to all countries and no country can isolate itself from it. However, to effectively tackle climate change, there must be an equal focus on population growth and the disastrous effect it is having on the earth's natural environment. To date, there is little evidence of governments doing that. There is no simple solution in addressing global issues, but, until global population becomes central to global efforts to limit climate change and environmental losses, our planet's health will continue to deteriorate and future generations will be burdened with our failures.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Redland Hospital</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to alert the House to the state of Redland Hospital, the only public hospital within the boundaries of my electorate. It is the major health centre for the Redlands, operating 172 overnight beds and treatment spaces. The medical staff, nursing staff, volunteers and all the support staff do an incredible job, but the staff have been let down by chronic underinvestment by the Queensland government. Redland Hospital is ground zero in Queensland's ongoing health crisis. The ambulance ramping statistics for June showed that across Queensland 45 per cent of patients who arrived by ambulance were not able to be seen within the recommended 30 minutes. But in Redland Hospital this figure was at a remarkable 68 per cent. That's more than two-thirds of my constituents who arrived at the Redland Hospital by ambulance having to wait beyond the recommended time. It's just not good enough.</para>
<para>Despite the best efforts of staff, Redland Hospital is failing to deliver the level of service necessary for an electorate of my size. Consider the Redland Hospital in comparison to some other Queensland hospitals serving communities of similar size and demographics to my electorate. Toowoomba Hospital has 465 beds for 125,000 locals. Hervey Bay Hospital has 210 beds for 53,000 locals. Redland Hospital as 172 beds for 160,000 locals.</para>
<para>The Queensland government has been warned for years about the sorry state of Redland Hospital. Back in 2019, emergency physician Dr Michael Cameron took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to the people of my community, saying, 'As your doctor, I've a duty to warn you that the choice you make may make a difference.' Dr Cameron urged locals to reconsider going to Redland Hospital in the event of an emergency. How extraordinary! We have hospital staff encouraging people not to go to their local public hospital.</para>
<para>Dr Cameron said that the only saving grace for Redland Hospital was that it had free parking. Well, it won't for long. A new car park is currently being built at the Redland Hospital with the support of a $16 million contribution from the former federal Liberal-Nationals government. While I welcome the joint investment in the new car park, I note that the state Labor government only committed to construct the car park after a public petition led by the coalition. This commitment came 443 days after the federal coalition government committed funds to the project. To make matters worse, the state Labor government intends to impose fees not just on the new car park but across all the areas of parking at Redland Hospital where it is currently free to park. The former Liberal-Nationals government did not help fund this new car park just to create a new revenue stream for the state government. Together with the state member for Oodgeroo, Dr Mark Robinson, I have led a campaign to get the state government to reconsider the imposition of parking fees at Redland Hospital or to at least hypothecate the revenue from these fees to upgrade the hospital. But, so far, this community call has fallen on deaf ears.</para>
<para>The former Liberal and Nationals government committed $30 million to the stage 1 upgrade program of the hospital, which, together with a $32 million state commitment, will see a modest increase in bed capacity and a small intensive care unit. But this project has now appeared in multiple state budgets and appears to be on the never-never. Blaming the former federal government has been an easy out for the Queensland Labor government, but in 2019-20 they received $776 million from the Commonwealth government for the local health network, a 92 per cent increase from the figure in 2013.</para>
<para>The time for excuses is over. My community is sick of it. We want to see action. While I am in this place, I intend to keep fighting for funding to give the Redlands the hospital that it deserves and a proper upgrade like we've seen at other hospitals across South-East Queensland and to get the capital investment that we need from both levels of government to make that a reality. I will keep the House informed of progress. I trust that the Speaker will inform anyone within his network who might have control over expenditure in the Queensland government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Diabetes</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to shine a light on a condition very close to my heart and very close to the hearts of thousands of Australians. My grandson, our beautiful Caleb, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes earlier this year. He is in primary school. It came as a shock to us all, and we certainly didn't have any experience whatsoever in dealing with type 1 diabetes. Nonetheless, as many families across Australia will know, when your child receives a health diagnosis, you leap into action, you band together and you gain as much information and support as you possibly can.</para>
<para>Caleb now lives with type 1 diabetes, and with good medical advice and the love and care of family he does it well. He's a resilient, loving child with a bright future. Caleb, like many other children his age, enjoys building Lego—and fantastic ones at that. I believe he's going to be a future architect. He enjoys playing with his friends, cycling and kayaking.</para>
<para>The one difference is Caleb has to now be very aware of what he eats when sharing snacks at recess with his school friends, when sharing lolly bags and birthday cake and when going out for breakfast, lunch or dinner with family. Other kids his age do not carry these worries. He has to make sure he carries his insulin, medication and needles, and he has to measure each dose in relation to his food intake. This means he constantly has to carry his little rucksack of medication with him, even during school lessons, recess and lunchtime. Type 1 diabetes means 24/7 monitoring, with every day a balancing act between administering insulin and monitoring glucose levels. These levels can be impacted by food, exercise, heat, illness, stress and more. This balance is critical but also incredibly challenging.</para>
<para>Fortunately for Caleb, he's able to receive a continuous glucose monitoring product under the National Diabetes Services Scheme because he's under the age of 21. However, before our election commitment, anyone over the age of 21 living with this irreversible condition would have an out-of-pocket cost of $5,000 to have access to this device. The Albanese Labor government will deliver our election commitment to give all eligible Australians living with type 1 diabetes access to subsidised continuous glucose monitoring products. This technology makes managing type 1 diabetes easier and more effective, but for many people the cost was previously prohibitive. Under our commitment Australians will not pay more than $32.50 per month. Important ongoing research needs to be done in relation to type 1 diabetes; however, this commitment will help keep people with type 1 diabetes safer and healthier through access to the best possible management technologies.</para>
<para>Let me explain what a continuous glucose monitoring product does. Caleb has Dexcom G6, which wirelessly sends updates of his insulin levels to an app. Caleb's mum and grandparents have this app, including me. This means that when Caleb's insulin drops below a certain level, we each get instant pips of notification. We are also instantly notified when his levels are too high. We are able to view a map of his levels throughout the day and night. This technology is quite literally a lifesaver, and it sits here right next to me wherever I go. No matter how far away I am from him, I can monitor his levels and be there for him when needed. Whether we're at home or travelling, we still receive the real-time notifications. The technology is incredibly important for people living with type 1 diabetes.</para>
<para>We have no idea how long Caleb has had diabetes. The reason we found out was that he was going to the toilet a few times during the night. In our ignorance we thought it was because he was drinking too much fluid before bedtime, so we reduced how much he could drink. Of course that made no difference whatsoever, so an appointment with the doctor was arranged, blood tests were arranged and then a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was made.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Pearce in WA there are 1,030 Australians living with type 1 diabetes—one of the highest figures per electorate Australia-wide. Of these, more than half will be eligible for this new technology as of 1 July. Caleb's mum and I will be participating in the JDRF One Walk, which is a 120-kilometre walk, to raise funds for type 1 diabetes research. I would like to sincerely thank the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Mark Butler, for their strong advocacy surrounding this issue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hinkler Electorate: Anzac Park Memorial Pool</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you think about the English language, admittedly with an Australian bent, and you think about a single word that can evoke so many others—words like patriotism, loyalty, courage, honour, valour, sacrifice, mateship—that word, and I'm sure everyone in the chamber knows it, is Anzac. Every day should be Anzac Day.</para>
<para>The Anzac Park Memorial Pool in Bundaberg was originally built in 1923 as the Returned Soldiers' Memorial Baths, where a foundation stone was laid by Ethel Campbell, who was known as the Angel of Durban. She met every Australian troop ship that arrived in Durban from 1915 until the end of the First World War.</para>
<para>In Bundaberg today, this happened: the excavators arrived on site to demolish the pool and the surrounding buildings. The Bundaberg mayor and the council are well aware of the angst in the community, and I have to give the community their due, because they acted. They applied for a heritage listing, and that heritage listing was submitted. In fact, it has been recommended for approval, going forward for assessment from a further committee within state government bounds in terms of their legislation.</para>
<para>The Bundaberg mayor and the council have decided to demolish the Anzac Park Memorial Pool. This is quite simply a living memorial, which next year would celebrate its centre   nary. It would be 100 years old. It was built by returned diggers from World War I, and they intend to replace it in another location with an aquatics centre worth some $75 million—at the moment—and an upgrade of this park at a value of around $19 million. That is almost $100 million of expenditure of the ratepayers' money at a time when, as we all know, every individual is struggling to pay their bills, their electricity bills and their rates bills. We have seen increases in rates and we have seen increases in fees and charges and, to be brutally frank, this stinks. It absolutely stinks. There is an application which is being assessed—a heritage application—and the council has been out disconnecting services and cutting off water pipes. We now have excavators arriving on a declared construction site to destroy a living memorial that was built by World War I diggers in the centre of Bundaberg.</para>
<para>The council may well be within their rights to do that, but surely you would wait until the assessment process is finished, because you cannot put this back together when it is done. The times of the Deen Brothers and others are gone, and I know, Mr Speaker, that you understand what it is that I speak of. The overnight, fly-by-night, knock-down-something-that-should-be-heritage-listed is absolutely outrageous, and I say to the Bundaberg mayor and council: it will not take that much longer for the assessment to be completed. I say to the state member in Bundaberg: this is your job. Ring the minister, ask for intervention and prevent this from happening.</para>
<para>We have a group locally who have been heavily involved. We have had Olympians train at this pool. If I remember correctly, some 2,000 schoolchildren a year utilise this facility. It is an incredibly important memorial of the sacrifice that Australian soldiers have made, and it should be maintained. If you can't get community support, don't do it. It is very, very straightforward. The Heritage Council will meet in one month to consider the recommendation. Four weeks for a pool that is almost 100 years old is not that long; it really isn't. So I'd say to the mayor and the counsellors again: four weeks. Wait and see what the outcome is, continue to consult with the community, listen to them and listen to veterans.</para>
<para>I've written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to ask for his assistance. The shadow minister for defence personnel, Luke Howarth, met with constituents last week to hear their views, but the member for Bundaberg is silent. It is his job. He is a state representative; his office is across the road from the memorial pool. You see it every single day that you walk in. And the mayor originally said they would keep Anzac pool open until they'd built a new aquatics centre. Well, he's reneged on that. It simply hasn't happened. Thousands of kids have learned to swim there. There's been a petition launched, which is already at 1,400 signatures. Four weeks is not that long. This is outrageous. This is an ANZAC memorial and it should be treated with the respected deserves. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senior Australians</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I attended the Seniors Expo in Alice Springs as part of Seniors Month. Organised by the Council on the Ageing, or COTA, it was a hive of activity. There were the information stalls one would expect, but as well there were live performances, entertainment, displays, talks and so much more. It was full of colour and life. Being able to meet and talk to some of the elders brought home to me the contributions they make, as senior Territorians and, indeed, senior Australians, not just to their families but to their communities. A lot of those seniors have lived in Alice Springs most of their lives and made an immense contribution to that community.</para>
<para>COTA NT spoke to me about a regular survey that they do, the Cost of Living Survey. They survey all of their members across the Northern Territory. Their latest one showed that many seniors do not have any money left after paying for basic expenses, and this survey was conducted before the massive increase in inflation. There is much to do to address rising costs, but I'm pleased that the Albanese government has made some big announcements. The increase to the age pension, cheaper medicines and the ability to earn more whilst keeping the pension will address some long-term cost-of-living problems.</para>
<para>It was great to interact and talk with those seniors. There is still a lot that they want to contribute, particularly to some of the increasing youth issues that we see across Alice Springs. They've lived there most of their lives, so it was great to have a discussion about that. This week's announcement of an indexation increase to the age pension was so important. A rise of $38.90 for singles and $58.84 for couples will make a difference.</para>
<para>Another important decision that will help the financial health of older Australians is to allow those on a pension to earn more. Age and veteran pensioners will be able to earn an additional $4,000 over this financial year without losing any of their pension. Once the legislation is passed, they can earn up to $11,800 before their pension is reduced. Pensioners will also retain access to their pension concession card and associated benefits for two years. This is an important measure to ensure older Australians have the option to remain in the workforce, if they wish, without losing access to their pension and benefits.</para>
<para>The COTA Cost of Living Survey showed that medical expenses are a significant worry for seniors. The maximum cost to general patients for PBS medications has doubled since the year 2000—doubled, Mr Speaker!—and the previous government did nothing about it. This has resulted in seniors, and others, with medical conditions often delaying filling scripts or not getting medicines at all.</para>
<para>The government has made it easier for seniors. They will be among the millions of Australians who will pay less for their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme scripts. The savings on just one medication script a month could be as much as $150 a year. This is a real saving that will make a difference to all Australians, but especially seniors. I'm pleased to be part of a government that is delivering a strong healthcare system and support to senior Australians.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge Sue Shearer, who is the CEO of COTA NT, Fran Kilgariff and all of the other directors of the COTA board in Alice Springs for the important work and advocacy that they provide for senior Territorians in Alice Springs, and certainly for the work and advocacy they do throughout the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>110</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 7 September 2022</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Claydon</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>111</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since becoming the member for Kooyong I have been contacted many times by people in my electorate who are caring for somebody struggling with mental ill-health or suffering from mental illness themselves. These constituents and their loved ones are affected by a wide variety of illnesses—addiction, psychosis, anxiety, eating disorders, PTSD, trauma and depression. Their ages vary too, from the exhausted and fearful parents of primary school children to people in their 60s and 70s worried for their future care and for the younger generation. The reason they reach out to me, not as their doctor but as their federal representative, is always the same—to decry a chronic lack of access to appropriate care and help.</para>
<para>One constituent wrote to me and said: 'What are you going to do to help people with mental illnesses? There are many of us. Many voices unheard. Many people turning to medications to drown out their pain, especially the most vulnerable—the youth. Many suicides. Children abusing medications and illicit drugs to cope with the cacophony of voices causing them to distance themselves from reality. Our public mental health wards are overcrowded and understaffed, underfinanced, staff harried and working under severe stress. There are not enough mental health professionals working in the field. We as a society have left people from all corners of our population without adult care.' To this constituent and to every other resident of Kooyong who has the same questions, let me say this: I am listening. I will do what I can to make access to mental health care better. There are serious and fundamental issues with the healthcare system which reflect a lack of long-term planning. It's a system where successive governments have moved from election to election and promise to promise without properly addressing holistic mental healthcare delivery. The understaffing and underfunding of mental healthcare services is in crisis. There is a chronic shortage of beds available for adolescents in mental health wards. This is an urgent priority that we have to address.</para>
<para>Another constituent wrote to me and told me, 'I need to hear something to keep me hopeful, for myself and for the many other people who find themselves in my desperate position.' To that constituent and to the others in Kooyong, I say: I hope you hear me today. We will improve Australia's mental healthcare system, we will make it more accessible and we will deliver more comprehensive long-term care.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Carroll, Mrs E</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vietnam Veterans' Day</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms L</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ANDRY () (): The 18th of August was Vietnam Veterans' Day. It was an honour to be invited to Cockscomb Veterans Bush Retreat to remember the soldiers who sacrificed so much and to lay a wreath to commemorate them. The 18th of August is also the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in 1966, the largest single-unit battle fought in Vietnam by Australian soldiers. During the battle, 17 Australians were killed and a further 25 were wounded, one of whom later died of his wounds. This was the highest number of Australian casualties incurred in any one engagement of the Vietnam War.</para>
<para>Cockscomb is a wonderful place that provides a tranquil retreat away from the city for the veterans to go when they need some time to relax and spend time in quiet reflection. There is time to talk with others who have walked in their shoes, or sit in quiet contemplation, even laugh or cry with like-minded people who know the struggles of war.</para>
<para>I was a young girl when the Vietnam War happened, and, as much as I could know as a young person, we were made aware of the toll this war took on our country. But, years later, we have also become aware of the toll this war took on the soldiers who fought it. I was recently drawn to some words by John Schumann, who wrote the song 'I Was Only 19'. Schumann reminded us that the veterans came home to a bitterly divided country that did not want a bar of them, and sadly, these brave men fell through the cracks. Schumann said, 'Australians are fundamentally decent and fair, and over time we all looked back with shame at how we treated our Vietnam veterans'. We now understand that, when Australians come back from any form of combat that a government may send them to, we owe them all the help and support that we can muster. As has been said many times, they didn't count the cost, and neither should we.</para>
<para>Armed combat is the highest form of public service. Around 60,000 Australians served our country with honour in Vietnam. While at Cockscomb that day, I also thought of the thousands of mums, dads, wives, children, brothers, sisters and friends who had to help them pick up the pieces of their lives when they returned. I also thought of the more than 500 Australians who did not come home. Spending time with the wonderful veterans of Cockscomb is not only a treat on Vietnam Veterans' Day; it's a treat on any other day.</para>
<para>I was very happy to assist them in the delivery of a storage shed, which was left over from the Vietnam War, after Cyclone Marcia in 2015. The shed has now become a centrepiece of the retreat. It houses historical items from many conflicts. It keeps getting bigger, better and more diverse every time I visit. I want to thank the member for Gippsland for his help in acquiring the shed. His assistance was essential to seeing this historically significant structure in Cawarral for the public to enjoy. I wish them all the best in their plans for the future, and I can't wait to get back there.</para>
<para>As individuals, people may not always support Australia's participation in war, but we must at all times respect and support the men and women we send to fight that war.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pearce Electorate: Maar Koodjal</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Ngunnawal people. I would also like to acknowledge and welcome other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are present and pay respects to the Whadjuk and Noongar nation, the traditional custodians of my electorate in Pearce. The electorate is home to a large group of First Nations people who implement strategic plans to not only further reconciliation but provide education about First Nations history and culture in Pearce and work towards supporting the youth in the area.</para>
<para>Maar Koodjal is a grassroots Aboriginal organisation operated by a proud First Nations man, Mr Dennis Simmons. Dennis is a good friend of mine, and I see him constantly devoting his time to helping others, especially First Nations youth. I have known Dennis for many years, and his work is outstanding and inspiring. Maar Koodjal values are guided by ecology, equality, reconciliation, spirit and integrity. Strong fundamental links exist between our communities and thus the need for climate justice, health justice and safe climate health. Maar Koodjal works with Aboriginal people, low-income communities, corporates, the arts sector and other diverse peoples connected to the relevant cultural projects. Maar Koodjal runs specialised programs that are targeted to everyone in the community, with a focus on schools. Local schools regularly visit the Yanchep National Park and experience the work of Maar Koodjal firsthand. The Mia Mia centre in Yanchep details the stories of the traditional custodians of the land and provides a teaching and learning space for all to use. It depicts traditional drawings and storytelling and is a communal space with traditional seating, perfect for yarning circles.</para>
<para>Dennis's latest venture is a pilot project called On Country Mental Health which is needed to support the wider community—specifically young people on their journey to learning about culture and about themselves. It will teach them an appreciation of the land and help young people who may be struggling to find their way, no matter what background they come from. Dennis is an outstanding mentor and friend to many, who works incredibly hard to support his community and his vision for Maar Koodjal. I don't think Dennis ever sleeps. I'm in absolute awe of his dedication to his community and his commitment to making this world a better place for everybody.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Suicide Prevention</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Twenty-six years ago today my father took his own life. This is a subject I spoke about in my maiden speech in order to encourage more Australians to notice the signs that people around them might be giving and understand what to do if they are contemplating suicide.</para>
<para>This Saturday is World Suicide Prevention Day. There are on average nine deaths by suicide every day. Seventy-five per cent are men, but women are more likely to attempt suicide. We also know that suicide is the leading cause of death for Indigenous Australians, with the suicide rate double that of the non-Indigenous population. For every death by suicide, 135 additional people are impacted. They, like me, are the loved ones left behind. They struggle to rebuild their lives in the wake of that loss. In 2020 alone it's estimated that more than 423,000 Australians felt the complex impact of suicide.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge some of the organisations doing real work to prevent suicide in our community. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, of which I am co-chair, hosted the annual suicide prevention breakfast, which was attended by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, along with the national peak body, Suicide Prevention Australia. I want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership of their CEO, Nieves Murray.</para>
<para>Tomorrow, 8 September, is RU OK? day. RU OK? encourages people to start a conversation that might change a life. I want to acknowledge Katherine Newton, their CEO, for the work that she has done in the organisation, particularly the terrific Signs campaign they ran a few years ago, inspired by my maiden speech, to encourage people to notice the people around them and, when they see changes in behaviour, ask the direct question, 'Are you contemplating suicide?'</para>
<para>Suicide's also the leading cause of death for people aged under 44. Since 1985, Youth Insearch, led by Stephen Lewin, has helped over 32,000 young people to rebuild their lives. I want young people to know that they can always reach out for help.</para>
<para>Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury first opened its doors in 1967. Since then, this volunteer led organisation has provided personal counselling, telephone and suicide crisis support to our community. After 12 years of tireless work, the extraordinary Lifeline H2H CEO, Wendy Carver, retired in July. I want to thank her for her outstanding contribution to our community, delivering crisis services to our community with her unique combination of outstanding strategic leadership and great personal warmth. And I want to wish her, Malcolm and the family all the best for the future, and to welcome Elizabeth Lovell, who's stepping into the CEO role.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge Parents Beyond Breakup, which supports parents going through the very difficult family law system with programs Dads in Distress, Mums in Distress and Grandparents in Distress, and acknowledge the work of their CEO, Gill Hunt. And finally, I want to acknowledge Mentoring Men and its founder, Ian Westmoreland, who set up his organisation in response to an event I held for leaders in our community, where I challenged them to do what they could to help prevent suicide. Mentoring Men provides free, long-term, one-on-one life mentoring for men experiencing challenges or changes in their life.</para>
<para>Let me thank all these organisations for the outstanding life-saving work they do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kitteringham, Mr Murray</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the day the Prime Minister announced my appointment as education minister, one of the first text messages I received was a from a friend, Murray Kitteringham. The text read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Congratulations on being named Education Minister. Really proud and excited to have a Labor government in, you as our local member and in education. Let's talk.</para></quote>
<para>I texted back the next day, 'Thanks Murray, sounds good.' We never got to have that chat. Twelve days later Murray passed away of a heart attack. He was only 51. He was fit. He was at the beach exercising that morning. When he came home, he suffered a heart attack and was rushed to hospital, but never made it.</para>
<para>Murray was the principal of Sir Josephs Banks High School in my electorate, and he wasn't just any principal. He was the sort of guy who turned schools around and who transformed the lives of everybody fortunate enough to interact with him. When he started at the school, enrolments were low and there was a small proportion of female students—something like 29 per cent. Now Sir Joseph Banks is one of the highest-growth high schools in New South Wales. It's in the top one per cent of schools in the state for student growth between year 9 and year 12, and it has some of the highest rates of improvement of any public school for literacy and numeracy. That's because of Murray; that's his legacy. He was a leader, respected by everybody around him. They loved him, and they miss him, and so do I.</para>
<para>He was a principal's principal—a staunch advocate for public education and for making sure that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get the education they deserve. He was an innovator. He made sure that year 7 was structured in a way so it was more like year 6, so kids that are making that big transition from primary school to high school fit in a bit easier—for example, having a single teacher for big parts of the day. He employed youth workers at the school because he knew that giving students the support they needed was often the difference between success and failure.</para>
<para>Like all of Murray's friends in education, I was shocked by his death. I will never forget Murray, his passion, his purpose and what he lived for: those kids. And I hope that, in some small way, I can carry on that work in the task that I do as education minister. I pass on my sincere condolences to his wife, Erin, and his kids, Lily and Baxter. We have lost a truly great man. Rest in peace, my friend.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South West Refuge</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The South West Refuge provides critical support to women and families in my electorate. It is a not-for-profit that provides safe and secure accommodation, advocacy and support to women and children escaping family and domestic violence. Alison White and her team are a very caring and compassionate group, who provide a wonderful service.</para>
<para>The refuge provides support to over 500 women and children each year, across the south-west region of WA. This support is provided through a range of services. Crisis accommodation is available to women and children escaping domestic and family violence. Many who arrive at the refuge have little in the way of personal belongings—incredibly distressing and traumatising times—with some of them very seriously physically hurt or without access to funds. The refuge provides them not only with accommodation, toiletries, food, clothing, transport and medical attention but also, sometimes, with a new mobile device. The safety and wellbeing of these women and children remains paramount to the refuge.</para>
<para>The South West Refuge Safe at Home program provides confidential support for women and children experiencing domestic and family violence to stay in their home when it's safe to do so, to modify the home and to make it safe and secure, providing protection from a perpetrator who may no longer reside at the property following a court order. Their outreach service assists with court support, safety planning and advocacy and provides referrals for specialist counselling. The refuge has fully serviced units, but they also have waiting lists. We were able to support the refuge through various specialist programs and emergency relief funding grants from the previous government. They rely on generosity from business and community donors in what they do.</para>
<para>Equally, the escaping family and domestic violence payment has been critical for those women in the south-west and right around Australia escaping domestic violence. This is very important assistance for women who have no choice. Whether used for rental bonds, school fees or essential services, it can enable them to make that first move. So I commend the South West Refuge for their work, care and compassion at a time when women and children need it most. They do a fantastic job. I commend them for every hour of work they put into what they do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Employment</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Opportunity' and 'potential' were two of the key terms raised in the discussion at the first Boothby jobs and skills roundtable last week at Marion. I was delighted to welcome leaders from all sectors of Boothby society. There were business leaders from Advanced Manufacturing at the Tonsley Innovation District seated with charity officials. There were local government representatives, two mayors and a council CEO together with arts industry executives, small-business owners and trade union officials. All of these people came together to discuss the shared challenges facing the people and businesses of Boothby with regard to employment and skills.</para>
<para>A few themes that emerged from the roundtable that I took back to Canberra were skills shortages; low wages; poor conditions in key feminised sectors of the economy, notably the care sectors; inconsistent quality and availability of training and education, coupled with financial and bureaucratic barriers to upskilling. For instance, the lack of availability of after-hours training options was identified as a barrier, particularly for workers wanting to upskill or retrain or those who had caring duties at home. The spread of insecure work makes it even more difficult to develop skills and has significant negative impacts on earnings and conditions.</para>
<para>Microcredentialing was discussed as an excellent way of adapting existing qualified workers into areas of need without the barrier or the time delay of a full qualification or degree. We should look at currently untapped existing workforces among groups such as women at home wanting to return to work, retirees, refugees on various work restricted visa conditions and people with disabilities—all should be explored for the economic and the social benefits to our community and the individuals. These are all areas of ongoing work for me. And I know they are key areas of focus for the Treasurer and the finance minister as they finalise the employment white paper for consultation.</para>
<para>Thank you to all those who took time out of their busy schedules to contribute their often unique perspectives on the jobs and skills environment in Boothby. Some of these events, roundtables, summits and forums are derived as talk fests that achieve nothing. But the Boothby jobs and skills roundtable proved that discussion and a willingness to hear each other and try to understand different perspectives can be a very fruitful endeavour.</para>
<para>Going forward, I hope to host more roundtables like this. In particular, I'd like to hear from businesses and workers about how we can match workers' skills and jobs to build economic activity locally. Our roundtable showed that there is no shortage of goodwill in Boothby, and I'm determined to make the most of that spirit to build a better Boothby for all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bradfield Electorate: Stronger Communities Program</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to draw attention to several valuable organisations in my electorate of Bradfield which received grants under round 7 of the Stronger Communities Program. I'm very pleased that we've seen grants awarded to a broad cross-section of organisations, from education centres to sporting clubs and emergency services. Many of these organisations are well known to me. I've had the chance to visit them and see the great work that they do. I'm really pleased that these grants will support that work.</para>
<para>St Ives Preschool Kindergarten has been operating for over 60 years. Thanks to round 7 of the Stronger Communities Program, it is now able to purchase new learning support technology to provide even better services to the very small children it cares for and to help them get their start in life.</para>
<para>Another grant recipient is the Ku-ring-gai Philharmonic Orchestra—and, parenthetically, I congratulate them on a wonderful performance on Sunday afternoon; Ravel's 'Bolero' and a number of other items were on the schedule—and they've been putting on great local performances since 1972. The orchestra has received funding under round 7 of the Stronger Communities Program to develop a streaming capability building project, and I know how important that is to arts organisations of all sizes, whether professional or community.</para>
<para>Hornsby Connect is a very meaningful volunteer-driven community organisation that provides support to those in need. Hornsby Connect has received funding under round 7 of the Stronger Communities Program to develop a covered outdoor eating area which will assist them in providing hot lunches in all weather as part of their food pantry service.</para>
<para>Other local volunteer organisations that have been supported include the local police citizens youth club, who will be able to install air conditioning in their boxing room; and Street Work, which is purchasing new laptops to help young people stay connected. The Rotary Club of Wahroonga, St John's Asquith, Christ Church St Ives and Scout groups in Gordon and St Ives are all now able to upgrade their facilities to continue providing important services to the community.</para>
<para>In addition, there has been funding for local sporting organisations, including West Lindfield sport and recreation club, which has received a grant to develop new spectator seating; and Ku-ring-gai Little Athletics, who are now able to purchase a new awning for their shed. Local emergency services have also benefited, including our local RFS brigade, which has received a grant towards their fire station fit-out; and our local SES, which has received funding to create additional spaces for training and meals.</para>
<para>I look forward to seeing each of these organisations complete their projects over the coming months, and to seeing our local communities in Bradfield enriched as a consequence of these various worthwhile projects. I congratulate all of the recipients on the hard work they've done in developing these projects and the funding they themselves are contributing. This will be a good outcome for our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wollondilly Shire: Motor Vehicle Accident</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night in Wollondilly Shire, just outside of Picton, five teenagers lost their lives in a single motor vehicle accident. These five teenagers attended Picton High School. We don't know all of their names, but I want to extend my condolences to the families involved, and to say to them all—and to the first responders—my heart goes out to you. The roads of Wollondilly have been difficult to maintain during the recent flood and high-rainfall events, and I met with Matt Gould, the mayor of Wollondilly, to see what we could do to help in the repairs. We don't know the cause of the accident. It is an absolute tragedy, and I know the whole community of Wollondilly will be severely impacted by this event. The high schools, the primary schools and the first responders—the police, the ambulance drivers and the emergency services workers—will all be severely impacted, as will our local health services, and I send my condolences and thoughts to all of them.</para>
<para>Wollondilly is just outside my electorate boundaries, but my wife and I lived there for almost 40 years. We raised our family there, and we're familiar with all the local people, the local schools, the local teachers and the first responders. I know that most of the first responders would live in the area of Wollondilly, and they will be traumatised, I am sure, by this event. Superintendent Paul Fuller from the Camden area command described the scene as horrific, and I'm sure that was the case. I possibly cared for some of the children involved. To their families: I cannot even begin to say how much sorrow I feel and how much I grieve for you. This was a terrible event that will effect the Wollondilly Shire and the wider Macarthur and Hume electorates as well, and I send my condolences to everyone involved.</para>
<para>We seldom think about the first responders and the horrific scenes they are forced to witness. If you can imagine a single vehicle accident with five dead teenagers—it is just beyond comprehension. This is a tragedy for the whole community and for the wider community, and I wish there was something that I could do that would turn back time to before the accident, but I can't. We will have to grieve, with the whole Wollondilly community. I extend to Matt Gould, the mayor of Wollondilly, my offer of support in any way that it can be given to them, and I thank the first responders.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>on indulgence—If I could add a few words from the electorate of Lalor to the electorate of Macarthur: these tragedies are extraordinary. They take an extraordinary toll over many, many years; it's not just the initial response. From my electorate to yours, we send our best.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Freelander</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements is now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>116</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6882" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>116</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The legislation before us today is about paid family and domestic violence leave. It's a new piece of legislation. The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is a really important piece of legislation, and it's something that this government is really proud to be introducing to Australia. The legislation is important for many, many reasons, but I want to put on record why I think that having the leave is critical. It is critical so that people who are suffering from the impacts of domestic violence have time, space, energy and support at a critical time in their lives to ensure that they can continue in their employment, continue to provide for their families, find the housing they might need and get the support that they might need.</para>
<para>The legislation is critical for other reasons as well. We measure what we care about. The domestic violence leave will mean that there will be data that will demonstrate for us the impact of domestic violence in our communities. That data will be incredibly important because it can then be used to make changes in response to what we find. There is nothing more true than that in modern Australia. Across everything in our communities—in education, in business, everywhere—we measure what's important to us. We need to be measuring this so that we can see the impacts of domestic violence not just in our community but also on business and on industry because then we'll be able to measure and be able to say what impact domestic violence is actually having on productivity and on our GDP. That will change the conversation about domestic violence and take it to a place that it hasn't been before because not only is it a scourge emotionally and physically but it is a life-changing experience for many that then impacts on their entire lives, which includes where they work. It's of critical importance that this legislation be passed and that people support this legislation because millions of workers in Australia still face that impossible situation of having to choose between their safety and their income.</para>
<para>On a personal note, we've all had moments in our lives when something happens that impacts in similar ways—perhaps a marriage breakdown. There may not be abuse or violence involved, but a marriage breakdown means that somebody is scrambling to ensure that the bank accounts are right, that whatever they've got to do at Centrelink is done, that they've got their child support arrangements in place. We've all had these kinds of impacts—for example, a death in the family. Domestic violence is no different. There are many reasons why this leave needs to be in place, but one of the things it does is ensures that the person involved has no impact on their income. That continues, but they've got time and space to do the things they need to do: to see a doctor if they need to see a doctor, to see a police officer if they need to see a police officer, or to attend a court hearing if they need to attend a court hearing.</para>
<para>All of these things at the moment, without this leave, ultimately come down to the relationship you have with your employer or your line manager. Are you confident to say to the person that you work most closely with and for, 'I need a few days off at this point,' and to make a personal explanation, if you like, about why you need that time? How much easier would that be if it were an accepted practice? How much easier would that be if it were a simple email to say, 'I need five days leave,' or 10 days leave, and you could tick a box? Then there is no inquisition. You don't have to sit and expose yourself to those things and feel like you're asking a favour. It's clear, it's in law and it will work. People will have the time to do the things they need to do.</para>
<para>It may ultimately mean that we lift the veil further on domestic violence. I'm really sad to say this, but I heard it argued in the chamber in the last sitting fortnight that sometimes these things are left for private conversations. That's the problem. The problem is, if we pull the blinds down and say, 'Let's not talk about this,' then we're not supporting a victim of domestic violence; we're supporting a perpetrator of domestic violence. If there is someone in our place of work who visibly shows the possible impacts of domestic violence, and we walk past them every day in the office or on the factory floor, then we become part of the people who don't talk about it rather than being the people we need to be, the people who do talk about it, the people who say, 'This is intolerable.' They say that by wrapping the supports around the people who need the support, and this is one way we can do that in law.</para>
<para>It will change lives. It will change the lives of people on their worst days, and that's always what comes back to me. In our role as members of parliament, as representatives of our electorates, our job is to come here and tell those stories and change the laws in this country so that those things change on the ground. In communities like mine, this is a really critical piece of legislation. It will change lives. We know that the victims of domestic violence are more likely to be women. I'm not going to say they are exclusively women. But it changes lives if they know they will be paid. What's most important about this legislation, in an electorate like mine, is that it's going to cover casual employees, which is extraordinary. So often we create legislation and we change legislation here, particularly around women's issues, and we leave out the bulk of the people who need it the most. In my patch, that would be casual employees, male or female, who are victims of domestic violence. That is a critical element of this piece of legislation and something that should be celebrated and welcomed across the country.</para>
<para>In my electorate, the rate of casualisation is really high. It has been growing annually across the last decade. We know that in areas like retail, child care and aged care—highly feminised workforces—the rate of casualisation is really high. This legislation will mean that a victim of domestic violence who needs time off will be able to have time off without losing their job and will have support while they do so. This is a critical element, because these points of disruption in our lives send us one way or another. They send us, with support, on a new journey, feeling supported in the process and able to pick up and move on—or they send us off the rails. These can be the points in people's lives when they end up living with six kids in the car. I can't put enough emphasis on this.</para>
<para>In my electorate, I was talking to a local principal about student attendance numbers, and I had this story shared with me—completely de-identified, for obvious reasons. This school had done terrific work in ensuring that families were supported and that at-risk families were contacted all the time. They're a very proactive school. They go out and find kids who've missed two days of school. They knock on the door to see if everything's okay. They lost a family. Overnight they lost a family. In the last two weeks of school, things get busy. You have a two-week window to see if everything's okay. When they got back after the Christmas holidays, they learned that a mum and six kids had slept in the car across the whole summer, cut off from the support that would have been provided by the school if they had known. The impetus of that is domestic violence. That's a life-changing experience, and a family is thrown into homelessness. This legislation could have meant that, as a casual worker, potentially that mum would have had support, time and income so that she wouldn't have been unable to pay the rent and wouldn't have found herself without the usual supports that our local community provides.</para>
<para>So I can't stress enough how important this piece of legislation is and how much I want to see it pass this parliament and be enacted in law, because it will change lives in the community I represent. It'll change lives around the country. I look forward to a day when we measure the impact of domestic violence through every corner of our society so that we have data and, better informed, we can create legislation to support the most vulnerable in our community at their most vulnerable time and ensure that fewer families fall into poverty and homelessness—because that's the reality that we're talking about here. Forget everything else. At this point in time, the impact of domestic violence may change lives forever. The legislation may also mean that, potentially, victims who may have had a history of suffering domestic violence suddenly access this leave, because it's there, to get support, and, because they've got the financial support and the support of the workplace and the Australian government to do so, they will connect more to services to support themselves and potentially their children. I can't think of a better outcome.</para>
<para>The fact that the legislation covers casuals is inspiring. It's a first, and we need to do more of it. We need to do more to ensure that we've got people working in more permanent jobs and paid well, but, even if we get to that place, this will help those people. People who choose to work in a casual environment or as casuals will see that under the law they're seen as equal to permanent employees, and I think that's absolutely critical.</para>
<para>So I support this legislation for the social reasons, for the economic reasons and because of the impact that this could potentially have in the long term by giving us information about productivity, but, more importantly, because it will inform us as a country, inform us as a government and inform us all as legislators. It potentially will create data that will see us create better and better legislation that may, sometime in a bright future, see us drive the scourge of domestic violence out of our communities and out of our homes—an end to domestic violence. This is a step towards an end to domestic violence. That's why I'm so pleased to be here today to support this legislation. I look forward to voting for it in the House, and I know that my colleagues do too.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I give the call to the member for Mackellar, I just apologise to the mother for Lalor for the disruption caused by my folder falling off the table.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ryan</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely fine.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a local GP, I understand how domestic violence is perpetrated and its devastating impacts on families and individuals. Domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness in my electorate of Mackellar in the Northern Beaches of Sydney. Of course, domestic violence does not only impact women, but it does impact them disproportionately.</para>
<para>Across Australia, one in four women will experience violence from their partner. This includes coercive control to overt control and violence, which can result in injury and death. Domestic violence is insidious, and it must not remain so. The flow on effects on victims, their children and the community are devastating and enduring. Unfortunately, the pandemic has exacerbated such harrowing circumstances for many. In this parliament we must implement policies that protect victims and save lives, which is why I support this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022.</para>
<para>In a domestic violence situation, victims are often in an impossible bind, often having to choose between financial security and employment or potentially ending up homeless, as we heard earlier, and unpaid leave will not support them. As Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, describes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it takes seven to eight attempts to leave a relationship; it costs around $18,000; and it takes 141 hours to safely extricate oneself from an abuser.</para></quote>
<para>Victims are in financial handcuffs. Often their only hope is to maintain financial security while quietly planning their escape. Emergency leave is their lifeline. We must provide this lifeline. Under this bill, employees can access 10 days of paid leave, up from five, to help deal with the immediate situation or for the required appointments when planning to leave. Importantly, casuals will be included, and all workers will receive financial support to access counselling and doctors appointments. This bill enables people to leave violent relationships without sacrificing their money and their safety.</para>
<para>In my electorate, amazing organisations are working to support victims of domestic violence. Northern Beaches Women's Shelter, for example, is a haven, supporting homeless women so that they can rebuild their lives, reclaim independence and re-join society. Organisations like this welcome this legislation and describe the benefit that it will have, particularly for women leaving relationships. Importantly, they have described how important it is to include existing casual workers.</para>
<para>This is necessary and critical legislation, which many in the business community accept. I am heartened to see that nearly all submissions from businesses and organisations to the committee inquiry into this bill recognised the need to support victims of domestic violence through leave from the workplace. To the businesses in my community: you are the backbone of Mackellar. I am proud of the response I have received from those I have consulted with. Businesses in my electorate are throwing their support behind this legislation.</para>
<para>I would also point out research by the Centre for Future Work, at the Australia Institute, which shows that only 1.5 per cent of women and 0.5 per cent of men are likely to access this leave. Therefore, the cost to the employers would be modest, and any price would be outweighed by the benefits such as improved productivity and decreased turnover. In fact, some states and businesses already offer 10 days of paid domestic leave and have found the impact on business to be very limited, which is promising. Even so, I welcome that the government will provide small businesses with an extra six-month grace period and consult with them now. I also call on the government to consider how they can reduce administration of this measure, keeping it as simple as possible.</para>
<para>As MPs we must all work with our communities to educate them about this critical legislation, so that those impacted by domestic violence know their entitlements and businesses have clarity and simplicity in applying it. Supporting this bill is the least we can do to help the thousands of Australians who find themselves in this awful situation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. We hear this statistic all the time, and I fear it has lost its ability to shock. But we should be shocked. On average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. We should be shocked, we should be appalled, we should be marching in the streets. One woman is murdered every 10 days. These women are not just statistics. They are human beings with feelings and potential. They have families and friends. They have hopes and dreams—all ended by violence.</para>
<para>Sitting behind that statistic are even more shocking statistics. Over the age of 15, approximately one in four, or 25 per cent of all women, have experienced at least one incident of violence by an intimate partner. For women with disability, 40 per cent have experienced violence by an intimate partner. Indigenous women are 35 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence as non-Indigenous women. This is a national shame and something which there can be no justification.</para>
<para>As the former CEO of the women's homelessness service Catherine House, I did a lot of speaking on the subject of family and domestic violence. Without fail, at the end of every speech, there would be a woman who would hang back—sometimes more. Once everyone had left, they'd come up to me and share their personal experience. Women in community groups, business women, women in corporate settings, women in professional networking groups, women at fundraising events, women at sporting events—every single place. Everyone in this place would know someone affected by family and domestic violence, whether they know it or not. Statistically, there are women working here who are also subject to family and domestic violence—25 per cent on average. It can and does happen to everyone.</para>
<para>This bill represents a crucial step in the fight against family and domestic violence. This bill will provide Australians experiencing family and domestic violence—women and men, no matter where they work or what industry they are in—access to 10 days of paid domestic and family violence leave. By amending the Fair Work Act, it enshrines in our key industrial relations framework a minimum standard that will help Australia avoid the choice between poverty and the safety of themselves and their children. It will ensure no one has to choose between losing their job and escaping a violent situation. While we know that family and domestic violence occurs against both men and women, women are overwhelmingly the victims.</para>
<para>In my previous work as CEO of Catherine House, a support service for South Australian women experiencing homelessness, I learned that there are two very clear overarching principles when it comes to the issue—safety and poverty. We always hear, 'But why didn't she leave?' The most dangerous time for women and children is when they leave. Victim-survivors need time to plan, time to leave safely, time to arrange the support of friends, family and broader support networks, time to figure out where to stay and time to attend appointments with services or lawyers. Beyond time, they need resources, which is where avoiding poverty is so important. Fifty per cent of the women coming to Catherine House experiencing homelessness listed family and domestic violence as a contributing factor, and this will help avoid more women falling into poverty by helping them to take action safely, with the added protection of knowing they will not lose their job.</para>
<para>For many women, this bill and the opportunity provided by 10 days of paid leave in instances of family and domestic violence will be the difference between staying and leaving. And, as we know, for too many that can mean life or death. It will give women greater flexibility, options and time to plan without losing income—or worse, losing their job. For many women it is simply impossible to leave safely without this kind of protection. I also know that this bill will go some way towards helping women avoid falling into absolute crisis when they decide to leave. When I asked those who work in the sector what this legislation would mean for them, they told me that the financial security it will deliver will empower women to better plan and avoid so much chaos, and will ultimately deliver safer outcomes for women and children.</para>
<para>This form of leave already exists in some workplaces, successfully implemented in businesses big and small. It's not a new thing. It’s not untried. By enabling their workers to maintain an income and maintain their employment while they navigate this difficult and dangerous time, employers are ensuring that they retain their skilled workers through supporting them. They are also literally saving lives. It's time when they can tell their partner that they're off work but can, for example, look for housing or attend appointments with support services and legal support—all without diminishing their escape fund, which is so important to enable somebody to leave an abusive relationship.</para>
<para>This amendment to provide for 10 days of leave is fundamentally a recognition of the complexities and the impacts of violence on women and children. It's recognition that it is not as simple as up and leaving a violent relationship. Paid domestic violence leave is a necessary precondition, a bare minimum, for us to thrive as a community and as a society. If we are going to do something about those terrible statistics—one woman killed every 10 days—then we need to enable them to escape violent situations.</para>
<para>A report authored by feminist trailblazer and researcher Dr Anne Summers, titled concisely <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">hoice</inline><inline font-style="italic">: </inline><inline font-style="italic">v</inline><inline font-style="italic">iolence or </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">overty</inline>, provides some stark statistics. Of the 275,000 women who suffered physical or sexual violence from their current partner each year, 81,700 had returned. On average, it takes a woman seven goes before she successfully leaves. Financial insecurity is an enormous factor constraining women's choices, forcing them to remain in or return to dangerous relationships. Indeed, in Dr Summers's report, she writes that 25 per cent of the further 90,000 women who wanted to leave but didn't stated explicitly that lack of financial support and independence was the primary reason they were unable to leave.</para>
<para>We know that staying in an abusive situation, not by choice in any meaningful sense of the word but out of necessity, can have very real and horrifying consequences. Violence often escalates over time. Women who do not leave also face a social stigma that can further isolate them from family, friends and other supports. According to a 2017 survey of community attitudes towards violence against women that is included in Dr Summers's report, 32 per cent of respondents believe that a woman who does not leave her partner is partly responsible for the abuse. That is horrifying—that the victim would be held responsible for their own abuse. That is why legislation and policy initiatives like this are so important: to give women choices—real choices. The financial support provided through the passing of this legislation is one step towards supporting people to safely leave abusive relationships while enabling them to retain some sense of financial stability.</para>
<para>It's an absolute core Labor value that all Australians have the right to be safe at work, and this bill is a recognition that that crucial notion does not go far enough. We must ensure that a worker never has to choose between their safety and their income, and it's truly unacceptable that millions of workers in Australia, from all sorts of industries and all walks of life, still face this cruel choice. We must be absolutely clear about this. Protection of only some workers is not enough; we must protect all.</para>
<para>Some opposite have argued that this bill should exclude casual workers—and keep in mind that casual and part-time workers are already by definition in insecure, piecemeal or unstable work, and they are more likely to already be in a financially precarious situation. We know that the casualisation of the workforce affects women more than men. Women are also often working in the lower-paid caring professions. Dr Summers's report states that 30 per cent of those women who experienced domestic or family violence were in part-time or casual work, so they already face enormous challenges in building up the kind of financial independence they need to leave abusive partners. Excluding casuals altogether would leave 2.6 million employees, 22.8 per cent of all employees, without this vital protection. Those most financially vulnerable would be left without this option. Do those opposite really not think that these women deserve or require paid domestic leave? We know that they exist.</para>
<para>The government has consulted widely on this bill. The new entitlement for 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave will start on 1 February 2023 for businesses other than small businesses. Small businesses, those with fewer than 15 employees, will have an extra six months, until 1 August, in recognition of the limited HR capabilities in some small businesses.</para>
<para>I look forward to the day when that statistic of one woman murdered every 10 days is a distant memory. I look forward to the day when girls growing up in Australia don't face the possibility that they might become one of the 25 per cent of all women assaulted by an intimate partner, and when this is not the lived experience of so many of our sisters, mothers, daughters, friends, work colleagues and, indeed, ourselves. This bill is a step towards ending domestic and family violence.</para>
<para>I'd also like to knowledge that we've had the murder of a woman in Boothby in the last week, 51-year-old Louise Hughes. She was a mother of two and, I believe, a grandmother, who worked in real estate in a local area. A neighbour has been arrested. I'd like to offer my condolences to her family, friends and work colleagues for this absolutely shocking event in their lives, and my deep sorrow about the death of this woman.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start by thanking the member for Boothby for her contribution in this place and also for the work that you've done outside of this place before coming here.</para>
<para>I was born lucky; I was born into a stable, loving family. But I recognise that many are not, and that's why I support the principle and the intention of the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family And Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. Family and domestic violence are an unacceptable scourge on our society, and I spoke about it during my maiden speech. I did so because of my background as a police officer and a police prosecutor for some 12 years, where I personally witnessed the impact of family and domestic violence on many, many people, particularly in our regional and rural communities. And I've seen the devastating and long-lasting impacts that domestic violence carries, not just on the victims but also on the wider families and communities.</para>
<para>Only recently, in my role as shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence, I spoke with a police officer in one of my local towns. I won't mention the town. He said the No. 1 crime issue—and it's a reasonably large town—is domestic violence. It's not graffiti. It's not theft. It's domestic violence. That in 2022 we're still facing those statistics is disappointing and a reflection of the failures of not just one government but successive governments over many, many years. To that point, this very bill and this very issue should be above politics. We should all be working together to rid our communities of this. And that's exactly why I do support this bill. I support the 10 days of leave. I will talk about the impact on business communities, but in no way—and I want to be very, very clear—do I wish to exclude any workers, including casuals. I do suggest that further work needs to be done, perhaps by a committee, referred through the Senate. But, again, I want to be clear that I support this legislation completely.</para>
<para>Every person in Australia deserves to feel safe within their home. Every man, woman and child deserves to feel protected and supported, should an incident of violence unfortunately be thrust upon them. With that support comes the continued ability for those victimised to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head. I don't believe that anyone in this room or anyone in this parliament would not share in that very fundamental belief.</para>
<para>We should consider not just the impact on those families but also the impact on the communities, the cost to the communities, the pressure on our health system, the pressure on our hospital systems and the impact on our economy. So, if not just to get rid of this scourge and get it out of our community because it is the right thing to do for our victims, we should also consider the impact on productivity in our economy. So the provision of 10 days leave to those experiencing violence at home isn't a lot to ask to protect our vulnerable, particularly women and children—and with that I absolutely agree.</para>
<para>The potential side effect of incidents of family violence being reported in higher numbers as a result of this initiative, of the work that has been done over the past years, is important and a huge step in the right direction, because we need to know the true figures. We need to know the true figures to be able to effectively address them. Fortunately, inroads have been made over recent years, where we are talking about domestic violence and bringing it to the forefront. I heard a speaker earlier refer to a comment by somebody that these conversations should be held behind closed doors. Absolutely not. They should be held out in the public, open, for three reasons: one, to raise awareness; two, to recognise and shame those perpetrators into accepting their conduct; and, three, to break that cycle. Whether it starts with education in schools, education in sporting clubs or education at university, we have to break that cycle. But, until we do, legislation such as this is paramount because we have to protect people.</para>
<para>We have heard all of the comments from the members who have contributed about giving security to workers during that stressful time. I can't imagine it. As I said, I was born lucky. I owned a business for 16 years and employed many people and found some of my employees in this very position. I think all small-business owners, treat their employees like family and, in circumstances where you see someone suffering from domestic violence, you want to help. It is ingrained in most people that they want to help. Under the circumstances that I faced, it was a no-brainer: 'Don't worry about putting leave in; take some time and get the help you need.' But at times employers, including myself, feel helpless because they can't do enough. Through this legislation, we can give the person the time to be able to go and seek that help. Employers are not experts in support services, but providing that financial support through this is a step in the right direction.</para>
<para>I have raised the concerns of some small businesses. I'm not talking about big business. Big business can afford to pay for this. Some small businesses have raised with me the cost and the impact to them. I note that the Fair Work Commission made certain recommendations. This bill has taken it further—in particular, to casual employees. As I have said, I'm not saying, 'Don't give this leave to casual employees.' I have no answers. I'm not pretending that I have the answer for this. But I think further consideration should be given to casual employees. That's the first issue.</para>
<para>The second issue is the rate of pay. The original set of Fair Work Commission recommendations took these concerns into account. The Fair Work Commission originally recommended the base rate of pay, in order to remain consistent with the NES paid leave entitlements as they currently stand, in order to remove a layer of complexities for the employer. Essentially the recommendation was that the leave be paid at the same rate as personal or carers leave is currently paid at. I haven't had one small-business owner or employer say, 'I'm not happy to pay this out.' They're all there to support it. This is coming at a time when the cost of living and the pressures of business are at a peak, for many reasons. Employers are just concerned about their financial circumstances, as they are about those of the person facing a very serious domestic violence situation. Again, I fully support this. I want to see it passed. What I don't want to see is small businesses—mums, dads, young people trying to get ahead in business—fail because of a cost implication because of the legislation.</para>
<para>I go back to my maiden speech, where I talked about the ugliness of domestic violence. This is a step in the right direction. I will work with my colleagues—and I say 'colleagues'—Labor and the crossbench and anyone else who is willing to work towards eradicating this from our society. It starts with leadership, both at a government level and in the community. I think, once the community see the leadership, see that government are making that real, concerted effort, then they will join us. They will not say: 'It's just lip-service from government. We haven't seen anything over the years.' I think, once they see that, once they see the honesty behind it, and the bipartisanship, then we will be on the road to recovery.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to follow that incredibly thoughtful and honest contribution from the member for Cowper. He and I share some similarities in our pre-parliamentary careers. With a long history of working in the criminal justice system as a solicitor and a barrister, particularly as a legal aid barrister, I've represented victims, perpetrators, men, women and children. It is impossible to have had that job and to have been involved with the people who have suffered domestic violence or perhaps have committed it because they were brought up in a family or a community where that was the attitude and the behaviours that they were taught, and to have met children who have been exposed to domestic violence, and not understand that this is a complex, difficult but fundamentally crucial issue that we all have to work together to solve. So thank you for that contribution.</para>
<para>The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022, as many people have said, is an important step forward in trying to deal with the consequences of domestic violence, particularly for women. It is the culmination of a 10-year campaign. The first time an enterprise agreement included 10 days paid domestic violence leave was in my state, Victoria, on the Surf Coast, with the agreement between the council and the Australian Services Union, when the current member for Corangamite was the mayor of that council. That was 10 years ago. This is an important reform, and it should be a proud moment for the government and for those who aren't in the government but support this legislation in this House and in the upper house. But it should also be a time for all of us to reflect on the fact that it's taken 10 years, and in those 10 years the need for paid domestic violence leave has grown, not diminished.</para>
<para>Despite genuine effort from state and federal governments, Labor and Liberal, over many years, we have not been able to address violence in relationships and violence in the community—violence predominantly perpetrated by men against the women and the children that they purport to, and in many cases do, love. It's just a fact that this is an issue that continues to cause devastation across communities and we haven't been able to address it, despite genuine efforts. I agree with the member for Cowper that the community want to know that more is happening than words. I don't think that any of the words of any of us in this place, no matter what our political party or Independent status is, are simply platitudes. I genuinely believe they come from deeply held beliefs and a deeply held desire to address this issue. But we can't keep talking about it and not find solutions.</para>
<para>In my opinion, informed significantly by my decade and a half of experience working in the criminal justice system, we can't continue to focus on assisting people only once they're in the position of having experienced domestic violence, and we can't continue to focus only on punishing people who have perpetrated domestic violence, if we want to actually crack this cycle. Both of those measures are very important, and this legislation is very important to that first measure of assisting people who have experienced and been subjected to domestic violence to be able to do what they need to do to secure their and their children's safety without also having to lose work and income. They are both incredibly important things to do, but we also have to do more to prevent it happening in the first place. We have to change the culture that exists, which allows the continuation of attitudes in this country that are based on outdated gender stereotypes, perpetuate gender inequality and somehow turn a blind eye to violence. The experts tell us, and have been telling us for a long time, that the driving factor causing this ongoing scourge of domestic violence is gender inequality and outdated, entrenched gender stereotypes.</para>
<para>So, whilst we must do everything we can to assist people to get out of situations of domestic violence—which includes non-physical violence such as financial or other coercion—and make sure that people who engage in those unacceptable behaviours are punished for them and held to account, we also have to do more to do more to make sure that the perpetrators can break their personal cycle of perpetrating and get out of the cycle of reoffending, or that it doesn't start in the first place.</para>
<para>Nothing I'm saying is particularly surprising or innovative—it's what we have known for some time. People who work across the system—social workers, counsellors, police officers, lawyers—tell us this. We can't keep treating the symptoms and the consequences; we also have to address the causes. Many state governments, particularly my state government in Victoria, have acknowledged the link between gender inequality and outdated gender stereotypes and domestic and family violence. In Victoria there is a Gender Equality Strategy to address it. We know that we need to invest more in prevention, as the member for Cowper and other people have said, through education—respectful relationship education, starting with really young children.</para>
<para>We need gender equality, starting with very young children, making sure that the way we used to see ourselves perhaps a generation ago in Australia, where men were tough and played footy and drank beer while women were pretty and wore bikinis and were good at cooking, is not what young people see as the role of men and women only. Young people in our communities and families know that to be a man you can be sensitive, vulnerable, supportive and kind. To be a woman you can be strong, assertive and successful in whatever endeavour one takes on—or vice versa. The old gender stereotypes where the man is the head of the house and the woman is subservient—believe it or not—still exist in too many parts of our society, and we have to do more to make sure that children aren't shackled by those stereotypes, that they are free to be who they want to be and to be equal.</para>
<para>We also have to keep on the path that this government has started—and there was some work done by the previous government—for economic security and equality for women. One of the reasons it's so important to have paid domestic violence leave is because of the fact that so many women say they don't leave because of the financial consequences of leaving. That's because they often work in highly feminised industries, which are the lowest-paid industries in the country. They often have significant periods out of the workforce, so their superannuation balances are significantly lower than men's. They may not have equity in a home. They have responsibilities, particularly if they take the children with them, for child care. That's another gender stereotype that we can do more about in a public policy sense to help with the culture in this country; give men more opportunities to be carers for their children and women the more opportunities to go to work. Again, that goes towards gender equality.</para>
<para>We have to keep working in that field. We also have to continue to invest in services for perpetrators to prevent reoffending. For most people there's an instinctive thought of: 'What? Why would we support perpetrators?' I absolutely understand that, but unless we have programs that we know will work, that are evaluated and that are successful in helping men learn how not to reoffend, to change their behaviours and to change their attitudes, then we aren't going to stop those individual cycles of offending, and it's going to be much harder to stop the macro-cycle of offending. Until we are able to do that, and move towards a society where, for example, if the local hero of the footy team is also up before the courts for domestic violence, the club says: 'We don't support you. We actually hold you accountable for that behaviour,' and until things like that are commonplace, we have to keep supporting victims.</para>
<para>In my community in Dunkley, in Frankston, we have higher than average instances of domestic violence, so we do need to keep supporting the people who are the victims. One of the things I am very pleased about, as a result of the election of the Albanese Labor government, is that there will be seven new support workers for domestic violence victims provided to my community. That will be very important. I'm also keen to make sure that children who have experienced or witnessed domestic violence are given the supports and counselling they need to ensure that the experience doesn't predispose them to falling into the cycle of being either a victim or a perpetrator when they are an adult, because we know there is that cycle. So support for children is incredibly important alongside that education.</para>
<para>I am very much looking forward to the next three years in government, to being a part of working on gender equality in sport, in work and at home, because it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for men and for women. It opens up opportunities that are either legally or—in many cases still—culturally not available to both men and women. It's good for productivity, it's good for the economy and it's also a really important plank in dealing with things like domestic violence, which so many people have said for so long is intolerable and we must address. I look forward to the day that we don't have to say that anymore because we have been successful in changing culture, behaviour and attitudes in this country. I commend this bill as a very important step in that direction.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is an important bill from the government, and the Greens support it. The Greens have long advocated for paid family and domestic violence leave to help victims-survivors, who are predominantly women, to escape abusive relationships, to protect themselves and their children and to rebuild their lives. We've previously brought legislation before this parliament to give effect to paid family and domestic violence leave, and, as long-time advocates for this position, we support the government's bill today.</para>
<para>I want to offer a few brief remarks and note that we'll be making further contributions in the Senate. Our leader in the Senate, Senator Larissa Waters, who has long fought for this reform, will not only give a more extensive contribution but will suggest ways in which this bill could be improved, consistent with the intent of the bill but to make it available more broadly and more effective. We hope, when it comes to the Senate, the government will consider the changes that the Greens think would help improve this very important bill so that it can be passed and improved.</para>
<para>Financial stability and stable employment are critical: critical to a victim-survivor's capacity to escape, to stay safe and to recover. There has been an inquiry into this important bill, and one thing that came through very clearly, from many people who submitted to the inquiry, is that the practicalities of leaving have to be understood and have to be understood by this parliament—finding a new home, moving, meetings with police and lawyers, court appearances, dealing with Centrelink, attending medical appointments, talking to your children's school about new arrangements, installing security devices, closing joint accounts. All of these are very practical and critical things that a victim-survivor will have to deal with. They not only take time; they need a secure income. These are things that require a level of stability, which includes financial stability, otherwise they are very real barriers to victims-survivors leaving abusive relationships and protecting themselves and often their children as well.</para>
<para>The member for Dunkley made this point very eloquently. We have a gender pay gap in our society and the industries that tend to be lower paid and also tend to be women dominated industries, where many women are working, and we are seeing that in our renewed focus on that, which is very welcome, but understanding that many of the care professions are the lower paid industries and they are the areas you tend to find women more than men. Women are often starting from a lower base anyway, with lower incomes, lower savings and, often, lower retirement savings. If one compounds that with an understanding that in many abusive relationships there may well also be an element of financial control, which may form part of the abuse, we start to understand as a parliament and a society why it is so critical to ensure women, victims-survivors, can flee abusive relationships and protect themselves and their children and have the financial security and stability to do so.</para>
<para>No-one should have to choose between their safety and their job. In one of the hearings during the inquiry into this bill, Professor Kate Fitzgibbon quoted from a participant in Monash's 2021 research into paid family and domestic violence leave. One participant said: 'If I didn't have access to paid leave, I would have lost my job. I would have lost everything. I don't know if I would have survived. It was my lifeline.' So it's not only critical to support that process of leaving an abusive relationship, it is also critical in maintaining that ongoing connection with employment. It's absolutely vital for everyone, but it's especially vital for victims-survivors of abuse. It is, in many respects, as that person recounting their experience said, it is a lifeline, in a literal sense—an economic lifeline but also a very real lifeline.</para>
<para>Another thing that became clear during the committee inquiry is that, when a victim-survivor is forced to use unpaid leave to do the things that are needed to prepare for escape, that change in income could be a flag to an abuser. It could put a victim-survivor at further risk. As was made clear in the inquiry, payslips showing a lower income over a fortnight not only could be a flag but could have further flow-on consequences. When you seek assistance or seek to do a new thing in your life, something that is often asked of you is to show your payslips from the last period of time to show that you've got some security of income. If you've got a payslip showing a lower income over a fortnight because you've had to take unpaid leave, that could jeopardise applications for housing and eligibility for government support programs or even change the basis of an assessment for Centrelink support. That's another reason why this reform is critical. It adds to the stability and the foundation that allows victims-survivors to prepare for and take the next step. Not having it could be a barrier to being able to take that next step.</para>
<para>While the exact needs of victims-survivors will differ between situations, those needs will not be determined by the nature of their work or how long they've been with an employer. Therefore, the Greens strongly support ensuring that all employees, whether full time, part time or casual, can access the full 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave when needed rather than have the entitlement accrue over time. As Ms Lang of the Australian Services Union told the committee inquiring into the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we have never seen a circumstance where a perpetrator of violence has pro-rataed the amount of violence they inflict on their partner based on how many hours she works.</para></quote>
<para>Any employee dealing with family and domestic violence needs to be able to access paid leave when the need, or opportunity, to escape arises. Experience in jurisdictions and businesses that have introduced paid family and domestic violence leave indicates that the uptake of leave is minimal, but knowing it's available makes a huge difference to employees weighing up the decision to escape violence. Access to this leave could save their life.</para>
<para>For that reason, the Greens support this important reform from the government. It is one that we have long advocated for. As I said at the start of my submissions, when this bill, hopefully, passes this House—and passes this House soon—and reaches the Senate, the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Greens spokesperson for women, Senator Larissa Waters, will not only be supporting this bill but suggesting to the government ways in which the bill could be strengthened. We hope the government will look at those in the spirit in which they're offered.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYD</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ON (—) (): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. I am incredibly proud to be supporting this bill in the Australian parliament. This bill will deliver on Labor's election commitment to provide employees with access to 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave per 12-month period under the Fair Work Act 2009. This important measure will start on 1 February 2023, providing critical support to those in need. Importantly, there will be a period of additional time to allow for small businesses to put in place processes. But from August 2023 all employees—regardless of whether they are employed in small, medium or big business and regardless of whether they're employed on a full-time, part-time or casual basis—will be able to access paid family and domestic violence leave. This will mean that more than 11 million Australians will now be eligible for this entitlement. We should all stand proud of this moment in the Australian parliament.</para>
<para>I sincerely hope, of course, that very few people have to actually take up this leave. But the introduction of this new law will make a profound difference for those who need to access family and domestic violence leave. It will help them, whether that is to escape violence, to relocate, to enrol kids in new schools, to make appointments with real estate agents to find new and safe modes of housing, to make police reports or to seek counsel. There are so many issues that need to be attended to as a result of leaving a violent relationship. This is an important entitlement. It will be embedded in our National Employment Standards. While we hope that the take-up rate is low, it is important that Australians can access paid family and domestic violence leave when they need it. Whether it's to escape violence or to deal with the fact that you have a violent partner continuing to live in your household, everybody needs to be able to access this important safety net.</para>
<para>It is disappointing to hear some on the opposite benches raise concerns about the application of these new leave entitlements to casual workers, as if this is somehow a problem. As I said, there is nothing about family and domestic violence that suggests a business-as-usual approach is going to suffice. These are not ordinary circumstances, and shame on us the day that we ever think violence against women and children is an ordinary circumstance that we simply have to continue with contend with. Nobody on this side of the House—in fact, I suspect nobody in this parliament—would agree with such a statement.</para>
<para>Domestic and family violence doesn't discriminate who it affects. Whether you are a casual worker, a part-time worker or a full-time worker, escaping family and domestic violence shouldn't leave you having to choose between paid employment and safety for you and your children. According to the results of the 2016 ABS Personal Safety Survey, women are more likely to take time off after experiencing violence by their current or previous partner. The cumulative impact on those experiencing family and domestic violence meant that they often quickly exhaust their leave entitlements, such as their annual or personal leave. This is especially so for casual employees, who already experience insecure work and, typically, do not have other leave entitlements to draw on.</para>
<para>The community, of course, has been calling for paid family and domestic violence leave for many years. The Business Council of Australia supports this work, as do women's legal services and other family and domestic violence support services. Those working on the frontline know the difference it can make. The Australian Council of Trade Unions have been campaigning for this measure for more than a decade.</para>
<para>Last July, I joined a rally of incredible women's safety advocates on the front lawns of Parliament House to remember those women we have lost, who have been killed by acts of violence, and those who are still trapped in violent homes. We joined together not just to commemorate and pay tribute to those women but also to mark the introduction of this historic piece of legislation. As Michele O'Neil, the president of the ACTU, said at that rally: 'It isn't something that began yesterday; this is a decade of struggle, a decade of campaigning, workplace by workplace.'</para>
<para>As we walked back to this House from that rally with my dear friend and colleague the Member for Sydney, we reminisced about those first meetings that we took with union delegates and officials, survivors and researchers, all of whom knew the impact this policy would have. While we met with constant opposition from the former coalition government on these laws, I am so very heartened that it was during the very first parliamentary sitting week of the Albanese Labor government that this bill was introduced.</para>
<para>Report after report revealed the devastating and endemic nature of domestic violence in our nation. Just last month, a report from the Paul Ramsay Foundation, authored by Anne Summers, revealed that 60 per cent of single mothers have experienced domestic violence. The same report also set out the immense financial challenges that women face when leaving violent homes. This reflected what I hear in my electorate of Newcastle from our women's groups and from the women who have survived violent relationships, those who were brave and courageous to take the step to leave and have gone on to lead safe lives for themselves and their children now. A few years ago I a met with a single mom who really highlighted this fact to me as her local federal member. She shared with me her experience as a mother of young kids escaping a horrific and violent relationship. She wanted a new and safe life for her and her children. She shared her story to demonstrate to me just how incredibly difficult it is to navigate all of the processes that are required to be followed if you want to secure a safe life for your children. What became most apparent was that, throughout that process, she needed to maintain economic security in her life. She needed to know that she had a steady income coming in to support herself and her children when making this brave move, and I say 'brave' because we know that, when you make that choice to leave a violent relationship, it is your most dangerous time. That is when you are most at risk.</para>
<para>This woman took that courageous step and shared with me her story of the challenges of navigating through multiple agencies and bureaucracies to establish a new life and the fact that she needed to maintain a steady job whilst doing so. She had used all of her personal and annual leave and found it almost impossible to get to all of the appointments that, as I said, are necessary to try and find new housing, to get your kids into a new school, to make appointments with the police to do those reports and to get access to good legal counsel—all of which she needed to do without risking her job and her economic security. She is not alone, and that is why it is crucial that Labor introduce this bill to cover all workers. Women escaping violence with their children should not be even further disadvantaged simply because they are a casual worker. That would be an appalling situation to leave our nation in, and we know that women are far more likely to be in casual work than men. This bill gives all workers the time, support and job security they will need to escape and rebuild their lives after leaving an abusive relationship.</para>
<para>The mood at the family and domestic violence rally last July that I referred to differed vastly from when I was on those same lawns in front of Parliament House last March alongside thousands of Australian women calling for an end to violence against women and children, demanding safety, and demanding justice and equality from the previous government. Unfortunately, that message fell on deaf ears, and we all know how demoralised those women felt when the Prime Minister refused to meet with them. But, as I said, the mood on those front lawns was vastly different. To begin with, our new Prime Minister actually attended the rally in person. He addressed the vigil. He paid tribute to the women and the union movement who helped shape this policy and ensured that these laws became a lived reality in Australia. It's a fight that is more than a decade old in this nation now.</para>
<para>There was a very powerful sense of hope at that rally and an understanding that, finally, after what has been a very long decade, we have a government that genuinely cares about women's economic security when they are trying to escape family and domestic violence. We will make use of all the levers that are available to government to curb domestic violence. We are a government for whom this is a first priority issue. We know that making provisions to ensure 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is just the first step towards an Australia that is safer for women in their homes, in their workplaces and in their lives.</para>
<para>Leaving a violent relationship will, of course, still be very hard, and I pay tribute to every woman who has been able to make that decision. This bill will ensure that making that decision to leave a violent relationship is less likely to leave you jobless or without economic security, and this bill shows that family and domestic violence is not just a criminal and social justice issue; it is also a workplace and economic issue. It is important for the productivity of this nation for these matters to be addressed. Ten days paid family and domestic violence leave will save women's lives. That is a big statement but one that should embolden us all to ensure the carriage of this legislation.</para>
<para>This win, of course, would not have happened without the decade-long struggle of many unions, many union members and devoted campaigners. I pay tribute to Natalie Lang of the Australian Services Union, who has long led the charge. For the last decade she has brought delegates and her members with lived experience here to talk to politicians on all sides of the fence about these issues. I recall those stories. Those stories have always sat very closely with me and remained in my heart, with the hope that one day I would be able to stand in this parliament and deliver some good news: that we as a nation are finally mature enough to ensure that we will never, ever put women and kids in a situation where they have to choose between staying with a violent perpetrator in their home or having a job and economic security.</para>
<para>This bill will not in itself solve the problem of family and domestic violence, but it does mean that no-one will ever again be forced to make that decision between earning a wage and protecting the safety of themselves and their children. This is a proud moment for the Australian parliament, and I ask all members to support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is really a seminal event in the process of legislation in this parliament. It will be a marker point. There is no doubt about that. I rise in general support of this initiative. But there are some things that people are not brave enough to say, including that it's not going to be the same for everyone. There are some glaring things that need to be fixed up with this bill. At the risk of being accused of trying to kill Bambi, I would just like to point out a few inequities in what is proposed. There are inequities in the situation for small businesses and microbusinesses and for women who are facing domestic violence who aren't in full-time or casual employment. They don't get the same sort of help because of their situation. Many of them would like to work, but they're not covered. There are 700,000 people running a small business or a microbusiness. If they are a sole trader, are they going to pay themselves their own family and domestic violence leave?</para>
<para>Some small businesses have told me they support the concept that people facing family and domestic violence, whether they're female—most of the time—or male, should have some way of being financially supported to get their life and their kids and everything sorted out. No-one's arguing against that, but why is it on the employer, particularly small businesses? If you're BHP, a big corporate firm or a government employer, sure, you have hundreds or thousands of employees, and this is just a blip. But, for a lot of my small businesses, where they have one, two or three people, it's a big ask on the business, and they are all under pressure. As for the microbusinesses, as I said, if the person is a one-woman or one-man business, and they have to pay themselves, there's no real advancement. So I am proposing that this should be approached like parental leave. The Commonwealth pays the parental leave if someone is in a situation where they're employed and they can't go to work and they can't be paid. In the last parliament, we did introduce five days unpaid leave into the National Employment Standards.</para>
<para>The other thing is that, with this bill, a lot of employers are very worried that, if they are approving and paying 10 days leave for one of their employees because of family and domestic violence but they haven't reported it to the police, they will be dragged into some liability if something really bad happens. There are processes where, if you have concerns for the wellbeing and welfare of individuals you don't know or if, say, your neighbour's having domestic violence, you can ring the police and let them know that you have concerns for the safety and welfare of your neighbour. If an employer is now awarding leave to an employee facing domestic violence but that employee doesn't report it to the police or get an apprehended violence order put against the person or have them charged with criminal behaviour, and the employer hasn't done a co-notification, where are they left?</para>
<para>All these questions are being asked by lots of my small businesses. Paradoxically, it might make some potential employees have a silent counterinitiative that will make them less likely to be employed by some employers. All these things need to be thought through. If we rush through things in this House too quickly and we haven't thought through all the consequences, we may not be getting the outcome we want.</para>
<para>So that is my call to support this bill. We need to look at who's paying for it all the time. There are 700,000 sole traders alone. In my area, I have about 10,000 small businesses with one, two or three people in them, and this will be another impost on businesses which are already struggling. Really I think this should be like Medicare or unemployment benefits if it's a societal thing. The Deputy Speaker just said, 'The nation is now caring for you,' but hang on. It's not the nation; it's employers caring for you and helping you in the situation of domestic violence. We can't keep piling more and more obligations on employers. Those are my thoughts on this bill. I commend the intent of it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. I am very proud to be able to speak of what is indeed a very historic bill, because this bill, very importantly, sets out 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave as a minimum employment standard. In fact, the government values this initiative so much that we introduced this in the first week of this new parliament. This bill also sends a very strong message that women's safety and gender equity are a national priority and that these issues are at the forefront of the Albanese Labor government's agenda.</para>
<para>Of course, the fact is that no woman should live in fear of abuse and in fear of her current or former partner. When we look at those statistics, we know one woman is killed by a current or former partner every 10 days. That figure is devastatingly high. Of course, every life lost due to family and domestic violence is a heartbreaking reminder to everyone of the reality that confronts us all. As a former frontline police officer, I have seen firsthand the horror, the tragedy and the reality of family and domestic violence. I have stood in the middle of the night in the kitchens or lounge rooms of many homes, in the middle of domestic violence situations, and I have seen the trauma and terror of those victims—those women and children—and the complexities involved and the difficulties they have in leaving.</para>
<para>Each and every woman has a right to be safe—to be safe at home, to be safe on the street and to be safe at work. The fact is, we cannot fail to act. That's why our government's commitment to enshrine 10 days of family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards is so incredibly important. We know this entitlement will save lives.</para>
<para>This bill sets out the 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave as a minimum employment standard for all. The reason that it's for all is that when we look at the situation with many casual employees they typically do not have access to paid leave. The fact is, women who are experiencing or who have experienced family and domestic violence often have a more disrupted work history and are therefore more likely to be employed in casual work. That's why this bill, vitally, will cover the 2.6 million casual workers throughout the nation. This bill also captures the evolving living styles of Australian households by covering abuse in intimate relationships whether or not those partners may cohabitate. In addition, these 10 days will provided upfront, meaning that, regardless of where you are in your employment, you will be given full access to the entitlement should you need it. Safety should not depend on someone's employer or the place that they work. This bill ensures that no one is forced to choose between staying safe and getting by and being employed.</para>
<para>We know that access to reliable income has been proven to be one of the most significant determining factors in the decision to leave a violent relationship. Financial stress is a significant barrier to the safety of a woman experiencing family and domestic violence. Employment is an important pathway because these women cannot risk joblessness, homelessness and poverty, which we all know are some of the many barriers in terms of getting out of these violent relationships. We also know that when it comes to systems of abuse, such as coercive control, the abuser may restrict a person's economic and financial resources. A measure such as the 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave will help to break down those barriers to getting out.</para>
<para>The fact is also that women, when looking to leave an abusive situation, incur a huge amount of cost. They need access to those funds and there's so much they have to arrange in order for that to occur, such as seeking safe emergency housing, securing a long-term place to live for themselves and their children, being able to travel to safe locations, being able to attend medical appointments, accessing legal advice, accessing police, attending court hearings, and providing for their dependants. A lot of time is spent organising alternative child care or alternative education arrangements, and re-engaging with those very important support networks that they may not have been able to engage with before. There's a vast array of issues that women have to pursue in terms of being able to leave those relationships.</para>
<para>In addition, the 10 days are an important tool to enable victim-survivors to access those key services that are primarily open during business hours. Without the ability to take the appropriate leave, we can have a situation where women may be faced with the choice between accessing the support services and trying to maintain their employment. By having the certainty of the pay, we're able to lessen the disruption, particularly on the lives of dependants, on income and on that woman's employment status.</para>
<para>Family and domestic violence is an issue on a number of fronts—criminal, social, and economic—and it is an industrial issue in the workplace. This is for a number of reasons. Family and domestic violence is a workplace issue because it is brought into the workplace and impacts significantly a woman's ability to attend or participate at work. The economic impact of family and domestic violence in the workplace is significant, with workplace productivity substantially reduced due to absenteeism, the need for subsequent retraining and the cost of recruitment to replace departed staff. In fact, family and domestic violence is estimated to cost the economy between $12.6 billion and $22 billion per year.</para>
<para>Family and domestic violence is a workplace issue because financial stability and employment are absolutely crucial both to enabling a woman to actually leave the violent relationship and, importantly, enabling her to recover and rebuild. The Fair Work Commission's 2021 review into family and domestic violence leave reveals just how much family and domestic violence leave affects a woman's access to work, her prospects of career progression and the ability to maintain, or gain, financial independence. This bill means that victims-survivors are better placed to continue their employment and not have those major gaps.</para>
<para>Family and domestic violence is also a workplace issue because of the role the workplace has in shaping society's response to gendered violence. If businesses have an obligation to provide the 10 days paid leave, what comes with that obligation is enabling and supporting policies. These policies start conversations in the workplace that help to change behaviour. Conversations make employees more cognisant of the issue and make our community more cognisant of the issue and also more cognisant of the telltale signs that somebody might actually need help. I also want to assure the business community that we're introducing this legislation with consideration of the system changes that businesses will have to administer. Most businesses will have around six months to implement the new entitlements, and small businesses will be afforded a further six months. The phasing-in ensures that the entitlements are understood by everyone in the workplace, and that's vitally important. I do want to thank and acknowledge the businesses and employers who are already providing the support and who have worked hard to support their employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence.</para>
<para>This bill to amend the Fair Work Act in terms of the 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is another really clear commitment by our government. It sends a very strong message that this is a national priority. Proper industrial relations laws like this bill help to reduce the overall gender pay gap and increase women's economic security and their safety. We know that this bill must work in conjunction with other reforms to bring about real structural change. We have a mandate to ensure that supports are in place for those who need help to flee those situations and to bring about long-term transformation. That's why we're making a record $3 billion investment to end violence against women and children. In order to reduce violence against women and children, we need to have more national conversations around respect. We also need to make sure that those conversations are started early with young people, so our government is investing $77 million in consent and respectful relationships education for school students. We know that early intervention and primary prevention will help to change some entrenched attitudes and behaviours. All of this then leads to breaking the cycle of violence. It's so important that we engage with young people.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government will also deliver $1.3 billion to implement the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This plan will deliver a strong and evidence based approach to meet the needs of anyone who is experiencing gender based violence. This implementation of the plan will be overseen by our new Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner, who will be working with the states and territories in terms of coordinating their responses. Very importantly, the commissioner's role is really to amplify the voices of victims-survivors. Having the commission and the commissioner in place again shows the commitment that this government has in terms of its proactive actions to end violence against women and children and shows how vitally important that is.</para>
<para>We know, of course, that housing is a major issue for women fleeing domestic violence, so, in addition to the measures I have outlined, our government will make a major investment of $1.6 billion to build more social housing properties for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence. Very importantly, the government will invest $100 million towards crisis and transitional accommodation. Both of these aspects are vitally important. Accessing emergency accommodation—having somewhere to go—is so important, but the long-term arrangements in terms of the housing situation are also important.</para>
<para>We know that the pandemic and the rising cost of living means that the fight to end violence against women has never been more important. That's why we're also investing $157 million to fund 500 additional community sector workers to support women in crisis. This is a commitment we made prior to the election and we will be delivering, and are delivering, on that commitment. And I would like to acknowledge and thank all of those community sector workers who do an outstanding job dealing with the complexities and challenges of those women who are fleeing domestic violence. That's why we are committing to 500 more, because we know these services are needed right across the country in so many areas. A large proportion of that commitment is in rural and regional areas, where it is often a lot more difficult to access those services. What it will mean is more case managers, more financial counsellors and more children-support workers nationwide. We're making sure that full suite of support is there for both women and children.</para>
<para>We know that family and domestic violence continues to present a huge challenge right across the nation. It means, sadly, that home often becomes one of the most dangerous places for women. These issues—women's safety, women's economic security and gender equity—concern us all, as individuals, as communities and as governments. We need to keep building on the work that we're doing, and this bill really does that by enshrining those 10 days of paid and family domestic violence leave. It is a response to a decade of action, where we've heard from so many people: the victims-survivors, the frontline workers—particularly the union movement, who've been advocating for so long—the various other community advocates and, of course, many, many of my parliamentary colleagues who have been fighting hard for this issue. The member for Newcastle, in her contribution, referred to the rally that we had in July on the front lawns of parliament, where we made it clear we would introduce this legislation and really acknowledged the people who had fought so hard for this.</para>
<para>Labor listens and Labor acts. That's why we're delivering on this. I'm very pleased to be supporting this bill, from a number of perspectives—of course as the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence but also as a former frontline police officer, having spent many years attending literally hundreds of domestic violence situations and hearing firsthand from many women about what was needed for them in terms of being able to flee those relationships. So it's been an area that I've always had a strong interest in. I commend this bill, as a very proud member of the Albanese Labor government, because we are a government that is committed to ending violence against women and children. We were very proud that this bill was introduced in the first week of this new government. It shows that this is a national priority, and we will build upon that work. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today with a hopeful optimism that one of Australia's most pressing social issues may see the implementation of strengthened support mechanisms. I commend the government for its bill to legislate 10 days of paid domestic violence leave, the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. This will be a clear step in improving the systems of support for women and families escaping violent situations. It's a good first step that will help survivors of violence undertake the immense change and recalibration that is endured when leaving an abusive partner.</para>
<para>I feel compelled, though, to illustrate how much more is needed to combat this epidemic. While 10 days of paid domestic violence leave is a good systemic improvement, we simply cannot stop there. We must be prepared to adequately tackle the issue of family and domestic violence at a national level. It means taking steps that we have not yet taken. This means adequately investing in prevention and solutions. This means we must keep working until we see meaningful change. This issue is too important. It is an absolute scourge on our society.</para>
<para>In consultation with survivors and stakeholders in my community, the consensus is clear: the bill is good, but it is ultimately a drop in the ocean for what we need to do to eradicate domestic violence. Leaving a violent situation at home is a mammoth endeavour that extends so much further than merely walking out the door. Those I have spoken with detail horrific experiences of continued adaptable abuse that often takes many years and extensive legal proceedings to separate from. Having spent many years in the family law courts as a family law barrister, I can attest to those experiences. Relationships that are physically abusive can continue after a survivor has left, in the forms of coercive control, character assassination, financial and legal abuse. We need stronger national definitions of these forms of violence. We need to ensure that the Australian public is educated and aware of the many forms that violence and abuse can take. We need to ensure that existing support systems are better resourced and we need to improve ease of access to these frontline support services. Leaving a violent relationship can be a terrifying and dangerous time for survivors. The onus is on us, as elected representatives, to implement change to improve holistic safety and to bring our communities with us.</para>
<para>The economic impact is often overlooked when it comes to family and domestic violence. But, according to the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, family and domestic violence will cost the Australian economy an estimated $13.6 billion this year alone. This cost has increased from previous years. It needs to be reversed, and the cost of inaction is far too great to ignore. The report finds that vulnerable groups are likely to be disproportionately financially impacted due to circumstantial challenges. It finds that, without intervention, violence against immigrant and refugee women is estimated to cost the economy just over $4 billion; against women with disabilities, $3.9 billion; and against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, some $2.2 billion—and, in relation to children who witness violence, it is some $1.5 billion. These figures are astronomical, and to see how severely these impacts are felt by some of the most vulnerable in our community is truly gut-wrenching. So I implore the government to maintain a high standard of transparency with regard to the economic impacts of domestic violence. We need to ensure these figures are subject to profound change and improvement.</para>
<para>The Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report on this bill clearly outlines that a whole-of-community response to family and domestic violence is needed. This should be led by our parliament, with an acknowledgement of existing needs and a swift implementation of thoughtful improvements. When reviewing this legislation, I was pleased to see a thoughtful, considered approach to ensuring this leave is available to all employees, no matter their full-time, part-time or casual employment status. I'm also pleased to see that the full rate of pay entitlement of 10 days will be available upfront when needed, with this option extended to workers upon the commencement of new employment. Further extensions are also good to see. With the passing of the bill, the definition of 'family and domestic violence' will be extended to include conduct of a current or former intimate partner of an employee, or a member of an employee's household. This widened definition considers the diverse contexts and unique circumstances that deserve our acknowledgement.</para>
<para>The emotional impacts of leaving a violent situation are severe. People fleeing domestic violence must undertake a profound recalibration of personal safety, e-safety, accommodation, financial security, property, custody of children—and the mental health implications. Ten days is not a lot of time to investigate and come to terms with all of those intense changes. The bill indicates a solid start to improving the systems designed to support those afflicted by family and domestic violence, but I am concerned it doesn't go far enough. In consultation with one of my constituents, I learnt that her corporate employer already extends 20 days of paid domestic violence leave to its employees. This is double the proposed allocation in this bill. Yet I was told every single one of those 20 days was necessary, in her circumstances, to undertake the immense task of leaving. The committee recommends that the Senate pass this bill, and I concur with that. However, when the recommended independent review takes place following the implementation of the first schedule, I will firmly implore the government to seriously consider whether 10 days is adequate and whether this needs to be extended further.</para>
<para>My constituents also want to see more guidance from the government, and systems put in place to streamline access to support services, therapy and education. Ideally, employers will be equipped to help workers instigate access to services during the paid leave period. It's feared that much of the allocated paid domestic violence leave days will be wasted due to the complexity of navigating the system on their own by the people who need to use it.</para>
<para>There is a need for national definitions and public awareness. In 2020, the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted an inquiry on family, domestic and sexual violence. From its report, the need for nationally recognised and consistent definitions of non-physical and complex types of abuse was clear. In the report, the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance explained that 'coercive control' is an umbrella term that refers to an ongoing pattern of controlling and coercive behaviours that are not exclusively physical but can pervade an individual's daily life, with a devastating impact. Coercive control is insidious and covert. Its proposed criminalisation in states across Australia will be aided by heightened awareness and clear, consistent definitions that consider the complex nature of this abuse.</para>
<para>The issue of family and domestic violence is prevalent in every area of Australia, in every community. There is no economic or geographic area that is exempt. Similarly, in my electorate of Warringah, from April 2021 to March 2022, 427 recorded domestic violence assaults were recorded across Warringah's three local government areas. In the same period, 451 domestic AVOs were issued. We know that these figures got a lot worse during COVID. We know that it was an incredibly difficult and stressful time. Shockingly, when we look at those 451 domestic AVOs, some 229 of those were breached, indicating the system of protecting victims is not enough to prevent further threats and harassments. This has all occurred across three local council areas over one year, and these are just the instances that were reported to authorities. We know that many more occur.</para>
<para>I've met with several local women who bravely shared their stories with me. I have heard of the extreme adversity they have faced within their abusive relationships, but also of the continued abuse they have experienced through the legal system. The prohibitive expense of leaving is keeping people trapped in violent situations, and that's unacceptable. For a person to leave violence, they also have to be prepared for lengthy legal processes with extremely high legal fees, contributing to the longer-term financial crippling of women.</para>
<para>I've also heard about alarming experiences due to the uncoupling of the family law and the criminal law courts. For obvious privacy reasons, I won't share with the parliament the details of these experiences women have shared with me, but I do need to be clear that the extent of continued non-physical abuse was shocking, debilitating and terrifying for these women to experience over the course of many years. Even as a legal practitioner, having practised in that area, I know firsthand how incredibly frustrating and difficult it was at times to be able to assist clients through that system. Much of this continued fear was associated with the family law system. It's being under-resourced. The delays and time lines are incredibly difficult.</para>
<para>I strongly opposed the last government's move to end the Family Court of Australia; a specialised jurisdiction that was incredibly important. It's clear that there is still much to be done to ensure that that system is sufficiently resourced to deal promptly with issues and disputes. Perpetrators still have too many options and abilities within that system to tarnish the character or deplete the finances of victims.</para>
<para>I would say there have been inadequate authority responses. This is a common thread of some of the tragedies that hit our front pages in Australia. A common pattern expressed in some of the consultations that I've had was that the systems designed to adequately protect victims and children have been inadequate, with some still living in debilitating fear of their former intimate partners, despite having left them several years ago, and now receiving other forms of abuse. It was highlighted in the report <inline font-style="italic">Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence</inline>, which thoroughly explored instances of sustained financial, legal and technological abuse. The report read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee received evidence that, in many cases, authorities did not appear to understand the problem and were thus taking ineffective or even counterproductive action.</para></quote>
<para>This affirms why Australians need clearer definitions and consequences for non-physical forms of domestic violence. We need our authorities to clearly understand complex abuse. We need heightened public awareness so insidious, oftentimes covert forms of abuse can be more easily identified and prevented.</para>
<para>Further to the passing of this bill, the parliament must address the adaptability of abuse and legislate meaningful change to define and prevent complex violence. We know there is a disproportionate impact on women, and so we have to talk of this in gender equity terms as well. Domestic and family violence is a social issue that disproportionately affects women. I have spoken with constituents whose professional development suffered due to the lack of gender equity in their workplaces. So we also need robust mechanisms in place to prevent financial penalty for women who must take time out from work to deal with the immense challenges of leaving violence.</para>
<para>It is so important that, when we talk of this, we recognise and acknowledge the incredible work done by local supports. I want to take this time to commend the work of frontline family and domestic violence services across the country. I know how intense the work is to support and guide survivors and their families, and I know that many lives will not have recovered without their active care and support. In Warringah, we are lucky to have local services that actively assist constituents in crisis. This includes Josie Parata and her team from Lighthouse for the Community. The local organisation works with survivors to create a safety plan, a strategy, to move them forward in life following their violent situation. Lighthouse for the Community and other community organisations across Australia are instrumental in guiding those leaving violence, with patience and compassion. That guidance is vital. While paid domestic violence leave is a welcomed step, we must ask ourselves what comes next. How are those fleeing violence supposed to navigate the ordeals on their own. I ask the government to urgently explore the expanded resourcing of services. Survivors need ease of access to services that can reliably guide them through the emotional and legal journey to independence and safety.</para>
<para>This bill is a good first step. It is considered and practical and I welcome it. But I would ultimately urge that we need to consider how much more is needed and how much further it needs to go to provide adequate respite to those undertaking the immense task of leaving violence. We must monitor the adequacy and success of this support and be willing to revisit it should an expansion be needed. The government must continue to legislate meaningful change, including nationally consistent definitions and public awareness of complex abuse.</para>
<para>Domestic and family violence is a complex and urgent issue. We need a full community approach to implement meaningful change, and as federal representatives we must all take a legal role in this. This is a good start, but this is very much an issue that must stay at the forefront of our endeavours.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have risen to speak in this chamber about the need for more action on family and domestic violence in Australia. So I am very proud to speak today as a member of an Albanese Labor government that is committed to providing the leadership and the investment needed to help end family, domestic and sexual violence. Paid family and domestic violence leave is a big part of that commitment and is a long overdue change that will help to save countless lives.</para>
<para>All Australians have the right to be safe at work and at home. No-one should ever have to choose between their safety and their income. Unfortunately, this is a choice that many Australians are forced to make every day. In 2022, it is unacceptable that millions of Australian workers have to face this impossible choice. Family and domestic violence comes in many forms; it is not just physical abuse. Verbal, emotional, financial, sexual and psychological abuse are all types of domestic and family violence, as are threats, manipulation and controlling behaviour. I have been very pleased to see our Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, working with state and territory counterparts on a national approach to coercive control.</para>
<para>Family and domestic violence affects people from all walks of life in every community across Australia. It is a fact that family and domestic violence disproportionately affects women, women who are also more likely to be casual or part-time workers. Increased awareness of family and domestic violence in recent years has helped to confront this issue, but the appalling facts set out by the Fair Work Commission in its recent review show that we still have a very long way to go. The review found that, from age 15, about one in four women has experienced at least one instance of violence by an intimate partner; First Nations women are 35 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence than non-Indigenous women; police receive a call on average every two minutes in Australia relating to family and domestic violence; and, on average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia—mothers, sisters, aunties, cousins, friends and co-workers. For far too many women, the most dangerous place in Australia is their own home.</para>
<para>This is a national disgrace and it has to change, and that's why this bill is so important. It will save lives. Shockingly, over the past decade, 488 women in Australia were killed by an intimate partner, and it's getting worse. Family and domestic violence has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Queensland study showed that 67 per cent of family and domestic violence workers reported new clients seeking help for the first time during the pandemic.</para>
<para>I recently met with Homelessness Australia, who told me that domestic and family violence is the leading cause for homelessness for women and children in Australia. The <inline font-style="italic">Nowhere to</inline><inline font-style="italic"> g</inline><inline font-style="italic">o</inline> report found that more than 9,000 women each year become homeless after fleeing violence at home. More than 39 per cent of all people seeking homelessness services cite family and domestic violence as a reason for seeking assistance. The <inline font-style="italic">Nowhere to</inline><inline font-style="italic"> g</inline><inline font-style="italic">o</inline> report also found that every year an estimated 7,690 women return to perpetrators because they can't find anywhere affordable to live. The report titled <inline font-style="italic">The choice: violence or</inline><inline font-style="italic"> poverty</inline> revealed that around 45,000 women want to leave violence, but can't because they can't afford to leave. We must do better than this.</para>
<para>For too long, family and domestic violence was considered a private matter, something that just affected the home lives of victims and happened outside of the workplace. But we know that it touches all facets of life, including work, affecting the productivity of not just victims but also those around them. Labor knows family and domestic violence is not just a criminal justice or social issue but also an economic and workplace issue, and workplaces can play key roles as sources of critical support for people experiencing violence.</para>
<para>More than 68 per cent of people experiencing family and domestic violence are in paid work, but many can't leave without risking joblessness, financial stress, homelessness and poverty. The choice is often between their own safety and their livelihood. Leaving violent relationships costs time and money. Women who experience family and domestic earn 35 per cent less than those who do not. Paid leave provides the financial support and economic security so urgently needed to help those fleeing dangerous situations to do so safely and to rebuild their lives.</para>
<para>Employers play an increasingly important role, and already bear significant costs of family and domestic violence, It cost employers through reduced productivity, absenteeism, recruitment and retraining costs. It costs employers about $2 billion per year and costs the national economy between $12.6 billion and $22 billion each year. This is another reason the Labor government has introduced this legislation. The connection with work and the payment of wages is so important to keep some stability in a woman's life as they seek domestic violence, and as they seek to start a new life.</para>
<para>The Fair Work Commission's review of family and domestic violence leave recognised that family and domestic violence erodes women's access to work, career progression and financial independence. Paid family and domestic violence leave will negate some of these negative impacts, help to reduce the gender pay gap, support gender equality and increase women's economic security. Our legislation extends the Fair Work Commission's recent preliminary review by introducing a right to 10 days paid leave for all eligible employees covered by the National Employment Standards. This will give workers—overwhelmingly women—the means to escape violent situations without risking their jobs or their financial security and that of their families.</para>
<para>More than 11 million Australian workers, including casuals, will be able to access this leave. This is important, because women who are experiencing family and domestic violence are more likely to be employed in casual work. Leave is particularly necessary for casual employees who are already dealing with the consequences of being in insecure work and unable to access other paid leave. There are currently 2.6 million casual employees in Australia, almost 23 per cent of all employees. To leave casuals without this protection would provide further incentive for employees to prefer casuals over permanent jobs.</para>
<para>The other key difference in our proposal from the commission's preliminary review is that payment relief will be at the employee's full rate of pay as opposed to the base rate minimum that applies under the National Employment Standards for other paid leave entitlements. This departure is also critical to meet our policy objective of minimising to the greatest extent possible the damage and disruption to a person's life and economic security caused by family and domestic violence.</para>
<para>We have also extended the definition of family and domestic violence to include the conduct of 'a member of an employee's household' to recognise that Australians are living in more diverse and different arrangements. We understand that small business, the engine room of the Australian economy, needs support to implement this. The new entitlement will take effect on 1 February 2023 for larger businesses and will be phased in starting 1 August 2023 for small businesses in recognition that they have limited human resource and payroll capabilities.</para>
<para>This is just the start for this Labor government's work to act on family and domestic violence. We will release a national plan to end violence against women and children later this year to set out a strategy for the next decade. We will invest in an additional 500 community frontline workers, put consent and respectful relationships education in schools, build safe and affordable housing for women fleeing domestic violence and create a new domestic, family and sexual violence commission. This change could and should have been made years ago, but the previous government failed to act. I urge the Liberal and National parties to support this legislation because it will make a difference and it will save lives.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill. Family, domestic and sexual violence is a hidden scourge in our modern society. The statistics are horrifying. In the last parliament I was privileged but challenged to sit on the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. It was given to me to refer to it today in preparation for these few words. It's worth noting that one in six or 17 per cent of women and 6.1 per cent of men have experienced physical and sexual violence from a current or previous cohabitating partner. There are number of other statistics. Five point one per cent of people have experienced violence from a current or previous boyfriend et cetera. Those figures are horrifying. Most of us are familiar with the fact that roughly, on average, one woman a week loses her life to domestic violence in Australia. We are all challenged by those types of statistics. I'll come back to that report a bit later on in this speech, if I have time to do so.</para>
<para>Leave for domestic violence is inherently a good thing. It was decreed by the Fair Work Commission back in 2018, from memory, that five days a week should become a concern. The government is now putting forward that that should be extended to 10 days a week. I'm not opposing that in principle. I do, though, raise some concerns about who is responsible for this, and I also raised these matters in my address-in-reply speech just a few weeks ago. It seems improper to me that an employer, who has absolutely no control over the circumstances in which a person lives, is somehow held financially responsible for the outcome. Under former governments, we've legislated to ensure that paid parenting leave or maternity leave, whatever you want to call it, is not primarily the financial responsibility of the employer; it is primarily the responsibility of the taxpayer. I would say the rule of thumb here is that, if it is in the public interest and it is outside the control of the employer, it stands to reason that it should be the public's bill.</para>
<para>People will say, 'Well, how many people do you expect to take up this domestic violence leave?' I accept that argument, except that it can have a disproportionate impact on a small employer. Let's imagine a business that employs a dozen people. I know family and domestic violence is not a one-gender issue, but predominantly these offences are committed against females. Let's say this one employer has a mainly female workforce because of the nature of its business, and it happens to have, sadly, a couple of employees on their books who are suffering from family and domestic violence. It starts to become an impediment to their payroll.</para>
<para>More concerning to me is that this may well become a disincentive to employ females in the first place. Even more concerning to me is that the employer may reach to a sort of stereotyping: 'This person here looks to me like they are high risk.' We all know that family and domestic violence knows no bounds. It has no class structures. But I'm not sure that's clear in the public mind. When I say 'we all know', I mean those of us who actually deal with these inquiries and issues on a regular basis. But I wouldn't mind betting that, if I put a number of people in a line-up, if you like, and allowed people to select them on the basis of which ones they think would be more likely to be victims of domestic violence, they would come up with a view with a fair amount of conformity. So that's a concern to me about the long-term prospects of employment for women.</para>
<para>There is also the fact that, while of course these issues should remain private, it would be almost impossible to keep them so in a small workplace. People are not stupid. It may well then also become something that the employee will cart around with them in future when they're looking for other forms of employment. I think the possibility of keeping that separate would be enhanced by having a government system, as in the paid parental leave system, where it is the responsibility of the government and not the responsibility of the employer. So on two levels—the practicalities and possible outcomes that I've just discussed and the system of fairness and sensibilities—I think this should be the responsibly of the taxpayer.</para>
<para>One of the other questions that this brings up to me, of course, is the government's move to include casual employees. It was not the recommendation of the Fair Work Commission, and I think it's an adventurous step, for many of the reasons that I've just been coasting over. One of those is what impact this has on an employer's decision to employ. Even more concerningly, standing alongside the government's intention to include casual employees is their intention to load up the full 10 days leave from day one of employment. Suppose that, as an employer, I employ an individual and they work one day, and they have a domestic violence situation, and now I'm responsible for 10 days. They may take their 10 days. They may work another two days for me over the next 12 months, or they may never come back, but as the employer I am responsible for those 10 days. Once again, this is something that, if it's going to be the responsibility of anyone, clearly should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.</para>
<para>Secondly, I think it is a dangerous precedent that it does not accrue. The suggestion from the Fair Work Commission inquiry was that it accrue to a maximum of 10 days. We know the government and their allies the unions are very keen to get rid of casual employment or decrease it in the workplace, and I just ask the question: is that part of this push to get rid of casual employees? I just don't think it's right. It just doesn't stack up. It does not make sense that somebody has that responsibility after employing somebody for one day.</para>
<para>Maybe when the legislation is passed, as I'm sure it will be in the Senate, and they sit down and the regulations and details of these schemes are figured out, that will be covered off. I don't know what the government's intention is. I think that in itself is a concern—that legislation is brought into this place and we're asked to vote on it without actually knowing what it means in practical terms. So it would be helpful to me if the minister made a statement to say, 'If you're a casual employee, you actually have to have worked 15 days,' or something like that, 'before you would qualify.' It is a corruption—I don't mean 'corrupt'—of a system that should be there to support people, and, I think, really unfairly targets the employer, which then, of course, leads to these outcomes where the employer may have great reluctance to employ. Those are my main concerns with the legislation as it stands.</para>
<para>I would like to come back to the report of the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. In 2020—so in the same parliament—I also sat on the committee for its inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography. The report was called <inline font-style="italic">P</inline><inline font-style="italic">rotecting the</inline><inline font-style="italic"> age of innocence</inline>. I can tell you that neither of these inquiries were comfortable or fun to sit on. A lot of times, in parliament, one of the equalising factors, if you like, is not just that you get to meet great people—and we did get to meet great people—but you get to encounter great experience. In both of those inquiries, we got to encounter perhaps the worst of mankind, in many ways. In the inquiry looking at gambling but also access to online pornography, we had people come before us who were graphically telling us at what age children—10 and eight—were accessing graphic, violent online pornography and live sex, featuring, regularly, the degradation of women. If we could stop it with the stroke of a pen, we should—quite as simple as that.</para>
<para>I don't think we ask often enough what the underlying drivers are in our society—why people actually are what they are. Family, domestic and sexual violence is getting reported more often. The question is: is it getting reported more often because people are feeling more at ease with reporting the situation, or is it becoming more prevalent? In my view it's probably both, and, certainly, I swing towards the level of it becoming more prevalent. Maybe we're just becoming more aware of it. But I think it is becoming more prevalent, and that greatly concerns me. Why is it becoming more prevalent? I've touched on the online pornography, but you've only got to switch on your television after about eight o'clock at night and you can see things that I reckon kids shouldn't be watching.</para>
<para>In this inquiry, we were told that boys, young men, were forming their attitudes about what a modern relationship—an intimate relationship—should look like, and expecting that they would indulge in dominant behaviour, perhaps even violence, and that that is what women would like. More disturbingly, we heard that young females actually thought this was normalised activity and they were expected to conform to it. That's appalling. We can say that we can switch off the pornography, but I'm pretty bloody confident—excuse me; I'm very confident—that that would not fix the problem. If you look at the level of violence and the depiction of relationships just in modern movies and modern television programs, compared to what we saw when I was growing up, in the sixties—when we could get television—it's worlds apart. It's hardly a surprise that young people are developing attitudes that are unacceptable. We know they're unacceptable, but young people don't know they're unacceptable. I'm not a wowser, I'm not a censor, but I think we've actually got to start talking about this issue in a realistic manner and ask: where do we draw the line? We've drawn the line at age 18 for certain types of material, but, of course, the bar is set pretty high for that material.</para>
<para>Secondly, while I know most parents try to do the right thing, gee, there are a lot out there that wouldn't know how to read PG and M and MA ratings and all those things and actually adhere to them. Often, when the oldest child qualifies to watch something, they can all watch it now. That's not really good enough, I don't think. It doesn't make me feel particularly happy to have to stand up and speak about this, but, given the bill we're talking about, and given the recommendations that are made in the bill, and given that we are now moving towards greater leave from work for people who are victims of family, sexual and domestic violence, I think these are the issues we should be talking about. I don't know the answers, but I'm pretty confident I know what some of the problems are, and I reckon we need to get serious about them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a bill that's going to save lives. It's going to save women's lives; it's going to save children's lives. The really key thing here is that every employer can be a part of saving someone's life, potentially, when this bill is enacted—whether that person is a permanent full-time worker, a part-time worker or a casual. We see people dismayed at the loss of life that occurs; well, here is something tangible that every employer can be a part of and will be required to be a part of so that lives can be saved.</para>
<para>The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 is about providing 10 days domestic violence leave. That means leave that allows you to do some of the endless lists of things that are required as you are either preparing to leave, or are leaving, an abusive partner. Front-line workers—let's be very clear—have been key to the success in raising awareness about what's needed here because they have not just had the fortitude to work with women and children who are fleeing violent situations and to support them through their journey but also advocated exceptionally hard, over a very long time, to ensure that people like me are aware of what's involved. What they tell us is that leaving a violent relationship, even planning to leave a violent relationship, involves time and money.</para>
<para>People need to find somewhere to live, and that is not an easy feat. In fact, for anybody, even in the best of circumstances right now, that takes time. They need to find new schools for kids. They need to go and meet with people around a range of issues, and all of that takes time. These things so often need to happen at the same time that work commitments occur. They can't always happen out of working hours. This paid leave will mean people no longer need to make a choice between safety and earning money—because, right now, that's the choice people have. They go, 'I want to be safe and my kids need to be safe, but that means I won't earn money this week.' That's what we can fix. There are so many problems in this place where we say, 'They're so big; how can we tackle them?' Well, here is a really tangible, practical step that we can take and that we are taking, and we really hope that those opposite support us on this one.</para>
<para>The principle behind this leave entitlement is really simple. It is about the rate that people would have been paid had they not taken leave. It's not just their base rate of pay; it's about what they would normally have received for that day's work—whether they are a permanent worker or a casual. What would they have received that day? Once this law is in place, the 10 days leave will be provided upfront from the day that you start, allowing immediate access to the full entitlement of the leave. Again, there's no waiting period. There's no having to wait in a home with an abusive partner. You can actually go as soon as you are ready to go. This is about empowering women to be able to do this.</para>
<para>A couple of things have been raised with me as I have been talking with workers in this field about what a difference this would make. One of the really key things is the detail and thought that has gone into this bill. I heard comments from those opposites like, 'It might need some more thought.' This is an extraordinarily detailed piece of legislation and—if my memory serves me right—there is a 52-page document that goes through a lot of the detail.</para>
<para>Another thing that has been raised with me is whether it is going to be noted on a payslip that domestic violence leave was taken. There is no requirement in this legislation for it to appear on a payslip. An employer can quite rightly ask for evidence of the circumstance. An employer has the capacity to do that. It might be a police report or some other sort of document that indicates the circumstances the woman finds herself in. But there is no requirement to record it on a piece of paper. That makes a real difference for women who are planning to leave but who are under the control of a partner who looks at their payslip, who looks at why they did not get a loading for that day and asks, 'Why weren't you there that day?' It takes all that out of it. There won't be any change in what the normal payslip would be, nor will there be any indication on the payslip that the leave has been accessed. That is a level of detail and thought that has gone into making sure that this saves lives and that there are no unintended consequences.</para>
<para>One of the things I recognise, having had my own small business for 25 years and having grown up in my dad's small business, is that small business will need some time to adjust to this. That is why this legislation provides for around 12 months so that we can work with small businesses and ensure that they are very clear about what the responsibilities and the requirements are and what a difference it will potentially make to their employees.</para>
<para>I want to give an example of what a small business in my community did in recent years. One of their workers was a victim of family and domestic abuse and that person wanted to leave the area. This was a valuable employee—and, quite frankly, right now every employee is of value to the business they work in—and this employer, who I will not disclose, deliberately supported their worker several years ago so that they could relocate to another city but could maintain their employment. This was pre COVID. This is before working from distance was a much more normal thing to do. That is the level of support that employer game. And they are not alone; small businesses are supporting their workers, because they value their workers, as they go through traumatic domestic violence situations. But bigger employers are also doing this. Something like 70 per cent of employers already have paid domestic violence leave in their agreements.</para>
<para>We recognise that there will need to be some lead time, particularly for small businesses that have a number of unique challenges. We recognise that cash flow challenges and not having a full human resources capacity to administer a new leave entitlement, especially around such a sensitive issue, will provide some challenges, and some support for those businesses is essential. So it will be a phased-in commencement, with most businesses having around six months but others closer to 12 months. I would ask small businesses to think about what they can actually do to change someone's life in these circumstances—not just to change their life but potentially to save their life. We are making it as easy, clear and simple as possible to be able to be implemented, and I welcome feedback from any of my small businesses about support that might be useful in going through these processes.</para>
<para>I said earlier that this legislation has been informed by the frontline workers. In my own community, that's people like those who work at WILMA, part of DV West Blue Mountains. It's the feedback over many years from services like the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre who have worked with women escaping domestic violence for many, many years. I want to thank them for the work they do, and I particularly want to thank the members of the ASU, who, from the time I first stood as a candidate back in 2010, have talked to me and helped me have a deeper understanding of what would be practical and useful for the women they support. I hope that they get to see the benefits of this before any of us because they're the ones on the front line who try and find a way forward for so many women. There's never enough support. There are always too many women in need. The Richmond Women's Cottage is another example of this. Every one of my services tells me that COVID has meant a massive increase in women reaching out for help, and we know that the data is horrific.</para>
<para>From the age of 15, approximately one in four women experience violence by an intimate partner. That's what the data tells us: one in four. First Nations women are 32 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be hospitalised due to family and domestic violence, so we see yet another level of trauma there. Everyone in this place should already know that, on average, one woman is killed by her current or former partner every 10 days in Australia. That's something that has been brought to the attention of this parliament multiple times, and it's the sort of fact that we should know and should not need to have repeated. They're the facts that inform this piece of legislation, and it wouldn't be happening without those frontline workers, so I want to finish by thanking them for what they do year in, year out.</para>
<para>I recognise that there's a lot of work we have to do in that area. I know from recent discussions with the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre that the need for a trauma informed approach is absolutely vital. Unfortunately, our current Medicare system doesn't support that. It doesn't make it easy to do the holistic approach that is needed to bring together all the different pieces that help someone move from a place of danger to a place of safety and then build a new life. So they're the sorts of issues we're dealing with. It's great to have this piece of legislation moving through the House and I look forward to it being passed, but there are many things that we need to do as we go forward so that we can look back and say that this parliament made a difference and see the statistics start to shift as women's and children's lives are saved because of what this place has done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is a wonderful, extraordinary country in so many respects, but the prevalence of family and domestic violence is not one of them. It is true that this violence is more common on average in other countries, particularly in comparable places like Britain and the US, but we lag behind countries like Austria, Ireland and Spain, where women are almost half as likely to suffer intimate partner violence as in Australia. We are closer to the middle of the OECD distribution than the bottom, and that's where we ought to be. According to the Institute of Health and Welfare, around 2.2 million Australian adults have been the victim of physical violence from a partner. A woman is killed every single week in Australia by a current or former partner. That is the statistic. It is the lives of people we should never forget.</para>
<para>Domestic violence is typically associated with a current partner but is most often perpetrated by a previous partner. The chance that you know someone, a friend or family member, who's been the victim of violence is very high, though you may not know it. Many people who experience this violence don't want to be known. I remember in my own working life, a team mate coming into the office with her clothes in her bag, leaving her home that morning to escape family violence, with no plan of where she would be sleeping that evening.</para>
<para>Around three-quarters of the victims of violence were women and around half a million of the victims were men. It occurs across every age and demographic. The impact of this violence can be costly and long-lived. Firstly, there's simply the economic cost to the state. My local police commander told me that up to 50 per cent of police time was used on domestic violence incidents. But the higher cost is on people. Many victims later experience anxiety, depression and disability. Domestic and family violence is a leading cause of homelessness.</para>
<para>I want to draw attention to the wonderful grassroots organisations that do so much work to support victims of domestic violence. It was only the other day that I visited the Bondi Cottage, an organisation in my local electorate of Wentworth, which provides counselling for women suffering domestic violence and occasional emergency child care so that those women can actually access that counselling. It is absolutely vital that we continue to support organisations like that and continue to focus on the grassroots organisations that have been shown time and time again to be most effective in supporting victims of domestic violence. I take my hat off and pay homage to all those who work in this space, as well as those who have supported other family members, friends and colleagues through one of the most difficult times in people's lives.</para>
<para>Let us come now to the legislation. It is absolutely true that, when people experience domestic violence, many need to take time off work to restart their lives or to get the counselling or support to even leave. Around 20 per cent of women and 17 per cent of men who've experienced violence from a de facto partner have had to take leave. Under the National Employment Standards, as they currently stand, Australian employees have the right to five days of unpaid domestic violence leave each year. This leave is available to someone who is experiencing violent, threatening or abusive behaviour by a current or former partner or family member or someone related by kinship. Let's be honest, employers can and often do provide more than this, but this is currently the minimum standard by law. Employers can also ask for evidence, such as police or court documents, support service documents or statutory declarations. They have the right to, but they're not obliged to do so. My understanding is that most employers would not normally insist on an employee providing such documentation.</para>
<para>Under the new standard proposed in the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill, employees would have the right to 10 days of paid leave each year rather than five days of unpaid leave each year. This would be available to full-time, part-time and casual employees at the full rate of pay that they would normally receive. This principle of 10 days of paid leave at full pay is one that I wholeheartedly support. I suspect many other employers would feel the same way. But we should be aware of the danger of applying it as a sensible principle to all workplaces without first thinking through the details of how this will operate in practice. I am thinking most particularly of small businesses, where I've spent so much of my career. I'm not implying that small businesses would impose this entitlement or they're too hardhearted to support their staff. Frankly, it's quite the opposite. Most small businesses are small and have close relationships with their people. They want to make their people feel valued and obviously safe and do enormous work with their people so that they feel that. They want to do the best for their people. This change will impose some potentially difficult obligations on them, which is the basis for the concerns that I and others have with this change.</para>
<para>One obligation is financial. Larger, even medium-sized, businesses will no doubt be able to cope with these changes. But, for small businesses, there are times when money is very tight. This bill applies new financial obligations to those businesses without offering any relief from other financial obligations, not even obligations on the bureaucracy that government imposes on small businesses. I understand that a number of business groups have raised their concerns with the government and through the Senate inquiry process but without resolution.</para>
<para>Another obligation would be figuring out how to provide casual employees with leave at their full rate of pay. For some casuals, their working hours are consistent and predictable, and I'm sure that in most cases there won't be much trouble, but for other casuals their hours are inconsistent and unpredictable, and therefore I think we run the risk of having quite difficult conversations. What is the full rate of pay for someone who works different hours every week? What if their hours are taken sometimes in ordinary time and sometimes with loading? It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where fair-minded people come to different views of what the full rate of pay should be, potentially creating a dispute and another source of stress when an individual is already experiencing a hard time.</para>
<para>A third concern is that this might require quite personal conversations between employers and employees—conversations that some small-business people may not be equipped to handle. But I am not aware currently of any support the government is providing to ensure that businesspeople are able to be as delicate and sensitive as their employees deserve. I know that the Fair Work Commission has published a fact sheet for managers. It includes tips such as, 'Stay calm and respond appropriately,' and, 'Take the matter very seriously.' I think the Commonwealth of Australia can do better than that, and it must do better, because this affects small businesses. If we want to do right by people in desperately difficult situations, we need to provide support that is actually useful to employers, ideally supported in conjunction with those who are expected to use it and also reflecting the multicultural Australia that we have and the number of different languages spoken in the workplace.</para>
<para>These concerns will not stop me supporting the bill, because I support the principle behind it and I believe in providing real and valued support to Australians in these situations. But I hope that the government rethinks its stance on how the bill will apply to small businesses and whether we can secure the outcome of paid leave without imposing additional obligations on those businesses or at least while providing best-practice advice to those businesses and reducing administrative burdens on small businesses in other ways. In fact, I hope it rethinks its stance on small businesses more generally.</para>
<para>It is terrifying how easy it is for parliament to solve a problem by passing a law and leaving it to businesses to figure out how to implement the change, with businesses facing huge penalties if they fail to properly implement ill-designed policies. When businesses raise concerns, they are often brushed aside, as small businesses were in the case of this bill. Well, let me tell you: a cost that seems small when you're sitting in the houses of parliament can be the difference between viability and nonviability when you're a small business out in the community.</para>
<para>This government—and, indeed, this parliament—is filled with many smart, well-intentioned people, but it doesn't have as many people as it should who have run small businesses and understand how they work. When a government lacks expertise in something relevant to a community, it's sensible and appropriate for it to engage with that community. The government needs to engage appropriately and with an open mind at an early stage so that policy can be designed around the legitimate concerns of businesses and ensure that it works as much for them as for workers and for larger businesses. On this issue and on others, they haven't done this.</para>
<para>Let me offer a channel for that engagement, I've spent most of my life from an early age in and around small business. If you talk to me, I'm very happy to help you understand their concerns. Come along to an event organised by the Parliamentary Friends of Small and Medium Businesses and Entrepreneurs and meet some of those people who these sorts of bills affect. Talk to your businesses, share your policy goals and listen to their thoughts on how it will work in practice. I promise you they'll be constructive. Their goals are not political. They are retailers, cafe owners, small fashion companies or small technology companies. These are people trying to create jobs and prosperity in the Australian community, and they deserve our wholehearted support. They just want to do what the government asked them to do, and then they want to get back to running their businesses and focusing on what they do best, which is supporting their customers, working with their suppliers and supporting their employees.</para>
<para>I support the principle of this bill and I look forward to it passing into law and providing relief to so many people facing domestic violence. But I do hope the government reconsider how businesses can be supported in its implementation and how they can engage with the small business community in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ARCHER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Amongst the many ways family and domestic violence can impact a victim's survival when fleeing a relationship, or in the years and decades after, the financial impact is significant. Data from researchers at Flinders University released late last year indicated that over 60 per cent of women who are experiencing family and domestic violence were in paid employment of some sort but were more likely to be in lower paid employment due working on a part-time or casual basis. However, we do know that, for employed women or those who are in the home full time who are living with family and domestic violence, the level of control that they have over their own finances is often small or none at all.</para>
<para>When I sat on the committee inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence during 2020 and 2021, understanding how the government could better financially support victims-survivors was a key focus. As part of their submission, Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety—or ANROWS, as they're commonly known—cited research findings that around one in five women returned to violent partners because they had no financial support or nowhere else to go. The organisation noted that financial stress is a significant, but underaddressed, barrier to safety for women experiencing family and domestic violence and that, critically, employment is an important pathway for women leaving violent relationships.</para>
<para>The inquiry also noted that leaving an abusive situation can be expensive, with costs including deposits on new dwellings, rental bonds, travel costs, furnishing costs and the costs of providing for any dependants the victim-survivor might have. It's estimated that, on average, it costs $18,000 for a victim-survivor to leave a violent relationship and establish safety. In response to this report, the then government implemented a range of significant measures to help with the financial cost of leaving a relationship impacted by family and domestic violence. These measures provided $5,000 in government assistance, including $1,500 to assist with some of the immediate needs when fleeing the family home, such as putting down a bond for a rental, paying school fees or the purchase of essential goods and services. I do understand that accessing these payments has not been as easy as intended, due to a range of challenges, but the former government was working to rectify these challenges prior to the election, and it's my hope that the current government will be doing all they can to ensure the path to accessing the payments is much smoother.</para>
<para>The legislation before us today—the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022—is another step towards financially supporting members of our community experiencing family and domestic violence, by providing the following: 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave within a 12-month period for full-time, part-time and casual employees, and leave provided at an employee's full rate of pay for hours they would have worked had they not taken leave. Importantly, the legislation extends the definition of 'family and domestic violence' to include 'conduct of a current or former intimate partner of an employee, or a member of the employee's household'.</para>
<para>For someone experiencing violence at home, going to work can be a place of respite and refuge from the distressing incidents occurring in the home. Depending on the type of employment, a workplace can also provide an opportunity for those impacted by family and domestic violence to quietly and securely set themselves up to leave. A constituent in my own community, whom I met with and assisted two years ago to deal with a telecommunication matter resulting from leaving a violent relationship, told me of the critical role her workplace played at the time she was looking to leave that relationship. It was at work on the phone and on her work computer that she could begin to make the necessary calls and arrangements to leave her long-term relationship as safely as possible.</para>
<para>With a trusted employer, a victim-survivor of family and domestic violence can be supported as they deal with their situation. It's important to note that not all places of employment are safe for victims-survivors, who can still be harassed through repeated phone calls while at work or by people turning up to their place of employment. This is where effective training for workplaces can provide staff with the tools to recognise incidents of family and domestic violence and what they can do to support an employee or colleague.</para>
<para>A 2019 survey conducted by Domestic Violence Service Management—a mainland charity providing support for people escaping or experiencing family and domestic violence and homelessness—found that victims-survivors wanted organisations to improve across three key areas: people in the workplace should be compassionate and non-judgemental; workplaces should provide more, or improved, tangible support; and the workplace should improve its understanding and awareness of family and domestic violence. When these three main improvements are realised, victims are more likely to share their experiences and, therefore, have a better chance of receiving the help that they need.</para>
<para>Unsurprisingly, ensuring confidentiality when seeking to take paid family and domestic violence leave is a significant concern to both victim-survivors and employers. Though challenges exist in larger workplaces, it's in smaller regional communities like mine—where it seems everybody knows each other or of each other—that we must make sure that, when a victim-survivor wants and needs confidentiality, both employers and employees are set up with appropriate measures in place. This concern is reflected in recent comments by Hayley Foster, Acting Chief Executive Officer of Full Stop Australia, a sexual, domestic and family violence counselling and advocacy organisation. She highlighted the importance of maintaining confidentiality when an employee approaches their employer with the need to access family or domestic violence leave, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's something employers are already obligated to do, but in practice we see confidentiality breaches all the time, and that's why we see a very low uptake: people are genuinely worried about the responses they're going to get.</para></quote>
<para>Ms Foster's comments reflect some of my own concerns with this bill. I want to reiterate that I do support this legislation; however, I want to put on the record some of the concerns I have as to whether further improvements could be made on how the leave is administered. Some victim-survivors do not feel comfortable coming forward to an employer with an incident of family or domestic violence for a number of reasons, including fear, shame and the stigma that unfortunately still surrounds incidents of family and domestic violence. I also agree with Ms Foster's comments that such a universal entitlement would need to be rolled out with resources and education to ensure that it was taken up effectively. I'm concerned about the level of unconscious bias which exists and which may affect how an employee is treated either immediately or going forward, should they come forward seeking family or domestic violence leave. I also believe that there needs to be more funding into workplace programs that support both employers and employees with what responsibilities they may have should they become aware that an employer or colleague is experiencing family or domestic violence, and how they can best support someone going through it.</para>
<para>In my own electorate, Womens Legal Service Tasmania has joined with the Hobart Womens Shelter, Women's Health Tasmania and Engender Equality to run their Mentors in Violence Prevention program, which has been rolling out across workplaces and community organisations since 2020. The workshops give participants the chance to develop and practice concrete options which they can use in a number of situations both in and outside the workplace, ranging from situations that may seem harmless to actual violence. Margie Law from Women's Health told me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Some participants return to do the workshop more than once, to deepen their skills. Many participants attend with work colleagues so they can take the skills back into their workplace. There are scenarios that relate to workplaces, such as what people can do when they receive a sexually inappropriate email or hear "banter" that is disrespectful.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is important that training and workshops are held in a safe environment, with support offered as we know that at every workshop there is likely to be someone who has or is experiencing family violence. At the same time, there are participants who have some understanding of family violence but don't know what they can do to help. They are scared, partly because they think they must intervene physically. These workshops provide a range of options for people to use which keep them safe at the same time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The workshops have been attended mostly by women. There are a few reasons for this, but one is that men might worry that they will be used as a target in the workshop. Workplaces could help support men to get training like this by encouraging them to attend as a group. It would help if male leaders attended workshops and reported back to their teams. The more men that attend, the better as we need all parts of society to learn the signs and be able to provide support and intervene appropriately.</para></quote>
<para>It's worth highlighting that workplaces across the country have been leading the way for paid and domestic violence leave, with reports last year that, of the almost 1.2 million Australian employees with access to paid leave under their enterprise agreements, about 660,000 were granted at least 10 days of paid leave. The private sector makes up 95 per cent of agreements which included family and domestic violence leave. Pleasingly, small businesses currently make up around 40 per cent of that number.</para>
<para>While I support this leave, I am conscious of the concerns that other small businesses may have regarding how the administration of the leave may burden them. It's important to acknowledge that many small businesses want to support their employees but feel there's a lack of detail about how the current model will impact on small and family businesses. There is concern, as raised by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, that sole traders and microbusiness owners have not been considered. The government have yet to let us know how they'll support sole traders or those managing a small business who are experiencing domestic or family violence themselves. How will they access support, particularly in sensitive situations where an abuser may have control of or access to the business? These are real and legitimate concerns that the government must answer.</para>
<para>I also support the recommendation from the committee report handed down last week requesting a 12-month review following the implementation of the legislation. The review would seek both qualitative and quantitative research on the impact on small businesses and sole traders.</para>
<para>Any increase in the support available for victims-survivors of domestic and family violence is a step in the right direction. However, as I've said time and time again in this place, more must be done to address the challenges of the principal drivers of family, domestic and sexual violence—that is, gender inequality; stereotypical attitudes towards gender roles, characteristics and behaviour; and disrespect of girls and women. All abuse starts with disrespect, and, until we begin to truly address this challenge, we won't see the societal shift that we desperately need.</para>
<para>The steps taken by the former government through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children were a positive start, and I'm hopeful that we will begin to move the dial on this scourge on our society. I look forward to continuing to advance a bipartisan approach to this issue and look forward to working with Senator Larissa Waters and the Labor member as co-convenors of the Parliamentary Friendship Group on Ending Violence against Women and Children.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am mindful that the Federation Chamber will suspend very shortly, so I'll keep my remarks very brief. Can I first of all thank all members for the different perspectives that have been put. For many people, the Fair Work Amendment (Unpaid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 has not been an easy bill to speak on. On both sides, regardless of the different ways that people have approached the detail of the legislation, it has been an occasion where everyone has come from the best of places in terms of their generosity in the discussion. But some members have had to bring back the worst of places in making their contributions, and I just want it to be understood that that's respected and understood by the government.</para>
<para>I will refer to a few of the various issues that were raised. First of all, on the recommendation from the Senate committee for an 18-month review, the government is not minded to bring that back to 12 months, for the very simple reason that, for small business, it doesn't start until six months later, and we want the full 12 months of operation. For that reason, the 18-month review is what the government is supporting. We are also supporting it to be broader than just a review of the business impacts.</para>
<para>A lot of questions have been raised from some about potentially increasing the breadth of what we're doing here and applying it to more people. From the government's perspective, we are already taking a very big step, and the government's view is: let's take that step; let's see how it goes. There are many people whose lives potentially can be fundamentally altered for the better by the step that the parliament is taking. I commend the legislation to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>140</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6876" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>140</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians pay too much for electric vehicles. As a result, the sales of electric vehicles in Australia are quite insignificant. The reason Australians pay too much for electric vehicles is that under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments there were no policies or incentives whatsoever to encourage the transformation and the transition to electric vehicles on Australian roads. As a result, we pay too much for them, and there's simply not the uptake there.</para>
<para>Last year, less than one per cent of new car registrations in Australia were for electric vehicles. Compare that to the UK, where well over 10 per cent of new car registrations in the last 12 months were for electric vehicles. The reason for that is that in Australia there were no incentives, no vehicle emissions standards, no tax reductions and no investment in charging infrastructure from the previous government to encourage electric vehicles at all. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Believe it or not, we had a government that actively discouraged Australians from investing in electric vehicles in this country. Can you believe it? The previous government actively discouraged Australians from investing in new technology—better, safer and cheaper technology—and electric vehicles. Remember the previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who said electric vehicles would destroy the weekend? We had Senator Cash say that you wouldn't be able to have a ute anymore and that tradies would be put out of work because of electric vehicles.</para>
<para>These ridiculous statements now seem so ancient and retrograde that most Australians have forgotten about them and, thankfully, moved on. It's wonderful to see that, at the last election, Australians voted for stronger action on climate change—in particular, policies that encourage the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia. That is exactly what this legislation does. This is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to make electric vehicles cheaper in Australia. We see reducing transport emissions and making electric cars more affordable as fundamental for Australian families and businesses into the future.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 is clearly good for motorists, it's good for employers and their workers and, most importantly, it's good for climate action. It implements the government's plans to remove fringe benefits tax to make electric cars more accessible for more Australians. The legislation amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to exempt from FBT the use of electric cars made available by employers to employees. The FBT exemption will apply to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars. The exemption will be available for electric cars with a retail price below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient cars, which is around $85,000, and which are first made available for use on or after 1 July 2022.</para>
<para>So, if a model is valued at about $50,000 and is provided by an employer through this arrangement, our fringe benefits tax exemption would save the employer up to $9,000 a year. That's a real incentive for that employer to kit their fleet out with electric vehicles and to provide their workers with a safer alternative—one that doesn't require as much maintenance, certainly one that's cheaper now with fuel prices going through the roof, and one that's better for the environment. For individuals using a salary sacrifice arrangement to pay for the same model, their saving would be about $4,700 a year. All of this forms part of the government's electric vehicle discount, which will reduce the upfront and ownership costs of electric vehicles, addressing a significant barrier to their uptake. The FBT exemption will be implemented as an ongoing measure and reviewed after three years in light of electric car uptake to ensure that it remains effective.</para>
<para>The government is also committed to removing the five per cent import tariff for eligible electric cars, as well as the extremely overdue development of Australia's first National Electric Vehicle Strategy. I spoke earlier of the fact that we don't have the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia, and part of the reason for that is that the manufacturers of electric vehicles haven't been supplying them to the Australian market, so the cheaper models of electric vehicles haven't been available on the Australian market. Why? Those manufacturers in the past, under the previous Liberal government, looked at Australia and they said to their boards, 'What is the Australian government doing to incentivise electric vehicles in that country?' The heads of those boards in Australia had to go back to their parent companies in Europe, Asia or the United States and say: 'Well, the Morrison government is doing nothing. The Morrison government is actively discouraging electric vehicles in this country.' And so those manufacturers simply would not supply to the Australian market, and they didn't. That's why Australians have been paying too much for electric vehicles.</para>
<para>These measures finally provide that strategy and that incentive for those manufacturers to start to say, 'Hey, we've got a government in Australia now that means business and is committed to transitioning its fleet of vehicles from internal combustion engines, petrol based cars, to electric vehicles over time in a steady, orderly manner with incentives, and ensuring that there's charging infrastructure to support that change as we go.' And that is a good thing. I still can't understand why the opposition would oppose something like that.</para>
<para>The measures are also part of our Powering Australia plan, which will help deliver emissions reductions of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The transport sector is one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions in Australia. A stronger uptake of electric vehicles can and will make a substantial impact on our efforts to tackle climate change. We know that, in the absence of climate policy, the Liberals and Nationals relied on COVID and drought to bank emissions reductions, but, as normal economic activity resumed, we started to see increases in emissions again towards the end of that government's years. Now we have a government that is serious about tackling climate change—a government with a set of policies aimed at reducing emissions in the electricity sector and in Australia more generally; at boosting investment in solar, in batteries and in renewables; and now, importantly, at reducing emissions in the vehicle sector. And this policy will help deliver that.</para>
<para>The failure of the previous government for over a decade to come up with any sort of policy on electric vehicles, any sort of incentives or any taxation reductions has been a great shame for our nation, because it's meant that we're starting from behind the rest of world in an important technological advancement. Generally, Australia has been a nation that has been quick on the uptake of technology, particularly when it comes to road safety and the introduction of new vehicles into our country. Under the previous Liberal government, we didn't see any changes to vehicle emissions standards or the uptake of electric vehicles to provide those incentives. But, importantly, this bill changes that.</para>
<para>This bill provides a tax cut for Australian businesses and Australian drivers to ensure that electric vehicles will be cheaper into the future. That will spur many more suppliers and manufacturers of vehicles to start supplying into the Australian market. We all know that it's about the supply of vehicles and ensuring that we have an adequate supply of electric vehicles into this country to ensure that we can reduce prices over time. As I said, Australians are paying way too much for electric vehicles at the moment. This policy will ensure that there are reductions in the cost of those electric vehicles into the future.</para>
<para>This bill also supports the 43 per cent reduction in emissions over the medium term to 2030. Our aspirations for this bill are that the cost of electric vehicles in Australia will reduce, the supply of electric vehicles in Australia will increase, and more Australians will have the incentive to buy electric vehicles in the future. That will reduce their motoring bills, because we know that the cost of fuel has gone through the roof. It will also be better for our environment and our kids' future, in particular, because it will improve the air that we breathe and the overall Australian environment, reduce emissions and represent Australia doing its bit internationally to tackle the existential threat of climate change.</para>
<para>This is a positive bill that delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to make electric vehicles cheaper in Australia. Coupled with our electric vehicle strategy and the fact we will be rolling out charging infrastructure on highways throughout the country, it will make it all the more attractive for Australians to invest in electric vehicles in the future. That's a good thing for households, businesses, the Australian environment and our kids' future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill is an inoffensive bill. It's not too costly and does a little good. It's far than what came before and gives hope of more to come. It's a scale model of this government's approach to decarbonising our economy.</para>
<para>The bill removes the fringe benefits tax from non-luxury, zero or low emissions vehicles from 1 July 2022, designed to encourage in a pretty small way the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia. So it will help the uptake in so far as corporate fleets. I truly hope this little act is an early sign of true action on reducing emissions. For example, in the next budget, perhaps the government will include some sensible suggestions to expand the bill to cover the fuel, electricity and home charger related costs; perhaps it will be broadened to include electric motorbikes; perhaps next month's budget will provide support for the rapid rollout of more charging stations needed to power these vehicles, both for major roads and for people living in home units and inner city houses with no garage facilities; and perhaps the final release of the National Construction Code 2022 will include requirements for charging infrastructure in commercial buildings like those recently implemented in Singpore.</para>
<para>The solutions here will require the support of all levels of government, but clear guidance from this government will accelerate the process. The budget could also provide support for private purchases, the self-employed and SMEs to entice uptake in the non-leasing sector. We could do away with the luxury car tax on electric vehicles altogether, of course, to make them really price competitive. Last month, the minister committed to producing a consultation paper on an electric vehicle strategy. That announcement at the electric vehicle summit opened the door to introducing vehicle emissions standards in Australia—that's good. Electric vehicles are over three times more energy efficient than internal combustion vehicles. They use much less energy because they don't waste energy on noise, heat and cooling in the heat that they make.</para>
<para>We're blessed with an abundance of renewable energy sources. More EVs means that what small, strategic fuel reserves we have—held in Texas—will last longer and one day soon will not even be required. So fuel security can be gained by accelerating this transmission. Energy for EVs is sourced locally. Every EV improves our balance of trade, our carbon footprint, the quality of our lived environment and our national security.</para>
<para>There is widespread agreement from electric vehicle advocates and green groups that vehicle emission standards are the greatest lever that the government can pull to increase the supply and affordability of electric vehicles in Australia. Absent those standards, Australia will remain a supply chain afterthought to major car manufacturers who are using zero-emission vehicles to help meet standards in the rest of the OECD.</para>
<para>Affordability, availability and access to universal charging stations are the key impediments to increased EV uptake in Australia, and I hope the government will engage with that issue of universal charging infrastructure. We are behind the rest of the world but we, at the very least, have an opportunity to make sure that, when we implement that charging infrastructure, we make it universal so there is no difference and no disadvantage depending on what type of EV people purchase.</para>
<para>I look forward to the government introducing fuel efficiency standards soon so we can move from being paired with Russia and join the rest of the OECD in having the standards that drive availability of low-emission vehicles. Widespread adoption of EVs would help reduce the carbon impact of transport, which is our fastest-growing emissions sector; it's some 17 per cent of our carbon footprint. This is low-hanging fruit where we can absolutely fix and reduce our emissions. If just 10 per cent of Australia's light vehicles were to provide vehicle-to-grid power, we could provide nearly three times the overnight power capacity of Snowy 2.0. That is the power EVs can have in our system.</para>
<para>There is no single silver-bullet solution to our future energy needs, but the current demands of the transportation sector, coupled with the many opportunities afforded by a mobile battery fleet, and charging stations to power that during the day, are the types of challenges and opportunities that suit the Australian spirit. It's time we got back to being leaders.</para>
<para>The previous government handed a quarter of a billion taxpayer dollars over to two oil refineries in April just this year. I would argue that that was raiding the bank on the way out of the door. There was $3.8 billion taken from the budget bottom line by the cuts to the fuel excise that is due to finish in just a few weeks. The cost of this bill pales by comparison. Why not match or redirect that subsidy to support a national battery strategy? Let's start supporting our industries of the future. Let's be in the supply chain instead of waiting around at the end of it.</para>
<para>Perhaps that will happen, but the adoption of a target of 43 per cent by 2030 by the government has given me and many in my community much cause for concern. I would argue that a 43 per cent target is small thinking; it's safe thinking; it's 'kick the can down the road' thinking. It's a net result of small acts ticking small boxes, making slight progress. We need commitments that drive this as a floor to ambition, not an aspiration. At the jobs summit last week, Ross Garnaut outlined, as he has done so many times before, the breadth of opportunity offered, and thus far refused by successive Australian governments, in our transition to net zero.</para>
<para>Australia is at a crossroads. We face two paths. One is small thinking, safe thinking, and inoffensive, small actions—it's a seductive path. I know it's a politically safe path, and governments can follow it, but there is so much more potential, so much more opportunity. I urge the government to commit to a steeper, braver, more ambitious path—one that will involve more work, but it is one that will deliver for Australia. It's a path that involves restructuring Australia to take advantage of the massive opportunities offered in the carbon-free industries. This century is a century of renewable energy, and the longer we shy away from that the further we get from our future path and the more opportunities we miss.</para>
<para>Previous Labor governments have indeed been ambitious. They have made changes to security, education, financial systems and superannuation. These changes were not always easy. They weren't comfortable or even popular, but the measure of a great government is sometimes taken some 30 years down the track. It's not with small measures like those in this bill that you are going to really leave a legacy. It has to be bigger and more than that.</para>
<para>When a third of Australia voted for minor parties and Independents in May, they voted not just for climate action; they voted for more vision, for politics over the long term, for more action when it comes to embracing opportunities. Australians are tired of being small, being behind the rest of the world and governments being afraid to embrace opportunities. We know now that there is a unique opportunity in our lifetime to establish our economy for the future, to genuinely set future generations up. The prior government refused to do this. I don't know if it was out of ideology, ignorance or opportunism. There was just an unwillingness to do it. Should this well-meaning government—and we hear a lot of talk, and there have been good actions—fail to act now, out of fear, out of political opportunism, just to hang on, then you also will be judged, and the question will be: who really missed the opportunities? We only have eight years till 2030. We need policies that are ambitious, that make big steps. We can't do it in baby steps. So, whilst I welcome this legislation, there is so much more that can be done when it comes to our transition to clean transport and to electric vehicles. I urge the government to do it without delay.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia now has a government that gets climate change and understands the steps needed to reduce carbon emissions. After a decade of denial and delay from the previous government, we now have the opportunity to give Australians access to the world's best low-emissions car technology. This is especially important because passenger cars create almost 10 per cent of Australia's CO2 emissions. Serious action on climate must involve serious action on transport emissions. That's why the Albanese government is putting in place the steps to establish Australia's first National Electric Vehicle Strategy. The focus of the strategy will be on improving the uptake of electric vehicles and improving affordability and choice by growing the Australian electric vehicle market.</para>
<para>It's clear that Australians want to move towards cleaner car technologies like electric vehicles. Australia is a nation with a reputation for embracing new ideas and new technologies. After all, Australians led the world in the take-up of mobile phones, ATMs, electronic online banking and a range of other technologies. And we know that Australians care about the impact of climate change and want to play their part in reducing carbon emissions.</para>
<para>As I drive around my electorate of Corangamite, I see an increasing number of people making the change to electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. It's no longer an oddity to see an electric car sitting in a driveway or pulling up beside you at the traffic lights. Despite a very unfriendly policy setting under the previous government, Australians have managed to edge up electric vehicle and plug-in car sales. They are now two per cent of total car sales, off an appalling base of 0.7 per cent in 2019. While this is a small step forward, it isn't enough. Despite a willingness to embrace new technologies, cost and affordability are holding us back. The cost and limited range of available electric cars in Australia excludes many from giving up their petrol or diesel vehicle.</para>
<para>Australia is significantly behind much of the world when it comes to electric vehicles. I learned recently that, in the United Kingdom, people could choose from 26 low-emission vehicles under the equivalent price of A$60,000. By comparison, in Australia there are fewer than 10 such vehicle options. At just two per cent, our uptake of new low-emission vehicles is nearly five times lower than the international average. In the UK, for instance, electric and plug-in hybrids make up about 15 per cent of cars sold. Australians can't afford to continue to be left behind. Australians don't want to be left behind. Australians are experiencing significant cost-of-living challenges right now, and giving Australians better fuel options for their vehicles is one means of easing those cost challenges.</para>
<para>In 2019 the Australian Electric Vehicle Association estimated there would be, on average, annual savings of $500 in fuel and $100 in maintenance costs for every electric vehicle in the national fleet. Respected UBS estimates projected consumer savings of $1,700 per annum by 2030 on the total cost of ownership of an electric vehicle compared to combustion engine vehicles. The arguments for electric vehicles are strong and well established.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, unaffordability and unavailability issues within the Australian electric vehicle market are, in large part, a direct result of policy decisions of the government—or, more correctly, policy failures by the previous government. The intent of the electric car policy in Australia up until now appears to have been aimed at limiting the availability of electric cars and making them more expensive—a short-sighted approach that lacked logic. Who can remember the ridiculous comments made by the previous government around EVs destroying the tradies' weekends? They wouldn't be able to afford their utes anymore! To me, this should ultimately be a matter of choice—freedom of choice. Policy settings under the previous government were denying Australians real choice for good, affordable, no-emission cars. When asked, more than one in two Australians say they would consider buying an electric vehicle for the next car.</para>
<para>The previous government's policy settings mean we are now behind the pack. Australians are missing out, and without strong federal leadership we will continue to miss out. The Albanese government will provide that necessary leadership. We know from overseas experience that with the right policy settings electric vehicle penetration can increase quickly. Sweden, for example, increased its proportion of EV sales from 18 per cent to 62 per cent in just two years. We know from overseas that once you get to five per cent sales EV penetration in the market can increase rapidly as critical mass is reached. We as a government and as a nation have a lot of work to do to catch up to the world.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is bringing back leadership that has long been lacking. We went to the election with a clear agenda across the board for tackling climate change, including with electric vehicles. The government's Driving the Nation plan will establish a truly national electric-vehicle charging network, with charging stations at an average interval of 150 kilometres on major roads. It will create a national hydrogen highway refuelling network and it will set a low-emissions vehicle target for the Commonwealth fleet of 75 per cent new leases and purchases by 2025. With thousands of vehicles in the Commonwealth fleet, it is big enough to encourage more EV modelling introductions to Australia and will expand a resale market.</para>
<para>We're acting to make electric vehicles cheaper through the removal of the fringe benefits tax and the five per cent import tariff for eligible electric cars. This is significant. Effectively, there will be an electric car discount in the form of a fringe benefits tax exemption. The fringe benefits tax changes mean a vehicle model with a price tag of around $50,000 will be up to $4,700 a year cheaper for someone using a salary sacrifice arrangement. That is an appealing offer—$4,700 a year cheaper for someone. An employer paying for the same model could save up to $9,000 a year. These incentives are critical for fleet buyers and, in turn, the second-hand market.</para>
<para>We also believe we can and should have not only the ability to drive electric vehicles but also the capacity to produce them. Up to $3 billion of the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will be put towards activities including clean-energy component manufacturing. There is great potential for the electric vehicle industry to be actively pursuing opportunities for co-investment from that fund.</para>
<para>Those opportunities are particularly relevant to my electorate of Corangamite and the broader Geelong region, which has a proud history in vehicle and high-tech vehicle componentry manufacturing. Manufacturers in my area are already considering the possibilities that will emerge in electric vehicle component manufacturing. They're coming to me and asking me about this fund. They want to be a part of it, and I'm going to encourage them, under the National Reconstruction Fund, to get involved. There will be no shortage of opportunities and activities in regard to electric vehicles under an Albanese Labor government. The key to linking all of this activity together is an overarching strategy, which is why our government is committed to the development of Australia's first National Electric Vehicle Strategy.</para>
<para>The government's objectives in relation to electric vehicles are clear. We are moving to make electric vehicles more affordable, drive more choice in the market, drive electric vehicle uptake and reduce emissions. Other benefits will include savings on fuel for car owners and potential local manufacturing opportunities. The Electric Vehicle Strategy will be our road map to become a leader in reducing emissions from car transportation. If Australia doesn't show leadership through a strategy of this type, international manufacturers will prioritise other markets.</para>
<para>We know many of the challenges. They include lack of charging infrastructure, limited range, high costs, long waiting times and lack of availability. These are big challenges. While the solution to each challenge is different, the solutions ultimately will come back to one thing: strong, decisive policy leadership from government—leadership the Albanese government will provide.</para>
<para>The bill before us today is part of that leadership Australians have been looking for on climate action. We will provide that leadership in a way which brings Australians together on the journey. Our Driving the Nation policy for a fast charger every 150 kilometres, for example, is designed to ensure Australians in rural and remote communities like my electorate of Corangamite will have real choice when it comes to their next car purchase. Electric vehicles are not and cannot be the preserve of the well-off and urban dwellers. We are implementing policy settings that make electric vehicles affordable and attractive to all. This bill is important. It will be an important catalyst for reducing carbon emissions through the increased uptake of electric vehicles.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the government for moving to improve affordability of electric vehicles via the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. Electric vehicles are at the forefront of a major transformation of the world's transport sector. Widespread use of EVs in the Australian transportation fleet will deliver significant economic, environmental and health benefits to Australian consumers and to our society. It will also create new opportunities for Australian industry.</para>
<para>Global EV sales are growing rapidly, driven by government policy and large consumer markets in Europe, Asia and North America. EV uptake in Australia has previously lagged behind that of comparable countries due to a lack of support from Australian governments. The greater cost of EVs, concerns about driving range, deficiencies in our recharging infrastructure and limited range of available models have all been key factors hindering uptake of EVs in this country.</para>
<para>The No. 1 barrier to transport electrification in Australia is the poor supply of EV models across all vehicle segments. There are hundreds of EV models available overseas. Only a small fraction of those cars are being supplied to Australia. This supply issue has been policy driven. It has been due to Australia's lack of fuel efficiency standards and of any other supply policies, such as sales mandates. To achieve net zero, Australia needs to significantly increase its EV uptake. This will only be achieved through increased supply.</para>
<para>There are many ways to increase EV uptake in this country. The Albanese government policies being announced today and debated in this chamber are a step in the right direction, but only a small step. We need to support Australian manufacturers in engaging with EV component manufacturing and assembly. New industries such as charging-infrastructure manufacture and installation; battery manufacturing, recycling, repurposing and related mining and processing activities; and EV research and development are emerging as growth sectors for the Australian economy.</para>
<para>We would benefit from clarity regarding EV sales targets, which would deliver certainty to businesses and to consumers. This government should set EV targets for the Australian government fleet. It should work with state and local governments to coordinate fleet procurement. It should partner with businesses to manage and facilitate the rollout of charging infrastructure, to establish consistent national standards and to ensure that all new building developments and our electricity grid are EV charger ready. This government should help industry to develop its domestic EV manufacturing and supply, and its value chain capabilities. The bill presented today removes the five per cent import tariff on some imported EVs and the 47 per cent fringe benefits tax on electric cars provided by employers. While these steps will make EVs more affordable, growing sales and long waiting lists for EVs in Australia have long demonstrated that our EV uptake is limited not by consumer demand but by supply constraints.</para>
<para>How can we address those supply constraints? Fuel efficiency standards are used to regulate the average carbon dioxide emissions of manufacturers' fleets. They serve to reduce both fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. They've been adopted in most countries worldwide. Australia, Turkey, Indonesia and Russia are the only G20 countries with no mandatory standards for fuel efficiency. Put simply, this means that manufacturers have no incentive to put their best cars on our market. We've become a dumping ground for vehicles that fail to meet efficiency and emission standards in Europe, the US and Asia. We get the cars no-one else will take, because our governments have never previously moved to set fuel efficiency standards—and related fuel quality and vehicle emission standards—comparable with other major markets around the world. Fuel efficiency standards will incentivise manufacturers to bring their low- and zero-emissions vehicles to Australia, and will penalise them for failing to do so. Adopting fuel efficiency standards will open the Australian market to EVs.</para>
<para>What else will it do? It will save us money. Modelling has shown that legislating targets for fuel efficiency for vehicles sold in Australia will save us money. The average car user in Australia will save between $237 and $519 a year from using less petrol. Those calculations were based on a fuel cost of about $1.30 a litre—much, much less than the current price of petrol. And that did not include the additional $140 per vehicle per year of healthcare costs related to vehicular pollution.</para>
<para>Addressing supply constraints with fuel efficiency standards will also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from passenger and light vehicles represent 57 million tonnes—10 per cent of Australia's total carbon emissions. There are about 24 million cars on Australian roads, and less than one per cent are electric. The average car sold in Australia stays on our roads for 15 years. Electrified transport can be powered by renewable energy. The zero emissions from running these vehicles will decrease our carbon emissions by 10 per cent.</para>
<para>Australia has the dirtiest petrol in the OECD. Every year in Australia, more people die from respiratory diseases related to vehicular pollution than from road traffic accidents. Transitioning away from internal combustion engine vehicles will improve our air quality. It will reduce pollution related diseases and improve our health. The price of petrol has skyrocketed. We've all felt the pinch from that in the last 12 months. Australia has only two fuel refineries. We've struggled in recent years to comply with the International Energy Agency's minimal stock-holding requirements for liquid fuels. Boosting EV uptake and investing in renewables will help address our fuel insecurity. It will reduce our reliance on imported fuel. Cars like the Ford F-150 Lightning can tow up to 2,000 kilograms. They can work as a mobile generator for tradies. They can power our homes. They are enormous mobile batteries with a free car thrown in. They won't kill our weekend, but they will slay in the camping ground.</para>
<para>In the short term, we need our government to shape the direction in which our EV market is moving. The Albanese government has to introduce robust fuel efficiency standards equivalent to global best standards. These will cost us nothing, but they will ensure that manufacturers supply a greater range of affordable EVs to our market, rather than offering us only polluting internal combustion engine vehicles that no-one else wants and the luxury end of the EV market. The government has signalled that it intends to canvass the community regarding fuel efficiency standards. It needs to do more than that; it needs to act. Yes, we also need expanded charging facilities. Yes, our corporate and government fleets should commit to large-scale EV purchases, increasing the supply of second-hand vehicle in this country in the second half of this decade. Yes, we need package incentives. Yes, we need better vehicle emission standards for non carbon dioxide emissions, which will also have implications for our health. Each of these steps will contribute to our move to cleaner, healthier transport options.</para>
<para>Anyone interested in an immediate decrease in our carbon emissions achievable by rapid electrification of our transport system will welcome the bill that we're debating today, but these changes are only baby steps. The FBT scheme has been costed at only $20 million for the first year, implying that the scheme will benefit only around 2,000 vehicle owners. The fringe benefit tax is available only to employees who have the ability to salary sacrifice; it's not available to all people looking to buy a new car. The FBT saving applies only to those cars priced below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient vehicles, which this year is $84,000-plus. It excludes more expensive EV models which constitute a very significant part of the existing EV market in this country, and it has no immediate impact on the second-hand car market in this country.</para>
<para>The next move for this government must be the immediate setting of international best practice fuel efficiency standards to improve our health and improve the quality and range of cars offered for sale into this country. We need ambition and vision from this new government, and we need it now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very pleased to follow the member for Kooyong, and I'm pleased to inform the member for Kooyong that the government does have an electric vehicle government fleet policy. It's to get 75 per cent of government fleets electric by 2025, unless I'm much mistaken, as well as having 1,800 charging stations around the country on our national highways, so that, in a few years time, people will be able to take their electric vehicles from one part of the country to another part of the country with confidence, knowing that they'll have access to efficient publicly available charging stations. I do agree with the member for Kooyong that fuel emission standards are a gap in Australia's policy framework, and I was very pleased and very heartened to hear the very forward-leaning comments made by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the significant work on fuel emissions standards he has done since coming into office just over 100 days ago. I look forward to the government doing more work and having constructive engagement with members like the member for Kooyong to help achieve this for our country.</para>
<para>In Macnamara, in Port Melbourne, we have a proud history of manufacturing Australian cars. Holden was based in Port Melbourne for decades. I was actually in this building working as a staff member on the very famous day in 2014 that then treasurer Joe Hockey famously goaded the Australian car industry to leave our shores. At the time, we had quite a high Australian dollar and the price of our vehicles was high but we knew that that was going to pass and that the Australian products were going to become competitive again as they had been during fluctuations throughout history. Instead of backing in Australian manufacturing and instead of backing in Australian jobs and Australia's research and development industries, the then government goaded the car industry to leave, and that's exactly what happened. And, in Macnamara—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I could get into an argument with the interjections from the member for La Trobe about the ways in which they have spent millions of dollars. These are the people who spent $5.5 billion not to build a submarine. Let's not get into that debate.</para>
<para>When talking about the car industry, in Macnamara we are talking about what was the largest employer not just of people on the floor of our auto manufacturers—really good, solid jobs assembling pieces of Australian machinery—but the largest employer of researchers and developers in the country. This industry, our car manufacturing, employed more engineers and research and development people than any other industry. It was a massive investment in Australian capability, in Australian thought, in Australian science and in Australian engineering, and it's gone. We have a lot of work to do to get it back. But electric vehicles, components of electric vehicles and subsidiary businesses that can feed into supply chains for electric vehicles are a really exciting chance for Australia to be able to get back into the manufacturing of vehicles.</para>
<para>This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, goes to taxation reform. It goes to taxation reform because electric vehicles are too expensive for Australian consumers but the demand by Australians is massive. If you go to Toyota right now and say you want either a hybrid or an electric vehicle, you're talking about a two-year wait at least. To get a Tesla it's a 12 month wait. To get an electric vehicle from Hyundai it's a two-year wait. The supply chains are quite pressed. But it's also because Australia hasn't been welcoming. Due to a range of issues—like fuel emissions standards and incentives for car companies to produce affordable electric vehicles for the Australian market—we are in a position now where we have one of the worst ratios of electric vehicles to fuel combustion vehicles anywhere in the developed world. You stop and ask yourself: why on earth are we in this situation in Australia, a relatively wealthy and successful nation that likes its car? If you've been in an electric vehicle, you know it's a pretty exciting, turbulent ride in some of them. Why on earth are we in this situation where Australians don't have access to affordable electric vehicles? Part of it is because of the price, and this bill obviously addresses some of the tax concessions.</para>
<para>Let me read you some of the politics that have occurred in the electric vehicle realm or ecosystem over the last years. In November 2021, we were reminded that in April 2019 the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison—the member for Cook—said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Bill Shorten wants to end the weekend when it comes to his policy on electric vehicles …</para></quote>
<para>I don't even know how an EV ends the weekend, but that was the attitude of the former Prime Minister, who then had the gall to deny in a later video that he had ever said that, as if we couldn't get the footage of him saying that and put it next to the footage of him denying saying that in the same video. Then there was the former Attorney-General Senator Cash, who said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are going to stand by our tradies and we are going to save their utes.</para></quote>
<para>I don't even know what that means, but it's absolutely absurd. Most recently, there was a doozy made by the new Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the former Minister for the Environment, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And no one in the world is making an electric ute, by the way, and even if they were it would be unaffordable.</para></quote>
<para>Well, it is astonishing. Mitsubishi and, I think, Ford are making electric utes. There are a number of car manufacturers, including General Motors, making electric utes. Those opposite have not only had a history of goading the car industry off our shores—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take the interjections from the member for La Trobe. I am not talking about the member for Kooyong or the member for Mackellar; I'm talking about him and his ridiculous team's attitude towards electric vehicles over the last decade, which meant that we not only lost car manufacturing in this country, including in my electorate with the Holden plant, but also lost progress, opportunity and the possibility for Australian manufacturers, as well as Australian consumers, to have access to electric vehicles.</para>
<para>We are going to change that. We are going to make electric vehicles more affordable. As the member for Corangamite correctly said, there are no electric cars available in Australia under $40,000. In a time of high inflation and stretched household budgets, it is simply not an option for Australian households to be spending more than $40,000. In fact, $40,000 is way too expensive.</para>
<para>Think about some of the young people as well. When I walk around Macnamara and I speak to young people—and I'm sure members in this Chamber would have had a similar experience—you find that the idea of treading softly on our planet and leaving as small a footprint as we possibly can is something that is deeply personal to our fellow Australians, including our young Australians. Yet they have absolutely no ability to purchase an electric vehicle. They are completely priced out of the market, and many of them rely on a vehicle to work and to go to their place of employment. We need to change that. It needs to be affordable for young Australians.</para>
<para>A part of that is making it cheaper, and the other part of it is producing and purchasing as many electric vehicles as possible as part of government fleets. We use government fleets for about three years and then we put them into the second-hand market. We need good, reliable, relatively new cars to be entering the second-hand market to produce downward pressure on car prices and to address some of the supply chain issues.</para>
<para>I hope that for young people we're able to address the affordability of electric vehicles, because other countries have. Other countries have had an aggressive policy where they have sought to pursue incentives for car manufacturers to increase fuel emission standards but also to incentivise electric vehicles and to have a range of policies that make electric vehicles more affordable and more accessible for their citizens. We in Australia need to catch up, because we should be making car components in Australia. We should be making all of the components.</para>
<para>There is a famous score called the Harvard score of economic complexity which basically looks at how much value we are adding into our economy. Right at the top you have Japan, a high-tech economy, constantly looking at ways to add science and mechanics to their products. You then have South Korea, Singapore, Germany and Switzerland. These are the countries at the top of the Harvard score of economic complexity. Even the United States, with Silicon Valley; and the United Kingdom, with many of their advanced technologies, are at No. 10 or No. 11. Australia, I believe, currently is at No. 86, in between Paraguay and Uzbekistan. No offence to our Uzbek and Paraguayan friends, but we really should be better than that. We really shouldn't just have an economy where we dig things up and sell them off to another country to add value over there. We should be adding value in Australia.</para>
<para>To incentivise and engage constructively with industry and to make electric vehicles a product that Australians are not only making but purchasing is something that is so important for Australian businesses, for the future of Australian manufacturing and for the future of our efforts to tackle climate change. Vehicle emissions account for roughly 10 per cent of our emissions as a country. We need to change that. We need to put more electricity into the grid so we that we can have access to them, and a good way to start that work is via this bill. I would encourage all members of the House to support it. It's an excellent piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Electric vehicles represent an incredible opportunity for Australia. We can transport Australians using electricity generated from the solar panels on our rooftops and from our enormous renewable energy zones. This will transform our relationship with energy and reduce emissions simultaneously. Only last month, this House passed the Climate Change Bill 2022 and the target of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. That is less than eight years away. The time is ticking.</para>
<para>Each sector must do its bit, and the cost of reducing emissions in the transport sector is comparatively low. Transport makes up nearly 20 per cent of Australia's emissions, and these emissions are rising. Transport emissions have increased by 14 per cent since 2005. This is a big truck to turn around. But we can achieve what has already been done in other countries, and that is making electric vehicles affordable, accessible and reliable for everyday Australians.</para>
<para>To do this, however, attendees at the recent national EV summit agreed that ambitious policies from the government are required. At that summit, ministers from New Zealand, and the US ambassador, told us about what was happening in their countries. They told us of a future with EVs of unlimited upside; a future in which innovative Australian businesses pave the way to net zero; a future where we mine, process, and manufacture batteries using our critical minerals, cheap renewable energy and skilled workforce; a future where our Aussie sunshine and wind provide secure and stable energy; a future where everyday Australians use their car batteries to power the country; a future where EVs are affordable for Australian families and businesses; and—we've all been using the same line—a future where electric vehicle utes make the weekend fantastic. Other nations are already living this future. In Norway, over 70 per cent of new cars sold are electric.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 shifts Australia into first gear when it comes to electric vehicles. This bill removes the fringe benefits tax for new electric cars purchased by employers for use by employees—cars that are under the threshold for the luxury goods tax. This will increase the number of affordable EVs in the Australian market, particularly as these vehicles move to the second-hand market over time. It is estimated that business buyers account for over 40 per cent of the new light vehicle sales in Australia, but their uptake of electric vehicles is shockingly low, with a mere 487 electric vehicles acquired by business fleets in 2020.</para>
<para>To ensure we increase the use of electric vehicles in this country, we need this legislation to focus on electric vehicles and not cars that use fuel. Cars that use fuel include hybrid vehicles. Plug-in electric hybrids are, in fact, petrol cars that happen to also have electric motors. Despite plug-in electric vehicles having the potential to run 85 per cent of the time on electricity, research has shown that, in practice, they run 85 per cent of the time on their fossil fuels. This research includes the experience of the ACT government, and it shows that plug-in hybrid cars emit vastly more emissions than expected when driven as fleet vehicles. The reason is simply a behavioural one. Quite simply, employees don't bother charging the car. Effectively, if plug-in hybrids are included in this bill and included in the fringe benefits tax exemption, the unintended consequence will be that this bill further subsidises fossil fuel use. I am hopeful that I will be supporting an improved version of this bill on its return to the House from the Senate—one that excludes hybrids.</para>
<para>With this legislation, employers have the potential to save $9,000 per vehicle. That is significant. It will drive the market. It is, however, not enough on its own to deliver cost parity. The upfront cost of owning an electric vehicle is the biggest hill to climb. I am voting in favour of this bill, but I would have more confidence if it were part of a broader strategy that is multifaceted and comprehensive. I call on the government to implement additional policies that will fix Australia's electric vehicle supply problem—to ensure that there are enough electric vehicles on the market here so that every business and person who wants an EV can actually get an EV.</para>
<para>Vehicle fuel efficiency standards are next off the rank—a focus that my crossbench colleagues and I are also championing. The standards discussion paper announced by Minister Bowen moves us closer to being in line with best practice globally. These standards need to be ambitious and aligned with the Paris Agreement. However, only a few weeks ago, we saw leaked reports of the automotive industry's cynical plan to undermine the push for fuel efficiency standards. Vehicle particulate pollution is responsible for thousands of deaths in Australia each year. Research also shows that exposure to particulate pollution impacts our cognitive function. If a young person, say in their 20s, is exposed to a high-pollution day, their cognitive level will be increased by 30 years. A 20-year-old will have the cognitive function of a 50-year-old—not that I think that's too bad!</para>
<para>Ordinary Australians want us to get on with the job. Australians do want electric vehicles. In fact, only last month new electric vehicle sales hit a record high, and many thousands more are on waiting lists. But electric vehicles currently make up only 4.4 per cent of cars sold here in Australia because of the significant lack of supply. Mackellar, my electorate, gets it. Our famous B-Line buses are going electric. EV charges are being rolled out across the Mackellar electorate. People in Mackellar want cleaner air, they want to reduce their petrol costs and they want to play their part in reducing emissions. Mackellar wants to see more electric vehicles on the roads.</para>
<para>It's not only about making electric vehicles affordable and accessible for everyday families—it's also about positioning Australia as a renewable superpower. For this we need to look at what is happening in America. In the US the Inflation Reduction Act is a game changer. It's big and bold—it's not just tiny tax tweaks. It will unleash a deluge of electric vehicle models and innovation. It's time to put our foot down and accelerate EV policy here in Australia. As parliamentarians, let us collaborate, coordinate and capitalise on electric vehicle opportunities. After years of inaction, let's lead. This bill is the first gear, but it's a welcome start.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's great to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2002, another instalment in the rapid progress that the Albanese Labor government is making to help decarbonise Australia and make sure that Australian households and businesses are able to participate in one of the great changes of the 21st century. To some degree, you could say that this is enabling households and businesses to get on board with a trend that is without question a significant part of our future and the world's future, but in many ways it's not really in the distant future—it's happening today in lots of other countries to a massive extent, but not in Australia.</para>
<para>We've fallen terribly behind. It means that Australians miss out on savings in terms of running costs, especially in the face of volatile fuel prices. It means we're not getting the benefits in terms of emission reduction, and we need to make emission reductions in lots of parts of Australian life. So far, the reductions that have been made—which have not been enough—have been in the energy generation space and in foregoing planned land-clearing, but we've made virtually no progress in terms of emission reductions in other sectors like transport, agriculture, industry and others. This will contribute to that.</para>
<para>There's no doubt, as the previous speaker said, that vehicle pollution is a big issue. It's a massive issue around the world, but it's a big issue here in Australia, not least because we don't have some of the fuel standards and related emission standards that are pretty common in other parts of the world. We shouldn't kid ourselves just because we live in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart or Darwin. We might think, 'It's not Mexico City or New Delhi—it's not a megalopolis which we tend to associate with the impacts of poor air quality, vehicle emissions and pollution.' The reality is that, by many measures, people in Australian cities are being exposed to unhealthy levels of vehicle emissions. That is something that we will address as we move to decarbonise our transport sector, moving off hydrocarbons and into electric vehicles and, potentially, hydrogen vehicles.</para>
<para>It's also really important for liquid fuel security, something I've spoken about throughout my time in parliament. We really should hold on to that. Australia is extraordinarily dependent on liquid fuel. We are the only nation that has been way out of compliance with the IAEA fuel stockholding requirements for a long time. It's very hard to see when we'll ever get back into compliance. We've made a commitment to do that by 2026, but the previous government didn't do much on that front. Mining and agriculture in Australia is 90 per cent reliant on liquid fuel and our transport sector is 99 per cent reliant on liquid fuel.</para>
<para>Of course, when it comes to electric cars at the household level—for passengers, in households around the country—we are in a woeful position. We are by capita the third-highest owners of vehicles in the OECD, but we have one-seventh of the uptake of electric vehicles of car-loving countries like the United States and Canada. Really, there is only one reason why we are in that terrible state, and it is because of this bizarre blind spot, if you want to be kind, that the previous government suffered. You can see it is a blind spot. You can see that it is irrational, delusional and all of those things by the way the members of the former government and members of the current opposition talk about this issue—even after the election. In recent weeks, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party boldly made the claim that there were no electric utes available—that they were not in production, that they couldn't be bought and that they didn't exist on planet Earth. That is just bizarre as well as categorically wrong.</para>
<para>You can only make those kinds of statements when you have gone off into a kind of 'la la land' where you have taken a particular, twisted, baseless sort of view of world and you're going to prosecute that over and over in the face of science, evidence, rationality and everything else. It is a pattern of behaviour that we saw from the former government in lots of areas. We certainly saw it on almost anything to do with climate change or renewable energy, and we certainly saw it in relation to electric vehicles—these wild claims that they would end the weekend; that they did not exist; that they weren't viable; that they would never happen—while the rest of the world marched ahead.</para>
<para>So what is the result? If you look at our performance in an area like household solar, we see that we are literally the world leader, because the former Labor government decided it was time to make a change and get us on the path of sensible renewable energy at the household level, and that kicked off a home solar revolution. We went from having fewer than 12,000 households with solar PV in Australia in 2007, at the end of the Howard government, to two or three million plus now. We have the highest level of household solar penetration in the world, and it has begun to make a significant difference both in reducing our reliance on power that is generated by hydrocarbons but also in decentralising our power system and giving households relief from cost pressures. Electric vehicles will do exactly the same.</para>
<para>We had to change the government to get something done because, until that happened, Australia was being steered by people who were literally making things up and inflicting their weird daydreams or nightmares or whatever you want to call it on the Australian people. Apart from the fact that it has meant that we now start from this position behind many other countries in the OECD, it has meant that, while we talk about cost-of-living pressures at the moment, many more Australian households and businesses are at the behest of global fuel prices. If only a sensible approach had been taken to this issue a decade ago, many fewer businesses and households would be exposed and vulnerable in that way.</para>
<para>It has also meant that, at various times over the last three or four years, we have had liquid fuel coverage, in terms of petrol and diesel that is not much more than three weeks—somewhere around 21 or 22 days. If for any reason there was interruption to our supply of liquid fuel, there would be a crisis in this country—and I say this cautiously—that would make some aspects of what we experienced through the pandemic actually look pretty mild by comparison. Our transport sector is 99 per cent reliant on liquid fuels and most of what moves around in this country moves around by road or by rail. We've gone from having five refineries not that long ago to having two refineries, so we can't import crude and refine it ourselves to the same degree. We're more reliant on imported, refined fuel, which of course has a shorter shelf life. That's made our liquid fuel insecurity more fraught.</para>
<para>So there are lots of reasons to make this change. It's not, as the other side would have it, so that people can indulge in some personal consumer choice. That has literally nothing to do with it. It is so that we can be part of a global industrial change that has marched on a long way already, and we are miles behind. We are miles behind because of that delusional stance by the previous government, and it's had an impact on people's bottom line and it's made us more vulnerable. This government's not going to do that. This government is doing something about it within a short time. We're beyond the 100-day mark now, but not much beyond it.</para>
<para>This bill will make electric cars cheaper and will increase the supply of electric cars. In keeping with the approach that we've taken to a number of areas, we're doing something right now, but we're also looking at the changes that need to be made in the medium and longer term. We've got the discussion paper out on the National Electric Vehicle Strategy. We've said that we're going to use the weight and the influence of government procurement contracting, leadership in government procurement contracting, for a target to ensure, quite rightly, that 75 per cent of government fleets are electric by 2025.</para>
<para>We've made a commitment to a national charging network, which is obviously critical as people take up electric vehicles and need to be able to go further and further afield. I can say as someone who comes from Western Australia that that is critical, not just because once you leave metro Perth you are in rural and regional Western Australia but also because we are the largest and the most remote state. I know from electric car purchasers and car-owner groups in my electorate and in Western Australia more broadly that they want to see that network extended. Some of them have actually crowdfunded and used other fund-sourcing methods to put charging-point infrastructure out in rural and regional Western Australia so that they can drive their vehicles further.</para>
<para>All of these things are being done to address what has been a terrible blind spot in our technological and transport policy settings.</para>
<para>I welcome this bill. I think it's momentous. I know that people in my community will benefit from it. I know that businesses will benefit from it. And I know that it actually improves our liquid fuel security, which is a serious vulnerability that, for all the chest beating that sometimes happens on the other side, has been neglected for 10 years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. The time for climate action is now, and I believe we should be pulling all levers available to ensure a rapid and efficient transition to a net zero economy. Every aspect of our economy must contribute to Australia's target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 to help get us on a trajectory to no new fossil-fuel vehicles by 2035. Electric vehicles are an important step towards meeting our climate ambitions and reducing the growing contribution from the transport sector, which currently accounts for 16 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, with light vehicles alone accounting for 10 per cent.</para>
<para>The truth is that Australia has fallen far behind our international peers when it comes to EV use, with one of the lowest rates of adoption of electric vehicles among the OECD countries. Having said that, however, it bears reflecting on whether this outcome is a true reflection of consumer desire or sentiment, or whether it is a reflection of and an outcome that is a direct consequence of a lack of appropriate federal government leadership over the past decade.</para>
<para>Very few people in Australia can currently access an EV, even if they have the financial resources to do so. At this point in time, there are only 10 electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the domestic market that are selling for less than $60,000. A key barrier to increasing the number of makes and models of cars for people in our country is that our market is one of the last markets in the world where manufacturers can literally sell their least efficient vehicles, powered by some of the dirtiest fuels, and one where manufacturers currently only supply a handful of EV models at high prices, creating a vicious circle of low supply. A key barrier to increasing the number of makes and models of cars for people in our country is that our market is one of the last markets in the world where manufacturers can literally sell their least efficient vehicles powered by some of the dirtiest fuel, with manufacturers currently only supplying a handful of EV models at high prices, creating a vicious circle of low supply.</para>
<para>The bill we are debating today aims to help ensure and encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles and reduce our transport emissions as part of the government's broader climate agenda. By reducing the upfront costs and ownership costs of electric vehicles, the bill is addressing a significant barrier to buying them. As an outspoken advocate for faster, cleaner transport for all, while I support the intention of this bill, I think there are some improvements that could be made to it to ensure the opportunity and benefit from this reform is available more equitably across Australia.</para>
<para>To achieve faster, cleaner transport for all, it is imperative we do two things. We need to increase the volume of electric vehicles and ensure that the incentives and infrastructure are there to accelerate the uptake of the available EVs. In this context, the bill currently drafted allows second-hand cars manufactured after 1 July 2022 to be eligible for the fringe benefits tax exemption. Given this, while the bill as it stands will eventually lead to lower priced second-hand electric vehicles for Australian consumers, the process of building that second-hand market will have unnecessarily been delayed by three to four years. With three out of every four vehicles bought in Australia every year being second-hand and in the face of the climate challenge we are facing, we can and must do better.</para>
<para>I will be moving an amendment to the bill that will extend the FBT exemption to imported second-hand vehicles that meet two main criteria. Firstly, my amendment would cover second-hand cars that were manufactured on or after 1 January 2020. This ensures the technology is of the highest quality and ensures the second-hand vehicle will comply with relevant Australian safety standards, as in force at the time, which is currently an ANCAP five star rating. Secondly, my amendment stipulates that second-hand cars are imported into Australia. This ensures we are growing the pool of available EVs in the Australian market. Making a higher number of EVs available will significantly accelerate the uptake of EVs at a much faster rate than the government's proposed three- to four-year time frame. The reality is that the stock of low mileage second-hand EVs internationally is sizeable, and Australians are currently missing out. In Japan alone, there are up to 20,000 second-hand EVs available per annum and up to 150,000 vehicles from the UK. An increase in the supply of affordable second-hand vehicles could be immediate if this bill were extended to include the FBT exemption to imported second-hand cars. It would also increase the type, variety and quality of models available in Australia, increasing employer and employee and, ultimately, consumer choice.</para>
<para>For my electorate in North Sydney and many small businesses around the country struggling with increasing costs, the inclusion of second-hand EVs would allow employers and employees to make clean, green choices at a lower cost. By extending the FBT exemption to imported second-hand EVs, small-business owners, like my mother and my father, and many in my family and amongst my friendship and community group, will potentially equally benefit from more affordable EVs.</para>
<para>Moving forward, I commit to continuing to work with Minister Bowen to have input into the delivery of the government's national electric vehicle strategy to ensure the rollout of any EV strategy ensures equity for all. If we work together and get it right, something as seemingly simple as an EV policy can deliver on many fronts, from saving motorists money on fuel and car purchases to increasing the scope of consumer choice on EV models, reducing our reliance on imported foreign oil, improving health outcomes by reducing pollution and, importantly, reducing transport emissions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, before you have a heart attack: yes, I am supporting electric vehicles. People know that I've been a petrolhead all my life. I've been involved with cars and am very passionate about our motor cars. But if someone like me can sit there and look at the technology that we see today in motor vehicles—where places like EV West in the United States are taking Tesla type engines and fitting those to classic vehicles so that we can still enjoy our weekends, tow our boats and go for a cruise on a Saturday when it's a nice, sunny afternoon—then I think anyone can. That's the importance of really understanding what technology's about and what it leads to.</para>
<para>So I'm speaking in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, a bill that exempts from FBT the use of eligible electric cars made available for employees. FBT is something that has been, I guess, a bit of a problem in trying to introduce electric vehicles and bring those into the country, but it's also been a bit of a barrier for people to be able to do it, because of the cost. So, through many organisations where you can salary-sacrifice and have the ability to purchase an electric vehicle, we should be taking every opportunity.</para>
<para>The one thing that we have to do in this place is to make sure that we leave the country in a better condition than it was in when we got here, and we do that by ensuring that we do things that lessen our impact on the climate, the environment and the future for our kids and grandkids. That's the most important thing we can do, and we do that by cutting pollution. Whether we are talking about carbon pricing or about anything else, the most important thing is that what it's about is cutting pollution and making sure that in the future our farmers can farm, our businesses can grow, we've got clean drinking water and we've got the opportunity to have cleaner air that's just going to take away a whole heap of medical things—hay fever and the like.</para>
<para>So it's important that we do that, and it's important that we have a government that says, 'Right, we're going to get on with this and develop the technologies and give people the support to be able to use electric vehicles and make them affordable so that families can have them,' because this is one of the biggest costs in areas like the one that I have the honour of representing, the seat of McEwen. We don't have a great range of public transport in outer suburban rural areas. We have a couple of train lines and a few buses, but that's about it. So we rely heavily on motor vehicles to get to work or to travel across the 30 towns to sporting grounds, to dance classes, to community events or to RSLs. Wherever we go, the motor vehicle is very much key to what we're doing. In fact, we have one of the highest numbers of cars per household in all of the nation. With the expansion of our communities, that's created more issues on our roads. It's created issues that have been neglected for the last 10 years by the previous federal government. Every promise they made on roads they failed to deliver. With more cars on the road and more people moving, it creates more congestion.</para>
<para>When we look at what the government is doing in relation to electric vehicles, the removal of the FBT means that people will have the opportunity to purchase a vehicle at a more affordable price. With fuel hovering around $2 a litre for 91 to 95 ULP, that puts a massive impost on households. I think the ability to have an electric vehicle and charge it at home—which means that you have a vehicle that costs less to run and pollutes a hell of a lot less—is a very positive thing, and we should be doing everything we can to support this. We should be embracing this technology, and we should be embracing the opportunities that it brings.</para>
<para>It really pains me to think that at the moment we have an opposition bereft of policy that's sitting in the Senate deciding on whether or not they're actually going to support the concept of making motor vehicles cheaper. We know they have a problem with motor vehicles. They shut the automotive industry out. They haven't seen a car manufacturer they haven't wanted to kick out of the country, and they successfully did that. But now we have this issue we've faced through the pandemic with global supply chains.</para>
<para>An opposition member: You said that with a smile.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's an absolute truth: the entire automotive industry and the thousands upon thousands of jobs that went with it were removed because the former government tried to be big and brave and macho. We all remember the former member for Spence's magnificent speech where he said that Joseph Benedict Chifley introduced the first Australian motor vehicle to this country, and Joseph Benedict Hockey made sure the last one was produced in this country, and they all went offshore. I think those words should always be available to remind us and those opposite of the massive impact they had on manufacturing.</para>
<para>We're now in a situation where all motor vehicles are imported. Fringe benefits tax and the cost of importing make it dearer and harder for families to get motor vehicles. This FBT exemption forms part of our government's electric car discount, which also removes the import duties on electric and low-emission vehicles. That's a very big, important point in what our government is saying. We're looking for electric and low-emission vehicles. No longer should we be the dumping ground for leftover vehicles manufactured outside this country. We should be ahead. We should be in front of the game. We've had 10 years where this market has slowly been growing internationally, and the former government sat stagnant on it.</para>
<para>Right across this country, I've met with companies like NHP, who put the infrastructure in place. One of the big barriers for people is actually having the charging points, the infrastructure, available to move. Also there is the growing fear that we have with our service station industries about what's going to happen in the future. I think of AA Holdings, who develop and run BP service stations on the Hume Highway. They're already ahead of the game. They're already sitting there thinking, 'We need to change our business model to suit electric vehicles.' That means charging stations that you don't just drive nose into or reverse into. That's very difficult if you're towing a caravan or a boat. Also, there need to be more and more charging stations in place to maximise the opportunity for people that need to stop. Charging a vehicle doesn't take eight minutes like it does to fill your car and get out of there. It takes a bit longer. They want to be able to develop their sites so that, when customers come in and charge their vehicles, they've got something to do rather than just sit at Macca's for half an hour, get a burger and then scoot off.</para>
<para>It is important to listen to the voices of the people who are in the industry, people have actually put their cash into it—small businesses that are growing and that employ people right across our regions. You'd think that the so-called party of small business would be listening to them, but they're not. They're failing. That's why we're working closely with the Victorian government to work with these visionary businesses to bring these developments to reality, support electric vehicles and bring more jobs into our communities. It's just so important that we do that.</para>
<para>We do that because our government, the Victorian government, the business community and the workers are all working together to say: 'These are the opportunities we have. This is where we're moving, going forward. Let's work together, embrace the technologies and build on that so that we build a cleaner, greener future.' If companies can develop electric vehicle engines to fit in 1957 Chevs, then I think the opposition have a duty of care to support the price reduction of electric vehicles and the removal of FBT to make them cheaper and more affordable for people to get. It's so important that we do this now, for the future, so that our future generations get every opportunity they can and the opportunity to have a better future, because that's the key in what we're supposed to be doing in this place.</para>
<para>Look at what we're doing with electric vehicles as part of the whole Powering Australia plan. We have set the targets. We've got to deliver the emissions targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. We've put this in place because we want to be able to say, 'Let's measure what's going on, where we're going and how we're going to achieve it.' We're not going to do it by keeping on flitting around. We've had 10 years of the climate wars. We've had 10 years of energy policy that's been all over the shop. It's time that we face what we're doing and head forward, and the only way that we do that is with a government that listens.</para>
<para>I think that's the breath of fresh air that people have seen with the election of the Albanese Labor government. It's a government that's actually on their side, a government that's going to work with them together to create a better Australia, not sit there where with every single measure we look at—whether it's education, health or communications—we've been falling down the rankings. This is actually a government that wants to go forward. We actually think that being at the forefront of emerging technologies and development is so important for our future, and it's something that the opposition needs to get on board with.</para>
<para>So I fully support what we're doing here. I think it's a great step on the path to a better Australia and a great step on the path to a cleaner Australia. Working together with governments, businesses, and individuals makes a real difference to our environment. So supporting initiatives like these is so important. With that, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 seeks to amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, to exempt from fringe benefits tax cars that are zero or low emissions held by the provider and used by, or made available for the private use of, employees. It is a classic Labor government market intervention cheered on by rent seekers who hope to get a free ride on the backs of other taxpayers. I support the greater rollout of electric vehicles in Australia, but this bill is a very clumsy attempt to get there and, as such, I won't be supporting it.</para>
<para>Firstly, a bit of background: the previous government's Future Fuels and Vehicle Strategy detailed a technologies-led approach to reducing transport emissions while ensuring that Australians can drive their preferred type of vehicle. We didn't seek to pick winners in the market. Three principles underpinned the former government's policy: firstly, partnering with the private sector to support uptake and stimulate co-investment in future fuels; secondly, focusing on reducing barriers to the rollout of future fuel technologies; and, thirdly, expanding consumer choice by enabling informed choices and minimising costs of integration into the grid. In government, the Liberals and Nationals committed $2.1 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicle technologies. This included about $250 million to ARENA to roll out fast charging stations across the country. Round 1 of the program resulted in a sevenfold increase in fast chargers in our cities and regions.</para>
<para>Listening to some of the speakers this afternoon, it would appear as if there are no electric vehicles operating in Australia, but that's far from the case. Off the back of this investment we've seen very good results. We've seen the sales of plug-in electric vehicles triple from 7,000 in 2020 to more than 20,000 in 2021. The coalition's approach was estimated to create the environment for 1.7 million electric vehicles to be rolled out by 2030. The electric vehicle market is strong and it is growing. In my maiden speech on Monday, I spoke to the need for governments to only intervene where there is a need to. There is absolutely no demonstrated need for this legislation.</para>
<para>This legislation throws up many different questions. Firstly, how much will it cost? The government's explanatory memorandum says that it will cost $205 million over the forward estimates, but the Parliamentary Budget Office's post-election review contains a medium-term projection of $2.3 billion over the decade, with a per annum cost culminating in $639 million by 2032-33. That is a huge economic opportunity cost for government, and this bill is not fiscally responsible.</para>
<para>What will the market impact be? I note that EV demand skyrocketed under the previous government, as I mentioned, almost tripling between 2020 and 2021. It did not take either an elaborate market intervention or endless buckets of public money to achieve that. Supply of EVs is already increasing in line with natural market forces. EVs currently maintain their largest ever market share, and multiple major car companies, including Mazda and Nissan, have committed to becoming fully electric within the next decade. The latest figures from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, who were in the building yesterday, show sales of pure battery EVs last month represented the highest market share ever recorded. This bill won't make a difference to the trajectory of this growing industry.</para>
<para>Another question this raises is: will this lower costs? The Institute of Public Accountants say it won't. Their evidence on this bill says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Private buyers and sole traders of EV's cannot access these significant savings … The Governments assertion that this initiative makes the take up of EV's more affordable is misleading …</para></quote>
<para>There was further evidence to say that this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… will deliver the subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners.</para></quote>
<para>The next question I have is: what will be the environmental impact? The evidence of the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water failed to quantify what the emissions reduction impact of this bill would be. The Institute of Public Accountants stated the policy will have negligible impact on reducing carbon emissions from the transport sector—a negligible impact. That's $2.3 billion over the decade for a negligible outcome. So it begs the question: what will be the economic impact? The bill will attempt to artificially stimulate demand in what is already a growing market, and even the most rudimentary understanding of supply and demand will tell you that this bill will only add to inflationary pressures that are already being felt across the country. A number of experts have raised serious questions about the equity, fiscal sustainability and price pressures on the EV market that this bill will bring about. This bill certainly poses more questions than it does answers.</para>
<para>I note the comments from the previous speakers, the teal Independents who've already spoken before me, applauding and welcoming this bill, and outlining their support for this bill—with a few caveats, I note. It's alright for them to support this bill, it's alright for big companies employing executives in their electorates who will benefit from this bill, but it does little for the workers in my electorate and their infrastructure needs. It does nothing for everyday working Australians. No matter which way you slice it or dice it, this bill benefits the well-off and places a disproportionate financial burden on the already strained backs of everyday Australians. This bill is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is robbing Port Pirie to pay Point Piper—and I challenge any member to say that three times fast.</para>
<para>The government has also drafted the bill at an almost frantic pace, without considering its specifics or broader impacts. I've touched on some of the submissions that have been received and some of the commentary from third-party groups. Labor cannot say, let alone confidently predict, what impact this bill will have on carbon emissions, on the EV market and on localised electricity infrastructure—or even outline a way of measuring its success or even make a prediction on the long-term financial implications beyond the forward estimates.</para>
<para>If this Labor government is serious about helping to facilitate a sustainable and affordable uptake of EVs in this country, then it should take a leaf out of the coalition's book and make targeted investment in critical EV-friendly infrastructure, instead of being seduced by the siren song of direct intervention and market manipulation in this industry. I would like to see the federal government instead turn their focus to delivering real cost-of-living relief to everyday Australians, and perhaps they can start with honouring their pre-election commitment of an energy price reduction.</para>
<para>This is a high-cost, low-impact bill, thrown together on the fly without sufficient consultation, and which threatens to divert piles of public money in complete disregard of the cost-of-living pressures that continue to cause so much unnecessary pain under this Labor government. I encourage members to vote against the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's no great surprise that the party that claimed that electric vehicles would end the weekend continues to be campaigning against this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022—campaigning against a measure that would make electric vehicles cheaper. I switched to a Tesla Model 3 at the start of the year, and it is an absolute joy to drive. It is an extraordinary piece of technology. It's very quiet, environmentally sound and it does things that I've never before thought would just be natural for a car. You approach it and it unlocks, because your phone is in your pocket. It gets dark and the lights come on automatically. It rains and the windscreen wipers come on automatically. As an EV user I'm not unusual in driving a Tesla Model 3—according to the Electric Vehicle Council, they accounted for 60 per cent of all EV sales last year, followed by the MG ZS EV and the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV.</para>
<para>Teslas are terrific fun but they're too expensive right now, and this bill seeks to address the challenge of affordability. It is extraordinary, when we have a cost-of-living challenge like we do in Australia right now, that the coalition would be arguing against a measure which makes electric vehicles cheaper. At last count, consumers in the United Kingdom could choose from 26 low-emission vehicles under $60,000. In Australia, that number is only eight. The global average of EV uptake is five times higher than Australia's level of two per cent. Today, the ACT is outperforming the national average, with five per cent of new vehicle sales electric. But as we move to ensure that Australia has sufficient uptake of electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions and to reduce the cost of living, it's important that we make electric vehicles cheaper. We know that the running costs are significantly lower. A petrol car working at an average of 11 litres per 100 kilometres, costs $14. The average electric car costs $4 per 100 kilometres. Right there, for every 100 kilometres that the typical household drives they will save $10 by driving an electric vehicle instead of a petrol car. We need to also ensure there are more fast chargers available, and that is why the government is committed to working with states and territories to expand the network of fast-charging stations.</para>
<para>This measure is about making an orderly and systematic transition away from petrol and diesel cars and towards electric vehicles. Apart from Russia, Australia is the only OECD country not to have or be in the process of developing fuel efficiency standards. That's why the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are developing a National Electric Vehicle Strategy which will explore options about how an Australian fuel efficiency standard would work, and will work with states and territories to reduce household costs from bringing electric vehicles in. We've committed to our Driving the Nation plan, which will establish a national EV charging network, with charging stations at an average interval of every 150 kilometres on major roads. We have committed to creating a national hydrogen highways refuelling network and set a low-emissions target for the Commonwealth fleet of 75 per cent of new leases and purchases by 2025.</para>
<para>I imagine that, looking a decade forward, the car parks in this building will be filled with electric vehicles. We in this building will probably need more spots to plug in electric vehicles. Right now, down in the parliamentary car park, my Tesla is plugged in to the wall, happily charging away, and it will be at 100 per cent by the time I drive home at the end of today. There are only a couple of power points in the wall there, and I expect this building—like many other buildings around Australia—will be updating and providing more charging stations. The simplicity of electric vehicles is that you don't have to worry about stopping at the petrol browser, but it's also an important cost of living measure for Australians.</para>
<para>It is striking that the coalition, having seen a swathe of its formerly safe seats taken by teal Independents, voted in the last parliament against Labor's measure to put in place a 43 per cent emissions reduction target. They now have a spokesperson who claims that there is no electric ute, despite clear evidence to the contrary, with carmakers such as General Motors developing exactly such a product. In the United States there is huge excitement over the Ford Lightning—a vehicle which is zippier than the Ford F-150 but which also acts as a resource for tradespeople. One of the key selling points of the Ford Lightning is that tradespeople can use it as a mobile battery. They can plug their tools into the Ford Lightning and ensure that they're able to work on the job. As we work to allow electric vehicles to feed back into the grid, they'll help to improve the sustainability of the grid by providing a whole set of mobile batteries that can be drawn on at times of high demand. That will be a part of the steady move towards having more batteries in households and having more community batteries, as Labor has committed to. Community batteries are rolling out in the ACT, including in Casey, in my own electorate.</para>
<para>Labor understands that dealing with climate change will require significant electrification. To look at books such as Bill Gates's <inline font-style="italic">How </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">o Avoid </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Climate </inline><inline font-style="italic">Disaster</inline> is to realise the benefits of widespread electrification, as we deal with climate change. But we don't have to choose between cost of living and dealing with climate change. We don't have to choose between jobs and dealing with climate change. We don't have to choose between a car that's fun to drive and dealing with climate change. With electric vehicles you can have all of those things. These are vehicles which are a lot more fun to drive. My boys have never before campaigned so strongly for dad to drive them to school than since our household got an electric vehicle. They are also quieter, more energy efficient and cheaper. It's absolutely vital that we ensure that more Australians can get access to electric vehicles, and that we work with organisations such as the Electric Vehicle Council to expand the number of models that are available. In 2021, electric vehicle sales in Australia were just over 20,000. That's triple the level that they were in 2020. So Australians are keen to get hold of electric vehicles, but they don't have enough choices, and they don't have vehicles which are as affordable as they should be. By working with the electric vehicle manufacturers and ensuring that we remove these additional imposts, we're able to expand the uptake of electric vehicles.</para>
<para>I commend the hard work that the minister has done on developing this policy, and I just note to the House that the absurdity of the coalition's position will become clearer and clearer as the years go by. They will be in the annals of history as the party that claimed electric vehicles would end the weekend. The Liberals will be in the annals of history as the party that voted against a measure to make electric vehicles more affordable. The Liberals are the 'useless box' of Australian politics. A useless box is a machine whose only purpose is to turn itself off, and that is the approach that the coalition takes. Probably the only time I will associate electrification with the coalition is to note their great similarity to a useless box: 'Turn it off, and don't worry about the new technology.' It is extraordinary that we have a party which claims to support a technology led approach to tackling climate change but which is opposing the widespread rollout of that technology to their very own constituents, opposing a measure that will deal with cost of living and opposing a measure which will help electrify our vehicle fleet and reduce Australia's carbon emissions.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution, and I'm pleased that his boys like him taking them to school in his new car. Given that it was cheaper than another equivalent, I'd be interested to know what model you bought, Member for Fenner, but we'll put that to one side. But the world—not just Australia—is very interested in, and excited by, the oncoming wave of electric vehicles, and their adoption and use will increase. That is a given. But I have to say that I do have doubts about the short-term penetration into the market in my seat of Grey, which covers 92 per cent of South Australia. It starts 30 kilometres out of Adelaide and continues to all of the borders except Victoria's.</para>
<para>One would expect me to bring up the issues of regional difference and possible regional disadvantage that any new government policy might include. I know I am not a typical example but, in my role as the member for Grey, I drive somewhere between 80,000 and 90,000 kilometres a year. Sometimes I drive over 1,000 kilometres a day and, quite frankly, I don't have the time to stop and charge up electric batteries, and I also need access to very fast charging. If it is to come up to anything like a comparison to filling up the car with fuel, I think we have a long way to go with these technologies.</para>
<para>I realise, as I said right from the start, that I am not typical—in fact, I am atypical; or special, as my friend says—but I do know plenty of people who drive 40,000 or 50,000 kilometres per year, living in the country. It is quite true that their cars double up and they use them to take the kids to school or to go and do the grocery shopping or whatever. But, when you live 200, 400, 700 or 1,000 kilometres from your capital city—and, in South Australia, we only have one truly major city and that is the capital city, with the next biggest municipality in South Australia around the 25,000 mark—many of us are drawn to Adelaide on quite a regular basis for good reason. So that car that also has to take the kids to school and do the drop-offs and pick-ups for sports training and all those things also has to be quite capable of getting to Adelaide as quickly as is safely possible, with a minimum amount of fuss. And, if you take the time to drive down the street of any country town, you will find that most of the cars that people are accessing are generally large four-wheel drives, normally powered by diesel motors. That is why I say it is likely that adoption will be slower in country regions. I'm not saying it won't be done, but I think the technology will have to evolve somewhat further before we get to that point.</para>
<para>The reason I've raised that is that, while I can understand why governments will want to subsidise certain things to excel a great technology take-up—and I have a good simile that I will come to later—I think the method that the government has chosen in this area of reducing the fringe benefits tax on electrical vehicles is curious, to say the least. It seems one of the least appropriate ways to do it, in my opinion. Insomuch as the government is calling this an electric car discount, it's not. It's not an electric car discount at all; it is a reduction of a selective tax, a fringe benefits tax, applied to higher-income salary earners as opposed to wage earners.</para>
<para>I can tell you that there are not many retail workers, cleaners, nurses or bricklayers—and I could go on and on—who get a car as part of their remuneration package. The people who get a car—and consequently the companies and governments employing them that get a car—as part of their package are salary earners generally in the area of, say, $80,000 plus a year. They and those companies are the ones that choose to pay the fringe benefits tax to include the car as part of their package. Consequently, this taxation deduction—which is what I shall call it, as opposed to an electric car discount—by definition, benefits the higher-paid salary workers and larger businesses.</para>
<para>I can't quantify what the long-term cost of this policy is another, and neither it seems can the government. We have a number for the forward estimates, but we don't actually understand—we have some estimates from others—how much it will cost the taxpayer in the longer term that will go to these higher income earners, not to lower income earners. And we don't understand how much it is likely to reduce CO2 emissions. If we introduce a policy like this that costs a substantial about money, knowing the numbers, outcomes and estimates are very important.</para>
<para>There is a similarity here that I said I would bring up. It's not exactly the same, but there is no doubt that the policy surrounding rooftop solar in Australia is incredibly popular. Australians are in love with rooftop solar. We have the highest rates of uptake in the world. I would not for one moment say that the subsidies involved are a small part of that. They've been a large part of that accelerated uptake. Interestingly, in this area, the subsidy is provided through the SRET, the small renewable energy target, which then generates small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, which go to the installer of the equipment and reduces the price. They will degenerate in time through to 2030, which is the final target for the closure dates on the SRET.</para>
<para>The problem I've always had with the program is not the fact that it is a subsidy for rooftop solar; it is the fact that it is a subsidy for rooftop solar that actually takes from the poorest people—because it's not a government subsidy; this is a consumer subsidy—in our communities and gives it to the richest people. The only people that can afford to put rooftop solar on their houses in the first place are the people in the higher income bracket. Those who don't own their houses, who are in rentals, who are in houses they're struggling to pay off, are the people who cannot afford rooftop solar. In a way, it's even worse than this selected discount, if you like, or abolition of the fringe benefits tax on electric vehicles, because it's actually coming out of the pockets of the poorest people in our communities and going into the pockets of the richest.</para>
<para>That's always been my objection to the rooftop solar scheme. I don't blame people for taking it up—good on them. If governments are to put these things in place, it is naturally accepted that you should take advantage of them. And I encourage people to take up the subsidies on rooftop solar and put them in. I've just never been happy with the way those subsidies are obtained. The paid parenting scheme is a very good example of where we choose not to take from the employer for public benefit. In this case, we needed a public benefit. We wanted the solar cells on roofs; it should not have come from the individuals who can't afford solar cells. It's not quite the same, but it is the same when it comes to this fringe benefits tax. It is a tax break for the rich and a bigger slug for the poor. That's why it is wrongly founded. It is flawed in its concept.</para>
<para>I would have suggested that it would have been far better for the government to suggest that, if they're willing to put this amount of money into subsidising electric vehicles, why not knock it off the price of everybody so that a self-employed person can access in the same way as somebody employed by a larger company can get it through their wages package. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't know why the government has chosen to go down that path.</para>
<para>That rounds up my directed objections to the legislation as it stands, but I have a couple of associated issues. I'll lay them on the table because there'll be ample time for discussion about this in the coming years in this place. One of the things I flagged in my electorate and in a couple of speeches in these chambers already is that I think it's time for governments to start giving serious consideration to fuel excise as a tax. There are people who will argue that fuel excise is not hypothecated for road construction and maintenance. I would argue differently. If you look at the origins of the tax, you'll see that it actually came in as a road user charge. In fact, miners, farmers, diesel electricity generators and trains do not pay this excise. What do they all have in common? They don't use the road. So, essentially, the only people who pay fuel excise are those who are actually using the fuel on the roads. I would say that's a road user charge.</para>
<para>As the number of electric vehicles builds up, those receipts for excise will fall away, and I don't think it is fair or right or proper that we continue with the same system. I'm not saying that it's broken yet or that the government needs to act on this as if it were an emergency, but the government should exercise itself in thinking about what the replacement tax is going to be. The sooner we get going on it and make a move on it the better because, for people who will be buying electric cars over the next few years, it will come as a large shock to them a few years down the track when they suddenly have to start paying a road user fee, because something they would have factored into the decision to purchase is that they aren't going to be paying fuel tax anymore. So I think it's important we address this sooner rather than later.</para>
<para>There is another issue that I want to bring up. I don't know what the answer to it is, and I don't know what we should do about it, but I checked this out before I came up to the chamber. You can buy, let's say, a 2006 Corolla that has done 200,000 kilometres for about $8,000. That is the entry level for students. It's the entry level for people in the workforce that live, perhaps, with mum and dad or who are going out into a flat for the first time. It's the kind of car that people will buy for a second car in the family, so that one of the parents can ferry kids to and from school. That's fine. That's a good thing. But, if we now transpose ourselves 10 or 15 years down the track, those vehicles will be gone and the cars that will be coming into the second-hand market, on my assumption, will be worthless because the batteries will be worn out.</para>
<para>So, if we've got a similar car that has done a couple of hundred thousand kilometres and it needs a $10,000 or $15,000 battery refit, that person is not going to buy that car because it will be simply unaffordable. I don't have a solution for that. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have electric cars just because kids starting uni won't be able to buy a car 15 years down the track, but I do think we have to get our heads around where we are going to source vehicles from and how we find cars that are cheap enough for those kinds of people to get into the entry market. There's an indication that, despite what the member for Fenner told us a little while ago, electric vehicles aren't cheap. They're generally a bit dearer than the others, and, if internal combustion vehicles are phased out as quickly as others suggest, then we'll be facing the wall very quickly.</para>
<para>The other issue I would touch on briefly, which the member for Fenner also mentioned, is the talk about Ford developing an electric tradies vehicle, if you like. My understanding is that, in Australia at the moment—let's be careful what we say here—there is nothing available in that sort of workman's electric vehicle category that is right-hand drive. As is the way with the world, right-hand drive vehicles are in the minority. We're probably pretty lucky that the Japanese drive on the left-hand side of the road, but we may find that sourcing new EVs in Australia with specific qualities to suit certain markets is going to be pretty slow and a hard slog.</para>
<para>Generally speaking, I support electric vehicles. Bring it on; I don't mind that. But I do think the government has chosen the wrong mechanism to accelerate uptake in this case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Real action on climate change—that's what the Albanese Labor government's all about. It is committed to delivering this by reducing taxes on electric vehicles. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 is the first step in achieving this, by providing a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible employer provided electric vehicles. Put simply, what this means is that, when an employer allows an electric vehicle to be used privately by an employee, it will no longer attract a fringe benefits tax. This will incentivise greater uptake of electric vehicles, which are rapidly becoming a more efficient and cheaper form of transport; it will reduce transport emissions, contributing to the government's plan to reach net zero by 2050; and it will make electric cars more affordable for families and businesses across Australia who are currently locked out of the market due to very high costs.</para>
<para>This is really important as a reform for people and businesses across my electorate of Wills in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. My community, like many across Australia, are acutely aware of the existential threat posed by climate change. Every day, in many ways, they make decisions to reduce their own carbon footprint, whether that be through where they shop or source materials, how they power their homes or shops, or just how they travel from A to B. This tax exemption for electric vehicles will provide more sustainable options for so many more Australians, because as a government we know that Australians not only deserve choice but want it. They need it.</para>
<para>We've heard a whole lot of nonsense from the opposition, who seem to be living in the past—years in the past. Let me just run through a few examples. Scott Morrison, when he was Prime Minister, said electric vehicles would end the weekend. Remember that? They would end the weekend; it would be gone. He then pretended at the last election that he had said nothing like that, so suddenly he forgot that he had actually said that. He must have forgotten that video clips existed even in 2019 and that you will be recorded when you say something. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's not going to tow your trailer. It's not going to tow your boat. It's not going to get you out to your favourite camping spot …</para></quote>
<para>Just two weeks ago, the new Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in a sign that things really haven't changed that much with the Liberal Party, said that no-one in the world is making an electric ute—no company. Well, it took fact checkers all of five seconds to determine that was wrong. She must have forgotten that Google exists in 2022. For the benefit of the deputy opposition leader, there are not just one, two or three but at least five electric utes being manufactured and sold overseas. That's a fact. Then, when she was faced with this unavoidable fact, she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… even if they were it would be unaffordable.</para></quote>
<para>Well, let's be glad that the other side are no longer in power with that kind of misinformation and positioning.</para>
<para>Rather than just spreading misinformation and complaining, we are really taking action on climate change. This is what this government is about. With this bill, we will make it more affordable for Australian employers and workers to drive an electric vehicle if they choose to. In fact, a number of experts have said that people using electric utes for work gain added benefits. For example, the electric utes can be used as generators on worksites, charging up electrical tools. So, if you're on the job, your electric ute actually helps you do your job. You can also use an electric vehicle to charge a laptop, so it's not just the tools. If you want to put in an invoice, you can do that as well. There you go—just another example of why businesses might utilise them in high numbers if they were made affordable.</para>
<para>My question to the opposition is: why not give businesses and Australians the choice when it comes to choosing the vehicle they drive? For the so-called party of personal choice and responsibility, the Liberal Party are sure committed to making it harder for Australians to make their own choice when it comes to the car they drive.</para>
<para>The Albanese government, however, is committed to giving Australians greater choice by bringing down the costs of electric vehicle ownership. This exemption will apply to electric vehicles below the luxury car threshold—including battery, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid electric cars—that are made available for use after 1 July 2022. In addition to this, the Albanese Labor government will remove import duties on electric and low-emission cars. These fees have been a significant—in fact, tremendous—barrier to the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia. This barrier has meant that just 1.5 per cent of cars sold here are electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, compared to 17 per cent in the United Kingdom and—wait for it—85 per cent in Norway.</para>
<para>This not only represents a loss of opportunity in emissions reductions and lowering household costs around fuel; it also represents a lost opportunity in rebuilding Australia's automotive and manufacturing industries. That is an issue that is so important in my electorate of Wills, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, where thousands of workers and their families were left out of a job, out of job security, out of a living, with the closure of the Broadmeadows Ford factory and associated factories that fed into the automotive industry, including small and medium-sized engineering firms, innovative firms, that made little parts of the cars that were being made in Australia. Some of you over there—some of the new MPs—might not remember this, but there was a Liberal Treasurer who dared the car companies to leave Australia. In fact, they basically shoved them out the door by removing support for the industry; yet the Liberal Party—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a fact. That happened. I will take the interjection. The Treasurer at the time, Joe Hockey, dared them and pushed them out of the country and removed that support. Yet the Liberal Party continue to be the biggest opponents of Australian manufacturing. It is remarkable.</para>
<para>Unlike that lot, the Albanese government is getting to work and is committed to bring manufacturing back home by reducing taxes on electric vehicles. We will make them more affordable, encouraging their uptake and incentivising businesses to build them here in Australia. We will also establish a new driving the nation fund, invest in highways and build a national electrical vehicle network. This will include a $39.9 million investment to delivering 117 fast-charging stations on highways across Australia and up to 16 hydrogen refuelling stations on very busy freight routes between the capital cities, matching investments already made in states like Victoria.</para>
<para>All Australians are feeling the pressure at the petrol pump, particularly over the last few months with what we have seen happening overseas with the war in Ukraine and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We cannot afford as a government and as a nation to be short-sighted in our policy responses to the rising costs of living. That is how we have ended up in this situation—that short-sightedness by the previous government—after nine long, tortuous years of a Liberal government that had no vision, no plan, no foresight and nothing on offer. They kicked everything into the long grass. That was their tactic: I see nothing; I know nothing; I'm just going to kick it off into the long grade and hope somebody else takes care of it later. That is how we have ended up in this situation.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government will take the ambition action needed to provide cleaner and more affordable options as our technology options improve. We will not allow Australia to be left behind as the rest of the world realises and takes advantage of the opportunities of investing in renewable energies. The opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, to unleash billions in investment, to reduce those cost-of-living pressures and reduce household costs is before us now, and we are taking action to make it a reality. We will make electric vehicles more affordable, we will take real action on climate change and we will bring Australian manufacturing back home.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are in a climate crisis which requires the rapid shift to net zero emissions through the electrification of all the sectors of our society. With light vehicle transport alone responsible for 10 per cent of Australia's emissions, electrifying our transport system must be a high priority for this parliament and this government.</para>
<para>Listening to previous speakers, you might think that this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, was about to bring electric cars within reach of everyday people and see a massive investment. It is a step towards electrifying our transport fleet, but it primarily applies, in this bill, to people who salary package their cars or who are on forms of leases or for big corporations that are buying cars and using them for their staff. It is important that we tackle that. It is important that we take a step towards electrifying our transport fleet. But let's be clear. Despite the rhetoric from the previous speakers, there is still a long way to go to ensure that we fast-track the electric vehicle revolution here in this country. If we're serious about taking steps that would see the electrification of our transport fleet across this country, we need policies to push out old, dirty and obsolete vehicles; we need policies to bring in cleaner, better and more efficient electric vehicles; and we need the infrastructure to power-up Australia's new electric vehicles and our vehicle-manufacturing industry. Let's just go through those one by one.</para>
<para>The US, China, Japan, and Europe have had mandatory vehicle emission standards for decades—that is, standards about how much pollution your car can emit. We still do not have those in this country. It is clear what needs to be done. We don't need more reviews or consultations; we just need to get on with it. At the moment, Australia is already a dumping ground for dirty, expensive, inefficient vehicles, and it's only going to get worse. Without these standards, consumers will continue not to be offered the range of electric vehicles that are already available to most of the world. The fuel excise discount is about to end. We're in a cost-of-living crisis, with high fuel costs driven by our dependency on the rest of the world for fuel security. Surely there is no better time to be introducing pollution standards that will save people money. Surely it makes sense to depend on the sun, not the ongoing extraction of climate-destroying, planet-killing fossil fuels.</para>
<para>The Greens want to see fuel efficiency standards, or CO2 emissions standards, starting with 105 grams per kilometre and ratcheting down to zero by 2030, and a ban on new petrol and diesel vehicle sales by 2030, to bring us into line with leading countries like the United Kingdom as well. At the election, it was only the Greens pushing for these vehicle emissions standards, to stop us becoming the dumping ground for dirty cars that the rest of the world can't sell anywhere. Since the introduction of the bill, there have been steps towards the Greens' policy by the government, saying that they will look at fuel efficiency standards. We're going to keep pushing until Australia starts to align with the best practice in the rest of the world and we have fuel efficiency standards that will not only drive EV uptake here but stop us being the dumping ground for cars from the rest of the world that they can't sell anywhere else.</para>
<para>People have got to understand the significance of what happens if we don't have these fuel efficiency standards. If everyone else around the world has them—if everywhere else they've got policies in place that say your car can't be too polluting—and they've got electric vehicle targets, and Australia is one of the few places where those rules don't apply, then all of the dirty cars that are made everywhere else are going to be dumped here. Right now, with the cost of fuel dependent on coal, gas and oil rising because of international events like a war—when a dictator decides to invade another country, it has massive flow-through effects here—we're seeing the absolute craziness of continuing to rely on those forms of fossil fuels. Even worse, if we don't have fuel efficiency standards, the average Australian is going to be even more on the hook, because the cars that are going to be flooding the market here will be the ones that they can't sell in the rest of the world and that require you to spend even more money on petrol, because they won't be efficient. So that's why we need fuel efficiency standards. It is the way that we're going to start bringing down costs, including the cost of living, and also drive the uptake of EVs and make them more affordable here.</para>
<para>We also need proper electric vehicle subsidies, in combination with efficiency standards, to turbocharge both supply and demand. We've been pushing—we pushed during the election—to invest $1.2 billion to support manufacturers of electric vehicles and electric vehicle components in Australia, to build the Australian EV-manufacturing industry. The prospect of remaking manufacturing while simultaneously addressing the climate crisis is actually quite exhilarating. We've had so many opportunities here, many of which have slipped through our fingers because of the neglect of the previous government.</para>
<para>The previous speaker referred to the former Liberal government's decision to axe the Automotive Transformation Scheme, which saw jobs and industries disappear in the blink of an eye. What they don't realise and didn't seem to realise at the time is that it wasn't just the makers of the cars, the big names that everyone knows because you see the brand name emblazoned on the car. It was so many of the smaller manufacturers and component manufacturers underneath them, in places like South Australia and in my home state of Victoria, that were there producing, manufacturing, employing people and ready to switch over to electric vehicles. It was this massive opportunity that we had here in this country.</para>
<para>During the term of the former Liberal government, as they were talking about the future of the transformation scheme, I met with people and companies who were prepared to make electric vehicles here, including utes and four-wheel drives, and they were just saying to the government, 'Can we get a bit of support—a fraction of the support that's been given to the coal and gas industries, and a fraction of the support that's been given to petrol cars—and we can start taking our component manufacturers that we've got here, and integrating them into supply chains and making EVs here?' The former government said no.</para>
<para>We now find ourselves a fair way behind, when we could have used the last five years to integrate existing component manufacturers—which are in many places around Australia but especially in South Australia and Victoria—into making EVs here. We would have avoided massive dislocation and we would be producing the products that now Australians want to buy and the rest of the world wants to buy. And that's why an investment to support manufacturers of EVs and EV components in Australia is absolutely critical. It's not in this bill, though. It's not in this bill, so let's be clear-eyed about the small step this bill is taking. But that's what we need to do.</para>
<para>We also think that the requirement to put charging stations into new road infrastructure, which a previous speaker mentioned, is good, but we're going to need a much more intensive and extensive network of charging stations than the small allocation of funds that was referred to, $30 million odd, is going to support. Think about where there are petrol stations and how many petrol stations there are across the country, and the infrastructure that exists to support internal combustion engine cars. We're going to need a version of that to support electric vehicles, and not just private cars. Trucks, freight—we can move freight around using electric vehicles, but we're going need the infrastructure to support that.</para>
<para>We want to see $2 billion invested in a publicly owned EV fast-charging network. That is the kind of thing that would give people confidence—which they can have at the moment, in many instances, because when you investigate it you understand that the range anxiety that exists with respect to EVs is actually overcome with existing technologies. But build that charging infrastructure and make it publicly available and visible, and the uptake will happen much, much more quickly, because people will know they can charge their car wherever they go. It's something that the government should invest in because it's building a common network that then everyone can benefit from. As I say, time is running out to tackle the climate crisis, and government has to take the reins. Government stepping in and building the backbone, the network that everyone then knows they can plug into and be part of, is going to fast-track the uptake of EVs.</para>
<para>It's also time to look at redirecting the massive subsidies that currently go to coal and gas in this country. Close to $12 billion a year, between various levels of government, is spent subsidising fossil fuels in this country. Instead, we need to look at saying, 'You've had your day. Many of you are big, tax-dodging corporations anyway; you don't need public handouts.'</para>
<para>Let's stop the subsidies to fossil fuels, and let's instead work out how we can make EVs within financial reach of everyday people in this country. We need subsidies for people to get their first EV. A $10,000 subsidy on every first electric vehicle could be put in place and could be funded in this upcoming budget—not by asking everyday people to pay more but by stopping giving coal and gas corporations the handouts that they are getting, and perhaps even by not giving billionaires like Clive Palmer a $9,000-a-year tax cut with the stage 3 tax cuts. The money is there. Instead of giving Clive Palmer a tax cut, let's make it easier for the average Australian to go and buy their first electric vehicle, a $10,000 subsidy on every first electric vehicle. What you would do is decrease that over time as the uptake of electric vehicles across the country increased.</para>
<para>You could also—and we will be pushing for this—have the government provide low-cost finance to remove the cost barriers to consumers and ensure equity. Now, these measures aren't controversial in the rest of the world. Subsidies to help people get their first EV exist elsewhere. Subsidies would put Australia in line with leading countries like the United States, who are extending out to 2032 a $7½ thousand subsidy for new electric vehicles.</para>
<para>This package of policies that I've just outlined, implemented together—so, much more than this small step being taken by the bill, which, as I say, is primarily aimed not at everyday buyers of electric cars but at larger fleets and at people who salary-package—would mean there's no reason that Australia can't rapidly accelerate towards an electric vehicle take-off, just as other countries have done. And when people say, 'Well, where's the money coming from,' I repeat the point: all of this that I've just outlined that would fast-track the electric vehicle revolution in Australia would cost just a fraction of the over $200 billion that the government is spending on stage 3 tax cuts to give the likes of Clive Palmer a $9,000-a-year handout. Don't give Clive Palmer a $9,000-a-year handout that he doesn't need. Instead, give everyday people a subsidy to go and buy their first electric vehicle. That is a better use of public money.</para>
<para>The Greens will push in this parliament to see the government take the ambitious action that's needed. We know it's affordable, and, with Australia's transport sector and light vehicles accounting for about10 per cent of our pollution here, it's something we've got to do if we want to tackle the climate crisis in the time available to us.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will never forget my first time in the front seat of an electric car. It was love at first drive—accelerating at 100 kilometres an hour down the Mitchell Freeway in my first drive in an electric vehicle. I had decided that it was time for me to take that jump and get rid of the much-loved Mazda CX5 that had done so well for me and the family, and shift to an electric vehicle. And in doing so I had one key criterion, which was that the electric car we would get had to fit the double pram that Leo and Ruby relied upon day to day to get around with me and Jess. As I took my double pram down to the car yard, I folded it all up and I crossed my fingers that that pram would fit in the car. And indeed it did.</para>
<para>Two days ago I celebrated one year as the owner and driver of an electric vehicle—9,436 kilometres later. That vehicle has gotten me everywhere on every day of the year, be it a weekend, a Monday, a Tuesday. These cars are the future. My electric vehicle came with me when I visited Maurice Zeffert Home last week, where I celebrated Dora Caverson's 108th birthday. She's someone who has seen so much technological change in her lifetime, and there's so much more to come in the many exciting years ahead for Dora. It's taken me to the Bassendean Men's Shed, where members of my community work tinkering with old electronics and building things. It's not exclusively a men's shed, despite the name. Again, they're people who've seen that huge technological shift in our cars, in our radios, in everything. They're embracing that change. It's driven me to places like Miller and Baker, a fabulous bakery in my electorate. It's taken me to the Australian Vanadium workshops, which are also looking at new battery technologies to ensure that we can meet the climate challenges ahead of us. It took me to the press conference that allowed me to talk about not just the future but the ancient history in this land, announcing with Premier Mark McGowan the Aboriginal cultural centre that we will build at Terrace Road car park in the centre of the Perth CBD. It took me to the announcement with the Prime Minister, where we announced that Bayswater and Dianella would be beneficiaries of community batteries, allowing people to store the energy they are producing on their roofs to charge their electric vehicles or to provide stability in the grid.</para>
<para>I come to this knowing that this is a complex debate for the people who work in the automotive industry. I was at the Motor Trade Association's awards night at the Crown Casino a couple of weeks ago. I spoke with them and their CEO, Stephen Moir, about what this transition means for people who've had investments for decades in the motor vehicle industry. I spoke to young apprentices who are learning about all of the technology that they will need to service the cars of the future. There was an opportunity to talk about how we make sure that we get the policy settings right, not just for new cars but for families who wish to hang on to a vehicle for many years to come. But we can't escape one very clear fact: Australia trails the world when it comes to electric vehicle uptake. This isn't the fault of Australians. Australians want to do their bit. From surveys, we see that 54 per cent of Australians are open to buying an electric vehicle as their next car. The problem is that our current policy settings make these vehicles too expensive for everyday Australians.</para>
<para>There are no electric vehicles under $40,000 available in Australia, and only eight models available under $60,000. The parliament can change the policy settings to make these things more accessible and more available. The reality is that less than two per cent of vehicles sold in Australia are electric or plug-in hybrids. We know that not only does that have to change, but it will change. We know that the transition to electric vehicles is essential to meet our commitments. I'm looking forward to it becoming the law of Australia when it passes through the Senate so that we can reach net zero by 2050.</para>
<para>Over the last two years, we saw the now opposition go through a process of changing all of their economic settings when they were in government. They used to complain in opposition about debt. They were very happy to pile on the bulk of that debt before the pandemic hit. They campaigned against debt. They embraced debt. I also remember when I used to campaign against taxes and say that they wanted to have lower taxes. This legislation is about getting lower taxes for families who want to choose an electric vehicle. But the party of choice has chosen to rip away choice. The party of taxes has chosen to keep a high tax on electric vehicles for purely ideological reasons. This bill will remove the fringe benefits tax for battery electric cars, the fringe benefits tax for hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and the fringe benefits tax for plug-in hybrid electric cars. This will build that second-hand market. It will make sure that people might experience driving electric vehicles in their workplace so that some of those worries they have might disappear when they get behind the wheel and hit the accelerator, always driving at the speed limit, when they discover that these cars are as good, and, in some cases, better, than the car that they might be thinking about replacing.</para>
<para>Mr Katter interjecting—</para>
<para> </para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill is an important part of the government's wider electric car discount and Driving the Nation Fund policies, making electric cars cheaper, increasing sales and expanding the used car market. This will all lead to the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Currently passenger transport makes up almost 10 per cent of Australia's carbon dioxide emissions. Our transport sector is one of the largest emitters, and we want to work with the transport sector to make sure that we can bring those emissions down and make the replacement products as affordable as possible.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I invite the member for Kennedy—and, indeed, any member—to visit the Perth electorate, and I will take them for a drive and show them the battery that is in my house, the charging cable and the solar panels on my roof. I am sure you will find it is entirely sustainable to have an electric car on renewable energy, and it is cheaper. That is an unavoidable fact. This is the cheapest type of fuel to put in a car today, and it will continue to be so for many years to come. Indeed, the Australian Electric Vehicle Association estimated that it would save some $500 in fuel and $100 in maintenance every year for average families who own an electric car. The data tells us that a standard electric vehicle is about 70 per cent cheaper to run than its petrol equivalent and 90 per cent cheaper if—as I am fortunate enough to be able to do—it is powered from rooftop solar.</para>
<para>On the story of rooftop solar, I think it is worth noting the contribution that former Prime Minister John Howard made on the question of rooftop solar. The incentives that former Prime Minister Howard put in place took us from about 200 rooftop solar panels across Australia when he put those incentives in place in 2001, and we now have millions of households that have rooftop solar and families who are saving as a result of those visionary policies of former Prime Minister John Howard. Indeed, in years to come, people will realise that the important work that has been done to make sure that electric vehicles are affordable for families—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It will go to making sure that we have more affordable vehicles, just as former Prime Minister Howard did when it came to solar panels—a legacy that is being trashed by the opposition at the moment.</para>
<para>But this is not just about passenger vehicles. I want to talk a bit about how this ties into the broader commitment of the Albanese Labor government in terms of making sure that we have a plan to rebuild our manufacturing industry and also make sure that our transport sector has a role to play in the renewable energy transition. We have committed some $15 billion into new manufacturing projects, prioritising the use of Australian made goods, building up our sovereign capacity and making sure that, as much is possible, Australian made content goes into the cars, buses and trains of the future.</para>
<para>As we roll out these plans to invest in a future made in Australia, one of them is about making electric buses in Perth. At the moment the bulk of the buses that I catch—the 950, the 960, the 60 and the 652 that gets me to the Fremantle dockers; and hopefully I will have a few more dockers game to go over the course of September—are diesel. I have been to the Volgren factory where they are produced. The people who make these buses do a fantastic job, and I want to make sure that those good, secure jobs that they have relied on for decades are there for decades to come. That is why we are investing, in partnership with the McGowan Labor government, some $250 million in an electric bus manufacturing facility in Perth. This means that the buses that will take my kids to school will be electric. It means that the cost of fuel for those buses will be less for the taxpayers of Western Australia and less for the taxpayers of Australia. It means that we will have 130, in the first run, Perth-built electric buses—not only protecting the jobs that are there but also creating 100 new jobs. That helps the 300 workers who are currently in the industry transition into green job. This is a great success story. These are the things that we can achieve when we work together. Again I say, when it comes to this renewable energy transition that is going to happen in Australia over coming decades, the more we work together, the better off the Australian people will be.</para>
<para>But I can't talk about this legislation that's happening today without talking about the wasted decade that precedes it. We are delivering on this within the first year of this government, after nine years of nothing. We had the 2019 claim by the then Prime Minister that electric vehicles would 'end the weekend'—an absolutely irresponsible and immature statement. We have some of the most narrow options for people who wish to purchase a car, because the former government sent the wrong messages to the world, saying, 'We don't want this stuff.' What we are saying now, as the new government, is 'Please bring your electric vehicles here; give consumers more choice.' To incentivise that, we will make sure the tax settings are as favourable as possible, in the constrained fiscal environment we face, to make sure that more people can experience the joy of driving an electric car on the weekend.</para>
<para>I will conclude my remarks by saying that this is one part of a broader Driving the Nation plan—a truly national electric vehicle charging network, with 117 new charging stations. I look forward to being able to drive across the Nullarbor, being able to get from Perth to Canberra, in my electric vehicle. I have promised the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that I will do exactly that once that network is built. I welcome anyone who is here to join me on that drive. It would be a lot more fun if you were to join me, Member for Kennedy! I look forward to you joining me for that drive.</para>
<para>We'll have a national hydrogen highway refuelling network. We'll set a low-emission vehicle target for the Commonwealth fleet of 75 per cent of new leased and purchased vehicles by 2025. We'll combine that with our commitment to get the Australian Public Service to net zero by 2030; an 82 per cent renewable energy mix by 2030; significant investment in the country's electricity grid, community batteries and solar banks. And we'll have those 9,000 households in Bayswater being able to access a community battery, if they choose, to charge their car.</para>
<para>I hope that, before this comes to a vote, those in the opposition find it within themselves to vote for a tax cut. I know they find it very hard to vote for a tax cut. It's not something that would be naturally in their political DNA to vote for a tax cut, but, on this occasion, I urge the opposition to find it within themselves to vote for a tax cut so Australian families can get the affordable cars, the cars of the future, the electric cars that are going to power us towards net zero by 2050.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. The shift to zero-emission vehicles is essential to Australia's climate ambitions, to our fuel security and to easing cost-of-living pressures on households. With global supply likely be constrained for several years, Australia must act immediately to create a viable mass market for electric vehicles. Transition to EVs is an absolute priority for the community of Wentworth, from which I come. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is only a very small step. It must be part of a much wider package that includes fuel efficiency standards, rapid investment in our charging infrastructure and a broader set of financial incentives that make EVs more affordable in Australia.</para>
<para>Transport is responsible for 19 per cent of Australia's emissions. The bulk of this comes from road transport, because failed government policy over many years has left us with one of the most emissions-intensive vehicle fleets in the world. On average, our passenger vehicles are 45 per cent more emissions intensive than those in Europe. Rapid decarbonisation of our transport sector is, therefore, essential for us to reach net zero by 2050.</para>
<para>However, this is not just about climate action; this is about energy security. Australia imports over 90 per cent of its liquid fuel from overseas. I was at an event with the former Chief of the Defence Force Chris Barry, who said that climate change was the greatest threat to Australian security, and that was absolutely identified because of fuel security. Recently, our fuel stockpile was reported to be just 32 days, well below the 90-day IEA requirement.</para>
<para>Our fuel imports are heavily exposed to East Asia. Given significant global uncertainty and tension in the region, this poses a real national security risk. Why import dirty foreign oil when we can power our cars on clean Australian sunshine? Because we are importing so much of our fuel, we are vulnerable to global price shocks. Even after the poorly targeted vehicle fuel excise tax, Australian families are paying through the nose at the bowser because of Putin's war on Ukraine and our dependence on expensive foreign oil. The transition to EVs must also be a priority for reducing the cost of living for Australian families in the medium term.</para>
<para>Despite these imperatives, Australia's being left behind. Research by the Grattan Institute suggests that if we're to achieve net zero by 2050 we need EVs to make up 100 per cent of light vehicle sales by 2035 at the latest. But where are we now? Well, EVs are 86 per cent of new cars in Norway, and 17 per cent in Europe. In Australia they are only two per cent. Despite more than half of Australians indicating they would consider buying an EV, a decade of policy value and scaremongering means Australia is a long, long way behind.</para>
<para>Last week, I met with the UK Secretary of State for International Trade, the Electric Vehicle Council, and Tritium, which is an Australian-born EV battery charging company that is second in the world in making chargers for batteries across Europe and the US. I spoke also to several prominent car manufacturers to discuss how we could support the EV market in Australia. Their message was really clear: Australia is not an attractive market for international car manufacturers looking to sell EVs. Talk to anyone in my electorate trying to buy an EV and they will tell you the same—it's six to 12 months on a waitlist. That is because we don't have the right policy settings. In a supply constrained world, as we are currently in, this is a real challenge. And in an environment where global supply will be constrained for several years to come, care manufacturers are choosing to send their cars to the UK and Europe, not to Australia. We are right at the back of the queue, and there is a real risk that if we don't get the policy settings right, Australians will miss out on cheaper, greener forms of transport. Federal leadership is needed to turn this around. We must be bold, we must be ambitious and we must act now.</para>
<para>So what should EV policy look like? The first thing we should do is what almost every other developed country does—introduce proper fuel efficiency standards. Over the last decade, fuel efficiency standards have been committed to by many Australian governments and recommended by multiple inquiries and reports. They are effective and they are free for the taxpayer. But they are not in place. Yet the absence of government actions means all we have in place right now is a weak and opaque industry-led voluntary standard. This is a long way from the best practice seen in Europe. Sixty-five per cent of Australians support the introduction of standards in line with those in Europe. If we had adopted efficiency standards back in 2015, Australian families would have saved an estimated $5.9 billion in fuel costs and emissions equivalent to a year's worth of domestic flights. Why didn't we act then? Well, we can't change the past, but what we can change is the future. Action on this is a no-brainer. I'm pleased to see the government has taken on board feedback from myself and other crossbench members on this matter and is at least considering this, but they needed to move very swiftly and decisively to bring in fuel efficiency standards.</para>
<para>Secondly, we need real action on EV charging infrastructure not just in our highways but also in our cities. In my electorate of Wentworth, a high concentration of strata housing means that many people do not have garages or driveways. Many people are renting, and they're in apartments. They do not have the infrastructure to charge vehicles, nor the solar necessarily on the roofs. This needs to be addressed. Evidence from the US has found that charging infrastructure is one of the most cost-effective measures of driving EV uptake, and it is one that the government must invest in even more strongly. Some people in my electorate have taken creative approaches to solving this problem. The other day I was going for a run and I came across an electric cable strung from somebody's house, tied around a parking sign and down to their car, because they had no charging infrastructure options but they wanted to charge their EVs. We need to do better.</para>
<para>Finally, we need to have real incentives to make EVs affordable and to encourage supply constrained manufacturers to bring their cheap and clean cars to Australia. In Germany, rebates are available at 9,000 euros for each vehicle. In France, it's 6000 euros. Similar examples from other countries abound.</para>
<para>One of the most valuable parts of this bill is that it will actually encourage the second-hand market for EVs. I think that's absolutely crucial, because we need to make sure that EVs are available to those who can afford the higher prices which are currently being paid, but also that EVs become more affordable for Australians across the income spectrum. In this respect, I think the bill before the House is a reasonable start. And I welcome the willingness of the Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to discuss the bill with me and other members of the crossbench.</para>
<para>But let's be clear. The majority of vehicles do not attract fringe benefits tax, and so they're not eligible for the discount proposed by this bill. The impact on EVs across the country will therefore be modest. On its own, this bill will not promote sufficient sales to align with Australia's climate change targets or even the government's pre-election modelling. On its own, it will not be enough to significantly enhance our fuel security or to lower bills for families in the medium term, and these are absolute priorities.</para>
<para>However, my message is clear: we must decarbonise our transport system and we must act decisively and ambitiously in pursuit of this goal. It will be good for our climate, good for our security and good for Australian families. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is only a small step. I look forward to working with the government on a much broader range of measures in the coming months, and I thank them for their constructive engagement thus far.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I applaud the contribution by one of my crossbench colleagues. I'm absolutely fascinated by this place. It never ever ceases to amaze me. I go home and I'm the hero in the pubs when I tell them the latest news from Canberra. Well, the latest news is we're going subsidise imports. We're going to subsidise imports! Stand back from this decision and understand that you are subsidising imports.</para>
<para>There is a bloke called Ben Chifley who is in a lot of books, but, in my book, he is the Prime Minister without peer because he built the Australian motor car for Holden, and he did a number of other wonderful things. But, if you proposed to Ben Chifley, or 'Red Ted' Theodore, that a Labor government should subsidise imports, they would absolutely destroy you. They would not forget your name. They would pursue you until you were destroyed.</para>
<para>This country proudly, once upon a time, built its own motor cars. When we were given the opportunity to buy an Australian motor car, 62 per cent of the motor cars sold in Australia were Holdens. Then, later on, when other manufacturers opened up, that went up to 72 per cent of the cars sold in Australia. What happened was that they moved the dollar, they propped it up, and, when it fell through the floor, the price of cars doubled. The Productivity Commission said that, if we removed the tariffs and subsidies, there would be a 23 per cent intrusion into the Australian market within 15 years. Well, within five years, it was a100 per cent intrusion, when Mr Keating removed the support levels and let the dollar float—or pushed the dollar up, and then it collapsed.</para>
<para>I just want to go back to the basic premise here. We're going to subsidise imports. For heaven's sake, why would you not build the cars yourselves? I'm very confident all the crossbenchers will be moving to that effect. The other members and the major parties can decide to either join us in building our own motor cars or continue to subsidise imports. They'll be given that choice.</para>
<para>If you are serious about cutting emissions, I think the book you should read—and it's a textbook available throughout the world—is Al Gore's book. I describe myself as an anti-Green. I refer to the Greens as 'gangreens'. They don't refer to me very nicely either, I've got to say. But read Al Gore's book. The first solution is ethanol.</para>
<para>You don't have to be Mr Albert Einstein to figure out that if you burn petrol, or you burn coal, or you burn coal to make glass that goes on your roof—because there's some sort of thing. Oh, it's a miracle! You just put the stuff on your roof and there's no emissions. Well, just hold on a minute. You've got to make superpure silicon. As a mining man who mined my own copper from my own mines, I can tell you that it is extremely complicated to produce superpure silicon. I speak with very great authority, because, if you ask who was the person who put the first standalone solar energy system in Australia—I won, arguably, a national science prize that year—it was me. Right back in 1983, we put the first system in, and it is a wonderful system for Normanton or Julia Creek or Kowanyama. But, if you start putting glass on roofs in the cities, it would be really silly. It would be criminally silly from the point of view of CO2.</para>
<para>I haven't got time, in a short speech, to be able to tell you how to make superpure silicon. The reason I'm an expert in the field is that we negotiated with GE. The head of GE for the world came out for the opening of the first standalone system in the Southern Hemisphere, which was on Coconut Island, and the reason he was so interested was that there are some 300 islands in Indonesia that will need to be electrified with solar power. Now, we wanted to sell the silicon. We've got the best silicon resources in the world, and we export it. We were exporting it for $56 and buying it back for $3 million a tonne as optical fibre or as solar panels. We exported it for $56 a tonne and we imported at $3 million a tonne. Well, how much longer?</para>
<para>Our economy is a primitive economy. We're not an industrialised nation. Our exports now are almost exclusively coal and iron ore. And how do you get iron ore? You smelt it. How do you smelt it? With coal. So you burn coal to get iron ore. The solar panels on your roof must be pure silicon. How do you treat silicon to get it to be pure? You have to smelt it. What do you smelt it with? Iron ore. There's another nasty little intrusion in silicon, because you've got to put it under electromagnets, which use a huge amount of electricity. Silicon is the second-hardest element on earth. It's second to diamond in hardness. To crush it is not a lot of fun. I can tell you, as a mining man, that putting it in a bore mill is hard yakka. But then you've got to smelt it, and you smelt it with coal. So what do you think? This glass gets on your roof without any CO2 going up in the atmosphere? And, in 20 years time, you'll take it all off again. I don't know how much energy you burn up putting it on the roof and then taking it off again. Now, I'm not knocking it, because I think that it's wonderful in remote situations, but to use it in a city is an act of madness.</para>
<para>You have heard speakers here say that the power is cheaper—that it's cheaper to run electric car. Yes, it is. And solar is cheaper, yes. But, for using intermittent solar power, the baseload power resultingly rises, because the power station that was once producing 100 per cent of our electricity can now only sell 70 per cent of its electricity. So, of course, for it to be able to work profitably, the price of baseload power must go up. The state with the most solar on the roof is Queensland, as it should be; we've got the most sunlight. But did the power prices come down? Did the price of electricity come down? No. The price went up 400 per cent. So let me tell you what the net result is of this glass on your roof. Four out of five of our neighbours in Charters Towers are pensioners, so they can't afford the capital outlay to put solar on the roof. The banks won't look at them because they're advanced in years, so they can't put solar on the roof. But rich people like the Katters can. My wife put solar on the roof, so we don't pay anything for our electricity, but pensioners subsidise us. Our pensioner neighbours subsidise us. If it's so wonderful, how come the price of electricity in Queensland has gone up 400 per cent since I was the minister in Queensland? It was $674 for 11 straight years. There was no justification for putting it up. Last time I looked, it was $3,240 a year.</para>
<para>I just find it almost impossible to vote for legislation that subsidises imports. A number of crossbenchers have discussed this at great length and we prepared legislation which was to go before the last parliament. What we're proposing is that we build electric cars in Australia. The simple way to do this, without any cost, is for all government cars in metropolitan areas to be electric and all buses, which we do make in Australia, to be electric. It's very simple to do that. Why wouldn't you do that? More people die in Australia from motor vehicle emissions than from motor vehicle accidents. You can cut that out by simply putting five to 15 per cent ethanol in your petrol tank, which every country on earth has done except Australia. Look at the map of the world. The European agreement is that every country goes to a minimum of five per cent—and I'm not going to go into the details. If you move from a rural centre into Sydney, then your chances of dying of lung cancer or heart disease double. Those are the long-term findings in America, out of California. From that point forth, America immediately moved the Clean Air Act and put ethanol in their petrol tanks.</para>
<para>These answers are there. Australia will be producing our own petrol. We export all of our oil. What sort of a moronic country exports all of its oil and imports all of its petrol, diesel and avgas? Are we complete morons in this place? When I sit here and subsidise imports, I think that we are. My colleagues on the crossbenches have been working to formulate a program that will return the building of motor cars to Australia. Sophisticated secondary industries will be restored to this country, and those industries will be owned by the Australian people. Ben Chifley was the Prime Minister without peer. He is so far out in front that there is no-one one that could compare, but Ben did make a mistake: he let General Motors build motor cars in Australia. They should have been built and owned by the Australian people, and that would have been a very simple thing to do at the time. His government was destroyed because they wanted to nationalise the banks, so he was not going to be a person that had the political ability to go in a different direction.</para>
<para>Having said all those things, we are moving an amendment that has been circulated in my name. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) this bill seeks to encourage a greater take up of electric cars by making them more affordable by, under certain conditions, exempting them for fringe benefits tax; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) that to achieve real and effective affordability and self-sustainability the bill should include detailed measures to provide:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australian manufacture by Australian majority owned companies of electric vehicles and buses, and their component parts including battery production;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) framework to require, by 2035, all vehicles in metropolitan areas purchased by local, state, territory and federal governments to be electric vehicles manufactured in Australia from Australian made component parts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) framework to facilitate the purchase of all new commercial and government buses in metropolitan areas to be electric buses manufactured in Australia from Australian made component parts".</para></quote>
<para>I just want to add: when I hold this map up to everyone and I say, 'What's that a map of?', they all say, 'Australia.' Well, no, it's not actually. It's a map of Australia shorn of the eastern coastline. It's shorn of Victoria—but who'd miss Victoria—and a little dot around Perth. There are only a million people living there. Our biggest export is iron ore, and guess where it comes from: the golden Australia where there's no-one living. Our second-biggest export is coal, and guess where the coal comes from: the golden Australia where no-one is living. Guess where all the water is: in the golden Australia where no-one is living. Guess where all the cattle are: in the golden Australia where no-one is living. Guess where all the aluminium is: in the golden Australia where no-one is living. And how much longer do you think that's going to go on for?</para>
<para>If you give us a little skerrick of the $170 billion that is coming into superannuation funds, we will build small dams, which will create an enormous improvement in our environmental conditions, where 15 million hectares has gone under prickly acacia tree, and the place is overrun with pigs. We can deal with those things if you give us a little skerrick of money to build a series of small dams with thread irrigation. If you fly over it, you won't see much green, but it will improve our lot immensely. Then we can give you back all the petrol you will ever need, free forever.</para>
<para>When you burn petrol, CO2 goes up into the atmosphere. When you burn ethanol, CO2 goes up into the atmosphere, but there is one huge difference: the next year, the sugar cane or grain, sorghum, pulls it down again. So it goes up and it goes down. But it doesn't go up and stay up. That's why no less a person than Al Gore, in<inline font-style="italic"> An Inconvenient Truth</inline>, gives us the first solution: ethanol. If you look at the European agreement, they all have to go to five per cent. That is actually for medical reasons, not so much for environmental reasons, although that was part of it. Japan is on five per cent. China is going on five per cent. India claim they are going on five per cent. America is on about 15 per cent. Brazil is on 40 or 50 per cent. These are the leading economies on earth. They're all doing it, with one exception. Where in the world does a government subsidise imports? Tell me any country that subsidises imports. But that is what we are doing here.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You have run out of time. Is there a seconder to the amendment?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the motion moved by the member for Kennedy and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support the amendment moved by the member for Hume to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. In government, the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy was a technology led approach to reducing emissions in the transport sector. It directly involved working closely with the private sector to increase the uptake of hybrid, hydrogen, electric and biofuel fuelled vehicles. Designed to make it easier to roll out future fuel technologies, it focused on giving people choice in the vehicles they need to drive or want to drive. A critical part of that strategy was to ensure that our electricity grid, a key part of the infrastructure required, had the capacity for more electric vehicles and the greater demand on the system, which demonstrates why our opposition to this bill is based on the fact that this is poor legislation, lacking in careful planning. This is something we saw repeatedly the last time Labor was in government.</para>
<para>When we look at this bill, the Labor government has even failed to outline the emissions benefits and long-term costings, facts I would have thought were essential in a bill of this type. Labor also failed to consult with industry, state and territory governments and civil society. Again, I would have thought that genuine and extensive consultation would be a prerequisite and deliver a better result in the application and effect of such legislation. Without that detail, the result we see in front of us is a high cost to taxpayers and a low impact on reducing emissions. The proposal costs $205 million over the forward estimates, according to the bill. However, the Parliamentary Budget Office post-election report costed the medium-term projection at $2.3 billion over the decade, and at over $639 million per annum by 2032-33—a clear demonstration of the cost to taxpayers.</para>
<para>The Labor government cannot quantify how the measures in this bill will deliver emissions reductions. Evidence from the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water showed the impact on emissions reductions has not been quantified. In fact, third-party evidence suggests it's actually negligible. The government has not detailed exactly what measures in the bill will deliver to, or impact on, the EV market. The government should be delivering well-designed, well-targeted and quantified details and should be partnering with industry, particularly given it will cost taxpayers over $2.3 billion.</para>
<para>We know demand for electric vehicles is increasing. However, two per cent of the total number of vehicles sold in Australia in 2021 were EVs. To my knowledge, none of them were utes. The top-selling vehicles in Australia are the Toyota Hilux and the Ford Ranger, both utes. It's a completely different market to much of the rest of the world. Whether those utes are for tradies, farmers or other people in outer metro, rural and regional areas, these are the top sellers in Australia.</para>
<para>We know we need a managed transition to the increasing electric vehicle uptake. The demand on and availability of power and the infrastructure needed—the very issues referred to by the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, in his amendment—are why the process needs to directly involve the states and territories. For instance, in Western Australia, solar panel companies and electricians are raising concerns that Western Power policy is having real impacts on homeowners. When homeowners are fitting solar panels to their homes, Western Power now requires regional and rural homes to install a main switch with a 32-amp circuit breaker. By comparison, in metro areas, people have access to 63-amp circuit breakers.</para>
<para>We know that most Australians want to charge their electric vehicles at home. Some homes will use a level 1 AC slow charger trickle feed, which generally is two kilowatts of charge through a normal 10-amp socket. Depending on the battery size, this means it can take up to 40 hours to charge. There are many different types of commercial options available to reduce charging times. There is a real need to know what the cost of EV chargers in homes will be, what the cost of upgrading the electrical systems for individuals and homeowners will be, and whether the extra power needed will be available. These are real issues. I know that costs range from $1,000 for a seven-kilowatt option through to $3,000 for a 22-kilowatt option, plus installation and associated costs to ensure the house can deliver the power required to meet the daily needs of the home as well as charging the family or business vehicle, or more than one vehicle.</para>
<para>Clearly, the difference between power delivery for rural and regional areas in WA and delivery for Perth metro areas is stark. What it does for me is to highlight the fact that the WA state Labor government is focusing on the metro at the expense of rural and regional areas, where the wealth is generated. It also highlights the fact that the $2.3 billion cost of the measures in this bill could be better spent on looking at the various EVs on the market and the information provided, much of which focuses on charging, at times, with public chargers—times ranging from 30 minutes upwards. But, at home, charging times for a regular wall socket range from 11 to 20 hours, and, as I said earlier, depending on the battery, can be up to 40 hours.</para>
<para>These are examples of the need for good consultations and a managed transition—exactly what the Labor government hasn't done with this bill. Consultation definitely needed to involve industry, particularly the automotive industry, given what I heard from the sector last night at an automotive vehicle emissions meeting here in Parliament House. One point made there resonated with me: by 2030, the demand for vehicle batteries globally will be 100 million, and the estimated supply available at that time will actually be 40 million only.</para>
<para>Other experts have raised serious questions about the equity, fiscal sustainability and price pressures on the EV market currently. The government has failed to quantify these issues and failed to consult. The Institute of Public Accountants has said that the policy will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emissions from the transport sector. I will also be very interested to see who benefits the most from this measure. Will it be rural, regional and remote Australia or will it be predominantly metropolitan and city-based beneficiaries? This is something that I will certainly be following closely.</para>
<para>I have already touched on the problems of access to power for rural and regional WA. There are any number of practical measures the government could have directed the $2.3 billion taxpayer funding towards, given the challenges ahead in the transition to more EVs in Australia: the infrastructure challenges; the increases ahead in transmission availability and capacity; the increased demand for and access to fast-charging stations; and the impacts on small, regional and remote communities with existing limitations on power capacity. Some of our roadhouses are still using generators in their patches. These will, I suspect, need to be points of fast charging.</para>
<para>I was talking to a local car dealer, and he is concerned about some of the smaller communities that have a limited capacity right now, if you are driving long distances, particularly around Western Australia and to the north, and the additional demand that will place on a local town, like Tom Price or somewhere similar. We don't want to see those communities suffer from a blackout because there are a whole lot of cars being plugged in and dragging on the local power system.</para>
<para>There is also the cost of retraining our current mechanics. Will they actually need virtually the same qualifications as household electricians to be able to deal with 240 volts, for instance? There are also issues facing car dealers and car service centres around EV battery management and the warranties on the batteries. I don't want to see that responsibility sit with our local car dealers and not with the manufacturers. More broadly, there are many issues facing businesses, like one in my electorate that is installing a significant quantity of solar panels but is also having to provide a fireproof building to house the batteries.</para>
<para>There is so much ahead as we transition through the process. However, one of the first steps that we are seeing from Labor with this bill is poorly implemented policy with no consultation. There will need to be greater scrutiny on this ahead, particularly on where the benefits of the $2.3 billion actually go. On the most telling assessment of where the benefits will go, I think it is worth repeating the words of the Shadow Treasurer, who also quoted Professor Miranda Stewart. Professor Stewart—a respected tax expert, a director of the Tax Group at the University of Melbourne Law School and a fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU—said that the design of the measure must be changed 'given its fiscal cost, unequal benefit and uncertainty about the electric car market and the best policy to transition Australia'. Professor Stewart also said that the policy will 'deliver the subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners'—damning indeed. Clearly, the benefits in this bill will not flow to lower and modest income earners, whose taxes will help pay the $2 billion plus cost of this bill. I will be following very closely to see whether the benefits actually flow to rural, regional and remote communities, one of which I represent.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. Before I begin, I would like to concur with the member for Kennedy: subsidising imports makes absolutely no sense. First of all, I'd like to make it clear that electric and hybrid cars do have a place in our transport future, particularly for short trips and metropolitan urban use. However, even this scenario has ramifications both for the transmission infrastructure required for recharging capability, the power generation sector and the capacity to supply enough power to the grid. Labor's own modelling suggests that 3.8 million EV charging stations will be required. With respect to rural and regional Australia, the government is proposing fringe benefits tax relief to expediate the uptake of electric vehicles. This puts these people—regional, rural and remote Australians—at a distinct disadvantage compared to their city-dwelling cousins, for reasons which I will outline.</para>
<para>Electric vehicles have limitations with respect to their capability to travel long distances, the time it takes to recharge batteries and their ability to be multifunctional vehicles—for example, to tow a caravan or a boat, or to be an off-road four-wheel drive vehicle or a work vehicle for plumbers, builders, electricians and farmers and so on. The fact is, rural and remote regional Australia relies on these sorts of vehicles, and there are many people whose lives and jobs require more than a small car that can travel a short distance from A to B. These are only some of the reasons that many people cannot and will not access an electric vehicle and, therefore, are at a tax disadvantage compared to those who are in different circumstances.</para>
<para>Professor Miranda Stewart, Director of the Tax Group at the University of Melbourne Law School and Fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy has stated that the government's policy will deliver the tax subsidy to a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provide the largest benefit to the highest income earners. Given its fiscal loss, it provides unequal benefit and uncertainty about the electric car market. Once again, we see pious virtue signalling and arguments of transition given by the wealthy, who take into no account the ramifications inflicted on those who live in the practical, real world.</para>
<para>At recent Senate Standing Committee on Economics hearings, Mr Martin from McMillan Shakespeare Group stated that in relation to the charging of electric vehicles from a 240-volt home charging plug, one might expect 10 kilometres of travel in an electric car per one hour of charge. I find that revelation quite astounding. To put it into perspective in relation to my travel requirements as the member for Flynn, it has been 110 days since the election and I have travelled approximately 12,000 kilometres in my car around my large electorate in Central Queensland. Given what Mr Martin has said, if I were driving an electric car, I would require 1,200 hours of charging in order to travel this distance. There are 24 hours in a day, and 1,200 divided by 24 equals 50 full days of charging time or 100 12-hour days of charging time.</para>
<para>As I've already stated in the House, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads stated in a Transport and Public Works Committee hearing:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… if EVs are typically charged during peak demand periods, EV charging will be more costly for owners and electricity demand will increase to levels that require our relevant local networks to be upgraded. That cost will ultimately be reflected in increased electricity prices for everyone.</para></quote>
<para>This is the same Australia-wide. The network was not designed for car charging stations at every suburban household. Nor has the power generation sector the ability to provide enough power to meet the demand required for large-scale uptake of electric vehicles. While I'm sure that as we move to the future electric vehicles will become more popular, they will never in the foreseeable future replace all other vehicles. It is simply not feasible with the available technology. If your electric vehicle runs out of charge on the highway, you cannot get a lift to the next charging station and return with a jerry can full of electricity to refill your vehicle and be on your way. It just simply doesn't work like that.</para>
<para>The Ford Ranger, the Toyota HiLux, the Nissan Navara and Isuzu D-Max are among the most popular cars sold in Australia today. They are in many cases the working-man's car, and are not currently available in an electric or hybrid version. I ask: will there ever be an electric version?</para>
<para>The fact is that, if you want to travel long distances, carry a payload, pull a trailer or have off-road capability, the electric vehicle cannot satisfy this need and provide a reasonable outcome.</para>
<para>Financial institutions have already signalled their intention not to lend money to those willing to purchase an internal combustion engine car. I can only imagine that the insurance industry will follow suit, and this will further disenfranchise rural and regional Australia. There are approximately 20 million registered motor vehicles in Australia that are internal combustion engine powered cars. Given the revenue that the government gleans from the sale of petrol and diesel, if we are to convert this fleet of vehicles to electric and offer tax incentives to do so, where will the money to cover the projected revenue shortfall from reductions in the sale of fossil fuels come from? Perhaps the government may have to consider an electricity tax.</para>
<para>It is my opinion that the uptake of electric vehicles and legislation that supports this needs an all-of-the-issue approach. It should be more pragmatic and understand the practical ramifications of trying to achieve a transport transition too quickly. The full cost has not been fully understood by either the government or the consumer. The Treasury has not been able to articulate the long-term expense or benefits of these government measures, given the initial cost of the EV, their limited supply and lack of infrastructure. This indicates that the government's tax incentive is not warranted, particularly given the small number of vehicles that are anticipated to take advantage of this tax relief over the three-year exemption period.</para>
<para>I suppose it is too much to ask the government to explain the full-cycle carbon emissions that will be saved or how much the temperature of the planet will be lowered. The evidence from the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water shows that the impact of this policy on emissions reductions has not been quantified. The third-party evidence suggests it is negligible. I do not support the government's bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are three minutes until the Federation Chamber will be adjourned. I'll give you the call, member for Fowler, just on the understanding that we're about to reach time. You will have time again tomorrow.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, which provides fringe benefits tax exemptions for zero- or low-emission cars. I stand in support of the honourable member for Kennedy's amendment, which provides a framework for how a transition to renewables can benefit low-socioeconomic communities like my electorate of Fowler, who are the backbone of Australia. In keeping with this, I will also be speaking to an amendment to include hybrid electric vehicles—that is, vehicles that do not require an external electricity source to be charged.</para>
<para>This government and this parliament have strongly endorsed progress on Australia's climate policy and climate awareness, and I stand largely in support of this movement. I believe Australia should strive for a green and renewable future. It is imperative that we do so to support the wellbeing of future generations and preserve this beautiful country we call home. Handled correctly, a transition to renewables presents rich and diverse opportunities for the Australian economy that will be sustainable into the future. Furthermore, I commend the government for its desire to reduce transport emissions and make electric cars more affordable for families and businesses. Encouraging the uptake of battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars is in theory a positive step. However, the government's amendment bill only helps a narrow group of employee beneficiaries and disproportionately supports high-income earners.</para>
<para>Recently we have seen the impact on household budgets that a spike in energy prices caused. Prices increased as much as 18.3 per cent in New South Wales, heavily impacting our most vulnerable. I would ask the chamber to consider the impact that increasingly extreme summer temperatures will have on the household budgets of low-income families. Some will struggle to afford necessary amenities such as air conditioning, something a lot of us take for granted. I raise this example to show that it is hardworking people in electorates like my own, as well as regional electorates, who bear the brunt of climate change and climate policy.</para>
<para>I therefore strongly support steps towards a greener future, but we must be careful to ensure it is not at the expense of those already doing it tough in places like Fowler. My constituents will be completely unaffected by this fringe benefits tax exemption for electric vehicles. Even with this exemption, electric vehicles are still simply too expensive for small businesses in Fowler. This exemption is only useful for employees or employers who can offer salary sacrifice. Electric vehicles cost between $15,000 and $20,000 more than the equivalent petrol and diesel cars, a huge upfront cost to expect small businesses to pay.</para>
<para>Furthermore, the amendments don't apply to hybrid vehicles, or HEVs, which are at a lower price point than other EVs. HEVs are the third-most-sold types of cars in Australia after petrol and diesel vehicles. If we are to convince normal, everyday consumers to start making the switch, we also need to ensure HEVs are included in any subsidies. Thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time being 7.30 pm, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Member for Fowler, your speech was interrupted, so, if you seek leave tomorrow, permission will be granted for you to continue your speech.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy Speaker.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take it that you foreshadowed those amendments, and you will be able to move them at a later date as well.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:31</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>