DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

2022-11-30 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 30 November 2022

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 1 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Jenkins, Ms Kate, Hartland, Ms Kerri, Brighton, Ms Meg 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to acknowledge that present in the gallery for this important occasion are Kate Jenkins, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and author of the Set the standard report; Kerri Hartland, the independent expert chair of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce; Meg Brighton, head of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service; and, importantly, their important supporting staff. On behalf of the House I extend a warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 1 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Workplace Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 1 09:01 The SPEAKER 53517 Today, onthe first anniversary of Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Set the standard: report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, as a Presiding Officer I again acknowledge the history of unacceptable behaviour in Parliament House and recommit the parliament to positive change. The Set the standard report highlighted that a high rate of people, particularly women, in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have experienced bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. This is unacceptable. Alongside President Sue Lines, I restate the commitment of the parliament to making lasting changes to ensure this does not continue. We all have an ongoing responsibility to creating a workforce and a workplace that attracts and supports the best people our country has to offer. The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce is leading meaningful change within the parliament, and I commend their commitment to understanding and addressing the issues that have ignored for too long. Since February, there has already been significant progress in implementing the 28 recommendations of the report. Legislation has been amended to clarify our duties in respect of employment, antidiscrimination and work health and safety laws. Proposed codes of conduct have been developed for parliamentarians, staff and parliamentary workplaces. Changes to the sitting calendar and hours of sitting now consider wellbeing, balance and flexibility. New parliamentarians and their staff have participated in refreshed induction processes. A feasibility study into a parliamentary health and wellbeing service is being conducted, with plans to improve services for parliamentarians and staff, including general practitioner services, pharmaceutical and mental health supports. Work is underway to improve work health and safety, accessibility for those with disability and professional support available for parliamentarians and their staff. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service has been expanded. It is already providing confidential support and advice to those in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The Senate and House Procedure Committees are examining standing orders and conventions to improve levels of safety and respect in the chamber and to enhance wellbeing, balance and flexibility. Looking forward, some of the notable work underway includes the establishment of a new human resources function to support parliamentarians and their staff and the development of new measures to support greater diversity and inclusion. The framework for action set out in the Set the standard report is leadership, diversity and inclusion, accountability and safety and wellbeing. We all have a responsibility to display exemplary individual leadership. We all have a role to play to set the standard for an inclusive, respectful and professional workplace here in Parliament House and across Australia. BILLS 2 BILLS Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022 2

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022

Reference to Federation Chamber 2 09:05 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. MOTIONS 2 MOTIONS Member for Cook 2 Censure 2 09:06 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Given the nature of the motion I am about to move, I think it would suit the convenience of the House for the normal speaking times which apply to all members to not apply to the member for Cook, should he rise to speak. I think, given the nature of the motion, it's appropriate that the member for Cook, should he wish to speak, be able to make whatever length of contribution he chooses. I move: That the House: (1) notes: (a) the Constitution provides for 'responsible government', described by the High Court of Australia as a 'system by which the executive is responsible to the legislature and, through it, to the electorate'; (b) in the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments, the Honourable Virginia Bell AC found that while the Member for Cook was the Prime Minister of Australia he: (i) had himself appointed to administer: (A) the Department of Health on 14 March 2020; (B) the Department of Finance on 30 March 2020; (C) the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources on 15 April 2021; (D) the Department of Treasury on 6 May 2021; and (E) the Department of Home Affairs on 6 May 2021; and (ii) did not inform: (A) Cabinet; (B) the relevant Departments; (C) the House of Representatives; or (D) the Australian public; about these additional appointments; and (c) as found by the Honourable Virginia Bell AC, the actions and failures of the Member for Cook: (i) 'fundamentally undermined' the principles of responsible government because the Member for Cook was not 'responsible' to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer; and (ii) were 'apt to undermine public confidence in government' and were 'corrosive of trust in government'; and (2) therefore censures the Member for Cook for failing to disclose his appointments to the House of Representatives, the Australian people and the Cabinet, which undermined responsible government and eroded public trust in Australia's democracy. Today's motion is not how any of us wanted to make history. In any other circumstance, for any other former Prime Minister and, certainly, even for the member for Cook, had the disclosure not been made available about the multiple ministries, we would not be here now. But a censure, while rare, has its place. The last time this parliament censured a member of parliament, it was a former minister, and it was done so unanimously. It was done so unanimously in relation to a former minister on the following basis: the decision was made that he—and I'll read this—'fell below the standards expected of a member of the House'. It wasn't that he had acted unlawfully; it was that he had fallen below the standards expected of a member of the House. That is the test. The test for censure, while rare, is not the test: would the courts overrule it? The courts are the place to determine whether or not something was lawful. In the parliament we determine whether or not something was appropriate. I ask all members to think back to the first moment they heard about the multiple ministries and what their reaction was. Some gave their reaction on the record and many more gave their reaction off the record. Nobody, except the member for Cook himself, had the reaction or said that this was acceptable or it met the standards expected of this House. There are many democracies that have a system different to ours. There are many democracies around the world where the system of government is that the executive are quite separate to the legislature. Our system is responsible government. The executive are here in this room for the purpose of being held to account every day the legislature sits. That entire concept of responsible government only works if the parliament and, through the parliament, the Australian people know which members of the executive are responsible for what. This is not some small matter. It goes to the absolute core of the principle of responsible government. Responsible government was what Ms Bell referred to specifically. In her report she said: … the principles of responsible government were "fundamentally undermined" … She also said: … the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government. She also said: … the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government. If we could unanimously determine that the conduct of Bruce Billson fell short of the standards, how on earth can the multiple ministries—and in question time after question time we, in fact, did not know where portfolios had been allocated—meet the standard? Question time is viewed as the most significant part of the parliamentary day. It's when every member turns up. It's not a requirement that every member turns up; it is a convention. We have to defend our conventions too. The core of responsible government was breached with the multiple appointments. In doing so, the member for Cook did not tell the ministers themselves that he had been sworn into their portfolios. His cabinet was not told. The department secretaries were not told. The parliament was not told. Through the parliament, the Australian people were not told. In doing this, the member for Cook did not just fall below the standards expected; he undermined them, he rejected them, he attacked them and he abused them. How do we even know that all this happened? We know because at the same time that the member for Cook was not telling his colleagues, not telling this parliament and not telling the Australian people he was telling some journalists writing a book. He thought it was interesting to contribute to the publication of a book, but not important to let anybody know where it was directly relevant to them. The defences that have been offered, including the defences offered by the member for Cook through his lawyers to the Bell inquiry, are logically impossible. The member for Cook's lawyers said for him: However, this in no way suggests that he did not expect that the usual practice would apply and that PM&C would publish the appointments in the Gazette. It beggars belief that the member for Cook is now arguing that it was somehow just presumed it would have been made public in the Gazette and yet he was making sure he didn't tell the ministers themselves. When asked about the ministers, he said on 17 August the reason he didn't want to tell them was, 'I did not wish ministers to be second-guessing themselves.' Both cannot be true. It cannot be the case that it was presumed it was going to come out in the Gazette and that it was important for people to not be told. To this day, the different versions being offered by the member for Cook cannot reconcile themselves with each other. In the same way, when this started to emerge, when only Health, Finance and Industry, Science and Resources appointments had been known, on radio the member for Cook said this. He was asked, 'Just to be clear: are there other portfolios you assumed any control over?' The answer was: 'Not to my recollection. I don't recall any others being actioned.' It beggars belief that anyone in Australia's history could forget that they had been appointed Treasurer. It beggars belief. At the start of question time each day, when a minister is not present, every prime minister has an obligation to allow the House to know who is answering questions on their behalf. And, yet, at those exact moments the former Prime Minister never once said that he in fact was sworn into different portfolios and could answer those questions as well. The pathway of question time, the pathway of what this House did last term, was different because we were deceived. It was different. Questions were asked in different forms to different people because we weren't told. It is true that what happened here was the end of a long process of enabling. When conventions were attacked, one after another, it led in a direct line to where we ended up, when we had the situation of there being constant silencing of opposition voices, when we had a cabinet committee with only one member, when we had a circumstance where, for the first time in living memory, a Speaker, a member of their own party, made a recommendation for a privileges reference which could have led to censure of one of their own. But they used their numbers to prevent the independence of the Speaker being recognised to defend— An opposition member: It's just politics. Mr BURKE DYW I hear the comment there—'It's just politics.' If that's the attitude then you never would have censured Bruce Billson. Every single threshold that has previously resulted in a censure being given of a member is met today and is met more strongly today than it ever has been before. This place runs on rules and conventions. The mere existence of the office of Prime Minister and the existence of a cabinet is a convention. It's not in the Constitution. It's not required. It is a convention on which our system of government hangs. The concept that the parliament knows who has which job is essential to responsible government. You cannot have responsible government if you don't know what people are responsible for, and for two years we didn't know. For two years, the ministers themselves did not know. For two years, departmental secretaries were unaware of who the ministers were to whom they had responsibility. The gravity of what we are dealing with today is a censure motion beyond what the parliament has previously dealt with. Previously what we have dealt with is the conduct of one member being sufficiently bad that we needed to defend the House as a whole to say, 'That is not allowed to happen.' On this occasion, the conduct of one member prevented the House from doing its job. The conduct of one member prevented the House from knowing who was responsible for what. The fact that that one member was also the Prime Minister of Australia means that what we are dealing with now isn't just unprecedented, could not have been predicted, but is so completely unacceptable. For members today I say to those opposite: there will be some thinking, yes; they oppose it but their party's made a decision. They've got to lock in; they've got to follow what their leader wants, and that's just where they're at. I'd just remind those members opposite of this: that is exactly what happened for the whole of the last term. It is exactly how every precedent was trashed. It is exactly how the principles of responsible government ended up being attacked in ways that hadn't happened before. There is no previous Liberal Prime Minister where this sort of motion would ever have been moved. But the conduct that happened in the last term, that we now know about, was unacceptable, fell below the required standards and we have no choice but to support a censure. The SP 53517 I refer members to the statement made to the House about time limits during this debate. 09:21 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Australian people for the privilege to serve as their Prime Minister. I thank the people of Cook for the privilege they have given me to serve in this House as their member. I thank my colleagues, here in this place and in previous parliaments, who have asked me in the past to lead and for the faith they have placed in me. I am proud of my achievements in this place and I am proud of my government. I am proud that at a time of extreme trial my government stood up and faced the abyss of uncertainty that our country looked into and the coercion of a regional bully and saw Australia through the storm. Australia emerged stronger under my government. I have no intention now, Mr Speaker, of submitting to the political intimidation of this government using its numbers in this place to impose its retribution on a political opponent. In addressing the matters that are the subject of the motion, I repeat that I have welcomed and supported the recommendations of the Bell inquiry, and I note the following facts for the House. The authorities to administer departments were established as a dormant redundancy only to be activated in extraordinary circumstances, evidenced by the fact that no powers were exercised under these authorities, except in the case of the PEP-11 decision, as such circumstances were not realised and, therefore, none of these authorities were misused. The Solicitor-General found that the authorities established to administer departments in this way were valid and were not unlawful. Other than in the case of the PEP-11 decision, ministers exercised their portfolio authorities fully, without intervention or the threat of intervention, and departments supported their ministers in that capacity without uncertainty regarding their ministerial authorities. As Prime Minister I did not act as minister or engage in any co-minister arrangements, as suggested, including requiring the receipt of any parallel briefing or co-authorising arrangements, except in the very specific case of the PEP-11 decision and not otherwise for that department. On the PEP-11 matter, this was done lawfully from first principles and I consider my decision was the correct one. My intent to exercise these powers was also advised to the minister in advance of exercising those powers. The ministry list tabled in parliament referenced, as it does, that ministers may be sworn to administer additional departments. The requirements requiring notice purported to constitute convention in the motion were not identified or recognised by officials advising on these matters from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and cannot therefore be clearly regarded as established convention. The Solicitor-General found there is no consistent practice for a publication in the Gazette of appointments to administer particular departments of state. The Bell inquiry noted there was a different understanding of the process of publication between myself and the department and that no instruction was given by me as Prime Minister or my office not to publish those arrangements in the Gazette. In relation to communication with my ministerial colleagues on these matters I note that I've addressed these issues privately with my colleagues and publicly in my statement of 16 August 2022. I also note, as is particularly relevant to this House and this motion, that I was present each and every day at that dispatch box to answer any and all questions in this House regularly directed to me as Prime Minister on all matters involving all portfolios that were the subject of the Bell inquiry and, indeed, all other portfolios. The suggestion that, as Prime Minister, I was not available to do so in this House or that the opposition failed to ask such questions in those portfolios is absurd and completely false. I also note that, in my earlier portfolio responsibilities where I was sworn to hold the office of Treasurer, Minister for Social Services and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, my appointments as minister of state specifically made reference in the documents authorised by the Governor-General that I was sworn to hold the office as minister in each of these portfolios. In my appointment as a minister of state to administer the departments that were the subject of the Bell inquiry this was not the case. The documentation authorised by the Governor-General carefully does not include any reference to being sworn to hold the office of minister for any of the portfolios that were the subject of the Bell inquiry, simply to administer the department. This can be seen in appendix A, at pages 107 to 110 of the Bell inquiry report. This is a very important distinction. Just because a minister is sworn to administer a department does not mean they hold the office of minister in that portfolio. I should say, the contention that the public would also be popularly under the impression that the Prime Minister did not have authority over government departments is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the proposition that the public would not hold the Prime Minister accountable for the actions of the government is also not credible and counter to the argument that was put forward by the opposition when I was Prime Minister each and every day that I sat in this House. Returning to the issue of being sworn, I was not sworn to hold the office of any of those ministerial portfolios, and, as a result, any contention that I served as minister of those portfolios in that office is false. On the substantive matters—I return to those now—in each of the decisions taken during my time as Prime Minister to administer departments I note again that our nation faced the greatest challenges we had experienced since the Second World War: a drought, natural disasters, a global pandemic, the global and domestic recession, the pandemic cause, and a rising and coercive China seeking to coerce Australia into submission. These were extremely challenging times. To put the economic challenge in context, according to the IMF, during the first year of the pandemic the global economy shrank by 3.1 per cent. This is more than 30 times the magnitude of the economic decline during the global financial crisis of 2009. That was a crisis. During this period, we were fighting for our very survival from a public health, economic and national security perspective. As Prime Minister I sought to exercise my responsibilities during this extremely difficult period in a manner that would best advance and protect Australia's national interests and the welfare of the Australian people. That is what I had pledged to do, and I am pleased that, through these efforts and the efforts of so many others I worked with closely, Australia was able to emerge from this period of significant crisis in a safer and more prosperous position than almost any other country in the world. That was the objective of my government and, together with my colleagues here and those who formerly sat with us, that was achieved. In February this year Bill Gates was asked at the Munich Security Conference whether it was possible to prevent the next pandemic. He answered by citing Australia's response to the pandemic, referring to it as 'the gold standard', and that standard was one we met. He said, 'If every country did what Australia did then we wouldn't be calling it a pandemic.' That is something any government could be proud of. The New York Times calculated in May this year that, if the United States had the same death rate as Australia, about 900,000 lives would have been saved. Johns Hopkins University ranked Australia second in the world in pandemic preparedness. Bloomberg ranked Australia the world's fifth most COVID-resilient nation. Shortly after I left office after the last election, Australia had the third-lowest mortality rate in the OECD from COVID at 401 deaths per million population. This can be compared with Canada at 1,106 per million, the United Kingdom at 2,688 per million and the United States at over 3,000 per million. During the pandemic it was estimated that, when compared to the average fatality rates of OECD countries, Australia's response saved more than 30,000 lives. More than 95 per cent of Australia's adult population had been administered two vaccine doses and we had commenced fourth doses. Unlike in so many other countries—advanced, developed countries—our hospital system had not been overrun by the pandemic. And since December 2019, when the pandemic first struck, Australia's economy had grown by 4½ per cent. This compares to growth of 3.9 per cent in Korea, 2.7 per cent in the US, less than one per cent in the UK, Canada, and France, and the Japanese and German economies remained in negative territory. Australia's success was also achieved by limiting the scale of the economic decline during COVID. In Australia the economic decline caused by COVID was 2.2 per cent. This compares to 3.4 per cent in the US, 4½ per cent in Japan, 4.6 per cent in Germany, eight per cent in France and 9.3 per cent in the United Kingdom. At the same time, Australia's unemployment rate fell to below four per cent, the lowest in almost half a century, with almost 600,000 more jobs than we had before the pandemic began. During this time the government made unprecedented investments in our health and economic response. JobKeeper kept 700,000 businesses in business. It kept more than one million Australians in work. And despite these unpredicted outlays, Australia, through the pandemic and the crisis, was one of only nine countries in the world to retain our AAA credit rating. Our response was timely, it was targeted, and it was temporary. We responsibly retired measures as soon as it was prudent. This led to an historic reduction in the budget deficit in our final year of more than $100 billion. During this time, I and the government made many decisions, from closing our international borders to making our own vaccines and directly manufacturing PPE. We tried many things. We were dealing with extreme uncertainty and unpredictability. The Australian people were rightly fearful for their own health and economic security. The mindset at this time was to seek to prepare as best as possible for as many contingencies as possible. This was not always successful, as was the experience of all countries around the world at the time. No leader and no nation had a perfect record, but Australia can be proud that we had one of the very best. At the same time, significant powers were activated by the government, including under the Biosecurity Act and in financial delegations to the Minister for Finance, that were beyond the oversight of cabinet. I elected to put in place a redundancy to those powers and an oversight on those powers in the departments of Health and Finance. I do not resile from these decisions and believe them entirely necessary, mirroring many arrangements similarly being implemented in the private sector at the time. My omission was not having personally informed the Minister for Finance, who I believed had been informed through my office. I was mistaken about that, which was only brought to my attention when I made these matters public. I've addressed this issue directly with the then Minister for Finance. Had I been asked about these matters at the time at the numerous press conferences I held, I would've responded truthfully about the arrangements I had put in place. The recommendations of the Bell inquiry will appropriately remedy this deficiency in the future, and I support them. The decision to take on authority to administer the departments of Treasury and Home Affairs in 2021 as a dormant redundancy for decisions that were not subject to cabinet oversight was to be able to take swift action, if necessary, in the national interest at a time when Australians' interests were under constant threat. I now consider that these decisions, in hindsight, were unnecessary and that insufficient consideration was given to these decisions at the time, including nondisclosure. I therefore accept the recommendations put forward by the Bell inquiry as an appropriate remedy to these shortcomings. I note again that these authorities were never exercised and, as a result, had no impact on the functions or actions of the government. It is strange to describe such actions as a power grab, as they were never exercised or even used to exercise influence over the relevant ministers. They were simply a dormant redundancy. In relation to the decision to take authority to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources for the purpose of being able to consider PEP 11, I do not resile from that action. The authority was lawfully sought and exercised on a specific matter solely. I considered it unnecessary to dismiss the minister to deal with this matter, as he was doing a fine job, and unlawful to inappropriately pressure him in relation to this decision. I therefore lawfully took the decision from first principles in his place. I believe the decision I made on PEP 11 was the correct one. I note the criticisms made of my decisions to be authorised to administer a series of departments have been made from the safety and relative calm of hindsight. I also note that as Prime Minister my awareness of issues regarding national security at this time and the national interest was broader than known to individual ministers and any third party. This limits the ability for third parties to draw definitive conclusions on such matters and sit in judgement. During the course of my prime ministership I made many decisions. These decisions were taken during an extremely challenging period where there was a need for considerable urgency and there was great stress on the system and individuals. None of us can claim to be infallible in such circumstances, and I do not. There are always lessons to be learned from such times and events. I acknowledge that the nondisclosure of arrangements has caused unintentional offence and extend an apology to those who were offended, but I do not apologise for taking action, especially prudent redundancy action, in a national crisis in order to save lives and to save livelihoods. I also agree with and thank the many who have expressed their support that any perceived deficiencies in the handling of these matters must be reasonably and fairly weighed against the overarching success of the numerous other decisions taken and efforts made under extreme pressure to save lives and livelihoods. This motion fails to do this and, sadly, therefore betrays its true motive that is entirely partisan. The government's response to censure and prosecute this motion is to engage in the politics of retribution and nothing less. These are the behaviours of an opposition, not a government who understands that grace in victory is a virtue. I recommend that their response as a government should simply be to implement the recommendations of the Bell inquiry, which I support, and focus their attention on their current and urgent responsibilities to address the many challenges Australians are now facing on their watch, especially the cost of living. How we respond to these events is up to each and every one of us. For mine, I will take the instruction of my faith and turn the other cheek. Since the election, I have refrained from public comment, despite provocation, other than on local issues and to note the actions and achievements of my government. I accepted the result—as I should, willingly and happily—of the last election and wished the new government every success, and I have sought to move on with my life with my family and to continue to serve the people of my local electorate in Cook. I voluntarily stepped down from the leadership of my party and gave my full support to the new leadership, whom I commend. I thank them for their support, especially the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I thank all of my colleagues, both former and current, both now and over a long period of time, for the same. In that, I particularly acknowledge the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, the former Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, and the member for Riverina, who together, the four of us, dealt with so much of that crisis each and every day together. I have seen bitterness destroy people who have come to this place, and it continues to gnaw away at them each and every day of their lives for even decades after they leave this place. I am not one of those, nor will I ever be. I am proud of the many achievements that I have been able to accomplish in this place, especially as Prime Minister, and I am very grateful for the opportunities and to all of those I worked with to achieve them. We saw Australia through one of our most difficult times. We stood up to a bullying Chinese regime which sought to coerce and impose itself on our democracy through threats, sanctions and intimidation. I was pleased to establish the AUKUS agreement and tighten our partnerships with all our key partners, especially the United States, Japan, India, the United Kingdom, across our region in ASEAN—we were the first country to establish a comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN—and, of course, our dear Pacific family. I was pleased to have strengthened our economy through the pandemic and to have seen electricity prices fall by 10 per cent on my watch as PM; for individual and small business taxes to be cut and more than 300,000 Australians directly assisted into homeownership. And, by strengthening our economy, I was pleased we were able to guarantee the essential services that Australians relied on during times of great uncertainty, with record Medicare bulk-billing rates, PBS listings at record levels and record funds for aged care, disability care and mental health. For those who now wish to add their judgement today on my actions, in supporting this censure motion, I simply suggest that they stop and consider the following: Have you ever had to deal with a crisis where the outlook was completely unknown? In such circumstances, were you able to get all the decisions perfectly right? Where you may have made errors, were you fortunate enough for them to have had no material impact on the result, and for the result itself to prove to be world-leading? Once you have considered your own experience, or perhaps when you have had more in government, then you may wish to cast the first stone in this place. Perhaps the response to these difficult times and events is not to go down that path but down the path of thankfulness that Australia's performance through the pandemic was one of the strongest in the developed world; to appreciate in humility, not in retribution, that no country and no leader got all the decisions right, and gracefully take up the lessons that have been learned and equip us to do even better in the future. It is an honour to serve in this House, and I have done that for these past 15 years. I am grateful again to the people of Cook for their strong support during this time, including most recently. I thank them for their encouragement, their many messages of support, as I and my family have returned to our dear home in the shire. I also thank my local Liberal Party members for their constant support, my local church community at Horizon Church for their prayers, and people of faith from all around the country who have extended the same. I have been humbled by your messages of support and encouragement. I also thank again my colleagues here in this place, and formerly, for their support. It is indeed an honour to serve alongside you. I especially thank my wife, Jen, our daughters, Abbey and Lily, and my family and friends for their love and support, as well as my former staff for their great loyalty. You must always be proud of what you accomplished during our time working together. I conclude by thanking the Australian people for the privilege of being able to serve my country in so many roles, but especially as Prime Minister. I gave it everything I had. I did it to the best of my ability and in the best of faith each and every day I had the privilege to serve the Australian people. 09:45 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I rise to support this motion because it is absolutely right that this House censure the member for Cook for undermining the basic principles of our system of government. I say that even more so after the speech that we've just listened to from the member for Cook, because, in all too familiar fashion, the former prime minister has sought to obfuscate and hide his errors. Even now, the member for Cook is failing to admit the errors that he made. Extraordinarily, he said in the course of that speech, 'If people had asked, I would have answered.' I'll repeat that: 'If people had asked, I would have answered.' So, apparently, it's the fault of this House that these errors were made. Apparently, it's the fault of this parliament that this misconduct occurred. Apparently, it's the fault of the fourth estate that these errors occurred and this misconduct occurred because, as the member for Cook says, 'If people had asked, I would have answered.' Censure is the appropriate response to the findings by the Hon. Virginia Bell AC that the member for Cook, while Prime Minister of Australia, appointed himself to administer five additional departments and failed to inform the cabinet, failed to inform the relative departments, failed to inform the House of Representatives and failed to inform the Australian public. As the Solicitor-General found: … the fact that the Parliament, the public and the other Ministers … were not informed of Mr Morrison's appointment was inconsistent with the conventions and practices that form an essential part of the system of responsible government … Australia is a proud democracy and one of only a handful of nations to have maintained a democratically elected government throughout the whole of the last 122 years. An absolute principle of our democracy is accountability—knowing who is responsible for the decisions that are taken in our name. That's why the Prime Minister publicly announces the ministry. That's why the media attend the swearings-in at Government House. It's why we have question time and it's why ministers appear before the media—so they can be held accountable for the decisions in their name. But how on earth can you do that if you don't even know who the minister is? How on earth can there be any accountability in a government where even the Treasurer doesn't know whether the Prime Minister has taken his job? Again, as the Solicitor-General found: … it is impossible for the Parliament to hold Ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which Ministers are responsible for which departments. The Solicitor-General also said, 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined.' That bears repeating: 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined.' Those opposite—almost all of them—have apparently declined to support this motion. I would respectfully suggest that they are wrong to decline to support this motion. As the member for Bass declared yesterday, you've put loyalty to the member for Cook ahead of 'your loyalty to the Australian people, to the institution to that you are elected to serve'. Let's hear what some of their former colleagues think. Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said: This is sinister stuff. This is secret government. … … … We, the people, are entitled to know who is governing our country. We need to know who is the minister for this, who is the minister for that. If, in fact, these things are all being done secretly, that's not a democracy. I gather from the comments from the member for Bradfield that he doesn't have much regard for Malcolm Turnbull anymore, so how about this one? … it is just highly unconventional, highly unorthodox, and shouldn't have happened. That was Tony Abbott, another former Liberal prime minister. And, if that's not good enough for you, how about this one? I don't think he should have done that, I don't think there was any need to do it, and I wouldn't have. Who said that? John Howard. You might remember him. Those were the last three Liberal prime ministers before the member for Cook, and each one has the same view as the current government. These actions were unprecedented, and they were unacceptable. Here's one final quotation for you: … it's inappropriate for him to be assuming this power. … … … There was an error of judgment, a very serious one. And our party is rightly hurt by that and upset, as many people in the public are. Any guesses who that was? It was not a former prime minister but the current Leader of the Opposition—one of the few people on the opposition front bench not to have had their job secretly stolen by the member for Cook. One thing we do know for sure is that, even today, the member for Cook is not in the least bit sorry—not to the Australian people and most certainly not to those who trusted him most, those opposite. Here's what Niki Savva wrote on the weekend about what happened to former treasurer Josh Frydenberg when he sought an apology from his former leader: What really stuck in Frydenberg's mind, and his craw, was Morrison's response in that initial conversation when a profoundly disappointed Frydenberg put it to him that: "You wouldn't do it again if you had your time over!" Morrison replied: "Yes I would." 'Yes, I would.' He refused to cooperate with Ms Bell's inquiry, responding only through lawyers and, even then, still obfuscating. As Ms Bell found in a devastating indictment: Mr Morrison's choice not to inform Mr Cormann, Ms Andrews or Mr Frydenberg of his appointments to administer departments of which each was portfolio minister out of the wish not to be thought to be second guessing them remains difficult to reconcile with his understanding that each appointment had been notified in the Gazette. One might have expected Mr Morrison to have informed each of these Ministers of the appointments had that been his understanding. While few members of the public may read the Gazette, any idea that the gazettal of the Prime Minister's appointment to administer the Treasury (or any of the other appointments) would not be picked up and quickly circulated within the public service and the Parliament strikes me as improbable in the extreme. Finally, Mr Morrison was repeatedly pressed at his press conference on 17 August 2022 about his failure not only to inform his Ministers but also to inform the public of the appointments. The omission on that occasion to state that he had acted at all times on the assumption that each appointment had been notified to the public in the Gazette is striking. So he gets his lawyers to tell Ms Bell one thing, that he believed the appointments would be announced in the government Gazette, while telling the media and the Australian public something entirely different, that he deliberately kept the appointments secret to avoid alarming his colleagues. As his speech today confirmed, the former prime minister is still, even now, trying to defend the indefensible. Today he put forward another bizarre argument, which he did not put to Virginia Bell for the purpose of her inquiry. In today's failed attempt at justifying his misconduct, the former prime minister made more references to COVID than to ministerial responsibility. In all-too-familiar fashion, the former prime minister has sought to obfuscate and hide his errors. He's not sorry, and he never will be. As his closest colleague, the member for Mitchell, told Niki Savva, 'He got addicted to executive authority.' In 2018 the coalition, in government, moved a censure motion against a former minister, Bruce Billson, for failing to inform the parliament that he had been a paid lobbyist while in parliament. The former Prime Minister secretly having himself sworn into multiple ministries and trashing our democracy is much more serious, and much more deserving of censure. If the coalition is serious about integrity and accountability and restoring trust in politics, they will join with us to censure the member for Cook, just as we joined with them to censure Bruce Billson. The entire parliament has to take a stand to show that we will not tolerate the culture of secrecy enabled by the former government which the Bell inquiry found to have a corrosive impact on public trust and confidence in government. More importantly, we have a duty to the Australian people—the people we represent—to honour the trust they place in us when they elect us to govern in their name. The Australian people were rightly shocked by recent reports of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in our parliament. They highlighted the need for urgent reform and the parliament acted swiftly to enact a code of conduct to ensure all parliamentary workplaces are safe and respectful places to work. We showed the Australian people that we accepted that this sort of behaviour was unacceptable and we had to do better. So it is with the censure motion today. The actions of the former prime minister in undermining the basic principles of our system of government cannot be swept under the carpet. If the members of this House have any respect at all for this parliament and the people who trust us who represent them in this place then they must support the censure. All of us must come to gather to declare as a parliament that a prime minister who fundamentally undermines the principles of responsible government is deserving of censure. We need to make sure that this can never happen again, and the one way to do that is to send the clearest possible signal that this behaviour is unacceptable and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. 09:56 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The opposition will not be supporting this censure motion, and that is for three reasons. Firstly, this motion is not an appropriate use of the forms and procedures of this House. Secondly, what we are seeing is an exercise by this government in political payback and distraction. Thirdly, the right way forward here is to adopt recommendations made by former High Court Justice Bell in her report. This is not an appropriate use of forms and procedures of this parliament. The government has sought to ventilate this issue through a number of processes, but what it's now seeking to do is use the forms of this parliament to, for essentially political reasons, bring further scrutiny to bear on this issue. It's very clear that this censure motion makes no practical difference. It's also very clear to any objective observer that this is simply a naked political exercise seeking to damage the reputation and standing of the former Liberal prime minister and by extension all on this side of the House. The standing orders are very clear as to the proper purpose of censure motions. Indeed, standing order 48, which deals with censure motions, specifically refers to censure of the government, which is a pretty big clue that the proper purpose of such a motion is for the parliament—the legislative branch of government—to hold to account the government—the executive branch. The very terms of this motion note this fundamental point. The terms of the motion refer to a system—and this is a correct description—by which the executive is accountable to the legislature. The Practice notes on page 325 that it is very rare for there to be a censure motion against a private member or a backbencher. Indeed, they have only been moved on two occasions, and both times that was by agreement. We have had a number of references from the Attorney-General to one of those instances, but I make the fundamental point: that was by agreement. There is no agreement here. Let me quote the Practice, which is very clear in relation to this matter. It says: A motion in the form of a censure of a Member … not being a member of the Executive Government, is not consistent with the parliamentary convention that the traditional purpose of a vote of censure is to question or bring to account a Minister's responsibility to the House … given the relative strength of the parties in the House, and the strength of party loyalties, in ordinary circumstances it could be expected that a motion or amendment expressing censure of an opposition leader or another opposition Member would be agreed to, perhaps regardless of the circumstances or the merits of the arguments or allegations. In other words, the Practice very clearly says that what the government is seeking to do here is not in accord with the forms and procedures of this parliament. What the government is doing here is at odds with the traditions and practices of this House. It is nothing more than a political exercise designed to damage the standing and reputation of the former Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister presents himself as a champion of parliamentary process—he frequently makes that point in the public domain—but it seems he is quite prepared to trash longstanding conventions to seek to gain short-term political advantage. We hear the argument that, in the circumstances that occurred, the then Prime Minister, the member for Cook, was not accountable to the parliament, because he couldn't be questioned in relation to the portfolios that he had been sworn into. That proposition does not stand up to a second's scrutiny. The simple fact is that every Prime Minister—and this was certainly the case when the member for Cook occupied that high office—can be, and is on a daily basis in this place in question time, asked questions across the gamut of the issues for which the Prime Minister is responsible as the person who leads the executive government. When it comes, therefore, to the question of the accountability of the then Prime Minister to this parliament, the case has not been made that that accountability in any way had been compromised. It is the task of the government to make the case that there is a need for a censure motion. Indeed, on the contrary, what they are proposing is something clearly at odds with the forms, procedures and traditions of this place. The simple fact is that, from the moment this matter came into the public domain, the overriding objectives of this government have been, first of all, to exploit this as an exercise in political payback, designed to damage the reputation of the former Prime Minister and in turn all of those on this side of the House, and, secondly, to use it as a diversionary tactic so that the government can avoid awkward questions about its lack of progress on the real issues facing Australians—the cost-of-living crisis, the sharp increase in the prices of gas and electricity, and the sharp increases in interest rates—and the lack of any plan on the part of the government to deal with these matters. From the time this matter came into the public domain we've heard repeated exaggerated and over-the-top claims from Labor ministers and members of parliament about this matter. We heard the claim that the conduct of the former Prime Minister was illegal. The government sought advice from the Solicitor-General. Inconveniently for the government, that advice did not back up the hysterical claims that were being made on a daily basis by the Prime Minister and his ministers. The Solicitor-General's advice found that the appointments were valid. It found that there is no constitutional requirement or statutory requirement for the appointments to be publicised. The Solicitor-General confirmed in his advice that multiple ministers can be appointed to administer a single department and noted that this commonly occurs. The Solicitor-General also acknowledged that this is a political issue, not a legal issue. At paragraph 33 of his opinion, he said: The conventions and practices are generally enforced politically, not legally. He highlighted that departure from conventions and practices does not result in invalidity. The government, not content with obtaining and publicising that advice, sought to have a second bite at the cherry and keep this issue in the media cycle for several more weeks and months. It appointed former High Court Justice Bell to prepare a report into this matter. That report said, amongst other things: Given the appointments were not disclosed to the Parliament or to the public, and that Mr Morrison did not exercise any of the powers he enjoyed by reason of his appointments apart from making the PEP-11 decision— which, of course, was publicised— the implications of the appointments are limited. The Bell report also says: As long as the appointments remained secret and Mr Morrison elected not to exercise his powers as the minister administering a department, it is not apparent that there was any impact on the structure of the ministry. These are clear findings, inconsistent with much of the exaggerated commentary that we have heard from ministers today and that we've heard repeatedly from the Prime Minister and Labor figures. There is an obvious question as to whether it was even necessary to commission the Bell report, given that it largely covers the same ground as the opinion from the Solicitor-General, and its recommendations are quite similar. I emphasise that I make no criticism at all of either the Solicitor-General or of former Justice Bell, both of whom were asked to do a job and they did it conscientiously. The way forward here is clear. The right way forward is to get on with addressing the issues raised in both the opinion and the Bell inquiry. A number of sensible recommendations have been made for improving the clarity and transparency of ministerial appointments. The question that Australians might reasonably ask is, 'Why has the government taken so long to do anything about it?' The Solicitor-General delivered his opinion on 22 August. There are clear reform options set out in that opinion. Very similar recommendations were made by former Justice Bell. The government's been on notice for more than a month about the recommendations for legislative change from former Justice Bell. She wrote to the Prime Minister on 26 October advising of the recommended legislative change that she'd be proposing. The government could have had that legislation ready to debate today. That would have been a sensible way forward. Instead, what they're seeking to do is leverage this for maximum political advantage. This is nothing more than a grubby political exercise. 10:06 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat It gives me no pleasure to speak on this motion. It's something that none of us in this place should have to be in a position to do. I've been a member of this parliament for over 20 years. It is a job I take very seriously. It is an enormous privilege to be here. I say, particularly to some of the newer members of parliament, who have only really been here for six months or shorter times than that than me: who is the custodian of this institution? It is us. It is our job to uphold the traditions of this place. Who else is going to do that? It is our job to make sure that we uphold this institution, this incredibly privileged place that we stand in. That is what this censure motion is about. It is not about whether the previous government did a good or poor job at COVID. There are other places where that will be debated and examined, and I think in history that will happen. It's not about that. It's not even about, as the member for Cook tried to put the proposition, whether he exercised any of the powers to which he had administrative responsibility. It is actually about the traditions of this place and the fundamental principle upon which we know our Westminster system relies—that is, ministerial responsibility. When we have the privilege of being elected in this place, we take on incredibly important responsibilities. We are all here for different reasons, but for all of us it is to make this place a better nation. As I said, I've been a member of this place for over 20 years, and I care deeply about its institutions. We are here for a reason, and those institutions are here for a reason. We are here to represent the Australian people. Parliament is a place where we get things done. We serve the people. We improve the places they live and we improve the circumstances in which they live. None of us are here for ourselves. Our very democracy is built on the simple idea that our government is accountable to the Australian people. This is the people's House. That is what it is. It is built fundamentally on the Westminster tradition, hundreds of years of democratic evolution. That is what we are custodians of in this place. That's why this censure motion matters so deeply. A government is not just accountable to the people every three years; it is accountable to the people every day and every hour. That is what being voted into this place means. Every time we sit in this place, the government—the executive—is accountable to the Australian people through their elected representatives, or at least that is how it is supposed to be. That is how our democracy is supposed to work. It is called responsible government. Schoolkids learn about it every year when they come here. First-year law students learn about it. It is the fundamental basis for our administrative law system. While we might have political differences, there should be one thing we absolutely and utterly agree on, and that is that the traditions of this place matter because they underpin the democratic traditions of this country and the hundreds of years of democratic evolution that they are based on. But what we have seen with the actions of the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, is that they undermined the accountability, they undermined responsible government and they undermined the institutions of this parliament. As I said, it's not about whether he actually exercised those powers—in one instance, we do know that he did—it is the fact that he had these powers and that they were not disclosed to his ministers, to his cabinet, to the parliament or, through the parliament, to the people and that, therefore, that principle of responsible government and of ministerial accountability could not be upheld. That is what this censure is about. For ministers to be accountable to the parliament and to the Australian people, you have to know who they are. It's that simple. You need to know who to hold to account. Who is responsible for making decisions? Who holds the power to administer the laws of that department? Nobody knew that the member for Cook was also the Minister for Health, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. The Australian people certainly didn't know it, we in the then opposition certainly didn't know it, his own cabinet didn't know it and not even the other ministers holding those portfolios knew it. Many of us would remember, during the election campaign, when the then Prime Minister, in reference to workers getting a dollar pay rise, said, 'You can't afford a loose unit in the Lodge.' Well, that seems to be what we had with the member for Cook. It's simply extraordinary. Without accountability, you don't have democracy. That's why I'm speaking in support of this motion. Censuring any member of parliament, especially a former prime minister, is not something that we take lightly. It's a big thing to do. We understand that. And, again, it is something that this chamber should never, ever really have to do. But the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, has shown through his actions—and even in his defence today—his disrespect for this place and, through us, for the Australian people. That cannot go unacknowledged. I commend members of the crossbench who are supporting this motion, and I encourage members, particularly those who might be new to this place and who are potentially going be here for a long time, to ask themselves: if we don't stand up for this institution then who will? That is what this censure is about. Long after the member for Cook has gone and many of us here have gone, that's what you'll have to think about on this censure motion: did I stand up for the traditions of this parliament? Before you cast your vote, think about that. If this place doesn't stand up for responsible government, if this place doesn't stand up for the institutions, then who will? We've seen in recent times in so many other countries the deliberate undermining of democratic institutions, and we've seen where that leads. We know that we don't want that to happen here in this country. If you don't add your voice to those calling out for even the most minimal level of ministerial accountability—actually letting the Australian people know who their ministers are—what will you support? What is important to you in the traditions of this place? Of course, this censure is important, but it's not where we should end this topic. We have to make sure that this does not happen again. This wasn't an accident. This wasn't just an administrative failure where the former Prime Minister thought someone was going to do something and they didn't. This was deliberate. This was absolutely deliberate and intended. If the former Prime Minister would have us say that it was all for good reasons, I'm not sure that many of us here believe that. That's why we all, in this place, must listen to the Bellreport, vote to enshrine the principles of responsible government and make sure that this does not happen again. The censure motion is important because it is saying: 'In this point in time, we want to defend the traditions of this parliament. We believe in responsible government. We know that that underpins the very principle of the democratic tradition that we uphold and that the former Prime Minister should be held to account for those actions.' Of course, that's not the only thing this parliament needs to do. We need to establish the NACC, which I'm pleased to see we are very close to doing. We need to enforce tighter ministerial standards, embrace the recommendation of the Jenkins review and understand that we have an incredible privilege to be in this place. That privilege comes with enormous responsibilities, of which today is one. It will be a long road to restoring faith in our institutions—but do that we must, because we have seen the results in other countries when we do not do that—strengthening our democracy and moving past what is, frankly, a shameful episode in our political history. But this censure motion and our accountability reforms are the first step in this parliament taking control of its destiny and making sure that this does not happen again. 10:16 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I really do think that this is a very important debate. One of the most highly respected and most long-serving Labor ministers wanted me to come down and see him. Before I could even sit down, he said: 'Politicians today—it doesn't matter what their party or where they come from—do not govern. They do not govern.' As a long-serving minister myself, albeit in a state government, I said, 'When did you come to that conclusion?' He said, 'Three years ago.' I said, 'Well, you're beating me, mate, because I came to that conclusion three months ago.' It is not that you're evil or that you're wrong in what you decide, Mr LNP or Mr ALP; it's that you just don't govern. I can go to you with an issue and you'll listen to me—you'll agree with me—but I absolutely know: nothing will happen. If two very long-serving ministers say that, then I think there has to be a little tiny bit of substance in that observation. In my opinion, the Prime Minister was desperate to try and get something to happen. In discussions with senior leaders—I won't mention names over here—I said, 'Please don't be like this government: 4½ years, and not one single thing done.' I think, if you asked the average Australian what happened in those 4½ years, they would say the same thing. But he was in a desperate effort. I make this point and I say it in defence of Scott Morrison: he is very proud of his forebears. One of them, his great-aunt, is on the $10 note. That's Dame Mary Gilmore, who came from my hometown of Cloncurry, where she is buried. She was the great La Pasionaria of the labour movement. There would have been no labour movement without Dame Mary Gilmore, that wonderful poet—and I'm not going to recite her poetry, although I know many of her poems! Now, this man, carrying on that tradition, desperately wanted to do something for his people. But he was hit with a situation which the government now is hit with: they just can't govern. There's the enormous power of the media and the social interactions happening on social media. I don't know what people's reasons are and I don't intend to canvass those reasons here today. But you have to govern. In a desperate effort to govern, he went to very excessive—and I agree with the government—unusual and unconventional actions. Of course, he brought opprobrium upon himself. But he did that in a desperate effort. If you, the ALP government of Australia, think you're going to get out from under, then let's take just one issue. It's a very simple, tiny issue. We were all saying we're going to vote for the first changes to the Australian Constitution and aren't we wonderful people because we really love my blackfella cousin brothers. Do you? They've got a life expectancy of 56. Not one single market garden has been put there by the ALP government of Queensland or the LNP government of Australia—not one. After 4½ years of screaming and yelling and pleading—nothing, nothing. And it's not because the ministers were bad people or that the present minister is a bad person; it's just that they can't govern. As a person that did govern, I know you need—and I will not hesitate to use the word—'brutality'. If I want you to go in that direction and you don't go in it then, if it's the Queensland government, God help you. Why I'm so concerned and why I'm so interested in this censure motion today is that, in Queensland, we had exactly that situation. We had a premier, Bjelke-Petersen, who for some reason or other had a very funny attitude towards First Australians and a very unpleasant and unfortunate attitude towards First Australians. I was put in as minister, and I was absolutely determined that I would give the people what they wanted, which was a freehold private title to land, the same as was enjoyed by everyone else on earth. I did give them self-management powers, which arguably exceeded state government and federal government powers—to some degree they were a government within a government, and people can criticise me for that. For the committee of the National Party, I selected every single one of the members because they'd either played rugby league or mustered cattle. I knew if they'd either mustered cattle or played rugby league they would have great respect for First Australians as people. They would not see them as blackfellas or whitefellas; they'd just see them as people. That committee stood 100 per cent behind me, and Doug Jennings, a famous man for moral integrity who brought down the Victorian government with the land scams—God bless him—said to Bjelke-Petersen, 'You touch Katter then I'll touch you!" Bjelke-Petersen knew that that committee was standing four square behind me, so we had a clash here. The bloke who was elected to be the boss of Queensland said, 'You're not going to do that!' But I'd been given by the Governor a piece of paper saying I had the power to do that. Here we arguably have the same sort of situation that may have occurred with the last Prime Minister. In that situation you fight the battle. He could sack me. The boss rang up six and said, 'I'm going to sack this bloke.' That's when people have to make an intelligent and a moral decision. Are you going to back Bjelke-Petersen or are you going to back what needs to be done here? I'm very proud to say that the overwhelming majority of my party said, 'No, we're backing the bloke that's doing the things that need to be done.' In fairness to the memory of Bjelke-Petersen, I've got to say that he swung back the other way and started championing all of those changes. His critics would say he did that because he always saw which way the political wind was blowing. Other people say that he just went back to the old missionary that founded Hope Vale, the home of Noely Pearson and most of the great leadership of Australia. Some of the great rugby league players in Australia also come from Hope Vale. He founded that with Leo Rosendale, one of my blackfellas brother cousins. Overlaid on this issue is the volatility of the leadership in the LNP. We have volatility in the ALP as well, but these were not things that existed in the days of Howard or in the days of Menzies or in the days of Curtin or Chifley, going way back. But now there is volatility of leadership, and if you try to overrule a minister, he'll get his nose out of joint and he'll come gunning for you—not overtly, of course, just with quiet talks with the media or quiet talks with key people on the backbench you want to get on the frontbench. We have this volatility element overlaid on it, but this is the most important point I want to make, and Ms Bell did not understand this. It amazes me how lawyers simply don't understand the law. When I want to law school I was taught that there are conventions, constitutional conventions. We come into this place—not me, but the rest of you—and swear allegiance to a lady in England, so if you want to read the letter of the law, will you do what the lady in England tells you to do? You swore allegiance to her. I didn't, but you did. The constitutional convention says, 'That's rubbish; no-one's going to take any notice of a lady in England.' Well, that's the law. The constitutional convention is the law, and the constitutional convention is that Menzies and McEwen ran this place. Ministers may have had powers, but they didn't have ultimate powers. This cuts to the very heart of the modern quandary of why governments can't govern, and the desperation of a Prime Minister resorting to what is not only unconventional but also very unusual behaviour was forced upon him because he was trying to govern. If you think on the government side of this parliament that you're going to be able to govern—well, you've been there for six months, and I don't know anything that has changed in the six months. You can run around talking about your IR legislation that I voted for and supported you on, but is it going to change anything? No. We'll just see next year whether there's anything that you do that actually indicates that you govern. I highly respect and like many of the mob on this side and their leadership, but did they govern? Point out something out to me you did? Did you build a factory? Did you build a dam? Did you change some law that enabled the First Australians to have a private freehold title like everyone else on earth? Did you do any of those things? No, you did none of those things. In conclusion I say this cuts to the very heart of modern government. Prime Minister Albanese was voted for by the people of Australia. They expect him to govern. Now, whether you say that he is in the position of a monarch or whether you don't, the Australian people decided that he is the boss. He has the ultimate say and the ultimate responsibility, and he should not have to go to the lengths to which the last Prime Minister went to take action, whether you agree with him or whether you don't. You can have the situation where you have your beliefs, as I did in state parliament, and alright, he can sack me, because he has the last say. But in the end if you stand your ground and you try to do something, you'll be surprised how many people back you up, and that's the message that I'd like to leave with this place. If you make a stand on what you believe is the right thing and the intelligent thing to do, then people will back you. Even though no-one bet that I would win, in the end I did very comprehensively—no, I didn't; the people did. The people who knew it was the right thing to do won in the end. 10:27 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise in support of this motion. All of us who are elected to this place have a responsibility to contribute to decisions that will make a difference to our nation and to its citizens. That includes a responsibility to uphold our constitutional conventions and democratic norms which are the bedrock of our liberal democratic system of government. Students of Australia's political history will be aware that our federal constitutional arrangements borrow from the system of responsible government from Westminster, while also incorporating the notion of a strong Senate and systematic checks and balances from Washington. This arrangement is referred to in the political science textbooks as the Washminster mutation. There is an internal theoretical inconsistency between these two approaches. Responsible government suggest governments can act as they will but will be held accountable at each election. Checks and balances, meanwhile, constrain government power, meaning that the executive alone cannot be held solely responsible for decisions taken by the whole parliament. Even from our foundation Australia's political culture has tended toward the pragmatic rather than the ideological. However, the member for Cook's behaviour and choices undermined both the Westminster and the Washington philosophical underpinnings of our constitutional arrangements, thereby diminishing our polity, to cater for his unabated hunger for power—the ultimate indicator of self-centred entitlement that took nearly everything for himself, an egocentric belief that no-one but the chosen could possibly be acting in the national interest quite so well as he. The other members and senators swore oaths to serve in the national interest. Each of those oaths was diminished by the actions of the member for Cook. Our foundation documents seek to set out the role of the legislature to constrain the worst excesses of the executive. As members of this place we cannot stand idly by when we witness such an affront to good governance and our democratic norms as has been displayed by the member for Cook as the former Prime Minister, the former Treasurer, the former Minister for Finance, the former Minister for Home Affairs, the former Minister for Health, the former minister for industry and science, and, of course, as he was, the former minister for resources. We cannot allow what he did to undermine democracy to go unremarked or set a precedent for any future Prime Minister to secretly govern in the shadows. Mr Speaker, the former Prime Minister secretly had himself sworn-in to a number of portfolios, including resources. Whatever tenuous COVID continuity argument he may make about other portfolios, the principal reason for seizing the resources portfolio was to make a decision that he did not believe the publicly acknowledged and recognised minister, the member for Hinkler, would make. The only decision that the member for Cook appears to have made in any of his additional portfolios was in relation to the PEP-11 title in the resources portfolio. It's not just a matter of principle. The decision was a real one that has real-world consequences. The consequences are so significant that impacted parties have challenged the decision through the courts, and that case is ongoing. With that in mind, I will be very circumspect in my remarks and confine them to what is already on the public record, lest I add to the current contention before the courts. The Bell report shows us that the member for Cook secretly appointed himself minister for resources on 15 April 2021, then called in the PEP-11 decision in December 2021. I want to express my sincere sympathies with the member for Hinkler. Those who have been undermined, who have worked in toxic workplaces, might be familiar with the kind of boss who gaslights one and undermines one's work. I commend the member for Hinkler for the grace with which he has responded to the revelations of the member for Cook's behaviour, and I thank him for his collegiality during his time as resources minister, when I was the shadow minister and, like the rest of the nation, entirely unaware that there were indeed two ministers for resources in this country. The member for Cook and his government treated the resources portfolio and, by extension, the whole industry and all of its workers with contempt. The resources industry of Australia and its quarter of a million workers carried our nation through the COVID pandemic. While the world was in lockdown, offshore oil and gas projects in the north-west and the Northern Territory powered on, powering the west coast of this country and most of our region. Coal exported from Queensland and New South Wales made its way to Ukraine and powered economies in North Asia; Victorian gold fetched record-high prices as uncertainty led people to swap currency for bullion; nickel projects in Tasmania and Kalgoorlie provided a key component for batteries of electric vehicles; South Australian copper supported the world's growing need for electrification; and 916 million tonnes of iron ore left Western Australia, adding to the critical export earnings the resources sector delivers to this nation. Without this export wealth, our lucky country would never have been able to pay for the social health infrastructure that literally saved lives during the pandemic. Meanwhile, the coalition undermined Australia's resources industry. They refused industry's calls to act on climate change, putting our key trade relationships at risk and setting our country back a decade in the effort to decarbonise. They failed to land an energy policy and risked our energy security, upon which minerals processing is dependent. They even dropped the portfolio out of cabinet due to internal Nationals bickering and a backroom deal to give the member for New England a promotion. They treated taxpayers' money as their own, creating colour-coded spreadsheets to favour their seats in the sports rorts scandal. And now there has been this sordid episode in Australia's political history. Mr Speaker, is it any wonder that the previous government consistently avoided introducing an anti-corruption commission? They voted against the banking royal commission 26 times. They concocted the robodebt scandal that destroyed lives. They used Australian Defence Force footage of flood disasters as a political fundraiser for the Liberal Party. Perhaps those opposite are frustrated by accountability. Perhaps they find democracy inefficient. Like everyone in this place, I love Australia and I love our representative democracy—the fairest, most accessible egalitarian democratic institution in the world. Yesterday, scientists from Geoscience Australia showed me around the geological unconformity deep underneath Parliament House. I touched the 440-million-year-old sandstone upon which this House is built. But our freedom and democracy are built on a much more fragile bedrock that is at risk of erosion and decay by the actions of those who, craving power above all else, simply take it for themselves. When trust in public institutions around the world has receded, I know I'm not alone when I say I was proud of how ours fared against the headwinds of the pandemic. Anything that seeks to circumvent or otherwise tarnish our precious democratic institutions should be called out for what it is: a fundamental undermining of the principles of responsible government and the sovereignty of the Australian people. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Others opposite may now be claiming Stockholm syndrome had led them astray, as they were shocked by the member for Cook's grasp for the levers of power. But those members opposite now have an opportunity to reflect on how they may redeem themselves for enabling the member for Cook's democratic deceit. Those whose roles were diminished by these undemocratic acts have an opportunity to acknowledge this wrong, by supporting the motion—which leads me to ask: what legacy do those opposite wish to leave? How do they explain themselves to their electorates when they go to their mobile offices or when they have people on the phone? How will they explain that they enabled this wrong during the last term of government, and then they continued to not acknowledge it by opposing this motion? By opposing this motion, members are endorsing this behaviour that undermines our democratic system of government—it is no less than that. And it is their responsibility to acknowledge what has gone on. The member for Cook took us through his way of thinking, and that's entirely up to him, but the thing is: what he did reflects on us all in this place. I signed an oath earlier this year when I became minister. The weight of responsibility when you are signing that oath is unbelievable. My signature is basically unrecognisable, because the weight of the moment and the pressure of it is overwhelming—and so it should be, because it is an extraordinary responsibility and I take it very seriously. So, to each of those seven ministers that really had that responsibility diminished by the member for Cook: this is your opportunity—and not all of them are in this House anymore, but they have friends here; this is your opportunity to redeem what happened to them and to acknowledge the wrong that was done toward our system. Our names here in this place will be enshrined in the Votes and Proceedings; our words will remain inscribed in Hansard forever. And that record will remain for a long time—long after we have all left. Voting against this motion will tell a history of those members that were unmoved by the unjustified assault on our democracy. I urge all members to support this motion, in the interests of this chamber, of the other place and of the representative democracy of Australia. 10:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This motion is just about settling scores. It's not about the Australian people. The Australian people cast their votes on 21 May. The Australian people elected the Albanese Labor government with the lowest primary vote in Labor's history. Nevertheless, they elected the Albanese Labor government to govern. They elected the government to look forward, to the future, and not constantly in the rear-view mirror. They elected the Albanese government to deal with the issues people face today, like the rising cost of living, rising energy costs, rising housing costs, rising interest rates and rising grocery prices. Instead of doing these things, the government has brought forward this wasteful, ineffectual and wholly unnecessary political motion. Let's look at what this motion does not do. This motion does not help Australians put food on the table; it does not help Australians fill their car so they can drive to work or take their kids to school; it does not help them bring down power prices; it does not make their mortgage cheaper. This motion fails to do anything of substance for the Australian people, and the government should be condemned for using the parliament's time for cynical and self-indulgent political opportunism. There's good reason to call out the opportunism that this motion represents, because the Solicitor-General delivered his opinion on 22 August, more than three months ago. That opinion set out a number of reforms. The reform options were sensible and clear. Yet, instead of drafting legislation the Solicitor-General proposed back in August, the government has spent the last three months sitting on that road map for reform. For more than a month now, the government has been on notice about the recommendations for legislative change from former Justice Bell. On 26 October this year, she wrote to the Prime Minister to advise of a recommendation for legislative change that she intended to make in the report. The report makes clear that this was to enable the government to pursue legislative changes this year. The government seems to have ignored Ms Bell's sensible and generous approach and has sat on its hands. They could have brought the legislation to the parliament at any time after 26 October. Twelve sitting days have passed since they were put on notice of that recommendation. Today, instead of discussing that legislation, we are now debating a censure motion. Even today, the day when legislation is traditionally introduced into the House, there is no amendment to the Ministers of State Act at all on the Notice Paper. It shows that Labor's first act is always politics. That's the Labor way. Even the day that Labor chose to have Ms Bell report was chosen for political reasons. The government wanted Ms Bell's report to have the maximum political effect, so they set the reporting date as the day before the Victorian state election. So let's stop pretending that this is about anything other than politics. Contrast that cynical position of the government with the mature approach taken by people on this side of the chamber. We've acknowledged the Solicitor-General's opinion and have taken it very seriously, indeed. That opinion made clear that the appointments made were legally valid. It rejected the idea that in making the appointments there's some sort of constitutionally required procedure that wasn't followed. The Solicitor-General expressly noted that the Constitution, in his words, 'deliberately leaves room for the further evolution of the institution of responsible government'. He made sensible, straightforward suggestions for that further evolution. We've also noted the release of the Bell report. The Bell report builds on the Solicitor-General's advice. It makes sensible recommendations for improving the clarity and transparency of ministerial appointments. There is no recommendation or even mention of a censure motion in that report. We on this side of the House will consider any proposed legislation flowing from the Bell report when it's presented to parliament. But instead of discussing that legislation we are discussing this frivolous and wasteful censure motion. That's the nub of the issue. The government now has received the Bell report. It could be implementing the recommendations already, but there's no legislation before this House, only a vague promise to introduce something later this week. It should be using the time that it has in this chamber to deal with the real problems facing Australians, including the cost-of-living crisis. Do we have any attention to that cost-of-living crisis? No. Instead, what we have is this politically motivated censure motion. Let's be clear. This motion does nothing to improve the clarity and transparency of ministerial appointments. It does not take up the proposals made by the Solicitor-General three months ago or the recommendations about which Ms Bell wrote to the Prime Minister over a month ago. It's a motion designed for political payback rather than for taking the sensible next steps on the issue. Censure motions are a way of the parliament holding ministers to account. They're not a tool for a new government to play politics with a former Prime Minister. House of Representatives Practice makes clear that it's not the purpose for which a censure motion is designed. As Practice notes, if you leave out attacks on leaders of the opposition, a motion of a censure of a private member has been moved only twice in the 121 years since Federation. Let me quote to you from Practice: A motion in the form of a censure of a Member … not being a member of the Executive Government, is not consistent with the parliamentary convention that the traditional purpose of a vote of censure is to question or bring to account a Minister's responsibility to the House. Furthermore, given the relative strength of the parties in the House, and the strength of party loyalties, in ordinary circumstances it could be expected that a motion or amendment expressing censure of an opposition … Member would be agreed to, perhaps regardless of the circumstances or the merits of the arguments or allegations. The member for Cook has already had adverse reflections from the Solicitor-General and Justice Bell, and he was voted out of office by the Australian people. That is the ultimate censure. He has accepted that decision as he accepts the recommendations of the Solicitor-General and Justice Bell. He has had enough censures. Sometimes I think the Prime Minister never stopped being the professional protester of his youth. Every day, he comes in here not to govern for the future of Australia but to attack the member for Cook. Sometimes I wonder why Labor hasn't changed the standing orders—to put an effigy burning of the member for Cook, at the beginning of the day of parliament, along with the prayers and welcome to country. It's time the government stopped obsessing about one man and started thinking about the 26 million Australians who pay them to look after their interests. The government's failure to do so and its decision, instead, to spend parliament's time on a frivolous censure motion shows the government's all about politics and not about making things better for Australians. You'd be forgiven for asking what the government hopes to achieve through this motion. But, if we look around, it rapidly becomes clear why the government is so keen to spend parliament's valuable time on this issue. It is distraction politics. The motion is intended to draw attention away from the government's inability to provide for the economic security that makes things better for Australians. Despite having repeatedly told the people during the election that Labor would reduce their power bills by $275, that is one number the Prime Minister refuses to say in this place. This is a government that is making Australians $2,000 worse off by Christmas. Right now we have an economy with high inflation, high interest rates, rising costs of living, along with Labor admitting that over the next two years electricity prices will go up by 56 per cent and gas prices up by 44 per cent. Just this week in the other place we had an industrial relations bill that will make things worse—a bill that will force many small businesses to bargain against their will. Businesses with more than 20 staff will be dragged onto multi-employer arrangements with much larger competitors. The government's own modelling shows that small and medium businesses will have to pay between $14,000 and $18,000 in bargaining costs as a result of these changes. These changes will result in more strikes, put pressure on supply chains and could even see an increase in the price of everyday items. What do the government do? Are they addressing the concerns of Australian families and small businesses? No. They're playing politics, doing stunts and moving this motion, instead of delivering for the Australian people. This is a pea and thimble trick to distract from the fact that the government are pressing ahead with their backward-looking industrial relations laws this week. It's an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the government are fumbling the economic strength gifted to them by the coalition. This is a government that inherited the largest budget turnaround since Federation from the coalition, yet, as the Leader of the Opposition so aptly puts it, under Labor everything is going up except your wages. Instead we have stunts like this to try and distract from the fact that Labor's decisions are making difficult economic conditions worse. What this motion also demonstrates is that, despite the clear and present economic threats, the government is so focused on settling scores that it's losing sight of the issues that matter to Australians. Right now we could be talking about how to provide the economic security that Australian families so desperately need. We could be engaging in a debate about reducing power bills. We could be discussing the best way to make mortgages more affordable. But this censure motion will not help one Australian business or family to respond to the challenges they are facing today. Rather than focusing on things that make a substantive difference, this motion demonstrates the government is less interested in the lives of Australians than it is in settling old political scores. The government should bring forth the amendments to the Ministers of State Act today. They are the amendments that have been recommended by the Bell report, which the government has had for over one month—that recommendation from Ms Bell. That should be the focus of the government if it wishes to deal with the issue. This motion is unworthy of the House's time and ought to be rejected. 10:47 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham We could have had a really important moment in this parliament this morning. We could have stood up from all the different political parties that we represent from all the areas of our beautiful country that we represented and made a really strong statement about what our democracy means to us. It is enormously disappointing to me that we have people like the member for Berowra, who I think has huge respect, usually, on this side of the chamber, give a speech like that, pretending that this doesn't matter. This is the thing that I cannot fathom about this entire debate about the conduct of the member for Cook: the willingness of those opposite me to continuously play this down when they know that this matters. We take an oath, as members of parliament, to come to this chamber to represent and protect our communities, and the member for Cook failed to do that not just in his capacity as a member of parliament but in his capacity as Prime Minister. We are learning some things about our parliament this morning, and one of those is that the member for Cook still does not believe that he has done anything wrong. How is it possible that the member for Cook can still not do the right thing by this parliament? We saw 15 minutes of obfuscation and excuses—nonsensical excuses—that do not justify in any way the conduct that was undertaken. Why can't the member for Cook see what the Australian people need from him at this moment? They need an apology, some amount of reflection about his conduct and a willingness to take responsibility for what he did wrong. Those are normal human reactions, and that is what the nation demands of its national leaders at this time, and he has utterly failed to do it. I don't know what to say to the modern Liberal Party. This morning they have foolishly indulged and enabled the member for Cook simply because he is of their breed, and that is wrong. The behaviour this morning from that party has been bizarre, craven and disappointing. This is a party that's meant to be about conventions, about protecting things that matter and about protecting our institutions and our democracy. What we are seeing is not only that this political party will not support this motion, which would've made a clear public statement about the meaning of democracy, but also that they lined up to shake the member for Cook's hand after he'd spoken. What sort of message does that send about how much they value this institution versus their political interests? I should not have to explain to the parliament why this matters, but I'm going to talk a little bit about the implications for my portfolio of Home Affairs. The member for Cook gave us a long description about how stressful and difficult things were during COVID. He swore himself in as the Minister for Home Affairs in May 2021. If there has been a period of calm in the last three years it was May 2021, and yet he decided to swear himself in as Minister for Home Affairs, which, without question, could have placed our country at a serious national security risk. There is no question about that. My department runs national security issues in this country. In appointing himself as Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Cook also made himself the dual head of ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. He did not tell the public servants in my department that he had done that. So what would have happened if we had had a significant terrorist attack during the period where we had two ministers for home affairs? Can the member for Cook not see that that would have created a national security crisis for our country? Two ministers would probably have had two different views about how to respond to a crisis. And we had this situation go on for a year. The member for Cook says that he never intended to exercise these powers. Well, why did he swear himself into the portfolio? In fact, he mentioned in his address that there were certain things about national security that only he as the Prime Minister could understand. Well, as the old saying goes, 'Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely,' and we saw it this morning in these justifications. There are lots of political issues that we deal with in this parliament, and people sometimes give serious speeches about things that are not serious. This is not one of those issues. I say again to those opposite: there are fundamental tenets of our democracy that have been broken here. We are the sixth-oldest democracy in the world. We are, I think, the best quality democracy in the world. We have compulsory voting. We were one of the first countries with women having the right to vote. We have an amazing system here, and that is a critical asset for us as we will be facing some very difficult challenges in the coming decades. Yet the opposition party come in here this morning and degrade our democracy. They're willing to see it trampled on and debased by the member for Cook. Not only are they not willing to do anything to say that that's wrong; they lined up and shook his hand afterwards. We owe our constituents much better than that, and that is why I'm supporting the censure motion today. 10:52 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I don't intend to speak very long on this issue, but I feel it's important to explain my support for this censure motion. For me, supporting this censure is strictly about calling out actions that are disrespectful to this very institution. This is not an attack on the three years of government under the former prime minister but, rather, a reflection on the specific actions taken that, in my view, defy the expectations we have for our leaders. As Virginia Bell AC concluded in her report, the actions taken were corrosive to trust in politics. Those actions sit outside the expectations of the Australian people, and they sit outside how we expect elected representatives in the highest office to act. I've relentlessly advocated for more integrity in politics and fought for an integrity commission that would begin to restore the public's faith in elected officials. To sit quietly now would be hypocritical, and I firmly believe we should be intentional in the actions we take to ensure that we do not let this happen again. Governments of all levels were faced with making tough decisions when the pandemic began to take hold almost three years ago. There were many things that our government got right and a number of correct decisions made at the height of the pandemic which protected the health and economic wellbeing of our country. We fared so much better than many other developed countries due to measures implemented by the government in the midst of the pandemic, and the member for Cook is to be commended for much of his pandemic leadership in Australia. But a move to ensure direct power was quietly held over a number of portfolios, unbeknownst to our own party, our own ministers and the Australian public, was entirely unnecessary. It is an affront to our democratic Westminster system, which has functioned for well over 120 years. This House has the right to be informed of the appointments. The people of Australia had the right to be informed. In our democracy, what can be more fundamental than this? I do not accept any of the explanations put forward by the former Prime Minister for his actions, and I'm deeply disappointed by the lack of genuine apology or, more importantly, understanding of the impact of these decisions. I've said time and time again that we talk very much in this House about the great privilege and honour of being here, but we talk less often about the responsibility that comes with that. There is a great privilege that comes with being the Prime Minister, but with that comes great responsibility and accountability, which you can't have without transparency. It might be a shock to some who sit here from all sides, but this is not a game. There are things that sit above the cut and thrust of politics, and this censure motion goes to our system of democracy. It would be remiss of me not to mention that for me this issue also sits at the heart of the ability of our party to move forward. This is a clear opportunity for a line to be drawn and to move in the right direction. We must heed the message sent to us at the May election, learn those lessons, reset and move forward constructively. In closing I'd just say this: I am a Liberal. I believe in Liberal values, and our statement of values says this: WE BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW. Under it, there is freedom for the nation and for all men and women. Democracy depends upon self-discipline, obedience to the law, the honest administration of the law. It is for this reason I'm obligated to support this motion. 10:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler A censure motion like this is as rare as it is grave. The fact that it has become so necessary constitutes a profoundly sad moment in the life of our national parliament, but to ignore it would to be complicit in saying, 'Well, that was okay.' This House of Representatives has a responsibility to declare its view on what occurred with these extraordinary actions by the former Prime Minister. I wake up every single day very cognisant of the honour that I have in serving as Australia's 31st Prime Minister. I'm also very aware of the responsibility that comes with it. I'm also very conscious of the power that comes with it. Power should never be abused. This was an abuse of power and a trashing of our democracy, and the Bell inquiry makes that so clear. For this parliament to have an inquiry and then not respond comprehensively to it would not be doing its duty. The explanation for the first two appointments by the former Prime Minister was, 'What would happen if a minister became incapacitated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?' We all know and I know as Prime Minister that, as Virginia Bell found, an acting minister could be appointed if needed, to quote the inquiry, 'in a matter of minutes'. The appointments were unnecessary. The last three appointments had little connection to the pandemic, according to the Bell inquiry, and were made because of the former Prime Minister's view and concern that an incumbent minister might exercise his or her statutory powers in a matter with which Mr Morrison didn't agree. That is what the Bell inquiry found. There was the PEP-11 determination but also FIRB decisions, with the power to stop or undo foreign powers acquiring interests in Australian assets, or the power to strip people of their citizenship. Cast your mind back to 21 May, when the then Prime Minister made an announcement about the arrival of a boat. Text messages were sent to millions of Australians, in direct contradiction of the guy who had stood up at a press conference after press conference and said that he would not talk about on-water matters. At the time, that was done and authorised by the Liberal Party. That extraordinary attempt to distort an election result was made by the Prime Minister but also someone who had been sworn in with the authority to act in the Department of Home Affairs, which is why the then minister has called for the member for Cook to resign from parliament. The fact is that our democracy is precious. There's no room for complacency. We've seen overseas, including with the assault on the Capitol building in the United States, that we can't take our democracy for granted. The explanations that were put forward were described by Ms Bell as 'not easy to understand' and 'difficult to reconcile' with the facts. The implications were there in the Bell inquiry. There was a 'risk of conflict' if different ministers wanted to exercise the same power 'inconsistently'. Ms Bell confirmed the Solicitor-General's view that the principles of responsible government were: … "fundamentally undermined" because— the member for Cook, the then Prime Minister— was not "responsible" to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer. It undermined public confidence in government. It was, according to Ms Bell, 'corrosive of trust in government'. The public didn't know, according to the Bell inquiry, something it was 'entitled to know'. Yet, this morning, I came here not certain as to whether I would speak. But I have to respond to the former Prime Minister's comments. He has confirmed again that he just doesn't get it. He said this morning he'd had conversations 'privately with my colleagues'. It's not about Josh Frydenberg; it's about the people of Australia. That's who we're accountable to—through this parliament, at this dispatch box. We asked questions about PEP-11 and we asked questions about health, not knowing that the then Prime Minister was actually responsible and sworn in. The former Prime Minister flicked more questions to ministers than had all previous 29 prime ministers. The former Prime Minister shut down debate at this dispatch box each and every time people attempted to make a contribution about the serious matters. He goes to the impact of COVID and the responsibility he had. I had that sense, too, as the Leader of the Opposition, which is why we on this side of the House, when we sat over there, took responsible decisions not to play politics but to vote for packages and to declare in advance of packages coming forward that, even if our amendments were not successful and even if there were measures which we did not agree with, such as the raiding of superannuation, we would not stand in the way, even though there was a political cost that we were conscious of. But we understood our obligation to the national interest. This was not a one-man show. It was the Australian people who stood up and protected themselves, not just in the parliament. It was the people who stayed at home, the people who got vaccinated, the heroes of the pandemic who went out there and worked with people who were sick. All of the unctuousness and self-congratulation we heard this morning should be dismissed. He came up with a different explanation today: 'If only he was asked.' He blames the media and everyone else. Why didn't we come in here and ask if he'd been sworn in as Treasurer or finance minister! It's just beyond comprehension and this parliament should be, as a whole, standing up and voting for this motion—the whole parliament. I have a lot of respect for the former Deputy Prime Minister, and he knows that. I might speak beyond my allotted time here, Mr Speaker. (Extension of time granted) It began with measures like the former Deputy Prime Minister being told by the Prime Minister's Office not to be transparent about whether he was Acting Prime Minister in 2019. That is how these things begin. And I don't blame the former Deputy Prime Minister for being loyal to his Prime Minister. I respect that. But he should never have been asked to do that and be put in that position; nor should there have been a cabinet committee of one; nor should those people who were aware of this not declared it. The former Deputy Prime Minister—the second one, Barnaby Joyce—was asked on Insiders why it was that he was aware of the PEP-11 decision and why he did not say something and speak up about this at the time. This was his response, and I quote the member for New England: I had negotiated an extra minister, which we were not entitled to. I had another person on the ERC, which we were not entitled to. I negotiated more staff for the National Party, which we were not entitled to … If I pursued this, it was quite simple. He just took away the portfolio that we weren't entitled to and took us back to the number we were entitled to. He would have the portfolio back and we lose all power. That was from 21 August 2022. People had a responsibility to act. They didn't. It was a slippery slope that undermined the functioning of this parliament and that undermined the democratic institutions that this House has a responsibility to act on. I think that the comments of the member for New England go, in his own words, to motivation—to why people weren't speaking about it. I know that there's a range of different contexts. I've spoken about arrangements that were entered into that were not transparent. I was asked a question this week about the discussions I had with Senator Pocock and asked to be transparent about it—and I have been, as has Senator Pocock. These things are important. It's actually how our democracy functions. I still cannot conceive of the idea—and this is why questions weren't asked—because it's impossible to conceive that a Prime Minister does not have the authority to have influence over their ministers. I hope I do, to be transparent about it! At the end of the day, I have that great honour of leading this quite extraordinary group of ministers that have been sworn in. I assure you I have not thought for a millisecond about being sworn in in order to override them. But there's something else that's really serious, and this goes to the PEP-11. There were a range of ministerial responsibilities, including the responsibilities that the Minister for the Environment has, for example. Like the minister for resources and the minister for immigration, a range of ministers have portfolio responsibility. The acts have been written very clearly so that it's not the 'minister in consultation with the Prime Minister or with someone else'. They're written that way so that the ministers can take account of all of the evidence that's before them and then make a decision that is their decision, one that they own. When the PEP-11 decision was made, there was no transparency with the Prime Minister saying he was doing it as the Minister for Resources and Water. The exact opposite occurred, and the minister for resources didn't say that he had been overridden. It was the minister for resources's job to do that. A Prime Minister who asks for a minister's resignation receives it, without exception—and under the Liberal Party system it's easier than under our system, which elects our ministry. I have never seen that not occur. And then the Prime Minister appoint someone else to that job. That's the appropriate course to take under the Westminster system, and if a decision is made that a minister feels that they can't, in all good conscience, continue to serve then they resign. And that happens under our system. It happened under the former government that I was proud to serve in. I'll conclude with this comment, and I thank the House for the extension. I thought this morning we would see some contrition—some semblance of contrition. We got none of that. We got hubris and we got arrogance and we got denial. There were a range of things that we could have done as a government; there wasn't a royal commission, like occurred into former Labor leaders' activities, for example, against former Prime Minister Gillard on something that might have occurred or was alleged to have occurred a long, long time before she was in parliament. That's what the former government did. There was none of that from us—none. We appointed a former High Court judge, Virginia Bell, to undertake an inquiry. We did that under the expectation that there would be cooperation with it. But the former Prime Minister chose to only talk to that inquiry through his lawyers, in spite of his public comments at the time that there would be full cooperation. This morning, what we saw was just a justification of his government's record. Some of that is quite rightly the subject of political debate, and we will agree on some of it and disagree on some of it. There were many things that the former government did to deal with the COVID pandemic that we supported wholeheartedly. There are other things that we think could have been done better—that's quite rightly the subject of political debate. That's not what is before the House today. What is before the House today is, firstly, whether the former Prime Minister's actions, in being given responsibility to administer a whole host of portfolios—even after the first two came out, as a result of him feeling it was okay to tell two journalists what was going on; that's how the first two came out; then there were further revelations, and we found, through the Bell inquiry, that he also considered being sworn in to administer the Environment and Water portfolio as well, an additional portfolio—were appropriate. Secondly, it's whether there should have been transparency about that. There should have been. The former Prime Minister owes an apology, and not to people who he shared brekkie with at the Lodge. He owes an apology to the Australian people for the undermining of democracy. And that's why this motion should be supported by every member of this House. 11:16 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina 'Politics is not about power; it is about people—representing those people and speaking up for them loudly, often and passionately. I have lived my life by this motto: I promise not to be silent when I ought to speak. That is my commitment to the people of the Riverina and to this parliament.' They are the words I used to conclude my inaugural speech to the House of Representatives in 2010. It is with a heavy heart I come to this dispatch box to make my contribution to this censure motion. I don't believe this motion is necessary. I appreciate what the Prime Minister just said. I absolutely respect the office of the Prime Minister, and it might cause some chagrin to my colleagues, but I respect the Prime Minister himself, the member for Grayndler. He and I have had a very good relationship over 12 years. I'm sure that will continue. He and I got some good things done in the aviation space when, indeed, it probably wasn't popular in his area of the world to do that, and I appreciate what he did. I also appreciate the fact that, when I lost the deputy prime ministership, he, along with everybody else, gave me a standing ovation. That was a hard day. It was a difficult day. It's been a very difficult day for the member for Cook today. I'm a friend too of the member for Cook, and I respect what he has done for this nation. I can well remember being the Deputy Prime Minister not long after 1 March 2020 when James Kwan in Perth became the first Australian to die from COVID-19. I well remember the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy, telling very few members around a very important table in a very high-level meeting, the fact that we could potentially lose tens of thousands—even 50,000—people, and it could be in a matter of weeks, due to a global pandemic. They were extraordinary times. They were difficult times. I can remember being basically locked up without a phone, without access to much of the outside world, as we heard those grim predictions and forecasts by the Chief Medical Officer. The chief of defence was there, as was the former member for Kooyong, the Treasurer at the time, and the former member for Flinders, the Minister of Health. The member for Cook was there, of course, and so was I. There were others too, but not many. I can remember the eyes darting around the room, as it was explained to us that we had a big, big problem on our hands. I remember, sometime after that but not long after, that it became apparent that the member for Flinders was not going to be in one of those high-level meetings. The question was asked, 'What will happen if he becomes incapacitated?' We'd already had members of the government hospitalised with COVID. These were extraordinary times. I think we almost live, these days, right now, in a fog of memory lapse about how difficult they were. We were seeing on morning television—by the hour, every hour—updates on not how many deaths or cases there were but how many suspected cases there were. Police were tasked with the job of running around and making sure that people were in their homes and wearing masks and not being outside their local government areas. These were extraordinary times. We were basically on a war footing. The chief health officers right around the nation were fearful that we were going to have a repeat of the Spanish flu, which happened at the end and a few years afterwards of World War I. We lost tens of thousands of Australians—in already extraordinary times, given the fact that so many were coming back from a war that claimed the lives of 60,000 on the battlefields of Europe and elsewhere. It sent a shiver down our spines that Mr Kwan had died, that others were dying, and that we needed to close our borders. We need to do whatever it took to keep Australians safe. We put in place JobKeeper. We've heard today—it's not politicising it—that it saved 700,000 jobs. It did. I often hear from those opposite—and I'm not being political; I'm not being partisan—'What did we get for the debt that we're now in?' What we got was people's jobs saved. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I appreciate that, Meryl Swanson. But we also had peoples' lives being protected, being saved. The member for Cook was leading that, and I know he's a man of faith. I know he has his faults. Who doesn't? My goodness, I've got untold faults. Just ask my wife. But he took decisions that he needed to keep Australians alive—not just their jobs protected but them alive. I know he made the point, and it's one of those difficult points to make, that, had he been asked—he was doing daily press conferences. Being a former journalist, I often wonder why journalists just didn't say to him, 'Prime Minister, what would happen if the Minister for Finance' or the minister for whatever portfolio 'came down with COVID?' I'm sure he would have said, 'I'll fill that role or appoint somebody else.' Maybe that's not an excuse. I see a couple of members murmuring and shaking their heads. But, at the time, it was low level compared to the ramifications of losing 50,000 Australians. The member for Cook knows that some of the things done at the time were not right. There was no book that we could have got down from the shelf and opened to find, 'This is what we do on day 25 of a pandemic.' We made decisions based on what we thought was best for all Australians. I was asked, when I received the email from former Justice Virginia Bell AC, how I would respond and if I would respond through a lawyer or an email. No, I faced her, because that's the way I am. I spent more than an hour on 18 October answering her questions and telling her what I recalled. Somebody said, 'What are you going to say?' I said, 'I'm going to tell her the truth.' It's always a good place to start. My mother told me that. My mother was always right, as is my wife. And I did tell the truth. It was a long and wide-ranging interview, let me tell you. I spoke honestly and from the heart about what had actually occurred during those darkest days. I made the point to her that, had a journalist asked—and those opposite may say it's no excuse; I should have told them, but there were lots of other things that were going on at the time that took precedence. I'm not going to say it was just an oversight by the Prime Minister—I wasn't the Prime Minister; I wasn't in his shoes—but he carried the hopes, the weight and the burden of a nation afflicted by a global pandemic. At the same time as Australians were being kept safe by the policies that we were putting in place, people were being buried in mass graves in New York and coffins were being loaded up in Italy to the point where funerals were being delayed and churches were filled with coffins which couldn't be held in morgues. Italy and the United States of America have good health systems, as do we—and I thank those health professionals who kept us safe as well. I thank all Australians for what they did. I don't believe that this censure motion is necessary. Recommendations have been made by the Bell inquiry. I think they are sufficient. I do believe that we should ensure that parameters are put in place so that, if we were to have such a case again—and God forbid that we do—and if there were to be a conflict or another global pandemic, a future Prime Minister would tell the public, tell the fourth estate, tell colleagues and tell Australia about what is going on. But I earnestly and honestly believe that the former Prime Minister did the very best he could in times which were extraordinary and in times which were unprecedented. None of those opposite were in those meetings—they were not. They didn't have the weight of responsibility of 16- to 18-hour days, day after day, and being told by the Chief Medical Officer that tens of thousands of people are going to die. They didn't have to deal with premiers, who, quite frankly, could have been a little bit more collaborative and cooperative in the National Cabinet process. Somebody said to me on the weekend: 'Dan Andrews was re-elected. I'm surprised; he's the worst Premier we've had.' I said that Dan Andrews also followed the medical advice he was given, and I give credit to him for that. I realise that Victoria was under very strict lockdowns. My daughter, Georgina, lives there, and I know the difficulty that she had in teaching her classes. I congratulate Mr Andrews on his election win, and I congratulate Mr Albanese on his back in May. There is no greater privilege and honour than to lead a political party, a state or a nation. I know that the member for Cook held dearly the honour that he was given. I know he is deeply concerned about what this means, no doubt, for his legacy, and I think his legacy should not be one of a censure motion that has been brought into the House today, which I think is partisan. I do believe that. An honourable member interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I disagree. I'll take that interjection, but I disagree. The great thing about democracy is that we can all have different views, and we can all hold fast to them. I want Scott Morrison's legacy to be the fact that he led this nation as best he could. He led this nation ably. He led this nation honestly. He led this nation extremely well, and he kept Australians alive and he kept their jobs in place and intact in the most extraordinary and difficult times that this nation has had since World War II. I regard him as a friend. I was proud to serve him as his Deputy Prime Minister. I don't know why you're shaking your head—you were not there; I was. I very much admire the way he led this nation during very, very dark days. 11:29 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Trust in democracy is already fragile. Parliament is already on the nose. Secret power grabs from politicians do not help. The Greens support this censure motion and all the more so after the speech this morning from the member for Cook, which was a logical and moral abyss. It was an embarrassing mess of unapologetic, inconsistent self-justifications that failed to recognise just how fundamentally the Australian people had been betrayed. Former justice Bell nailed the point in her inquiry. You can't hold a minister to account if you don't know who the minister is. That is a fundamental point. The member for Cook this morning said that he had in part addressed that. He said that when a ministry list was tabled in here, it came with an asterisk and a footnote that said, 'We should note that sometimes people are sworn in to administer other areas.' Now, ministry list after ministry list was tabled in this place, and not once was this parliament told that the Prime Minister had now other ministerial responsibilities. To say, as the former Prime Minister did this morning, that a footnote at the bottom of a ministry list that he tabled was enough tells us two things. Firstly, no reasonable person in this country or indeed in this parliament could look at that and say, 'Oh, that means the Prime Minister now holds a number of secret ministries'—no-one. It beggars belief that any reasonable person could read that and think that. Secondly, the fact that he came in here and relied on that today tells us he knew there was a problem at the time. He knew at the time that what he was doing needed some form of disclosure, and now he tells us a footnote at the bottom of a ministry list was enough. Well, the former Prime Minister knew at the time that this was a problem and did not tell people. That is what we have learnt this morning—that he knew at the time that it was a problem and did not tell the parliament. Fundamental to the operation of this place is that those of us who aren't in the government are able to get up and ask ministers questions in question time, to move motions about ministers' conduct and to bring legislation in front of this place to regulate how ministers operate, and that's especially important for those of us on the crossbench, who don't have the capacity, as an opposition does, to get up member after member in question time and ask a series of repeated questions. We have fewer abilities than an opposition does to hold a government to account, but so many of us were elected on the basis of improving integrity in this place and improving the standard of debate. So the opportunities that we get are precious, and we use them. We've got to be informed about who we're trying to hold to account, and we can't be asking someone about a decision that they make or that they might make if it turns out that actually someone else is secretly responsible. That is the end of accountability in this parliament, if you don't have to tell this parliament who is responsible for making the decisions. But the former Prime Minister's speech also contained another glaring inconsistency that shows that he just doesn't get it. He on the one hand told us that all of this swearing-in, this secret power grab, was necessary to get us through the pandemic and then on the other hand said that he never exercised any of the powers anyway. Somehow this secret power grab was the key to maintaining Australia's safety, but the powers were never exercised. The two just don't go together, and it shows this absolute lack of contrition and this lack of understanding that is at the heart of why so many people across the political spectrum feel angry about what happened in the last parliament—the failure to be upfront when he knew he should've been upfront and admitted it today, the secret power grab that he says was responsible for everything but that he never exercised. These glaring inconsistencies have, as Virginia Bell said, undermined trust in this place, and action needs to be taken about that. One of the matters that was mentioned, where he said he did exercise power, was in the question of resources, and that has been canvassed by other speakers. I want to use this as one example. We know, in this place, that one of the questions about integrity is about the relationship between parliamentarians and what happens outside of parliament—the donations that people receive, the jobs they get when they leave this parliament—and that is critically the case when it comes to the resources industry. One of the reasons that trust is undermined in this place is that people legitimately ask questions all the time about the role of vested interests on decisions that get made in this place. People look at this place when it comes to some of those critical matters and say, 'We want to know that you're making decisions here for the benefit of the Australian people and that external influences are not being taken into account.' If there was any area where utter transparency was needed, this has to be in that list. People are entitled to know that when someone—and especially the Prime Minister—is making decisions they're doing it free from the influence of other interests. When we come in here and hold ministers to account, it's not just about knowing who the right minister is. When the former prime minister swore himself in to be responsible for other ministers, that was—or at the very least could have been perceived to be—a de facto vote of no confidence in those ministers. If the former prime minister has no confidence in the other ministers on his front bench, we are entitled to know that. The parliament is entitled to know that and the Australian people are entitled to know that. The reason that this has struck a chord with so many people not only in this parliament but also with so many people across the country and across the political spectrum is that this was a betrayal of trust. At a time when we look around the world and we see what happens in other countries and in other parliaments where trust in democracy is eroded, people want their politicians to start telling the truth. This was not only a failure to tell the truth but also came with a power grab added to it. That undermines our belief in our country's ability to trust our democracy, which as a previous speaker has said is an asset of this country. It is to be preserved, and it starts at the top. And if a former prime minister can't be honest with the people, and engages in a power grab, and then can't even bring himself to say sorry for it and doesn't think he's done anything wrong, then that member deserves to be censured. 11:38 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi This is a grave motion, and I don't take this debate lightly. Every parliament is charged with enormous responsibility. Prime ministers and ministers carry more responsibility than many of the rest of us. Every parliament faces a set of circumstances under which they must operate, and there's no question that the former parliament found itself with many extraordinary circumstances. But with those came an even greater responsibility to ensure that our nation, our parliament and our people understood exactly what was going on. The greatest responsibility any parliament has is to maintain the trust of the people who put us here. It's essential to the integrity of what we do, it's essential to the integrity of high office, and what maintains trust is often not a matter of law; it's a norm. That's why, while changing the law may mean that we don't face this particular loophole again, it doesn't negate the importance of recording for history standing up for the people of Australia and standing up for the conventions and honour of this parliament to move a censure motion on the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, when there has been such a substantial breach of trust for the parliament, for us as parliamentarians, for his own ministers, for his own party, but most importantly for the people of Australia. I listened carefully to what the member for Cook had to say this morning, and I found nothing in his explanation that could negate the need for this censure motion today. It is a strong motion, and history will record it so. I support the motion. It gives me no joy to do so. I feel sadness and disappointment that we are moved to have to do this. But the report of former Justice Bell and her conclusions that the actions and failures of the member for Cook were to undermine public trust and confidence are so serious that I must support this motion. I'm compelled to do so, and I say to this House that I hope we never have to face a situation like this again. I give my support to this motion. 11:41 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I too rise with sadness to express the grave disappointment of the people of Kooyong with the actions of the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook. The concerns of my electorate are not political. They are not ideological, but they go to the expectations and the aspirations of the Australian citizenry. During the last government the member for Cook, while Prime Minister, gave himself powers to cancel visas, to approve citizenship applications, to approve foreign investment decisions and resource exploration licences and to unilaterally authorise billions of dollars of spending as Minister for Finance in National Cabinet negotiations. In reviewing these appointments, the Hon. Virginia Bell AC found that the member for Cook's decisions to appoint himself to the ministries of health and of finance were unnecessary. She found that they had little to do with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. She found that the secrecy with which these appointments were undertaken was corrosive to trust in government, that they fundamentally undermined the principles of responsible government and that they were apt to undermine public confidence. The concerns of my electorate are focused on the extent to which the member for Cook has undermined our democratic process. In taking on multiple ministries and in failing to disclose his putative responsibilities and powers to this country, he has eroded the public's faith in our institutions with his secrecy, his deception and his lack of transparency. Why did he do this? None of us know. The member for Cook did not share his rationale with Ms Bell. He referred her to his public statements and to his Facebook posts. Did he share his reasons with those ministers who were aware of at least some of these decisions, the former member for Flinders and the current member for Hinkler? None of us know. What was the rationale he shared with those departmental secretaries and public servants who were aware of these decisions? None of us know. What was the rationale he discussed with our Governor-General? None of us know. This censure motion goes some way to affirming our respect as a parliament for the traditions of this place. This country has adopted a constitutional model of representative and responsible government. These principles rest on the many conventions that we must insist upon, irrespective of our political party. We rely on them, and we must recognise that it is our job—it is the Prime Minister's job more than anybody's—to respect them. One of my predecessors in the seat of Kooyong, the founder of the modern Liberal Party, Robert Menzies, said in 1977 that the greatest system of political government yet devised is that of responsible government under the Crown. The member for Cook's actions are not in the tradition of responsible government and they are not in the Liberal tradition. On behalf of my community, I say to the opposition—such that are actually present in the House—if they do not support this censure motion, they will behaving politically rather than ethically. If members opposite were really unaware of the member for Cook's actions then they should condemn those actions as strongly as those of us situated elsewhere in this House. If the opposition really did not know about the member for Cook's actions as leader, that smacks of incompetence. If they did know, they were complicit with deceit. The Leader of the Opposition in the House has said that the member for Cook's behaviour was fine because it was not illegal or in breach of the Constitution. Is that really how low the bar is to be set by the Liberal and National parties? I call on all members of the House to show the Australian people that they renounce and resile from the member for Cook's actions as strongly as our electorates have. If we do not, we risk shattering the fragile trust given to us by our constituents. If we do not then we will be telling the Australian people that we are content with representatives who undermine the principles of responsible government. If the opposition do not support this motion, they will be telling all Australians that theirs is not a party that has listened to the public and changed, that theirs is not a party of integrity and transparency and that theirs is a party that has made bad choices before and stands by them now. It is a party that will continue to protect its own, even when they act without honesty and transparency, at the expense of the public and the future of our country. For as long as the Liberal and National parties try to defend the member for Cook's behaviour in government, his legacy will be their legacy. They will be defending the indefensible. I commend this motion to the House. 11:47 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My electorate doesn't want to be represented through political pointscoring, so I'll keep my comments brief and focused. Because our democracy is fragile and precious, the censure of the former Prime Minister is important, and I support it, especially in light of his response today. Most in my electorate of Curtin have strong respect for institutions and a desire for transparency. Unfortunately, as recognised by the Solicitor-General, the former Prime Minister's unilateral actions to give himself power to administer multiple portfolios undermine the principles of responsible government. The lack of transparency was the final straw. At a time when democracy is being threatened across the world in countries we never thought were at risk, it was actually really scary to see Australia dipping its toe in the autocracy pool. The visible lack of respect for our parliamentary institutions was one of the drivers behind the new force in Australian politics that is seated around me as I speak now. It may take some time to change a culture that considers these actions to be acceptable, but, for now, it's vital that we draw a line in the sand and let the record show that the former Prime Minister's actions are unacceptable. This is not how democracy works in Australia. 11:48 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I too rise in support of this censure motion. I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to address the House, on behalf of my electorate of Mackellar, on the findings of misconduct by the former Prime Minister over his multiple ministries scandal. This occurrence can be considered a nadir in Australian political history—a nadir for transparency, a nadir for political integrity and a nadir in democratic principles in our country. It must be acknowledged that this behaviour of the former Prime Minister was a deeply concerning lurch towards authoritarianism by an individual who was addicted to executive power. It is absolutely telling that soon after his election loss, during a sermon, the former Prime Minister told the congregation, 'We don't trust in governments.' Well, he knew the reason why. The people of Australia expect and deserve a whole lot better than this. Australians deserve a political system we can trust. This type of behaviour, this attack on the integrity of our democracy by an individual, must never be allowed to happen again. It is incredibly heartening, however, that this censure motion comes a day after the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation was passed in the Senate, something the former Prime Minister promised the Australian people but failed to deliver. At the last election the people of Australia stood up and demanded a political system that they could trust, and I applaud Australians from all over the country for taking this stand. Sadly, former justice Bell's findings came as no surprise to me and to so many people in my community of Mackellar. As we have all heard, the secret appointments to additional ministries were 'apt to undermine public confidence in government' and were 'corrosive of trust in government'. Her Honour described the member for Cook's behaviour as 'exorbitant', 'extremely irregular' and 'bizarre'. Such conduct obviously has widespread ramifications, and none of the appointments could have been closer to home for my electorate of Mackellar than the former Prime Minister's secret appointment as the Minister for Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. One of my key objectives, from the first day I launched my campaign for election, was to end the PEP-11 licence. The PEP-11 licence is a petroleum exploration permit granted by the Commonwealth government for an area of ocean floor that extends all the way from Manly to Newcastle. Community opposition to any drilling for oil and gas off our coastline was as broad as it was strong. Clearly, the former Prime Minister was aware of the political expediency of abolishing the PEP-11 licence. We now know that, with the election looming, he stepped in and secretly appointed himself as minister to override the existing resources minister and reject the renewal of the permit. That announcement was made by the Prime Minister in December 2021, 10 days after I launched my candidacy. It was clear there was a political purpose. Whilst the community welcomed this decision as a win for the people, there is now deep concern that a lack of proper procedure will expose this decision to challenge in the Federal Court. I welcome the government's confirmation that it will accept Justice Bell's six recommendations to correct the serious deficiency in governance arrangements exposed by the member for Cook's unfathomable conduct. I support this censure motion. 11:53 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth This is a solemn and sad occasion, and nobody wants it to be like this. But, to me, public trust is too precious to waste, and the quality of our parliament and our democracy must be defended at all costs. The pandemic days were truly dark, and I pay my respects to everybody in this House who played a role in keeping our country safe and prosperous. I also pay my respects to the member for Cook, who led the government of the day. It could not have been easy. Equally, I pay my respects to the Australian people, who, in their homes and in their businesses, faced enormous challenges with courage. That is the point I want to make. The people of Australia understood how difficult a challenge we were facing. They faced their own darkest days. We owe to them transparency and accountability of government in the most difficult times. They can handle that truth. If those powers that the member for Cook spoke about were indeed needed, then the people of Australia would have understood, because we do understand and trust our governments and we have that maturity in our democracy. We owe the people of Australia the transparency and accountability of actions in this House. So I rise in support of this censure motion. As I said, it is a sad day and a very solemn day to pass a censure motion on any member of the House, particularly a former Prime Minister. But trust in government, in democracy, in this House and in our institutions is precious. It is a gentle flame. We can feed it so it glows, or we can snuff it out so it flickers. We will know when the trust is completely gone. Our job in this House is to stoke the fire so it brightens and lights all of us in our country. 11:55 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein A censure motion is one thing; an apology is quite another. Had the former Prime Minister taken appropriate responsibility for his actions, I would not have stood up today. We are all privileged to stand in this place, and I am keenly aware of the trust placed in me by my community, a community who in large part voted for integrity out of frustration and a deep desire for a return to trust in leadership. Therefore I do stand today to say that accountability is at the heart of the Westminster system of government and at the heart of our democracy. If members of our parliament and our country don't know who is responsible for what, how can there be any accountability? Unfortunately, what we've learned in the months since the election was all too evident in the lead-up to polling day, and the voters had already worked it out. I came to this place after I'd learnt that the previous government had refused to listen to experts and experienced emergency services chiefs in the lead-up to the Black Summer bushfires. The former Prime Minister was fond of talking about the Canberra bubble, but if anyone was living in a parallel universe it was him. And the penny has apparently still not dropped. Others can say more, but I will add that, having directly witnessed the evolution of destructive gaslighting in the United States and its damage to trust and democracy, I believe this has been a dangerous moment in our history. I won't labour the point other than to say that this is a disappointing and sad episode and that it's unfortunate that it's come to this. A unqualified apology from the former Prime Minister would have shown that he finally understands the series of mistakes he made and how damaging it was to the integrity of our democracy and to the voters who elected him to the highest office of the land in good faith. But, yet again, what the Australian people got from the former Prime Minister was more of the same. Therefore, I support this motion. 11:57 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Standards are expected of a member of this House, and I think it's really important that we remember that. It's so important that Australians have trust in government. We know that transparency and accountability have to be, absolutely, the most important values. It's also really important to show leadership. At times it will be easy, when circumstances are going well and in your favour, and sometimes it will be hard. It may be pride-swallowing hard. But leadership, a real moral compass and real strength of character is about acknowledging errors and apologising. I wasn't going to speak on this motion. I think it's an incredibly important time in our political history. It's a very important motion, a censure motion on a former Prime Minister, and I am very aware of the risk of it descending into political tit-for-tat—that this becomes too much of that. The wording of the motion—and I thank the Leader of the House for that—included the very important and stern findings of the Hon. Justice Bell, and I think the words of the report say it all. There really was very little that needed to be said beyond that, beyond acknowledging the importance of her findings. I disagree with some of the more political comments that have been made in some of the speeches this morning. Unfortunately, the facts raised in justification by the member for Cook make it necessary to speak and to indicate why I do support this motion, because what was said did not in any justify the secrecy, and I strongly reject the attempt to justify it based on the extraordinary circumstances of COVID, in particular in relation to the resources portfolio and PEP-11. Democracy is fragile, and we all have a responsibility to protect it. In politics, accountability is important, and so I support the motion. 11:59 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Rising today to speak on this current motion is not something I do lightly. In fact I rise with an incredibly heavy heart and, indeed, like many of my other crossbench colleagues, would not have risen today had we had a different response from our previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook. As we've heard from the member for Hotham, the member for Bass, the member for Indi, the member for Wentworth and the member for Goldstein, this is indeed a day where we should all feel very sad about what is currently occurring. I've seriously considered my position. At the time these actions came to light, I indicated very clearly that I wasn't interested in playing the man. I have run businesses during incredibly intense times, including the downing of the World Trade Center towers in New York, where a number of people from my company were lost during that time. I'm not saying that's the same as running a country, but I do know what it's like to lead in an environment of extreme uncertainty, panic and fear. The reality is the outcome that we saw of this decision has reduced faith in our federal parliamentary system. Fewer than half of all Australians currently trust us. Fewer than half of all Australians currently trust our federal parliamentary system. We must do better, and so this censure motion today—as taxing as it is, as emotional as it is and as worrying as it is—must be passed, because we must say to Australians more broadly: 'We see you, we hear you and, more importantly, we undertake to represent you. We are here at your behest.' As such, issues such as integrity, transparency and accountability matter every day, especially when you're under pressure. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

86 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 28 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 28 12:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I present a copy of the Closing the gap annual report 2022. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. And today I re-dedicate our government to the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full, including a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament. I welcome our Senate colleagues here: including the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians and Indigenous Health, Senator McCarthy. And the Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Senator Patrick Dodson. In tabling this Closing the Gap report, we have set aside time today for contributions from myself and the Leader of Opposition, as well as the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and the shadow minister. Additionally, when the parliament returns in February, the government will be presenting our Closing the Gap implementation plan and providing the opposition with the opportunity to contribute. This will mean, once again, we will be examining Australia's efforts to close the gap alongside the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, which we believe is appropriate. This was the case for many years from 2009 onwards. This was always an intentional connection, not a coincidence. Because whenever we honour that shining moment of national unity, of healing and of hope—we are not merely marking a milestone. We are acknowledging how much further there is for our nation to travel, reflecting on how much work there is for us to do. And that unfinished business, those realities of disadvantage and inequality, stare up at us from every page of the Closing the Gap report. Reconciliation relies on what I believe are innate qualities of our national character: optimism, decency, generosity of spirit. It also demands truth-telling. And this report details the hard truths. It confirms that in far too many measurable ways, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples lead lives of lesser opportunity. There are signs of hope and progress—and it's right that we acknowledge those. More babies are being born at a healthy birth weight. And more children are enrolling in preschool, giving us cause to be optimistic for better educational outcomes down the line. But on far too many other indicators, there is no progress for us to speak of at all. Or, worse, in some cases things are actually going backwards. Indeed, in some areas the word 'gap' feels wholly inadequate, a softening of the truth that what we face is not a gap but a chasm. Three decades after the world-leading Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the incarceration rate for First Nations people remains unforgivably high. The number of children in out-of-home care speaks of a generational failure. And the suicide rate is nothing less than a national tragedy. Confronting as these realities may be, we cannot surrender to despair. Just as we can never accept that this inequality is somehow inevitable. Especially, when the answer lies within our grasp. Because the unifying theme of this report is not helplessness, nor is it powerlessness. It is practical, achievable, measurable change in the way we do things. The compelling message—loud and clear—from the Coalition of Peaks down, is this: So-called 'solutions' conceived in Canberra and imposed on communities without consultation are more likely than not to end in expensive, ineffective, even counterproductive failure. But when First Nations peoples have a genuine say in policy design and an empowered role in service delivery, the results are remarkable. When a government listens to people with experience, with earned knowledge of kinship and country and culture and community, when we trust in the value of self-determination and empowerment, then the results are always better. The success stories stand as compelling proof. Look at the more than 140 Aboriginal Controlled Community Health Organisations, working around the nation. Vital providers of culturally sensitive primary health care—and among the largest employers of First Nations people in Australia. And I am proud to say that our government is investing $54 million to train 500 additional new First Nations health workers. Look at the pride with which Indigenous Rangers go about their vital work. Inheritors of at least a 60,000-year-old tradition of caring for country, preserving the great natural treasures of this continent for future generations. And our government will double the number of Indigenous Rangers by 2030. Look at the lives justice reinvestment is saving: a community-driven system diverting young offenders from the downward spiral of incarceration. By trusting in the community and empowering people on the ground, towns like Bourke in New South Wales have seen: A reduction in family violence A reduction in re-offending A decrease in juvenile offences—and an increase in year 12 retention rates And, most significantly, a reduction in incarceration rates and bail breaches. There are models that are working on the ground that are being supported across the board. In the case of New South Wales, obviously they're being supported by the New South Wales government with the support of the New South Wales opposition. All of these things that are working have a theme, which is the direct empowerment of First Nations people, listening to what they say will work on the ground, rather than it being imposed from Canberra or Macquarie Street or Spring Street. listening particularly to those people in our regions—it works, on any measure. Our first budget invested $81 million to fund up to 30 new justice reinvestment programs. And in the same spirit of respect and empowerment, we are providing a $100 million funding boost for housing and essential services on Northern Territory homelands. Helping maintain connection to country and culture and providing the greater sense of stability that comes from a secure roof over your head. At its core, this Closing the Gap report asks us if we are going to continue doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome. More to the point, it asks us if we are prepared to accept a continuation of the same outcomes. The same disparity in education and job opportunities. The same inequality in access to health care. The same appalling rates of family violence. The same punishing discrimination in the justice system. The same denial of a happy childhood and a safe home to far too many children. The same gap, widened by the same failure to listen, learn and, yes, trust. That's where I want to conclude, with a few words about the Uluru Statement from the Heart and a constitutionally enshrined voice to our parliament. It's now been more than five years since over 250 delegates from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities from right across this vast land came together at Uluru to craft that gracious, patient, generous call for voice, for treaty and for truth. That process was itself the subject of five years of consultation. It was a hand outstretched in friendship, a show of faith in the innate decency and instinctive fairness of the Australian people, a belief that we would find it in ourselves to grasp that hand and a humble request. I urge people listening to actually read the statement. People in the United States speak about how succinct the Gettysburg address is. This is the Australian equivalent, with so much said in so few words and a humble request at its heart: 'We seek to be heard.' That is all they ask: 'Hear us.' In asking for a voice to parliament, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are seeking the right to be consulted about the decisions that affect their lives. They are asking for a say in the design of the specific programs which govern their communities. There is nothing in this request that usurps any of the role of our national parliament—in other words, the very same thing that this report recommends. It's the No. 1 principle behind creating a better, more efficient, more effective framework for closing the gap, the common element in every policy and program success story around the nation and the strongest possible recommendation of the Coalition of Peaks, brought together by the extraordinary Pat Turner. So let's dismiss the false choice put forward that somehow it's about constitutional recognition or practical progress. It's about constitutional recognition in order to achieve practical progress. This is not a gesture. It is not either/or. It never has been. Australia can do both, and we have to do both. We have a responsibility here. The Australian people certainly have room in their hearts to do both, and the government that I lead is proudly committed to delivering on both. I acknowledge the fact that across the board—the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens and the Independents who have sat in this place—we have all not done enough. There is an opportunity in the second half of next year to do better. Don't miss it. 12:24 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the Prime Minister for his contribution. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, the Ngunnawal people, and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I acknowledge the members of Indigenous heritage in this chamber and the other and the contribution that they make to this place. It was in February 2009 that the first Closing the gap report was tabled in this parliament. The coalition are proud of our record, in government and in opposition, in contributing to the Closing the Gap objective. We worked with Australian governments at all levels and, indeed, the coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak organisations to reach, in 2020, a national agreement on closing the gap. That national agreement articulated four priority reforms centred on collaboration, empowerment, structural government reform and data management. In 2021 we released the first Commonwealth implementation plan to support the national agreement. That plan committed more than $1 billion towards new measures to help close the gap and address those four priority reforms. That first Commonwealth implementation plan rightly established clear targets and actions to hold the government to the mark in closing the gap. The coalition was provided with the 2022 Closing the gap annual report this morning, so of course we need more time to consider the findings in full, but I again thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. We welcome the progress that has been made in several areas, specifically that more Indigenous babies are being born with healthy birth weights, that the number of Indigenous children enrolled in preschool is increasing and that there has been a 30 per cent reduction in the rate of Indigenous young people aged 10 to 17 years in detention. In terms of the latter, the former coalition government's allocation of $2.4 million in April 2021 to bolster custody notification services has clearly helped to reduce Indigenous children incarceration rates. Of that, we're very proud. On behalf of the coalition, I thank and congratulate all those across the nation whose deeds and contributions have made a meaningful difference in these areas and many others. Most concerning are the findings that four targets have gone backwards—those in the areas of Indigenous adult incarceration rates, Indigenous suicide rates and Indigenous child removal rates. The coalition stand with the government in wanting to see practical measures which can address these areas, and we welcome the measures that the Labor government has taken, which build on those that we took when in government. There is no question about the passionate intent of all in this place to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians; to see better standards of living and education outcomes, reduced mortality rates and the stamping out of domestic violence and crime; and to see, in particular, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have the same opportunities as any other Australian child. That passionate intent reflects the resolve of the Australian people. In addition to Closing the Gap initiatives, we must ask ourselves this question: are there opportunities to put a foot on the accelerator where we need to do it most? On 27 October I advised those in this place that Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and I had visited the Northern Territory. Women and mothers despairingly told us about the rampant abuse that was happening in their community on that very day. I want to reiterate the comments that I made then. This is in our country, in the year 2022, and what's happening on the fringe of communities is a disgrace. Children are sleeping during the day and missing classes to avoid being at home during the hours of darkness, from fear of being sexually abused or assaulted. They were firsthand accounts of elders and Indigenous women within the communities, and their voices need to be heard. We in this place know that child sexual abuse is widespread in those Indigenous communities and that it has been normalised, tragically, in some of those families. It's why I called on the Prime Minister in October to hold a royal commission to examine these allegations—these claims from community leaders and elders within those Indigenous communities. Today I call on the Prime Minister again to hold a royal commission as a matter of urgency, something the coalition would wholeheartedly support. It's something that we can do right now to put our foot on the accelerator to improve Indigenous lives. It is something we can do ahead of a referendum on the Voice and we shouldn't wait to do it. Australians want to know, quite reasonably, that our country is able to have a reasonable debate in relation to the significant proposal being put forward by the Prime Minister in relation to a voice to parliament. As part of that civil discussion, there needs to be acknowledgement that there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate, both in favour and against, within Indigenous communities in our country and within every community across our country, that their views and their contributions should be made and heard with respect and that differing opinions don't amount to racism or some abrogation of responsibility or a lessening of the desire to see an improvement in the lives of Indigenous Australians. Australians want to know whether a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament will be able to deliver those outcomes that we all burn for and that we want now for Indigenous communities, but how are Australians supposed to make an informed decision at a referendum when they are deprived of the details? It's been more than four months since the Garma festival, when the Prime Minister announced the government's proposed textual changes to the Constitution in the form of three additional sentences, and it has now been more than three months since the Prime Minister's meeting and press conference with Shaquille O'Neal, but Australians are none the wiser about the Voice—the what, the who, the where, the when and the how. These are reasonable questions, and the most elementary questions remain unanswered. Is the proposed constitutional amendment the only form of words that the government is willing to consider? Does it have an open mind to other suggestions? Who will be eligible to serve on the body? What are the prerequisites for nomination? Will the government clarify the definition of Aboriginality in order to determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? What's the tenure of members? How many people will make up the body? How will the body be funded? How much will it cost taxpayers annually? Who will oversee the body and ensure that it's accountable? Can the body be amended or, indeed, abolished if needed in extraordinary circumstances? What are the body's terms of reference, its responsibilities and its duties? How will the body interact with the closing the gap process? How will the government ensure that the body hears from voices who don't already have a platform in Australian public life? Will the government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty? Is the body purely advisory in nature, or will it have decision-making capabilities? The Prime Minister has noted that it would be a very brave government that ignored the Voice. That remark alone raises questions about the extent of the Voice's powers beyond being an influential body that makes representations. These are some of the questions, but there are many more—there are too many to list today. In the absence of the basic details, it's no wonder that there has been great speculation surrounding how the Voice will operate. These are decent Australians asking these questions of their Prime Minister, and many concerns and questions that Australians have are reasonable and warranted. In matters as important as constitutional change, details must never be an afterthought. Australians will be charged with a matter of utmost national importance. If the referendum is successful, a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament will be a body without precedent. It will be a major change in how our country is governed. Australians do have a right to know what they will be voting for. Australians deserve to know whether a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament will be able to deliver practical outcomes in Indigenous communities, how quickly that can take place and that it will not be, as some Indigenous leaders have expressed to me with concern, an elitist model which represents a capital-city view at the expense of remote communities. Government members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Some of those opposite laugh. I was in Townsville only a few weeks ago with the member for Herbert, speaking with Indigenous women on Palm Island, which is only a couple of kilometres off Townsville. On that island, those women expressed concern to us about the need for a voice and, in fact, were in favour of a voice when it was explained to them. But they made it very clear to us that they didn't want the Voice to come from Townsville. They wanted their voice to come from Palm Island, from their small community, because they believed that their voice to date hadn't been properly heard from those even as close as Townsville, let alone Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. So their views shouldn't be scoffed at. Their views shouldn't be dismissed. Their concerns should be heard, and their reasonable questions answered. That is not unreasonable. Australians can't make a proper assessment simply based on three proposed sentences to change the text of our Constitution. The government has to disclose sufficient details, and we support it in doing that as soon as possible. It should not fear a public that is interested in understanding more about how we can get to the destination that we all yearn for and desire and wish to achieve as soon as possible—that is, better outcomes for Indigenous children; better outcomes for those who are incarcerated; and better outcomes for the mothers who are raising children in abject poverty in our country, in this year. The coalition commits itself to working with the government in closing the gap on these important issues. There is no gripe about the amount of money that's required. I've had the great fortune of being in this parliament for over 21 years. I've sat on expenditure review committees and around cabinet tables and leadership groups during that period, and never once have I been party to a discussion or heard a discussion about why we should be pulling money out—only about why we need to put more money in. There's no doubt in my mind that the same conversations—of the same nature and intent—would have been held around every cabinet discussion, every Expenditure Review Committee discussion and every leadership discussion under Labor administrations as well. There is a desire in this place to continue to spend what needs to be spent, but to do it in a way that provides practical outcomes for people who are living without housing and for children who are exposed to a childhood that robs them of the innocence of childhood. That's totally and absolutely unacceptable in our country in any year, let alone in this year. We will provide support to practical measures. We will work with the government to provide assistance to those Australians who are most in need. But we shouldn't be afraid of having a national conversation about the best way, the best path, to achieve that outcome which is in the best interests of Indigenous Australians and, ultimately, in the best interests of all Australians. 12:37 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the House take note of the document. 12:38 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I recognise country and I congratulate the Prime Minister on his very, very, very fine words, and I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition's contribution as well. There is no shortage of goodwill in this place towards closing the gap. But our actions must match those fine words. I am frustrated by the lack of progress, frustrated that change has been too slow. I think about Cassius Turvey and the family and friends who miss him so much. I think about the missing and murdered women from so many of our communities and about the young boys at Banksia Hill and the justice system that has let them down. I think about how far we still have to go to close the gap. The numbers in this report tell an important story—a story, as the Prime Minister has said, of mixed progress. It's a story of heartening advances. As has been mentioned, more babies—89 per cent—were born at a healthy birth weight. That is on track, and much needs to go right for that to happen. On track also: 96.7 per cent of children enrolled in preschool in 2021. There has been heartbreakingly slow progress in areas that have already been mentioned: children being developmentally on track when they start school; the out-of-home-care rates, which many people describe as another stolen generation; adult imprisonment; and deaths by suicide. It's worth noting that for the majority of socioeconomic targets there is so little new data available to reliably track trends, although important work has commenced to improve this data. Of course, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are not numbers. We have names, families, cultures and languages. We belong to communities and to country, and we have hopes and dreams. Recently, I was in the APY Lands, and an old woman from Pukatja told a story that I think reflects the feeling of many First Nations communities at this time. It was a story about the black-footed rock-wallaby. It is looking for food one day, along a rocky outcrop in the red dirt, when suddenly the wallaby falls into a crack between two large rocks; it's body thrashing around. The wallaby tries to inch up closer to freedom, and, after one last thrust, the wallaby slides back down again into an even deeper hole than before. This, the old woman said, is what her situation feels like—progress then setback, hope then despair. I say to First Nations peoples across Australia, like the amazing communities from across the APY Lands, we do hear you and we are determined to do better. We hear your frustration and your aspirations, and the Australian government is committed to doing something about it. I will not repeat what the Prime Minister has talked about in terms of commitments, except to highlight one, and that's the $81 million into 30 communities through the justice reinvestment initiative. The Prime Minister spoke about the outcomes in Bourke and the fact that there are models out there if we only just look and work in partnership with First Nations people. He spoke about establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice, which has been well discussed over the last few days. In response to the questions around the Voice, one only needs to look at the detail out there and be part of a campaign that's coming, because giving Indigenous Australians a say in matters that affect us is essential to closing the gap. We will close the gap by working with parties to the national agreement, including the Coalition of Peaks, led by Pat Turner and represented here today by Dawn Casey—hello, Dawn!—all state and territory governments and the Australian Local Government Association, as well as by forging, bathed in self-determination, new ways to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians and to help close the gap, including, importantly, the four priority reforms. 12:43 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I too begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we gather today, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and pay respect to their elders, past, present and emerging, and I acknowledge the fine words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and my friend the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Others have said today that there are enormous reserves of goodwill on all sides of the House in relation to closing the gap. I think there's actually more than just goodwill. I think there is a burning ambition to close the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the rest of Australia. First Australians have cared for this country since time immemorial. Today we speak about their future and our shared desire to see a healthier future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This year's Closing the Gap is significant because it's the first time we report against new targets established not by the Commonwealth government alone but by the Commonwealth government in partnership with First Nations people and with the state and territory governments. This is a significant moment. I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Indigenous Australians and I also want to acknowledge the work of her predecessor, Ken Wyatt. This Closing the Gap process refresh is one of the greatest legacies of Ken Wyatt's time as minister, and I think this legacy will live long beyond his years in this place. I also want to acknowledge Pat Turner and Dawn Casey and everyone else involved with the Coalition of Peaks for their leadership, their courage and their hard work on the Closing the Gap process. For too many years the delivery of Closing the Gap reports has been deeply depressing, not only because of findings reported but because of the sense that the pathways forward were limited. Closing the Gap has held the federal government to account for the things that the Commonwealth has been largely powerless to change. This year for the first time the report is set against the new priorities and this year for the first time the Commonwealth is not the only jurisdiction tabling a Closing the Gap report. Every state and territory and the Coalition of Peaks are all reporting on their shared goals. In parliaments across the country, people are looking at these metrics and asking the questions that need to be asked. This is a huge step forward. Beyond the parliaments, policymakers are asking the same questions, and I'm sure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their communities are asking the same. There are more people at the table. The buy-in has grown. There are more people feeling the weight of responsibility, a weight of responsibility that must be felt if we're to close the gap. On too many socioeconomic targets we're going backward, not forwards. We've learned through Closing the Gap over the years that meaningful change is only achieved when meaningful decisions are taken at local levels by people who understand the challenges faced by a community that is part of the solution. While the data needs to improve, what we can see at present reminds us yet again that closing the gap must remain a first-order priority for any government. The rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults in prison has gone up, not down, since 2019. We have a higher rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care in 2021 than we did in 2019. We have more children starting school already behind where they ought to be and, tragically, we have more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people dying by suicide. What turns a life around is often not a decision made in this place, but much more often it's a relationship with someone that gives people hope. I know that the issue of the Voice to Parliament is a priority for many Australians, but there are already significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices out there that are talking to government, and governments need to listen to those voices. Listening to the experiences is what partnership in closing the gap is all about. As we push forward in coming years, I urge the government to listen to those who tell us the uncomfortable truth, not just those who say what we expect or what we want to hear. I want to see a situation where, when a community says, 'We want to keep the cashless debit card,' or 'We don't want grog in this place,' that governments listen, that when they see the gap widening instead of closing because of decisions taken in this place, the alarm is sounded, and we act—like the Indigenous children and families who feel that more access to alcohol in turn will lead to an increase in alcohol fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour in communities, like the terrible and tragic stories of child sexual abuse that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that have come from too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I want to associate myself very strongly with the Leader of the Opposition's call for a royal commission to examine child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities so that survivors with the courage to come forward can be heard. This is such an important issue and such an important policy recommendation. There's goodwill and ambition in addressing these issues on both sides, but these are the difficulties we must confront if we're to close the gap. The government have put Indigenous Australians in the centre of their agenda for this term of parliament, but it's now up to them to keep the focus on what really matters and to do the necessary work to enable practical change to take place in communities. We can close the gap and we must close the gap for the sake of every young Australian, Indigenous or otherwise, who is relying on us to hand to them a better future. Debate adjourned. 12:49 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 35 BILLS National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 35

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 35 12:50 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 12:50 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Today has been a long time coming. Today is a win for honesty, for accountability, for integrity and for trust. Today the government and the parliament work to repay the trust of all those Australians who voted for a transparent, powerful, independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. Today we take an important step to rebuild trust in government, our public institutions and our democracy. Australian democracy is a great national achievement, but turmoil and tension around the world remind us, sometimes harshly, that democracy can never be taken for granted. It needs to be nourished, cared for, treated with respect and protected from the threat of extremism and polarisation and the corrosive influence of corruption and cynicism. The best way to make democracy stronger is to make government and the parliament work better. That is one of the compelling reasons we need a National Anti-Corruption Commission. It represents an end to rorting and waste. It represents dedication to real accountability and delivery. It shows that our government is doing what we always said it would do, and that is to hold itself to a higher standard. I say to all honourable members that the way we have done this matters too. The parliament has worked together on this—government, crossbench, opposition. I particularly pay tribute to the member for Indi and the service that she has given in achieving this outcome, and I salute the constructive contributions of all who engaged with this bill, seeking to make it better. We're supporting some amendments that were made in the Senate to improve this legislation, which is the way that this parliament should operate. The cooperation has given us the stronger, better and more permanent body this legislation will create. It is a reminder of a bigger truth that the best way to restore people's trust in parliament is to demonstrate that parliament can function better and deliver for people—to show the power and value of this place to improve people's lives, to serve the national interest, to repay the sacred trust Australians have placed in all of us. This is a day that will change politics for the better, it will help us change our nation for the better and I commend the bill to the House. 12:53 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This is a good day for democracy that has been a long time coming, and I for one am very happy to be here for it. I say that as someone who was the first person to introduce into this House a bill for the establishment of an anticorruption commission. I think back then, almost a decade ago, of the people who are here now it was the member for Clark and I who were its only cheerleaders. Over time others have come on board with the need to get integrity into politics and have a strong anticorruption watchdog with teeth, and I really welcome that. In marking this historic moment I pay tribute to on my side of politics not only my predecessors Bob Brown and Christine Milne, who pushed for legislation for an anticorruption commission, but also Senator Larissa Waters and Senator David Shoebridge and to note that, in the teeth of fierce opposition from the coalition government last time, Senator Waters managed to get an anticorruption commission bill passed by the Senate, and it could have been voted on in the last parliament, were not for the fact that the then government continued to oppose it and fight it tooth and nail. I acknowledge the government for bringing this important bill in, and for bringing it in so quickly, so that we will have an anticorruption watchdog by Christmas. It was an election pledge and one that has been kept, and they deserve to be acknowledged for bringing that in, and for bringing it in a timely manner that means we can get it under way as soon as possible. For the rest of the crossbench, I pay tribute to the former member for Indi Cathy McGowan and her work in continuing to pursue this in the face of fierce opposition, for continuing to pursue it because it was the right thing to do, and for helping us build up that model. I also pay tribute to the current member for Indi, Helen Haines, for continuing to work in the previous parliament with those of goodwill and those who wanted action to ensure that we ended up with the model that built on our bill, helped inform the bill that passed the Senate and helped inform the bill that we have here now. I place on record my acknowledgement of that work. This is not only an historic moment of passing the bill— A government member: No mention of the Attorney-General? Mr BANDT M3C I mentioned the government, if the previous member was listening. It's always good to have comments from the government cheap seats who aren't listening to what's being said. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will return to the amendments. Mr BANDT M3C The amendments being considered here are good amendments. They are amendments the Greens put that will ensure there are significant additional powers given to the inspector of the commission to provide real-time auditing and monitoring of the NACC's workings, and to guard against potential overreach and maladministration. They're going to be especially important because, although we're passing a good bill, we did miss an opportunity to make it better. Those amendments are going to be especially important because, unfortunately, we don't have a situation—as they have in New Zealand, and as I understand they have in the ACT—where the government has to get the support of others in order to appoint the commissioner, not in a way that would give a recalcitrant opposition a veto but that would ensure that investigation of corruption by a government is not wholly in the hands of somebody appointed by the government. It would have been good if that amendment had got up because, when we're making bills and passing amendments, we have to think not just about this current government that obviously wants to establish a corruption commission—and I again thank them for that—but also about what happens in five or 10 years time. What happens when you have a party in power that has fought tooth and nail against the establishment of a corruption watchdog—do we want them to have unfettered power over who the commissioner is going to be? It's especially important in the context where there is a missed opportunity to ensure there are public hearings into politicians. It is disappointing that there won't be public hearings into politicians as a matter of course. That is something that should have been addressed, and I hope it is something that we can come back to and consider in the future. I conclude by saying this is a very good day for democracy, and I hope that this NACC now gets its doors open for business as quickly as possible. When we look back over the last 10 years, there's a fair bit of work that it's going to have to do. To get this organisation up and running, there is going to be a long line of cases queueing up for investigation. 12:58 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs This is a historic day for our parliament and our nation. Ahead of the election on 21 May, the Australian Labor Party pledged that if the Australian people gave us the honour of governing this nation, we would repay their trust by returning integrity, honesty and accountability to government. Labor told Australians that if we were elected, we would legislate a National Anti-Corruption Commission this year. Today, that commitment is honoured in full. Labor said we would deliver a watchdog with teeth and without delay, and that is what we have done. The commission will be able to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the entire federal public sector. The commission will have the necessary powers to root out corruption when it occurs. And, importantly, the commission will work to prevent corruption from happening in the first place. One of my first actions as Attorney-General was to set up a task force in the Attorney-General's Department, headed by a deputy secretary, to deliver on this important body of work. I know many staff from that task force are here today and are watching. I thank them for their work. This has been an important body of work. It is something that we on this side of the House have been committed to for a long time. We called on members of both places to engage constructively and to work together on this legislation, and they did. I'm proud that the bills that will pass the parliament include amendments that reflect our cooperation and our willingness to work with all sides of the parliament and stakeholders to make the National Anti-Corruption Commission the best it can be. This legislation delivers the single-biggest integrity reform this parliament has seen in decades. When you change the government you change the country. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will change our country forever. The Albanese Labor government has delivered. The government supports these amendments. 13:00 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I rise in support of these amendments and, indeed, in support of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. I want to place on the record my very strong congratulations of the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister and the government on bringing this historic reform to our nation. Much has been said—and, indeed, I think I promised a week or so ago that I would not have anything more to say about this. The bill has gone backwards and forwards a little. That demonstrates though the willingness of the people in this place to engage in a debate on a matter of enormous national significance. We've talked quite a bit this morning about trust and integrity. We've talked about the power of our democracy and the crucial role we have in protecting it. It is my deep and sincere hope that this National Anti-Corruption Commission forever places all of us on notice and restores trust to the Australian people in a way they have been longing for. I'm very pleased to have been part of a parliament that has seen this historic day finally come to pass. There are many people whose hands are part of this, but, ultimately, this day does belong to the government; it belongs to the Attorney-General's Department, who crafted this work; it belongs to the people who participated with submissions; and it belongs to people past and present. I am very proud to have played some role in this. I'm very proud to sit on the crossbench that championed this throughout the election period as well. I'm very proud of the Australian people who saw integrity as the No. 1 issue that they needed to be concerned about. I congratulate the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister and the government on this day. Question agreed to. National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 38

National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 38 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 38

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 38 Third Reading 38 13:04 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 38

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 38 Third Reading 38 13:05 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 38

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 38 Third Reading 38 13:06 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 38 First Reading 38 Second Reading 38 13:07 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government has set the goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030. We are committed to working collaboratively with donors and the charity sector to achieve this goal. Deductible gift recipient status allows people to receive income tax deductions for gifts to those organisations. This is a mechanism to encourage philanthropy and to provide support to the not-for-profit sector. Organisations can obtain deductible gift recipient status under the general categories set out in division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 or by being specifically listed by name in that division. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include Australian Education Research Organisation Ltd, Jewish Education Foundation (Vic) Ltd, Melbourne Business School Ltd, Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Ltd, Leaders Institute of South Australia Inc. and St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund on the list of deductible gift recipients. The bill extends the current listings for Sydney Chevra Kadisha and Australian Women Donors Network. It also removes the listing for Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Ltd as it is no longer required. Under the general categories in the tax law, the eight organisations contained in this bill were not eligible to receive deductible gift recipient status. As such, the bill will amend the tax law to specifically list them by name. This supports these organisations by encouraging more Australians to support them. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 39

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022

First Reading 39 Second Reading 39 13:10 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Improving paid parental leave is critical reform. It's critical for families, it's critical for women and it's critical for the economy. The Albanese government know this. We know that paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We know that investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy. And we know that if done right, paid parental leave can advance gender equality. We heard these messages loud and clear at our very successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September, where gender equality and economic reform went hand in hand. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families—and more opportunity for women. That is why Paid Parental Leave reform was a centrepiece of our government's first budget and supported by our whole government because of the clear benefits it will bring. The Prime Minister himself said at the time, 'A parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy,' and we are starting that reform now. This bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, implements the first tranche of the government's Paid Parental Leave changes announced in the budget. It introduces a range of important structural changes to modernise the Paid Parental Leave scheme to ensure it better meets the needs of Australian families. Crucially, the bill will give more families access to the government payments, provides parents more flexibility in how they take leave, and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. These changes, to commence from 1 July 2023, are the first stage of the government's reforms and lay the foundation for our commitment to expanding Paid Parental Leave. The government will bring forward more legislation, that will start on July 2024, which will progressively increase the scheme by six weeks until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026—a full six months of leave. This is the largest expansion of Paid Parental Leave since Labor established the scheme in 2011. I am pleased that our changes have been widely welcomed by family and gender advocates, and employer and unions groups, including the ACTU, the Business Council of Australia, the Parenthood, Minderoo's Thrive by Five Foundation, Chief Executive Women and the Equality Rights Alliance. I also want to take this opportunity to recognise all of those, many I just listed but many I haven't listed, that for many years have been advocating for an expansion and modernisation of paid parental leave in this country, and thank them for all their advocacy and commitment to this. This is a significant reform, driven by our commitment to get the settings right to maximise women's economic equality. That is why we are introducing the reform in two stages—this bill, to take immediate steps to improve the scheme, but also to allow the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to have a look at our expanded six weeks and look at how it best maximises women's economic participation. This bill, and the expansion to 26 weeks by 2026, reflects the g0overnment's commitment to deliver better outcomes for families and advance women's economic participation. The roughly 180,000 families who receive the payment each year will benefit from a fairer, more flexible and more generous scheme. Not only will our changes help families better balance work and care; they will also support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the Australian economy. Australians need a Paid Parental Leave scheme that reflects the needs of modem families. The current scheme does not do enough to provide access for fathers and partners. Currently, dads take government paid leave at roughly half the rate of mums. The scheme as it stands today is built on gendered assumptions of 'primary' and 'secondary' carers which limit parents' ability to share care. Our bill fixes this. The current scheme does not treat families equally. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. You could have two families with a household income of $200,000—one family is eligible because the father is the primary income earner; the other is ineligible because the mother is the primary income earner. That is unfair, and our bill fixes this. Under the current scheme, a father or partner who is a citizen or permanent resident can be ineligible purely because the birth mother doesn't meet the income test or residency requirements. Our bill fixes this. From 1 July 2023, the bill delivers six key changes: 1. combining the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme; 2. reserving a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off work after the birth or adoption; 3. making it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of 'primary' and 'secondary' carers; 4. expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, under which people can qualify if they do not meet the $156,647 individual income test; 5. increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take paid parental leave days and transition back to work; and 6. allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the mother or birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. It is critical this bill passes both houses by March next year so parents expecting to give birth or adopt on or after I July 2023 have the option of pre-claiming three months in advance so they can receive their government entitlement as soon as they are eligible. Currently, there are two payments from the government. Parental leave pay, which provides up to 18 weeks of payment, is primarily targeted to mothers, while dad and partner pay provides up to two weeks of payment to fathers and partners. Under this bill, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay will be combined to form a single 20-week payment that can be shared between both parents. This will give parents more choice and flexibility in how they use and share care, better reflecting how Australian families want to parent. One of the features of the current scheme is a period of leave for exclusive use by fathers and partners in the form of dad and partner pay. Our changes preserve this important feature by reserving two weeks of the payment for each parent. By incorporating this reserved portion under a single scheme, rather than as a standalone payment, we are making sharing of parental leave between parents a central part of the scheme. This bill supports both parents to take leave beyond the two-week reserved period. Importantly, single parents will be eligible for the full 20 weeks. Another significant benefit of the move to a single 20-week scheme is it allows fathers and partners to receive the government payment at the same time as their employer paid leave. While this is currently available to mothers under the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the legislation requires that those receiving dad and partner payments have to be on unpaid leave in order to receive their dad and partner pay. Fixing this inequality removes a financial disincentive for fathers and partners to access the scheme to take time off work to care for a child. Allowing both parents to claim the government payment alongside employer-paid leave makes it easier for them to maintain their income while caring for their child, and should result in more partners and dads taking leave. The government has been very clear on the role employers should play—the government's 20-week scheme is really what should be seen as a national minimum. We are encouraged that there are already many employers across Australia competing to offer working parents the best possible deal, and, of course, provide government-paid leave. These two schemes should work hand-in-hand; it should not be an either-or. And so we would encourage employers to look seriously at how they can best complement the government scheme. We know what happens when both parents are not supported to take time off paid work to care for their babies—usually mums work less, or leave the workforce altogether to take on caring responsibilities, while often dads remain in full-time work. This pattern persists for years after the child's birth and is a key driver of gender gaps in workforce participation and earnings. The government supports dads and non-birth parents to share the load of caring responsibilities. We know that when they do, it benefits everyone. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, this establishes patterns of care that continue throughout a child's life. In addition to benefits for women and their economic equality, there are also physical, mental and social benefits for men and children. The changes in this bill send a clear message that the government values men as carers too, and we want to see this reinforced in workplaces and our communities. This bill improves gender equality and inclusion under the scheme by removing the notion of 'primary' and 'secondary' carers and allowing all eligible parents to claim the payment. Currently, mothers must make a successful claim for their parental leave pay, and then they transfer the payment to their partner if they want to share some of it. This process is complex, administratively burdensome and makes it difficult for fathers to take leave, even when it's in the best interests of their family. In 2021-22, less than one per cent of mothers transferred some of their payment to fathers or partners. The new, simpler claiming process will also allow eligible fathers and partners to qualify if the mother or birth parent does not meet the income test or the residency requirements. Over 2,000 additional fathers and partners will have access to the scheme each year because of this change. The shift to a gender-neutral claiming process is also important because it's more inclusive and recognises that Australian families are diverse. To guard against any negative consequences for mothers resulting from the new process, the birth parent will have to approve the amount of leave claimed by the other parent. The bill will also introduce a family income limit of $350,000, which will operate alongside the existing individual income limit (currently $156,647 per annum). Parents, including single parents, will be eligible for the payment if they meet either the individual income or the family income test. With the introduction of the family income limit, families will no longer be denied access solely because of the income of the mother. This change is expected to particularly benefit families where the mother is the primary income earner, with nearly 3,000 additional parents becoming eligible each year as a result. This change is long overdue—between the 2010 and 2017 financial years, the number of women with taxable incomes of more than $150,000 has more than doubled. The introduction of a more generous family income test will help ensure the scheme keeps up with the times. The government is improving flexibility for families to balance work and family life in the way that best suits their needs. Currently, parental leave pay is split into a 12-week period that must be taken in a continuous block, within 12 months of the birth or adoption, followed by six weeks that can be taken flexibly, within two years of the date of birth or adoption. Currently, if a parent returns to work before the end of their continuous 12-week paid parental leave period, they forfeit the remaining days of that period. This limits the choice for parents, and particularly mothers, in how they transition back to work. Under these amendments, parents can take all of the payment in multiple blocks, as small as a day at a time, within two years of the birth or adoption of their child. This flexibility will support mothers to return to work whenever they wish, without the risk of losing their entitlements. This will particularly benefit parents who work part time or are self-employed to continue working after the birth or adoption. Of course, some birth parents may still wish to take most or all of the payment in continuous blocks. The legislation supports parents to do that if they choose. We know this is an important option to support physical and mental health and breastfeeding, particularly for mothers who do not have access to any employer-paid leave. Supporting maternal and child health and development remains an important objective of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. In addition, both parents will have the option of taking the government-paid leave on the same day for up to 10 days of the payment. This will help parents share caring responsibilities from the start and help dads and partners care for mothers to support their health and wellbeing. In summary, it is critical that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modem Australian families—a scheme that is flexible, fair and drives positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children. This bill does just that. Crucially, it gives more families access to the government payment, provides parents more flexibility in how they take leave and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. This bill is good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for the economy. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 42

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 42 Second Reading 42 13:27 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Climate Change Act that was passed by this parliament on 8 September lays a crucial foundation for climate action. We noted at the time that the Climate Change Act was just the beginning. Since then, continued extreme weather, such as the devastating flood events across large areas of South East Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, have provided a constant reminder of the need for action, and the global community has restated its commitment to action at Sharm El-Sheikh. The time for action is now. Today the government takes another step to ensure Australia plays its part in global efforts and achieving our legislated targets, with the introduction of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. An enhanced safeguard mechanism is a crucial building block for Australia's transition to net zero. It will require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions gradually and predictably in line with our national targets. This puts Australia's industry on a path to net zero and helps ensure Australian businesses remain competitive as the world decarbonises. Most safeguard facilities, around 70 per cent, are owned by companies that have made net zero commitments. These voluntary commitments cover over 75 per cent of emissions reported under the safeguard mechanism. Our reforms will ensure a level playing field between the majority, who are on a path to net zero, and a minority who have yet to begin this journey. As the Australian electricity system becomes cleaner and cheaper through the deployment of renewable energy, it's vital that large industrial and resource sectors also reduce their direct emissions covered by the safeguard mechanism. Australian businesses and investors know the world is changing and that they need the right signals in place not just to stay competitive but to innovate and thrive. The bill aims to support and encourage large emitters to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient. Some businesses have low-cost abatement opportunities ready to go and could reduce their emissions faster than required by the safeguard mechanism. This bill incentivises emissions reduction by enabling businesses who are overachieving to be issued tradable safeguard mechanism credits. Other businesses with more limited abatement options could buy these credits to help meet their required emissions reductions. The net emissions of safeguard facilities, when added together, will reduce each year. By lowering the cost of reducing emissions— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS South Australia: Floods 43 13:30 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to give my very best wishes to all the communities in South Australia that are already experiencing—and will, regrettably, experience even more—impacts of the flooding of the Murray River from the Riverland right down to the Murray mouth. Although my electorate is in metropolitan Adelaide, there are many members of my electorate that will be affected by this through both having family members in the area and owning property in the area. Most importantly, the solidarity of all South Australians is with the communities that are going to be impacted. I make special mention of the members for Barker and Mayo, who both have the Murray running through their electorates in the state of South Australia. Their communities have tough times ahead. The next days and weeks are going to be very difficult. There's a whole lot of uncertainty around just when the river is going to peak. We know there will be property damage, and we desperately hope there will be no loss of life. We thank the emergency services—volunteers, most of them—who are going to be doing so much. The rest of us look forward to spending time with family, and they will be on high alert supporting those communities and heavily involved in the clean-up afterwards. My very best wishes to those who are going to be affected. We are with you, we will support you through these challenges and we hope that the damage will be as minimal as possible. Diabetes 43 13:32 Mr 300129 Spence BURNELL () (): I too echo the sentiments of the member for Sturt and convey my express gratitude to those members for Mayo and Barker who will be facing some tumultuous times in the coming months. There are currently over 130,000 Australians out there today who live with a condition known as type 1 diabetes. I'm sure I'd be joined by most of the members present—in fact, all members of this place—in wanting to see a world where type 1 diabetes becomes type none. With that sentiment comes organisations such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, or JDRF, who 50 years ago set out to do just that. Prior to the election, the JDRF's Access for All campaign sought commitments from the former government and the Labor opposition at the time to subsidise continuous and flash glucose-monitoring devices, or CGM devices, for all Australians regardless of their bank balance or age. Without such a commitment to Access for All it would have had a severe financial consequence for families like the Constantinis, especially Georgia, upon her 21st birthday. Adam and Georgia both live with type 1 diabetes within my electorate of Spence. I am proud that the Albanese Labor government provided the subsidised access to the CGM devices. Further to this, from tomorrow, the Albanese government will be subsidising the Omnipod DASH Insulin Management System, a device which young Georgia has been trialling. Wannon Electorate: Sport and Volunteer Awards 43 13:33 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It's a great honour to stand here today and thank the two guest presenters that I had at the Wannon Sport and Volunteer Awards. These awards recognise the outstanding achievements that we see in the Wannon electorate when it comes to the sporting field as well as in volunteering. For the volunteer awards, the guest presenter was Madi Bennett. Madi lost her mother to Huntington's disease at a very young age, and has done outstanding work promoting awareness about Huntington's disease and making sure that there are the supports that are necessary for those families who go through losing a loved one due to Huntington's disease. She spoke passionately and beautifully about her story, and I thank her for what she did. Our guest presenter for the sports awards was Clyde Sefton. Clyde won a medal for Australia in the Munich Olympics and a gold medal in Auckland. And he was absolutely outstanding, talking about the commitment that is needed to be able to perform at the highest level. Now, for those who remember Munich—that's where there was the terrorist attack—he talked about how he kept his concentration and was able to go on and perform at the height of his ability. I thank them both. International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People 43 13:35 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell Yesterday, 29 November, marked the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, and yesterday the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine joined a significant representation of ambassadors and diplomatic corps members, and representatives from the United Nations, members and senators from all parties, and Australian civil society, and stood in solidarity with the people of Palestine, at a time the United Nations Secretary-General has described as one of diminished hope for peace. Reading a statement from the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, Mr Damian Cardona Onses, Director of the UN Information Centre, noted that the longstanding drivers of conflict—including the ongoing occupation, settlement expansion, home demolitions and evictions—heighten anger, despair and hopelessness. To quote the Secretary-General: The United Nations' position is clear: peace must advance—the occupation must end. I want to thank His Excellency, Dr Siswo Pramono, the Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia, for his contributions yesterday and for affirming the commitment to the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty. There is strong support in solidarity with the Palestinian people, regionally and internationally and in significant communities right across Australia. In line with the commitment of the United Nations to this issue, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to a state, must be recognised and realised. Tasmania: Ashley Youth Detention Centre, Australia: Human Rights 44 13:36 Mr C2T Clark WILKIE () (): My community is horrified by the revelations of systemic abuse of young detainees at Ashley Youth Detention Centre. No wonder evidence of physical and sexual abuse, inhumane isolation practices, and strip- and internal-cavity searches of children has been condemned by Tasmania's children's commissioner, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Amnesty International and UNICEF, who are all calling on the Tasmanian government to close the centre immediately. This matter is also receiving international attention, with the United Nations Committee against Torture just this week condemning the barbaric treatment of children in Ashley. Yet the state government remains arrogantly steadfast in its plan to keep the centre open for another two years. And, frankly, this is unconscionable. Equally unconscionable is how we continue to lock up kids as young as 10, against the advice of experts and principles of common morality. This put us out of step with international human rights law and with other Western democracies where the median age of criminal responsibility is 14. Frankly, children belong in school, with their families and in the community—not locked behind bars, where, evidence shows, they are at greater risk of trauma and future offending. To that end, I call on the federal and state and territory governments to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14, and I call on the Tasmanian government to progress the closure of Ashley immediately. Hunter Electorate: Hospitality Industry 44 13:38 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter I've said it before and I'll say it again: the world's best establishments—restaurants, bars and bistros—are located in the Hunter region. And the proof has just been released, with the 2023 Good Food Guide. Once again, the Hunter electorate has shown it punches well above its weight, with five restaurants being awarded hats in this guide. Congratulations to Sally and Robert and the team at Bistro Molines; to Lisa and Andrew Margan and the team at Margan restaurant; to Frank Fawkner and his team at EXP; and to Sam Alexander, Darren Price, Pat Hester and the team at Yellow Billy in Pokolbin. And special congratulations to Troy Rhoades-Brown, Mitchell, Melinda, Linda, Jake, Curtis, Alexandra, Renee, Andrew, Ben, Gordon, Jacob, Jessica, Lilly, Luke, Nicholas, Samantha, Samuel and Tiffany from Muse Restaurant. Muse has retained its two-hat status for 2023, putting it firmly on the map as one of this country's best regional restaurants. It has been a couple of incredibly tricky years for the hospitality industry, and it's great to see things getting back to some sense of normality. These world-recognised awards will really help those in the industry get the lift they need and the recognition they deserve. With the hats being awarded, the mighty Hunter Region has firmly secured its position as one of the best culinary destinations in Australia. Townsville: Crime 44 13:39 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert On Monday morning, listeners of ABC North Queensland radio woke up to the following news story: 'Townsville police said more than 10 homes were broken into and at least four cars stolen in a crime spree across the city overnight. Two stolen cars were set alight and destroyed.' This wasn't a one-off; this is a regular occurrence, and nothing has changed. We're not talking about a major capital city; we're talking about Townsville, with a population of about 200,000 people. Every night there are cars stolen, carjackings and break-ins. Every morning, there's another juvenile offender in the watch house. And every day, the Queensland state Labor government sits on their hands. The people of Townsville deserve to feel safe in their homes. They don't deserve to feel like prisoners. We need proper reform. What we've seen from the three state Labor MPs in Townsville is nothing. We've heard about failed GPS trackers; we've heard about failed different projects. But what we need to see is for breach of bail to be an offence. We need to ensure that we punish bad behaviour as a deterrent, because right now the people of Townsville don't have that. They feel nervous and they feel scared. They contact my office and they complain that the three state Labor MPs don't meet with them and don't talk with them. We need breach of bail to be an offence, and I do not support raising the age of criminal responsibility. Peterlin, Ms Ruby 45 13:41 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I had the pleasure this week of catching up with the Peter Ernst, Head of Regional Ports at the Port Authority of New South Wales; Marika Calfas, Chief Executive Officer of NSW Ports; and Mike Gallacher, Chief Executive Officer of Ports Australia, here in Canberra. We were talking about the growing number of women employed in our ports, and Peter told me about one of our local success stories. Ruby Peterlin, from Port Kembla, joined the Port Authority of New South Wales not long after completing her year 12 studies at Wollongong High School. At the time, she had no experience in the industry, but she has put in the hard work to complete her training requirements, including a Certificate III in Maritime Operations (Master up to 24m Near Coastal) as well as completing the MED 3. I would also like to acknowledge and thank all of the Port Kembla staff who have mentored Ruby on her journey so far. Ruby's academic success was also recognised earlier this year when she was awarded the TAFE NSW Gili Award for the 2022 Supply Chain and eCommerce Student of the Year. She also received a Young Achievement Award at the Australian Shipping & Maritime Industry Awards hosted by the Daily Cargo News. Nick Ross, southern NSW branch secretary of the MUA, who is also in Canberra this week, said that Ruby's success was a wonderful story for the maritime industry and an endorsement of Ruby's hard work to date. Ruby started as a trainee and is now a permanent part of the maritime workforce at Port Kembla. I give a huge congratulations to Ruby and I wish her well for her future career in a great industry. First Nations Australians 45 13:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Canberra and the Northern Territory each have two senators. We are proposing this, which was first proposed by the Prime Minister. I don't deny his goodwill in attempting to recognise First Australians in this parliament. But this proposal would be far more useful to my cousin brothers who live in the fair dinkum First Australian community areas. The Northern Territory has two senators, and Canberra gets two senators. Both of them got those two senators when they had under 100,000 people in their populations. We've got 100,000 people in the First Australian communities. Why can't we get a senator? In Canada, they give a special member of parliament to a geographically isolated area, Nunatsiaq. In Great Britain they give a special member of parliament to a geographically isolated area. Neither of them has a population much at all. But here in Australia we all know who's going to occupy the position. It'll be someone about as dark as I am, and he'll have two university degrees from Sydney university. In the meantime, the people that have a life expectancy—and I keep saying that it's hard to think that there is not a racial twist in this. Why would you never, ever report— (Time expired) Walker, Mr Ernie Chester, OAM 45 13:44 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid It's with great sadness that I rise to mark the passing of Mr Ernie Walker OAM. Ernie was an extraordinary man. He served in two significant campaigns of the Second World War—Tobruk and Kokoda. Ernie made an incredible contribution to the defence of our country. Most recently, he lived in Bundanoon, in the electorate of Hume, but Ernie also forged a great connection with my electorate of Reid. After serving in Kokoda, Ernie contracted malaria and was repatriated back to Australia, to the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in Concord, in the heart of the electorate of Reid. The hospital was founded to care for veterans returning from conflict. Since the 1970s, the Rats of Tobruk have regularly met at the Five Dock RSL Sub-Branch. In April of this year, I had the great honour of briefly meeting Ernie at the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in Rhodes. He was as bright then as I imagine he would have been when he first enlisted to serve. So today I'd like to send my condolences to Ernie's family and friends, and I'd like to take the opportunity to salute him for his service as well as all those who have risked and lost their lives in defence of our country. They represent the very best of us. Lest we forget. Bonner Seniors Expo 45 13:45 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner The 2022 Bonner Seniors Expo was a massive success, with almost 400 Bonner senior residents through the door. It was fantastic to have this event back in person for the first time since the easing of national COVID restrictions. The Bonner Seniors Expo provides local businesses, aged-care groups, community groups and government organisations the opportunity to connect with local seniors. When I was talking to local retirement home resident Margaret, she said that the impacts of COVID-19 were severe on her community, with many feeling isolated, lonely and disconnected from the rest of the world. Margaret said that events like the Bonner Seniors Expo are important as they help her build relationships within the community and create a sense of belonging. I would like to thank all of the community groups and businesses that donated lucky door prizes, as well as the stall vendors and speakers who helped to make this day a great success. I would particularly like to thank Piccardi Fry Lawyers for their generous sponsorship of the seniors expo, which allowed all additional funds raised to be donated to Alzheimer's Queensland. The seniors expo is always a highlight in my calendar, and I look forward to making this event bigger and better in 2023. Pacific-Australian Emerging Leaders Summit 46 13:47 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean On Monday, I met with delegates from the Pacific-Australian Emerging Leaders Summit, a program supported by Micah Australia and the Pacific Conference of Churches. The inaugural summit gathered emerging leaders from across the Pacific region. It brought together delegations from the Pacific, First Nations, the broader Pacific diaspora and other Australian leaders. I met with Linnaeus, an environment advocate from the Solomon Islands; Joash, an emerging young leader from the diaspora in this region; Soweri, a Caritas Fiji Oceania youth representative; and Bella, a scientist from the ACT. Emerging leaders are seeking support from all of us in this place to build a foundation of self-determination and inclusion; action on climate change and natural hazards; improving education and youth unemployment; and improving access to water and sanitation. I appreciated the opportunity to have an open dialogue about our region and on how we can work with empowered young people to build flourishing communities across the Pacific region. This is a vision that will only be realised in full when communities enjoy self-determination and when no-one is left behind. We must all work together on the critical development challenges and foreign policy issues in our region—leadership that the Albanese government is already willing to do. McPherson Electorate: Christmas Card Competition 46 13:48 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Each year I send out a Christmas card to all the wonderful people in my electorate of McPherson, wishing them a very safe and enjoyable break over the Christmas and New Year period, and I also provide them with a calendar for the year ahead. There are many options on the Gold Coast to get a photograph to go on the front of the Christmas card, but, in my electorate, the tradition for the last few years has been that I conduct a Christmas card drawing competition, and the winner of the competition has their drawing on the front of the Christmas card that I send out. Entry forms are sent to all of the primary schools in my electorate, and this year we had an incredible number of participants—257 students from 15 different schools on the southern Gold Coast sent in their absolutely magnificent drawings. The winner of this year's McPherson Christmas Card Competition is Alicia from Varsity College. Her drawing is truly fantastic and her creativity will be on display to over 100,000 people on the southern Gold Coast. I would like to extend my congratulations to Alicia, along with the following year-level runners-up: Elaina from Tallebudgera State School, Willow from Saint Augustine's, Bodhi from Robina State School and Elise from Mudgeeraba State School. To all of the students who participated, thank you very much. To all the teachers who helped facilitate this, thank you very much and merry Christmas to all. Armenian National Committee of Australia 46 13:50 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with the Armenian National Committee of Australia youth advocates in Parliament House. Many of them are residents of Bennelong, home to the largest concentration of Australian-Armenians in the country. They spent two days in our nation's capital practising the art of political debate and advocacy in what is a fantastic program that encourages more young Australians to the process. It's always a privilege to see bright, young people who are passionate about politics here in this place. I look forward to seeing their continued contributions, both in my own electorate of Bennelong and throughout Australia. When asked to discuss what matters most to them, they chose to highlight the injustices being committed against those in Armenia and Azerbaijan. I applaud the foreign minister's recent comments on the conflict, in particular calling out aggression by Azerbaijan in the region. Lastly, yesterday I had the pleasure to join the Manager of Opposition Business to launch the Australia-Armenia Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Union. We heard from Armenia's former human rights ombudsman and director of Centre for Law and Justice, Dr Arman Tatoyan, who is in Australia to raise awareness about the conflict. He and the ANC are asking that Australia joins with the United States and other allies in calling for Azerbaijan's withdrawal from Armenia. I thank the ANC chair, Mr Kolokossian, and the youth advocates for their continued and tireless advocacy and for bringing the voice of the Australian-Armenian community to parliament. I look forward to working for them in my new capacity as a federal MP. Fisher Electorate 47 13:52 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher With Christmas just around the corner, I want to take this opportunity to encourage all Australians to buy local this year. In 2020 I launched my 'support Sunshine Coast' initiative to challenge my community to shop, stay and play local in support of the many small and family businesses across our region. Once again I encourage the good people of Fisher to think Fisher first over the summer period, support produce grown in Fisher and support products made in Fisher, like Maleny Dairies or Montville Coffee, like Your Mates Brewing or the amazing De Brett Seafood at Christmas. Play local by exploring the Glasshouse Mountains, navigating the Mooloolah River or Pumicestone Passage or catching a local live artists from the botanical gardens in Tanawha to the streetside at Bulcock Beach. Eat local at a world-class restaurant like Bella Venezia in Mooloolaba or a local haunt like Cafe Phillies in Beerburrum. From camping and clamping to resorts and ecoretreats, there are hundreds of ways to stay local in Fisher in style, like at the Crocodile Hunter Lodge, which is part of the Australia Zoo. Fisher is not in short supply when it comes to opportunities to back local business, and I encourage our community to think Fisher first, support the Sunshine Coast and make this a summer to remember. Covid-19 47 13:53 Ms CHES 249710 Bendigo TERS () (): This Saturday is likely to be the first time this parliament has sat on a Saturday for decades. It's also the anniversary of the Eureka Stockade and the birthday of my little rebel, Daisy Jane. It might shock people to learn that this week is the first time we will have spent more than 24 hours apart, which is unusual in this job. That is partly due to my amazing partner and his willingness to work remotely and work from home so we can travel here as a family, but it's mainly due the pandemic. Daisy is a pandemic baby, and shortly after being born the world started to experience this thing called COVID. Just as we were coming out of the newborn bubble we entered the pandemic bubble, and everything was cancelled. Mothers groups were cancelled, the natural things that you do to catch up post having a baby were cancelled, parliament was scaled back. The week that I was due to return from maternity leave, our parliament was scaled back. Daisy started to go through all those natural stages in life, the developmental milestones: the smiling, the clapping and, for her generation, the hand sanitising—all the unique things that happened to our pandemic babies. She starts three-year-old kinder next year, and it's the first test that we will see in Victoria of the real impact of the pandemic. So I give a shout-out to all of our three-year-olds entering kinder next year, and to their teachers and to the year that they will have, and I hope that the impact of the pandemic isn't as bad as we first thought. (Time expired) Victoria State Election 47 13:55 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Democracy is not a gift from above but the proper design of a society that is driven by people who have the courage to turn up. My party is not perfect, but I am a proud Liberal. I want to thank the candidates, staff and members who turned up, bled blue and offered Victorians a choice last Saturday. We were not successful, but I want to put on the record how grateful I am to them. From community forums to phone calls, from doorknocking to doorstops, you handed out, stood up and stood proud for our party's values and Victorian democracy. There are many lessons to learn from last Saturday, and we will learn them. But I want to make a plea to Victorians who are interested in the future of our state and our nation to consider joining my party—or, indeed, any party. You won't find them mentioned in the Commonwealth Constitution, but political parties are essential institutions of our democracy. They pick our candidates, run our campaigns and are the engines of policy. If they are weak, our democracy is weak. If you choose my party, you will find a movement that welcomes you with open arms—one that can be proud of its history and learn from its mistakes, and one that I hope has a true north of principle over power and hope over anguish. Member for Cook 47 13:56 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke Earlier today this chamber voted to censure the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, following the Bell inquiry into his secret appointment to administer multiple departments. Although unprecedented, this measure was necessary to protect the foundation of our parliament and our democracy. Australians are incredibly fortunate to be able to freely participate in and contribute to robust democracy. It is incumbent on all of us in this place and the other to ensure that we do everything we can to defend this right. One of the critical components of a strong democracy is the principle of reasonable transparency. The Australian people have a right to know precisely who is governing and administering government departments. Without this knowledge, the capacity of the people and the parliament to hold the government of the day to account is severely limited. Without accountability, our democracy is undermined. Not only did the member for Cook appoint himself to these positions without the knowledge of his colleagues but also he deceitfully evaded public accountability. The former Prime Minister suggested that, had the opposition or the public simply asked, we would have known. This simply isn't good enough. We must all proactively uphold the institutions of good government and the processes of accountability that come with it. It would have been quite simple for the member for Cook, in his time as Prime Minister, to walk into this chamber or to go into any other public forum and make clear the arrangements that he had put in place. What's more, what we now understand is that his arguments for having done so don't hold weight, because suitable arrangements could have been made. I support the censure of the former Prime Minister in the strongest possible terms. Red and Yellow Day 48 13:58 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Recently I received an email from Derek Wilson, who, 23 years ago, tragically lost his son Ben at age seven and his daughter Molly at age four, along with his two nieces aged 15 and 17 in a drowning accident. He asked me to speak in parliament about Red and Yellow Day, and, of course, my answer was an emphatic yes. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving and representing an electorate where going to the beach is the norm, I'm passionate about increasing awareness and education surrounding water safety. Red and Yellow Day is tomorrow and coincides with National Water Safety Day. It aims to highlight the importance of swimming between the flags and to raise awareness surrounding water safety. I have nine surf clubs in my electorate: Southport, Surfers Paradise, Northcliffe, Broadbeach, Kurrawa, Mermaid Beach, Nobby's Beach, Miami and North Burleigh. Every club across Australia and their volunteer surf lifesavers play a vital role in teaching our communities about safety and keeping between the flags, keeping Australians and their visitors safe. For more information on how to stay safe at the beach and around the water, please visit Surf Life Saving Australia's website. By increasing awareness, we can ensure that no other family has to experience the pain and heartbreak that Derek's family endured. Derek, thank you for sharing your story and for being a strong advocate for water safety. To the good people of Moncrieff: I wish you a safe and happy holiday, Christmas and New Year. To all Australians swimming over Christmas: stay safe and swim between the flags. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Child Abuse 48 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs recently met with me, and I'm very grateful for that, to discuss the unprecedented and tragic levels of sexual abuse of children in Alice Springs and elsewhere in the Northern Territory. Will the government please join with the opposition in supporting a royal commission into the sexual abuse of Indigenous Australians? 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I also thank him for the constructive engagement that we had in my office, with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, about what are very serious issues. The Leader of the Opposition would be aware that just last year the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030 was put in place by the former government. It was put in place with the support of state and territory governments and with the bipartisan support of what was then the opposition and is now the government. This is important because, quite clearly, when it comes to these issues, we need to work cooperatively across parliament but across parliaments at different levels of government as well. This work includes responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The National Office for Child Safety is leading work to protect all Australian children from child sexual abuse under the national strategy to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse over this decade. This was put in place by the Morrison government just last year as a result of the evidence that was put forward. I congratulate the former government for doing that. They had our support in doing that. The national strategy includes measures led in partnership by the National Indigenous Australians Agency and First Nations experts to support and empower First Nations communities in the Northern Territory. Minister Burney was on the ground in Alice Springs recently, and Minister Burney might like to add to the answer as well on what she saw on the ground in those communities. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. 14:03 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I visited Alice Springs on the ground just recently, not long after the Leader of the Opposition was there. I spoke to Territory families. I spoke to women's services. I spoke to youth services. In fact, I visited two youth services. Not one single person raised with me the issue of royal commissions into Aboriginal child sexual assault. What they did raise with me was working in partnership, with concrete actions to address this issue, which is unacceptable. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 49 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS United Kingdom: Parliamentary Delegation 49 14:04 The 53517 SPEAKER (): I'd like to inform the House that present in the distinguished visitors' gallery today is the Right Honourable Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Minister of State (Indo-Pacific) in the United Kingdom government, and a great friend of the parliament, Her Excellency Vicki Treadell, the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom. I welcome you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Anti-Corruption Commission 49 14:04 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Attorney-General. Why is it important to the Albanese Labor government to deliver on its promises, especially the National Anti-Corruption Commission? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. When ministers are attending the dispatch box, they are to be able to come to the dispatch box in silence. 14:04 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Boothby for her question. It was former prime minister Paul Keating who said, 'When you change the government, you change the country.' On 21 May the Australian people voted to change the government, and today the Australian parliament has voted for a reform which will change the country. The Albanese Labor government was elected with a very, very clear mandate to deliver a national anticorruption commission with teeth and without delay. We said we would legislate this year, and today we did. That commitment has been honoured in full. The commission will be able to investigate serious or systemic corruption across the entire federal public sector. The commission will have the necessary powers to root out corruption when it occurs, and, importantly, the commission will be able to work to prevent corruption from happening in the first place. It will improve standards of transparency and integrity in this place. It'll go a long way towards restoring the bond of trust between elected representatives and voters, which has been so weakened in recent years. Today's passage of the National Anti-Corruption Commission bills demonstrates this parliament at its best, which stands in stark contrast to other behaviour this morning, when those opposite failed to join the majority of this House in the censure of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, for his atrocious power grab. I would also remind the House that it was those opposite who promised a national anticorruption commission in December 2018 and never delivered. Cashless Debit Card 49 14:06 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer to the minister's visit to Ceduna last Friday, where she confirmed that she witnessed firsthand the direct result of the government's policy to scrap the cashless debit card, which saw street brawls and a large number of intoxicated individuals arguing and fighting. Is this the tragic but predictable outcome for Ceduna because the government has scrapped the cashless debit card? 14:07 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for his question. I was very pleased to visit Ceduna last Friday, where I was able to engage with a range of different organisations and services to talk to them about what they needed going forward to make sure that they were supported and properly provided with services. One thing that was made very clear was that the council—I met with the mayor and other services—were very clear that they wanted a positive vision for Ceduna going forward. They wanted to make sure that I understood that there was a positive message in the town. So, yes, I was able to also speak with the police, and they made it very, very clear that they could not attribute antisocial behaviour that happens from time to time to the abolition of the card. In fact, I did want to pick out a little bit of misinformation. There have been a number of anecdotal comments and reports made—I understand that this is a very emotional issue—but we've got to deal with the facts when it comes to this issue. On one site there were reports of antisocial behaviour two days after royal assent—of an increase in the number of people sleeping rough in a particular town. Of course, no income or other changes had actually happened two days after royal assent, so that was absolutely inconsistent with the actual evidence. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I give the call to the member for Grey. Mr Ramsey HWS My point of order is on relevance. We are one minute and 45 seconds into this answer, and there has been no confirmation from the minister— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The minister is being entirely relevant. Your question was about her visit to Ceduna. She is speaking about her visit to Ceduna. She is giving a detailed answer to your question. I give her the call. Ms RISHWORTH HWA What I did speak with a number of organisations about is what support they need to address longstanding issues in the community that have existed for some time. And I must say, if the member actually got out to Ceduna a bit more often, he might understand that on that day there was a funeral in town and there were a number of people that had come from outside the Ceduna area—indeed, from outside the five different communities surrounding. There were significantly high tensions and grief in the town. So it was a particularly sad day in Ceduna and the surrounding communities for this significant sorry business. I was also very pleased to be in town to deliver a commitment of $17 million for economic development in the town. This was money that the former government announced and never delivered, and I was welcomed in that town because we are delivering money to those communities. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise! When the House comes to order, we will hear from the member for Fremantle. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for O'Connor is warned. I just said I wanted silence in the House. He's continually interjecting. If he does it one more time, he will leave the chamber. I give the call to the member for Fremantle. Economy 50 14:11 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Treasurer. What are the implications of today's inflation figures? How has the Albanese government acted to address the cost of living and stagnant wages? 14:11 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Fremantle for his interest and for his question—another fine member of the WA massive asking another great question here in this House today. The Bureau of Statistics monthly CPI indicator increased by 6.9 per cent through the year to October. This was down from the 7.3 per cent increase through the year to September and it was below market expectations. It was a wide range, but the median expectation was 7.6 per cent, and this result is well below that. In the data we saw some pretty big falls in fruit and vegetable prices last month, but this doesn't yet reflect the impact of the flooding, and we're seeing the rate of price growth in new dwellings, which has been a big contributor to inflation to date, continue to fall. But there are good reasons to be very cautious about the inflation numbers released today. It's important to remember that the monthly release is a relatively new dataset. It doesn't include everything the quarter release does. Also, really importantly, this data doesn't yet fully include the price impacts of the recent floods or the impact from higher energy costs in recent months, which are yet to fully show up in the reported figures. All things considered, this result is cautiously welcomed. It shows us that there are reasons to be carefully optimistic that we are getting near the inflation repeat, but we're not there yet. Inflation is still too high. It's still hurting households. It's still the No. 1 challenge facing our economy. That's why responding to inflation was the No. 1 priority of our budget. It delivered cost-of-living relief with cheaper child care and cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE and affordable housing, but it didn't add to inflation by keeping annual real spending growth to an average of 0.3 per cent over the forward estimates and by returning more than 90 per cent of tax revenue upgrades to the budget as well. The inflation challenge is just another reminder of the costs and consequences that have come from a decade of stagnant wages in our economy and in our country, which has left real wages lower today than they were a decade ago. That's why we are working so hard to get wages moving in this country again—because we know that wages growing strongly and sustainably is good for the economy, not bad for it. All of these actions in the past six months have been about cleaning up the mess that we inherited, but they've also been about making sure the budget is more responsible and our economy is more resilient. We know, with this inflation challenge hanging around longer than we would like, there is much more work to do. But that work has begun. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 50 14:14 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is for the Prime Minister. Journalists obtaining and publishing sensitive information in the public interest is essential to democracy. Australian citizen Julian Assange is still contained in Belmarsh prison, charged by a foreign government with acts of journalism. Mr Assange's freedom will only come from political intervention. Will the government intervene to bring Mr Assange home? 14:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Kooyong for her question. She raises an issue that is of great interest to many Australians and of interest to people, it must be said, as well across this chamber. I particularly note the member for Bruce, the member New England, for example, people who have raised this question. I, sometime ago, made my point that enough is enough. It is time for this matter to be brought to a conclusion. In that, I don't express any personal sympathy with some of the actions of Mr Assange. I do say though that this issue has gone on for many years now, and when you look at the issue of Mr Assange and compare that with the person responsible for leaking the information, Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning, she is now able to participate freely in US society. The government will continue to act in a diplomatic way, but can I assure the member for Kooyong that I have raised this personally with representatives of the United States government. My position is clear and has been made clear to the US administration that it is time that this matter be brought to a close. This is an Australian citizen. As I said, I don't have sympathy for Mr Assange's actions, on a whole range of matters. But, having said that, you have to reach a point whereby what is the point of this continuing, this legal action, which could be caught up now for many years into the future? So I will continue to advocate, as I did recently in meetings that I have held. I thank the member for her question and for her genuine interest in this, along with so many Australian citizens who have contacted me about this issue. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Warren, Mr Greg 51 14:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to inform the House that also in the gallery today is Mr Greg Warren, the member for Campbelltown, in the New South Wales parliament, and the shadow minister for local government. On behalf of the House, I welcome Mr Warren. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Local government 51 14:17 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the . How is local government being given a voice by the Albanese Labor government? How is it being heard? 14:17 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for Lyons for his question, a man who has to work with 12 local government areas in his electorate. As a former regional mayor I know the importance of working with all levels of government, to make sure that you can deliver the services your communities rely on. The local government sector is a trusted delivery partner for the federal government. They are the only level of government who deliver services to every town, village and community across this country. As a government we know how important the sector is, which is why we have brought local government back to the table of National Cabinet. We rely on councils to deliver services on behalf of the federal government, whether that's disaster recovery, whether it's aged care, whether it's Closing the Gap initiatives or other community services. We know, if we're going to rely on them, we have to give them a seat at the table and listen to them. We are also bringing back the Australian Council of Local Government in 2023, 546 local government areas across this country, bringing them here to speak directly with the Prime Minister, with cabinet ministers, with ministers and the government, on how our priorities and their programs can be delivered best into communities. On top of that, this week they held the first local government ministers meeting of the Albanese government. We discussed critical issues, local government sustainability, housing, critical shortages in skilled workforces and their own capability. We know local governments across Australia deserve broad-sweeping policy, policy that delivers and meets the needs of communities across this country, and we will ensure that their voices continue to be heard. Local governments across the country will benefit from all of our policies, whether it's increased jobs in the renewable energy sector, access to secure housing, better connectivity or helping them deliver their locally-led solutions. We are continuing to provide financial support for local councils so they can fix roads, upgrade facilities and provide essential services. Let's not forget it was the Whitlam government that introduced financial assistance grants—$64 billion delivered into the sector since that time. In 2022-23, this government is committed to delivering $2.9 billion in financial assistance grants to local governments across the country. We've also committed $750 million in local roads and community infrastructure— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. Ms McBAIN 281988 an increase of $250 million on what those opposite committed, because we know how important local roads are to our communities. We know this untied funding enables local governments to deliver their community priorities and enables the best place based solutions to come through. I know firsthand how important funding is, and I've met with over 170 councils who reiterate that they want to work with a federal government that wants to help them deliver for their communities. Child Abuse 52 14:20 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Can the minister advise whether, on her recent visit to Alice Springs, anyone raised concerns with her about an increase in child sexual and physical assault and violent crime? 14:21 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Child sexual abuse is abhorrent. Every single person in this chamber is of that view. No matter where we live, our children have a right to grow up safe and healthy. Let me assure this chamber that, as a First Nations woman with decades of experience in education and child protection, I know the best way to protect children is to work with communities. I was the Minister for Community Services in the New South Wales parliament. I saw the worst of what could happen to children when they were abused. I dealt with it on a daily basis—years and years of experience. I am focused on concrete actions that make a difference. Establishing a royal commission does not mean concrete actions, on the ground, directly with local communities. Yes, I did go to Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, as I said previously, I met with Territory families, I met with women's services, I met with children's services and I met with youth services, and none of them raised with me the issue of a royal commission into Aboriginal sexual assault. They raised with me— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition! Order! The minister will pause a moment. The Leader of the Opposition does not need to yell to get his point across. The minister is answering, directly, the question in detail. I'm requesting the House hear her in silence. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. What is the point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI The point of order is relevance. I want to pay tribute to the minister for her service, but many of us have dealt with those victims. I have asked a reasonable question. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order on relevance, he is entitled to do so. He did not do so. Opposition members inte rjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 You will not question the chair, either. I give the call to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Ms BURNEY 8GH What was raised with me by the many people I spoke with who work in Alice Springs, who live in Alice Springs and who are dealing directly with this very serious issue is the need for coordination across three tiers of government, coordination with local government, with schools and with police—and not punishing people. That's what was raised with me. In Alice Springs there is leadership and capacity. I have faith in the people of Alice Springs to know what their issues are and to be able to deal with them with the support and the constructive involvement of all tiers of government. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 52 14:25 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, earlier today you gave a statement— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Leader of the Opposition will cease their discussion across the chamber. I want to hear the member for Lingiari in silence. I want to be clear with everyone that, when members are asking questions, out of courtesy and respect I want the chamber to listen to the question. Equally so, when the minister approaches the dispatch box they're to be addressed with respect and courtesy as well. I give the call to the member for Lingiari. Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier today you gave a statement on closing the gap. How will a voice to parliament help achieve the objectives of closing the gap? What work has been done on the structure of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lingiari for her question. Most importantly, I thank her for her services to remote communities in the Northern Territory in particular while in her current role but also as a former minister in the Northern Territory government. She brings a great deal of experience and honour to this House. This morning I heard an extraordinary interview by another great Indigenous Australian—one who has been honoured in this House by being the first Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Australians—Ken Wyatt, a former member of this House. In that interview Ken Wyatt addressed very directly the suggestion that somehow there is no detail when it comes to the Voice to the Parliament and the link between a voice to parliament and practical reconciliation in closing the gap—something that Ken Wyatt was very passionate about. In that interview he said a range of things. Mr Wyatt spoke about there being four pages. He said: 'If people read them, they would understand the detail. It's pages 15 to 19 which spell out the principal based approach, the scope, how it does work in practice and what are the steps we need to get there and then the relationship with government, which doesn't impinge on the sovereignty of the Australian parliament.' He was talking about the Indigenous Voice co-design process: final report to the Australian government: July 2021. He went on to say: 'Now I took this report to cabinet twice—not once, but twice.' In that interview he referred to the pages that outline the principles based framework for a local and regional voice, how this works in practice, the national voice overview, the structures and principles which are there between pages 15 and 19. I table those pages of the government report that was developed of course by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. They were of course commissioned by the former government and reported to the former government. There are 280 pages of detail about how the Voice will operate. What's more, it arose from the 2015 final report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. There were clear recommendations in that report. It was a bipartisan report. We have had this process for a long period of time. It's time we advance this— (Time expired) Power Prices 53 14:29 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the minister for industry was asked what would happen if states rejected Labor's half-baked plan on power prices. The minister could only say, 'Let's wait and see.' Asked for his message to Queensland the minister could only say, 'I love Queensland.' When pushed for actual details the minister said, 'I was hoping you wouldn't ask for details.' Given the government has no idea about the details— The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Defence Industry has been continually interjecting on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I made it clear the question before. This will apply to both sides of the chamber. Out of respect for the deputy, I'm going to ask her to state her question again. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the minister for industry was asked what would happen if states rejected Labor's half-baked plan on power prices. The minister could only say, 'Let's wait and see.' The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will not interrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She will start her question again. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the minister for industry was asked what would happen if states rejected Labor's half-baked plan on power prices. The minister could only say, 'Let's wait and see.' Asked for his message to Queensland the minister could only say, 'I love Queensland.' When pushed for actual details the minister said, 'I was hoping you wouldn't ask for details.' Given the government has no idea about the details, why won't the Prime Minister say sorry for giving false hope to Australians about lowering power prices? 14:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank, I think, the member for her question, which is based upon a range of false premises, and I'll make the following comments. One is that I did hear the interview conducted by the minister for industry, and I thought he did very well. Congratulations. I want to make further comments. That's the first point that I'll make. The second point I'll make is that I love Queensland too, and the third point I'll make is that the minister was quite right. See, there's this thing called the cabinet, and in the cabinet when you're asked about what the cabinet discussions were, it's appropriate for you to say something like, 'I hope you weren't asking that question,' because you don't reveal cabinet discussions. I know that will seem bizarre for those opposite. Apparently it's okay to talk about who held what ministry when people are writing a book, but it's not okay to be accountable in terms of cabinet government. So I encourage all of my cabinet colleagues, when asked to reveal cabinet discussions, to say exactly that—to say, 'I'm not telling you' or 'I hope I wasn't being asked that question'—because we don't talk about cabinet processes. The cabinet is dealing with these issues. The minister for industry is diligently consulting with the manufacturing sector in particular— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting. The member for Fremantle will cease interjecting or be warned. The member for Fairfax is getting close to a warning. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. Mr ALBANESE R36 and he is doing a terrific job in that process. We'll continue to work through these issues. We have said that we will make some announcements before Christmas as the time frame that we have set for our announcements, and we stand by it. I thank the minister for industry for the work that he is doing as part of that process, and I congratulate him on a terrific interview. I hope that people do continue to listen to PK between 7.30 and eight o'clock, because the interview with the minister for industry was equalled at least, with respect, by the rather extraordinary contribution of Ken Wyatt, so I'd encourage you to look at both transcripts. (Time expired) Defence Procurement 54 14:34 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will the Albanese Labor government fix the failure of the former government to provide accurate, reliable and transparent information when it came to defence spending and key projects? (Corio—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence) (14:35): Mr MARLES HWQ I thank the member for his question. Today, the parliament is focused on transparency. Although, to be honest, transparency ought to be a foundational ethic in all that we do every day. The member for Cook's defence of his actions—that he would have told the truth if anyone had actually asked him—obviously treats every member of this house, and particularly his own colleagues, with complete contempt. The idea— Mr Fletcher L6B On a point of order: it was a question about defence. On the most charitable view of this question, he is well outside the scope of it, and he ought to be directed back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Braddon and the member for Lindsay are not helping the situation. The question was about defence spending on key projects in comparison to the previous government. Mr MARLES HWQ The idea that the failure of transparency in the former Liberal government was solely confined to the member for Cook would be completely wrong because it was an abiding culture of all of them. It belonged to every one of them, and it most certainly applied in defence. Today we learned, through the ANAO's report on Defence's administration of the Integrated Investment Program under the former coalition government, that when those opposite were advised that the Attack class submarine program would cost $78 billion, the number they provided to the public was $50 billion. The ANAO report makes it clear that, when those opposite were advised that the Hunter class frigate program would cost $36 billion, the number they provided to the public was $30 billion. To be clear, that is not a failure of transparency. That is straight-out misinformation on a grand scale. That is the equivalent of trying to hide the entire state budget of Western Australia. The reason they did this is that those opposite were unable to deal with the hard questions about those costs, because to do so would have been to actually engage in defence policy, and those opposite are never interested in doing that. They're just completely obsessed with the politics of defence. It's this behaviour which has left our government inheriting 28 different programs, running a combined 97 years over time. In our history, there has never been an administration as with the former Liberal government which has treated Australia's defence with such contempt. The Albanese government is different. We are introducing an independent program office. When programs go wrong, we are going to have objective criteria by which they are put on the 'projects of interest/projects of concern' list, and then there will be monthly reports to ministers so we can get those back on track. But all of that pales into insignificance— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is warned. Mr MARLES HWQ compared to the fact that we will be transparent with defence spending and the challenges which face our country, because we understand that it is transparency which drives value for money when it comes to defence spending in this country. Migration 55 14:38 Mrs 230886 McPherson ANDREWS () (): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. It is a privilege, not a right, to be welcomed as a guest to our country. In government, the coalition cancelled more than 10,000 visas of dangerous noncitizens who posed a threat to the Australian community. Minister, how many visas have you cancelled under the character provisions of the Migration Act? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Cooper will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. 14:39 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the shadow minister for home affairs for her question. As she would be well aware, we on this side of the House, when we were in opposition, supported the 2014 changes to the 'character cancellation regime'. Mr Wood E0F No, you didn't, not the 2014. The 2019— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for La Trobe is warned! Mr GILES 243609 As the member for La Trobe should remember, because he was in this place, we supported, in 2014, the changes introduced by the former government to the character cancellation regime. We believe it is important that we cancel visas where appropriate—that we deny visas and cancel visas as appropriate. We also think that this is an area where a commonsense approach is required because we have seen unintended consequences of the regime that was put in place by the former government. We have been working through those, having regard in particular to the critical importance of our relationship with our good friends in New Zealand. These are issues— Opposition members interjecting— Mr 243609 These are issues— Mr Dutton 00AKI Take it on notice if you don't know. Can you answer a basic question? Mr GILES 243609 These are issues that should be of significance to the Leader of the Opposition, who put a wrecking ball through the immigration portfolio when he was minister. He built an edifice around himself instead of focusing on the national interest, particularly on questions like this, which should be beyond this cheap partisan politics. Mr D 00AKI How many people? Mr GILES 243609 After all this time— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume his seat. We'll just pause and I'll hear from— Mr Dutton 00AKI Find the number, for God's sake. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for McPherson. Mrs Andrews 230886 The point of order is on relevance. The question clearly requires a number, and we are a minute and a half into the answer and we haven't received the number. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for McPherson. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The member for Paterson is warned! I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, the preamble clearly made every part of this answer relevant to the question that was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 When a specific question is asked—and we've had this before with 'yes' or 'no' or a specific number—the minister needs to be relevant to the question. I'll ask him to return to the question to make sure that he is addressing the member for McPherson's concerns. I give him the call. Mr GILES 243609 Thank you, Speaker. I am sure, like all ministers for immigration—and, indeed, ministers for home affairs, who also have responsibilities in this area, as the shadow minister would know—I make these decisions on the basis of the law and the materials before me. What is so disappointing here is that everyone in this parliament recognises the policy grounds we have that go to visa grants and, indeed, to the cancellation of visas of noncitizens who should not be in the community, who present a range of risks. These are not issues that should be shamelessly politicised. Indeed, many issues, Mr Speaker, that go to the operation of our migration system go to the shameless politicisation of this regime by members opposite over nine years of neglect. I actually expected a bit more of the shadow minister for home affairs, because one thing that should unite every member of this place is a concern for the safety of the Australian community. The fact that members opposite seem entirely unconcerned about this is, frankly, disappointing. From the last election they have learned absolutely nothing. Perhaps they could consider how we could work together in the national interest on these questions, instead of engaging in this shameless, shameless scaremongering. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! When the House comes to order I'll hear from the member for Canberra. Education Workforce 56 14:43 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to tackle the teacher shortage crisis it inherited? 14:43 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Canberra for her question. There aren't many jobs that are more important than being a teacher, and we don't have enough of them—not enough Australians becoming teachers and too many teachers leaving. This is a problem that has been building now for 10 years. In the last 10 years there's been a 16 per cent drop in the number of young people enrolling in teaching, and there's also been a drop in people completing teaching degrees. As a result, we don't have enough new teachers, but on top of that a lot are leaving. Think about this for a second: 30 to 50 per cent of teachers leave the profession in the first five years. A lot of really experienced teachers are leaving too—not retiring, just resigning. There's no one reason for this, but one of them is workload. The idea that teachers rock up at nine o'clock and knock off at three o'clock isn't right. The Productivity Commission released a report a couple of months ago that made the point that Australian teachers work longer hours than teachers overseas but they spend less time doing face-to-face teaching than their international counterparts. The report showed that only 40 per cent of the hours Australian teachers work includes face-to-face teaching. Fixing this will take time. Fixing this requires the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments to work together, and that's what we're doing. Last month we released a draft national teacher workforce plan. It sets out the things the Commonwealth government will do, the things that state and territory governments will do and, most importantly, the things that we can do by working together. It includes $328 million in extra federal funding for things, including $159 million to train more teachers, $56 million for scholarships, up to $40,000 apiece to encourage our best and brightest to become teachers and a $25 million workload reduction fund to trial new ways to give teachers more time to teach. On top of that, there is a proposal for a national campaign to help raise the status of teaching to recognise the important work they do. So the draft is out there. We're seeking feedback from teachers, principals and the general community about what's right, what's wrong, what needs to change and what should be put in the plan that's not there. Ministers will meet in a couple of weeks to consider that feedback and finalise the plan. Paul Keating said: 'A good education is like the keys to the kingdom. It's like a master key that opens every door.' If that's right—and I think it is—then our teachers are the key masters. We need more of them, and we need to keep the ones that we've got. That's why this work is so important. Mental Health 56 14:46 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Eating disorders among young people have skyrocketed during COVID, with clinics seeing demand increase by up to 85 per cent. Minister, mothers in Goldstein are pleading with me to do something before their children literally die of starvation due to lack of available care. I ask you: when will the government step in to help the states provide cohesive, one-stop mental and physical care for these children and young adults? 14:47 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for her question and for her deep interest and engagement on this issue already, along with a number of other colleagues on the crossbench. We've already met twice, I think, about this issue. I know she's also had a consultation with the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Mental Health and former chief psychiatrist of Victoria, Professor Ruth Vine, and is also engaging with the state government down in Victoria. The member is right: eating disorders are a devastating range of mental health conditions. As the member knows and as I think all members in this House know, they tend to strike in adolescence and in young adulthood. It's an incredibly promising and exciting time of life but also a very vulnerable time. They're devastating for the individual and they're incredibly distressing, as the member has pointed out in her question, for those who love and are caring for patients with an eating disorder. They're difficult to treat and they're very, very dangerous, with the highest mortality rate of any single mental health condition. And the member is right: COVID has driven a very big increase in cases, with no evidence yet that that spike is starting to recover. Even before COVID, we knew that most people with eating disorders were not receiving a proper diagnosis and that about 80 per cent were not receiving evidence based treatment. To his credit, the former minister, Greg Hunt, put in place Medicare services to provide up to 40 psychology sessions and 20 dietician sessions for people with eating disorders. In just three years of that availability, tens of thousands of patients have received almost five million sessions of care under that program. Right now, we have $20 million in grants out to tender to provide better community based supports for people with eating disorders, and the Commonwealth, as the member knows, has funded all states to build new residential treatment services for eating disorders. A Victorian centre is also being constructed in Armadale as part of Alfred Health. The sooner they can be completed and opened, obviously, the better. But the member is right: we need more targeted services that get to people when and where they need them rather than seeing people cycle through hospital emergency departments. We need to keep working with the National Eating Disorders Collaboration to— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Goldstein, on a point of order? Ms Daniel 008CH It's on relevance. The question to the minister was: when will the government step in? The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the minister. Mr BUTLER HWK As I said, we need to keep working with the collaboration also to find better ways to prevent people from developing eating disorders in the first place. As the member knows, these drivers are complex and they have deep roots in our culture. They are issues of body image, advertising norms, the role of social media and much more. I thank the member for her advocacy. We need to engage more between the Commonwealth and the states. I think I've outlined the way in which, to their credit, the former government did that. We've got much, much more to do, and I look forward to working with the member over coming months. Manufacturing Industry 57 14:50 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the talented Minister for Industry and Science. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to rebuild Australia's manufacturing capability after a decade of neglect? 14:50 Mr 91219 Chifley HUSIC (—) (): I'm happy to inform the member for McEwen and the whole House that we'll be taking a big step forward today in strengthening Australian manufacturing when we introduce the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, a key election commitment, because we believe in the value of Australian ideas and the value of know-how to get things done. These are great ideas leading to great firms and great job in our cities and our regions. It's a bedrock belief of the government that Australia must be a country that makes things. Modern economies need to possess sharp manufacturing capabilities value-adding critical technology across medicine and across energy. The other thing is that we have the ability to get this done. I've seen in businesses—and we saw this through the pandemic—their ability to pivot, to scale up manufacturing when needed. I'm reminded of a visit to the member for Lilley's electorate and seeing AAA Engineering. I was visiting that electorate because, as you all know, I love Queensland—you may have heard that! AAA Engineering normally work on supercars, and they delivered an engineering result that saw them manufacturer ventilators when we needed them most. Well done to them. We need to tap into that spirit for the long-term good, but we have a big task ahead of us because we are dead last on the OECD list of countries in their manufacturing capabilities. It's time to get up off the mat, and the $15 billion we will provide through the National Reconstruction Fund will help. It will be the greatest investment in industrial and manufacturing capability in living memory—a huge thing. The bill will set out the framework for the fund, an independent board guided by an investment mandate targeting key priority areas. Again, I need to emphasise for the House, this will be an independent board making decisions, not a colour-coded spreadsheet in sight. Decisions will be made on the basis of the national interest, not political interest. We won't be standing at this dispatch box, daring large manufacturers to leave the country. Instead, we'll be backing them to grow jobs, and that's what this is all about. We need to grow jobs and recognise, as most of the members in this place realise in their regions, manufacturing is a big job creator. It creates full-time, stable work. We need to do more of that. The National Reconstruction Fund is the platform for those manufacturers to think globally, build locally, so we will get this done. Workplace Relations 58 14:54 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to reports today in the Financial Review that former ACCC chair Rod Sims said multi-employer bargaining raises issues for competition and consumers. Can the minister guarantee that consumers won't pay higher prices as a result of the government's extreme industrial relations changes? T 14:54 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Hume for his question. What I can guarantee and what every member of the Albanese Labor government can guarantee is that we stand for higher wages. We stand for workers having a fair go, being able to negotiate on an equal basis with employers and being able to get wages moving again. This is in stark contrast to the policies of those on the other side of the House, because for nine long years on their watch we saw wages stagnate. For households which are struggling with cost-of-living increases there are two ways to deal with this, and one of them is to ensure that we get wages moving again. We've heard time and time again from employers in the childcare sector, in the aged-care sector and in other caring sectors across the economy that they cannot attract workers, and one of the reasons they cannot attract workers is that their wages aren't able to compete with other comparable jobs across the economy. So what we on this side of the House can confirm is that our policies— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant to the question and specifically is talking about employment bargaining, so I will hear from the shadow Treasurer on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 On relevance. Consumers just want to know if they're going to pay more. Mr Burke DYW Speaker, I just refer to your earlier rulings about abuse of points of order. When you have a situation where a minister is already clearly being relevant and abuses like that continue, I'd simply ask for it to be taken into account in future. Mr Fletcher L6B On the point of order, the question was about consumer prices, asked of a minister who has responsibility for consumer protection, and we've had not one mention of consumers and prices consumers will pay. The SPEAKER 53517 There were two parts to the question, and one was clearly about multiemployer bargaining and industrial relations. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean you can jump up and take a point of order on relevance. If the minister were not being relevant, I would bring him back to the question. I just want to make it clear that I will always hear points of order, but they need to make sure that they are the correct points of order. I'm just going to ask the assistant minister to return to the question. Mr JONES A9B I'll tell you one lot of price increases that they don't want us to talk about—that's the 40 per cent increase in childcare costs that occurred on their watch. There's one set of price increases that they don't want to talk about. We have already implemented policies which are going to address the 40 per cent increase in childcare costs that they were very happy to see occur on their watch. One of the first priorities that we addressed when coming into government was to ensure that households could make a choice of whether they wanted to go back to work three days, four days or five days a week, because we are addressing the price increases in child care by ensuring that the majority of Australian households can afford to pay for child care. I can understand that the Leader of the House got a bit jumpy when I was talking about negotiations, and we are concerned to ensure that low-paid workers are able to access a bargaining stream which enables them to negotiate fairly. I can understand why the Leader of the House is very jumpy whenever we talk about negotiations, because the last negotiation he was involved in didn't go so well. He was able to provide $27 million worth of taxpayer money for a block of land worth only $3 million in Leppington, so whenever we talk about negotiations he gets very jumpy over there, because the last negotiation he was involved in didn't go very well at all. (Time expired) Home Affairs 58 14:59 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What progress has the Albanese Labor government made in the Home Affairs portfolio in these first six months? 15:00 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for his question. The final act of the previous government was their decision on 21 May to sabotage protocols that protect Operation Sovereign Borders for their own political gain. The parliament will remember that the former prime minister directed the former home affairs minister— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs will take a brief pause. Nineteen seconds in, I will hear from the Manager for Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The standing orders are very clear: imputations of improper motives to a member are highly disorderly. Within seconds, that's what this minister has done. She's got a bad record of pointing the finger at us, but she needs to comply— The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume his seat. I'm going to ask the minister to begin her answer again and to refer to the question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 They don't like it much we talk about this subject, do they? And for very good reason. I'm referring to facts that were found in a report that was provided to me in July 2022— Ms 140590 which demonstrated that the former prime minister directed the former home affairs minister—who is getting quite vocal over there—to order a senior military officer to issue a public statement about a live military-led operation in which young Australians in uniform were at risk. She didn't do it herself; she asked a public servant to do it for her. The report that was released to about this incident— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. I'll ask the Manager of Opposition Business to state the point of order, otherwise I will sit him down pretty quickly. Mr Fletcher L6B This point of order is on relevance. The question was about the progress the Albanese Labor government has made. It wasn't— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, as the minister has been making clear, in those first six months there was a report that she received, which she is now describing. Mrs Andrews 230886 Which she sat on for weeks! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McPherson will cease interjecting before the minister resumes. The question was about progress in the past six months. The minister is being entirely relevant, and I do not want her interrupted for the reminder of her time. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Sometimes the facts hurt. This report found that the minister and her office had interfered inappropriately with the work of the Public Service, and demonstrated that the former government put their political interests above the national interest. This is an approach that I see right across the Home Affairs portfolio. The House will remember that one of the first actions of the former member for Cook on becoming prime minister was to abolish the cybersecurity ministry. Well, haven't their chickens come home to roost on that one! Australia has just experienced its two worst ever cyberattacks within three weeks of one another. The Australian government in the last six months— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The members on my left will cease interjecting. The 53517 The member for Moncrieff is warned. The minister will continue and be heard in silence. Ms O'NEIL 140590 There is no question that in the last six months the new Australian government— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business is warned. Ms O'NEIL 140590 There is no question that in the last six months the new Australian government has done more to protect the cybersecurity of Australians than the previous government did in the whole preceding six years. This has included creating— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Wannon is warned. The minister will be heard in silence. Ms O'NEIL 140590 It's not a history I'd be proud of, either. This has included creating an incident response function which did not exist before we came to office. It has involved fixing privacy laws and the rollout of a new model of policing which will see the Australian government hack the hackers. There is a lot more work to be done and there will be more cyberattacks, but we are punching back for the first time in this critical area of policy. On immigration, when we arrived in office there were one million unprocessed visas sitting in the system with no plan to process them in the middle of the biggest labour shortage we have had in 70 years. I pay credit to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs for the work he has done. I could go on: failed citizenship laws that left a legal and constitutional mess, an immigration policy framework totally failing to meet the nation's needs, an immigration system being exploited by criminals. For every rock I look under there is a legal and policy mess created by the former government, and we are cleaning it up. Mrs Andrews 230886 Yes, she's a winner; she's a winner! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McPherson, if she continues to interject, will be warned. Workplace Relations 60 15:05 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Senator Pocock has said that you made a commitment to him to review modern awards. Can you please confirm that you have made the commitment and provide further information to the chamber, particularly regarding the form of the review, its timing and whether it will be conducted independently of government? 15:05 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the question and also acknowledge that both the member for Wentworth and a number of members of the crossbench in this House raised issues here that have ended up being part of the negotiation that's taken place in the Senate. The review of the awards is one of the issues that had been raised by crossbenchers within this House as well. The review is something where final decisions of government, through its mechanism, haven't been taken yet, but it is my intention that the review will commence next year. The reason for the review and one of the reasons why I readily agreed to it is, as part of the secure jobs, better pay bill, we're not only updating the objects of the act we're also updating the objects of the modern awards. That means the award system will now have objects that it didn't have when it was developed. For example, the principles of gender equality, particularly under the amendments that were made here, will now be requirements of the act but they weren't requirements when the awards were developed—similarly for secure jobs. Secure jobs, once the legislation is passed, will be an objective of the awards but it wasn't when they were designed. Certainly I'm not proposing that the review would be limited to these issues, and they'll be a decision of government as to the full breadth of it, but when you change the objects of the award system I think it's very important that you then have some sort of review to work out what that actually means for the awards themselves. Workplace Relations 60 15:07 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is also to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How will the secure jobs, better pay bill get wages moving again and is this consistent with the commentary? 15:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Pearce both for her question and for her commitment to getting wages moving. There is some commentary I want to refer to, but it's commentary that agrees that the bill will get wages moving, and it's commentary that came from the Leader of the Opposition and I thank him for it. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said: 'It's going to result in higher wages.' Similar comments were made by the shadow Treasurer, but because they were said on television he doesn't like me quoting them. The principle there, from the Leader of the Opposition, was made very clear: 'It's going to result in higher wages.' That commentary is spot on. When you include gender equality as an objective in the Fair Work Act, then you look at some of the awards that are dealing very much with feminised industries, you're looking at an area where it will get wages moving. The Leader of the Opposition is right. When you give the Fair Work Commission the power to consider equal remuneration and work value cases in a much more effective way, and you make it easier to run an equal pay case, that will get wages moving. The Leader of the Opposition is right. Giving the Fair Work Commission the expertise to determine pay equity claims—the panels that we're setting up, both on pay equity and on the care and community sector, will improve the expertise on these issues. That is there within the Fair Work Commission. That will result in higher wages. The Leader of the Opposition is right, and I thank him again for his commentary. Banning pay secrecy clauses will help get wages moving. Pay secrecy clauses have been used as a way to make sure that people don't know what each other is earning. It's a way of putting downward pressure on wages. Getting rid of those pay secrecy clauses will allow people to better know what the going rate at their workplace is. That will result in higher wages. The Leader of the Opposition is right, and I thank him for his commentary. Mr Howarth 247742 What about privacy? Mr BURKE DYW I hear the interjection, 'What about privacy?' If you don't want to tell people what you're earning, you don't have to. The problem at the moment is that people want to tell people what they're earning and they're not allowed to. Before you interject as to what you're angry about with the bill, read it. Just have a look, because it's the opposite of what your interjection says. There are the sunsetting zombie agreements, which date back to the Work Choices era, where people are now being paid less than the award. Getting rid of those will get wages moving. The commentary from the Leader of the Opposition is right. Introducing multi-employer bargaining will get wages moving. The Leader of the Opposition is right. But the fact that he's right on all these issues causes those opposite to reach the opposite conclusion. If it gets wages moving, they don't want it to happen. If it gets wages moving, the government is in support. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. You can thank the number of points of order for why you didn't get more questions. DOCUMENTS 61 DOCUMENTS Statements of Thanks and Appreciation 61 Presentation 61 15:11 The SPEAKER 53517 For the information of honourable members, I present a copy of statements of thanks and appreciation by former members of the 46th Parliament. Presentation 61 15:11 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Eating Disorders 61 15:11 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to urgently address the rise and treatment of eating disorders among young people. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:12 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I have had mothers from Goldstein on the phone and in my office asking me to do something before their children die. Today I rise in this House to tell the story of these parents and their children. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the Monash Medical Centre, for example, has seen demand for eating disorder treatment increase by 85 per cent, with no additional full-time staff to cater for this increase. Jacinta Coleman, the head of adolescent medicine at Monash, said, 'I have never, in my life, seen anything like it.' In Goldstein, when Jo's 15-year-old daughter was diagnosed with anorexia in 2021 her family was told that this would be the most horrific journey they would go on. Jo told me, 'It's soul-destroying to watch your child be possessed by this illness, their body and mind fade away in front of you.' It's hard to hold onto hope when the system is so poorly equipped to treat this epidemic. Specialists ED wards urgently stabilise and renourish sufferers. They are not geared to equip patients or families with support on how to treat and support the patient when discharged, which leads to a revolving door of admissions, often lasting years. The stress on families is relentless. Eleven-year-old Esther suddenly developed anorexia this year. She has had 17 hospital admissions at Monash Children's Hospital over the past nine months—17. The unit is only for acute medical stabilisation, so Esther arrives close to death each time, otherwise she is turned away. She is then force-fed and tube-fed if she can't consume a meal before a timer rings. Her family has lost count of how many times she has been held down and 'tubed'. Can you imagine the cumulative impact of this? Esther is now so scared of food that she is entirely unable to eat at home. Sixteen-year-old Izzy has had anorexia for four years. She says her illness has taken away almost all of the good things in her life—her sport, her friends and her school. When she goes back to hospital it's like a walk of shame. 'We're treated like criminals,' she told me. These are stories of heartbreak, and families are at breaking point. Around one million, or four per cent of Australians, have an eating disorder, but eating disorders, when combined with disordered eating, are estimated to affect 16.3 per cent of the population. Those most at risk are adolescents 12 to 17 years of age, but they're getting younger. In south-east Melbourne the Alfred Child and Youth Mental Health Service, the Australian Research Council and Monash hospital, as well as private clinics, estimate prevalence at being almost one in nine adolescents. Some estimate that in my bayside electorate it could be as high as one in seven and heading towards one in five. I hear stories of girls not eating their school lunch and adolescents sneering at their peers for eating bread. They're competing on social platforms like TikTok on who can consume the lowest number of calories within a day or a week. When I held an eating disorder round table in my electorate with families and experts to try to work out the best way forward, the group was extremely critical of the current landscape. We were told that GPs are inadequately trained to treat the illness or whom to refer the patient to. Precious time was wasted waiting for appointments with specialists, with no transparency around availability of services or expertise. The round table agreed that a circuit breaker is needed to stop the repeat hospital admissions and stress. The favoured approach is hub and spoke, a one-stop shop where all clinicians are located, including recovery coaches, with a three-week residential program where the mental and physical aspects of the disorder are treated concurrently. Step-down day patient care would follow, along with at-home eating disorder support to assist with refeeding. Specialists told us this variation to the standard model of care would save lives. I've spoken to the Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, about the urgent need for a new model of care, and I've met with the federal minister, Mark Butler. Both agree that the current landscape is failing Australian families, but they haven't committed to a new approach. The previous federal government allocated funding to the states to build eating disorder residential centres, but the status of the centre in Victoria and others is unclear. We can't keep going around in circles. Mothers in Goldstein are pleading with me to do something before their children die of starvation. As Jess said to me recently about her daughter, 'Zoe, I'm not sure she will last until the New Year, let alone longer.' We must act. 15:17 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I'm very passionate about this issue. When we were in government in this place, under the leadership of the former Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, we did an exceptional amount of work. This is an incredibly important issue. Within eating disorders, anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate. Organisations like Butterfly Foundation estimate that around a million Australians have eating disorders or disordered eating. I'm very pleased to say that when we were in government we established the first residential eating disorder facility in Australia and we provided some $70 million to construct eating disorder facilities right around this country, so I say to the crossbench, the member for Goldstein and members opposite that with that $70 million we provided when we were in government to the six state governments—'Here's $70 million; go and build yourselves a residential eating disorder facility' like the one that we built in my electorate—not one of those states has provided a residential eating disorder facility, apart from what we did in Queensland, and that's no thanks to the Queensland state government; that's thanks to Mark Forbes, endED and the Butterfly Foundation, who actually got off their backsides and built it. In Queensland, we are now treating people from across the country who can't get treated anywhere else because the states in this country are leaving children and sufferers of eating disorders and their families with nothing. I have walked this walk for almost 20 years, personally. There is no greater pain for a parent than to see your child go through an eating disorder. One has nearly cost my daughter her life on numerous occasions. We are failing children and families across this country, still—even with the amount of money that we are putting into this problem. We have got to do better. Some will say that this is the purview of the states, and it kind of is. I thank the new federal government for keeping the $20 million that we allocated in our budget for community services like endEd in my electorate, to provide that step-up, step-down care. But we really need to do so much better. We don't know what causes eating disorders. Some doctors out there will tell you that we do. Let me tell you: we don't. We don't know what causes them; we don't know how to fix them. We're providing some funding into the research, but, if there was any other form of illness that was impacting on a million lives in Australia, we'd be pumping a hell of a lot more money into it than what we do now. I've spoken with the assistant minister, and I believe that she genuinely cares about this. I'm going to keep working with her. And I encourage the member for Goldstein. I'm happy to talk to her about this issue. I want to acknowledge the former assistant minister for mental health, David Coleman, who has done a great amount of work in the space, as did Greg Hunt. Please, members, we need to do better in this space. There are families out there that are literally tearing themselves apart over the losses that are occurring. So, government, let's do more. (Time expired) 15:22 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I want to acknowledge and recognise the member for Goldstein for her advocacy and for putting eating disorders forward as a matter of public importance today. I want to thank, individually, the many members of parliament who have raised this important issue with Minister Butler and me. I notice the former minister is in the chamber now, and I want to acknowledge his efforts and contribution to progressing this cause, as well as those of the member for Wentworth, the member for Fisher, the member for Macarthur and the member for Higgins and others. Our government is taking a collaborative approach to mental health and suicide prevention. We intend to work closely with all members and senators who are committed to seeing the change that we all want to realise. This issue is beyond one term of parliament, beyond one level of government, beyond one individual and beyond one policy. Today, I reaffirm my commitment to work with genuine collaboration in a multipartisan effort to be able to improve the lives of those living with eating disorders and those who love them. I did have a chance to meet with the member for Fisher, where he shared his own personal experience. Before I go on, I want to acknowledge all of those in the chamber and all of those who are listening who have a lived or living experience of eating disorders. Since becoming the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, I have listened widely to better understand the lived and living experience of people with eating disorders and of those who love them; the current treatment access, options and availability; the research; and the best evidence. I've met with the National Eating Disorders Collaboration, the InsideOut Institute, Dietitians Australia and the Butterfly Foundation, and I've had the chance to present to the Australia & New Zealand Academy for Eating Disorders. As many of us in this chamber know, eating disorders are serious, complex and often misunderstood. Our government is determined to improve outcomes for people living with eating disorders and those who love and support them. We're working to provide early, effective, evidence based treatment options, helping to reduce stigma and supporting highly trained healthcare professionals to reduce the number of people affected by eating disorders. We know that, together, we all must do more. Historically, eating disorders have received the lowest research dollar spend of any mental health condition. Sadly, people with lived experience continue to say that access to care and support is patchy, inconsistent, difficult to navigate, often not evidence based and, at worst, harmful. Eating disorders are biological, psychological and sociocultural, and risk factors include low self-esteem, body dissatisfaction and weight loss behaviours. While this makes recovery difficult, full recovery is possible with timely and appropriate care. Recently, I joined the state minister, Bronnie Taylor, at the launch of the InsideOut Institute at the Charles Perkins Centre in Sydney. There we met with someone with lived experience, who spoke about their recovery, what their life is like now and what they expected their life to be. This should be the experience rather than the exception for everyone with eating disorders. It is important that we have a full understanding of what eating disorders are and who they impact. While it's true that the highest period of risk for eating disorders is for 12- to 25-year-olds and that the group most at risk is young women, eating disorders can affect anyone, no matter their size, shape, age, ability, gender identity, sexuality, cultural or ethnic background, economic status or profession. As I said, eating disorders are some of the most misunderstood mental health conditions. Eating disorders present both in men and in women from all walks of life and from all parts of Australia, in the young and the old. Despite assumptions to the contrary, males make up approximately 25 per cent of people with anorexia nervosa or bulimia and 40 per cent of people with binge eating disorders. We also know that certain activities such as sports, including rowing and gymnastics, and occupations such as the performing arts leave people at greater risk of developing an eating disorder. Yesterday I spoke to a medical research scientist from Victoria whose daughter is a dancer. She was very concerned about the environment that she is training and working in and her future workplace. Too often, eating disorders are not treated with the seriousness that they require. They're often incorrectly mischaracterised as a phase, a behaviour or a lifestyle choice. Eating disorders are more prevalent amongst people who have other forms of physical or mental illness or who are in a period of distress or increased stress. Many people experiencing eating disorders also have experienced or lived with depression or anxiety, with rates for anorexia 32 times higher than the general population. Eating disorders have one of the highest mortality rates of any mental health condition, with almost 450 people with anorexia nervosa and 200 people with bulimia nervosa estimated to die each year in Australia. They are most lethal of any mental health conditions. Additionally, untreated eating disorders leave people at greater risk of other health issues, including suicidal ideation and completed suicide. I met with a mother last week who was recently bereaved by suicide and who, as with many of the parents that you have spoken to, is increasingly distressed about the lack of access to care and support and the lack of timely intervention. This person had increasing concerns about what that meant for them and their daughter, for her friends and for people in communities across Australia. We know that around a million Australians have an eating disorder and around 70 per cent of people with an eating disorder will not receive treatment. Even fewer receive evidence based treatment or support. In Australia today there are estimated to be 25,000 people living with anorexia nervosa, 100,000 people living with bulimia nervosa, 500,000 people living with binge eating disorder and 350,000 living with other forms of eating disorders. Eating disorders have been pointed out as being on the rise. The Butterfly Foundation, well known to many people in the chamber, are a national charity for all Australians impacted by eating disorders and body image issues and for their families and friends. They reported a 68 per cent increase in calls to the national helpline in 2020-21 compared to 2018-19. The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne had a 63 per cent increase in presentations to the eating disorders service in 2020 compared to 2017 and 2019. As a young person in my first year at the University of Sydney, a very good friend of mine—an athlete, an academic, an incredibly capable young woman—was diagnosed with an eating disorder. I visited her in the clinic at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Her family were far away, on the border near Queensland. I was also able, on her first gate leave, to take her into Newtown for a meal. The impact that her eating disorder has had across her life is of the same severity that we see has impacted so many individuals and families. I reaffirm my commitment to the member for Fisher, and to all those members who care and want to do something about it, that we will work together with you. This is a genuine collaboration. This is something that, as individuals, as a parliament and as a society we must do better on. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is beyond a level of government and a term of parliament; this is something we all must work together on to be able to advance and make progress. This is something that I know that we are all committed to do. What does make me hopeful and the reason I am optimistic is the discussion we are having in the House today, and the number of individual members that have raised this with me, and with Minister Butler, who care, who know that it matters and who are determined to do something about it. I've met with the member for Fisher and others about this, and I had the pleasure of opening the InsideOut Institute, which had $13 million of Commonwealth funding. This is at the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, and it will help us understand the evidence base and grow the understanding so that evidence-based interventions are translated into practice. It's something I know we are all determined to see. At another time the director of the institute, Associate Professor Sarah Maguire, said it 'aims to transform how we support, treat, and even cure people with eating disorders'. The government has committed $20 million for community based eating-disorder support, and this project has been facilitated through the National Eating Disorders Collaboration. I met with Dr Beth Shelton, the National Director of NEDC, who emphasised how crucial this funding is to assist people who are developing eating disorders in the first six to 12 months—before they end up in the hospital system, which is what we all want to avoid. I thank the member for Goldstein for raising this Matter of Public Importance today. I echo the sentiment of the Minister for health—thank you for your advocacy. To all those members determined to see the change, we will work with you to make this happen. (Time expired) 15:32 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong While the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the population's mental health globally, it has had a particularly severe affect on people—especially children—who are at risk of eating disorders. All available studies in Australia, Europe and North America have identified a marked increase in the incidence and severity of disordered eating conditions since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although data is limited, health professionals in Victoria, as my colleague from Goldstein has mentioned, have estimated that as many as one in nine adolescents have disordered eating or a diagnosable eating disorder. Unfortunately, because of the limited funding for research within this area of mental health, we can't be entirely sure how pervasive this problem really is. The elements contributing to the development of an eating disorder are complex. Exposure to social media from a young age, with peer pressure to conform to unrealistic ideals of thinness and appearance, have increased the prevalence of disordered eating and the resulting eating disorders. While these were on the rise before COVID, the pandemic has made these things much, much worse. Why? It's a combination of things: social isolation, disrupted routines, family stress, interruption of sport and recreational activities, food insecurity, fear of contagion, and increased use of screens for school and for social interactions. Those most at risk are children and adolescents who are entering social and biological transition periods—typically, those aged 12 to 17. Females are more commonly affected than males, but boys are also at risk—in fact, increasingly so. Our children are victims of unrealistic images to which they're exposed on social and mainstream media, and sometimes in vicious peer comparisons. This risk is exacerbated in those with perfectionism or compulsive personality traits and in kids with a history of family or social trauma, low self-worth and forms of weight shaming. Other mental health issues or medical problems make it worse. These conditions can cluster in school groups, often in schools from higher socioeconomic environments. The significance of these conditions is clear, but their treatment is problematic. Most GPs are unfamiliar with best-practice management of eating disorders, and the funding models and schedules are ill-suited to the management of complex psychosocial conditions. Our public hospital system is poorly equipped for dealing with those with mild or moderate eating disorders. Its paradigms are based mainly on the treatment of the acutely medically unwell. Specialist beds can stabilise and renourish eating disorder patients as quickly as possible, but they are very limited. It's a shocking fact that there are only 35 designated public hospital beds for eating disorders in this country, and they do not equip patients or families with ongoing support for discharge. Outpatient programs can facilitate access to group support, but their waiting lists are long and their programs are often short and relatively inflexible. Most patients need three years or more of intensive, expensive treatment. The few private clinics which are now starting to offer a multidisciplinary approach have long waitlists, and access to them is limited to those who are wealthy enough to afford them. We need more treatment centres. We need better and more effective evidence based management of eating disorders in Australia. We need a more comprehensive understanding of what's needed for prevention, treatment and relapse prevention. We need more support for families and carers who are bearing so much of the strain and receiving so little support. We need metropolitan and regional multidisciplinary eating disorder specific clinics and programs, which would be able to provide appropriate family based therapy and individualised prescriptions. We need a commitment from all state, territory and federal governments to fund these centres, and we need more dedicated hospital beds for those at immediate medical risk. We need enhanced nutritional and psychology resources in schools, and we need our GPs to be better equipped and supported to provide best-quality primary medical care. We owe it to our children, and to all of those who are suffering right now, to do better. 15:37 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I'd like to thank the member for Goldstein for raising this incredibly important issue through an MPI. I think it's very rare that we get an MPI that all sides of this House can speak to with such passion and concern. It is a very important issue. I'd like to thank the assistant minister for her contribution and the member for Fisher for his as well. In the eighties, when I was young—a long time ago—there was a book called Puberty Blues, and we devoured this book as young people. It really highlighted the ugly pressure that young women felt to conform—the desire to fit in and be one of the crowd—and how that led to behaviour that was actually detrimental to their health and wellbeing. As I said, we devoured that book because, I think, we related to it so well. We had never seen the issues that we felt and were experiencing so explicitly expressed—that pressure to have sex, to drink, to smoke, to take drugs, to look thin and to dress in a certain way. We all felt it, but there it was in black and white and, ultimately, in a movie. We all felt it, but some felt it more than others. I remember how that book and that film started the most amazing conversation for my generation: a conversation about young women and the pressure that they were under. Fast forward to today and, yes, there is more awareness and a better understanding—although there's still a lot to learn, as the members for Fisher and Kooyong have explained. There's a lot to learn about these conditions. There's been some advancement in support and education: we talk a lot more about gender equity and the empowerment of girls, young women and young men. Yet the pressures still exist and these conditions are still being manifested in serious mental ill health and, perhaps even more so, the physical conditions that follow. I know it's not only societal pressures that lead to eating disorders, but we know that they do. Pressures from peer groups have gone beyond the channels that I may have had in the eighties. Social media has amplified that pressure; it's taken it to a whole new level. Cyberbullying is serious. It's so difficult to monitor and tackle. So-called influencers are presenting body images that are impossible to emulate. Consumables are pushed on our young people, and social trends change at a furious rate. It's almost impossible for them to keep up, and they are unaffordable and unattainable for so many. These make young people who can't reach these societal expectations feel inadequate, out of the mainstream and isolated. If they can't conform, it affects their health. It's not only women; young men, as we have heard, are also affected. The mental health impacts are profound, and, as members have outlined here, they contribute to issues like eating disorders, where we know physical outcomes are very serious. Social pressures are not the only cause that contributes to eating disorders, but they are a serious part of it. It was extremely disturbing to see that eating disorders are on the rise, putting pressure on a health system that is struggling to provide care in the light of that rapid rise. As we've had from the previous speakers, there was a serious concern about the increase in incidence over COVID. I think the member for Kooyong expressed very clearly how COVID contributed to the rise in mental ill-health for our young people. It has been well documented. Evidence that psychiatric conditions have declined post COVID is welcomed but eating disorders haven't. These are complex illnesses with high mortality rates from suicide and organ failure. The Australian government acknowledges that, whilst vast improvements to treatment have happened since the eighties, more needs to be done. But it isn't just a matter of opening beds in hospitals. Yes, that is vital, but we need a better trained and more trained workforce. We need to make sure that we have people there to care for them. We need wraparound services for people in their homes and in society. We need to deal with sexism, bullying, sexualisation and social media content and monitoring. We need to make sure our young people are resilient, have self-esteem and are believed. We need to support young people and their families. 15:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on this matter of public importance, noting that more than 1 million Australians are currently living with an eating disorder, and up to 25 per cent of people diagnosed will experience a severe and long-term eating disorder. Of Australians with eating disorders, 30,000 have anorexia nervosa, and as a result of the pandemic we know that it has increased significantly, by 63 per cent. People with eating disorders experience high rates of conditions such as depression, anxiety disorders and, among adults, cardiovascular disease, chronic fatigue and neurological symptoms. The associated mortality rate is the highest of any mental illness, with suicide risk far greater than that for the general population. The pathway to diagnosis and treatment is not easy. Eating disorders can only be diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or a medical professional, such as a GP, psychiatrist or paediatrician. It's impossible to get in and see a psychiatrist. Once diagnosed, there is access to an eating disorder care plan. On this plan, a patient can access vital support through up to 40 psychological treatment services and 20 dietetic visits each year subsidised by Medicare. While experts agree early support is key, only one in 10 Australians can recognise the signs and symptoms of an eating disorder. There are solutions. We know our EDs are overwhelmed. We know that they are only taking the most severe cases. We need to properly resource our overworked emergency health professionals. I also call on the government to recognise accredited practising dietitians to be able to access and diagnose early eating disorders. Their training and credentialling demonstrates their competency, but currently only clinical psychologists or medical professionals can approve treatment funded by the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Accredited practising dietitians are trained to recognise early eating disorders, eating disorders in their early stages and those at risk of developing an eating disorder. We should therefore provide those Medicare items. Mission Australia says that young people rank their concerns, and they say that their body image is one of their greatest concerns. I'm aware of the work of Taryn Brumfitt who is helping to promote positive body imagine, and I recommend that everyone in this chamber watches the Embrace Kids movie. It's great for young people and families, and I think it starts that conversation. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the Breakthrough Mental Health Research Foundation, the statewide eating disorder service in my home state of South Australia. Breakthrough say they're working to bring together the best clinical services and the Flinders University research team. They're currently planning but have not yet built a new eating disorders service at the Repat Health Precinct in Daw Park. Back in the nineties I was a young woman. It was the time of Kate Moss, when we were all desperate to be thin. I'm now nearly 50, and I look at that young woman in her 20s who stood on the scales at 46 kilos and hated herself. I absolutely hated myself because I thought I was fat. I was really fortunately that I had a mum who was a social worker. She saw the early signs and that for me as a young woman my weight was one of the few things I thought I could control. You develop a relationship with food where food is the enemy. It's horrific that we're not doing enough as a nation. Young people today don't just have to just deal with superskinny models but also have to deal with social media—and it's just a nightmare for our children. I talk with mothers. I'm fortunate that we haven't experienced it in our immediate family, but other mums and dads feel so helpless. They don't know how to help their children, the baby that they nurtured from the beginning. They feel helpless in dealing with them when they have eating disorders and they're in their teens or 20s. I would like to quickly acknowledge the work of the Butterfly Foundation. There is a national helpline. If you are listening to these speeches today and you are concerned perhaps for yourself or for someone you love or you are a teacher, it operates seven days a week from 8 am to midnight. The ED HOPE line is 1800 334673. For young people who don't like to ring, you can chat online or email at the Butterfly Foundation, so butterfly. org.au. 15:47 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I'd like to thank the member for Goldstein for raising the profile of this important issue and for her local advocacy. I would also like to thank other members of the chamber for sharing their testimony. There is clearly bipartisan support in the House to fix this vexed problem. What is key to fixing this problem, however, is listening—listening to the front line, in this case our constituents, about the lived experience and listening to the families who have gone through this problem. But I'm here also to share my experience as a senior clinician at the Alfred, where I was a senior generalist who managed patients with eating disorders, principally anorexia nervosa, who were at the most severe end of the spectrum. These patients were overwhelmingly female. They were sometimes children, even though the Alfred is an adult hospital. Many were in their late teens, and my oldest patient was in their 30s. These patients always came into the hospital in crisis. They were close to death because a hospital like the Alfred is not just a tertiary hospital, and so we looked over the most severe cases. I had patients who had BMIs as low as 11. To put that into context, a healthy BMI is 19 to 25, so you can just imagine what a BMI of 11 actually looks like. These women, sometimes teens, were fragile. They were fragile physically but also in their minds, and it was really, really challenging to look after these patients. It was hands-down the hardest group of patient for me and my teams to manage. Not only were they skeletal and their arms and legs were like twigs but they were always cloaked in baggy, warm clothing because they were unable to regulate their temperatures. It was very challenging to form a therapeutic alliance—that is what we strive to do as clinicians; to form a therapeutic alliance with our patients but also their families—because these patients were in the grips of this disease, and they rebuffed all attempts by us to try and make them better. So it fell to a multidisciplinary team to try and manage them, and at the head of that was someone like me, a senior clinician who had to make the tough decisions and sometimes be the bad guy in the room. I signed off on some pretty restrictive practices, I've got to say—things like tube-feeding, sometimes mechanical restraints in order to put the tube down. We would often do blood tests, twice a day, to make sure the electrolytes were not going haywire. In some cases—actually, in all cases—we would start off with the patient just being in the ward with a standard nursing ratio, but it would always escalate to requiring a nursing special in order to watch over the patient to make sure they weren't purging surreptitiously or hyper-exercising, which happened a lot, or indeed self-harming. So it was a really difficult problem. We had daily consultant-liaison psychiatric input. Dietitians would come twice a day. We also had social workers seeing patients and their families, because often that relationship was damaged, it was fractious and it was very difficult for families to watch what was happening. They had that sense of powerlessness that they were unable to turn the ship around. Where things went wrong actually was not in the hospital. These patients had intensive ward-based care. Sometimes despite our best efforts they would end up in intensive care. But where things often went wrong was in the transitions between hospital and the outside world. It was very difficult to find step-down care units, and that is something our government is trying to address. So we are committing over $258 million towards fixing this problem, which has been neglected, and it has been neglected basically because it's rare, because it's gendered—overwhelmingly affecting females—and because it's complex. We're really good as a health system at fixing simple things like a broken arm or a broken leg. We are really bad at fixing complex problems that require multidisciplinary care, and this is all the more reason why we are also committing $13 million towards a centre for research excellence which has already opened at Sydney University, the Charles Perkins Centre, and $20 million towards community-based eating disorder support units, the kinds of supports I never had as a doctor. 15:52 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Rarely do you get to stand on something that's very close to one's heart, but I am on this. I'd like to first of all acknowledge the member for Higgins, Dr Ananda-Rajah, and thank her for the work she has undertaken and also so many other colleagues of hers and others dealing with this mind-twisting, as a parent, issue that can unfortunately come across your life. I think the first step I saw in my having to deal with this is body image, especially girls—I won't give away the name—saying, 'I've just got to lose this part of weight; I've just got to lose that,' and you just let it brush over you. You don't worry about it. You just think it's a statement. Then you get to the point of realisation. I know exactly where I was: at the Albert Hotel at lunchtime in Brisbane. I was watching this young girl push the food around her plate, and because you're a father and you're obtuse, you just say: 'Would you please eat it? Don't just push it around; put it in your mouth'—obviously the wrong thing to say. Then comes the realisation, as it slips and it slips, and then starts the pleading, because as parents you're not psychologists: 'Can you please eat? Do you realise what's happening?' Then there's the traumatisation of hospitalisation, then the tube-feeding, then being by someone's bed and saying to them, 'You're going to die.' This is repeated by so many parents. Then there's the bright side, the incredible psychologist doctors, who can do what you as a parent can't, and that's get inside a person's head and get to the point of trying to turn the situation around. Later on, there's an understanding of the other things that floated in the background: the bullying, the intimidation, how cruel one person can be to another by trying to drive them into a certain process and the insidious nature of social media, which is never regulated. As you know, I wanted to go to the United States—but, unfortunately, I got COVID—for the express reason of trying to deal with this, to say to people: 'You're responsible. It's on your platform. You make money out of it. You're responsible for it. You're the person who should be paying the price.' This is so important. The earlier you realise the problem, the better chance you have of dealing with it. The earlier you can see that and get a person to professional help, the better it is. Because you don't want to go through the issue where people can't get in a pool, because they can't regulate their body temperature or where you see people who are full of fun and full of life just destroyed by this. We have to do everything we can. There is help—the Butterfly Foundation is one organisation that provides mental health help. We need to make sure that we train the psychologists and the psychiatrists, who have the capacity to work in the hospital system, and make parents aware, especially to instruct young girls that you can look how you want! You can be what you want. Beauty does not come online. Beauty comes from your soul, from your voice, from how you think and from your actions to make the world a better place. It is not determined by what you see online. And you are stronger than the people around you who sometimes try to play with your psyche, like a cat plays with a ball of string. I would like to commend this and the member for Goldstein for bringing this forward. It's incredibly important. It resides on all sides of the chamber, and I hope there's a chance, if someone out there is maybe looking at their daughter or possibly their son, that this tweaks something with them, and they say, 'I'm going to do something about this right now.' 15:57 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I want to thank the member for Goldstein for raising this really important issue with the House. It is a very important issue, not just here but right throughout the community and particularly in my home electorate on the Central Coast. Eating disorders are an extremely complex pathology, often with an unknown aetiology, and that's why medical professionals often find it quite difficult to treat eating disorders, particularly in that sub-acute, post-acute phase, as the member for Higgins was just describing only moments ago. Along with eating disorders in the acute phase, there are quite severe complications that can be often life-threatening. We look at electrolyte imbalances and cardiovascular and cardiac complications that can be life-threatening to individuals who are suffering from this illness. I want to acknowledge that this disease and the pathology of eating disorders haven't been given the attention they deserve throughout the medical community, and they haven't been given the attention they deserve across all levels of government. We need to make sure that we're discussing it in places like this and making sure it is at the front of our minds and top of our list of priorities when we discuss it at the governmental level. Eating disorders have one of the highest mortality rates of any mental illness in Australia. The complications, as have been discussed, are severe malnutrition; electrolyte imbalances, particularly around sodium and phosphate which result in complications with the heart and brain; cardiovascular complications such as cardiomyopathy and enlarged heart; long QT syndrome which can cause arrhythmia and electrical disturbances of the heart; and bradycardia which is a slowing of the heart rate—all of which can impact a patient, not just in symptomatology but also in mortality. Throughout Australia we have hundreds of thousands of people suffering from anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorders—and that's only to name a few. There are quite a lot of subcategories of the eating disorders that are being treated by our psychiatry specialists across the country. I'll just explain some of the symptomatology. We look at symptoms such as anxiety and depression, but you also see things like amenorrhoea, presyncope, hair loss, skin changes, very low BMI, hypotension—low blood pressure—slow heart rate and loss of muscle mass, all of which are quite debilitating to the patient suffering from an eating disorder. It's also important to touch on the electrolyte disturbances that were discussed previously. On your electrolyte panels, you see disturbances, particularly in sodium, that I was talking about before, and leucopaenia and thrombocytopaenia—low platelets and low white blood cells—which can have an impact on a patient's immunity and that can have an impact on a patient's ability to clot if they're cut. As a government, we are committed to early and effective intervention and treatment options for children and young adults with eating disorders. We acknowledge that more needs to be done. Like I've said before, more work needs to be undertaken to improve treatment options for individuals with or at risk of an eating disorder. Mental health presentations and conditions are at extremely high levels, particularly for eating disorders, and they only continue to rise. They really continued to rise during the pandemic, and that hasn't slowed down. The Royal Children's Hospital in Victoria saw a 63 per cent increase in presentations secondary to eating disorders. There was a 68 per cent increase in calls to the national helpline with the Butterfly Foundation. A study that was commissioned at the University of Sydney noted an 88 per cent increase in body image concerns, a 74 per cent increase in food restriction and a 66 per cent increase in binge eating. The numbers speak for themselves. It is a huge issue through our community and it really needs more attention in the medical community and across all levels of government. That's why our commitments are so important. They've been discussed already, including $258 million to reduce the prevalence of eating disorders, increase access to care and improve eating disorder treatments. Once again I want to thank the member for Goldstein for raising this important issue and all the members who have spoken on this today. It needs to get more attention here, in the medical community and in the media so that we can continue to help people with eating disorders. 16:02 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin It's encouraging to hear the multiparty discussion of this issue of eating disorders today, and I'm glad to hear the government acknowledge that more needs to be done. Navigating the health system to access treatment for an eating disorder is too difficult, too expensive, too slow and ultimately not good enough. In WA there are many young people and not so young people trying desperately to get help with eating disorders. In Perth we have one public hospital—the Perth Children's Hospital—that can treat, as inpatients, people 16 years of age or younger who present with an eating disorder. If you're older than that and suffering from an eating disorder, you must go to the emergency department at your local hospital and hope for the best. We have no eating disorder wards or inpatient units in adult public hospitals. There are no specialised care units in rural or remote parts of Western Australia. The WA Department of Health recorded a 75 per cent increase in patients seeking help for an eating disorder through the public health system in the last few years, but, if you've built up the courage to finally seek help, there are just not many options. The director of the one private outpatient clinic in Perth told me she had waitlists of more than six months to see a specialist. This was the same for all services in Perth. In fact, there's at least a 6-month waitlist in Perth for any psychological services for children. I know many people in my electorate who are currently on waitlists for a range of issues, including ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, depression and anxiety, and eating disorders. This is particularly concerning when we know that anorexia nervosa has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder. People die while on waitlists. For people who are suffering the self-hate associated with eating disorders, the rejection of a waitlist is deeply harmful. I spoke recently with a mother whose daughter is suffering from an eating disorder. She said: Over the years, our daughter's treatment has included psychiatrists, psychologists and nutritionists. Despite a supportive GP and top-cover private health insurance, we've struggled to find adequate care for her in Perth. We've experienced the merry-go-round of her presenting at emergency departments and then being discharged without the necessary care or plan going forward, only for her to arrive back at emergency. Trying to access psychiatric treatment often involves incredibly long wait times … I once called 20 psychiatrists to try and find one who would see my daughter—the shortest waiting period was 6 months. We've been navigating my daughter's illness for many years. There are no words to describe the toll it has taken on our family. The WA government is currently seeking to improve outpatient services for adolescents, but this doesn't extend to day programs or services for over-18s. There's still much work to be done to stop people falling through the cracks. There remains a lack of understanding about eating disorders outside of the few specialist centres, and there are not enough specialist centres for patients. Binge eating is the most common eating disorder, but it often doesn't get recognised or treated. If you don't appear to be starving, you're unlikely to be treated at a hospital. Overworked nurses struggle to understand the complexities of eating disorders. I've heard terrible stories of undertrained nurses put on duty to supervise eating disorder patients and then asking the patients for diet tips. I've also heard stories of eating disorder patients being misdiagnosed with borderline personality disorder and subsequently not being readmitted when they seek help. So much of the pressure lands on community GPs, who, as we know, are already underresourced, overcommitted and stretched. Hospitals treat eating disorders as physical illness, but they are mental illnesses. Many people suffering an eating disorder have experienced trauma. A siloed approach between hospitals, outpatient services, day programs and GPs means these patients are falling through the cracks. I call on the Albanese government to work collaboratively with states to identify how to address this health crisis. Specialists on the ground in WA are calling for more training and more upskilling for medical and health practitioners who are already in the system. Some federal resources have been promised for a residential service at the Peel Health Campus, but its current status is unclear. While, if it happens, it will be welcomed, it will not meet the increased need in our community. The federal government has the opportunity to take a leading role in directing resources towards best-practice, multidisciplinary services when treating eating disorders and to allocate funding to community mental health services. (Time expired) 16:07 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'd like to thank the member for Goldstein for bringing forward this matter of public importance. I'd like to thank all the other speakers. I know that many speak from very personal involvement with patients with eating disorders, family members with eating disorders and close contact with constituents who have family members with eating disorders. As a paediatrician, I've looked after children with eating disorders for many years. I've looked after children with a whole range of illnesses, some very severe and some fatal, but the issue of a patient with an eating disorder is far more complex than virtually any other illness that I've looked after. I've had discussions with multiple health ministers at the state and federal levels over many, many years. What I do know is that we have talked about this issue for decades. I don't doubt the goodwill of any of the previous ministers involved. I know Greg Hunt, when he was health minister, worked very hard with the member for Fisher to look at resources for managing people with eating disorders. Unfortunately, much of what we've done in the last four or five decades has suffered from a lack of data—a lack of information and a lack of an evidence base. I've looked after a number of patients with eating disorders, some of whom, unfortunately, have died. I know that recently, during the pandemic, presentations of children with eating disorders to my local hospital and most hospitals around the country increased. The ages are getting younger. But we are still faced with a situation where the frustrations of all the clinicians involved and the frustrations of the families have not been dealt with. We need far more research into the issue of eating disorders. We need a far better ability to work out prognosis for children—and, indeed, adults—who present with eating disorders. We know that there are some risk factors. The member for Kooyong very effectively mentioned some of those risk factors. It affects those in a higher socioeconomic group; mostly females, but some males; and those with psychiatric features, such as obsessive personalities. There are some warning signs, such as weight loss; hirsutism, developing hair in inappropriate places; avoidance of family meal times; and overexercising. We don't know exactly which children and people are most at risk of poor outcomes. The member for Robertson mentioned some of the metabolic effects of eating disorders. They certainly can be quite subtle sometimes to pick up and they can be quite dangerous to manage and require highly specialised care. There has been discussion already today about the number of beds around Australia for children and adolescents with eating disorders. It's very small. It's sometimes hard as a clinician to get a patient who is severely metabolically unwell into an inpatient bed that can deal with severe metabolic problems. Refeeding someone who has starved themselves almost to death is not simple. People can actually die from refeeding, so putting a nasogastric tube in and feeding them enterally is not always simple. It requires very complex management of their metabolism, as the member for Robertson has already mentioned. Measuring salt and calcium balances et cetera, dealing with cardiac complications and dealing with neurological complications can be very complex. The Albanese government, like the previous government, is committed to trying to make things better for these families. It is very destructive for the families. We need more evidence, hence the investment in the Charles Perkins Centre eating disorders unit and investment in more inpatient beds. This is a very complex issue that requires highly specialised care, long-term data collection and evidence based treatment. It is not simple. No-one that I know knows all the answers about managing a child in particular with an eating disorder. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 70 BILLS Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022 70

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 70 Third Reading 70 16:13 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 70

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 70 Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 71

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

First Reading 71 Second Reading 71 16:18 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Streamlining regulation and cutting red tape is essential for growing Australia's agricultural industries, exports and market access. Our agricultural industries produce more than our country needs. They export the bulk of their product and rely on an effective regulatory system to assist them in doing so. It is vital that export control legislation remains current and fit for purpose, keeping step with developments in importing country requirements, changing regulatory objectives and industry practice advancements. This bill will achieve this by making information-sharing provisions within the export control legislation more flexible. It will allow relevant information to be efficiently shared with regulatory partners, exporters and other key stakeholders while maintaining appropriate control on the sharing of certain kinds of information that may cause harm. It will support the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to streamline complex administrative and authorisation processes to access and utilise the export control information that it already holds, such as trade statistics, industry information and market intelligence. Currently, all information collected under the act is classified as 'protected' information, irrespective of whether or not it is commercially or trade sensitive, or sensitive within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988. Consequently, the department's ability to share non-harmful information is limited and comes with administrative complexities, time and resource costs which impact the efficient regulation of trade activities. Streamlined information sharing requirements can assist with rapid delivery of information that can be essential in trade situations—for instance, where an importing country may hold and request further information about a consignment of fresh produce at its port. This bill will benefit our exporters and trade partners by satisfying the growing demand for intelligence to sustain and grow our export markets. It will more efficiently allow for the provision of relevant information to other Australian government departments or agencies in appropriate circumstances, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for information which could cause harm. Being able to efficiently use and re-purpose export control information will increase our ability to innovate and to make gains from those innovations to retain Australia's competitive edge in the international agricultural export market. The September quarter ABARES Agricultural commodities report, brought welcome news of a record forecast exceeding $70 billion in value of Australian agricultural exports. By cutting red tape and continuing to streamline regulation and administrative arrangements as we are here, the government is supporting the agricultural sector's ambition to grow and become a hundred-billion-dollar industry by 2030. The amendments in this bill are also consistent with the broader information sharing reform work occurring across government. The government takes the protection of private information seriously, and this bill will not affect the department's commitment to continue to protect personal or sensitive information as identified in the Privacy Act 1988. Greater flexibility in being able to analyse and explore the export data we hold opens opportunities to support key priorities such as Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters and other agricultural policy initiatives. The improved information sharing arrangements ensure greater flexibility and tailoring for export control purposes and will make the export control legislative framework more effective, efficient and future-focused. This bill will also make some minor amendments to the act to simplify processes and improve effective administration of the act. This bill will support a modern export system, providing streamlined processes for exporters and improved delivery of services that will benefit our agricultural export industry, and I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate must now be adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 72

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022

First Reading 72 Second Reading 72 16:23 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Intelligence oversight bodies play a critical and unique role in democracies. By necessity, much of the work of intelligence and security agencies is conducted in secret. This means that many of the usual forms of democratic accountability, including civil society, the media and even the parliament, are more constrained in fulfilling their usual functions. That is why Australia's dedicated intelligence oversight body, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, is so important. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was created by the Hawke government in 1986, in response to a recommendation of Justice Hope in the final reports of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. As the then Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, noted in his second reading speech on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986, Justice Hope's proposal for an independent watchdog over intelligence and security agencies stemmed in part from a submission the Australian Labor Party made to the Hope royal commission. While the then opposition expressed 'real reservations' about the effect of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security on the operations of intelligence and security agencies, the creation of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security ultimately enjoyed bipartisan support. Importantly, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support to this day. The creation of the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was a key recommendation of the Hope royal commission, and, for the last 35 years, the Inspector-General has performed a critical role in ensuring the parliament and the public that Australia's intelligence agencies act legally and with propriety. Just as the powers of intelligence and security agencies need to be adapted time to time to address new security challenges, the powers of the Inspector-General must also adapt in response to the changing nature and activities of intelligence and security agencies. To that end, the bill amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, the IGIS Act, and other Commonwealth legislation to enhance the oversight of the Office of National Intelligence, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act was enacted in 1986 and was designed for a smaller agency and a different Commonwealth integrity activity framework. This bill will enhance the Inspector-General's oversight of the agencies within its existing jurisdiction, ensuring Australia's oversight functions are commensurate with modern national intelligence community functions. This will provide the public with greater assurance that Australia's intelligence agencies are subject to robust oversight and integrity. The bill includes amendments that expressly empower the Inspector-General and their staff to enter and remain on any intelligence agency premises, gain full and free access to any information and make copies or take extracts from documents held by the intelligence agencies during inspections. The bill also includes amendments to clarify that whistleblowers are able to fully disclose classified information to the Inspector-General without reaching secrecy or unauthorised disclosure offences. This bill implements recommendations 172 and 174 of the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community to prevent the head or deputy head of an agency within the Inspector-General's jurisdiction from being appointed as the Inspector-General immediately after serving in that position and to allow the Inspector-General to consider employment related grievances for staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018. These measures will promote the independence of the Inspector-General and resolve an oversight gap to ensure that staff employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018 have access to independent review of employment grievances. This bill introduces amendments to ensure that the Inspector-General is able to share information, subject to appropriate safeguards, with other Commonwealth integrity bodies, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The ability for the Inspector-General to share information with an integrity body where it is relevant to that integrity body's functions would enhance Australia's integrity framework by facilitating access to information required for oversight purposes. These amendments will also strengthen the Inspector-General's ability to co-ordinate with other integrity bodies and minimise duplication and resources. This bill makes a range of additional amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act to ensure that the legislation governing the office of the Inspector-General is adapted to contemporary circumstances. This includes technical amendments to improve clarity, modernise drafting expressions and remove redundant provisions and address certain limitations in the Inspector-General's oversight functions and powers in order to facilitate effective oversight. The majority of the measures in this bill have previously been reviewed and unanimously supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in the 46th Parliament. The 2017 Independent Intelligence Review and the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community made recommendations that went to the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Specifically, both reviews recommended that the oversight role of the inspector-general and the Parliamentary Joint Committee Intelligence and Security be expanded to include additional agencies—though the 2019 review recommended a much more limited expansion than the 2017 review. In recent months, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has recommended its own jurisdiction, and that of the inspector-general, be expanded to include the Australia Criminal Intelligence Commission and the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police. While the bill does not extend the oversight role of either the inspector-general or the Intelligence and Security Committee to additional agencies, I would like to assure the House that the government is giving full consideration to those matters. Strong and effective oversight mechanisms do not stand in opposition to our Australia's national security interests—they are best understood as an essential part of advancing them. To that end, this bill will bolster the ability of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to provide effective oversight of relevant intelligence and security agencies. Debate adjourned. Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 74

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

First Reading 74 Second Reading 74 16:32 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Albanese government is committed to restoring trust and integrity to government—and an effective public sector whistleblowing framework is essential to achieving this, including to support disclosures of corrupt conduct to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill will implement key recommendations of the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM (the Moss review) and parliamentary committee reports to deliver immediate improvements to our public sector whistleblowing scheme. These reforms are long overdue. The bill will implement: 21 of the 33 recommendations of the Moss review recommendations 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on the inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press, and recommendations 6.1 and 6.3 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report on the inquiry into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. Improving whistleblower protections The bill will strengthen whistleblower protections for both disclosers and witnesses in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It will expand reprisal protections to those who 'could make' a disclosure. This will protect people who may have reprisal action taken against them merely for becoming aware of information that would meet the definition of 'disclosable conduct'. The bill will also expand the definition of detriment in relation to reprisal action to align it with the definition used in the private sector whistleblowing scheme in the Corporations Act 2001. The expanded definition will include, among other matters, harassment and intimidation, psychological harm, damage to a person's reputation and any other damage to a person. The bill will also provide witnesses with the same immunities under the Public Interest Disclosure Act as disclosers. This means immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liability will be available to any person who provides assistance in relation to a disclosure, including those who do so voluntarily. Together, these amendments will ensure more people are protected against a broader range of detriment when bringing wrongdoing and corruption to light. Providing a strong focus on significant integrity wrongdoing The bill will remove personal work related conduct from the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This implements a recommendation of the Moss review to focus the act on integrity wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption. This approach is not to suggest that agencies should ignore other forms of wrongdoing or workplace conflict. It recognises that other existing frameworks such as performance management or disciplinary conduct procedures, are better adapted to deal with complaints of personal work related conduct. However, there will be instances where it remains appropriate for disclosure of personal work related conduct to be dealt with under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The bill provides that such conduct can continue to be disclosed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act where it amounts to a reprisal action. Reprisal action often takes the form of personal work related conduct such as bullying and harassment. It is important that whistleblowers continue to receive protections when they bring to light such conduct that is experienced as a consequence of their initial disclosure. The bill also provides that disclosures of personal work related conduct will be protected and investigated under the Public Interest Disclosure Act where the conduct is of such a nature that it would undermine public confidence in an agency, or have other significant implications for an agency. This ensures that a whistleblower can disclose personal work related conduct where it is symptomatic of a larger, systemic concern within an agency, and is appropriate to report under the PID Act as a framework that is designed to address serious public sector wrongdoing and corruption. Making the Public Interest Disclosure Act easier for agencies to administer The bill will provide greater flexibility to agencies in how they handle disclosures, including to ensure the matter can be more easily referred for investigation under another law or power where appropriate. Officers exercising functions under the Public Interest Disclosure Act will be provided with a discretion not to allocate or investigate a disclosure if it would be more appropriately investigated under another law or power. This could include an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Public interest disclosure officers would be required to notify the discloser and the relevant oversight agency of their decision, and take reasonable steps to refer the disclosure for investigation under the other law or power where appropriate. The bill will also repeal the general secrecy offence in the Public Interest Disclosure Act to support better information sharing between agencies in relation to a disclosure. The Moss review noted that the secrecy offence unnecessarily limits agencies' ability to respond to alleged wrongdoing and disclosures, and has impeded the ability of senior management to access information about the performance of their agency. Repealing the general secrecy offence will ensure agencies can share information appropriately to effectively manage disclosures and carry out ordinary business actions. Clarifying the coverage of the legislation The bill will clarify who is a public official for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Consistent with a recommendation of the Moss review, the bill will expressly exclude staff employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 from the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, reflecting the original intention of the legislation. While the government is implementing this recommendation to clarify the scope of the act, it is important to note that the government supports the provision of appropriate whistleblower protections for parliamentary staff and has taken the first step towards delivering this outcome through protections provided in the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation for disclosures of corrupt conduct. Parliamentary staff who report a corruption issue to the National Anti-Corruption Commission will have robust protections against reprisal or detriment. This will go a long way to addressing a gap in the current Commonwealth integrity framework. Further, the government will also consider whether other protections are appropriate for parliamentary staff who report misconduct in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in Set the standard: report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, in particular the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. Enhancing oversight of the scheme Effective oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS, is critical to ensuring confidence in the integrity of the public interest disclosure scheme. Agency heads under the act will be required to provide the Ombudsman or the IGIS, as appropriate, with a copy of all investigation reports into disclosures within a reasonable period of time. To further strengthen scrutiny of the scheme, the Ombudsman and the IGIS will be able to make recommendations to agencies following any review of an investigation report. Recommendations can be made in relation to any aspect of the handling of a disclosure and about any public official in an agency. An agency will be required to respond with details of any action taken in response to a recommendation or, if no action has been taken, the reasons for this. The bill will also implement recommendations 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report into press freedom to require: notification of urgent disclosures in intelligence agencies to the IGIS as soon as possible, and biannual reporting of statistics on all public interest disclosures to the parliament. Interaction with the National Anti-Corruption Commission The bill will amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation to reflect amendments to whistleblower protections in the Public Interest Disclosure Act to ensure both regimes provide strong protections for whistleblowers. These improvements are intended to be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences in mid-2023. Comprehensive reforms to the public sector whistleblowing scheme The bill is only the first stage of reform to restore the Public Interest Disclosure Act to a best-practice whistleblowing framework. Following passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform, which will include public consultation on: further reforms to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers, and a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner. Consultation on these further reforms will ensure that they are not only shaped by users of the Public Interest Disclosure Act across government but also informed by expert stakeholders and the general public to ensure Australia has a best-practice scheme. This staged approach will allow the government to deliver immediate improvements to the scheme, including to whistleblower protections, ahead of the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Conclusion With this bill, the Albanese government is taking an important first step in improving Australia's whistleblowing framework for the public sector. The legislation will strengthen protections for public-sector whistleblowers and, in doing so, will support our broader efforts to restore integrity in government. Debate adjourned. National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 76

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022

First Reading 76 Second Reading 76 16:42 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am proud to introduce the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The National Reconstruction Fund is a key commitment of the Albanese Labor government. Introducing this bill today is a significant step in rebuilding Australia's industrial capability. Another step in creating secure, well-paying jobs for Australians. Australia can be a country that makes things again. We should be a country that makes things again. We must be a country that makes things again. If we want to elevate our national economic, environmental and social wellbeing, build our strategic industry capability and drive economic growth, we need to partner with industry and researchers. The pandemic highlighted the importance of an agile advanced manufacturing capability that can pivot to produce critical products, and meet our needs at a time when we need them most. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will oversee one of the largest investments in our country's history, with $15 billion to invest in independently assessed projects that will support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy. We can help build investor confidence and see the private sector—whether they be institutional investors, private equity or venture capitalists—work with us to turbocharge Australian industry, making sure Australia is a country that makes things now and into the future. Australian industry wants to know that government recognises their efforts and recognises their contribution. They want to know their government is not only vocal in its support but backing that support in a concrete way, not just with a domestic focus but helping to make the most of opportunities that overseas markets present. They need access to capital to back well-thought-out, deliverable business plans. For too long we've seen good ideas leave our shores for lack of supportive capital. Our government wants this fund to help keep talent and businesses on our shores growing this nation. Today we make clear our commitment to helping Australian industry rebuild, grow and evolve, to capture the strong opportunities for Australia to be a global leader in high-value manufacturing. The pressure is on every nation to support sectors that are vital to their economy and sovereign capability. The National Reconstruction Fund will do just that here in Australia. We should rank among the nations with complex economies, advanced manufacturing and thriving technology exports. The National Reconstruction Fund will build on our strengths and ensure long-term national resilience, supporting well-paid sustainable jobs of the future. It will help Australian industry capture new high-value market opportunities in the economy of tomorrow. Priority areas The bill allows the government to set priority areas for the corporation to invest. The seven priority areas we've outlined will be further defined through public consultation, including, of course, with industry, to draw out market gaps and investment opportunities. Our national science agency, the CSIRO, played a crucial role in helping identify these priority areas, identifying the opportunities that offer the best chance for growth and jobs, including across advanced manufacturing, science and technology. The priority areas reflect current and emerging industry strengths. They will help uplift our capacity to respond to domestic challenges and global opportunities. These priority areas will build on and transform our strategic industry capabilities—including, of course, in manufacturing—and strengthen our ability to harness technologies to futureproof our prosperity and national wellbeing. Government needs to be part of investing in these frontier technologies—sourcing them from overseas is not enough. We should be a maker, not a taker, of technologies and the ideas they sprang from. The seven priority areas are: value-add in resources; value-add in agriculture, forestry and fishery; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emission technologies; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. Let me go through them one by one. We are going to invest in value-add in resources: like high-purity alumina from red mud and bauxite processing or lithium processing for batteries. Our resources industry is a bedrock of our economic prosperity, and critical minerals will be vital to reaching net zero emissions. Through the National Reconstruction Fund, we want to support the creation of additional value onshore as high-quality inputs for domestic manufacturing and higher-value exports. Investments that help sectors like food processing, textiles, clothing and footwear manufacturing will be covered through our value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. Mr Joyce e5d Standing order 66A: I was wondering if the member would give way for a short question. Mr HUSIC 91219 Seriously? Australian science and clever agtech firms are at the forefront of developing novel ways to provide food that is low impact and high in value—both for nutrition and for potential export to our friends and neighbours in Asia. Transitioning to a net-zero economy will deliver jobs and export income, while delivering sustainability to the precious environments upon which this value is built: our lands, forests and oceans. Transport: including value chains for cars, trains and shipbuilding. The budget started the work on our commitment for a National Rail Manufacturing Plan. The NRF can assist in our vision to not just develop rail but support manufacturers to ensure they're tapped into rapidly developing global supply chains in electric vehicles and shipbuilding. Medical science: such as medical devices, medicines and vaccines. We are already investing in our health industries. With the Victorian government we have established a strategic partnership with Moderna to manufacture mRNA vaccines on our shores. Through this we will become one of the few countries in the world with end-to-end mRNA manufacturing capability. Australia has a proud medical manufacturing heritage which, with some notable exceptions, was largely frittered away. It's time to change this. The NRF will be able to support investment in medical manufacturing not just in vaccines but for medical devices, helping to create more companies to share the success of manufacturers like Cochlear, which makes the bionic ear. Renewables and low - emission technology: we led the world in solar technology only to see others seize the opportunity by scaling up manufacturing. Investing in solar and wind technologies and developing batteries to store renewable energy. The NRF can accelerate Australia becoming a renewables superpower. The two other priorities identified are in defence and enabling capabilities. Working with our international partners we can transform Australian know-how into globally recognised skills and manufacturing in defence industries. And we can build on our undeniable expertise in areas like quantum technologies, robotics and artificial intelligence. We will seek to partner with industry and state and territory governments to identify investment opportunities within priority areas. An on-ramp, if you will, of turn-key opportunities for investment to make sure the NRF is well placed for success. Independent, transparent decision-making by exper ts The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will be independent. An independent board, making independent investment decisions. Independent of political influence. There will be no commuter car parks built far away from train stations. No sports rorts and colour coded spreadsheets like we saw under the previous government. The Australian taxpayer rightly expects their tax dollars to be treated respectfully, guided by the national interest not political interest. And that's what they'll get with the NRF. The board—appointed jointly by the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Finance—will be made up of industry and investment figures, experienced in job creation, finance, governance and business. The independent board will be empowered to manage its investment portfolio. Decision-making will be based on the merits of a project, free from political influence. Giving industry the tools to innovate and adopt new technologies The bill provides the corporation access to $15 billion over the next seven years for its investments. And we aim for returns from those investments to be reinvested in the corporation, ensuring its sustainability in the long term. The bill gives the corporation broad investment powers, allowing it to invest across business types and industries, using debt, guarantees and equity to ensure that its investments are suited to industry needs. It will allow for significant, large-scale investments, facilitating transformative projects that can help industry innovate and adopt new and complex technologies. To ensure the projects benefit Australia, the bill directs the corporation to invest in projects that are solely or mainly Australian based. Helping to keep industries onshore, opening up opportunities here, now and into the future. Australian ideas are powerful. When our continent can have heatwaves in one corner and floods in another, it takes an ability to think on our feet to not just to survive here but innovate—something First Nations people have done for millennia. Great Australian ideas create great firms and great jobs. Our ideas are worth backing. We must inspire investment in our companies, in our industries, in our people. The introduction of this bill is another step in delivering an important election commitment which will propel Australia towards a strong, modern and diverse economy. The NRF is about growing our ability to make world-class products. It's about creating secure well-paid jobs. It's about building on our national strengths. It's about diversifying our industrial base. It's about developing our sovereign capability. It's about growing our regional economies. We want to work together—with all sides of politics, all parts of our community—to deliver high-value, high returns and high tech. An economy of high wages, high productivity and sustainable growth. We might not always agree in this place about the journey, but we very often agree on the destination. Today, that destination is a faith in Australia and its people and it is a strongly-held belief that our industry is capable of so much more, with the support of government, its parliament and its people. Debate adjourned. Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 79

Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022

First Reading 79 Second Reading 79 17:54 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 will amend the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act) to establish a new regulatory framework (known as regulatory sandboxes) to undertake time-limited trials of trade and customs practices and technologies, with approved entities, in a controlled regulatory environment, before committing to legislative change. Regulatory sandboxes ensure regulation keeps pace with industry developments, remains fit for purpose and does not become a barrier to innovation and productivity. This is among the first regulatory sandbox mechanisms identified within a customs framework, worldwide. The bill will enable the modification or waiver of existing licensing, importing and exporting obligations under the Customs Act, for trial periods of 12 to 18 months. The bill seeks to encourage innovation through testing new customs practices and technologies, as well as regulatory approaches and business models, with appropriate safeguards. Results from the trials will build the evidence base to inform longer term regulatory reform and simplification of Australia's trade system, while maintaining and achieving Australia's border security objectives. The bill will enable Australia's whole-of-government simplified trade system agenda, which seeks to simplify and digitise the trade system to deliver tangible benefits for Australian businesses, enable trade growth and better protect the community. More streamlined and innovative customs practices and technologies will lead to reduced costs and delays for businesses operating at the border, having flow-on effects and benefits to consumers. The bill will also make a number of technical amendments to the Customs Act, including to provisions relating to notices of intention to propose customs tariff alterations to clarify the legislative arrangements for these instruments. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 79

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

First Reading 79 Second Reading 79 16:49 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Every day of the week Australians are conducting transactions with their bank; with their shops; with their payment platforms; with insurance companies, telecommunications and electricity retailers; and on social media platforms, and on a daily basis they are producing data which is held by those companies. In some cases that data is monetised, packaged up and sold for the purposes of advertising and targeting products towards certain individuals, a typical business model in some of the social media platforms. In other cases, cases of banks and others, they might use that data to make sure that they're better providing services and service offerings to the customers who are dealing with their institution. Until the introduction of a consumer data right there wasn't a mechanism for consumers to have access to their data and use it for their own purposes. This bill will change that. The consumer data right regime sets in place a set of laws and rules which provide rights to consumers to direct the way that their data is used in a safe environment. This bill will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the consumer data right to enable action initiation, a functionality which will empower consumers to authorise, manage and facilitate actions securely in a digital environment. The consumer data right or CDR is a pioneering economic reform that gives consumers the ability to safely share the data Australian businesses hold about them for their own benefit. Australia's CDR will be rolled out across the economy with banking almost complete, energy being rolled out now and others to follow. It's the first and most ambitious way of rolling out this initiative in the world. Other countries are looking at our regime. There are other countries which have done a version of this inside one industry, so in the UK Open Banking is confined to the banking system. It's been in operation for quite some years, but nobody has taken on the ambitious project of rolling it out across the economy. The important thing about CDR is it places consumers at the centre of a data-sharing framework that protects their privacy and gives them the ability to opt in and to determine when and how they share their data with other businesses and professionals of their choosing. Consumers can use their data for things like switching service providers, taking out a loan, applying for a new mortgage or using budgeting apps to help manage finances. Consumers can better manage cost-of-living pressures, saving time and effort in a safe and regulated environment. It's important that data security and privacy are at the very core of the CDR. There are strict protocols, rules and other requirements to protect consumers and their data. Privacy and security considerations are key to ensuring that information within the CDR framework is held, used and disclosed securely, allowing confidence in the framework to grow—and this is a really important point. There has been some commentary, in the light of Optus and Medibank, that a CDR regime could create risks. To the contrary, a CDR regime is a safe answer to some of those risks that currently exist. It provides a safe and secure set of protocols and frameworks for enabling consumers to do things that they may be doing now in an unsafe way or don't do now because a safe protocol does not exist. To the contrary of what some commentators have been saying, this will actually enhance consumer protection, not create a risk for cyber and other data breaches. In time, as the CDR is introduced to other datasets and sectors across the economy, consumers will gain even more capacity to extract value from their data. This bill delivers the power of action initiation to the CDR. That means consumers and small businesses will be able to securely instruct a third party—these will be known as accredited action initiators—to carry out everyday tasks on their behalf. When combined with the pre-existing data-sharing capacity—actions like opening and closing accounts, for example—making payments and applying for services will be made easier as will going to a service provider and saying, 'In all of these accounts or in all of these online environments that I operate in, please change my address, please change my phone number, please change this other piece of important information.' This is important for consumers. In fact, to the point of security, a friction point in consumers updating personal information or providing relevant information across the range of services they have is to have the time to go through account by account or service by service and update information. This bill will enable a consumer to go to a single service provider and say, 'Please update all of my accounts.' That is of great benefit to consumers and will enhance competition, because it removes one of the friction points for a consumer—a consumer saying, 'I can't move from one account to another, or from one service provider to another, because it's just too damn hard.' A common example of this is in the banking industry. It's often referred to as the bank book tax. There's a stickiness once someone has taken on an account with a banking institution with multiple services provided by that bank. It's just too damn hard to switch providers. CDR is a game changer in this regard. Action initiation is a game changer in this regard. The government anticipates that these changes will support a range of innovative business models. In the same way that we could not have imagined things called apps when the smartphone was invented, we can't today imagine some of the innovations and new business models that will be enabled through the initiation of the consumer data right and the initiation powers that will be brought forward in this bill. We do know that it's going to offer entirely new ways of doing things, boost competition and reduce time pressures on time poor individuals and the costs and complexity experienced by consumers and small businesses when they are carrying out everyday tasks. The bill gives effect to the key recommendations of the inquiry into the future directions for the consumer data right to move ahead to enable action initiation. I take this opportunity to recognise and praise the work of Scott Farrell, a truly remarkable human being. He has provided advice and service to governments of both persuasions over quite some period of time. He has been a driving force in the area of CDR. I see the member for Hume in the chamber acknowledging and agreeing with these comments. He has done a great job of work for us in the area of CDR, as he has in the area of payment systems reform, and there are linkages between these two initiatives. This bill is going to give the minister the ability to declare actions that could be initiated using the CDR, just as the minister can already designate new sectors for data sharing. Before making such a declaration, public consultation and analysis needs to occur and the minister needs to have regard to a range of matters, including consumer interests, market efficiency, competition, innovation and, of course, the public interest. This process would enable the minister to require existing data holders (such as banks, energy companies or energy retailers) to become action service providers in the CDR, meaning that they would have to perform actions in accordance with valid instructions received from third-party accredited action initiators as if they came directly from the consumer. What does all of that mean? It means that, if I as a consumer instructed a business that I've engaged to perform a service of transferring a range of banking products from bank A to bank B, the law would require those instructions to be followed by the bank as if I had given them myself directly to the bank. It will enhance competition and mobility in the banking sector and other financial services, and in energy as well. There will also be flexibility for other organisations to apply so that they can participate voluntarily in CDR action initiation with appropriate safeguards. Accredited action initiators would need to meet strict accreditation requirements that are set by the rules—getting back to that safety and data security stuff that I mentioned earlier. They'd also be required to act efficiently, honestly and fairly when initiating actions. The bill will also extend the existing privacy safeguards so that the privacy of CDR consumers continues to be appropriately protected. The bill will primarily regulate what is known as the 'instruction layer'—that is, the communication channel between the accredited action initiator and the action service provider. It doesn't seek to regulate the performance of the action itself. Existing sectoral laws, like those in the banking sector, would continue to govern how an action, such as opening a bank account, must be performed. This bill doesn't affect or interfere in that. While the bill doesn't seek to reach into the 'action layer', or the performance of the action itself, it would prevent action service providers from discriminating against a valid action request that came through the CDR. Again, what does that mean? If request A and request B came to a bank, requiring them to move a product or service from your bank to another bank, and one of those requests came from a CDR action initiator and another came, let's say, from a mortgage broker, it would be unlawful for the bank to prioritise the mortgage broker or another direct channel over a request coming from a CDR intermediary. Importantly, it would not prevent the service provider from applying security or other checks, of course, or refusing to perform an action, provided that that action was consistent with existing practices. Enabling action initiation in the CDR is part of the government's commitment to expand the CDR across the economy and grow opportunities for consumers to safely use their own data for their benefit. This is something that the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world have been onto for a long time. They see the value in consumer data. The consumer data right and, importantly, the action initiation, which will be enlivened by this bill, will give consumers just a smidgen of the value that the big platform providers have had out of hoovering up and using all of that customer data for their own business purposes. Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I apologise for some of the manner in forming the introduction of this bill, but I inform the House that full details of the measure are contained, in the normal way, in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 81

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022

Second Reading 81 17:13 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. This is a bill that, like so much of what we're seeing now, does look familiar, and that is a good thing—from tax incentives to support the digital economy to reducing red tape for large and small businesses, improving integrity around superannuation, supporting small and medium-sized businesses to digitise and train their staff. The majority of the content of the bill—and, I stress, the majority—contains that pro-growth, pro-small to medium-sized business agenda that typifies our approach to the economy, and we very strongly support it. I join with the Assistant Treasurer in his comments about the consumer data right and comments we just heard on the previous bill. These are good measures. These are pro-growth measures. These are measures that we can work with the government on. They are going to strengthen the economy, strengthen the power of consumers to be the best regulators in that economy. This is exactly the sort of initiative we do want to see from this government, and when we see it we will absolutely support it. We'd like to see more of it, not less. However, I have to say that, at the same time, we have seen disappointing initiatives from this government in this area of growing the economy, strengthening small to medium-size businesses and strengthening Australia in the process. We have seen tens of millions to the Public Service—money that we don't think is appropriate for up to 20,000 new public servants—and $6.1 million in grants to the CFMMEU to audit our textile industry. I really don't think the CFMMEU has any qualifications to audit our wonderful textile industry and the enormously important role that it plays, which my family has been involved with for many generations. This is one for the CFMMEU. There is tens of millions to develop and enforce workplace laws that will mean that any small to medium-size business above 20 employees will be subject to industrywide bargaining and strikes. That's not what we need. We very much support initiatives such as the Digital Games Tax Offset, the Technology Investment Boost, the Skills and Training Boost and the initiatives to reduce red tape. We do have deep reservations about other parts of this bill. It's important to note that this bill could have sailed through this parliament with bipartisan support. Traditionally, that is what you would see with Treasury laws amendment bills. These bills are intended to be noncontroversial measures that are bundled together that both sides of this chamber can work together on and support in the way that I have described: with bipartisan spirit. Instead, at exactly the time when we should be delivering certainty to business, the government has stapled into this bill a number of politically contentious measures, and that is outside what we have normally seen in this place with these sorts of bills. It's created logistical challenges for the government, but that is as it should be if they are going to take this sort of approach. There's billions in spending here for transmission projects that have not been recommended by AEMO, the energy market operator, and that means there's money there—a big slush fund—for projects about which we don't know whether they will deliver a cost benefit. We don't know whether they're going to be good for consumers. We don't know whether they're going to be good for local communities that the transmission lines go through. We don't know that they're going to bring down the price of electricity at exactly the time when we do need the sort of projects that AEMO in the past has recommended that will bring down the price of electricity and make consumers better off. On top of the billions in spending for transmission projects, within this bill is a hidden billion-dollar fund for the Department of Climate Change, Energy and Water to circumvent the independent CEFC process. That's a process we always respected in government. I strongly supported the role of the CEFC in deploying technologies and getting emerging technologies out in the marketplace, making them bankable, ensuring that there was finance there at the very-high-risk part of technology development life cycle. That is a good thing for the CEFC to do. I strongly support that, and we strongly supported that as a government. To have a hidden billion-dollar fund which is circumventing those processes that we honoured is not the right way to go. On top of that, we see within this bill—which, again, as an omnibus bill would traditionally be noncontroversial—$500 million of coalition energy commitments that they previously opposed, which is pretty extraordinary in its own right. Worse than that is that buried deep in schedule 8 is a change to remove the safeguards around spending through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This means in practice that Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, will be able to sneak in changes without consulting the parliament. That's what he wants to be able to do. Hidden in the explanatory memorandum is the revelation that the minister and the department will have this billion-dollar fund to fund whatever they want without being accountable to this place. Businesses will pay the price for this. At a time when businesses need certainty and when we want to see—and those opposite have consistently promised—transparent and accountable parliamentary processes, to sneak in a change like that and use the CFC in this way is extraordinarily disappointing. We will be watching very closely how this money is used. To the extent that we can get any sense of transparency through estimates and other processes we can use, we will be holding the government to account, if this bill is successful. Whilst we don't want to delay, and we won't delay, the bill's passage through this House, we will use the Senate to scrutinise these extraordinary powers that the government is sneaking through. I say to the government: if, in the future, the government wants swift passage of these omnibus bills through this place, it must ensure that within those bills are non-controversial items, which are bipartisan and which we can work together on. There is no shortage of areas where we are prepared to do that. We are willing to do that and we are enthusiastic about doing that. Just hearing the Assistant Treasurer talking about the Consumer Data Right tells me that there is lots to work on together. That's where these sorts of bills have a role. But to insert controversial items in them—bury them deep in them—in an attempt to sneak them through is not something that is going to be helpful to anybody in the future. With that, I move the amendment circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) the vast majority of the initiatives in this bill are Coalition policies that cut red tape, support small business, and drive productivity by supporting businesses and individuals to train, innovate, and create; (2) the Government failed to deliver similar initiatives in their own Budget in October; (3) the Government have found time to pursue a range of pet causes in their first six months of office instead of legislating these measures earlier; (4) that at the same time the Government should be delivering certainty to businesses, the Government have stapled a number of politically contentious measures into Schedule 8 of this Bill including: (a) transmission projects that have not been recommended by the energy operator; (b) a hidden $1 billion fund for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to circumvent the independent Clean Energy Finance Corporation process; and (c) legislative changes that remove guardrails on spending through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation; and (5) that despite six months in office, the Government have failed to unveil a plan to support capacity in our energy market and broken their election promise to bring down power prices". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is the amendment seconded? Mr Wallace 265967 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:22 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Today I'm very proud to be speaking on this legislation, specifically schedule 9—taxation of military superannuation benefits: reversing the Douglas decision. The legislation will ensure that no veteran pays high income tax, following the Douglas decision of the full court of the Federal Court, which determined a different tax treatment for specific military invalidity pensions through superannuation schemes. This decision relates to some military invalidity pensions paid to veterans via the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation—ComSuper. While, in the most part, this decision has had a positive impact on payments for veterans, there are some who have been left worse off. The Douglas decision meant that military invalidity pensions that commenced on or after 20 September 2007 under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme are to be taxed as superannuation lump sums rather than superannuation income stream benefits. This legislation today seeks to ensure that those individuals are not disadvantaged. The Douglas decision, as currently enshrined in law, has potentially adverse income tax outcomes for some veterans receiving an invalidity pension and invalidity pay. As a result of the decision, the superannuation income stream withholding schedules no longer applied to affected veterans. I wish to emphasise that, while the Douglas decision provided a positive tax outcome for many affected veterans, it created adverse income taxation impacts for some veterans on a permanent basis. For others, even though they may not be worse off on an annual basis, they may find that they have more tax withheld on a fortnightly basis from their pension. The decision may have flow-on impacts for other government entitlements as well, such as family tax benefit, childcare subsidy, private health insurance, rebate entitlements, child support assessments and HELP repayments. While the unintended consequences of the Douglas decision became apparent in mid-2021, the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation applied and then paused the new withholding tax rates on a number of veterans. I can confirm that, in early 2022, ComSuper applied the new withholding tax rates to the remaining veterans. This has resulted in some veteran pensioners' fortnightly net payments being reduced. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring veterans and their families receive the support they need and deserve. That begins with ensuring the unintended consequences of this decision are rectified, ensuring that no veteran is worse off. To counter the resulting adverse impacts of this change in the tax treatment of their superannuation benefit as a result of the Douglas decision, this schedule to the bill creates a non-refundable tax offset to ensure that these veterans will not pay any more income tax or Medicare levy on their superannuation lump sums than they would pay if these benefits were still treated in the previous way before the Douglas decision was handed down. We have consulted affected veterans as well as other key stakeholders and government departments in pulling this legislation together. I do note that concerns have been raised in relation to the findings of the Royal Commission into the Defence and Veteran Suicide interim report, specifically the simplification and harmonising of legislation for veterans' entitlement. As the House well knows, the government has welcomed the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and has responded to all 13 recommendations of that report. We are currently undertaking work on that simplification and harmonisation of veterans' entitlement legislation, as set out in recommendation 1. This bill will maintain the benefits of the Douglas decision for invalidity benefits and super benefits for beneficiaries of invalidity pensions under the two military superannuation schemes, as mentioned before and after September 2007 and otherwise retrospectively and prospectively reverses the effect of the Douglas decision in relation to all other schemes consistent with the intent of current superannuation law. This legislation before us today reflects our commitment to ensure that veterans are not left worse off due to the Douglas decision and that veterans who have benefitted from this decision will continue to do so. This legislation will extend to the spouse and children pensions paid following the death of a veteran, on the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefit Scheme or the Military Superannuation Benefit Scheme. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. That is particularly important when speaking about our defence personnel and veteran community. We are committed to ensuring that veterans and their families receive the support they need but also that they frankly deserve, and I commend this bill to the House. 17:27 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 contains schedules dealing with nine separate areas, and the majority of them give effect to policies committed to and decisions announced by the previous government, particularly in several recent budgets. I want to speak particularly about the digital games tax offset and the technology investment boost as two policies put into effect by the previous coalition government. The fact is that one of the KPIs, one of the key performance indicators, it would seem for ministers in the Albanese Labor government is the capacity to take credit in an entirely shameless way for decisions taken by and work done by the previous coalition government. There has been a lot of talk recently about how apparently prominent figures in the current government, such as the member for Watson and the member for Chifley, I think, have apparently been longstanding champions of the digital games tax offset. For years, apparently, they've been calling for it. That may be so; I don't know, I've not checked the record. I've never heard it, so it is possible they've called for it. But the simple fact is that they didn't deliver it. They did nothing to deliver it when Labor was last in government between 2007 and 2013—six years in which to implement and give effect to the digital games tax offset; six years but nothing. But now, apparently, the claims are made that they have been longstanding advocates for it, and this is the coming to fruition of a grand vision. But in a rewriting of history, equal to that written about by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is complete silence from ministers in the Albanese Labor government about the work actually done—the detailed substantive policy work actually done—by the previous Morrison coalition government to give effect to this outcome in terms of the digital games tax offset. In May 2021, the then Morrison government announced a $1.2 billion Digital Economy Strategy, with the aim of making Australia a leading digital economy and society by 2030. One of the key elements of that announcement was the digital games tax offset, and, as the communications minister at that time, I was very pleased to work extensively on this matter. The strategic thinking of the Morrison government was that Australia should have a much bigger share of the global market for digital games development, which is a $250 billion market. I can say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, from my work with my two research assistants on digital games, my 26-year-old stepson and my 14-year-old son, that when you look at the sophistication of many different digital games—Plants vs.Zombies is one that I spent a bit of time engaging inwith my 14-year-old son; it was a few years ago, and he's moved on beyond Plants vs. Zombies to Call of Duty and many others—these are very sophisticated, and there is huge take-up of digital games around the world. Of course, many countries have a significant presence in the production and development of digital games. Both Britain and Canada have very significant domestic games development sectors. One of the ways those two countries have encouraged global digital games studios to either come to those countries or expand in those countries is through the use of tax offsets. So this is a well-known policy tool that is used in the digital games sector. Of course, it's also a policy tool used very extensively in the adjacent screen sector. Again, when the coalition was in government, we used this policy tool to give effect to a significant stimulation of Australia's screen sector by increasing from 20 per cent to 30 per cent the producer offset for productions for television. We had in mind particularly the extraordinary global opportunities when it comes to the streaming-video-on-demand sector. So the point I make to the House is that the use of tax offsets is a well-known policy tool for sectors like screen production and digital games production, and the decision that the Morrison government took and announced in a previous budget to make available this digital games tax offset was a decision based upon a clear analysis of the global market opportunity for the Australian digital games sector and a clear analysis of the return—the benefit—that taxpayers would receive in exchange for making available this tax offset. This is what economists call tax expenditure, and it needs to be carefully considered. A dollar of taxpayers' money committed has the same economic impact whether it's an on-budget expenditure or a piece of tax expenditure. But we did go through that detailed policy work. We made that announcement in May 2021, and we then did the detailed policy work. Draft legislation was released prior to the May 2022 election, and there was a consultation period held between March and April this year. I'm pleased to say the Australian digital games sector welcomed the measures that we announced our intention to legislate. I'm also pleased to say that, during the consultation process, there was some detailed work done on some further improvements and enhancements to the way the offset would work. In particular, the view was put by the industry that it's important that this offset is also available in respect of ongoing development work, known as live ops. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you'd be aware, that's the term used in the sector. So I'm pleased to say that the availability of this offset has been expanded to cover live ops. The way the industry works is that a game is released and then it is further upgraded and developed, often in response to feedback from people who are playing the game. Games users are a very active and engaged community, and they provide their feedback very directly to games manufacturers. Australia does have a vibrant domestic games sector, and I had a chance to visit a number of digital games companies during my time as communications minister. The sector in 2021 generated revenue of around $226 million, and that was an increase of 22 per cent on 2020, but be in no doubt that the growth opportunity for the sector and therefore for Australia's economy is a very significant one. I and the opposition certainly welcome the fact that the Albanese Labor government has eventually—in a disappointingly dilatory and leisurely fashion—got around to bringing forward this particular piece of legislation. All the work had been done for them; it was all bundled up and ready to go, and, six months later, they've yawned, rolled over, woken up and thought, 'Oh well, it might be a good idea to build on this outstanding policy work done by the previous government.' That's evidently the thought process that they've gone through, while, of course, being extremely careful to avoid providing any acknowledgement at all of the rigorous policy work done by the previous government. That's the way they roll. It's all about ignoring the work done by the previous government and taking credit for it. That's the house style and that's politics. I'm going to rise above politics and say that this is a good outcome for the digital games sector. It's a good outcome for the Australian economy, and it reflects the detailed, sustained policy work done by the previous government. I was very pleased to have an involvement in that work in my previous portfolio, and I'm very pleased to maintain a continued involvement in these issues as shadow minister for the digital economy, a portfolio, I note, parenthetically, which does not appear in the Albanese Labor government's ministry list, which is a matter for regret, but, presumably, that's because they've received instructions from their union masters. I can only surmise that they don't like the idea of the digital economy. I want to turn to one other schedule contained within this bill, which is the technology investment boost. Again, this was a measure committed to by the previous government—the coalition government—based upon the work we had done with a view to understanding policy levers that would incent businesses and the private sector to make appropriate investments in hardware and software, to allow businesses to better use digital tools and to operate more efficiently and productively, with a particular focus on small and medium businesses. On our side of the House, we have an enthusiasm for measures which incent businesses to take business decisions which are in their own private interest but also produce a positive public policy outcome. We like to do that in a way which makes most effective use of taxpayers' funds. We don't like to establish large bureaucracies. We don't like to take the approach that the present government likes, which is to try to make as many decisions as possible in Canberra and to create giant funds which hand out money based upon decisions by government instrumentalities. That's not what we like to do. What we like to do is empower and incent private businesses to make decisions. That's why we chose to use the policy tool of an additional tax deduction of 20 per cent of the cost of expenses and depreciating assets up to $100,000 of expenditure per year, available to small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $50 million. When you look at the range of eligible expenditure which can then attract this additional bonus 20 per cent tax deduction, it includes matters such as digital enabling items, computers, telecommunications hardware and equipment, software and internet costs, and the systems and services that form and facilitate the use of computer networks: digital media and marketing, and audiovisual content that can be created, accessed, stored or viewed on digital devices—including webpage design. As we all know, there's been a huge boost in ecommerce as a result of the pandemic. Many businesses have expanded their ecommerce offerings. Many businesses that have previously been bricks and mortar only have now shifted to become clicks and mortar. That's to say they've got a digital delivery channel as well as a bricks-and-mortar channel, but we want to see more of it and we want to support businesses that are moving to respond to be the clear preferences of consumers to be able to purchase as much as they can online. Again, this is designed to give businesses an incentive. These are choices for businesses to make, because we believe that businesses, their owners and their managers know best about what their customers need. They know best about how to meet the market opportunities. We want to provide that support, encouragement and assistance. We don't believe that Canberra knows best, and that is a difference between this side of the House and the Labor Party. You often hear people say today that there's no difference between the major parties. That's not right. We fundamentally believe in the importance of the private sector in generating prosperity and we fundamentally believe that business owners and managers know their market and know their customers much better than any bureaucrat or politician is going to. We want to provide that support, encouragement and incentive. One of the things we want to incentivise businesses to do is making as effective a use as possible of digital tools to serve their customers more efficiently, to streamline and automate business processes and to get their offering out into the marketplace so that customers and potential customers can see what kinds of products and services businesses have. I add that we know that cybersecurity is a very significant issue. We've seen some troubling instances of data breaches. We know that small and medium businesses are concerned about this, and this, again, is a practical policy tool, because the 20 per cent bonus tax deduction is also available for cybersecurity systems for backup management and monitoring services to deal with cybersecurity issues. It's a matter of regret that the current government has been rather leisurely in its approach to this. It's taken them quite a long time to bring this bill before the House, but I'm not going to take a political approach to this. I'm going to celebrate the fact that they finally got around to bringing this bill forward, and I do welcome what's contained in the two schedules I've discussed. 17:42 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I want to acknowledge the contribution made by the previous speaker on the elements of the bill related to the work that he undertook as our communications minister—and what a wonderful job he did in the former government in undertaking that portfolio. I acknowledge the sentiments he made just then and echo those. I'm going to take a different approach in relation to this bill. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 is effectively a nine-schedule omnibus bill. This bill is vast in scope and for the most part is supportive of key budget initiatives of the former coalition government. The member for Bradfield did mention some of those. To this extent the bill is good. I also note the member for Hume's contribution and his noting that these Treasury laws amendment bills are typically noncontroversial. They're typically things that are brought together under in one bill and are typically things that we can support in a bipartisan way. However, at a time when the government should be delivering certainty to business, the government has stapled a number of very politically contentious measures into this bill, including billions in spending for transmission projects that have not been recommended by the energy operator, a hidden $1 billion fund for the Department of Climate Change, Energy and Water to circumvent the independent CEFC process, legislative changes that remove safeguards from investment in the CEFC and $500 million for coalition energy commitments that the new government had previously opposed. While I note that, of course I welcome it. In the spirit of bipartisanship, of course I'm going to welcome anything that the current government wishes to copy from the previous government. But here again today, contained in this bill, we find the Labor Party caught stapling a number of items that are going to be very politically contentious. I will have more to say on those as I work my way through these schedules. In brief, the nine schedules cover the following. Schedule 1 allows for a digital games tax offset, as the previous member spoke to. Schedule 2 tightens the definition of 'digital currency' to exclude cryptocurrency. Schedule 3 reduces record keeping associated with fringe benefits tax compliance. Schedule 4 provides a skills and training boost. Schedule 5 provides a digital capability investment boost. Schedule 6 acts on recommendations of the banking royal commission, extending and adapting financial reporting and auditing requirements. However, the Albanese government seeks to take advantage of this opportunity by diluting transparency measures to carve out itemised contributions to trade unions—just like the IR bill and NACC Bill, which have been through this chamber already. Unfortunately, the government can't help themselves when it comes to running a protection racket for those involved in the union movement. Schedule 7 extends DGR status to a few organisations, a list which notably includes Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, despite the ACNC previously failing to grant that organisation status as a public benevolent institution. This was an item that was noticeable in the budget papers as well, and here we see Labor's thumb on the political scale once again. It's surreptitiously providing a tax concession to an organisation which will promote the government's preference in the upcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum. I note the Minister for Indigenous Australians claimed, just 24 hours ago, that the Australian government would not fund either the 'yes' or the 'no' case in this referendum, and I welcome that commitment from the minister. I was pleased to see that the government won't be using taxpayers' money to fund either side of the referendum argument. I know that it's been a longstanding convention that Commonwealth governments will be even-handed when it comes to referendums and will fund the case both for and against any given referendum question. Given the government is now legislating to enshrine the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition as an entity that can get this DGR status, I can only assume that when another entity is potentially formed to coordinate, run and fund the 'no' case in this referendum the federal government will move legislation to enshrine that entity as a DGR-status organisation as well. I think that is only a fair, reasonable and balanced approach and, certainly, one that would be preferential to the approach taken previously, of using taxpayers' money to fund cases in a referendum question. I think that offering tax exemption status, or tax concessions, would be better for Australia's fiscal position. It would only be fair that the government take the same steps when an entity is formed that might be running the 'no' argument in that referendum. Schedule 8 is the most contentious of all the schedules within this bill, both in terms of parliamentary process and in terms of funding good public policy. Schedule 8 effectively paves the way for Labor to enact their Rewiring the Nation proposal, a policy that anticipates a cost of $20 billion. I think $20 billion is a cost that will certainly blow out over time. Despite the huge cost—which will be, of course, all borrowed money—the proposal comes with a predictable Labor murkiness, because there is no mention of the projects that would benefit from this funding. The schedule also removes the requirement for government to legislate additional CFC funding. This would allow the government to routinely create additional accounts within the CFC via general appropriation acts. By doing so, this schedule effectively circumvents the appropriate oversight and parliamentary scrutiny of this new funding, and that's quite a substantial step. By the way, this is not contingent upon any meaningful expansion of the CFC's mandate. Given Labor's fundamental deception on electricity prices, which we've tried to expose day after day in question time—and these will continue to go up; that's what Labor's budget says will happen and what we know will happen—the coalition will be looking to move amendments in the other place to amend schedule 8 in its current form. This is the big nasty surprise in this bill that typically you wouldn't get in a Treasury law amendment bill. This is an $11.5 billion injection to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to carpet the country in transmission lines. This will increase demand for material, staff and tradies across Australia at a time when inflation is already running hot. This is actually a time in the Australian economy when it wouldn't hurt for the Australian government to be pulling back on investment in big, major projects, because we know that they are driving up the cost of building anything else in this country. It's driving up inflation. We are getting warnings on this from business groups. I've been getting them from big economic commentators around the country. Buried in schedule 8 is also a change to remove the safeguards around spending through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This will mean that the minister will be able to sneak in changes without consulting parliament. I think it's important that the parliament reflects on that change. This is taking away our ability to scrutinise these expenses. It's very much a retrograde step. Hidden in the explanatory memorandum is the revelation that the minister and his department will have a $1 billion fund in the department to fund whatever they want. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we all had a $1 billion fund to spend on exactly what we wanted without the scrutiny of parliament? I can imagine $1 billion would get a lot of things done in my electorate. I'm sure it would in all of ours. Schedule 9 concludes the bill by confirming the tax treatment of certain military superannuation benefits following the Federal Court's gutless decision. This is certainly an element of the bill that the coalition strongly supports. I acknowledge the contribution from the previous government speaker on this. This is an important element of the bill. It's something that the coalition supports strongly. It's something that the federal government is taking the right action in addressing. I am pleased that we are going to be having this through this bill. I just want to go back and dwell on schedule 1 a bit. This is the digital games tax offset. This is part of the digital economy strategy that the former coalition government announced back in May. It's a 30 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible businesses that spend a minimum of half a million dollars on qualifying for Australian development expenditure from 1 July 2022. In the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the coalition provided an additional $19.6 million over the two years of 2023 and 2024 to expand the digital games tax offset to include ongoing development work, known as 'live ops'—that's the term they use—on digital games following their public release. There is certainly an emerging games sector in Australia. It's something that I know a lot of younger people in my electorate partake of. I note the previous speaker's experience with his sons in playing these games. My children are too young to partake of these yet, but I'm looking forward to the day when they can show me around Call of Duty and all those sorts of things. The many exciting Australian games that have been developed will be unlocked by the funding that will be available through this tax offset. This measure received widespread support from the Australian digital games industry when it was first announced by the coalition, and that support remains today as we seek to legislate that further through this Treasury laws amendment bill. The digital games sector, as I mentioned, is expanding rapidly. It was worth $240 billion globally in 2020, and that market is set to reach $294 billion by 2024. This sector has generated in Australia about $226.5 million of revenue, an increase of 22 per cent on 2020, and 83 per cent of the revenue is from overseas markets. So it's one of these great Australian success stories that go unsung too often. People are producing products in Australia that are going incredibly well. They've had 22 per cent growth since 2020. Any industry that has received 22 per cent growth during the period of pandemic that we have just experienced certainly should be a shining light for the Australian economy and should be one that the Australian government seeks to support through measures like this. This will certainly help Australia to become a global player in game development. I'll briefly dwell on schedule 2 before I conclude. The schedule amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to tighten the definition of digital currency to exclude cryptocurrency and assets that are not denominated in any country's currency or are not sanctioned digital currencies of Australian or foreign governments. This was very interesting, as I read into this one further. This measure closes a tax loophole opened after the government of El Salvador allowed bitcoin to be accepted as legal tender, back in June last year. I think many governments around the world were raising an eyebrow at El Salvador's approach to bitcoin, and I'm pleased that the federal government is taking action on that front. To conclude: at a time when the government should be delivering certainty to business, the government has stapled a number of politically contentious measures into this bill. There's a lot in here that we support. There's a lot in here that the coalition government came up with, and certainly we applaud the fact that the new government has decided to take these things forward. But this is a time when business needs certainty, and unfortunately, with the two contentious schedules that I mentioned, the government is playing games. While we won't delay the bill's passage through this House, the coalition will be using the Senate to scrutinise these extraordinary powers that Labor are trying to sneak through. (Quorum formed) 17:59 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I'd like to thank all of those members who have contributed to the debate. It's an important debate, and there have been some very interesting contributions, which I shall come to in due course, and I'll address the second reading amendment, moved by the member for Hume. Firstly, schedule 1 of the bill creates the digital games tax offset, the DGTO. For the first time, Australia will have a dedicated tax offset that supports a rapidly expanding digital games sector. The DGTO is a 30 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible companies that develop eligible games and spend a minimum of $500,000 on qualifying Australian development expenditure from 1 July this year. The DGTO will strengthen the Australian digital games industry, expand employment opportunities for digital and creative talent, enhance the industry's international competitiveness and make Australia attractive for foreign investment. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the tax law to clarify that digital currencies continue to be excluded from being treated as foreign currency for Australian income tax purposes. This maintains the current tax treatment of bitcoin and other similar digital currencies. It's a clarification made necessary on the advice of the tax commissioner because of a decision of the government of El Salvador to recognise bitcoin as unrestricted legal tender. That decision of a foreign government introduces uncertainty about the status of bitcoin for the purposes of Australian taxation law. This provision will restore the status quo ante. The measure will apply to income years that include 1 July 2021 and subsequent income years. Schedule 3 to the bill permits the Commissioner of Taxation to allow employers to rely on adequate alternative records rather than employee declarations and other prescribed records to finalise their fringe benefits tax returns. You can see from this and other measures in the bill why we describe this as a pro-business bill, but particularly a pro small-business bill. Schedule 4 and schedule 5 really make that clear. Schedule 4 to the bill introduces the Skills and Training Boost—a bonus of 20 per cent tax deduction until 30 June 2024, supporting small businesses to train and upskill their employees. Schedule 5 does a similar thing. It provides a similar benefit in relation to technology investment. It's the 20 per cent boost taxation deduction until 30 June 2023—again, supporting small business to adopt digital technologies. Schedule 6 to the bill extends and adapts the financial reporting and auditing requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 to apply to registrable superannuation entities which will improve the quality, transparency and accessibility of financial reports for RSEs. This is a part of the government's superannuation transparency plan. It basically fixes the mess—the dog's breakfast that was left to us by the former government. They didn't have a requirement that RSEs file an annual report and lodge the annual report with ASIC. They had no agenda for transparency and for using the data collected by APRA to provide reports to members and, indeed, to members of the public and analysts about the performance of funds, including their expenditures, and they had a very confused arrangement in relation to annual member meeting notices that did just about everything except reliably inform members where and when their annual member meeting was. We're cleaning all this up, and schedule 6 is part of that program. Schedule 7 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include on the list of deductible gift recipients the Australian Education Research Organisation Ltd, the Jewish Education Foundation Ltd, Melbourne Business School Ltd, Australians for Indigenous Constitution Recognition Ltd, Leaders Institute of South Australia Inc., and Saint Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund. It does extend the current listings for the Sydney Chevra Kadisha and Australian Women Donors Network and removes the listing for the now defunct Mt Eliza Graduate School of Business and Government Ltd. The deductible gift recipient status allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for the donations they make to those organisations. The government is supporting these organisations in the provision of valuable community services by granting them DGR status. I'm going to say something about schedule 8 to the bill and use this as an opportunity to respond to some of the extraordinary, inaccurate and ill-informed claims that are made by way of a second-reading amendment in the name of the member for Hume. It seems to us that the crux of these amendments is to introduce a policy that the government campaigned on prior to the election, affirmed during the election campaign and announced on no less than a dozen occasions, including on budget night, that we'd proceed with. But for some reason the member for Hume seems to think they're hidden somewhere. Far from being hidden, we have contained on these provisions consistently for the last 12 months and will continue to do so. I can understand a former government that had 22 separate energy policies and never managed to land one of those energy policies— Mr O'Connor 00AN3 How many? Mr JONES A9B Twenty-two. The members in the chamber seem surprised. Yes, I can confirm they had 22 separate energy policies but couldn't land one of them, and the person who was most responsible for destroying each and every one of those 22 energy policies was the member for Hume. We're not surprised that the person who put so much energy into destroying energy policies of his own party when they were in government has an aversion to energy policy, and it's not surprising to us that he wants to use this opportunity to destroy a 23rd energy policy, one that might just work. But all good members of this House, and that is the majority of members of this House, can see through it. Not satisfied with wrecking their own policy, he wants to do the same thing here. We are calling him out on it. It is time that we got energy policy back on track in this country. Under the watch of the member for Hume we saw, at his hand, four gigawatts of dispatchable energy leave the Australian east coast generation system. Only one gigawatt of energy returned to that system. Is there any wonder we are having problems with energy generation supply, and is there any wonder that power bills are going up in this country? It is the direct result of the policies championed by the member for Hume. He was at it for nine years when in government, and now he's at it again. He hasn't learned a thing. We have a policy for dealing with every issue, and if I could sum our policy up, it is about ensuring that we have reliable, sustainable and affordable energy—the exact opposite to the policy direction of the former government. Yes, it's about Rewiring the Nation. Yes, it's about ensuring that we have more energy generation and that we are able to connect the place where the energy is being generated to the place where it's being used, by rebuilding the energy transmission system. In the member for Hume's second-reading amendment he claims that this is a secret provision, and he raised in his speech on the second-reading amendment significant concerns about the projects that are going to be funded under the new funding arrangements. One of the issues he raised concerns about is the Marinus Link, the link that will connect the new Battery of the Nation project in Tasmania, generating new electricity capacity, from Tasmania to the mainland, providing a new source of energy and electricity generation, particularly for the east coast of Australia and for South Australia. You've got to ask yourself who could be against that. Who could be against a project that is going to connect a new source of generating clean energy in Tasmania across the Bass Strait and into the east coast energy generation market? Apparently the member for Hume, post election, is opposed to that project. Apparently, the member for Hume, after the election, has significant problems with the government implementing its election commitments to set up the Rewiring the Nation program and to ensure that we can invest in projects such as the Marinus Link. I say 'post election' because he had something to very different to say before the election. I'm reading from a press release, dated 3 April 2022, and published by no less than Angus Taylor MP, the member for Hume, wherein he boasts that a re-elected Morrison government will invest in none other than the Marinus Link Battery of the Nation program. The press release says the 'Marinus Link and Battery of the Nation are true nation building projects'. He waxes on over four complete pages to extol the virtues of the Marinus Link, and this is in his press release dated 3 April 2022. Apparently, post election, when this project has funding dedicated to it, and was facilitated by the bill before the House, it's somehow not only wrong but also secretive and something that he no longer supports. I invite the member for Hume to come back into the House and explain to the people here why he has had this about-face on this important project. There's no about-face on our part. We have one policy, and that policy is to deliver cheaper, more sustainable, more reliable energy for the people of Australia, and far from playing politics on it and far from having 22 policies over nine years, we'll have one policy and we'll implement it. This bill before the House, particularly schedule 8, is a critical part of that. In closing, I encourage members opposite, when they are asked to come in here and speak on a Treasury law amendment bill, and they are given a set of speaking notes from the shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume—when they are sent in here to read something that he's asked them to read, the default position is: just say no, because it's probably wrong. This is in black and white, in his second reading amendment to the bill before the House, which we will be opposing. If you want to protect your reputation and your standing in this place over many years, and if the member for Hume recommends that you come in here and say something, the default position is: just do the opposite. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The original question was the bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 90 18:13 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 18), after subparagraph 378-25(7)(c)(i), insert: (ia) a game that contains, or allows access to, a digital container of randomised virtual items that can be obtained for consideration (commonly known as a loot box); In essence, the amendment excludes games containing so-called 'loot boxes' from accessing the 30 per cent tax offset for eligible companies making digital games. This would have the effect of clustering games with loot boxes with games comprising gambling or gambling-like practices. I note that the explanatory memorandum makes some reference to loot boxes, but it's clear that the intention of this bill is not to deny the 30 per cent tax offset to all games containing loot boxes. This amendment would rectify that deficiency in the bill. I probably should again explain to honourable members what loot boxes are because, although our children seem to know all about them, we parents have been a bit slow in learning what they are. In essence, loot boxes are a video game feature where players pay to chance their luck at winning additional virtual assets to use during the game—pay money, game of chance, might win something. This is gambling by any definition, and it is routinely being experienced by children and adolescents right around Australia. it's no wonder that gambling companies are buying up online gaming companies and no wonder that research has warned that these craftily created but apparently innocent features, these loot boxes, are 'structurally and psychologically akin to gambling'. My intervention this evening follows my tabling of a private member's bill on Monday. This bill sought to have the classification board classify video games with loot boxes as R18-plus or RC. The reason for that private member's bill is that we don't let children gamble, so why do we let them use games with loot boxes? We don't let a child or an adolescent go into a pub and play the poker machines or go to the casino and play roulette or blackjack or whatever else, but we have this curious deficiency in our laws in this country where those very same children are legally allowed to play a game of chance with these so-called loot boxes. I am hoping that the government and the opposition will eventually back my private member's bill. But here we have right in front of us a very, very easy chance to take strong action to rein in these loot boxes to some degree by at least denying the 30 per cent tax offset for those games. We certainly shouldn't be subsidising those companies in that way. I spoke at some length on Monday about the effect of loot boxes and this sort of gambling, and I will repeat some of Monday's speech which I think is interesting, and that's research by the Australian Gaming Council within the last 12 months. That research revealed that young people who had used loot boxes were more likely to have gambled in the last 12 months, gambled more frequently, spent more money gambling and suffered more gambling problems. I gave the example of a mother who told me how her 17-year-old son was spending 3½ thousand dollars in just eight weeks on loot boxes and how he now can't hold down a job because of his gambling addiction. Now her son is almost 24 and still spends money on the online gambling platform Steam, at times haemorrhaging hundreds of dollars a day. I think that story just says it all. It says that loot boxes are a form of gambling that so far is unregulated in this country. These games are leading to addiction among a great many Australians and, alarmingly, younger Australians, so I'll continue to pursue having games with loot boxes categorised as adult games, only available to people over 18, which is entirely consistent with the push. By the way, I know former communications minister Paul Fletcher and our current communications minister, Michelle Rowland, are both favourably disposed towards reform in this space, so it seems to be entirely consistent that tonight I've moved my amendment to at least deny that tax offset to the manufacturers of games using this method. 18:18 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Denison for his contribution. I just want to acknowledge at the outset his long-held and deeply held views on this issue, most of which I share. We have over many, many years worked cooperatively in the area of gaming and particularly gaming advertising. I've just received the amendment. My initial advice is that it may be otiose because it's already covered for that, so I've informed the member for Denison that the government won't be supporting this amendment. But I do give the commitment that, in the committee in the other place, this measure may be considered. Either through his own good graces or at the government's initiative, we'll ensure that this matter is considered upstairs. I just want to explain why. The amendment goes to gaming or gaming-like provisions inside games. It's important to understand that this bill itself and this provision within this bill are not regulating the operation of games and gaming. It's a tax bill which provides a tax incentive in certain circumstances. The majority of the work for dealing with the concerns that the member for Denison raised and which, frankly, I share—it's not a government position, but I share those concerns around gambling-like initiatives included in children's games. But this is a bill about tax and tax treatment of games development. I want to be very clear that, under the bill being moved forward by the government, a game is not eligible for the offset if it is a gambling service within the meaning of the Interactive Gambling Act or it substantially comprises gambling or gambling-like practices. That includes games that substantially comprise, have reliance on or give prominence to certain types of loot boxes—those that can be purchased directly or indirectly with real currency and that allow, within the game, for those items to be transferred or cashed out for real currency. So, if that is the member for Denison's concern, it is dealt with under the provision. Those sorts of games would be excluded from the tax offset. If I've misconstrued the member for Denison's concern, I'm offering a pathway to have that issue dealt with in more detail at the committee stage in the other place. For those reasons, we won't be supporting the amendment at this stage. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I give the call for the member for Denison. 18:21 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark The member for Clark, Deputy Speaker. Mr Jones A9B Oh, sorry, Chair. Mr WILKIE C2T No, it's a mistake easily made. I was the member for Denison for many years, until it was decided to rename it after Andrew Inglis Clark—of course, the architect of the Hare-Clark electoral system and a co-author of the Australian Constitution, so a very, very fine Tasmanian judge and politician. I thank the minister for that contribution, and I'm heartened by what the minister has had to say. I would add, though, that I don't believe the current reference to loot boxes in the bill and in the EM covers all categories or all types of loot boxes. So I would ask that the government—as they've committed to do—look further at that. I think that, even if you can't cash out, just the fact that you are winning a virtual gun or a virtual faster car or virtual superpowers in a game is still a reward as much as cash, so you still pay the money and it's a game of chance, where you don't know what you're going to win—'Oh, wow! I've won this gun that lets me go to the next level of the game, because I'm more dangerous and deadly.' It is still gambling by any definition. I am heartened by the minister's contribution. I won't be seeking a division this evening, for the convenience of members and on the commitment from the minister that the government will look further at this. So, through you: thank you, Minister. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member for Clark for that contribution. That being the case, I'll put the question that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 91 18:24 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 92 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-In-Reply 92 18:25 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I will conclude my address-in-reply speech that I started on 26 September and continued on 8 November. When my remarks were delayed last time, I was referencing the $5 million ripped out of Wagga Wagga for a veterans wellness centre. Wagga Wagga is a military centre. It is the only inland regional city centre with bases for all three of our armed services. For the RAAF, it's home to No. 31 Squadron and Ground Academy, including No. 1 Recruit Training Unit. The Air Force's basic recruit training school has a history dating back to 1939. Soldiering begins at Blamey Barracks, Kapooka, home of the khaki since 1942. Since 1993, Navy trade training has been conducted at RAAF Wagga. Latest census data indicates there are more than 3,800 veterans in the Riverina electorate, of whom 1,426 reside in Wagga Wagga. For Labor to strip the funding allocated to a much-needed Wagga Wagga veterans wellbeing facility and plonk it in one of their own seats is appalling. People must come before politics. If ever a community deserved, needed, wanted or warranted a veterans wellbeing amenity, it is Wagga Wagga. This tricky government has denied Wagga Wagga that rightful opportunity. I will keep advocating and continue fighting to see common sense prevail and for Pro Patria and the local RSL to receive the funding our city and our region has earned. We need it. We want it. We demand it. I call on the veterans' affairs minister to come and visit Wagga and see for himself just how much we need it. 18:27 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It feels like a long time since we formed government, and I guess that's because in the six months since the election and since we formed government we have achieved a lot. This address-in-reply contribution, apart from touching on the things we have achieved, gives me a chance to reflect on the federal election and on what was in the address-in-reply and what the commitments were from this government. Since the address-in-reply of the federal government, we have had a state election in Victoria. As I was saying to my state colleagues on the weekend—and I do want to give a shout-out to Jacinta, Maree and Mary-Anne, all successfully returned to be Labor representatives in my electorate for their respective electorates—it was a lot calmer on the weekend for their election. At least it was calmer in Bendigo—I know it might have been different in other parts of Victoria—than what we experienced in the federal election. During the federal election, it did get quite nasty at points. There were a couple of freedom rallies that were held, but they weren't about freedom. They were about everything but freedom. There were people who came and harassed people participating in democracy. It was a shame to see that happen in our election. It was a shame to see people who were of an anti-vaccination view and an anti-lockdown view aggressively trying to push their views onto others to the extent that they were intimidating people from either participating as volunteers in the election or going through to vote early. Despite that intimidation, despite that pressure that was coming from a very fringe group of our society—and they are a far-right fringe group of our society—it did not impact on the vote. There was a very good turnout in the Bendigo electorate. And it did not sway people to vote their way. In fact, my result in the election was the best result ever achieved by a member or a political party in the electorate since Federation. The only person to have done better in the electorate of Bendigo was Sir John Quick, who was elected unopposed in the first election at Federation. Sixty-two-plus per cent of people in the Bendigo electorate put a higher preference for me and Labor than the Liberal Party. That was a great endorsement of the Labor agenda and the positive campaign that we had put forward. People really got behind the vision that Labor had at the federal election and will, I think, be relieved and in some ways grateful that the rest of the country did the same and saw the election of a Labor government. We've been able to achieve a number of key commitments that we made at that election. Before finishing my comments on the election, I thank my amazing electorate office and all our fantastic staff who continue to do great work in serving the people of Bendigo. My long-term office manager, Kate Sutherland, my amazing 2IC to Kate, Korey Fernando, and Erin, Flick and Alex, who are just phenomenal. A special shoutout to Erin, who will go on maternity leave in February to welcome her second beautiful child into this world. Thanks to all the volunteers that helped out. Thanks to Jacinta and Marie's office, who helped out. We had a really fun and calm election, and it showed amazing work of everyone coming together. I almost forgot a fantastic young man who has now gone to work for Katherine—a big shoutout to Jacob, who was a big part of our team in the lead-up to the election. I also give a huge shoutout and thank you to my family. In the 46th parliament I had two children, so the difference between elections were that this time around we were trying to wrap-up early. I was glad it was a good result because I had two little toddlers who I was very keen to get home! My mum ran the food on the day, and did so again at the state election on the Saturday. She just loves elections, she loves the Labor Party—most days—and she really loves being involved. She was never a member of the Labor Party until I became a member of parliament, but she has really always had those very strong Labor values. She was very proud to see us be elected into government, and the forming of the Anthony Albanese Labor government. A really big shoutout to Matt, my partner, and to his parents. I couldn't be a member of parliament or do the work that I do with two young children without the amazing support of my family. This is the first week that we have not travelled as a gang to Canberra. It's the first week in Daisy's life that we have spent more than 24 hours apart, and I've been able to do that not just because of COVID and the restrictions that were imposed, which meant that we did travel together so that I could participate in parliament, but also because my partner made career choices where he chose to go back to study so that we could travel here together as a family. I could also do it because of the flexibility of child care here at Parliament House, and I raise that because it speaks to a broader problem that we have in our community around child care. As a member of parliament, we do have access to child care here at Parliament House on a casual basis, which is not the case for so many workers. When you enrol in child care, in 99 per cent of cases you're locked in for 12 months. There isn't that flexibility, and you pay whether the centre is open or not. You might get an absence from the government, but you still have to pay, and the absences count towards the days you get subsidised. Child care isn't just an expensive system; it's also a rigid system, and when we asked the Productivity Commission to look at child care we are looking at how we can make child care more universal. I'm hoping that when we look at that universal factor we'll look at the enrolment factor and the rigid nature. We want people to have access to early childhood education on a more flexible and more universal basis—not just for people who might travel and want to bring their young ones with them, or have places at multiple centres, or whatever works for their family, but also, particularly, for casual workers and shift workers. It's really hard for casual workers. They enrol their children into early childhood education. If their shifts get cancelled, they still have to pay for the day at child care. So what tends to happen is that people don't enrol their children in early childhood education if they're casual workers. They look to parents, grandparents, friends or neighbours. They look for more informal care because of the rigid nature of our system. In Greater Bendigo, there is only one service that provides occasional care, and it's only if there's a spot available, and that's the centre that my children are at. If you are enrolled and you need an extra day, you might be able to get it if there's a vacancy—if somebody's on holidays—but it's not guaranteed, and you've got to already have your children there in care. So the system doesn't work well if you've got two parents in full-time work. It doesn't work well if you're a casual or a shiftworker. So I really look forward to the Productivity Commission review answering that question: how can we best deliver early childhood education to our youngest Australians to ensure that everyone has access to it? The other point that I want to make on early childhood education, and on how important the reforms that we've already passed through this House were, is about affordability. Cheaper child care will make it possible for more parents, predominantly mums, to return to work or to pick up that extra day. We already know that the cost barrier associated with early childhood education is a disincentive. Mums don't return for that fourth or fifth day because they're essentially working to pay for child care. They end up going backwards. So cheaper child care will mean that more women can return to work. That unlocks so many extra hours and extra opportunities, getting skilled, productive workers back into our economy if they choose—and I emphasise 'if they choose', because some mums and some dads do want to do part-time work and be more involved in the early years, and that's their choice. But it shouldn't be their only choice, and that was what was so critical about the reforms that we moved through. I should say too that, with the cost of child care, it's necessary that we have these higher subsidies. Next year, when you look at the average fees around Greater Bendigo, they will be about $150 per day. If you have two children in three days a week, your starting bill before subsidy is $45,000. That's a lot. How much subsidy you receive will depend on how much you earn. So we do need to urgently look at how we fund and structure early childhood education. Next year we have three- and four-year-old kinder rolling out in Victoria. I'm really proud that our state Labor government will help deliver universal three- and four-year-old kinder. We know it makes a difference. Next year the three-year-old kinder will be the first of the COVID babies—children like my Daisy who had interrupted early years because of the lockdowns and the cancellations of many of their social activities. We're talking about a generation of little people who would have got through possibly the first 12 months of their lives without meeting another child. That's not normal. Little people, even from very young ages, learn from each other. When parents get together for their parent groups, whether they're catching up formally or informally, their little people get together and learn from each other. So we do have a generation of what we call the COVID babies who are starting to enter those critical years before primary school where the timing is perfect for this universal access that's rolling out, because it will ensure that we can catch up if there are any delays. We can work with their families to ensure that all of those kids are ready. I've mentioned child care, but I also want to touch on Medicare. It does feel as if it was a minute to midnight when the Labor government—and it's only Labor governments that really do believe in Medicare and that fought for Medicare—was elected. Since the election we have seen, sadly, more bulk-billing services in my electorate move to a private billing model. It's heartbreaking to see that these services that had tried to survive for so long under the previous government and their many years of Medicare rebate freezes now just can't see enough patients in a day. The paperwork involved in seeing all those patients means that doctors are burning out and clinics are running at a loss, so they've had to move to the private billing model. Labor's medium- to long-term commitment is to reinvest $1 billion into Medicare and GP services. It can't come soon enough. I am really worried about what will happen to the people in my electorate who no longer have access to a bulk-billing GP and can't afford the gap fee. I am worried about their health outcomes. I understand why clinics have done it and I do understand the stress that GPs are under, but I am worried that, because pensioners, families and those on a low income will now have to pay a gap fee when they previously didn't have to, they won't seek medical help. That brings me to another real challenge that we as a nation have and that the government has inherited—the GP crisis. GPs are burnt out. We haven't trained enough GPs. We have to be honest about that. The majority of GPs coming through our medical schools are going to stay in the state hospital system. State governments are putting generous salaries on the table. A lot of those young doctors are choosing to be doctors in the state hospital system. Not all of them will specialise; they will stay as doctors in hospitals. Hospitals need doctors too. That is impacting on new GPs going into primary care and GP services. It compounds the problem that we have. At least once a week I hear from a parent who has had to go to the ED at Bendigo with their child for what usually would be a GP visit—they are concerned about a cough. Once upon a time you would book into your GP. You would ring up and get an appointment with your GP. They'd checked the child out, listen to their chest to make sure it wasn't pneumonia or something more serious. Because waiting lists to see GPs are now so long—and you have to book three to four weeks in advance—when people ring the clinic the clinic is now saying, 'It's best that you go to the ED.' When you ring the nurse on call, they say, 'It's best that you go to the ED so someone can check your child's chest to make sure it's not something more than a cough or a virus.' It shouldn't be that way. Medicare was built on the promise that it would be universal—that everyone, regardless of their postcode or income, could get access to primary health care when they need it. That's the dream we have to get back to. That's the goal we have. We need to start reinvesting in and rebuilding Medicare. We need to encourage young doctors to choose a career of general practice and of working in our primary care clinics. It's a challenge we've inherited and are stepping up to, but I do worry about the next 12 months and what is going to happen in our communities. I'll switch topics to manufacturing. Another horrible, tragic, frustrating situation we inherited is defence manufacturing. The defence manufacturing area was in absolute chaos. In my electorate we proudly make the Bushmasters that are making such a difference for the Ukrainian people and government at the moment. We've all heard over and over again that they, whether it be their president or ambassador, now associate Australia with Bushmasters. We make them in Bendigo. We also make in Bendigo the Hawkei, the son of the Bushmaster. On the day of the election about 600 of them were lined up on the lawns at Thales. The previous government had contracted Thales to build the Hawkeis as part of an early-stage Land 400 program. They were built in good faith, but the previous government didn't pay the bill. They did not pick them up. They just did not progress to the next stage of paying on delivery and receiving the Hawkeis. There are multiple reasons why that happened. We have since found out that there are problems with other stages of Land 400. Again it's the fault of the previous government. There are problems with delays in building and where the Hawkeis will go after coming into production. So the whole program that was managed by the previous government has been a disaster. Now we're left with a work issue on that site. Because there was no contract of work negotiated by the previous government for these workers to move into, about 30 have already been made redundant because of lack of work. The Hawkei build has finished; there's no work to do next. I do appreciate that our new ministers that have come into the space are working with Thales and the Army to see if there's any other work that they can do whilst they try and secure export contracts with the UK and whilst they see whether there's a build that will happen for Ukraine. But those conversations take time. I am really worried about the future of this site. It's a mess that could have been avoided if the previous government had worked with Thales and done the proper planning so that we did not find ourselves in a situation where one contract ended and there was no contract to go to. It was a problem that they created across the defence manufacturing sector. Housing is another massive issue in my electorate. We've committed to working with the states, local governments, industry and community not-for-profits to build a million homes. Those homes can't come soon enough. We have real estate agents who have waiting lists of about 100 people waiting for an opportunity to apply for a home. They don't even advertise when they've got vacancies now. These are just a few of the urgent issues that we as a country need to address. They're not associated with my electorate; they affect many of us. These issues are ones that we need to address soon. We do have a plan and we're rolling it out. I just want to say to the Australian people and to the people of Bendigo: we understand and know what the pressures are. We're cleaning up the mess, and we're getting on with the job. I'm asking you to have a bit more patience because it will take a bit more time, but we are committed to reforming and doing the heavy lifting that needs to be done. To the people in my electorate: given that this is probably the last time I'll speak this year, I wish you a very safe and prosperous new year and Christmas. It's a special time to celebrate and hold your loved ones close. Just remember that it is a good time to rest, relax and reflect. It's been a big year for all of us, but I particularly wanted to give a shout-out to all of our emergency workers and all our workers who'll work over this Christmas period. (Time expired) 18:47 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I follow on from the member for Bendigo, who gave an address that outlined some of the problems that at all electorates face, especially in regional areas. I represent a regional area: the seat of Monash. Whilst it's more spread out than the seat of Bendigo, it has all the same issues, especially, as the member for Bendigo mentioned, around child care. Being a mum herself, with two beautiful children, she outlined perfectly the problems with the structure of child care. It's not about the money that the federal government put in or not. For me, it's about the number of places and opportunities for families to get child care. The problem in my area is that there are just not enough childcare places and, when there are new centres built, the opportunities for places in those centres are taken up so quickly that many people miss out. As the member for Bendigo pointed out, there are difficulties around how families are locked into child care and don't have the opportunity for family day care. In my case, many years ago, we had a very large broader family who took all the responsibility for child care. Living in a country community like that, it takes a whole village to raise children, and my children were certainly raised by that wonderful community that I lived in. Medicare is still an issues for all of us, which the member for Bendigo raised. Yes, it was meant to be a universal service, and, yes, I believe if you're in real trouble you can get help. But now, with the election of the new government, there have been changes to the arrangements for doctors and where they can and can't work. For us, the changes they've made that allow doctors to go to more suburban areas like Frankston, parts of the Hunter and those sorts of places where they couldn't go before of course mean that doctors will move from a regional area and go and work in a place like Frankston. Frankston is a beautiful spot. I don't like to use the word 'crisis', but it means we have a major difficulty confronting us in that we cannot attract doctors to regional areas. I shouldn't complain, because at least my people could travel 50 kays and get to a doctor. But there are people in parts of Australia now who would give their right arm to be able to travel just 50 kays to a doctor. So I realise this is an issue right around regional Australia. They want the opportunity to attend a doctor. The services that are provided when people can't get in to see a GP now or, as the member for Bendigo said, have to move from a bulk-billing to fee-paying clinical centre—these are all issues affecting families that can least afford this. They need to be able to get to a bulk-billing centre. More than that, if they can't get in to see the doctor or they can't afford to go to the doctor, they'll go to the emergency department of the hospital. Emergency departments in hospitals right around Victoria are already running at 101 per cent. They're already in real trouble. There are many reasons for that. There are people who are unvaccinated and can't work in the health system anymore. There are people who are exhausted or have COVID, or long COVID, and are not working in the health system at this time. So we're begging and borrowing staff from other centres. In aged care it's the same situation; they're short of staff. I don't have to go into hospitality and every other area that we're looking for people—it's the same thing. I heard an ad running on radio saying that if you work in hospitality or have some experience in hospitality, go and offer yourself. It doesn't matter where you go in the seat of Monash, there's a sign saying, 'We are hiring.' People are desperate for workers to be employed in hospitality. Our hospitals are running on the smell of an oily rag. But I've been around long enough to know that the Andrews government, and the governments before his, took a lot of money out of the health system and ran it down. Now we're paying a terrible price for that, although last weekend we had an election campaign and the result didn't seem to worry the people of Victoria. The response was—I could be disappointed with the result of the election campaign—the Andrews government returned with a slightly smaller majority but a very strong majority in its own right. My side of politics was smashed. That's the only way I can put it. They weren't beaten, they were smashed. We've got a lot of work to do as a party to earn the trust of the Australian people. A few minutes ago I received news that a highly regarded former member and now new member for Hawthorn, John Pesutto, has just claimed victory. I think we're doing very well in the seat of Packenham, which is my home town. I think we should get over the line there. I believe we're only a few votes behind in Bass, and I think we'll get over the line there as well. That will be defeating a Labor member of parliament who's been an excellent local member down in that area. Politics is a most difficult game. It's hard to get into, it's hard to stay there and it's very easy to be thrown out. You and I have both learned that over the years, Deputy Speaker Vasta. Elections and interactions between parties are important. I had a big complaint today from someone who likes to contact me quite often. He said that he was disgusted with question time and the behaviour of the opposition. I've been in nearly every parliament since 1990. Question time is a robust exchange, where people have the opportunity to ask the government of the day questions and eke out their own place in this House. The public see question time. What they don't see is all the cooperative committee work that goes on in this House. They don't see the interaction between shadow ministers and ministers. They don't see the cooperation on the big issues of the day, where the members in this House—ministers, shadow ministers, prime ministers and opposition leaders—are putting the nation first in their consideration of what they're doing. Nobody sees that, because the press runs only the division and the approaches there. I notice sitting at the table on our side tonight is the member for Berowra, Julian Leeser. Julian Leeser has taken on the mammoth task in opposition of dealing with the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which I've publicly and strongly supported and will continue to publicly and strongly support. There's an issue where the Nationals have decided they will not as a party support it. In my party there are people who are for it and opposed to it. It leaves the shadow minister in a place where he has to gently negotiate through and find the information that the government is putting forward on how the Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament can be reasonably enacted, where most members of the House will support such a proposition, and that's a very hard job for a shadow minister. I thought I'd just give a shout-out to the shadow minister this evening and say that I think he has made an amazing start to his senior position in the party, and I congratulate him on all the work he has done. I wish you and your wife and your beautiful children a wonderful Christmas, and a Happy New Year to you too, Julian. Having said that, I still won't get a Christmas card from him, but I'll do the best I possibly can, having praised him up. But he is a dear friend of mine, and I wish him all the best in his endeavours. We as a parliament enjoy the company of each other sometimes, and the public does not see us in that way. I think we've lost the trust of the Australian people to a degree. This has probably always been the case around politicians. It doesn't matter where you put your vote, you end up with a politician and all the jokes that go along with that. I'm of the opinion that this is a proud profession to be in, in service of the people that I represent, that you represent, Deputy Speaker Vasta, and every member of the lower House represents—their constituents. Sometimes an issue in their electorates becomes foremost in their position, and they are at odds with their own party. We have processes where we can deal with those. In the Labor Party you can't cross the floor without leaving the party. That's what Andrew Fisher put in place, and that was accepted by the group that began the Labor Party in Australia. On our side, when Menzies came in, he said: 'I have another view. I believe that you should be able to dissent from your own party and still continue in the role as a member of that party.' I have needed to do that on occasion myself. There have been many before me who have chosen to take that road. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody, because it's difficult and it's hard to do, but when you decide to make that stand it's usually for a very, very good reason. As I said, we've had an election. The people of Victoria have spoken. I've spoken previously about the people of Australia having spoken with regard to the Morrison government. They made a decision, and they decided that it was time for the Liberal-Nationals to be no longer in the government's chairs. I entirely and completely accept that decision of the Australian people. It is a blessing to me that we have compulsory voting in this country, where everybody actually comes and participates in the process of democracy in Australia. Even though I've been defeated a few times, I've been part of the changes of government, and I've watched how new governments perform and I've watched how oppositions fall into place, because one of the most important things you can have in a democracy—and I'll come back to the Victorian election—is a strong opposition that is prepared to put its case and question the government on every step that they take, because that's what the Australian people expect of us. My disappointment in Victoria is that the opposition parties have been smashed to the point where the government has a very strong mandate to go ahead and do whatever it wants to do, because we now have a diminished opposition—although the National Party did very well, and they secured the seat of Morwell that they'd once held through Russell Northe. But you have to have that strong opposition, and I don't know at this stage whether we'll be able to mount the strength of opposition that we need to hold the government in Victoria to account. It's been a long time since we had a change of government in Victoria, and it may be even longer now, because of the numbers that are there, before an opposition may—may—be able to rally the numbers to change the government in Victoria. In fact, the Liberals have only governed Victoria for three or four years out of the last 27 years. That is a long time for a government, and there can be arrogance about that in government. I hope that's not the case in Victoria. I'd like to conclude by saying: whatever happens in this nation, whatever happens in each state, each of us has more things in common than things that divide us. I started speaking about the member for Bendigo. She went through the various issues, and I just have to say to you that we happen to be co-chairs of the asbestosis awareness group, which we have worked on together for some years now. I enjoy the interaction with Ms Chesters, the member for Bendigo, in that role, making Australians aware of the dangers of asbestos to them and their children if it's handled badly. So, to me, there is more in this place that endears us to each other, and the things that we have in common are far greater in this Christmas period. In this time when this parliament is wrapping up for the year, we recognise the importance of the relationships we have with one another, with our staff, with the Speaker and deputy speakers and with all the people who are, as I spoke of the other night, the keepers of the springs in this place. Without them, it would not work. So it is crucial that we remember at this time of year how important relationships are and how important our own relationships are inside and outside this house. So I take this opportunity to wish everybody a very merry Christmas, and especially a merry Christmas to the keepers of the wells. 19:03 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I might indulge just for a moment, because the member for Monash often gives the speakers prior to him a few comments and a few generous words. If I may, there are two things I admire about the member for Monash. One is that we often disagree in this place but the member for Monash always disagrees respectfully, and he is someone who always respects different views and does so in a very calm, kind and considered way. The other thing I admire about the member for Monash is that there is an authenticity about the member for Monash that not every member in this place has. You always know where the member for Monash stands. He is true to himself. That sometimes means he moves slightly to the edges of the party lines, but I think he's constantly true to himself. He is an authentic member in this place, and we are better for it, and I acknowledge the member for Monash. There are so many people to thank. I will go through some of them, but I would firstly remark that the election result in Macnamara this year was extremely close, and I am extremely privileged and proud to be here, to be standing in this incredible room to represent the people of Macnamara. While I am humbled by the fact that the Labor Party was the party that was awarded the most primary votes at this election, there were a considerable number of votes put in the trust of other political parties. That's something that I take with great humility and with great respect for my political opponents. They worked extremely hard, and I acknowledge them, all of their volunteers and all of the true believers across the political divide. Our democracy was in full flight in Macnamara; it was a beautiful thing. We had seven debates in the lead-up to the election, which kept me busy in the last few weeks. We had the climate debate hosted by the Port Phillip climate emergency group, PECAN. We had two Southbank debates, both with different community groups in Southbank. We had a debate hosted by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Albert Park. We had a debate hosted in St Kilda by a community group called Unchained, and then we had a debate on JOY FM on Saturday morning—not JOY FM, JOY 94.9. Sorry about that to my friends Macca and Tass who are on JOY 94.9. That is the wonderful LGBTIQ community radio station. So democracy was alive in Macnamara. It was a real contest, and a lot of people put a lot of hours into it. A large number of candidates put their hand up and nominated to be the member for Macnamara, and, for the second time, I am deeply grateful to the people of Macnamara for giving me this privilege. But I also will acknowledge Colleen Harkin, from the Liberal Party, and especially Steph Hodgins-May. She was the Greens candidate. It's not the first time she has run, and she and her volunteers put in an extremely strong campaign. At the Victorian election, she became a mum for the second time, to a baby girl. Congratulations to Steph and her partner, Ogy, and to Otis, her son. I wish them all the best for the next chapter as their little family grows. To my team: I am extremely proud of all of the effort—all of the time and dedication and heart—that went into supporting our campaign in Macnamara. I can say proudly that two of the key pillars of my campaign have gone on to bigger and better things. They've left the humble Macnamara team and my team to go on to do better things. One of my staff members has joined the Prime Minister's office. I won't embarrass him by saying that he's joined us in the chamber today, but it was a great achievement and he's certainly a worthy member of that high office. Dean will do the absolute best that he can, not only for the Prime Minister but also for the people of Australia. The other person I would like to acknowledge is Belinda Wilson. Belinda Wilson is an extraordinary person. She has hustle and heart and drive. It's not a surprise that the Labor Party preselected her to be the candidate for Narre Warren North in the state election that we just had, and I'm extremely proud that one of my former team members got elected to become the member for Narre Warren North. She will make an almighty contribution for the people of Narre Warren North. The people of Narre Warren North have a representative who will work as hard as she possibly can to deliver the things that they need—better schools, better roads, better transport and better health care. She will work with everything she's got to deliver for them, and I congratulate her, my dear friend Belinda, for becoming a member of the state parliament. I congratulate Willow, Bridie, Kane, Ned and the whole Wilson family on their fantastic achievement. It was a group effort. I also want to acknowledge my other campaign team, Roman and Alex, who were just tireless in the way they corralled volunteers, came out doorknocking with me and made phone calls with me. We spoke to thousands of people in Macnamara, and for months on end they—especially Roman—were determined. Every bit that they contributed helped get us over the line. In such a tight contest, they helped to deliver votes via their simple conversations about why they were there, why they wanted to see a Labor government, why they wanted to see an end to the Morrison government and what it meant for them and their friends. I also want to acknowledge my other staff members. Some of them have left, but I'm going to mention all of those who have worked in my office, because I'm proud of all of them—Adam, Adele, Ariel, Dakota, Deborah, Joseph and Ryan—and my former staff members, Belinda, Mickey, my dear friend Millie, Ella, John, who still gives me advice when I deserve it, Toby and Simon. We had 31 booths across Macnamara, and I want to thank all of those booth captains who stood out there all day, especially those scrutineers. Not just on election day, but we had scrutineers in Macnamara for about 10 days after in a cold shed in Port Melbourne. They were just tireless and made sure every vote was counted in the appropriate way, and I appreciate all of their hard work. I especially want to mention Millie, who led the scrutineering team in the cold shed after doing nursing shifts, and Jane, who came in every single day with her clipboard. I think Jane had the strike rate of picking up any ballots that weren't 100 per cent in order—so, Jane, I really appreciate you. I couldn't have done this campaign without my campaign committee—Abby, Julia, Louise, Raff, Simone, Toby, Ricky, Wesser and Adam. They were constant in their advice, but more so in their hard work. We met regularly and we helped corral, fundraise and make the campaign in Macnamara happen. I also want to make mention of the incredible Labor team in head office. We have won this year, in 2022, thanks to Chris Ford, our state secretary, and his team of assistant secretaries, and thanks to other staff members of Cam Petrie and Nicola Castleman. We hold 21 seats in Victoria. We certainly hold the majority of seats in Victoria at a federal level. And now, for the third time, we've been re-elected at the state level under the leadership of Daniel Andrews. But that campaigning machine has done a remarkable job. Two from two isn't bad. It's not every year that you have a Labor victory federally and at a state level. That head office team in Victoria did such a tireless job. I pay tribute to them and their professionalism. I thank them for everything that they did for me, and, of course, I also pay tribute to national office headed by my good friend Paul Erickson, who I admire very much. He is one of the best political minds, one of the hardest workers and one of the most decent people I've come across. I also want to give an acknowledgement to a couple of people who helped me on the sidelines, as well, who I've turned to when I needed advice. One is my dear friend Ari Suss, who I owe a lot to. He is someone who has been a friend and someone who has been there for me as a mentor and as someone I know has always looked out for my interests. I deeply appreciate everything he's done for me. I also want to acknowledge the late Kimberley Kitching, who was working on the Macnamara campaign right up until she passed away. I've spoken about her in this place and in others. I thank Kimberley. She loved Macnamara; she really loved the community of Macnamara. She thought all of the little nooks and crannies were just wonderful—as I do. She saw the beauty in my electorate and she knew it as well as anyone. She understood the strategy and the politics of it. And I pay tribute to her. Of course I realise that to be in this place and to become a member of parliament you really have to give everything you've got. There is no such thing as a safe seat. It's physically and intellectually and emotionally the most draining and exhausting experience that I've ever been through. You are just constantly tested and constantly pushed. While the ebbs and flows of being a member of parliament are extraordinary, nothing quite compares to the campaign. But you cannot give of yourself and lead a team through that without the people who you love, especially your family. I'm extremely fortunate to have such an incredible support network. I don't know how many people came up to me and said, 'I saw your mum on the corner of South Melbourne Market,' or 'I saw your dad handing out bags,' or 'Your dad came and delivered corflutes to my home'—or whatever they were doing. My parents have been extraordinary supporters, and I'm deeply grateful to them for all of their love and all of their support. They have enabled and supported me to do everything that I have chosen to do in this world. Of course I also thank my brother and my sister. Most of all, I thank my wife, Zoe, who, throughout the campaign, gave me all the support I needed to pour everything I had into this campaign. She runs a small business and is doing extremely well and works extremely hard, but she is someone I couldn't do this job without, and I appreciate everything she did for me throughout the campaign. We must be doing something okay because our daughter, Tia, is the best thing in the entire world. Being away from her is the worst part of this job. I hope that one day, once this is all done, we can look back and realise that the work we did was worth it and that the time we spent away and the sacrifices we made were worth it. The time my family spends together is the best part of my life. I hope and look forward to seeing my daughter grow up and do everything she needs to do in this world. In the last few minutes I'll just touch on some of the things that I saw in the election and what I'm going to try and do this term. The top of the list for the people of Macnamara at the last election was to take climate change and environmental management seriously and to be sincere in our endeavour to try and turn this global challenge around. It is something I've heard from so many people I represent and it's something I take extremely seriously. I hope that when I reflect on my career—whenever that is—that is something people will say I was consistent on. We must be a part of the generation that does everything we can to tackle climate change. I believe we can and I'm proud of the measures we've already taken. I am proud that we now have a climate change bill. I am proud that we are moving towards electric vehicles. I am proud that we've signed international pledges. I am proud that they're going to designate 30 per cent of our environment for wildlife. I'm proud of the fact that we're transitioning, which is an extraordinarily massive task. To transition from the power that has enabled not only economic prosperity but also the function of our society into something completely different is unprecedented. It is something that should not be underestimated, but it's something that we have to do and it's something that I am determined to be a part of. Of course, we need to have leadership in environmental management, and that is something that I am confident the Minister for the Environment, when she responds to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act review by Professor Samuels, will address when she comes to this place with a legacy of reform that we can all be proud of. The other thing that people had at the top of their agenda was the way politicians conduct themselves in the chamber. They said that they conduct themselves with professionalism and dignity in their workplaces across Macnamara. They respect their colleagues, and I think they expect, when looking at this place, the same sort of integrity and the same sort of professionalism that they uphold in their own workplaces. I don't think that parliament reflects that. We need a more constructive parliament, but they also said they wanted to see a change in the institutions that ensure that we have the highest possible standards in this place. I'm extremely proud of my good friend the Attorney-General who has navigated through the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will be a great legacy of his and of this parliament. Many members have contributed to the legislation for the establishment of this commission, and it is a sign that this is a collaborative and forward-thinking parliament. It's a parliament that believes in institutions and creating organisations and government agencies to help to lift the standard of behaviour in politics while giving confidence to the Australian people that we in this place take our job seriously. We take our responsibility seriously and we want to ensure that we are striving for high standards in high office. Another big issue that people resoundingly raised with me was the cost of living. If you are a young person in this country and you're entering the workplace, you will be going into a workplace with as high a rate of casual employment as we've had in the history of our country. At the same time, it's never been harder to get into the housing market. If you're female, you're more likely to be paid less and you're more likely to work in industries where the pay is significantly lower for women than it is for men. You're also likely to retire with less superannuation. We have huge economic obstacles, and the design of our economy and the way in which it functions means that we in this place, because we hold the biggest levers in our economy, need to strive to use these levers so that the economy works for Australian people and so that Australian people, when they complete their 40 to 45 years of working for our wonderful country, have something to show for it. It's why increasing wages is a very important endeavour. It's why moving away from casualised work towards permanent work is a really important endeavour. It's why I'm proud of our industrial relations reform. It's why I'm proud of the budget that we have set down, but I acknowledge that there is more work to be done. We are very, very lucky to be here, and I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to be a member of this great institution. I believe in the House of Representatives, and I believe in our parliament. I believe it can be a force for good. For however long I serve the people of Macnamara, I'll do so to the best of my ability and with the utmost effort. But it is not possible without the support of the wonderful people of Macnamara, and for that I say a very deep thank you to them. 19:23 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I'd like to start by acknowledging the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people who are traditional custodians of the land on which we stand. I also acknowledge the traditional custodians of Warringah and pay my deep respect to our diverse First Nations communities, the traditional custodians, elders past, present and emerging on whose country we work. The history of Warringah is complex, and there is a need for healing. I express my heartfelt thanks to local communities and am committed to nurturing the world's oldest adapting culture and our first people's connections to land, sea, and sky. To that end I welcome the commitment of the government to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the Constitution and to hold a referendum next year. It's been far too long coming. It's more than five years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart dialogues concluded and Professor Megan Davis so powerfully read out the statement to the crowd at Uluru and to Australia. The referendum is another step on the long journey towards reconciliation and closing the gap. However, it's a vitally important step and one which will guarantee that Indigenous people have a say over their future through a permanent voice to parliament. It's an issue that I and many of my constituents feel passionately about, and I'm sure that we in Warringah will once again demonstrate our caring and inclusive nature through our engagement with the referendum process. I'd like to acknowledge the Warringah team and our wonderful community who worked tirelessly throughout the last term to ensure that I was returned to this place to represent them once more. We know that over the next three years there will be challenges. The economy is not in a good place. We face a lot of challenges. But there is hope in a new way of doing business through investment in innovation, research and development, while improving the value we get for public money. I've committed to champion a new circular economy to build on sustainable inclusive growth. We need to build on innovation, research and development, where our best minds are inventing new products and solutions and delivering prosperity to all Australians. I welcome the tabling today of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. We can build back better, smarter and more efficient. But we do need budget discipline, and that is something we need to very much focus on. Warringah will continue to be climate leaders and will advocate for an acceleration of our ambition to meaningfully contribute to acting on and stopping global warming. There's no hope of reining in the cost of living without climate action. Just think: food, fuel, insurance—climate disasters are the major contributors to cost spikes. In the last three years alone, we've had fires and floods with immeasurable emotional and personal costs to communities. We are heading towards $1.2 trillion of debt by 2060, so it is urgent that we act and that we accelerate our ambition. I commend the government for passing the Climate Change Act 2022, but we must make sure that we keep improving and accelerating. It took pressure from the crossbench to strengthen it, to make it dependent on scientific advice and to set a target of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees. These actions show that we can absolutely do better, and we need to stop subsidising fossil fuels. We are in a critical decade. The latest IPCC report is a clear warning that we must do more by 2030 and beyond. We must transform our energy to renewables, clean up transport, modernise industry, regenerate Australia and stop deforestation. We must stop approving new coalmine and gas projects. We simply cannot keep making the problem worse. Warringah is a beautiful place, and Australia is a unique and biodiverse country. We need to act to protect our local environment. That's why I am so pleased and proud of Our Community, Roadmap to Zero and other important local initiatives. We need to protect our oceans, beaches and coasts by opposing offshore oil and gas exploration and boosting investment in ocean research and development. We need to end seismic testing in our oceans and safeguard our flora, fauna and heritage by working with community groups, trusts and conservation organisations. We need stronger environmental legislation. And we need to stop using so much plastic and stop packaging. We need to develop the infrastructure to make sure we are properly processing it. We need to make sure our communities are healthy and connected, with responsible and proportionate responses to challenges. We need to improve mental health, treat health—whole-body health, physical and mental—in a total and holistic way and modernise and increase channels to access health care. I note the time, and I seek leave to continue any remarks at a later date. Leave granted. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 101 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 101 Report 101 19:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I present report No. 7 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private member's business on Monday 6 February 2023. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determination will on tomorrows Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The Committee met in private session on Wednesday, 30 November 2022. 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 Wednesday, 30 November 2022, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 6 February 2023, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR BATES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes. (Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023) (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 2 DR GILLESPIE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Australia has been at the forefront of nuclear science and technology since 1953 when the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was established and operated two research reactors at Lucas Heights in Sydney; (b) since the Australian Atomic Energy Commission became the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in 1987, it has operated the HIFAR Research Reactor, and subsequently the OPAL Research Reactor, which has delivered significant benefits for nuclear medicine in Australia and around the world; (c) Australia has developed one of the world's leading regulatory and safety authorities to oversee the operation of its nuclear industries with the establishment of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency; (d) Australia is a signatory to international non-proliferation treaties which is overseen by the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office; and (2) considers the deployment of nuclear energy to deliver energy security for the nation, as part of Australia's transition to a decarbonised electricity grid, utilising emerging nuclear technologies such as Generation III+, Generation IV Small Modular Reactors and Micro Modular Reactors; and (3) further considers the following legislative actions: (a) removing the blanket prohibition on: (i) the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving, or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities as described in sections 37J, 140A and 146M, and paragraph 305(2)(d) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, by repealing those provisions; and (ii) the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities as described in section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, by repealing that section; (b) leaving unaffected: (i) the other elements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, pursuant to which the Minister would assess any application to establish a facility previously named in the repealed provisions; (ii) state and territory powers to protect their citizens and the environment from potential adverse radiation impacts; and (iii) the power vested in the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether or not to issue a permit under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 for such a proposed facility. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Dr Gillespie —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 MS STANLEY: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 1 February 2023 marks the 39th anniversary of the introduction of Medicare by the Government of Prime Minister Hawke; and (b) Australia's healthcare system is based on equitable and fair access for all Australians; and (2) acknowledges that: (a) as of 1 January 2023, the Government will have reduced the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment by $12.50 to a maximum of $30; and (b) the Government is making medicines cheaper and more accessible for Australian families. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Ms Stanley —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MS LE: To move: That this House (1) notes that the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022: (a) will increase demand on the early childhood education sector and does not address supply, namely: (i) training individuals that wish to seek a future in the early childhood education sector; and (ii) a retention strategy for the early childhood education sector, specifically childcare; and (b) does not guarantee an increase in workforce participation; (2) further notes the Government subsidy for high income families is occurring simultaneous to the abolition of the Lower and Middle Income Tax Offset which will increase the cost of living pressures on low and middle income families that need the support most; and (3) calls on the Government to: (a) implement the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy which is a co-design piece conducted by the entire sector addressing key supply issues such as: (i) recruitment; (ii) retainment; and (iii) sustainability and quality of the sector workforce; (b) acknowledge the child care service gaps in facilities and staffing in remote, rural, and regional Australia; and (c) acknowledge the barriers in the childcare sector that impact multicultural communities across Australia such as: (i) English not being the primary language for children at home; (ii) training and upskilling; and (iii) understanding the unique needs of culturally diverse children. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits — Ms Le —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MRS ANDREWS: To move: That this House: (1) recognises the importance of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science on 11 February 2023, and the amazing contribution of Australian women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields; and (2) acknowledges the crucial work undertaken by the previous Government to promote gender equity in STEM in Australia. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mrs Andrews —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MR SMITH: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) in May 2022 Australians voted for a plan for cheaper child care; and (b) on 23 November 2022, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 passed the Parliament; (2) commends the Government for meeting its election commitment to the Australian people; (3) further notes that: (a) the reforms will deliver affordable early education for more than a million families; (b) from July 2022, approximately 96 per cent of families with a child in early childhood education and care will benefit; (c) from July 2022, the child care subsidy for families earning $80,000 or less will increase to 90 per cent; and (d) Treasury modelling shows that this will deliver the equivalent of up to 37,000 workers to the economy in the first year; and (4) acknowledges that these reforms will deliver real cost-of-living relief while boosting productivity. (Notice given 30 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Smith —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 MR VIOLI: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the previous Government made significant progress on supporting the growth and opportunities of the digital economy, including appointing the first Minister for the Digital Economy; and (b) the Government does not have a Minister for the Digital Economy; and (2) acknowledges that: (a) Australian digital activity value add increased by 7.4 per cent ($7.5 billion) in 2019-20, compared with a two per cent increase for the total Australian economy; (b) the digital economy strategy of the last Government provided a roadmap to becoming a top 10 digital economy and society by 2030; and (c) digital assets could represent over 20 per cent of retail payments by 2050. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — 30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Violi —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MS THWAITES: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges that November 2022 marks 15 years since the Government of Prime Minister Rudd made the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, a moment that forever changed this nation's relationship with our First Nations people; (2) notes that since this time there has been an increased focus, including through the annual Closing the Gap report, on the need for governments to deliver real, better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; (3) commends the work of the Coalition of Peaks and other First Nations organisations to progress efforts to Close the Gap; (4) recognises that the Government's commitment to hold a referendum to establish a Voice to Parliament represents a once in a generation opportunity to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in our Constitution, and ensures that they will always be included in the policy-making process on matters affecting them; and (5) calls on members of Parliament, and people right across Australia to campaign in support of the referendum. (Notice given 30 November 2022.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm. Speech time limits — Ms Thwaites —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices — continued 5 MR HASTIE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government has committed to the former Government's objective of growing the Australian Defence Force (ADF) by 18,500 people by 2040; (b) to meet the objective, there must be net growth of 1,000 people per year; and (c) the ADF recruitment numbers currently sit at a net growth of approximately 300 people per year; and (2) calls on all Members to: (a) recognise that our regional security environment is deteriorating; (b) acknowledge that Australia must build a strong and capable ADF; (c) focus on how we find, recruit and retain young men and women we need to build the ADF into the future; and (d) build a strong values based narrative of service, duty and country in appealing to our next generation of ADF recruits. (Notice given 29 November 2022) Time allotted — 35 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Hastie —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 6 DR ANANDA-RAJAH: To move: That this House: (1) acknowledges: (a) that the Government introduced legislation ten years ago to allow Australia to become the first country in the world to implement tobacco plain packaging in December 2012; (b) that the successful landmark tobacco plain packaging policy has saved countless lives; (c) that tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability; (d) that in both health and economic terms of tobacco use, disadvantaged groups are hit more than three times harder than others in the community; and (e) the tireless support and dedication of many in the public health sector, including health workers and the former Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, who fought for the changes to introduce plain packaging; and (2) notes the comprehensive tobacco plain packaging strategy was multi layered to include: (a) tobacco plain packaging and graphic health warnings; (b) rolling tobacco excise increases; (c) advertising restrictions; and (d) public health campaigns and quit smoking support. (Notice given 30 November 2022.) Time allotted — 35 minutes. Speech time limits — Dr Ananda-Rajah —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 7 MR PASIN: To move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) the fuel excise levied by the Commonwealth will raise $13.7 billion in 2022-23, and is expected to increase up to $15.8 billion in 2025-26; and (b) the revenue raised by the fuel excise makes a significant contribution toward the costs of the development and maintenance, safety and efficiency of our road transport network; (2) notes that: (a) the budget shows 91 per cent of the fuel excise is being reinvested in land transport infrastructure in 2022-23 but is decreasing to 88 per cent by 2025-26; and (b) between the March and October 2022 budgets, land transport infrastructure spending decreased over the forward estimates by $4.33 billion; and (3) calls for the Government to allocate 100 per cent of fuel excise revenue for investment in road transport infrastructure. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — 35 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Pasin —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 8 MS BYRNES: To move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) the importance of manufacturing for our nation, particularly our regional areas; and (b) that Australia has suffered nearly a decade of policy-drift ranking last in the OECD when it comes to manufacturing self-sufficiency; (2) recognises the Government is delivering on its commitment to establish the National Reconstruction Fund, which will: (a) create secure, well-paid jobs; (b) diversify Australian industry to drive sustainable growth to create future prosperity; (c) build our capability to manufacture high-value products for the world; and (d) drive economic development in our regions and outer suburbs; (3) acknowledges that the Government is rebuilding Australia's manufacturing capacity to build a stronger and more resilient future; and (4) further notes that the Government is delivering its plan to: (a) create a better future for Australians by investing to support and stimulate regional manufacturing; and (b) implement a National Rail Manufacturing Plan to support the rail industry and create more skilled manufacturing jobs. (Notice given 30 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Ms Byrnes —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 9 MR CHANDLER-MATHER: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Vanuatu's Minister of Climate Change, Ralph Regenvanu, would only back Australia's bid to host the 2026 COP if Australia does not commit to any new coal or gas handouts; and (b) the Government's first budget has over $40 billion in fossil fuel subsidies including $1.9 billion to open up a new LNG terminal and petrochemical hub in Darwin Harbour; and (2) calls on the Government to end fossil fuel subsidies. (Notice given 22 November 2022.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm. Speech time limits — Mr Chandler-Mather —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. THE HON D. M. DICK MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 30 November 2022 ADJOURNMENT 106 ADJOURNMENT Gold Coast: Tourism 106 19:29 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Tonight I rise to speak about the Gold Coast and particularly issues relating to tourism and how we can look forward to a resurgence in tourism on the Gold Coast. The southern Gold Coast is one of the most incredible regions in our great country. In my opinion, it is second to none. I've had the great privilege of representing the southern Gold Coast for just over 12 years now. The past few years have been incredibly challenging for our small businesses and workers, as well as our mums, dads and families, on the Gold Coast. Clearly the southern Gold Coast is a tourism hotspot. We share our southern border with New South Wales. So the prolonged border closures really did cripple our community. It was very difficult as a border community for those people who were shut out of either New South Wales or particularly Queensland, as my electorate is in Queensland. Effectively the town was cut in two. It was very difficult for those people who worked in New South Wales but lived in Queensland and vice versa to be able to go about their normal work. We found that families were separated. Many owners and their employees literally could see their business or their workplace just across the road, just a couple of hundred metres away, but, in many cases, they weren't able to walk over to work. These are some unique challenges that border cities have faced over the last couple of years during COVID. As we start to recover from COVID, we are, next year in particular, looking forward to a bumper year on the Gold Coast for tourism. It is great to see that many of our businesses are bouncing back after international borders were reopened about a year ago now. It means there are people coming in to support our tourism providers on the Gold Coast and it provides a much-needed injection that the Gold Coast needs. It was great to see our wonderful beaches full again and to see our kids back enjoying their weekend sports and competing with children that other towns sent to compete on the Gold Coast. These are the things that clearly drive our community. Whilst the times have been tough over the last couple of years, in my view, we have emerged even stronger. But this is why places such as the Gold Coast, my home town, really do require some additional federal support. So I was very disappointed in the budget to see that there had been some programs that were cut or changed that impact on the southern Gold Coast region. It was disappointing to see that Labor didn't announce any new tourism measures, effectively turning a blind eye to our region as we recover from the pandemic that brought our international tourism to a standstill. This can be addressed by government by funding the industry, but we didn't see that from Labor in the last budget. In fact, Labor slashed Tourism Australia's budget by 25 per cent. Between the slowdown of international travellers visiting the Gold Coast's premier attractions and a hard border with New South Wales freezing border communities like Coolangatta out of foot traffic, the Gold Coast could really benefit from some tourism funding and some international visitors right now. So it makes no sense to cut $35 million from the budget of the lead agency tasked with rebuilding our international tourism market. When we, the coalition, were in government we delivered record revenue for Tourism Australia, allowing the agency to promote cities like the Gold Coast to travellers from overseas like never before. This attracted visitors that spent a lot of money in businesses, including our restaurants, cafes and tourism attractions. The tourism industry is clearly the backbone of the Gold Coast economy. We want to see it returning to pre-pandemic levels and to, in fact, increase beyond that. But additional funding is required to make sure that that happens. We have a local community that really has put its shoulder to the wheel to try and rebuild. Many, many businesses suffered drastically over the last couple of years. What we are asking for are two things. One is support for Tourism Australia so that further support can go towards attracting international tourists to Australia and, in particular, to the Gold Coast. We are also, then, inviting everyone who is currently in Australia to make time to visit the Gold Coast over this Christmas holiday break. I know that, whilst we will be busy, we will always make sure that we have room for our visitors. Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Summit 107 19:34 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Yesterday, 29 November, I was honoured to meet with some of the brightest and most passionate young activists from Australia and the Pacific region. They were at Parliament House as part of the Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Summit, coordinated by Micah Australia and the Pacific Conference of Churches. These young activists shared with me their vision to see healthy environments, empowered young people and flourishing communities across the Pacific region. They told me that this vision will only be realised in full when communities enjoy self-determination and when no-one is left behind. Young people in Australia and the Pacific are vital to the continuing development of their nation's environment, economy, society and culture. In Fiji, more than 60 per cent of the population are under-35. In the Solomon Islands, it is almost 75 per cent. It's a similar story against most Pacific nations. With such a high proportion of young people in the region, it is important for countries, like Australia, that seek to work in partnership with their Pacific family to listen deeply to and build on the strengths of these young people. Ninety-four per cent of the Pacific delegates at the summit ranked climate change as an issue of high or extreme importance for their community; 92.6 per cent ranked 'preparing for natural disasters and their impact' as an issue of high or extreme importance for their community. The health of the environment is intimately connected to the lives, livelihoods and cultures of the Pacific people. For the Pacific people, the land, the sea and the ecosystem are part of their identity. Cultures, traditions and spirituality are all connected and affected by the environment. It's part of who our neighbours are. In January this year, the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha'apai volcano in Tonga erupted. Semisi Kaufusi from Tonga courageously shared with me his personal story and lived experience of that event. Whole communities were left under a blanket of volcanic ash and mud from the tsunami that followed the eruption. For weeks, people were cut off from their loved ones abroad as the eruption severed critical data cables. Access to food, water and shelter was a challenge. Iemaima Vaai, a Samoan living in Fiji, shared with me her story of climate induced displacement and relocation in Fiji. The Fijian government has identified 800 communities that are affected by climate change disaster. After years of consultations, Fiji's government has developed a national plan to relocate at least 42 coastal villages under threat from climate change. Relocating communities involves so much more than simply rebuilding houses in a safer location. It involves providing the right conditions for people to rebuild their lives, such as access to services, community and physical infrastructure. To say it is a massive project is an understatement. Climate change has catastrophic impacts across the Pacific. It presents an existential threat to the cultures and communities in the Pacific to our neighbours. According to Ashley Wild, one of my constituents, and Harriett Steenholdt, who attends a local church in my electorate—and who were both representing Australia in the delegation—we can help to see the vision of healthy environments realised, through the Pacific region, by drawing on the ancient wisdom and knowledge of Indigenous peoples that stretches back thousands of years. This includes the ancient wisdom of Australia's First Nations peoples, the oldest continuous culture in the world, who must be given a seat at the table when engaging with and building partnerships with the Pacific. We need to ensure bilateral support for climate action in the Pacific and make sure it's driven by local needs and priorities, focusing on the most vulnerable countries and communities and promoting inclusion and aid that reaches the ground level. We need to take meaningful action towards a safe transition to renewable energy and engage with multinational and international human rights, instruments and mechanisms to ensure cooperation. I thank the delegation, deeply, for meeting with me yesterday, for sharing so generously their stories and their hope and vision for healthy environments, empowered young people and flourishing communities. I congratulate them for all of their efforts and look forward to meeting them again. Keep up the good work. Australian Christian Lobby 108 19:39 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I'd like to put on the record tonight that I consider myself a Christian woman. Why do I point this out? Well, less the Australian Christian Lobby once again try to betray me as a godless heathen for holding them to account for their continued insistence on treating the LGBTIQA+ community as something other. May I also point out that, regardless of my religious beliefs, their actions are abhorrent. In the local paper on the weekend I read with interest—well, disdain really—and ad taken out by the Australian Christian Lobby attacking the Tasmanian Liberal government for their proposed legislation to ban damaging conversion practices. The ad campaign is a loud and clear direct threat to my state Liberal Party colleagues for taking the step towards ending a practice that is dangerous, harmful and remains an ongoing problem in some communities. Having been on the receiving end of a campaign by the ACL during the recent federal election, I'm certain that speaking up again today will put me directly in their line of fire. But, like my good friend and Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff, I won't be intimidated. Their campaign dares to presume to speak for Liberals and their values, but as a Liberal in Bass I can say they certainly do not speak for us. In fact, during the election and even during the debate on the religious discrimination bill, I had many, many members of the Christian community reach out to me to express their disappointment in the conduct of the ACL and the fact that their approach on many issues is the very antithesis of Christian values, which put love and care for others at the centre. As Glen Worrall, who experienced conversion practices for 21 years in New South Wales and Tasmania and has firsthand experience of the psychological and spiritual damage conversion practice can cause, said, 'As a person of faith, I believe the Christian faith at its best is to do no harm, and these practices do harm.' The ACL has seemingly tried to frame the issue as an attack on freedom of thought and speech, amongst other things, claiming this to be a contradiction of Liberal Party values. I think it's worthwhile to point out the following from our own 'we believe' statement: WE BELIEVE THAT LIBERALISM MEANS FLEXIBILITY AND PROGRESS. Its principles and its spiritual and intellectual approach enable it to meet and deal with new and changing social and economic circumstances. By elevating the individual, it meets and defeats the terrible doctrine of the all-powerful State: a doctrine at once destructive, reactionary and negative. The ACL must be called out on their blatant lie and scare tactics that misrepresent what the law is set out to do. There is no call for a parent or guardian to face criminal charges over their thoughts and views over sexuality and gender identity. The proposed law instead seeks to bring charges if someone experiences a serious industry beyond reasonable doubt due to conversion practices. The reforms are based on a Tasmania Law Reform Institute report which outlined that parents and guardians have the right to express views on sexuality or gender identity issues to their children and to guide their moral and spiritual development. I'd like to commend Premier Rockliff for his leadership on these and other matters affecting the LGBTIQ community. In my most recent conversation with him we were talking about the fact that the most important thing we can do as elected representatives—and as human beings—is to look after people, to care for people. To anyone who considers this care a woke issue, if loving and respecting other people and wishing for self-determination and autonomy and a right to live your life without fear of judgement, harassment or reprisal is woke, I'm here for it! After witnessing the campaigns of the ACL over the last few years, whether it be marriage equality or protecting the rights of LGBTIQ students and teachers in school or on harmful and painful practices where inflicting deep shame is at the core, I have to think they are so very aware of the hurt that they cause in the community. They know they are causing harm, but they keep doing it. It is a deliberate choice over and over and over again and, quite frankly, not a very Christian one. At this stage the ACL is looking less like a lobby group and more like poorly disguised theocrats. I would urge the Australian Christian Lobby to begin looking at how they can move towards love and acceptance of all God's children. Juukan Gorge 109 19:44 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I begin by recognising that this parliament meets on the home of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land and pay my respects to their elders past and present. On Thursday last week, the Minister for the Environment and Water tabled our response to the report by the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia on their inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge on 24 May 2020. I stand here today speaking about this because I was so outraged by this moment in our history—as we should all be. I sat here and heard the minister's response, and she spoke brilliantly about this issue and about the cultural destruction and heritage-site destruction which took place. But then I heard the shadow minister speak about it. What I heard was a speech about funding being given to radical environmental activists; he spoke about 18 coal and gas projects approved by the previous federal environment minister that were being reviewed, and yet I didn't hear any regard for this cultural destruction that took place, which is shameful on all of us. What happened at Juukan Gorge is a shameful moment in Australia's history. As the traditional owners wrote in their submission to the inquiry: The Juukan Gorge disaster is a tragedy not only for the PKKP People. It is also a tragedy for the heritage of all Australians and indeed humanity as a whole. Can you imagine a mining company or a development damaging the pyramids in Egypt? There'd be an outrage! Can you imagine Stonehenge being damaged or destroyed? Again, there would be an outrage! What about the Colosseum in Rome or the Parthenon in Athens? These are cultural sites that people respect and admire, and we here in this country should be admiring and respecting 60,000 years of tradition, 60,000 years of ongoing culture and 60,000 years of ongoing language. Sadly, it's not an isolated incident. Australia has an incredible, rich history and culture—the oldest continuing living culture in the world. We need to ensure that we all value, appreciate and protect this culture. It is part of us. It is in the fabric of this land. It's the history of this land. It is also our culture, and it deserves our respect. This goes hand-in-hand with our desire to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, including a Voice to Parliament. It is inextricably linked because, unless we give First Nations Australians a genuine say in policy design and legislation, we will continue to face situations like what happened in Juukan Gorge. We'll continue to table our Closing the gap report on this side of the House. It is time that, as a nation, we stand side by side with First Nations people. We need to allow First Nations people to have a say in how the gap needs to be closed and where it needs to be closed. A Voice to Parliament will give First Nations Australians self-determination and empowerment. The changes this can create for future generations can be absolutely remarkable, but this requires all of us to work together. It requires that, as a nation, we gather all the goodwill and love and hope we can muster and say yes to a Voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. While not every person may agree with every small detail, we need to act, because doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is the very definition of madness. We must ensure that what happened at Juukan Gorge—the destruction of an ancient site—never happens again. Australians are outraged, and so they should be. It's high time that we did things differently. Human Rights 109 19:48 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff There has been a concerning rise of violence against women and minority groups not only here in Australia but around the world. We've seen an increasing number of attacks on Jewish places of worship, schools and businesses. People are marching in the streets in Iran in protest of the unacceptable and abhorrent violence being carried out against women and girls by Iranian authorities, not to mention their treatment of the Baha'i faith community, which I spoke about earlier this week during my private member's motion. In the United States, we saw a gunman open fire in a Colorado LGBTIQ+ nightclub, killing five people and injuring 19 others. With the ongoing war in Ukraine and the treatment of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the Uyghur community in China, the list goes on. Sometimes it feels as though we've taken five steps forward in reaching equality and in celebrating diversity, and yet at the same time we take three steps back. Last week was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and I acknowledge the speech that the member for McPherson gave in the chamber. In Australia, on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner, and it's an absolute tragedy that this continues in our country. Yet, with that statistic in mind, we know that there are women in other countries who are in much, much worse situations and who have no rights—in Iran, for example. Many in this place have condemned the actions in Iran following the violent arrest and death of 22-year-old Iranian woman Mahsa Amini for not covering her hair with a hijab. For the past two months, Iranian women have marched through the streets, burnt their hijabs and cut off their hair in protest against the Islamic Republic and the treatment of Mahsa. Human rights groups have reported more than 300 protesters, including children, have been killed, and an estimated 15,000 people have been arrested. The coalition stands with the Australian-Iranian community and condemns the actions of the so-called morality police and the treatment of women and girls in Iran. We continue to call for tangible action, including targeted sanctions, in response to violence and human rights abuses in Iran. We call on the Albanese government to stand consistent with other countries. We also stand with the Australian Baha'i community in condemning the mistreatment and persecution of Baha'is in Iran, who have been routinely persecuted, arrested, detained and imprisoned because of their beliefs. In January 2020 I visited the refugee megacamps of Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh with Save the Children, and I thank them for that delegation. In that environment, women and children are exposed to gender based violence constantly. Families take measures to hide young women, who are often kept hidden until they are of age to be married, which oftentimes is 12 years of age. The Australian government provided safe places during the day, where women and children gathered to sleep safely and to engage with one another for support, and also some $700 million at that time. I also want to mention the senseless killing of five people at Club Q in Colorado, in the United States. This was a place where people of the LGBTIQ+ community went to feel safe, and yet many of them may never feel safe again because of the ignorant and violent actions of one man. It's not the first time that an LGBTQI+ community has been attacked, and, unfortunately, it's unlikely to be the last. We've had enough. We must condemn the actions of those who choose violence and who seek to persecute those who are different because of their faith, their gender or, simply, who they love. I'm proud to live in Australia, a country where you can practise your faith freely and live without fear of persecution because of your beliefs, but we all need to do more to defend the human rights of minority groups wherever they face oppression and persecution across the world. And I acknowledge the comments made before me by the member for Bass. We stand with all of you, and we condemn those who persecute, marginalise, discriminate or commit violence against anyone—but particularly violence against women and children. To those of Jewish, Rohingya, Uyghur and Baha'i faith, to the LGBTIQ+ community and to women: there is no room for these actions in our world. Apprenticeships 110 19:54 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to associate myself with the contribution of the previous speaker. In fact, I've just been upstairs at a meeting with the Baha'i community, and I have friends in that community back in Darwin. Tonight I want to talk about our amazing apprentices in the Northern Territory and all our amazing employers who give our apprentices a go. This evening in particular I want to acknowledge the nominees and winners of the TIO Automotive Apprentice of the Year Awards. There were too many to name right now, but among them were Trey Pattullo, the Indigenous Award recipient, as well as School Based Apprentice Award recipient, Darcy McIntyre from Darwin Land Rover, and Ryan Roman from Darwin Crash Repairs. I'd also mention Isaiah Strong from Palmerston Smash Repairs and Josh Bates from Palmerston Auto Clinic. There were 21 winners and many more nominees, and I congratulate each and every one of them. In Darwin, Palmerston in my electorate and across the country, the Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to help give more Australians the skills and training that they need today and to harness the jobs and opportunities of the future. We are investing in our greatest resource, which is our people. We are honouring our election commitments to establish Jobs and Skills Australia, providing more fee-free TAFE and vocational education places and building a clean energy workforce. This is why, in this year's budget, we've contributed $550 million to a $1 billion, 12-month skills agreement that supports access to 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education places from January next year—not far away. We're investing an additional $12.9 million to establish Jobs and Skills Australia to tackle skills shortages. We've committed $62 million to deliver skilling for the clean energy workforce and to fund a clean energy capacity study. We've provided funds for a national study on adult literacy and numeracy and digital literacy skills, which are so important in this day and age with advancing technology. It's also important for increasing participation in education and skills training and employment opportunities for adults. We're going to deliver the Australian Skills Guarantee to ensure one in 10 workers on major federally funded government projects are an apprentice, a trainee or a paid cadet. We're investing $50 million in a TAFE technology fund to ensure that facilities, workshops, labs and telehealth simulators across the country are cutting edge. This budget was all about securing a more robust economy and tackling the lack of skilled workers that we have in our nation. Whether it's in the care sector, agriculture, hospitality, tourism, construction, technology or manufacturing, we need to deliver these skills at a time of acute worker and skills shortages. Australia is facing its biggest skills shortage in decades, and one that's obviously been made much worse by not only COVID-19 but, to be honest, 10 long years of policy neglect in this area. To provide greater opportunity for Aussie kids and adults to have secure and rewarding employment, we have to reskill our workforce for the jobs of the future. The recent increase in occupations on the skills priority list is more evidence of the rapid increase in skills shortages and of why investment in skills and training is vital for our economy. That's why the government announced a $1 billion, 12-month skills agreement with the states and territories. The skills agreement is just the first stage of delivering on the skills commitments in our A Future Made in Australia Skills Plan. Whether it be in my electorate, in the north or around the country, we're working with the states and territories. I want to finally acknowledge the NT government's Paul Kirby, a minister and a previous apprentice himself. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 111 NOTICES Presentation 111

Wednesday, 30 November 2022

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 09:30.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 114 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Naylor, Mr Jeff 114 09:30 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Sometimes in life you meet extraordinary people—people who are selfless, people who are tenacious, people who give everything to their community. And today I would like to talk about one such member of the Goldstein community, Jeff Naylor. I first met Jeff early in my election campaign when we got together to discuss accessibility for people with disabilities within Goldstein, especially in Bayside, Melbourne. Jeff and his wife, Sue, are the proud parents of two sons: Keith, 26, and Mitchell, 24. Mitch is severely disabled, and his care is supported at home with the help of the NDIS. In fighting for inclusion and accessibility for his son, Jeff has become a passionate advocate for people with disabilities within our community. It has at times been a frustrating and arduous task but Jeff has persisted and continues to do so. In his paid job, Jeff delivers structured problem-solving training. In his so-called spare time, and through his voluntary work on Bayside City Council's Disability Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee, he's helped deliver Bayside's first inclusive playground at Thomas Street in Hampton, along with Bayside's first Changing Places bathrooms. These facilities are critical to our civic infrastructure to allow people who require them, and their carers, to enjoy time outdoors in our vast parklands and enjoy watching sport at our sporting facilities across the electorate. People with disabilities should not be forced into a position where they can't attend these venues because there are inadequate bathrooms. Recently, Jeff ran a non-partisan disability inclusion pledge for the 2022 Victorian state election, across the Brighton and Sandringham electorates, which was supported and signed by all candidates. I also endorsed this landmark pledge—the first of its kind in Australia—which saw every candidate running in the state seats of Brighton and Sandringham sign up to the pledge to always consider disability inclusion and accessibility, should they be elected, when considering all legislation. I support Jeff one hundred per cent in his advocacy, and I was so humbled when he presented me with a framed copy of the pledge to hang in my office. People with disabilities must be embraced into our community in every way possible, including via access to Changing Places bathrooms. I'm also pleased that Jeff and others in Goldstein will soon have direct access to the Minister for the NDIS, Bill Shorten, who's agreed to come to Goldstein for a forum in which I will moderate a Q&A with community members to enable direct engagement with the minister on critical issues for people with disabilities. Melanoma 114 09:33 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Jay Allen is currently on the road somewhere between Gerringong and Kiama. He's on day 6 of a walk to raise awareness and funds for research into melanoma and other forms of skin cancer. He's been doing walks like this since 2014. He's clocked up hundreds of kilometres and raised a lot of money—more than $1 million. He's accompanied on this walk every day and every kilometre by Michelle Kitcheman, Emma Page, Ashleigh Piek, Greg Bond and Kaylah Brown. Jay, Michelle and Emma are all melanoma survivors. Ashleigh, Kaylah and Greg have lost people that they love—Ashleigh's mum, Kaylah's brother and Greg's sister-in-law. They're walking more than 300 kilometres over ten days, and they finish at Government House on Sunday. I had the honour to be with them as they set off from Canberra last Friday. A couple of years ago, I was diagnosed with melanoma. I'm one of the lucky ones. I spotted a mole on my leg, I noticed it had changed colour, and so I contacted my doctor, and she said, 'Let's cut it out.' And I'm glad we did. That decision saved my life. Hayley is not so lucky. Hayley Bourke is 37. She's only been sunburnt twice in her life. She was diagnosed with melanoma in 2006, when she was 21. It started with a freckle on her shoulder. The melanoma was removed, but 10 years later she found a golf-ball-sized lump under her armpit. She's battled stage 4 cancer for six years and undergone countless surgeries and treatments. Hayley has been told that she's only got days or weeks left to live. But she was there on Friday. She came because she wants to help save our lives and, as she spoke to the crowd, there wasn't a dry eye in the house. Summer starts tomorrow. Please, please, book a skin check. See your doctor. Think about Hayley and the extraordinary woman that she is and will always be and the love that she showed us on Friday. Get a skin check. It could save your life. Herbert Electorate: Community Gro 114 09:36 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert During the last term of parliament, as a member of the coalition government, I was able to secure nearly $1.5 million worth of funding for a program to support disengaged youth and keep them off the streets. It was a part of our Safer Communities program, providing community safety infrastructure to grassroots groups as well as investing in early intervention programs to address the underlying social issues which can lead young people to crime. Last month, I was extremely happy to be able to go out and see where the funding is going to, with Community Gro's Garbutt Youth Hub now up and running. It was fantastic to hang out with Easter, Christopher, Dalton, Braiden and Mikayla, who are enjoying their time in Youth Hub after a long day of school and taking part in activities and having a good, nutritious meal cooked by the staff on site. They learn how to connect with culture, respect one another and their youth leaders, and have a good time in a positive environment. I have to admit that their Pictionary skills are better than mine and put me to shame. The funding that I was successful in fighting for will allow Community Gro to deliver the Youth Hub program for at least the next two years, operating five nights a week between 3 pm and 10 pm. The CEO, Kathrin, has said dozens of local youths have been coming in, having a meal, engaging in educational programs and learning to respect themselves and the local community before they get a lift home. The funding has also enabled a case worker to work with some of the older youth during the day to work on their goals, whether it be education or employment. I've got to say I saw myself in a lot of them, to be honest. I saw people who had been growing up tough, who were doing it tough. But programs like this help kids who are on the cusp of potentially going into a life of crime or a life of positivity, and we've had some fantastic feedback from locals around the area and also from family members. It was great to see this funding make a real difference in the lives of these young people, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Community Gro team as they continue their excellent work. As much as investing in early intervention programs is important—which we can do at the federal level—we still need the state Labor government to do more. We're still waiting on them to make breach of bail an offence and end the holiday-like conditions at Cleveland Youth Detention Centre. The people of Townsville deserve to feel safe in their homes, not like prisoners, and we need the state Labor government to step up. Newcastle Electorate: Newcastle Pride, Human Rights: Iran 115 09:39 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to speak on two very important issues for my electorate of Newcastle. Firstly, I want to celebrate Newcastle Pride. Newcastle Pride Fair Day was back bigger and better than ever, after a COVID hiatus, and I was thrilled to help launch the fair day, alongside my state colleague the state member for Newcastle, Tim Crakanthorp MP. Pride Fair Day formed part of a huge program of Newcastle Pride week events. Newcastle is a supportive community, we are an accepting community and we are a rainbow community because we are a proud community. I want to give a special shout-out to Lee-Ann and the whole Newcastle Pride committee, as well as the outstanding volunteers who do so much to unite us and celebrate diversity in our great city. They made the day and the whole Newcastle Pride week inclusive, colourful and, most importantly, safe for all. In Newcastle, regardless of who you are or where you came from, what sexual orientation or gender you identify as, you are loved and you are celebrated. Secondly, I want to address the ongoing turmoil in Iran. This is an issue that is profoundly impacting on so many people throughout the world. Many of my constituents in Newcastle have reached out to me to share their concerns and their personal stories. Over the past few months, the Newcastle Iranian community has come together, supported by the wider Newcastle community, to express their horror, outrage and grief over the events in Iran. For many, this is deeply personal, with family and friends still residing in Iran. I want to take this opportunity to assure my community that the Australian government stands in solidarity with the Iranian people, advocating for the rights of women, children and diverse communities. Our government has denounced the deadly and disproportionate use of force against protesters in Iran following the tragic death of Ms Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman, whose Kurdish name was Jina. We respect the right of Iranian people to protest peacefully and we call on the Iranian authorities to exercise restraint in response to ongoing demonstrations. We stand with Iranian women and girls and their struggle for equality, empowerment and ending violence against women and girls. We continue to call on Iran to cease its oppression of women. We're also committed to the right of religious faiths as well as the LGBTIQ community to live safely and peacefully in Iran. No matter where you were born, who you are or what you believe in, you should have the right to live safely in this world. Morris, Sergeant Julie 115 09:42 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise today to give thanks to an exemplary member of the community, Sergeant Julie Morris of the Victoria Police, a resident of my electorate of Flinders. In 2019, Sergeant Morris, then a senior constable, received a call about a swimmer in trouble down at Frankston Pier. It was 18-year-old Corey Wood. While a regular swimmer, Corey's usual morning dip that day quickly turned after he became overpowered in treacherous conditions while swimming at Frankston beach. Concerned bystanders began to ring triple 0 and Sergeant Morris responded. Undeterred by the treacherous conditions, she jumped into the waves with a floatation device. I read from press reports at the time: The senior constable— as Julie Morris was then— and her sergeant responded to a distress call on the pier during Thursday 21 November's strong north winds and 40-degree temperatures. A young man taking a dip before work was unable to climb back onto the pier and wedged himself between pylons and the pier's roof at about 11.30am. Waves crashing through the pylons were knocking him around and he was barely able to hang on and was forced to hold his breath every time water surged through, over his head. After 25 minutes of calling for help, and with those above him not being able to see where he was, the 18-year-old, of Botanic Ridge, was "frightened and in serious trouble". "He'd found a gap where he could keep his head above water but, when I looked down, I could see he was getting smashed by the waves," Senior Constable Morris, 37, said. "I couldn't just stand by and watch him struggle. I said to my sergeant, 'I'm going in because if I don't go in he's dead.'" An experienced year-round open water swimmer, Senior Constable Morris said she was comfortable in the trying conditions and confident she could help the man. Afterwards, she described the event as follows: 'I heard his calls for help, looked under the pier and there he was. I told him to wait for the biggest wave and to jump towards me.' In Corey's own words, 'Julie jumped straight in, dived for me, pulled me out and rescued me.' Mr Wood said to the media at the time, 'There were waves crashing over me. I just tried to hold on, spit the water out, keep my mouth shut and keep my ahead above the water. There's no way I would have made it without help.' This isn't the first time Sergeant Morris has been involved in bravery on the water. An accomplished long-distance swimmer, in 2016 Sergeant Morris leapt into the surf to rescue a man who attempted to swim from Frankston to St Kilda. Earlier this month, Sergeant Morris joined other brave members of our community at Victorian Government House to receive an Australian Bravery Decoration. I can think of no more fitting recipient. Congratulations Julie, and thank you for the work that you do and the example that you set for others. Corangamite Electorate: Local Projects 116 09:45 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite As 2022 draws to a close I'm looking back on a huge year—huge for the people of my electorate of Corangamite and huge for the nation. I'm also looking forward with positivity and enthusiasm for what 2023 promises for the people of my electorate and the broader Geelong region. I am honoured and humbled that in May this year the people of Corangamite voted in the Albanese government, returning me as their local federal member. I will never take this for granted and I'm proud to say the Albanese government hasn't let people down. We haven't wasted a second of our first six months in power. We've delivered a responsible budget and returned stability and civility to parliament. We've brought milestone bills before parliament, including bills on secure jobs and better pay, the national antidiscrimination commission, climate change and respect at work. Less than one week ago Victorians also went to the polls, resoundingly returning the Andrews Labor government. Dan Andrews and his team have worked hard every day, removing level crossings and building hospitals, schools and roads across the state. In my area of Victoria, state Labor has a dynamic new team of Alison Marchant in Bellarine, with the retirement of Lisa Neville after a stellar career, and Ella George in Lara, with the retirement of the longtime member, John Eren. Hardworking local members Christine Couzens in Geelong and Darren Cheeseman in South Barwon have been returned, and Hutch Hussein went very close to taking Polwarth from the Liberals. She will do it next time. State and federal Labor governments are therefore able to continue working hand in glove to deliver local projects across the region. This includes the Barwon Heads Road stage two upgrade, delivering an indoor aquatic centre in Drysdale and providing funds to many community and sporting clubs across Corangamite. With the Commonwealth Games coming to our region, a unified federal partnership has never been more important. The summer festive season is just around the corner. For my electorate it will bring an influx of visitors along the Surf Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula to towns like Torquay, Ocean Grove and Portarlington. We know how tough hospitality businesses have been doing it. We wish them well this summer. I'm confident it's about to change. We have a great country and a great government, and, as the year draws to a close, I take this opportunity to wish everyone in Corangamite—particularly those year 12 students who've finished their VCE—a relaxed and safe season and a prosperous 2023. Small Business 117 09:48 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Last month I met with Claire in my electorate. Claire is a small business owner, and her pharmacy had been flooded. She said: 'As small business owners, we're involved in our business. Quite often we spend more of our waking hours at work than we do in our homes. And then there's some kind of interruption to your business that strikes home—and hard. You realise that your identity is somehow involved in your work and how you do things, and not being able to do that leaves a great big gap.' She spoke of the importance of support like that provided by the NewAccess program. As part of the 2022-23 budget, the government is investing $15.1 million to extend NewAccess for Small Business Owners and the Small Business Debt Helpline for an additional two calendar years, from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024. These programs were due to end therefore at 31 December this year, but we have managed to extend them for a further two. The NewAccess for Small Business Owners program is run by Beyond Blue and it provides free, accessible, tailored coaching to help small business owners manage the pressures associated with owning a business. They don't have to go to the GP and get a mental health plan; they can get this free, confidential mental health support at any time. Between 18 March 2021 and 7 October 2022, 2,755 small business owners had booked an assessment through the program. The Small Business Debt Helpline is run by Financial Counselling Australia. It's a national service that offers free, confidential phone-based financial counselling for small business owners. Support is provided across a range of complex issues: avoiding bankruptcy, negotiating payment plans, negotiating debt waivers, making grant applications and negotiating insolvency. It is tailored specifically for small business owners so that they can be provided with and get the support that they need. Between 10 March 2020 and 30 September 2022 over 3½ thousand cases were supported through the Small Business Debt Helpline, but these are programs that the previous government would have ended this year, having little regard for the challenges that small business owners are currently experiencing. We know that small businesses have been doing it tough coming out of the global pandemic, but they've also been doing it tough in recent weeks and months, with the floods across Australia, and we know that the summer could also be bad, given the weather warnings that we've had. We need to support small businesses, and that's what we're doing. We're providing tailored programs to them as they deal with their own mental health and wellbeing and their financial wellbeing. It was great to be with Claire earlier this month. I want to thank her and the team at Beyond Blue and the financial counselling services for coming along to the event. Medical Workforce 117 09:51 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Many times I've risen to my feet in this place to talk about the doctor shortage, particularly in regional and rural South Australia. Over the last week or so I've been highlighting an issue about which I provided information to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, early on, soon after he was appointed minister, from a study that had been done on the north-eastern Eyre Peninsula by the Northern Eyre Peninsula Health Alliance, NEPHA, to actually look at a way, a scheme, to bring a group of doctors in to fix this shortage. It needed state and federal government cooperation. Greg Hunt, when he was health minister, funded the study. A total of $300,000 and hundreds of hours of work have gone into this report. Unfortunately, we fell foul of the state election in South Australia and then the federal election here earlier in the year, and it wasn't acted upon before both of those governments lost their places as governments. So I referred it on to Minister Butler very early on in his term, and at the time I personally said to him, 'I can't expect you to act on this today. I know you've got a lot of things on your desk.' But we're six months in now and I've asked him to respond to NEPHA and to me and to give NEPHA, the group that put together this report, a face-to-face meeting so we can discuss the option that they have put forward. I've brought it up in a couple of speeches this week because I've had no response at all from the minister. Yesterday, after giving yet another speech in the chamber, I had an email from the minister and—sorry, oops—we sent it to the wrong email address back in September. That may or may not be the case, but in any case it's the contents of the letter that are more concerning to me. Dedicated professionals put hundreds of hours of their time and work into this report, and the minister has recommended that they might like to apply to a number of different programs that the government has. There will be no direct meeting; there was no recognition of the problem—just go and apply for a grant and see if you can get yourself off the ground. That is simply not good enough. That is not an answer; that is a snub to the people who live in rural and regional South Australia. The minister, who comes from South Australia, is showing no concern at all in this matter. I told him that I would give him plenty of time to assess this matter. I did not want to put pressure on him early on in his time as minister. Now, getting that response yesterday that said that we'd sent it to the wrong email address in September is an absolute insult. Shortland Electorate: Election Commitments 118 09:54 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland It's good to end the year on a positive note, and I'm pleased to update the House on the commitments that the Albanese Labor government has delivered in Shortland since the election. The government has hit the ground running over the past six months, and my constituents are already benefiting from the implementation of our election commitments. In health, the government has restored funding to the Hunter region's much-cherished GP Access After Hours service, which was cut by the Liberals. This was one of the main commitments of my Hunter colleagues and me. This funding has been reinstated and guaranteed for the next six years. This is the longest funding commitment that the service has ever received. This means the service can return to its normal hours of operation, which have been halved and, in one case, completely cut because of the Liberals. In confirming this funding, my colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care called GP Access After Hours the best after-hours service in the country, and it is. My constituents know this, and I'm proud that this Labor government is restoring funding cut by the Liberals and Nationals. We discovered during the budget process that, if the last government had stayed in power, the GP Access After Hours service would have disappeared completely. They put aside zero dollars for that service to continue, whereas we have given it six years funding certainty. Also in health, the government has classified the Central Coast and Hunter regions as distribution priority areas for GPs, and we will fund two Urgent Care Clinics on the Central Coast. The delivery of these commitments means my constituents will have better access to health care and better health outcomes. To complement this, we've cut the cost of medicines, the first cut to PBS since the foundation of the scheme. This is also a very important cost-of-living initiative. I'm also proud of the $20 million Lake Macquarie Economic Development Package, which includes providing $10 million to Lake Macquarie City Council to purchase a permanent dredge for the Swansea Channel, something the state Liberal government has ignored for 12 years. This is urgently needed. The package also extends the Newcastle Mines Grouting Fund to the Lake Macquarie local government area, which will help drive jobs and economic benefits. The budget also provides funding for mobile phone towers in Lake Munmorah, Eleebana, Budgewoi/Halekulani and Jewells/Redhead, as well as $7 million for a shared pathway from Chain Valley Bay to Mannering Park, which these communities have long campaigned for. I'll end with an email I received last week from a gentleman in his 80s. Alan wrote: You're all doing a great job of Government especially the Prime Minister and makes an old bloke proud of Australia again. I thank Alan for his generous feedback and I agree that we can all be even prouder of Australia heading into 2023, with a government that cares for everyone, particularly the people of Shortland. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 118 09:57 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Last week we saw members of the Defence Force here with us in Parliament House, and I asked Major Zak Looker, who was with me, if he would give me some words to tell me what he felt about the program. These are his words: I had the pleasure of being hosted by the Honourable Nola Marino, MP during the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program last week. This opportunity has been a "drawing back of the curtains" moment for me and I am eternally grateful for that opportunity. Having the freedom to walk the floors of Parliament House and view our elected members conducting their business has been personally and professionally rewarding. First and foremost, I would like to thank you for your collective time during this past week. Last week follows on from a reciprocal exchange in 2017 when I was privileged to host Senator James Patterson at the Royal Military College—Duntroon. Senator Patterson was able to experience the range of training future officers in the Australian Army undertake, and I sincerely hope this left a lasting legacy on the Senator. After seeing both sides of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I am grateful to take this opportunity to offer my observations. I have been impressed at the level of collegiate and supportive interactions across parliament. The desire to serve the Australian people clearly out-weighs the partisan divide. The humanity of the Members and Senators I have had the pleasure of meeting has been apparent and I'm sure my naivety lightened a few moments. More collectively, I am relieved that the more theatrical aspects of Parliament are underpinned by accountability. I hope, as a father, that my three young children will grow up seeing a professional Parliament beyond reproach. I have met some remarkable people across my visit and shared some amazing experiences, and have to say the highlight of my time was taking part in the routine management of a Member of Parliament's office. I'm sure it was menial in the grand scheme of things, but I found it eye-opening nonetheless. I close by reiterating my absolute gratitude at being able to take part in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. The time that has so generously been given by all those who hosted or interacted with my colleagues and me is an investment in a strong relationship between the federal government and the Australian Defence Force. They are the words of Major Zak Looker. He ended by thanking me personally, as you would understand, Deputy Speaker Sharkie. This is a fantastic program for members and for members of the defence forces. I've done many of these, and I want to encourage other members of this House to do the same, irrespective of your background or your views, because of what you will learn. I am always inordinately proud of the people that I meet in defence and I know that they are our greatest asset. I would encourage other members of parliament to participate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 119 BILLS Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 119

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 119 10:01 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I'm very pleased to support the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022. In 1985, Jonathan Shanklin was a junior researcher at the British Antarctic Survey when he discovered a hole in the invisible shield that protects us from solar radiation. It's 37 years since scientists first found that hole in the ozone layer. That invisible shield absorbs harmful UV rays from the sun. Without it, complex life on earth would not exist. The findings spurred a whole environmental movement in the 1980s and led to the total ban of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs—the chemicals responsible for destroying ozone. We saw the science and we believed it. We saw that, since the late seventies, there'd been a systematic decline in the amount of spring ozone. By 1984 the ozone layer over the Halley research station was only about two-thirds as thick as it had been in earlier decades. Shanklin's findings were published in a seminal Nature paper in May 1985, and that research led directly to the 1987 Montreal Protocol—an agreement to freeze production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances at then current rates. To use Jonathan Shanklin's own words: I think it was the fact that it was absolutely clear cut—you could show politicians a picture of the Antarctic ozone hole, and so they were very quickly enabled to take action. There were also alternatives to CFCs that were readily available and, because increased UV light was linked to the increased incidence of skin cancer, the word 'cancer' made it a public health issue, so I witnessed political effort being harnessed incredibly rapidly. The Montreal Protocol provided an exemplar of how things should operate. If we could have adopted the same approach with climate change and proceeded just as rapidly, then we wouldn't be in the challenging position that we are now. We would have taken action decades ago. I was a very young journalist when all this was happening in the Canberra Press Gallery and witnessing the Hawke government coming to terms with this news. It was my first big environmental story. We all learned to say 'chlorofluorocarbons' without stumbling on it. I think that's why it has been so interesting to see the difference in the acceptance of the science then compared to now, as it relates to climate change. We can be very proud that Australia has been at the forefront of action to protect the ozone layer since the start. Due to our increased vulnerability to changes in the ozone layer, it was recognised very early by Prime Minister Bob Hawke. We were one of the first countries to sign the Montreal protocol, and we shared our expertise with other nations. The federal government worked with the states and territories and with industry to pass legislation to phase out the importation, production and supply of ozone-depleting substances. Australia also contributed to the international fund that assisted developing nations to respond to this issue. Since 1987, every single prime minister has continued to support the Montreal protocol, and Australia has met or exceeded all its targets under the agreement. In 2012 the Montreal protocol became the first international environmental treaty to achieve full ratification, being signed by every country who's a member of the United Nations. So how do these bills fit in with that progress? Through these bills we will contribute to the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, in our atmosphere. This is absolutely critical to meeting the targets that we've set. HFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases that are 4,000 times as harmful to our environment as carbon dioxide. These bills improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program and will keep it strong. We know that protecting the ozone layer is paramount to the wellbeing of Australians and the Australian environment. We'll make these changes through regulating the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. Under our Labor government, Australia will re-establish our international leadership role on the environment. I've already noted that the Montreal protocol is one of the most successful environmental treaties that we've ever seen and has demonstrated success in protecting the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the efforts of all countries, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. The global phase-down of HFC production under the Montreal protocol is estimated to prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2100—which feels like a long way away but isn't, actually. Australia's on track to reach 85 per cent reduction in our consumption by 2036. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program is a terrific example of what Australia can do to protect our climate and meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets. Our government is very proud to work alongside Australian industry—industry that continues to move to alternative technologies and manage environmentally harmful chemicals to minimise emissions. In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, for instance, Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances, from import through the supply chain, and how they're actually used within the local economy and then at the end of life. Australia has established a product stewardship scheme to collect used refrigerant. The scheme turns these potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water. Australian industry is crucial to the way we engage with our Pacific neighbours as well. Our companies have been partnering with the Pacific to assist their phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. By working constructively with our neighbours, we can move away from refrigerants that are damaging the region. Changes in this bill lay the foundation for future additional initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions and assist Australia to meet our 2030 target. It isn't hard to draw the parallels on what can be achieved now. After so many years of natural disasters being aggravated by climate change, according to the data that we see, it's no wonder that we want to replicate the success that we've had with ozone when we look to the broader issue of climate change and emissions reduction. The Albanese government made a commitment to reduce our emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, and we're delivering on that. We've legislated that. That includes an 82 per cent target for renewable energy. It's a hard thing to achieve, but we're committed to doing that. Our climate change bill has passed through the parliament and, in the same way that we continue to act on ozone and take the next steps, that climate bill is not the end of the story—it's the start. Among the things we're doing to parallel the work that was done so effectively by the Hawke government in the 1980s, and by subsequent governments in their approach to tackling the hole in the ozone layer, we have a suite of measures around climate change. We've got $20 billion of investment in Australia's electricity grid, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the grid. We've got an additional $300 million to deliver community batteries and solar banks across Australia, and I'm very proud to have two of those in the electorate of Macquarie. Up to $3 billion is being invested in the new National Reconstruction Fund to support renewables manufacturing and low-emissions technology, again, working with industry. Our Powering the Regions Fund will support the development of new clean energy industries and decarbonisation priorities of existing industry. There's a further $100 million to train 10,000 new energy apprentices in the jobs of the future, there's $10 million for new energy skills programs to provide alternative training pathways, and there's the introduction of declining emissions baselines for Australia's major emitters under the existing safeguard mechanism. I think that's a really good example, mirroring what we've done on ozone, of taking existing work and improving on it over time. We're doubling the existing investment in electric vehicle charging and we're establishing hydrogen refuelling industries. Up to $500 million is committed for that. We've got the application of new standardised and internationally aligned reporting requirements for climate risks, we're restoring the role of the Climate Change Authority while keeping decision-making and accountability with government. We'll be introducing new annual parliamentary reporting by the minister—the first of which will come very shortly. We've also bid to host a future Conference of the Parties in Australia, with an offer to the Pacific partner countries to co-host it—again, a demonstration of working with our neighbours. We know these things work; it's the way to bring about change. We've also confirmed that we will not use overachievement, otherwise known as 'carryover', from 2020 and the Kyoto protocol targets in order to meet our Paris climate targets. This is how we're going to demonstrate to the world that the commitment this country has always shown to taking a leadership role and working to solve environmental issues is being replicated in the work that we're doing to tackle climate change. I'm very pleased to support this legislation which continues the work started by the Hawke government and continued over many decades. 10:13 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise in support of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and the related bills. In the whole, they progress Australia's great achievements in limiting damage to the ozone layer. Before I proceed with my comments on the bills, I would like to explain for the benefit of some of the members and anyone who is listening, a bit about ozone and a bit about CFCs and hydrofluorocarbons as well. Ozone or trioxygen—triple oxygen—exists mainly in the higher areas of the earth's atmosphere called the stratosphere, which is five to 10 kilometres above the earth. It is formed when ordinary oxygen or dioxygen—two oxygen molecules—plus ultraviolet light that comes into the earth's atmosphere from the sun, plus lightning, reacts and forms trioxygen, or O3. That is the area where the greatest amount of ozone exists. Up there it works like a radiation shield. It does prevent us from getting much more sunburn and damaging skin cancers. Over time, if it reduces again, as was noted in the 1970s, we will be getting many more skin cancers and much more sunburn. Lower down to earth in the troposphere—which is the area that we exist in, below five kilometres—in the air that we breathe, ozone is in the minority, thank goodness, because it is well documented to be quite toxic. When particular matter from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and diesel, all those things combine with the small amount of ozone in the troposphere, it mixes and creates what we know as smog. The ozone part of the smog damages respiratory membranes, like the air sacs in your lungs. People with chronic bronchitis, asthma, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD get damaged. You see that in odd events where there's huge electrical activity with a lot of smog, you get huge outbreaks of respiratory illness. We all know that the world got together and the Montreal Protocol came into place because scientists observed that man-made chemicals, CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons, were destroying the ozone layer. That seminal article in nature led to collective actions around the globe, and Australia signed up. Our Prime Minister at the time, Bob Hawke, and Graham Richardson, who everyone has seen in the media over the years, signed us up. The rest is history. I really want to stress that ozone depletion by man-made substances—CFCs, which have been superseded by hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs, which are equally toxic—is a totally different chemistry and phenomenon. HFCs and CFCs do not exist in the atmosphere. CO2 and methane do naturally occur in our atmosphere. To try and equate the initiative to get rid of ozone-destroying chemicals that man makes is quite different from the phenomenon of global warming. They are different to trying to restrict things that actually exist in the atmosphere by nature. The Montreal Protocol has been updated. I mentioned that, initially, 24 nations signed on. Now there are 198, including Australia, obviously. In summary, around the world, we have saved probably 2½ million lives, at least, from the ravages of skin cancers of various sorts. The estimates are that we've reduced the number of cases of skin cancer by about 450 million cases, at least, because of this initiative. This bill, which updates the laws and regulations regarding our efforts to limit HFCs as well as the existing ban on CFCs, is quite timely. It was introduced on the anniversary date of that protocol being signed up. Australia's action has been quite significant and will continue to contribute to our efforts to improve the emissions reduction target set by the now government for 2030. HFCs should be reduced by about 86 per cent in total by that time. In the former government, my colleague the former member for Brisbane, as the assistant minister for waste reduction and environmental management, introduced similar bills to what we're seeing here today, which update Australia's protocols and regulations that enforce the reduction of ozone destruction. We have a really good record—and I just want to put on the record that the former government attempted to do this, but that introduced legislation had lapsed and this is bringing it back again. There are many commonsense measures. The programs and the requirements enforced through licence conditions involve banning the import of bulk gas in non-refillable containers. Think about how widespread refrigeration is. For many of the businesses involved in refrigeration, air conditioners, food storage and food transport—and even in your own house, in your own fridge—this sort of legislation is really critical. It is ensuring the chemicals we're using are safely keeping our food fresh and long-living and all those other things. But we can always improve regulation. This bill will enable some improvements that clarify the license and exemption requirements, including changes to make the legislation easier to understand and reduce unintentional non-compliance. It also allows extra time for businesses who need to make their declarations to submit reports and more time to pay levies. This will reduce the regulatory burden on business. The bill also reforms the compliance and enforcement approach for individuals as well as companies. The offence and penalty structure has been made more flexible and introduces the option of license suspension rather than the immediate cancellation of a licence to produce or import these substances. It also amends the import levy process. It will be done by regulation rather than legislation, which makes the operation of our ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse system much more flexible. The take-home message for people in Australia is that we are a proud participant in this process which is keeping the ozone up there in the stratosphere, where we like it, rather than getting it down into the troposphere which is our part of the atmosphere that humans and vegetation interact with. Ozone isn't all bad; it does provide some benefits for sterilising and other chemical processes as long as it doesn't get destroyed by those processes that I've outlined. I commend this bill and the amendments to the House. Thank you. 10:23 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite The Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 is an important part of delivering on this commitment. More than 40 years ago global communities spoke with great concern about the hole in the ozone layer and the catastrophic damage it would do to our health, to our economy and to our environment if we did not act. Consequently, global communities recognised the science that the ozone layer protects life on earth by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun. We also recognised the concerning fact that ozone-depleting hydrofluorocarbons like refrigerants were destroying the ozone layer. In response, global communities determined to control and phase-out ozone gases with the creation of the Montreal Protocol, ratified by Australia in 1989. This has led to the phasing-out of harmful substances and the renewed health of the ozone layer. Products like aerosols were banned and industries and communities changed their behaviours because they believed in the science and the consequence of not acting. Now, after almost a decade of inaction under successive coalition governments on climate change, the Albanese government is once again listening to the science, and I'm proud to say that earlier this year parliament passed the government's Climate Change Bill. The Albanese government has committed to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. This is backed by business associations, unions and environmental groups, who've come together to support the government's emissions targets. Our commitment has brought Australia into line with other nations, including France, Denmark and Spain, that have also legislated net zero by 2050. Now, through this bill before us today, we continue our commitment to the phasing down of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, in our atmosphere, which will continue to strengthen the health of the ozone layer. This is also critical in meeting our greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. HFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases that are 4,000 times more harmful to our environment than carbon dioxide. These bills provide for the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program. The bills also implement the remaining recommendations from the 2016 review of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program. They'll improve compliance and enforcement by refining existing criminal offences. They will also introduce new offences and civic penalties to cover noncompliance relating to the import, export or manufacture of ozone-depleting substances. And these measures will reduce the administrative burden on industry by streamlining and improving the import and manufacturing licensing scheme as well as making the legislation easier to understand. Australia's ozone legislation controls the import and use of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. Commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning, fire protection, aerosols and insulating foam, HFCs make up about two per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but their use is growing because of increasing demand for air conditioning. We know that protecting the ozone layer is crucial to the wellbeing of Australians and the Australian environment. Ozone-depleting substances damage the ozone layer, allowing more ultraviolet radiation from the sun to pass through and cause harm to our health. UV radiation causes many problems, from skin cancer and cataracts in people through to damage to farm crops and the environment. To prevent damage to the ozone layer, we must tightly control and manage ozone-depleting substances. So we're working together across national boundaries. We can move away from refrigerants and the damage to our environment. The Montreal Protocol provides concrete proof that global cooperation can heal the planet. It is the world's most successful international environmental treaty. As part of the phase-down, Australia is committed to assisting our neighbours in the Pacific, offering technical training and providing information about managing the transition to newer gases and equipment to reduce emissions. This continues Labor's history as a government that takes action on global climate issues. Australia, under the Hawke government, was instrumental in gaining agreement by all parties to the Montreal Protocol—to the worldwide phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons. We are doing this through regulating the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. Under the Albanese government, Australia will re-establish our international leadership role on the environment. The Montreal Protocol is one of the most successful climate change treaties, protecting the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the efforts of all countries, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. The global phase-down of HFC production under the Montreal Protocol is estimated to prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2100, and Australia is on track to reach 85 per cent reduction in our consumption by 2036. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program is a strong example of what Australia can do to protect our climate and meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets. Our government is working alongside Australian industry that continues to move to alternative technologies and manage environmentally harmful chemicals to minimise emissions. In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances. The all-embracing strategy applies from import through the supply chain and in use within the economy and then at the end of life. Australia has an established product stewardship scheme to collect used refrigerant that turns these potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water. Australian industry is crucial to the way we engage with our Pacific neighbours as well. Our companies have been partnering with the Pacific to help them phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. By working constructively with our neighbours we can move away from refrigerants that damage our region and planet. Our government will share information with neighbouring countries about our legislation, licensing and quota systems. We will offer technical training and training material, and provide information about managing the transition to newer gases and equipment to reduce emissions. These projects and initiatives will be funded from a multilateral fund for the implementation of the Montreal protocol, which Australia contributes to through our official development assistance. This builds upon Australia's existing work with 12 Pacific Island countries under the Montreal protocol to phase out ozone-depleting substances, particularly HCFCs. In that respect, we are already working with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, and the Cook Islands. Reforms within this bill lay the foundation for the future. They create additional initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions and help Australia to meet its 2030 targets. It is also just another way that we can work effectively with our Pacific neighbours and give them support. These measures are sensible, practical and have wide support. Importantly, this bill reinforces Australia's place as a global partner which believes in the science, one that is prepared to play its role in protecting the health of our planet and our people. I commend the bill to the House. 10:32 Mr JOYCE e5d New England The Vienna protocol was the first back in 1985 and it led to the Montreal protocol of 1987. Between those two events the world managed to attract together enough people, about 43 countries, in the Montreal protocol for a seismic change in what was happening. It was self-evident that, especially in the Antarctic, we were seeing a depletion of ozone. There are natural ways that ozone is depleted but there was an acceleration of it, especially through things such as bromide and chlorine, which, if they get into the stratosphere, have a fundamental effect. One chlorine atom will destroy around 100,000 ozones. Ozone (03) is a triatomic molecule and it breaks it down to a diatomic, which is oxygen. The only thing that can stop UVB getting through the atmosphere, which is an absolute kicker for skin cancer—and I have had melanoma twice—is ozone; that is the only way you will stop it. There were millions more cases of skin cancers. I think it was around about 800,000 further cancer deaths they attribute to the depletion of ozone. It was having an effect that actually progressed right to Tasmania. This was causing massive effects and we had to do something about it. I'm happy to say that we did and it is being reversed, overwhelmingly because the things that were depleting it were man-made. The classic ones would have been methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, chlorofluorocarbons and halons. These were used in propellants, refrigerants, and there were alternatives. People talk about the science, and I'm completely versed in what this is. One of the things about this is that there was a methodical process that didn't destroy economies. There was also participation by every country. If major countries had been left out, it wouldn't have had any effect. It was able to be calibrated quite clearly. The modelling was very precise, and the correlation between the modelling and the actual outcomes was very good. It is, in essence, one of the great environmental wins. I would have to say it is one of the biggest environmental wins that the globe has achieved, because it managed to combine together. Where the logic went into it was that there wasn't a depletion or a diminution of technology that the world was using. It was just smarter technology that got us there. I've seen the parallel that's been drawn by the Labor Party between this and renewables. I knew that would happen. It's completely different. Renewables do not have the capacity that baseload power generation has. I also note today the report that the Labor Party is hiding, into the economic effect, especially in the upper Hunter. I've got a copy of it here if they want to table it. I'd like them to table the rest of the report. What we have to understand is that, in the sort of parallel mechanism of carbon reduction, if we're going to go to zero emissions—going away from chemistry and into physics—an electricity grid will not work. You only have to go marginally, fractionally, away from 50 hertz on the grid, and it just won't work. Having the grid work is like, as I said, balancing the electric pencil on your fingertip. Baseload manages to keep it balanced, but what renewables do, as a power source, is basically that they jump up and down on the pencil, and the pencil has times when it goes away from 50 hertz. If it gets too much, blackout. If it gets too little, blackout. We haven't worked out how to do it. They always talk about batteries. The costing of batteries across the nation to maintain the grid is about $5 trillion. We don't have $5 trillion, and the batteries they refer to will do it for a few hours for a very small portion of power. Very efficient power is called low-entropy power. When it's inefficient, in physics, it's called a high-entropy release. The best way to think of it is as a balloon. Low-entropy release is letting the air out through the bottom, and high entropy is popping the balloon. It's very hard to store the energy from popping the balloon, but that is basically where renewables are, because they're intermittent. You have to have the capacity to combine them in such a way that they maintain the grid at 50 hertz. That's the same whether you believe in climate change or not. That's just pure physics, 100 per cent physics. We saw in June that we got very close to the grid dropping out. As the call goes onto it, it's going to get very close again. This brings me to another thing. I hear that they're going to blow up Liddell—not figuratively but literally. They're going to put explosives in there and blow it up. That's one of the things that keeps the pencil on the tip of the finger. Once you lose that baseload power, you're going to create massive problems. It will happen. It's just like denying gravity or denying that chlorine turns oxygen from a triatomic to a diatomic. It just does. It's accepted. We haven't got to that point yet where we can take away baseload power. If we get to that point, we're just going to run straight into fact—and physics will beat narratives every day of the week. Going back: there was a great technological advance. The Germans, the French and the English weren't really keen on going out of the propellants and refrigerants, and they created arguments as to why they should not. But what they did manage to do in a small period of time was get the efficacy of alternative products that did the same job without reducing the economy. I want to go to what happens when you get it wrong. I have here a report commissioned by the Labor Party's Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Jenny McAllister. For a sudden and concurrent closure of all power stations in the Hunter Valley, which they requested be modelled, so they obviously must have belief in doing it, it talks about a 6.7 per cent additional unemployment rate. Hundreds of people would lose their jobs. Tens of millions of dollars would go. And this is a very small section—the Upper Hunter. They've had this report, but they've never told the Australian people about it, and they've never told the people of the Upper Hunter. They commissioned it, but they never told anybody, and that is sneaky. That is not transparency. Just a moment ago they called for a censure motion. They talked about transparency and openness, but we have a report here today, and we want to see the report for everywhere. They've got one for the Upper Hunter. I'll bet you they've got one for the Lower Hunter as well—I'll bet you they have. I'll bet you there's a whole range of areas, because it's quite clear this wasn't done just for one area. What about Calare, Cunningham, Dawson, Flynn, Capricornia, Maranoa, Parkes and Gippsland? Were there reports for those? Where are their reports? I'll bet you they've got them. Mr Bowen should table them today, otherwise the whole theatre of what happened in the other chamber is merely that: theatre. And it only enlarges on one thing: hypocrisy, total hypocrisy. That is because people don't believe that, only at certain times, when it suits them, do they want transparency. It is there. We've got it. We didn't make it up; we've got it. It is there; therefore, the people whom it affects are the people who are about to be kicked to the kerb, because the process of reducing propellants—be they chlorine, benzene or methyl bromide—was efficacious, diligent and appropriate, and it worked. And this was the great thing: it went from the Vienna convention, when they all came together and said: 'We think this should happen,' to the Montreal convention in 1987, when 43 countries were part of it. They then dragged Germany and England in to be part of the show. That was efficacious and it worked, but what we are going to be doing here in Australia, according to the Labor Party's own report, is something entirely different. The rhetoric is that renewables are cheaper. They obviously are not. They are not cheaper—not until you put in massive pumped hydros. The cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 is up to about $10 billion. When you're doing the relative marginal costing process and you put in your base-load capacity so you're comparing 24/7 power with 24/7 power, renewables are massively dearer because there's not that base load. What happens is that power is sold in five-minute blocks, and what they're comparing is the sale of one five-minute block of power with the sale of a five-minute block from a coal-fired power station, and they're not comparable. It's like saying that you can keep the lights on here for five minutes, or that the Tomago smelter needs to work for only five minutes a day or for certain five-minute slots during the day. The flux will congeal and they won't build another one; that'll be the end of it. It'll be gone. We haven't got to the point in this nation of doing that. All we're doing is walking closer and closer to a massive problem. What will the problem look like? It'll look like Labor's report, which we've got. That's what it'll look like—just like that. So how do we do it? We want to participate in this. There's only one way we can do it, and every advanced economy is getting there. We've now got places like Thailand and Indonesia that have nuclear. That's the zero-emissions technology that does it. When people shake their heads, do they honestly think that Hitachi, Skoda, Rolls-Royce, General Electric, Westinghouse, a myriad of Chinese companies, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, the French, the English, the Canadians, who are very advanced with it, the Argentinians and the Saudi Arabians—all these people—are dumb and we're the only clever ones? They're all stupid; we're clever. That's more than a paradox; it is just insane. The world is moving on and we are going to be left behind. The manufacturing jobs we could have in this nation! They're looking at about a quarter-trillion-dollar-a-year economy that's going to come from this. We're just going to be left behind. We're going to sell them the rocks, but we're not going to build the power stations. That's just incongruous. Ultimately, we have to take the movement. I'd like to commend the Australian Workers Union, who support this. And—I'll never do this again!—I'd like to commend the CFMMEU, who support this. They support going into these jobs. They say we should be part of it. The group of people who don't want to be part of it is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. I'll tell you what the biggest argument is: 'Do you want a nuclear reactor in your area?'—a small modular reactor, the one that Rolls-Royce are building, that other stupid company that built things such as the Merlin engine for the Spitfire? Every time you fly, most of the engines there are Rolls-Royce engines. It's an incredibly smart country, just like Hitachi and just like Mitsubishi—all these other smart countries! A small modular reactor is going to do for the city of Leeds—503,000 people. The component part, the reactor part, 16 metres high and 4.7 metres wide, will be online by 2029. If I had the comparison between that— An honourable member: 2030. Mr JOYCE e5d 2029 is the latest report. If I have the choice between that and what its equivalent would be—which would be not hundreds but thousands of wind towers—I know which one I'm going to take. We're fighting this war now around the town of Walcha with 550 wind towers. They pathologically hate them. I'm about to get 20 within sight of me, as high as Centrepoint tower in Sydney—40. There's not going to be one built at Manly Beach. There's not going to be one built at Cottesloe. And for that we get the transmission lines. If you ask the people of New England—and I did the survey—do they want a small modular reactor or more wind towers, guess what? It's unsurprising. Guess which one they want: the small modular reactor. An honourable member: They don't exist; that's the— Mr JOYCE e5d Well, that also is wrong. How do you think nuclear submarines work? They're small modular reactors. This is just like when we go through the facts with diatomic and triatomic molecules and what creates them and how UVB works. If you talk about the science, well, get with the science or get left behind by history. Ultimately you're going to see small modular reactors in islands, because they're so efficient. You're going to see them in Pacific islands and around the world. And we are going to get there. It will happen in Australia, inevitably, and when it does we'll just be saying, 'Yet another opportunity we blew.' 10:47 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, which makes some further changes to the way that we here in Australia operate our ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management arrangements. All of those spring from the Montreal Protocol, which was agreed internationally in 1987, as other speakers have noted. The Montreal Protocol responded to an environmental and atmospheric crisis, when we discovered that a certain class of gases were contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer, which is critically important to the health of our environment and climate. Any time we talk about the Montreal Protocol and the successful global cooperative effort, it's impossible not to think about the relationship between that effort and the effort that we're all engaged in presently with respect to climate change and the Paris Agreement. The Montreal Protocol was a case of the world, in the 1980s, realising that there was a crisis—that we had a certain kind of industrial activity and certain kinds of manufacturing and consumer goods being produced that were putting gases into the atmosphere and having deleterious effects on the atmosphere that we would all suffer from—and something had to be done. The Montreal Protocol was agreed to relatively quickly. Australia, under the Hawke government, played a very constructive role in seeing that determined, and it has been relatively successful. It's a great indicator of how the global community can respond to those kinds of circumstances and lead us to a healthier and more sustainable and more environmentally protective approach that doesn't diminish our capacity to operate economies and manufacture goods and all of those other things. It's worth noting, as this new government, in its first six months, brings in this bill which implements some further changes to improve our ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management arrangements, that it flows on from a process that began under the former government. There was a review back in 2014. It was completed in 2015, and the former government responded in May 2016. Unfortunately, the final review report was never released. For members—particularly, new members—it is worth noting that in the previous parliament there was some legislation brought by the previous government that we welcomed and supported. It introduced some belated amendments to the OPGGS Act, but at the time—and I made a contribution to that debate—the assistant minister in the former government said that it introduced most of the remaining measures announced following the review of the program but not all of them. At that point, we did not know what the others might be because the final review report was never released. I'm guessing that, with the new government having had a look at the final review report, those changes are now flowing through lickety-split into the bill that we consider here to make those further changes, and they are important. It's also worth noting—back on the analogy with our response to the HFC issue and the ozone layer issue—that, as with climate change, from Australia's point of view it wasn't just the case that we shared the view of many countries that the depletion of the ozone layer was unacceptable and something needed to be done about it. We did take that view, but one of the things that became plain for Australians in the 1980s was that there was actually a hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. The ozone layer in our part of the world had suffered more significantly than elsewhere around the planet, and that was more than likely going to have a particular effect on us. I can remember as a teenager that people were taking hold of the likelihood that skin cancer rates and things like that would more than likely increase and be even greater than they already were—and they continue to be high here in Australia. We had every reason to be a leading player in the formation of the Montreal protocol, just as we have every reason to be a leading player in response to climate change, and that somehow seems to get lost. As with the hole in the ozone layer, climate change will deliver harm and cost across the board. With respect to the previous speaker, what seems to go missing all the time is the understanding that if you don't take action to deal with these matters—the depletion of the ozone layer or the building up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that leads to global warming, climate change and more frequent environmental natural disasters—you are going to reap extraordinary costs, and they're going to be costs of every kind. They're going to be economic costs, but they are also going to be social, environmental and human health costs. Extreme heat is one of the most consistent killers that we experience environmentally, and not just in the form of bushfires or those kind of events but just in the ordinary way that extreme heat puts stress on the human body and leads to elevated death rates. Those are the kinds of things that we are seeking to avoid by being a constructive partner with countries around the world in dealing with climate change. Part of what this bill does is align the OPGGS Act—the ozone-depletion-specific arrangements—with our commitments under the Paris Agreement, because HFCs by themselves are significantly more potent in accelerating global warming and climate change in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide alone, some 3,000 or 4,000 times more potent. What we are doing—we are on track to have reduced our use of HFCs by 85 per cent in 2036; that's part of our commitment, and we're on the trajectory—is making a contribution to that effort. It's worth noting that the Montreal protocol was enormously successful, and it's right that we say, 'Look at what the world is capable of doing and look at the leadership role that Australia is capable of playing.' But the effort is not over. The newspaper articles have stopped, and the discussion of the hole in the ozone layer is not part of our conversation, but the effort will continue under the auspices of the Montreal protocol into the 2060s, or to about 2060. And there have been fluctuations. I was having a look at some scientific literature in preparation for contributing to this debate, and from time to time the available measure of the health of the ozone layer ticks up or ticks down. So it's not as if that effort has completely taken care of the issue; it's not as if we don't need to monitor it. Back in 2015, before I was elected to this place, when I was the deputy mayor of Fremantle, the United Nations Environmental Effects Assessment Panel—a panel underneath the UNEP that has some specific scientific responsibility for looking at the Montreal protocol and the management of ozone depletion—held an annual conference in Fremantle. I didn't have much warning about that. It's one of those things when you're involved in local government—you get told out of the blue: 'Guess what; there's this significant international scientific group, and they happen to be coming to your part of the world. Would you be happy to meet them and host them in the town hall and say a few words of introduction?' But it was a great privilege to meet those people, who had come from all over the world, to talk about the work that they had done. So it is really significant that we continue to be very forward leaning in what we're doing, because we have the capacity to do it and because Australian leadership on these things matters. It matters as a demonstration of our values and principles. It matters in the region, where countries that are less developed than Australia but even more prone to the impacts of environmental and atmospheric degradation look to us to do our bit, to show leadership and to take a proportional part of the task. In the late 1980s and early 1990s we had both the Montreal protocol and the Madrid protocol. The Madrid protocol in 1991 was specifically about the environmental protection of Antarctica, and it was another instance of Australia taking a leading role. Even late in that process there was a suggestion that a compromise might need to be struck that would allow certain kinds of activity—economic activity, mining and things like that—in Antarctica in order to ensure that the agreement excluded the occupation and use of Antarctica for defence and security purposes. Prime Minister Hawke and that Labor government, fairly late in the piece, took a bold interpretation of what might be possible and really turned the tide of those negotiations, to the extent that not just defence and security but also economic activity and mining were excluded from Antarctica. Here we are, 35 years on from the Montreal protocol and 31 years on from the Madrid protocol. We should look back at those agreements and take heart. We should look back and say that the Australian government, the Australian community and the global community were able to rise to the challenge of very, very serious environmental crises in a positive and constructive way that effectively put the world on a more sustainable footing and avoided what would have been, frankly, quite catastrophic harm. We could do that 35 years ago with the resources and technology we had then, so I don't know on what basis we would say that we are incapable of responding to the challenges that we have now. Certainly that's the view that this government takes. That's the view taken by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Minister for Environment and Water and every other member of the executive. We are absolutely capable of doing the things that are in this bill and the things that we committed to at COP27. Through our increased emissions reduction target and energy transition arrangements we're putting in place, we are 100 per cent capable not only of doing our part in the necessary energy and greenhouse gas emission task but of showing leadership. The fact that we got ourselves into an unhelpful political trough on those kinds of issues in the last 10 years is a denial of Australia's essential character. Australia's central character is to have confidence in our capacity to be innovators, to have confidence in industry and science, and to have confidence in our political institutions. We look at these challenges that are specific to us—because we will be more affected by climate change than many other countries, but, at the same time, it's something that the entire planet needs to wrestle with—and find ways to be part of it rather than find ways to excuse ourselves from it. Earlier this week in this chamber, another member was essentially suggesting that energy transition and climate change action was akin to a cult that involved the sacrifice of virgins and various other quite bizarre things. That is not consonant with the Australian community's down-to-earth, can-do, common-sense, get-on-with-it approach to tackling big and serious problems. This government, while it does the big things—like the commitment it made in updating our nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement and the things that we were part of in COP27 the week before—is also going to pick up some of the smaller things, some of the incremental things, as this bill does. As I said, the review that led to these changes was eight years ago. The previous government never released that report and took quite a lot of time to introduce some of the measures relatively late in the last term. We supported those. But here we are in the first six months of this government, and we're picking up the rest of that task. I hope that it's something that everyone in the parliament can support. 11:02 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The coalition welcomes the government's introduction of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022. There are two reasons why we are so enthused about these bills. The first is that the protection of the ozone layer continues to remain an important national and international goal. The second is that the content of these three bills is almost exactly the same as the content of three bills introduced to the parliament by the coalition in December of last year. Unfortunately, the previous coalition bills' lapsed when the parliament rose ahead of the May election, and we are pleased that the Labor Party is now following our lead by bringing them back to the parliament. I want to pay tribute to the former Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, Trevor Evans, a fellow South-East Queensland Liberal, on the work he did in this place to advance these three bills. On 2 December 2021, almost a year ago to the day, Mr Evans said: The reforms and various amendments in this bill are each minor on their own. As a whole, the package of reforms represents an important step in ensuring the continued success of this program for ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that earlier this year: … the overall concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the mid-latitude stratosphere had fallen just over 50 percent … This is back to the levels observed in 1980 before ozone depletion was significant. This has been described as slow and steady progress by experts across the world, and, over the last three decades, this has certainly been the cause of great success across the world. It's largely been attributed to international compliance and cooperation on controls on the production and trade of ozone-depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It's great to see this progress; however it is important to recognise that we are still a long way from being able to claim that the issue of ozone depletion is resolved. The passage of these bills will encourage compliance and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses whilst ensuring that the standard environmental protection provided by the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act remains high. On the subject of ozone layer protection, there has been consistent bipartisan agreement. There's been a lot of fine work done by governments of all colours in Australia. This work started with the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and 90s. This includes their efforts to devise the three original acts that underpin the Hawke government's decision in 1987 to make Australia one of the original signatories to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The year 1987 was a great year. I won't make reference to anything else that was conceived and brought into this world in 1987, but I'll leave it there! That work has been complemented by the actions of each of Australia's federal governments since that time. The Abbott government—I make note that they are unveiling former prime minister Tony Abbott's portrait downstairs shortly—decided in 2014 that it would be valuable to formally review the operations of these three acts and the accompanying Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program, or the OPSGG. That review process, as well as some further suggestions more recently from industry and consumers, has led to much of the content that we see in the bills before us today. We on this side find it quite humorous that the minister in her second reading speech and media release decided not to acknowledge any of the work undertaken on this review and this legislation by people on this side of the political aisle. Sadly, there has been no acknowledgement of any of the work undertaken by the former coalition government in the development of these important bills. Instead, the minister has tried to pass off these bills as her own achievement, born of the Labor Party's superior virtue—bills that have been magically brought forward out of the Labor government's wellspring of moral goodness. Given that the level of ozone-depleting substances in the mid-latitude stratosphere has fallen back to 1980s levels, I encourage the minister to, perhaps, return to that 1980s spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that enabled so many important reforms, including our participation in the Montreal Protocol. The bill contains sensible changes based on the conclusions of that review, which was started back in 2014, as well as on comprehensive consultation with stakeholders by the former government. There've been many varied stakeholders who've had an input into this process. I'll name just a few of them: the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of Australia; the Airconditioning and Refrigerant Equipment Manufacturers Association of Australia; Ausgrid; the Australian Aluminium Council; the Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating; and the Australian Refrigeration Association. I could go on; that's just the A's. It's quite a long list. It includes all the major stakeholders and consumer groups. It's important to note the breadth of the previous government's consultation. Consulting widely, taking on good ideas and developing them into good policy is what makes strong legislation in this place. I think that contrasts strongly with the government's current IR bill, which is being debated in the Senate as we speak. Rushed legislation leads to poor outcomes, and good consultation leads to good results. This parliament should thank all these stakeholders for their constructive contribution to these changes. It is also important to note the number of recommendations from the review process that were already legislated way back in 2017, which seems a lifetime ago now. These bills now address many of the remaining recommendations and they also reflect various further changes subsequently suggested by businesses and consumers following those legislated changes back in 2017. In the main, they give expression to a series of sensible administrative changes. The bills will ensure the even more efficient operation in the future of the three relevant ozone protection acts as well as the enhanced regulation, through the OPSGG program, of the regulation of the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances in Australia. And I go back to the bill's objectives here. The closing the hole in the ozone layer bill is principally aimed at modernising the compliance and enforcement arrangements associated with the OPSGG program; it's inserting into law various OPSGG program obligations that are currently imposed only by license conditions; and it also provides greater clarity around licensing exemption requirements as well as increasing the time permitted for businesses to submit reports and pay levies. I know that was one of the key outcomes of the consultation on the key recommendations made by those stakeholders. The bills also provide for the removal of caps on the levy rates for the OPSGG program, and the creation of a capacity for the manufacture levy rate to be more flexibly set and adjusted by legislation rather than just through legislation. And we've seen how long it takes to get legislation through this place. I believe this bill has been on and off the Notice Paper many, many times. My speech here is all dogeared given how many times I've pulled it in and out of my folder. The delegation of power to senior departmental officials of the minister to grant exemptions to levy payments and the abolition of the levy applied to the importation of ODS equipment is in recognition of the fact that it is now only possible to bring such equipment into Australia in circumstances where no alternative equipment is available. These are all highly commendable actions, and I commend the bills to the House. 11:11 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise to support the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and important cognate bills. These bills are important components of things that will help Australia reduce our hydrofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. And, importantly, they will help us meet our recently introduced emissions reductions targets. There are many in this place who can remember when the world first started speaking about the hole in the ozone layer many, many decades ago. I think we can all recall it. For many Australians that would have been the first time that environmental threats had actually become real. It would have resonated with people that there was a real threat, as the ozone hole seemed to affect us more than other geographic locations around the world. In fact, there were things saying the hole was right above Australia. We were hearing that and so, for all of us, the term hydrofluorocarbons entered into our common vocabulary and became part of our language at that particular point. Hydrofluorocarbons are a greenhouse gas as well as an ozone-depleting gas. These bills implement our obligations under the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, so this treaty is one of the most successful treaties we have seen. Every country has become a signatory, which is why it has been so successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also shows that, with global collaboration, with countries working together internationally, we can achieve so much. We, on this side of the House, understand this. You would have seen the climate change minister attending COP last week or the week before and having international discussions. That is part of it, talking to everyone around the world on an international scale so that we can reduce emissions. We're taking real action to protect the environment and to tackle climate change. And after the recent years of natural disasters, aggravated by climate change, Australians are asking for real action. That's what I'm hearing in my electorate. That's what I heard during the election campaign, and that's what I've been hearing for a number of years. Our government has made a commitment to reduce our emissions, by 43 per cent by 2030, and we are delivering. We saw our bill go through the House recently. We've already passed our Climate Change Bill through the parliament and, through these bills that appear before us today, we'll continue to phase down emissions and hydrofluorocarbons in our atmosphere. This is part of meeting that target. It's critical, in fact, to meeting that target. We know that HFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases that are 4,000 times as harmful to our environment as carbon dioxide. So this will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program and will continue to keep it strong. We know that protecting the ozone layer is absolutely paramount to the wellbeing of Australians and the Australian environment. So this is an important program for Australia as it implements our international obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal protocol, as I said, was one of the most successful climate change treaties internationally, and it has demonstrated success in protecting the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I remember that back then, when we first started talking about the hole in the ozone layer and this particular issue, people were saying it could never happen or it might not be able to happen. But we proved that it can happen. We proved that, working together on a united front around the world, we've seen the effects. Thanks to the efforts of all of those countries, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. That goes to show that, by taking action years ago, we've actually turned it around, and now it's going the opposite way, which is a positive for the environment. This continues the history of Labor governments that take action on global climate issues. Australia, as we heard earlier from the member for Fremantle, under the Hawke government in the late 1980s was instrumental in gaining agreement, by all parties to the Montreal protocol, to the worldwide phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons. Under our Albanese Labor government, Australia will re-establish our international leadership role on the environment. It is estimated that the global phase-down of HFC production under the Montreal protocol will prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes worth of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2100, and Australia is on track to reach 85 per cent reduction in our consumption by 2036. We're proud to work alongside Australian industry as it moves to alternative technology and manages environmentally harmful chemicals to minimise emissions. In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, we saw industry work together, and Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances from import through the supply chain to use in the economy and then at the end of life. Australia has also established a product stewardship scheme to collect used refrigerant; the scheme turns these potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water. Australian industry is crucial to the way that we engage with our Pacific neighbours as well. Our companies have been partnering with the Pacific to assist their phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. By working constructively with our neighbours, we can move away from refrigerants that damage the region. Changes in this bill lay the foundation for future additional initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions and also to assist Australia to meet its 2030 target. We have wasted no time, since coming into office, in our efforts to tackle the environmental and climate challenges that the previous government ignored. I'm so committed to protecting our environment for our children and our grandchildren and for the sake of this planet. We're investing $1.8 billion for the environment, and we're reforming the national environment laws and protecting 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. We will finally and properly respond to the Samuel report on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The government is also developing a full response to the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In the interim, $117.1 million will ensure assessment and compliance activities continue while broader planning is undertaken to improve the system. We will deliver on our election commitments by making the environment a real priority again. We can no longer deny that Australia is in the midst of an extinction crisis when you see some of the reports that have come out. This is why I welcome the threatened species action plan towards zero extinctions launched by our environment minister. The State of the Environment Report identified that we are the mammal extinction capital of the world. The government is responding with strong actions and targeted spending through the Saving Native Species program and we are also taking concrete steps to address climate change and our energy transformation. The government is delivering a long overdue investment to make energy cleaner, cheaper and more secure and to create jobs in new industries and the regions and, on top of that, cut emission by doing so. The international fossil fuel crisis that has been triggered by Russia's illegal war has shown Australia the consequences of a decade of underinvestment in the cheapest form of new energy—that is, renewables. The proof of that is that when there is a crisis, if we had invested in renewables, if we had clear energy policies for the last 10 years, we may not be in this position now. That is why we are investing $20 billion in low-cost finance for the urgent upgrade and expansion of Australia's electricity grid at lowest cost. This will unlock new renewables, increase the security of the grid and drive down power prices. And under the National Energy Transformation Partnership we will have the first national plan between the states, territories and the Commonwealth to keep the lights on through Australia's massive energy transformation. The government is committed to working with First Nations people to address the challenges ahead. We will be delivering cleaner and more affordable energy to households and businesses and we will become a renewable energy superpower, ensuring that we take advantage of the job and investment opportunities that have been missed for so long. These are not lofty goals. These are absolute necessary steps that governments must take and we, as I said, have wasted too much time already. We know that previously, over the last 10 years, we were stuck in a conundrum where there were so many different energy policies. We saw the then government not being able to agree on them, so would change them every so often. If you were investing in renewables, why would you when there is no certainty? We want to make sure that there is certainty so that we have investment in these renewables so that we secure Australia's energy needs and, at the same time, lower emissions. I, for one, will not waste the opportunity I have as a member of parliament and I will take every opportunity to support real reform and real action. That is why I am so pleased to support these bills, as my colleagues are. They will implement the remaining recommendations from the 2016 review of the ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas program. These bills will also update the act to include Australia's climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement and this will help us further regulate harmful chemicals being released into the atmosphere. They will improve compliance and enforcement by refining existing criminal offences. They also introduce new offences and civil penalties to cover non-compliance relating to the import, export or manufacture of ozone-depleting substances. I commend the bills to the House. Let's ensure that future generations do not look back and accuse us of doing nothing to save this planet. 11:24 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in support of the cognate debate on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills, which, of course, update and modernise the legislative framework that we have in place to ensure that we are meeting our objectives under the Montreal protocols. I will just start by reflecting on how significant that agreement was in 1987. I agree with other speakers: to my knowledge, it's probably the first really significant international agreement on the protection of the atmosphere. There are other agreements and treaties that were as significant prior to that, on things like the protection of Antarctica et cetera, but I think that this agreement was the first time that nations were coming together and agreeing that there was an environmental problem that needed action taken and that the nations signing up to that agreement would have to do significant and meaningful things to meet their obligations as signatories to that treaty. So this was a real milestone moment, and I certainly acknowledge the role of the Hawke government, which was obviously in power in Australia the time. I also acknowledge the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher, in particular, doesn't get as much credit as she should for her achievements environmentally, and the Thatcher government's strong support and leadership on this was significant. Another legacy of the Thatcher government, around coal in the United Kingdom, which the Labour Party bitterly opposed in the 1980s, is probably seen as spectacularly prescient now, in the 2020s, but I won't digress into that debate. It was a really significant milestone moment for global, mature leadership on an environmental issue: the discovery of the depletion of the ozone and holes in the ozone layer that had direct impact on Australia and, of course, an equally significant global impact, particularly around the Antarctic hole and with the risk at the Arctic as well. So it was a very significant thing for the government to sign up to, which, of course, the then opposition supported. I think what we've had in the 35 years since the signing of that protocol is one of the best examples of bipartisan policy in an important environmental area that, 35 years later, is shown to have been remarkably successful—not that the job is finished, but we are very happy with the progress that we've made. We're on track to achieve our objective by 2050, scientists indicate, at the current rates of the protocol's implementation. I think that in 2016 they observed some of the first positive signs of the closing of the hole seasonally. So that should take us back to a pre-1980s status for the ozone layer in 2050, and then I think we're on track by 2065 to have completely addressed the issues of ozone depletion that have come from hydrofluorocarbons through man-made industrial activities. I think it's also important that those of us in the coalition, when we have the opportunity to speak on these environmental bills, reassert the very important point that it is an inherent conservative attribute to care about conservation and the environment. It is inherent within those of us who hold conservative views that the protection of the natural environment, in all its forms, is something that we should have as a very significant priority in policies that we develop and in debates that we have in this place and other places. It is very important for the Liberal and National parties, who are the conservative force in this nation, to also assert—and to meet those assertions with concrete examples and concrete actions—that we are committed to conservation, to the protection of the environment and to the protection of the future of all those who inhabit this planet of ours. It is an inherent conservative attribute to recognise that we have a custodianship over the planet and that the impact that humankind has, where it's a negative one, needs to be properly and adequately addressed. These challenges are global ones, and one of the most important things we can do is engage and participate in global efforts—the Montreal protocol was one of the first great examples of this—that see us as a planet meet some of these challenges. The issues with ozone depletion were a very important precursor to the challenges that we have with climate change as well. That needs a global response, and other speakers have outlined some of the framework that is already in place and that needs to be in place for the future on that challenge. We strongly endorse these bills. They, of course, emanate from the previous government, and I commend Greg Hunt and the work that he did as the then minister in this area. I know that that's something that is not disputed within the chamber. We know that they will continue to make sure that the legislative framework in meeting these significant challenges is in place, and on that basis I commend the bills to the House. 11:30 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I rise today to speak to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills. This bill is another chapter in the successful environmental policy story. It's a story that starts with scientists realising the impact that ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, have on our ozone layer. Scientists around the world were finding these substances were depleting the ozone layer. These scientists also knew that these substances in the Earth's upper atmosphere absorbed ultraviolet B radiation. Too much UVB is linked to skin cancer, genetic damage, immune system suppression and reduced plant productivity. Ozone depletion was presenting as an existential threat to our planet. When we look back on the story of the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, you could be forgiven in thinking that it was just accepted by the governments and the community after the establishment of scientific consensus on the subject, but I think we should remember that between the University of California scientists discovering that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer in the 1970s and the establishment of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 there was opposition. DuPont, who I'd like to acknowledge has changed its tune on CFCs since the 1980s, ran a hard campaign against the science on the harm of CFCs. It was a campaign of denial and delay. DuPont took out an advertisement in the New York Times in 1975 saying: Should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through depletion of the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds. The reason for this comment? They didn't believe that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. The chair of DuPont thought that it was science fiction. As the evidence mounted, the response came to delay action. DuPont created the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy in 1980 to make it appear as though self-regulation was the key, to keep the conversation away from the need for government action. They took cues from the Reagan administration, and environmentalism wasn't a priority, so chemical companies dropped their research into alternatives to CFCs. When the government deprioritised the environment, it sent a signal to markets that they also shouldn't prioritise the environment, whether that be on CFCs or climate change. But we all know that President Reagan changed his mind, so what happened? The public weren't willing to accept inaction when the potential risks were the end of life on our planet as we knew it. The evidence was clear, after all. In 1985, British scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. The link between CFCs and ozone depletion and the harm it caused became irrefutable. The President reassessed his position, spoke to experts and led a bipartisan push for international cooperation to phase out CFCs globally. What came out of this was the first universally accepted treaty on the environment. The Montreal Protocol was signed 17 years after the link between CFCs and ozone depletion was made. Somehow, at the height of the Cold War, prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, Bob Hawke, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan and even Kim Il-sung of North Korea could all agree that we needed to act upon the science. Since 1987, every Prime Minister has continued to support the Montreal Protocol, and Australia has met or exceeded all of its targets under this agreement, because, if we acted early, we could reverse the damage, but we would have to make changes. Industry needed to change. They knew that there would be cost, and this is why some campaigned for inaction. Consumers also need to change their behaviour. In 1988 Prime Minister Hawke wrote to premiers and chief ministers about the hard task ahead to phase out CFCs, stating that it was important that all practical steps be taken to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting substances. He did this because it was important that we had an effective national strategy on this important environmental issue. The Montreal Protocol sets out targets to reduce the usage of and eventually phase out ozone-depleting substances, with an implementation date of 1 January 1989. Because of the harm of the substances, they had more stringent time lines for the phasing out—for example, HCFCs were seen as a transitional halogenated hydrocarbon and given a longer phase-out time. There was also an acknowledgement that the phase-out would be easier for some countries than others. I am reminded of Minister Bowen's experience at COP27, where the Egyptian president, Sameh Shoukry, approached Minister Bowen to talk about an agreement on what financing of developing countries would be needed, where funding might come from and what mechanisms such as the World Bank would deliver it. A multilateral fund was established to support developing countries that are party to the Montreal Protocol. This funded things like converting existing manufacturing processes, education, training, access to intellectual properties and new technologies. Communities must be led and supported by governments that make major policy matters. Whether it's inaction on climate change on the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, there must always be a transition that supports workers and communities. Transitioning away from ozone-depleting substances is not a matter of set and forget; it must be a process of continual improvement. This bill today is a great example. I note that schedule 1 of the amendment will insert a reference to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement. There cannot be a conversation about HCFCs without acknowledging that they are also greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of one, but reportable HCFCs under the act are as low as 140 times and as high as 12,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Meeting our climate targets will have a dual benefit while we are also phasing out HCFCs. This needs to be acknowledged, and I commend the amendment to the bill for doing so. I also recognise that this bill overhauls the governance processes that continue to meet our targets. Ensuring financial stability of the ozone protection synthetic gas program means supporting industry in understanding their legislative obligations and better oversight over legislative enforcement. This bill achieves this in simplistic terms by removing caps on the levies of ozone-depleting substances, removing the existing levy on existing equipment that can't be phased out at the moment and also making other, minor amendments to the machinery of the act. Our original ozone protection legislation is about 33 years old, but successive governments have improved upon it and have brought it to the form which we have discussed today. This has been done in a bipartisan manner, and I would like to acknowledge the member for Fairfax for celebrating this. I would like to make it clear that the bill before us today originates from the previous government. I commend them for this work and I commend the minister for the Environment, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, for making the legislation a priority in the 47th Parliament. This public policy success story inspires me. It gives me hope that we, as we have our fight against climate change, will come together and cross party lines at all levels of government in all nations to act in humanity's best interest. The catastrophic impact of ozone depletion was discussed in years, not decades. It caused higher rates of skin cancer in those living under the hole. That's something that was particularly felt here in Australia, but it acted as an impetus for change. It meant a delay of 17 years between the science and action, but we've known about the effects of greenhouse gases in our climate since the 1960s. Average global temperatures have continued to rise since the Industrial Revolution, and we're starting to see the impacts of this. As the effects of climate change are felt at home and abroad, we should remember the success story of the fight against ozone-depleting substances. We should continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is informed by science and done with the support of communities for a just transition and ideally in a bipartisan manner. 11:40 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills are important legislation. They're important because they update legislation and regulations that have been in place for nearly four decades and that reduce the hydrofluorocarbons that are released into the atmosphere. These bills are important because they not only streamline the process for businesses and makes compliance a lot easier for them but also add some additional enforcement measures that are needed as a result of changes over the last four decades. As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are dangerous greenhouse gases that are around 4,000 times as harmful to the environment as carbon dioxide. As a driver and signatory of the Montreal protocol, Australia has a responsibility not only to enforce the agreed protocol standards, which have had a positive effect in closing the damaging hole in the ozone layer, but also to ensure that we are on track to meeting the objectives of those standards. However, the reality is that, whilst we have done pretty well over the last four decades with respect to applying the standards and closing the hole in the ozone layer, we can't be complacent. That's particularly so when there is ongoing considerable use of HFCs and therefore increasing threats of changing climate and more frequent natural disasters associated with extreme weather events. As we see the climate change and the risks increase, it's more reason why we should make sure that whatever measures we have in place are as effective as they can be and as effective as they were four decades ago. Understanding and accepting that climate change is real, the Albanese Labor government has set an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent and also increased investment in renewable energy whilst at the same time—as we saw recently—taking a very active role on the world stage in global discussions with respect to climate change and in the initiatives that arise from those discussions. In fact, the Conference of the Parties that was held in Egypt only a couple of weeks ago highlighted that Australia is again back at the table raising these issues and taking a leadership role with respect to them. International unity is undoubtedly required if we're ever going to do what we should be doing with respect to the response on climate change, and global efforts have to be embraced by everybody. It's only through global efforts that we will get the outcomes that I think all of us would like to see. My view is that there are also extensive opportunities for countries that embrace the changes that need to take place. Labor also understands that many of our near neighbours are particularly at risk of the effects of climate change and that Australia, along with the other countries, has to show some leadership with respect to this issue, particularly when one considers that Australia, according to a very recent report that I saw, has the world's highest per capita rate of emissions. Therefore, as a country with a higher per capita rate of emissions, we should be the ones setting an example of what needs to be done—albeit I accept that, in the scheme of things, there are others who will argue that our total emissions only amount to just over one per cent of emissions throughout the world. That might be so, but the fact that we have a higher per capita rate still puts an incredible onus on Australia to do the right thing. COP27 concluded, and a long list of recommendations arose. Many of those recommendations have never been talked about, but I went through them. It is a long list and I commend all of the participants at the conference for coming up with those recommendations. It's my view that there is overwhelming global consensus that climate change is real and that those countries that want to live in the past and let others do the heavy lifting will be left behind. My view is that fossil fuel technology is yesterday's technology and, whilst fossil fuels will continue to be used during the transition years ahead, the countries that do not transition will quickly find themselves isolated and sidelined. Most countries, I believe, understand that and, overwhelmingly, corporate business, investors and the finance sector understand that. We know that HFCs are predominantly used in refrigeration, and refrigeration is essential in the world today. Economic growth, food production, transport and storage of food, and household and workplace demand will cause a growth in the use of refrigerants unless new technology is developed. If new technology is developed, then we might see a decline. So a global phasing down of 80 per cent of HFCs by 2047 in accordance with the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol will be a real challenge. There's no question about that. It is a big ask because, in addition to the 80 per cent reduction, there is a projected 25 per cent increase in the world 's population by 2047. That's an extra two billion people. That additional two billion people will add to consumption throughout the world, and a growth in consumption per person also adds to the additional release of hydrofluorocarbons and greenhouse gases more broadly into the atmosphere, and that is compounded by a growing middle class. I think it puts into perspective the real challenge we all have ahead of us with respect to managing the volume of greenhouse gases that gets into the atmosphere. Yet, at the COP and looking at the recommendations, I saw very little said about rising consumption and population growth. Sustainable Population Australia put out a discussion paper that was prepared by Ian Lowe, Jane O'Sullivan and Peter Cooke. It was launched only last week. I commend it to members of this House as something worth reading because it does, in my view, beautifully summarise the impact that additional consumption and population growth will have on climate change. Of course, we can be a lot smarter in the way we live and the way we produce food, in terms of the processes that we use, how we preserve food and so on. I have to say that, in this respect, Australian farmers have shown great leadership and I commend them for that. I believe that they are, in many cases, ahead of the rest of the world in those matters. But a reduction in emissions whilst global population and consumption are growing is extremely challenging, and meeting those targets will require lifestyle changes, innovation and commitment from all parties concerned. The State of the climate2022 report was launched just last week by the minister, who is in the chamber with us now. Again, I think it beautifully summarises the state of our climate right now. It was prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. It highlights the climatic changes we are confronted with, the devastating effect of those changes and the risks to humanity and the environment if we fail to respond. I will quickly summarise some of the key points of that report. Firstly, concentrations of greenhouse gases are at the highest levels seen on earth in at least two million years. Australia's climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 degrees since 1910—in the last century, effectively. Sea surface temperatures have increased by an average of 1.05 degrees since 1900. Snow depth, snow cover and the number of snow days have decreased in alpine regions since the late 1950s. Global mean sea level has risen by about 25 centimetres since 1880. Half of this rise was in the last 50 years alone, since 1970. Ocean acidification around Australia continues to rise. Again, we've heard the comments and reports about the Great Barrier Reef in particular in recent days. In south-east Australia, there has been a decrease of about 10 per cent in April to October rainfall. All of this changes the way we need to live on this planet. In closing, my view is this: the facts are now clear, the risks are clear and indifference to the reality of climate change will create greater devastation in the years ahead. A multipronged response is required, and this legislation, in my view, is a critical part of that response. For that reason I commend the bill to the House. 11:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It's my pleasure to sum up the government's position on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to thank all of the speakers who have made a contribution on these important pieces of legislation. This legislation will ensure the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program can continue to achieve important environmental outcomes and emission reduction outcomes. This legislation will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program and reduce the burden on business. The continuing success of the program is vital both to protect the ozone layer—which protects Australians, our environment and agriculture from excessive ultraviolet radiation—and, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to protect the climate. The Montreal Protocol showed that global environmental cooperation was possible. When we look back on the Montreal Protocol, it really is a shining example of what nations working together can do. It showed that we could overcome national self-interest and the tragedy of the commons, and it showed that through sensitive diplomacy we could find rational answers to our most difficult collective problems. Today every nation in the world—198 nations—is party to this agreement. Because of the Montreal Protocol and the actions our government is taking, the hole in the ozone layer is closing. This is so very important for our environment, but it's also very important for human health. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Montreal Protocol will prevent 443 million cases of skin cancer. It will save 2.3 million lives from this terrible disease, and it will prevent 63 million people from developing eye cataracts. They're just the figures for the United States. Imagine extrapolating that globally, and think about the huge relevance of those figures for Australia, given the impact of the hole on the ozone layer in Australia and given our propensity here for things like skin cancer and sun related cataracts. It shows how important this is for human health in Australia as well. I want to thank the House for the support we've seen for this legislation, and I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 135

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 135 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 135

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 135 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022 135

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022

Second Reading 135 11:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The coalition recognises the important, essential and critical role that community radio broadcasting plays throughout Australia, especially in regions. When in government, we provided a funding increase of an additional $4 million per annum over two years in the 2021-22 budget. This was on top of the existing funding of a little over $16 million per annum which we continued to provide from 2021-22, bringing the total yearly funding to just over $20 million for those two years. The coalition government also extended the licensing arrangements for Australia's two remaining metropolitan community television broadcasters, Channel 31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide for up to three years. I know that the late Paul Neville, the former member for Hinkler, would certainly have spoken in this debate in his time in parliament because there was no greater champion of broadcasting rules of community radio and community broadcasting than the late Paul Neville. I suppose there are two great disappointments in mentioning this—that is, the fact that Paul Neville did not receive his Order of Australia Medal while he was alive—he received it posthumously—and, also, the fact that he did not carry 'honourable' in front of his name after his political career or, indeed, during it. There are many people who are bestowed the title of 'honourable' and it is a thing that probably only politicians regard highly these days. If ever there was an honourable member of parliament, it was the late Mr Neville. He was never a minister, more's the pity. He was never given the great privilege of serving in an outer ministry or a cabinet, more's the pity. But he gave such remarkable service to this parliament over so many years. We remember him, we respect him, and we honour him always. I am glad the communications minister is in the Federation Chamber for this debate. I wish her well in her role. She and I entered the parliament in 2010. I have the greatest respect for the member for Greenway. I also admire the way she came to my electorate and said she is going to do what she can about mobile phone technology. We went to a place not far from West Wyalong. We also ventured on to a place further west to talk about what we could do together, in a bipartisan way, about mobile communications and communications in general. As I say, I earnestly and honestly wish her all the best in her role because regional Australia needs the very best communication services. She'll disagree with me, but, when we took over in 2013, the NBN was a bit of a mess. It was. We did what we could to make sure that we made the best of what was there at the time. We also funded 900 mobile phone towers, installed them in fact, and promised another 400, which, due to contract arrangements et cetera, will eventually be delivered on this government's watch. But I wish the member for Greenway well in her ministerial responsibilities. I do community radio a lot. Some might say I have a good head for radio, but, indeed, I talk a lot on the Sounds of the Mountains in Tumut. It's not in my electorate; it's in the member for Eden Monaro's electorate. She knows that I've got a fortnightly spot. I don't go on there and be partisan—I do not. I go on there and talk about all of the things that are important in our area. Whilst it mainly covers the area in Eden Monaro, such as Tumut, the Snowy Valleys, Tumbarumba, even into the member for Indi's electorate, through Corryong and the Upper Murray area— A division having been called in the House of Representati ves— Sitting suspended from 12:02 to 12:1 3 Mr McCORMACK 219646 As I was saying before the division in the House of Representatives, I speak every fortnight on Sounds of the Mountains, which operates out of Tumut. I speak with David Eisenhauer, who needs recognition not just in this motion but for the work he did during the Black Summer bushfires to keep people informed, to keep the community up to date and to keep Australians alive. David, like me, spent much of his youth in Junee, and he still goes back there every year to MC the annual show. He still contributes mightily to the communities outside his now home town. That shows the measure of the man. Yesterday he and I both, before we got on air and whilst on air, were discussing—well, it was this week—the 80th birthday of Yvonne Braid, who was the face of Riverina radio, Wagga Wagga's 2WG, for many, many years. She started in the front office and worked her way up to the managerial role. Yvonne lit up a room when she walked in. She was not necessarily on air, but she indeed served that station, 2WG, so very well when it was owned locally. Like many commercial radio stations, they're now operating out of capital cities, but, back in the halcyon days of radio, the 1970s and 1980s, when 2WG was king of the airwaves, the likes of Jeff O'Brien and Peter Mahoney and award-winning journalist Damian Ryan were behind the mic, broadcasting to their known universe. They were heady days, and Yvonne Braid was working her way up the chain to that great managerial position she occupied for so many years. But there's not only Sounds of the Mountains in Tumut; there's TEM-FM in Temora, which I speak on regularly; Valley FM in Forbes and Parkes, in the north of my Riverina electorate; 945 Gold FM in West Wyalong; 2AAA-FM and Wagga's Life FM in Wagga Wagga; 2YYY Radio in Young; and PHFM in Peak Hill. There are many more, but they're the ones that spring readily to mind. I know 2AAA-FM in my hometown received support through the previous coalition government with a $9,373 grant under the Stronger Communities Program to install a disabled access ramp in its Young Street studio. That might seem a lot of money, but for that community radio station it meant the world of difference because it meant that those presenters and indeed those people who were going to be interviewed could gain better access to that hillside studio. The 2AAA-FM website says the station is the 'brainchild' of Stuart Carter: 2AAA-FM had its beginnings in June 1978 when a handful of people gathered to discuss the idea of establishing Wagga Wagga's own Community Radio Station. … Stuart presented the group with a working paper entitled "Community Radio IS People". That 'IS' is capitalised because he wanted to emphasise that it's all about people, and that's indeed what community radio is all about. After a licence hearing in October 1980, 2AAA-FM was granted a licence by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (now called the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The first official broadcast of 2AAA-FM was on Friday July 31st, 1981— —a red-letter day for Wagga Wagga. It ran for 54 hours from Friday till Monday. In those very embryonic years, 2AAA transmitted from temporary premises in the Australian Arcade on Fitzmaurice Street. It relocated to its own premises on the corner of Young Street and Coleman Street in November 1982. I referred earlier to Sounds of the Mountains. It is a not-for-profit—just like so many are—community radio station. It covers the Snowy Valleys and Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council areas—that is a council about to be de-amalgamated, thank goodness, but that is an area of their broadcast listening area that I represent—and, as I said earlier, goes into north-east Victoria. It operates 24 hours a day and is staffed by a combination of paid and volunteer locals. Volunteers make up—wait for it—80 per cent of the team. I know, Deputy Speaker Stevens, how fondly you spoke of your own radio stations in your part of the world in your contribution last night. I have great memories and great experiences in more recent times of working with community radio people to bring about better outcomes for the people I serve, and I know you do too. The radio station is the locally recognised electronic medium for the immediate dissemination and distribution of emergency information. Without them—I said this before; I wasn't overegging it—people in emergencies, particularly in fire emergencies, would die if they did not have those signals, those alerts, those updates and that information which is given on an instantaneous basis, whether it's bushfires, floods or severe thunderstorm warnings. Particularly in regional areas, those thunderstorm warnings are so important for farmers to get their sheep into shearing sheds if there's going to be a cold snap or torrential rain. Getting stock to safety is something which I suppose city folk don't probably ever consider. You know you're in the bush when you click on the radio station and you hear that people are being urged to get their sheep indoors. You know you're in country Australia. It's one of those totally Australian moments. It's fantastic. Sounds of the Mountains dates back to 2001, when the Tumut Youth Council—and good on them—made a request for a community-based radio station and a steering committee was formed. At the time, David Eisenhauer joined the steering committee to coordinate the building, the engineering and the general compliance-based and local community-based implementation of the licence. It began full transmission on 3 August 2003. I mentioned Valley FM—it's situated on Parkes Road in Forbes. It covers Parkes, Forbes, Condobolin and Eugowra. Those last two communities I just mentioned are so beset by floods at the moment. I've been in two war zones and never seen the devastation that I did in Eugowra just the other week. It was quite extraordinary. But Condo, of course, is going through its own situation at the moment, with the Lachlan River having burst its banks and causing mayhem and destruction and despair and heartache for the people in what is the very geographical centre of New South Wales. Valley FM also covers Bogan Gate, a little community where there is actually a monument to Breaker Morant in the local park; Trundle, which is the home of Australia's widest main street and has the annual ABBA festival; as well as Tullamore, Tottenham, Peak Hill, Alectown, Bedgerabong and others. It sounds like 'I've Been Everywhere'. But that's what radio stations do. That's what community radio does. I'm glad that this bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022, has been brought to the House, because anything that the government can do to improve broadcasting services—indeed, to improve the lives and lot of people who rely on those radio broadcasts—is to be commended. We said when Labor came back into power in May that if there was good legislation, if there were good motions, if there were good bills, then we would support them. That's why we do support this particular legislation being brought to the House. Going back to Valley FM, the nine people who run that station meet monthly. The committee is made up of president Greg Whitworth, vice-president Gill Taylor, secretary Jayne Whitworth, treasurer Joe Sydney and coordinator Kevin Dwyer, who's also an announcer and life member. I mention those and I mention the other life members of the station—Don McGuire, Bob Grant and Dawn Parker—because they deserve to have their names mentioned. They deserve to have their names recorded in Hansard. They don't expect it but it's something that is nice, something that's appropriate. They keep the airwaves going, just like TEM-FM in Temora, which covers Temora and Ariah Park. I've had several interviews with Sandy Koch, which are always interesting. They're very wide-ranging interviews. They're usually supposed to take about 10 minutes and they take half an hour. Sandy's fantastic, as are all the other volunteers in these community radio stations. It's executive committee is made up of chairman Ken Davis, secretary Robina Moore, financial director Colin McCrone, with board members Mark Ribbons, Jean Groth and Hilda Bird. I say to those people: thank you. Thank you for the service that you provide. Thank you for keeping the airwaves rich with your announcements, rich with your voices, rich with your presence and rich with your input, because community radio matters. It is about community. When we've lost so many of our media organisations to outside influences and when even the journalists who come in and the people who work for them are not locals, community radio is. It's all about community; it's all about localism. 12:23 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons It's a pleasure to join the member for Riverina in backing this bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022. I just note that our thoughts and, I'm sure, those of the entire parliament are with the member for Riverina and his community as they battle the floods. He's just shown how important community radio is in getting information out to where it's needed, and, of course, I would put the ABC in the same basket there. Like the member for Riverina, I'm an ex-print journo, so I think it says a lot when you've got two old print journos standing up to speak on behalf of our brethren in community radio and on the importance of community radio to local life. That's what it's all about. It's about community radio providing a local voice, a grassroots local voice at the local level. There's no doubt that the world is awash with information. There's the internet and online radio stations. The difficulty is curating that information and knowing who you can depend on. I tell you what: if you turn the dial onto your local community radio station, you'll know you're hearing local voices with local information and you'll find out what's going on in the local area. I rise to speak in support of this important bill that is before the House. I'm a huge supporter of community radio and broadcasting services. My electorate of Lyons is made up of regional and rural communities, and it is the community stations that keep these communities connected and informed in times of bushfire, flood and other natural disasters. And, of course, just by the bye, they'll have the local CWA on. They're just a good source of local information. What this bill does is provide certainty and clarity for these broadcasters through the licensing processes. It's not very interesting, I guess, in terms of debate, but it gives all of us a chance to stand up here and talk in support of our fantastic community stations and the volunteers behind them. Community broadcasters faced uncertainty under the former government, which ignored their calls for stability in funding. After all that community stations and broadcasters did for Australians through bushfires, floods and COVID, they didn't get the certainty they needed. Well, they're getting that certainty now. Community broadcasting relies on just over $20 million annually to maintain existing services and supports, yet under the former government this funding was due to drop to around $17 million over the forward estimates. I'm pleased to say that our budget, announced in October, includes an additional $4 million per year of ongoing funding for the program, taking the total annual funding back to over $20 million a year. That's a really terrific result, and it gives these stations the certainty they need going forward. Every week more than five million listeners tune into more than 450 community owned and operated radio stations around the country, in the main staffed by volunteers, by people who are there just for the love of community. The listeners include 1.4 million people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, who listen to broadcasts in more than 100 languages—what a testament to our country and our multicultural heart. Community radio provides local news, tells local stories and provides a platform for local voices and music. It promotes communities and it connects communities. I will admit some bias here, but as I travel around my electorate I often switch between local community stations, and I consider the quality of service and entertainment to be amongst the best in the nation. The member for Fisher was talking about Sunshine FM, on the Sunshine Coast, being the No. 1 station on the Sunshine Coast—what an incredible achievement—but I've got to say I've got some of the best in the nation, I reckon. On the east coast, if you are ever up in the north-east, tune into 93.7 Star FM, run by station director Blitz Greig, with his wonderful hosts, Flash and Dave Barker. From contemporary music to the classics of the 1960s, Star FM makes visiting the east all the more special. Of course, with the Bay of Fires, Freycinet and the wine region, it's an incredible place to be anyway. Down on the Tasman Peninsula I tune into Tasman FM 97.7. From old-style rock'n'roll to country and jazz, Tasman FM gives respect to our music greats, many of them from generations ago. Even if my kids don't know—and, to be honest, even if I don't know—all the favourites, we often get to sing along when we tune in. A shout out to Ian, Mick, Pastor Keith and the team for the quality of service that they provide for the Tasman region across their number of show slots. Over in the Derwent Valley and southern Central Highlands, you switch over to the community radio station of choice, 98.9 TYGA-FM, run by a group of amazing local volunteers, including the President of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, the Labor MP Craig Farrell MLC. He is the board president, a very enthusiastic board president. TYGA-FM promotes the best that the Derwent Valley and southern Central Highlands have to offer—and it's a lot. They do everything: music, news, opinion. They're a very, very good outfit. In the Northern Midlands, you've got the choice of 95.7 Heart FM, based in Longford, and 87.6 Campbell Town Radio, class acts of local radio service that provide great service to their listenership. They're doing a really important job at the moment as we face a GP crisis in the Northern Midlands. They're keeping people involved and up to date with local information. Over in the Meander Valley, Tim and his team do a wonderful job keeping 96.9 MVFM running strong. That station has perhaps one of the strongest followings in the state. I'm proud to be a sponsor of that great broadcaster, as I am of many of the others that I've mentioned. Swinging back down to Oatlands, in the Southern Midlands, 97.1 7MID keeps you entertained with a great range of hosts, including my friend Jamie 'Mav' Menzie, who's a brilliant local DJ. He loves his country and western and does a great job with his regular spot on the airwaves. Ms Sharkie 265980 He loves country—and western! Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Thank you, Member for Mayo. I think that could be the cause of divisions, but anyway! And, of course, there's the station legend, John Hay. He's got the John Laws sort of velvet voice on the microphone. I'll give a shout-out while I'm here—although it's not in my electorate—to the University of Tasmania's student radio station, Edge FM, which has given many young journalists and student politicians the ability to cut their teeth and learn the ropes before heading out to wonderful careers across Tasmania and the nation. They like to give us professional politicians a hard time, which I think is terrific. We get the hard questions, and we should be prepared to answer them. Edge FM do a terrific job out there at UTas. What's important for those of you who are not lucky enough to visit Tasmania more often—and it's very sad if you're not—is that all of these community stations are accessible online. I strongly urge all members present to tune into these great stations to listen to the wealth of knowledge and community that I enjoy representing down in Tasmania. These stations are the heart of the communities they broadcast to. They provide a quality service to the community, promote local events and are there for people when it counts, including during times of fire, flood and everything in between. I love jumping on air with the local hosts and DJs, inflicting my own musical choices on them and playing the latest hits and all the classics. I tried to play 'Droving Woman', the Kev Carmody classic, recently. It goes for about 10 minutes. It's a fantastic song, but it is a long one. I also communicate about my work in Lyons and deliver vital information about what is going on in Canberra and across Australia. I know that this is a sentiment shared across the House. The member for Mayo is about to get up, and I'm sure she'll extol the virtues of community stations in her electorate. We're all here to support our community stations. An immense amount of work has gone into this bill. It's been developed in consultation with government and key industry stakeholders. I thank the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, for her work in putting this bill before the House and ensuring that it's the best it can be for the benefit of community broadcasters and their listeners. I would like to take a moment to thank her staff and those of the department who work immensely hard behind the scenes for us and for the benefit of this great country and the people in it. They often don't get the recognition they deserve for the technical work they do in putting these bills together, but it's really important. It knits these programs together. Community broadcasting wouldn't be in the shape it is in now, or in the future, without people looking after the details in bills like that. It's the staff who do that. They often don't get the recognition they deserve for the work they put in. I commend the bill to the House, and I urge you all, and anybody listening to this broadcast—maybe after I've finished speaking and after the member for Mayo has finished speaking—to tune in to your local community broadcaster. 12:33 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak in support of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022. Community broadcasting plays an incredibly vital service in my electorate of Mayo. According to the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, approximately 5.3 million Australians listen to local news, community information, music and talkback every week on more than 500 community broadcast stations across the country, two-thirds of which are in regional and rural Australia. I'd like to give a shout-out to some of mine. We're talking about, down the south coast, Happy FM, Fleurieu FM and Alex FM, at Goolwa. Moving further up, we have Tribe FM. They're based at Willunga and they share the license with McLaren Vale's Triple Z. Then we have Lofty radio, based in the Adelaide Hills. I'd also like to give a shout-out to one that stretches—sort of leaks—out of its licence area, and that's Coast FM. Even though it is based in Glandore, which I think is probably in the member for Boothby's electorate, the signal goes far. Coast FM was where I got my start in community radio back in 1992 or 1993, a long time ago and, that's the thing, it's a great training ground for young people—I was a young person back then—and it's a great for retired people as well. What I see across most of my community radio stations is you have older people and younger people all coming together and sharing and enjoying their time together and communicating with their community, whether it be talk back or radio. I actually had a country music program—an award-winning program, I might just say—and that's why I had to correct the member for Lyons: country and western are actually two kinds of music. It is really important and it has such a variety on community radio that you don't get on commercial stations. I think a lot of people don't realise that community radio presenters and producers do all the work themselves. If you are in a commercial radio setting, all you are doing is pressing buttons all day and reading out essentially the script you are given. Whereas in community radio, it is far more fluid, far more dynamic because it is all about what that individual programmer is doing and how they are connecting with our community. Really, anything goes on community radio, and I love my community radio stations in Mayo. Community radio plays such an important part in the lives of so many Australians. I think we particularly felt that in Mayo during the bushfires in December 2019. It was our community radio stations that were providing real on-the-ground knowledge. Of course, we have the ABC as well but this is particularly prevalent and important for those who don't have other forms of communication. During the bushfires we lost towers and, really, it was essentially the radio only. I've been remiss; I have missed one radio station in my electorate on Kangaroo Island—that is, KIX FM. KIX FM, during the bushfires, were extraordinary in sharing information with the community. So aside from what's in my electorate, back in 2020 I ended up driving to Canberra because there were limited flights, at times no flights, and I wanted some staff to come with me. I have to say it was community radio that shared the journey with me on the drive over here. When I am back in my community, like the Speaker, I take time to go and spend time in my local community radio stations, share with them what is happening in this place. It's great when I'm stopped by young people in particular who say they learn a lot more about the parliament and what happens in here after those interviews, so it's great to be able to sit down and have those chats It is also really good for local small businesses because they often don't have a huge amount to spend on advertising whereas becoming a sponsor of their local community radio station is affordable and they are directly connecting with other locals. I would like to thank the government for the additional $4 million they have announced in the budget. It's a really welcome amount of funding. What we need to do is ensure there is sustainability in community radio station networks because we have seen in my electorate the loss of Hills Radio. Even though the population has increased, we have not seen an increase in a number of community radio stations. The northern part of my electorate could certainly do with its own community radio. I have two radio stations that are on temporary licences in my electorate—ZZZ FM sharing with Tribe FM; they share 50-50 the time together, 3½ days each—so when moving over to permanent licences, we need to look at each community radio station and its needs individually because, from my understanding, for those stations it's a happy arrangement and they have been able to make it work really well. I don't want them to be forced into a certain licensing arrangement, or even having a permanent licence and perhaps having to merge. It's really important that we nurture community radio. I don't know about other community radio stations, but, really, most of the time, these radio stations are run out of older houses, older buildings or older demountables. Just getting the resources together to be able to afford a desk and soundproofing, let alone having turntables, CD players or digital equipment—it's incredibly expensive. So having more resources and grants available to provide community radio stations with improved technology is critical. When I first started, there were two record turntables. They were still relatively new and exciting. But we had the old ABC desk that was quite geriatric in its application. I'm sure we can do a lot more in this place. It really is pocket change when we look at the budget with respect to sharing some money with community radio. They really do get good bang for their buck, because it's run entirely by volunteers. This is an excellent bill. I give a shout out to my local community radio station, and to those hundreds of community radio stations right across Australia, you are an excellent training ground. We've had so many stars in radio on commercial channels who started their life in community radio. More power to community radio. I hope it's a medium that can grow, strengthen, prosper and flourish in the decades to come. 12:41 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Five million listeners every week tune into our community radio stations. That's 450 stations across the country doing wonderful community service, be it in times of crisis—during COVID, bushfires, floods—connecting multicultural communities or providing that diversity that doesn't exist in the large commercial networks. That's why I'm so pleased to be speaking on this bill, which gives further support and certainty to our community radio stations. At the moment, the renewal process for licences for our community radio stations sometimes gives unnecessary stress or uncertainty. This bill delivers the certainty they need. It also makes sure that we no longer have that fear of the renewal process being a competitive process, which prevents radio stations from making some of the long-term investments and plans they need. It also clarifies the powers of ACMA to make sure that, when they're issuing new licenses, they can do that with authority. Third, it ensures that there's flexibility for ACMA. If they need to issue a temporary licence or provide flexibility when they're looking at how to handle those licences, they have that power. Again, the bill clarifies the power of ACMA and the discretion it has to limit the number of temporary community broadcast licensees that can share a particular frequency. There's nothing worse than driving and listening to your favourite station and having a level of interference. Again, this bill protects from that happening. It's backed in by an additional $4 million per year of funding to make sure that we have more investment in our community radio stations. The member for Mayo so brilliantly outlined how well they do with so little funds. We all know that our community radio stations make a couple of dollars stretch a very long way. They're not just driven by a profit motive; they're driven by the motive of ensuring they provide an essential community service. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Communications, who is a very strong advocate for community radio, which is demonstrated by the fact that she has chosen to be here for so much of this debate. She has also fought for additional funding for community radio, and the first piece of legislation she is putting through this parliament is backing our community radio sector. As many have done before me, I want to talk about the wonderful community radio stations in my electorate. The biggest community radio station in Western Australia is RTRFM, which was founded about 40 years ago by students at the University of Western Australia. Why is it RTR? That's because they thought it was a pirate radio station, so 'Arty, arrgh!' FM was founded by the students of the University of Western Australia. Now, some 40 years on, they run more than 50 different programs every single week. They are a key partner of the Perth Festival, the biggest arts festival in Western Australia. They are funded by the community, and each year their radiothon brings in thousands of dollars to provide this essential service. I'd encourage anyone who wants to see why this station is loved so much to tune into 92.1 FM or go online at rtrfm.com.au. People in my community do love this station. It's based on Beaufort Street in Perth. It is part of the community. They are constantly holding community events. I was surprised to learn that their average listener tunes in for 11.6 hours a week. That's dedication. They have 42,000 people listening to their breakfast program every single day. Over each month, 262,000 people tune in to listen to RTRFM and, when it comes to the music that they choose, 73 per cent of the music that RTR plays is from local Western Australian artists. It is the launching pad for so many bands and musicians in Western Australia. To the team at RTR, I say: thank you for that. They recently did a social impact study which showed: RTRFM is one of the main voices for arts and culture in WA … It also showed: 85% say listening to RTRFM makes them feel like part of a community. This lessens that isolation and distance that has become too common in our community and makes sure that we have stronger communities, that we connect people and that people feel that, when they call in, they're actually talking to a friend on air. I've been proud to support RTRFM through the Stronger Communities Program, which has given them new performance spaces for artists. I've been pleased to attend there with the now Leader of the House to talk to them about investing in the arts. I'm sure that sometime in this term of government I will be able to get the Minister for Communications in for a chat. I've also been pleased to attend In The Pines with the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. I encourage all members, if they find themselves on the West Coast, to visit RTRFM. I'm sure they will be very happy to have any member of this parliament in for a chat. I want to give a shout out to chair, James Hall; general manager, Simon Miraudo; and presenter and wonderful part of the Perth community, Danae Gibson. I even learnt yesterday that a member of the press gallery, Sarah Ison, is a former volunteer at RTRFM. Again, this shows that these community radio stations across the country are the training ground for some of the best journalists in this country. I also note that community radio is well served by Amanda Copp from the Community Radio Network, based here in the press gallery. In conclusion, I want to note some of the wonderful Western Australian community radio stations, including Radio Fremantle at 107.9 FM and Curtin Radio at 100.1 FM, which plays everyone's favourite classics and is definitely worth tuning into if you want to go back a few decades in time and listen to some wonderful classic music. I also want to note 6EBA FM world radio, based in North Perth in my electorate, and 89.7FM, the sound of the northern suburbs. They are all wonderful community radio stations that I know want to see us in this place pass this legislation to show how much we support them. 12:49 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I join with other speakers who have made absolutely clear the vital service that is provided by community radio stations right around the country. It is a service that, as the member for Perth has again quite rightly pointed out, is provided by some 450 stations around the country. Five million people tune in every week to listen to it and, importantly, services are provided in about a hundred different languages. The Albanese Labor government clearly understands the importance of the service, and I commend the minister, who is with us today, for the allocation of an additional $4 million towards the provision of community radio across the country. My association with community radio goes back decades. I was associated with the establishment of 5PBA-FM on 89.7 in Salisbury many years ago. That station is still going strong, and while I'm on my feet I commend Denise Guest who, for many, many years, until she passed away, was the station manager out there. A few years later her daughter Angela took over and provided a wonderful service for the local community. It's a service that I'm frequently asked to join in with, and I've appeared on many programs there. Indeed, I'm familiar with not only the presenters, but with the range of different programs that are provided to the wider community. With respect to the services more broadly, I will just say this: community radio does a couple of very critical things for us as a country and for us as individuals. Firstly, as others have quite rightly pointed out, it provides a wonderful training platform for people who want to make a career out of broadcasting or similar types of skills and similar professions. Secondly, it also provides services at critical times to local communities—in particular, services for the 100 different languages that I referred to earlier. As a frequent guest on the Italian radio stations in Adelaide—Radio Italia Uno 87.6 and Radio Italiana 531 on the AM band—I know how many people of the local Italian community listen to that station to get information about government services and the like. Importantly, it also provides people with the ability to tune into information that is not generally broadcast on the mainstream radio stations. And I think that is critically important, particularly when it comes to local communities. Again, as has also been raised with regard to this legislation, one of the issues we often talk about in this parliament is media diversity. I believe, through community radio stations, we're able to at least do something about trying to ensure there is no absolute control of media in this country, and those five million listeners each week are listeners that might otherwise have only tuned into the commercial radio stations, which are dominated by certain players in the industry sector. Again, community radio does all of that. There are a couple of issues that I've noted during my time and my association with community radio. The first issue is that, generally, they're only able to access what I call the extreme bandwidths, the ones on the very edges, and so their reception is not terribly good outside of their immediate location. That's something I would like to see addressed because I know that some of those stations try to have a reach that goes beyond where they are broadcasting from, but, unfortunately, they quite often find it difficult. The other issue for community groups is that trying to get a license has often proved very difficult. If you put the licenses up there, just as a broad auction based scheme, then it means those with money are more likely to get the licenses than those without money. Again, I think that creates problems for smaller groups who have a wonderful service and have the best intentions at heart, but simply can't get a license. I don't want to hold up the debate any longer than necessary, but I think this legislation goes a long way to making sure that the licences are administered and issued in a much fairer way. The whole management and process of getting the licenses is streamlined and that will make it so much easier because I know, from my discussions with the management committees of the radio stations that I'm familiar with, that sometimes that can be cumbersome. This process, as outlined in this legislation, will simplify the whole process for everybody. I commend the legislation to the House. 12:54 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022. The government recognises the crucial role that the community broadcasting sector plays in connecting, informing and empowering local communities, particularly in our regions and among multicultural and First Nations communities. Over five million Australians each week rely on the diversity of programming offered by community radio. We want all Australians to have access to a vibrant range of news media as well as relevant local media, where no one voice dominates political and social debates. Alongside our national broadcasters, commercial broadcasters and subscription broadcasters, community radio services provide much-needed diversity. They keep communities safe, engaged and informed. The bill will make amendments to parts 3, 6 and 6A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide greater certainty to broadcasters and support listener access to high-quality and diverse community radio services. There have been recent issues related to legal proceedings and the practical application of legislative provisions around community broadcasting licensing. These unintended outcomes have the potential to reputationally impact the community broadcasting sector. The six measures included in this bill are designed to address these concerns. Their successful passage through parliament will have positive impacts for community broadcasters, listeners and the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. These reforms are consistent with the government's commitment to support the sustainability of the community broadcasting sector and better reflect its important role in the diversity of Australia's media and broadcasting environment. They are an important first step towards increasing access to high-quality, locally relevant news, information and content for all Australians. In recognition of the importance of community broadcasting across Australia, the government has committed funding in the federal budget and commenced a review into the sustainability of the sector. The budget includes an additional $4 million per year of ongoing funding for the Community Broadcasting Program from 2023-24, taking total annual funding for the program to over $20 million per year. The review will identify further opportunities to improve the sector's sustainability in consultation with community broadcasters. This will inform future broader-ranging measures which will examine what a modern community radio service should look like. This process could lead to more detailed regulatory changes in future. This bill demonstrates the government's continuing commitment to facilitating a regulatory environment in which community broadcasters can operate with ease. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 16:00 CONDOLENCES 142 CONDOLENCES Ellicott, Hon. Robert 'Bob' James, AC KC 142 16:00 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I rise to pay tribute to the former member for Wentworth, the Honourable Robert Ellicott AC KC. Although I did not have the pleasure of meeting him, I knew him by reputation—and what a reputation it was! Born in 1929, he graduated from the University of Sydney with degrees in arts and law and was admitted to the bar in 1950, appointed a Queens Council 14 years later, Solicitor-General five years later and then elected to parliament in 1974. Within six months, he was a shadow minister and a year later became Attorney-General, the first and only time a former Solicitor-General has held that office. After two years, he sensationally resigned on a matter of principle but was returned to cabinet three months later as Minister for Home Affairs, a position he held until his retirement from parliament in 1981, after seven years representing Wentworth. Two weeks later, he was sworn in as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. He later became a judge for the International Olympic Committee and then patron of Gymnastics Australia. This was a remarkably rapid and impressive career but the record shows it was not a career based around personal advancement and little else. Bob Ellicott clearly felt strongly about Australia and used the offices he held to advance real change in our country. As a parliamentarian, he was a fierce advocate for policies that would genuinely improve the lives of those trapped in poverty, which he argued prevents people from realising their potential in a free society. As home affairs minister, he lay the foundations of what became the Australian Institute of Sport and arguably did more to professionalise Australian sport than anyone else. Both as Attorney-General and as a judge, he helped forge the field Australian administrative law into what we know it today. Bob Ellicott made significant and lasting contributions to our national story and our national institutions. He set a high bar for what the people of Wentworth could expect from their members. I think we, as Australians and residents of Wentworth, are fortunate indeed that someone with his talent and potential chose to devote so much of their career to public service and to making our country a better place. This example of public service and public contribution is one I will bear in mind throughout my time in this place and beyond. 16:02 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Bob Ellicott AC KC. He was an extraordinary Australian, as the member for Wentworth has outlined. Bob was a friend, a mentor and personal hero of mind. I regard Bob as one of Australia's finest Attorney-Generals. Like his cousin, Sir Garfield Barwick, he was what Clive Cameron described as a 'radical Tory', someone who believed in Australia, its institutions and its traditions but who wanted to achieve political, social and economic reform, and that is a tradition I would like to associate myself with as well. Bob lived a full and active life and held three of the great legal offices of state. He was the second law officer and then the first law officer. He was perhaps that last echo of the generation of the great barrister parliamentarians who wrote our Constitution. Bob was born and raised in Moree. He was the son of a shearer turned wool classer. He was a barrister for 67 years. It is hard for most of us to imagine doing anything for that length of time but he genuinely loved the law. He only retired from practice when he turned 90. He appeared in many famous constitutional law cases, even after he had been Solicitor-General, including Tasmanian Dams, Sue v Hill, Project Blue Sky and Smith Kline v The Commonwealth. Ellicot attended Fort Street high School, a school for gifted children from families of modest means. Like many in this House, his political career was fostered at university. He graduated with first class honours in his law degree and with a bachelor of arts. It might surprise those opposite to know that for three months while at the University of Sydney he was treasurer of the Labor club, but the gulf between the club's philosophy and rationalism and Bob's Christian faith made him realise he didn't fit. When he was growing up, the success of his double cousin, the young barrister Garfield Barwick, was constantly talked about in his home, and of course that same Barwick eventually became Chief Justice of the High Court. As a child of the war, Ellicott became transfixed by the powerful oratory of Winston Churchill and John Curtin in radio broadcasts. An instinctive fascination with public affairs was no less enduring. In the end, it surprised no-one when Bob entered politics. When he was appointed Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth in 1969 at the age of 42, his career as a great law reformer began. He was a member of the Kerr committee, which established what was then called the new system of administrative law in Australia, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Freedom of Information Act. These proposals were radical and far-reaching at the time and were significant in improving the rights of citizens in relation to the government. They are a great legacy of that generation of law reformers. He argued Australia's case at the International Court of Justice opposing France's nuclear testing in the Pacific. He unsuccessfully sought preselection for my seat of Berowra in 1972 when Tom Hughes QC—who, incidentally, turned 99 last weekend—retired. He eventually was chosen by the Liberal Party to be their candidate in Wentworth in 1974. In the 1975 constitutional crisis, Ellicott issued a legal opinion saying the Governor-General had the power and the duty to dismiss the government if it couldn't obtain supply. As he was a former Solicitor-General, his opinion carried great weight. Throughout his career, Ellicott strongly defended the actions of Sir John Kerr and Sir Garfield Barwick during the Whitlam dismissal. Ellicott served in a number of ministerial portfolios in government. He's perhaps best remembered as being a reforming Liberal Attorney-General from 1975 to 1977. What makes Ellicott such a hero of mine is his greatest contribution during this time: the extraordinary political achievement of three successful changes to the Constitution. It has to be remember that on only eight occasions has the Constitution been changed, out of 44 attempts. Three of those belong to Ellicott as Attorney-General. What he said was the secret was that he had a series of constitutional conventions in advance of the referenda going forward. Given Australia's history of referendum failure, to have achieved these three amendments is extraordinary. He ultimately resigned as Attorney-General on a matter of principle following a dispute with Malcolm Fraser over what he regarded as interference in his ability to exercise the discretionary powers vested in the Attorney-General alone. Ellicott went on to serve in other portfolios in government. Among his disparate contributions, he helped advance self-government for the external territories—if you visit the external territories, they still regard him as the father of those territories—and he established the Australian Institute of Sport. As the federal member for Wentworth, he was also influential in the establishment of the Inner City Legal Centre. After politics, Ellicott served an all-too-brief tenure on the Federal Court from 1981 to 1983. He was regarded as a very good judge, and in my view it's disappointing that he never graced the office of the High Court, where his talents would have been welcomed and celebrated. After this, he returned to the bar, where he practised till the age of 90. I got to know Bob through the republic referendum in 1998 and 1999. He was critical of the model that was put up by the Constitutional Convention, which favoured a president elected by the parliament as opposed to a popularly elected president. I also got to know him through discussions we had about the law over the years. As conference convener of the Samuel Griffith Society, I invited Bob to give his thoughts on Indigenous constitutional recognition. It's fair to say he would have adopted a much more radical proposal than I or other members of the society would have been comfortable with. He was a much-sought-after after-dinner speaker given his long experience in the law and public affairs. He embodied the living history of our country. In more recent years, I've spoken to Bob about issues dealing with Indigenous recognition. Only a few weeks before his death, he sent me a long paper he'd written about the Makarrata and the Uluru statement more broadly. I'm honoured to follow in his footsteps as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians. Alongside the impressive legal and political career, Ellicott had a strong social conscience which he showed in community service. Prior to entering parliament, he had worked as a Methodist lay preacher, and his family and faith were very important to him. He attended and contributed to the Baulkham Hills Methodist Church while he was living in the hills district. When he eventually moved to Elizabeth Bay, he worked with the Reverend Ted Noffs and the Wayside Chapel, and he eventually became chairman of Life Education Australia, which is primarily responsible for social and emotional learning in primary schools. Many of us remember our visit from Healthy Harold. Bob was also a devoted family man, devoted to his late wife of 70 years, Colleen. No matter what variety of role Bob had, Colleen would work hard behind the scenes doing whatever it took to make it a success. Bob was very kind to me over the years. He was a man of great integrity and principle, a man of intellect and forethought. Today I speak of a diversity of achievement and a life well lived. I extend my deepest condolences to the Ellicott family: to Bob's children and their families, including his granddaughter Madeleine, who has followed in his steps at the New South Wales bar. May his memory be a blessing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I thank the member for Berowra. I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I thank the Federation Chamber. 16:10 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Street, Hon. Anthony Austin (Tony) 144 16:10 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 As there are no speakers, I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I thank the Federation Chamber. 16:11 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Spender, Hon. John Michael, KC 145 16:11 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to pay tribute to John Spender KC, lawyer, politician and diplomat, and it's a particular privilege to pay tribute to him in the presence of his daughter, the member for Wentworth. I only had the opportunity to meet John once, when I was working at Australian Catholic University and he was a visiting fellow in our newly created law school. While I didn't know him well, I wanted to say a few words about some of the things we had in common. There are two in particular that I think of, and I'm grateful to the member for Wentworth for pointing one of those out. I went to Cranbrook School in Sydney. To date, I had always thought there were only two of us who'd been to Cranbrook who served in this place. One was Dugald Munro, who was the Liberal member for Eden-Monaro from 1966 to 1969; the second was myself. But the member for Wentworth tells me that her father, who served as the Liberal member for North Sydney from 1980 to 1990, spent part of his years at our old school, so it's lovely to have that in common. John Spender came from a distinguished family. His mother, Jean, was a published author, and his father, Sir Percy Spender, was the principal architect of the ANZUS treaty and the Colombo Plan and, like his son, served in the diplomatic corps as ambassador to the United States. When you think about the ANZUS treaty and the Colombo plan as two of the fundamental pillars of our postwar strategic policy, to have been involved in even one of them would have been remarkable, but to have been involved in both really speaks to the extraordinary service of Sir Percy Spender, and that service no doubt helped imbue his son with a calling for public service when he came to serve in this place. John Spender held a number of portfolios throughout his career, one of which was shadow Attorney-General, the role that I now have today. He was appointed to that role in 1985 by John Howard when he was Leader of the Opposition. Since being appointed to that position myself, I've actually appreciated the opportunity to better familiarise myself with his work from this period, and that's where I'm going to confine my remarks. John Spender launched the opposition's law and justice policy in June 1987. Now, it's interesting to reflect today, in a world where political parties' policies might be a few dot points on a pamphlet, that in those days, in the pre-Fightback era and at least until Fightback, there were well-developed, philosophically argued policies, and that was certainly true of the coalition's legal policy in 1987. It was a particularly important articulation re-establishing the core values of the coalition as we regrouped in opposition, and many of the tenets he outlined remain true today. It's particularly useful, in outlining our approach to constitutional reform—an issue that was regularly debated in parliament at that time—to have a look at some of those issues from my own perspective today. Like myself, John was firmly opposed to a bill of rights for Australia in those times. I went and read his speech on the proposed bill of rights act, and it's worthwhile quoting some of the words that he used, because I think they remain as true today as when he spoke them then. He said: The fundamental protections of human rights in our country are to be found in the courts, in tolerance and fair play, in a sense of justice and a belief in democratic institutions, in support for the rule of law, in respect by the majority for the rights of others and in restraint in the exercise of power. Where are these virtues, so cardinal to democracies, to be found in Russia, Afghanistan and Libya-all signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? … … … The Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a sham. To call it a Bill of Rights is to pervert the English language. It would be better described as a Bill of violations … Similarly, he quoted the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, who said: 'If society is tolerant and rational, it needs no bill of rights. If it was not, then no bill of rights would preserve it.' In his time as shadow Attorney-General, John Spender was opposed to radical constitutional change. When the Labor Party put forward the proposal of a brand-new constitution for Australia without any detail, John Spender responded strongly: We do not need a brand new Constitution, nor does the Constitution need radical revision, nor is there any groundswell of opinion in Australia for radical revision. By their nature Constitutions can never be perfect documents, but over the years the Constitution has served us well and Australians traditionally and wisely have been suspicious of those who call for unspecified radical changes to our foundational law. John Spender stood strongly for the independence of our legal institutions. When the Labor Attorney-General Lionel Bowen requested the then Director of Public Prosecutions to halt contempt proceedings against the New South Wales Labor Premier Neville Wran, John Spender stood up because this action fundamentally undermined the rationale for establishing the independent Director of Public Prosecutions, which was to remove decisions about prosecutions from political interference. He saw his role as protecting Australians from the threat of organised crime as well. John Spender supported increased telephone interception powers for law enforcement in order to crack down on growing organised crime in Australia to protect people from life-threatening situations, but it was important to him that these measures were paired with relevant safeguards to prevent the misuse of such extraordinary powers, including increased penalties for illegal interception and that such operations be accountable to the parliament. This was particularly relevant when international terrorism became an issue of growing public concern in the 1980s. A terrorist attack by the Palestine Liberation Front in 1985 saw the hijacking of the cruise liner Achille Lauro. I remember this event so vividly for its absolute terror. There were many Americans on board. The terrorists grabbed and brutally murdered a 69-year-old Jewish man, Leon Klinghoffer, who was in his wheelchair, before throwing his body overboard. In the wake of this barbaric act, John Spender travelled to the United States and was ahead of his time in calling for international action on terrorism saying: The time is long overdue for concerted, highly organised and planned action by the Democracies against international terrorism. Ad hoc measures are not enough to ensure the protection of our societies and our people, who are in the front line. Sadly, although the vicissitudes of politics meant that he never got to serve as a minister, the former Prime Minister John Howard, who is enormously respected on our side, described him as a very good colleague and a very successful frontbencher, and, of course, John Howard appointed him Ambassador for France on coming into government. I wanted to take this opportunity to outline a few of the issues that John Spender pursued as shadow Attorney-General and also to take this time to offer my condolences to John Spender's family and friends, especially his wife, Catherine; his stepson, Alexander; and his daughters, Bianca and our colleague the member for Wentworth. I hope they continue to draw inspiration from the life of a very significant Australian. May his memory be a blessing. 16:18 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise today on behalf of the people of North Sydney to extend our deepest condolences on the passing of John Spender KC, former member of North Sydney and Ambassador to France. To John's daughters, Allegra—who now serves as the member for Wentworth—and Bianca, to his wife, Catherine, and to all the others who knew and loved John personally, we are so sorry for your loss. John Spender was a distinguished politician and diplomat who was known for his intelligence, graciousness, courage and principles. He was a barrister for almost 20 years before entering politics like his father before him. From 1980 to 1990, John served as the federal member for North Sydney, and many in the community remember him well and fondly. He was shadow minister for aviation and defence under former opposition leader Andrew Peacock, shadow Attorney-General under John Howard and, later, shadow minister for foreign affairs. During his time in politics, John undoubtedly contributed to several important conversation, on topics including tobacco advertising, Australia's relationship in the Asia-Pacific region and equal opportunities for women in the workplace. He was instrumental in the passage of the Parliamentary Privileges Act in 1987, which now allows senators, members of parliament and witnesses to speak freely in parliament, and provides some protections to journalists reporting on those proceedings. John famously broke with his colleagues to defend journalist Laurie Oakes for his reporting of bad behaviour in Parliament House, and as I stand as a current member of this chamber I can't help but reflect he would be immensely proud of the actions that his daughter, the member for Wentworth, continues to take in this house as we call out the behaviour even today. John also bravely crossed the floor during his first term in parliament, voting to ensure that witnesses in the National Crime Commission would continue to be reimbursed for legal costs. This courage in the House is something that inspires many of us even today, and it speaks volumes to the fact that John Spender was a man of principle who stood by his beliefs. After leaving politics, John served Australia as a diplomat, building our relationships with France, Portugal and Cyprus. He was the Australian ambassador to France from 1996 to 2000, and was awarded a Legion d'honneur by the French parliament for his work there. John Spender lived a rich and full life. As French ambassador Stephane Romatet once put it, 'John lived at least four lives in one lifetime: law, politics, diplomacy and, of course, his personal life as a beloved father and husband.' John Spender has left a deep and enduring impact on our nation and on our community of North Sydney. And while I am now proud to sit on the crossbench with his daughter Allegra, the member for Wentworth, I know that even her presence in this place will not fill the gap that he has left. We know he will be sadly missed. Vale John Spender. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 on indulgence—I would like to pass on my sympathies and my admiration for you having the courage to stay here and listen to that. I'm sure your dad would be very pleased. I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 201906 I thank the Federation Chamber. 16:22 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Reith, Hon. Peter Keaston, AM 147 16:23 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash My experience of Peter Reith, of course, goes back to the very early days when he was preselected, elected and then lost within a few months before he even came to this house. I had a terrific, friendly association with not only him but also his brother and his first wife, Julie; as a member of parliament from 1990 to 1993; and then subsequently in later years. Of course I was able to see his performance in the House as the Leader of the House, and it was a remarkable performance. It was a performance that had this friendly air about it. His natural stance of his face, his countenance, was a smile. So even when he was attacking the Labor Party or the opposition as hard as he possibly could, it was done in a way that was totally inoffensive. It was done in a way that only Peter Reith could do it, his tall, loping body with his bent over style. And the last time I saw him was at Phillip Island. He was on the foreshore with a friend of his. I popped out to say hello. Clearly he wasn't quite sure who he was talking to, but he finally recognised who I was and we had a quick talk and discussion. He'd had a stroke prior to that, and now, sadly, Alzheimer's has taken his life. Others were far more closely involved with Peter. I was a backbencher in those turbulent days of reform after the election of the Howard government. I had my first two years in the Howard government from 1996 to 1998, when I was defeated again in that 1998 election campaign. I was the only Victorian to be defeated in that election campaign, so it was pretty rough. So my collegiate nature with a lot of my colleagues disappeared. It disappears overnight once you're not there. I didn't see Peter again until I came back into the House, but, because he was my next-door neighbour in my seat, we had quite a bit to do with each other in terms of activities. Politicians get together in the one party, and Peter was always a great friend. An even greater friend of Peter's was the former member for Eden-Monaro Peter Hendy. Peter's written some notes about Peter that I'd like to draw to your attention. These are Peter Hendy's personal reflections on Peter Reith. They're not mine, so I can't claim them. They are Peter Hendy's. Peter says: I originally met PKR when I worked as economic advisor for Andrew Peacock who was Shadow Treasurer, then Leader of the Opposition, between 1987 and 1990. Peter Reith impressed me from the start as a politician who actually wanted to get things done in the public interest. He threw himself into the big issues of the day, whether or not they related to the shadow portfolio he had at the time. It didn't matter to Peter. The big issues were there. He was into them. Hendy continues: Peter Reith was a big supporter of free trade and the bringing down of tariff barriers. He helped push the Liberal Party to these positions in the early to mid 1980s and urged supporting the Hawke Government to start the process of tariff reform in 1990. That is in itself a big contribution to economic reform in Australia. However, there was much more. Much more to Peter! Peter Hendy goes on: Equally, Peter Reith campaigned for a GST and major taxation reform well before John Hewson went with it in 1990-93. He was the driving force behind this reform. Peter says: I worked with Peter Reith directly between 1990 and 1993 when he was Shadow Treasurer. That was the Fightback period. I remember that period very, very well because I was on the Fightback committee. John Hewson gets all the public credit for this economic reform manifesto but it was equally the child of Peter Reith and a lot of the intellectual strength of the document also comes from him. Fightback didn't win the election, on the contrary, but it was slowly implemented by subsequent governments over the preceding 10 to15 years and was the foundation of much of Australia's current prosperity. Peter Reith was an amazingly considerate and collegiate boss. He made sure that you felt that you were part of a team and not just working for him. Peter Reith was a diligent, very hard working minister. I joined his office again as chief of staff in 1998 after having worked for two premiers in the NSW Cabinet Office. In the former job the premiers wanted ever shorter briefings One even insisted that no briefing note could be longer than just one page. When I asked Peter Reith if he wanted this he was aghast and said he wanted as much briefing material as was necessary to explain the issues. He was not afraid of the brutal workload of a cabinet minister. PKR was undoubtedly instrumental in workplace reform in Australia in the late 1990s, that has stood the test of time. His strength and courage (he suffered death threats) during the waterfront dispute was inspiring and the result was that Australia subsequently enjoyed a world-class waterfront sector that strengthened the country's role as one of the globe's great exporting nations. Peter Reith was subsequently Minister for Defence and I remained with him as chief of staff. He threw himself into fixing the problems then plaguing the Collins class submarines and any number of vexing questions related to equipment purchases, from helicopters to missiles. It was at the time of the deployment of troops into East Timor and at the end of the term we had to confront 9/11, the invoking of the ANZUS alliance, and the invasion of Afghanistan. He met with world leaders and played his part in diplomacy between China and the US. When we visited Washington DC in early 2001, despite Defence Minister being his main job the PM delegated him to help persuade the new Bush administration to commence free trade agreement negotiations with Australia. So he also played his part in that significant policy result. When he decided to retire from politics after the 2001 election PKR told me simply that he had now been a cabinet minister for 5 years. He had made his contribution. If he thought staying around would result in the prime ministership he would. However, he reasoned that JWH would retire after the 2001 election— Wrong— and that Peter Costello would take over before the 2004 election— Wrong— and that he would miss out. So 'relaxed in his own skin', he thought it was time for new adventures. I regarded Peter Keaston Reith as my mentor and he was never shy in giving frank and helpful advice as the years went on. He remained incredibly interested in public policy and in my future roles as CEO of ACCI (2002-2008), Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Opposition (2008), and then as an MP and Minister in government (2013-2016) he was always on the phone with interesting angles and perspectives on the issues of the day. It was very sad to see him impacted by his stroke in 2017. There was so much more to his life and career, but these are some brief personal reflections. He will be sorely missed by friend and family. Peter Hendy 16 November 2022 I have seen many, many, many, many members come and go since my first time here in 1990, and his friends and family couldn't have been prouder of the contribution that he made, not only to this parliament but to this nation and to world affairs. I think Peter Hendy's words today about his friend, Peter Keaston Reith, sums up, briefly, a life that was well lived, with a great contribution to his family and his community, remembering he was first a councillor and then a mayor on Phillip Island and went on to do great things from small beginnings. Vale Peter Keaston Reith. 16:32 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak of the great loss to Australia of the former member for Flinders, the Hon Peter Reith. Peter was a beloved grandfather, father, husband, brother, and, as we've heard, friend and respected colleague to those who had the good fortune to serve with him in this place. As the current member for Flinders, I have the unique privilege of acknowledging his legacy as my predecessor and remembering his passionate service to the people of our wonderful electorate. I also personally have a lot to thank him for. As a young industrial relations lawyer practising at Corrs Chambers Westgarth in my twenties, I was sent to Canberra as a secondee to work on the Howard government's workplace relations legislation, more jobs, better pay bill in 1999. Peter was then my minister and later my Liberal Party friend and colleague. He has always been someone I have held in the highest esteem. The more jobs, better pay bill built on the reforms of the landmark Workplace Relations Act 1996. In his second reading speech for that 1999 bill, as minister for workplace relations, Peter said: This next phase of workplace relations reforms build on the objects of the 1996 system that we now know has worked well. They propose important amendments that are necessary in light of experience to improve the operation of the system, entrench its gains and extend its benefits more widely throughout the work force. They were reforms I was proud to contribute to. It is perhaps fitting that we speak to Peter's legacy in workplace relations in this place, in this week. Were he here today, he would decry the great leap back into the industrial era of the 1970s, to which those opposite would condemn Australian businesses. Peter was a fine lawyer, a graduate of economics and law at Monash University, and he fine-tuned his skills as a solicitor in Melbourne before opening his own practice in Cowes, a then quiet village on Phillip Island, which was, at the time, still part of the great electorate of Flinders. One of my constituents, William Vickers, was a law student with Peter at Monash University and remembered him fondly as the warrior he was then from the very beginning. Recently, Bill wrote to me: Peter and I were fellow students at Monash Law School during the tumultuous years of the Vietnam War. He was a lone voice in Tax lectures supporting the High Court under Chief Justice Barwick in its interpretation and application of s260 on tax avoidance schemes. Naive, ideologically-driven students like me argued constantly with him about tax avoidance, Vietnam, conscription, and student protests at attempts to introduce parking fees on campus among many other issues. What I respected even then— about Peter— before I matured and became a tax paying Liberal Party supporter—was his endless capacity to engage in debate with respect, logic and a willingness to listen: capacities not seen today in so much of the public "debate" and social media sewer. Bill goes on: Years later, we would meet at different forums in my professional capacity and share a few laughs about our student days. He signed his book for me with a typically pithy and good-humoured comment on those early interactions— at Monash. He was a rare combination of intellect, old fashioned personal values and belief in public service that stands in stark contrast to many inhabitants of our current political class, whether Federal or State. Peter's political career began in the Young Liberal Movement. He launched into elected office shortly after his move to Phillip Island. Elected to the island's shire council, he became shire president in 1981. On Phillip Island, Peter helped establish the local school of Newhaven College and a penguin research facility. This helped save the local penguin population and gave the community a thriving tourism attraction which so many of us know and love. Who didn't find solace during lockdown in the live feed of the penguin run from Phillip Island? We have Peter to thank for that. Peter won the Flinders by-election in December 1982, following the retirement of Sir Phillip Lynch, whose roles as Minister for Army, Leader of the House and Deputy Liberal Leader, Peter would later go on to emulate. Peter held the seat, against the odds, but lost it shortly thereafter in Bob Hawke's early 1983 election. He hadn't even been sworn in yet. But Peter returned to the seat of Flinders in 1984. When he finally got to make his maiden speech before the House, he described Flinders as one of the great places in Australia to live and enjoy. I may well be biased, but of course, I could not agree more. He took his role in Flinders more seriously than many of the other roles that he held in this place. In fact, I just had the fortune to run into Ross Hampton in the corridor, and he told me that, no matter who he was with, unless it was the Prime Minister, Peter would take every call from a constituent in Flinders, whatever else he was doing. More importantly, he promised to represent the people of Flinders, at that time, to the best of his ability—a promise he kept firmly for the next 17 years in parliament. Peter left an immense political legacy. His astute mind for policy was reflected in the offices he held, as shadow minister, from IR to education, foreign affairs and defence, education and sport, and more. Peter was an effective and dynamic Manager of Opposition Business. Nevertheless his most memorable achievements occurred under the Howard government, where he held ministerial responsibilities for industrial relations, small business and defence. He was a consultative cabinet minister and a trusted confidant of Prime Minister John Howard. By colleagues and opponents alike, he has been remembered as a rare politician who combined conviction, courage and charm, a stalwart of the Liberal Party, a magnificent and untiring soldier and a minister of true quality. 16:38 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I want to join all others in paying my respects and giving my thanks to Peter Reith. I think the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and everyone who has followed have spoken eloquently and to the point about what made Peter such a great person. The current member for Flinders has just supported all those speeches with a magnificent address herself. I want to talk a little bit about Peter Reith—the man that I knew. When I first became a candidate seeking election to the parliament, I went and saw Peter to get his advice and to seek his support. I've got to say that I was incredibly nervous going to see Peter because he was someone that I looked up to and admired. That's because growing up in rural Victoria in the seventies and the eighties, industrial relations had been at the heart of the battle that farmers had fought against a militant union movement that had held Australia back year after year after year and had diminished productivity in our nation. In particular, they had done that by crippling our wharfs. You've got to remember, when it comes to Australia, that we send more than 60 per cent of what we produce in agriculture to markets overseas, so it goes through those ports. If you're crippling productivity in those ports, you're actually crippling the heart and soul of regional and rural Australia. Peter Reith took on that battle and took it on in a way that showed immense courage. But he knew that ultimately it would lead to productivity gains at the ports that would enhance Australia as a nation. He never lost sight of that. It wasn't ideology for ideology's sake. It was knowing that his convictions would actually lead to improving the lives of others that drove him. He set about that task and he achieved it. He got great support from his Prime Minister but not always from his colleagues. It's a good lesson for all of us on our side. When the going gets tough, always unite around the person who is doing the tough things. It's very easy to pull back and say: 'They might be making a bit of a mess of this. I could do it better.' But, when someone is striving to improve this nation, collectively we should always back and support them. Peter Reith, fortunately, had the impeccable, strong support of his leader, and he did not take a backward step—and our nation is all the better for it. I know that Peter would look at what has happened in the last two weeks, with the industrial relations changes that have been made by this government, and would shake his head, because they are not going to improve productivity in this nation. In particular—and this is something that we need to keep a close watch on—they are going to do real harm to productivity at our ports, and that is going to hurt our nation and potentially set back the great work that Peter did. I lost my track a little bit there, but that was the man that I looked up to and knew and admired and followed. When I went and saw him, I came across someone who was humble, respectful and just keen to help. I can't thank Peter enough for the support and advice that he gave me. He ended up, with his family, with Kerrie, buying a weekend retreat in my electorate, in the Stony Rises, near Camperdown. To give you a sense of the man: whenever there was a Camperdown branch meeting and he was in the Stony Rises, he'd come along. At the Camperdown branch meetings, we'd have 15 or 20 people there and we'd have a meal. He would come along and he would just add his support, his advice, his wisdom. He never wanted to dominate the discussion. He never wanted to say: 'I've been there and done that. I know what's best.' He came along and just wanted to participate and contribute like every other ordinary branch member. That, to me, shows the calibre of the man. He had achieved the greatest heights and yet, after having done all that, he was still willing to just come along and help at the grassroots level—no airs, no graces. He didn't want to be revered. He didn't want to be giving the guest lecture or guest speech. He just wanted to come along and support and help the cause. I had the great pleasure also of getting to know, through Peter, Peter's sister Janet and her husband, David. They became great supporters of mine. I want to say to Janet and to David: I've really been feeling for you the last few years, because it has been incredibly tough for you and all the family. But you, I have no doubt, got your strength and your ability to deal with those tough times through the sheer admiration that you had for Peter and the sheer love you had for him. Janet, I will never forget at state council this year being able to have a chat with you about how tough things had been. We exchanged views on how sad it is to see a loved one just disappear before your eyes, and that conversation will always stay with me. The courage you showed in that conversation said to me that Peter was in great hands when he passed away because he had love and support of his family around him. For anyone who has been through watching someone they love die before them, I think the greatest thing when that happens is the love and support of family around you. It must have given great comfort to Peter to have that love and support of Kerrie, his sons and his broader family. Peter was an extraordinary man. It was my immense pleasure and joy to have known him. He was someone I will continue to admire for the rest of my days. Australia has lost a giant. We are the poorer for it, but he gave every moment of his life to improve the lives of those around him and he should be absolutely commended for that. 16:46 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra It is such an honour today to speak about Peter Reith and to follow the excellent contributions of my friends the member for Monash, the member for Flinders and the member for Wannon and to be the warm-up act for the member for Riverina in speaking about someone the member for Wannon quite rightly described as an extraordinary Australian. Peter was a great hero of mine. I think he was the most complete parliamentarian ever to set foot in this building. I had the pleasure of knowing him both during and after his career. What marked Peter out as extraordinary was that he had the rare combination of both policy and political skills. Some of us are great policy wonks; some people love the fight. He loved both and was good at both. He was always prepared to argue and fight but he was one of the greatest original thinkers of his time and this continued even after he left parliament. His role in defeating the unnecessary 1988 referenda during his time as the then shadow Attorney-General was immensely important, and his campaign ensured that those referenda suffered the worst defeat of any referenda in Australia's history. Throughout his entire political career he remained at the vanguard of policy formulation for the coalition. Although the 1993 election was unsuccessful for our side, his work as one of the principal authors of Fightback set up the coalition for success during the years of the Howard government. The policy gave them an agenda and a set of principles that saw more choice, greater freedom and greater use of markets. However, what Peter was best known for was his work in industrial relations reform. Peter always sought three things from his industrial relations reforms: more jobs, better pay and more productivity for the economy. These things were better for employers, they were better for workers and they were better for Australia overall. The Australian workplace agreements that he proposed were very important in achieving productivity during that period and his reforms set us up to provide the flexibility in our labour market to see Australia weather the storms of the Global Financial Crisis and COVID-19. His tireless campaign to achieve changes on the waterfront came at great personal cost to Peter and his family but he was ultimately successful. Peter Reith was lucky that at that same time he had as a partner the businessman Chris Corrigan, who was prepared to fight alongside him to achieve the much-needed reform. It is to be remembered there was a number of crane lifts on the waterfront. The numbers were something of the order of fewer than 10 and then, as a result of Peter's reforms, they went to more than 20. The MUA would go on strike for all sorts of strange things—the felt on the pool table had been ruined and off they would go on strike. These reforms took an extraordinary toll on both men. The threats to Peter Reith and Chris Corrigan by the Maritime Union became so severe that Chris Corrigan and his family were eventually forced to go into hiding overseas. Peter also needed to have close personal protection for the rest of his time in parliament. However, the work of these two men was essential to ensure the Australian economy continued to function. We are an island nation and we need a ports to work reliably and efficiently and, without these reforms, that never would have happened. I want to acknowledge that personal cost I spoke about and particularly speak about the Corrigans for a minute. I had the privilege, in the years of the waterfront dispute, of serving on Woollahra council with Valerie Corrigan. She was easily my best mate on the council, and she is Chris's wife. The threats that I saw to her family and what they had to endure were extraordinary, and I just want to acknowledge their bravery and the bravery and steadfastness of the Corrigan and Reith families. Outside the industrial relations sphere, Peter made a very valuable contribution to policy development throughout his time in both government and opposition. Even at the height of the industrial relations dispute, he made significant achievements as the Minister for Small Business, inventing the 'new deal, fair deal' workplace agreements package. He implemented the unconscionable conduct provisions in the Trade Practices Act and a legally enforceable franchising code. He was staunchly opposed to power monopolies and sought to oppose them at industrial and commercial levels. He established the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme from January 2000. This provided a safety net for employees who lost their jobs as a result of their employers' insolvency. While each of these achievements by themselves is extraordinary and should be highly commended, as a politician with a deep interest in constitutional law, his 2000 policy paper Breaking the gridlock is of particular interest. This paper became the foundation of the industrial relations framework we still have today. It was a revolutionary idea to use the corporations' power to create a national industrial relations system, and it famously withstood a High Court challenge after its implementation in 2005. Peter Reith was a true champion of policy reform. If you go to the Parliamentary Library, there are 30 volumes of policy idea papers that Peter Reith himself wrote that are available to look at. That is an extraordinary record and something that I think no one in this building is likely to emulate, but it just shows the extraordinary nature of the man. I really got to know Peter during the republic referendum campaign in 1999. Peter was a direct election republican. I know some people have accused him of being a closet monarchist and using this as a ruse, but I don't think it was true. We had lots of conversations about this. Peter, in his brief period in the wilderness, joined with Ted Mack and Cheryl Kernot to write a series of papers about direct democracy—things like citizens initiated referenda. His support of a directly elected President was completely consistent with that view, and, in typical Peter Reith fashion, he put out a detailed policy paper explaining how an elected President might work. Still, in an Australian policy context, I think it is the only really detailed work that has been done on that subject. I really enjoyed campaigning with Peter during the referendum period. I got to see him close up and see how he operated. He loved a campaign, he wasn't afraid of a fight and he made sure he had marshalled all the arguments and knew the response to his opponent's argument. Later in 2013, we worked together as part of the citizens committee against the local government referendum, following a decision of the now Prime Minister and Attorney-General to distribute campaign funding completely unevenly for that referendum campaign, giving effectively $34 million to the 'yes' side and $500,000 to the 'no' side. I remember us having meetings—there was Peter Reith, Nick Minchin, Tim Wilson and me—with various people, trying to work out how we could stretch that half a million dollars, and we realised it was not going to go very far. It was a shocking incident of the government trying to buy the Constitution and something that should never, ever happen again. Peter and I spoke together at various events over the years, and he was very encouraging of me in a personal and professional capacity and was particularly keen to encourage me to come here and work as a staffer to his little brother in politics, Tony Abbott. Tony followed him in the workplace relations policy area and took on some of Peter's excellent staff. He really had first-class staff over the years, and I was particularly privileged to work with Peter Anderson and Mary Jo Fisher, who were at the vanguard of reform. Tony also followed Peter into being Leader of the House, and while I was working with Tony one of my jobs was to prepare for question time. Tony Abbott's preparation for question time involved a range of people sitting around the table and firing questions at him so he would be ready for any eventuality. This was obviously not a practice that Peter engaged in, because once he opened the door to try and find Tony and saw this practice going on, and I remember him sitting in question time later with John Howard, as Tony got up to answer his question, and signalling to John that he had been in this room with all these people going around and the two of them having a good laugh about it all. I was sad when Peter's career was cut short in 2001. I believe he could have easily led the party into the future. When Peter left the parliament, he then went on to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and we kept in touch. I went to visit him when he was in that role, and in typical Peter Reith fashion he was looking to reform that institution and had been stymied in the way that one gets in relation to international bureaucracies. He showed me his office where he had this set of stone tablets behind him in a bookcase and he said to me, 'You'll see our library needs a bit of updating!' We had lunch together; we talked about the state of the party in opposition and what we could do to get ourselves into government. I strongly encouraged Peter to run for the party presidency. I thought anyone who could stare down the unions in the way he had done would be able to stare down the factional operatives in some of our state divisions and clean up our party. I know I certainly wasn't the only person to have encouraged him to pursue these roles and it's a great sadness to me that Peter never became party president. I think Peter would have done a very good job in steering the organisation. When Peter eventually came home from his appointment I threw him a welcome home party in Sydney and, despite the fact New South Wales was not his home state and he was long out of politics, the event was attended by hundreds of people who admired the man who took the fight to Labor and wanted to hear from him. I remember at this same dinner, as some of the auctions and speeches went on, I said to Peter, 'I bet you don't miss any of this.' And he said to me, 'Julian, I miss all of it.' He really loved politics. He really loved being part of public life. He loved the public conversation. He loved people and he loved the Liberal Party. Peter was twice a referee for me in preselection, and I remember, when I was thinking about standing for a particular seat and wasn't sure whether to do so or not, I rang him and Peter was encouraging, as he always was, and he said, 'Julian, there's never a time not to stand for a preselection.' I think he told me the story of Lindsay Thompson, the former Victorian Premier who'd stood for 13 preselections before he finally got there. Peter was endlessly encouraging. He regularly had me on the Beattie and Reith program on Sky to talk about the issues of the day, and I am very grateful to him that, in my time working at Australian Catholic University—after having a discussion about what I was doing—he had been involved in the arrangement of my appointment as a director of the Mercy Health board. I know that will sound a very strange thing, considering neither Peter nor I were Catholic, but Peter's best friend and the groomsman at his wedding was a fellow called Julien O'Connell, who was the chairman of Mercy Health, and at Peter's recommendation Julien gave me the opportunity to help the board deal with some of the challenges they were facing, and I'm grateful for the opportunity and learned a lot about health care and aged care in the Catholic tradition. And that was Peter. He was just looking for opportunities to encourage people to pursue good works in public life. I'm sad that, in the last few years, Peter's health's meant that he didn't have the retirement he deserved. I haven't seen or spoken to him since he first had his stroke but I heard lots from Julien about how he was going. Peter Reith was one of those rare Liberals whose popularity across the party was legend. At one of his birthday parties he could have every Liberal leader from Malcolm Fraser on—and there are not too many Liberals who could've done that. He was, of course, particularly close to John Howard, and everyone admired him because he was a man of principle who was prepared to fight. I am grateful to have known Peter as a mentor, as a wonderful Liberal, as a great warrior and as person of such decency and encouragement. To Kerrie and his family: may his memory be a blessing. He is a man much missed on our side of the House and much missed by everybody who has been keenly touched by him. I feel his loss very much indeed. May his memory be a blessing. 16:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina One in five Australian jobs is reliant on trade. In regional Australia that number is one is four, and for those people in the regions who rely on trade, Peter Reith was one of their heroes because, during the 1997-98 waterfront disputes, the work that he did, the contribution he made and the efforts he went to ensured that trade was enabled, trade was enhanced and many of the barriers to trade were lifted. They needed to be. I know that Griffith is a vibrant city in—I'll say the Riverina area. It's actually in the electorate of Farrer now; it has been since 2016—more's the pity. It was in Riverina from Federation through to the redistribution. Almost 98 per cent of product from Griffith goes through Melbourne ports. It's a staggering statistic for a New South Wales town, but Griffith is reliant on throughput at a port. So many jobs in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and, in more recent years, the Coleambally Irrigation Area are reliant on that port functioning smoothly. But in the late 1990s it was not, and unions ruled the roost, and Peter Reith was assigned the job of making sure that the ports were back to functioning normally for those people reliant on trade. Andrew Clark, the senior writer at the Australian Financial Review, wrote a very good article on 9 November, the day after Peter Reith, sadly, passed. It was headed 'Peter Reith "wrote the playbook" on the brutal game of politics'. Indeed he did. In the article, journalist Clark mentions an anecdote: During the 1993 federal election campaign, an onlooker in Broken Hill, Australia's toughest union town, was astonished to see Peter Reith alone on a street corner extolling the virtues of Fightback … We all know that Fightback wasn't quite as successful as some might have liked. It, of course, was the Liberal Party's free market policy agenda, amongst other things. The article continues: "Initially, he was ignored but eventually, he was encircled by an increasingly angry crowd of burly miners and furious women denouncing his message," the onlooker recalled. "An imposingly big and snarling sort of man, Reith was undeterred and returned the crowd's hostility in kind, which eventually saw them disperse in disgust." At the time, Reith was the Liberal Party's deputy leader … Over more than 17 years of involvement in federal politics—in six terms, I might add—he was one of the Liberal Party's warriors. I don't belong to the Liberal Party; I belong to the National Party. But I know the value that Peter Reith brought not just outside of politics but, moreover, to the Australian nation. The unions were too militant—they just were—and his work enabled the wharves to operate far more functionally. He was well educated, at Brighton Grammar School and Monash University. He was well qualified in economics and law. He had practised as a solicitor. He had been in local government, elected to that first level of government. Indeed, he was shire president in his last year on the Shire of Phillip Island, in 1981. It is very sad that a man of such distinction, such worth and such merit should pass from Alzheimer's disease, because it is a crippling, insidious disease, and it must have been so sad for his wife, Kerrie, and his sons, Paul, Simon, David and Robert, to see this man of such great capacity diminish before their very eyes. But we are grateful for Peter Reith's involvement in the national discourse, the national debate. We are blessed to have had him to do the work that he did. Not only was he a fearless minister but he was also a good local member. He represented the electorate of Flinders. All he ever wanted to do was represent that electorate to the best of his ability, and he did that. That was his credo in his maiden speech, but he achieved that, in spades. He was called upon to do the tough work on the wharves, and tough work it was, and we remember him for that. We honour him for his service in the industrial relations space, education, foreign affairs, defence, education, sport and more than that besides. We heard the member for Berowra talk about the 30 volumes of policy documents and ideas that Mr Reith had. He packed a lot into his six terms as a parliamentarian. We honour his memory, and we're thankful for his service to this great nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so. Honou rable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I thank the Federation Chamber. 17:04 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 154 MOTIONS National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 154 17:04 Mr ROB M3E McEwen MITCHELL () (): The national apology came as a result of the five-year Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. This is something that was done by former prime minister Julia Gillard, and something that I still rate probably as the pinnacle of my career was being part of that and seeing that develop and grow to actually do something genuine that helped victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. It's up there with the NDIS as two of the great things that we have done in government. It's an absolute monument to Julia Gillard's integrity that she went and did that at a time when there were people in this place who thought it was wrong to do that. They thought it was a witch hunt against certain religious organisations. But, as the then Prime Minister said, this is about the victims. So the royal commission was started, and it went through some of the most harrowing and terrible things that we can imagine. When we went through that process of putting it together, we, as government MPs and opposition MPs, went out into our communities and spoke about it. It's something you hear of; it's something that you might occasionally come across; but I was absolutely blown away by how many people came forward at that time and gave their stories in my community. It's something that just sticks with you when you sit down and you hear the stories—just how appalling they were. But the thing that really stuck in my craw was how the victims were never believed. It was always systematic abuse that was happening. It was always the child victims who were the ones left to carry the burden and, unfairly, to carry the pain for many, many decades. I think about a couple of stories that come to mind whenever I talk about this. One was a friend of mine. When we spoke about this, we went to a meeting and we talked about why the government was putting together a royal commission and why it needed to be done. And he contacted me and said, 'I've never, ever told my story, but, after listening to what you're doing and what your government wants to do, I'm actually going to come out and talk about what happened to me.' I thought that was just so amazing—that what we were doing was giving people the opportunity to have their say. Another story that I always remember is speaking to a bloke one day after the apology. I went outside to have a cigarette, and he was there, and we had a chat. This fellow had had a pretty rough life. In and out of institutions, he had really done it tough. I remember him sitting there holding a piece of paper, and he said: 'This is the most important document in my life, because finally someone believes me. All the years I've gone through and all the pain that I went through, and I was always the one that was never believed, but now, finally, it's been recognised.' Certainly, in the past 12 years, that rates to me as one of the high points in this place. There are many things that we do together and things that we do opposite that have impact, but it was, I think, finally standing up and saying, 'Yes, we do hear you, we do see you, we listen to you and we believe you.' And then we moved on to going after the perpetrators. Some of these things, as I said, were just harrowing. I can remember sitting with a lady in my office. They were talking about one particular parish where offences had occurred. What did they do? They moved that priest out and put another one in, who continued to abuse children in his pastoral care. What's the chance that you would have two in a row? You'd think, 'Wow, that's a real problem,' but imagine the shock when we found out there were three—three priests in the one parish. They just rotated them through. I'm not going to repeat the stories of what happened with those kids because it just turns your stomach. How people could do that to children is just beyond me—absolutely beyond me. We went through the royal commission, we went through all of that, we had the reports done and then a national apology was given. It was great that it happened. It should have happened a lot earlier—hindsight's a wonderful thing—but it did happen. And I think it happened because members of parliament actually put down their armour and said, 'We've got to fix this; we've got to do something.' It happened because we had a Prime Minister of courage, conviction and the only former Prime Minister in this country that I've worked with for whom I have absolute respect for the way she conducted herself in the parliament and after the parliament, and particularly around this issue which was so important and so close to home. It was an example of where we can get together and do good and address a situation that should never have happened. So when the apology was given, it was an absolutely positive experience to be there and see that happen and to know that what we were doing was righting a wrong, a wrong that happened to so many vulnerable kids who had no say in it. They were treated badly; they were treated appallingly. And for many, many years they had to carry a burden of guilt. We know there are over 600 non-government organisations—from charities and community groups to churches and schools and universities—that have signed up for the Redress Scheme, which was established following the royal commission. Some 70,000 sites are participating in the scheme, and to date the scheme has received over 20,000 applications and has delivered close to 11,000 outcomes. That's great, but it's still not enough. The Victorian government, again to its credit—this is where you need to have good, progressive governments who want to do the right thing—has joined the National Redress Scheme for children abused in institutional care. These are the things that should matter to us: the way we want our nation to be, how we want our children to be treated and the values that we carry inside us. Sadly, there are organisations who don't want to participate in the Redress Scheme, who are holding out. They're not admitting they have done wrong and they're certainly not accepting their responsibilities. That is a national tragedy that we should continue working on. We should start forcing these people to accept their responsibilities and right the wrongs that they played a part in. It was Prime Minister Morrison who gave a speech that addressed the situation. At the time it was something we all needed to do, to get together and have this apology happen and start on that path to fixing it up. But one thing that has been very strong is that, on our side of the chamber, it has been something that is very close to all our hearts. We want to make sure that our children are looked after properly. And those that have been—I will say tortured for want of a better word, but I don't know if it is because they've been tortured physically and mentally. We should look after them and we should give them the help and the support they deserve. To the victims that have gone through these harrowing experiences: you've got a government that's on your side, that will continue to fight for survivors and will work to make sure that the culture that harboured these things ends and is destroyed. We want to see those who perpetrate these heinous crimes swiftly, quickly and harshly dealt with. We hear you and we believe you, and we are all sorry for what you have had to put up with. 17:15 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I'd like to start by acknowledging all of the victims of institutional child sexual abuse and those who participated in the royal commission, because, on top of the unbelievable trauma that they endured as a result of the crimes committed against them, they were also very brave, being prepared to tell their stories, speak as part of that process and help propagate an understanding of what occurred in institutions in this country specific to the sexual abuse of children. I'd also like to acknowledge current members of this parliament and members of previous parliaments who have spoken on this topic over the years and shared stories personal to them and to family members, because that, indeed, is also very brave. On such a terrible topic to be addressing, I think the small solace we can take is that, while the stories are terrible, at least they have seen the light of day, because, by knowing the truth, we can acknowledge what occurred, address what occurred to the best of our ability here in the year 2022 and, most importantly, ensure that what happened in the past and the wrongs of the past don't happen in the present and into the future. The royal commission that led to the national apology had three extremely disturbing elements as a result of all of the various people who participated by sharing their stories. It commenced with a common thread of, first, never even being listened to. It was an era in which children felt that they couldn't raise these horrible experiences and crimes that had been perpetrated against them. They felt that it would be wrong to raise these experiences with a trusted adult. Then, second, as the previous speaker mentioned, if they did feel the confidence and bravery to raise what had happened to them or was happening to them, they felt that they wouldn't be believed. Then, third, there was the awful, awful circumstance for the first victims of some of these perpetrators, who might have spoken up and tried to report their experience—and sometimes did—of the crimes committed against them, where these perpetrators went on to repeat offend not only against those victims who sought to tell their stories and couldn't but against subsequent victims who never would've been victims if we had lived at that time in a society that did listen to those victims and did take action. Now, I've got the greatest confidence you can have that that circumstance doesn't exist now, in the year 2022, although, clearly, we can imagine there are still people in circumstances where they are too frightened to talk about the abuse that they are enduring or have endured. There's a lot more to be done—there's no question about that—and I, like everyone here, will look for every opportunity to improve where there are suggestions for legislative reform and other actions that government can take at a Commonwealth level on this terrible, awful, disgusting topic. There's nothing I can think of that matches the disgusting nature of the sexual abuse of children, but it's important that we acknowledge and talk about the nasty chapters of our history as much as the chapters that we're proud of. The royal commission that led to the national apology is a disgusting chapter in our history, but one we have to confront, be honest about, acknowledge—of course, the apology is that acknowledgement—and use as an opportunity to make sure that no little child in the future has to go through the awful horrors that so many little children had to in the past. We don't enjoy being confronted by the need to take action on this, but we are all joined in the absolute necessity of taking action. Once again, I pay tribute to so many brave people who, on top of everything they've endured as victims of sexual abuse in their childhood, have been part of telling those stories, leading to the point that we're at today, when, in the national parliament, we mark the anniversary of this apology. In doing so, all of us commit to our common purpose to make sure that we do everything into the future to ensure that the horrors of this chapter never occur again. 17:20 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I was sitting in parliament on 22 October 2018 when the then Prime Minister delivered the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. The apology, similar to the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, which was actually delivered on my first day at work in this building, was a recognition by the government of the day of the appalling treatment of some of this nation's most vulnerable people. That day, I remember looking up at the faces in the gallery of some of the people who had lived and survived this abuse, some of whom had endured and thrived, but too many of whom were damaged irreparably. All those people there that day and every person who faced these abuses were in my thoughts as the apology was delivered in this parliament. It was delivered with humility and honesty, and with a hope for healing and a commitment to make sure this doesn't happen again, as stated by previous speakers. The apology acknowledged the appalling abuse endured by vulnerable children by the very people who were supposed to care for them. This gross betrayal left immeasurable and lasting damage, and the apology, delivered in the people's house, was an admission that the victims and survivors were not at fault for this abuse. It was an apology for not providing protection from these abuses. It was an apology for not listening, not trusting their words and not believing them. It was an apology for allowing these perpetrators to be relocated and shielded rather than held to account for their vile actions, and an apology for the lifelong impacts on their physical health, mental health, relationships and the ability to live a life of full potential. For way too many, they missed out on the ability to live a life of freedom rather than enduring incarceration. It was an apology also to their children, to their parents, to their siblings, to their families, to their friends, to their spouses and to their allies. We know these people were there with them and helped them carry the lifelong burdens inflicted on them. The apology was also to those victims who were no longer with us—all too many of them—and to their family and friends who missed out on a life with them. My wife used to work for knowmore, the Commonwealth legal service established in 2013 to help the victims of institutional child sexual abuse. My wife is a very tough woman to put up with me. I know the member for Hinkler is nodding. Mr PERRETT HVP I'll take that interjection. Yes, she is a tough woman. She's been dealing with child protection, child abuse and domestic violence for 32-plus years. She has seen and dealt with horrors over the years that made me weep, and that was only after I heard her curated details second-hand. However, my wife told me, in her time working for knowmore, that the historical horrors she heard during her time as a solicitor were the worst things she had ever heard in all those decades of fighting to make kids safe. I heard the echo of her stories about her clients when I looked up at the faces in the gallery gathered here for that apology. It was an apology to all those who suffer in silence and are living with their abuse without the knowledge or the recognition from others, including those closest to them; to the people who have not yet reached out to knowmore or whatever law firm, and probably never ever will; and to those who will bear their cross alone and silently. I've met those people in my office, and I'm sure other MPs have. So I return to what I said earlier: this was not your fault. There is no shame you need to feel for the actions of those grubs who were assigned to care for you and look after you. The apology and the anniversary of the apology is an opportunity to draw attention to the lifelong effects that these abuses cause and to offer an opportunity for help and for healing. One of the quotes from the royal commission into this abuse highlights the effects and the unacceptable conditions faced by victims and survivors: … we were treated as slaves, beaten and abused, used for the Brothers perverted desires. … No love or kindness, no safety or warmth. Always hungry and always frightened. That sort of horror can cause the wiring of a child's brain to be set for life in ways that are not like many of the people in this parliament or many of the people in society. They are always frightened. If you found yourself in an orphanage or foster care or were a First Nations child on a mission, the machinery of state was geared against you. If you were one of those children and were able to escape this abuse, the local police would find you and bring you back, sometimes placing you right back into the arms of the very perpetrators you were running away from. If you tried to speak up, you would cop more physical and emotional abuse and would then be told to keep quiet. First Nations children were silenced by isolation and discrimination, cut off from country and culture. Children who could not speak up for themselves, kids with profound or severe impairment, were abused every day when they were being dressed and bathed. Silence was coerced by beatings, by forced labour, by threats of starvation, by the punishment of perpetual fear. Just imagine growing up with those life experiences. How would you have coped with that past? That affects and touches on your present and future. How could you sustain healthy relationships today, moving forward from that sort of abuse? How would you interact with government agencies and the police after having those lived experiences? How would you find a loved one after those experiences? If the price of peace is eternal vigilance, this institution of parliament owes protection to all our children, and we must be eternally vigilant in ensuring that no generation ever endures such an horrific scourge again. We will remember. Six hundred institutions did eventually sign up to the redress scheme. I'm not going to thank them for that, but I will note it. But I won't forget the grubby institutions and their shonky leaders and shonky lawyers who refused to sign up for the reparation scheme or the ones who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table, denying justice, denying process, denying everything and causing more misery along the way—adding the misery of today to the horrors endured yesterday. To the children who were done wrong by, whatever your age today, I salute you. Your voices were heard by your parliament, and you have created change. I won't forget. We won't forget. 17:27 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Moreton and others. I wasn't scheduled to speak. The member for Moreton's wife, I've got to say, is all class and does a very difficult job in difficult circumstances. I was in the parliament when the apology was made, and I do want to acknowledge the work of Minister Ruston, particularly in dealing with those organisations that did not want to participate. I also want to acknowledge the contribution from the former member for Swan about himself and his sister. He was quite remarkable in his openness about what happened to them as a family. Quite simply, it is abhorrent and unacceptable, and I acknowledge the anniversary. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 157 CONDOLENCES Bali Bombing: 20th Anniversary 157 17:29 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Kita semua keluarga—we are all family. At approximately 2300 hours on 12 October 2002 on the island of Bali, Indonesia—one of Australia's closest neighbours—Australia, Indonesia, the region and indeed the world would change forever. Families across Australia, including the Central Coast, and Indonesia were impacted through this unprovoked act of violence, this act of terror. Three explosive devices detonated at the Sari Club, Paddy's Bar and the Consulate of the United States of America. Dua ratus dua orang meninggal. Delapan puluh delapan orang dari Australia. Some 202 people lost their lives that night, 88 of whom were Australian. Ibu-ibu, bapak-bapak, nenek-nenek, kakek-kakek, anak-anak dan teman-teman—mothers, fathers, grandparents, daughters, sons and friends were lost. Following the explosions, people from all walks of life, people from all over the world, instead of running away from the blast—the fire—ran towards it without regard for their own personal safety to extricate and care for the injured—true bravery, selfless acts of courage. My cousin, a retired police officer who was on holiday at the time in Bali assisted those affected by the blast and assisted local authorities to identify those who had died. Many friends he had travelled to the island with would no longer return. On behalf of the people of Robertson, I send my deepest condolences to all of those who lost a loved one and who were affected by this horrendous act. We are all family—now, tomorrow and forever. Kita semua keluarga—sekarang, besok dan untuk selama-lamanya. Terima kasih banyak—thank you. 17:31 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I too rise to speak to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of the tragic Bali bombings terrorist attack in October 2002. I start by reflecting on the wonderful contributions to this motion by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House. At the end of that sitting week, as I recall, formal services were held around the country. Each year a particularly moving service is held in Sydney at Coogee Beach. In Adelaide we have one at Unley Oval, home of the Sturt Football Club. Like many sporting groups, members of the Sturt Football Club were on an end-of season-holiday in Bali—a part of the great camaraderie of being in a sporting team—and were victims of that attack. We will never forget in South Australia those victims, not just those who died but those who were injured and who have lifelong impacts after going through such a horrible experience. It is so touching to remember the effort and response of the Australian government, led by Prime Minister Howard, Australian agencies, the embassy in Indonesia and the consulate in Bali and the unbelievable work of those at the Darwin Hospital. Professor Fiona Wood, one of the most high-profile clinicians, was on the front line of assisting so many of those victims. Too many came home in body bags. Those victims who were flown directly to Darwin and Perth were given spectacular medical care. I have heard the stories about the unbelievable surge of those being evacuated out of Bali into Darwin and about the work of all of those who were there at the time as well as those who were dramatically and rapidly called in to be part of the effort at the Darwin Hospital. We acknowledge how, in tragedy and adversity, in this country we're so proud of the fundamental elements of the Australian character, and that includes how people will always rush to help their fellow Australians in absolutely any and every way that they can. Our Defence Force personnel, Federal Police and other federal agencies helped in the aftermath but also in the very important work of supporting Indonesian authorities in the investigation to make sure that those responsible were tracked down and that justice was served. There were 202 victims, 88 of them Australian, and more than 200 people were injured. Those injuries are enduring for everyone, because the memory of going through that experience is something that will last for a lifetime. Then, of course, there are the families of those who died, those who were wounded and those who were there, and we see the families who attend the commemoration services that are held around Australia every year to mark the anniversary. That period of heightened terrorism began with the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, which unfortunately led to a number of other attacks led by Islamist terrorist organisations like the attack in Bali and the attacks in London, in other European centres and in other places around the world. I hope that period is behind us. I don't have any reason to say with any authority that it is, but that experience is one that I hope our nation doesn't have to endure again. I was speaking last week at an event here for the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, which was established by Mr Walter Mikac, whose two beautiful daughters were killed at the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Making those reflections last week at that event, and now, a week later, speaking about Bali has reminded me of two of the most horrendous memories from my childhood and adolescence—of massive tragedies that absolutely shocked and gripped the nation. If there's one thing we can take out of it, it's the memory of how much we need to cherish those that we love and how we must have an enduring commitment to the values and the freedoms of this great nation that we live in. We do have people who don't like our way of life, who don't like our values and what we stand for—freedom, democracy and treating everyone with equality of opportunity. It's fitting, having made those remarks last week and these this week, to conclude on that point—that, whilst as a nation we have these tragedies befall us, if nothing else it reminds us of how enduring the Australian character is, how lucky we are to be Australians and how vigilant we need to be to fight for our way of life at every opportunity into the future. 17:38 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It was one year and one day after the terrible tragedy at the World Trade Centre in New York and other associated terrorist attacks in the United States of America. Those attacks changed the way we lived. Thereafter no-one could go to an airport without being totally and utterly screened, without having all of those checks take place. The memory of the loss of life on that day of infamy in 2001, 9/11, will live with us forever. 12 October 2002 was another such day. Australians, 88 in total, died in that attack. In total, 202 people died, with a further 209 injured. I remember very well the heroic stories, and there were many from that, but one of them for Australian football and sporting followers was Jason McCartney, who was injured at Bali. On 6 June 2003—not that long in the scheme of things after the devastation—he returned to the Australian Football League. He'd had a lot of hospital treatment and he had horrific injuries, but he returned to play for his beloved North Melbourne against Richmond. He was heavily bandaged, he wore a long-sleeved top and he had to wear protective gloves. He had the numbers 88 and 202 embroidered into his jumper, 88 representing the number of Australians who died in the Bali bombing and 202 representing the total number of deaths. Those numbers were also held up by many in the crowd. Not before and probably not since has there been such a show of support for a player from two sparring AFL clubs. Supporters from both clubs rose as one. I can remember watching it just on TV, and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up, because the bravery that Jason showed was quite remarkable—an inspiration not just to sports followers but indeed to us all. He only had a modest number of possessions, three kicks, one mark and one goal. But the goal brought cheers from both sides. Right towards the end of the game, with just two minutes left on the clock and Richmond in front, Jason collected a bouncing pass inside the forward 50 and he toe-poked the ball through to a teammate, Leigh Harding, who finished by kicking a six-pointer from close range to put the Kangaroos ahead for good. North Melbourne ran out as the winners by just three points. In a nice way to end the night, he retired from AFL. He fought so hard to get himself back on track to play that game, having gone through the Victorian Football League to get himself match fit and ready for the AFL—a more demanding major competition—and then retired on the night. He wanted to do it not for himself but in the spirit of all of those who passed away in the Bali bombing. In the Riverina, I knew some of those who lost their lives in that tragedy. Three deaths had links to my local area. There was Clint Thompson from Leeton—just a young fellow, who had so much of his life to give and to live; it was taken from him. There was Dave Mavroudis from Wagga Wagga. David's family and David himself lived opposite me in the suburb of Tatton. They were two of six members of the Coogee Dolphins football club. There was also Shane Walsh-Till, originally from Coolamon, and I knew Shane well because I played cricket with him. It won't be any surprise to the member for Hinkler that he was far better than I was at cricket. Mr Pitt 148150 No surprise there! Mr McCORMACK 219646 'No surprise there,' he says! Shane was a very good spin bowler. He was a very solid batsman. He went through the grades and straight into the firsts for Saint Michael's, my club—the club I've been playing with since high school. And the club still to this day remembers Shane, as they should, and honours him. The Forbes community wasn't in the Riverina electorate in 2002 at the time of the bombings, but it is now and has been since 2016. The Forbes community held a moving commemorative service to pay tribute to Paul Cronin, Greg Sanderson and Brad Ridley. They also died in this awful terrorist attack. They were there as members of the Forbes Rugby Union Club, along with 22 of their teammates, on their end-of-season trip. Many sporting clubs, football and otherwise, were in Bali. Bali is a destination of choice for many Australians. It's a place of adventure; it's a place of youth; it's a place of high spirit; and, sadly, it's a place of tragedy. Those left behind continue to be strangled by the evil tentacles of terrorism. Having lost a loved one, you could not get over it, but, indeed, their spirit endures. Many of the families who lost loved ones have memorials in their honour. They always remember this day, and the 20th anniversary has been a sombre occasion. They live with the cost of terrorism each and every day. But they are bigger than letting it defeat them, and Australians are bigger than letting terrorism defeat them, as are all people of good conscience and of good faith who are not going to allow terrorism to dictate the way we live. We all want our freedom. We're a very lucky country. We look at some of the atrocities being committed in other nations, still to this day, and we all should be thankful and grateful that it's not something that we have, but, indeed, the spirit of those Bali bombing victims is always with us. The price of peace is eternal vigilance. We will always fight against terrorism; we will always fight against evil. We remember those we lost, we honour their memory, and we love and respect what they gave to their families. 17:46 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, I join in offering condolences to the families and friends of those who lost loved ones in the terrible Bali bombings that occurred 20 years ago. On 12 October, the anniversary of that horrific night in Bali, the Prime Minister joined members of our community at Dolphins Point in Coogee to pay tribute to and commemorate the lives of those that were lost in the Bali bombings. They say that time heals all wounds, and 20 years is certainly a long time, but time can never erase the memory of a loved one, particularly those that were taken before their time, as many were in those horrific acts of terrorism 20 years ago on 12 October. I can still remember that day quite vividly. I awoke on a Sunday morning and was heading down to Maroubra Beach to do a surf patrol. I remember hearing on the radio that a bomb had gone off in the Sari Club in Kuta in Bali. I distinctly remember thinking: 'There are so many people from our community that are there at this time of the year. I hope no-one has been harmed.' Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Many members of our community were killed and injured in that horrific act of terrorism, particularly the six members of the Coogee Dolphins Rugby League Football Club. I had friends that were killed. Kathy Salvatori is someone that I used to see on a regular basis. She worked at the gym at South Coogee Juniors, which I used to visit on almost a daily basis. Peter Singer was my economics teacher in years 11 and 12 at high school. He lost his beautiful son, Tom, a member of the Coogee Surf Club, in that bombing that night. Many others from our community, the Buchan's, the Airlie's, and others unfortunately lost their lives. The Bali bombing left a terrible legacy on our community as well. There were others that lost their lives in the wake of that. Some from the Coogee Dolphins simply couldn't cope with the fact that they were there on that night but they walked outside when the bomb went off and their friends were lost. I want to pay particular tribute to Paddy Byrne, who lost his battle with the demons that he faced in the wake of the Bali bombing some years later. I want to pay particular tribute to the families that lost loved ones. I can't begin to contemplate what you have been through and what you have suffered over the last 20 years. But your strength, your courage and your resilience are incredibly admirable—the fact that you've been able to get on with your lives. Now we're seeing the grandchildren of those that were lost in Bali start to come through in our community. The twelfth of October is a special day in our area. We have the commemoration at Dolphin Point every year, and it's always well attended by members of our community. We have a follow-up commemoration at Malabar Beach on an annual basis for members of the Malabar community that were lost. We won't forget those that passed away in that terrible act of violence and malice. The other point about the families of the victims is, I think, that their resilience and their strength and their courage demonstrate that evil will never win in these circumstances. No matter what people do to us, no matter what people have done to the victims' families, their courage and their resilience and their strength have won out and they've continued on with their lives in our beautiful community. So to those who perpetrated these evil acts: you haven't won. You haven't done anything. You've just proven to be really small-minded, weak people. The strength of our community and the courage of our community and the love that we have shown for each other in helping get through these last 20 years are testament to the great honour that I have in representing the people of Kingsford Smith. I pay tribute today in particular to the families who've lost loved ones, their friends and the wider community that continues to remember and ensure that those that lost their lives in Bali will never be forgotten. 17:53 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Thanks very much for the opportunity to make a brief contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker. We've heard from speakers tonight who have personal interactions. They have friends that they know were injured or killed, and after 20 years there are scars that will never heal. And we all remember the images and the footage of those injured and the things that we can recall from that time. I clearly recall an Australian on TV telling first responders, 'Forget about me; help someone else.' And, unbeknownst to him, he'd been fatally injured with burns which would eventually take his life. The fact is that the Australian Federal Police responded in such a magnificent way in such terrible circumstances over a long period of time. There were the volunteers on the street and the individuals that helped out, and I think it is a great reflection on our country—the actions that our citizens took at such a terrible time in another country and the ability for them to simply respond because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do. Out of all of the footage and the images and the things that happened since that time, the strangest thing that sticks with me is actually a political cartoon. It was a cartoon where Australia was a Queenslander, and Australia was looking into the backyard, where there were some birds. There was a washing line and a clothesline, and Australia was saying, 'Oh, no, what about the kids?' And it was just such a powerful image—such a powerful image. It's incredible that 20 years has gone past, and it's why we will fight terrorism in all its forms. So I thank our Defence Force. I thank our first responders. I say to all of those whose scars will never heal: you'll never be forgotten. Those individuals, those Australians who were directly impacted will never be forgotten. And it's why we should always reflect and recollect in this place even those tragedies that directly affect not us, but other Australians. It is one of the roles that we should take so seriously, and we do. I acknowledge each and every one of them and what has happened in the past, and we must continue to work forever into the future to make sure that this is never repeated anywhere, no matter what we have to do. Thank you. The DEPUTY SP 249710 There being no further speakers, I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect by rising in their places, and I asked all of those present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I thank the Federation Chamber. 17:56 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham by leave—I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 17 : 56