2023-02-14 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 14 February 2023

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 1 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the following order of the day, government business, is referred to the Federation Chamber for debate: Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's speech, resumption of debate. BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022, Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 and the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 are referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 12:02 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022. The legislation implements the next step of reforms spearheaded by the former coalition government to roll out the consumer data right—protecting consumers, reducing red tape, improving cyber-resilience and supporting digital innovation in the delivery of core business functions. Whilst the coalition will be supporting this bill, we do have some concerns about the pace of reform, the imposts on business and the consultation with business. We are concerned that the government isn't listening to Australian businesses about the challenges that may stem from this reform, and we're concerned that the government may risk this substantive and important reform by failing to make sure that it's paced the right way, that it avoids unreasonable imposts on business that put at risk the reform being done well and that risk the social licence of the reform, because that's hugely important in the consumer data right. We strongly encourage the government to work with small business and consumers. Bring them along in the process. Don't leave them behind, because this has a lot of good things it can deliver for Australia—important reforms for Australia. What we don't need is a botched implementation. The consumer data right is a very significant economic and consumer-centric reform. Crucially, it empowers consumers to share data that businesses hold about them with accredited and trusted recipients to help them to derive direct benefits. This is all about making sure that we acknowledge that the best regulator of any industry is the customer. The customer knows what they want. The customer is the one that understands better than anybody else the product or the service that they're buying. The customer understands their own circumstances in a way government and a government regulator here in Canberra can never know. So making the customer more powerful in the relationship with the service provider or goods provider is crucial to strengthening the power of that consumer to get what they want and making sure those competitive forces in the economy that we all want to see succeeding succeed and deliver to customers what they want. This is where competition policy is moving. This is where productivity in this country needs to move. It's why, right from the start, I was a very strong supporter of this. In fact, I brought in some of the early reforms in this area and worked on them as digital minister many years ago. It's good to see a bipartisan approach to getting on with this job. The CDR was launched in the banking sector in July 2020 to give consumers and small businesses more power over their data so as to be able to compare and switch banking products, meaning a consumer could switch easily. One of the great barriers to a customer being empowered and getting a better deal is the challenge in moving their data. Not only does the CDR enable consumers to benefit from their data, it spurs the creation of new tech companies and innovative products and services. Basically, it reduces the barriers to new entrants, and we know from history that that delivers a better outcome. It also ensures that consumers are better informed. With a consumer data right, we know that products and services can be tailored to a consumer, and they can know in advance exactly what they're getting. Importantly, the consumer data right is an opt-in service. That is absolutely crucial. It was part of the design right from the start. It's not compulsory. It's an opt-in service that gives you the choice about whether to share your data, with full visibility of who it's being shared with and the purpose of the sharing. It can make it easier for consumers to compare products and services, as I said, and that comparison of products and services is very important for competition and accountability. This ensures that the consumer is the regulator of industries. We don't need all sorts of other red tape, and we don't need bureaucrats in Canberra trying to do that regulation when customers can do it themselves. It will give customers access to better-value and improved services and will assist financial and cash flow management. The consumer data right was always designed to grow over time. In government, we pursued expansion into the banking sector through open banking, the energy sector, open finance and into telecommunications. The bill furthers the implementation and rollout of the CDR by introducing action-initiation reforms, which would enable CDR consumers to direct accredited persons to instruct on actions on their behalf, using the CDR framework. These actions could include making a payment, opening and closing accounts, switching providers and updating personal details, such as an address, across providers. The tell-me-once feature, which we've all wanted when we move home—we all want to be able to ensure that we tell someone once that we've moved and have it flow through to all service providers, and we can avoid a hell of a lot of red tape in our lives. That's where we need to go. It will enable consumers to go to a single service provider and say, 'Please update all of my accounts.' The measures expand the CDR from a data-sharing scheme to a scheme that allows consumers to act on information they receive. They put in place provisions that provide consumers with the rights to initiate actions, the minister with the power to create rules regarding and to establish various definitions, obligations and protections for proposed third-party-action service providers. The bill implements recommendation 4 of the Inquiry into Future Directions for the Consumer Data Right in 2020 to strengthen and deepen its functionality. The recommendation was accepted by the previous coalition government in its official government response in December 2021. It cuts right across our economy. Rushing the implementation of the CDR with unrealistic timelines that could risk implementation failures and create exposures for businesses and their customers must be avoided. It's particularly important that the impact that the CDR may have on small businesses is right at the front of the government's and the bureaucracy's thinking on how this is rolled out. Small businesses don't have the resources of big employers. Done wrongly, this could wipe out small businesses and reduce competition, for an initiative that is actually designed to improve competition and contestability. Expanding the CDR needs to be done correctly, but it needs to be the beginning, not the end, of reducing red tape, supporting deregulation and putting the customer in charge of getting the best possible outcome for their needs. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 2

Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022

Second Reading 2 12:10 Mr LEESE 109556 Berowra R () (): The coalition supports this bill. This bill, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022, implements 21 of the 33 recommendations of the 2016 Moss review into the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. It also implements recommendations 6.1 and 6.3 of the 2017 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors, and recommendations 10 and 11 of the 2020 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press. I sat on the PJCIS at that time and support the recommendations of the press freedom review being implemented here, as I do the other recommendations implemented by the bill. All of these recommendations have been agreed to by the coalition, and we welcome these changes. This bill deals with the Commonwealth government's whistleblower protection and disclosure regime. It is an accountability mechanism. It's important that accountability measures achieve what they're intended to achieve and that they avoid the unintended consequences that can result in a bill's doing more harm than good. This has always been the contention of those on this side of the House when considering this legislation. That's why we're very much in support of making improvements to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, in line with the recommendations of the Moss review and the other reviews, which are enacted by this bill. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was a creation of the Rudd-Gillard government at the very end of its term. The member for Isaacs was Attorney-General at that time, as he is now, and he brought forward the bill just as the parliament was about to expire. There was perhaps inadequate consideration given to the bill at the time of its enactment. At the time, the coalition welcomed and supported the transparency measures. Through the committee process, the coalition helped improve the bill substantially. Seventy-three amendments to tighten and focus the act were supported by the coalition. Also key to those amendments was a requirement that the act be reviewed to gauge its impact. I'm very pleased that we pushed for that statutory requirement for a review, and that is how the Moss review came about. Through the course of the Moss review it became clear that further refining was needed. The Moss review made clear that, despite the good intentions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, there is significant room for improvement in how the legislation operates to give appropriate protection to whistleblowers in the public sector and, in doing so, to build the public's confidence in the public sector. At present, the purpose of the act is not being sufficiently achieved, as the scope is wrong and the procedures too complex, leaving complainants dissatisfied and agencies struggling to implement the regime. Let me quote from the Moss review: The experience of whistleblowers under the PID Act is not a happy one. Few individuals who had made PIDs— public interest disclosures— reported that they felt supported. Some felt that their disclosure had not been adequately investigated or that their agency had not adequately addressed the conduct reported. Many disclosers reported experiencing reprisal as a result of bringing forward their concerns. The review also found: … the bulk of disclosures related to personal employment-related grievances and were better addressed through other processes. Agencies noted also that the PID Act's procedures and mandatory obligations upon individuals are ill-adapted to addressing such disclosures. The review concluded: … the current PID Act provisions impair the effective operation of the framework. In this respect, the Review notes that there are two principal challenges: The PID Act's interactions with other procedures for investigating wrongdoing are overly complex … The kinds of disclosable conduct are too broad, rather than being targeted at the most serious integrity risks, such as fraud, serious misconduct or corrupt conduct. The Review found that while the PID Act is helping to bring to light allegations of serious wrongdoing, these disclosures are in the minority. Most PIDs concern matters that are better understood as personal employment-related grievances, for which the PID Act framework is not well suited. In short, the act is being used for the wrong purposes, and it is doing so badly. It needs to be tightened and focused in order to achieve its purpose. This bill is an attempt to correct some of the act's shortcomings. In particular, it will remove 'personal work related conduct' from the PID scheme unless it relates to systemic wrongdoing or reprisal action. It will provide increased flexibility around the handling of disclosures and provide clearer time frames. It will extend protection from reprisals to witnesses and those who may have made, propose to or could make a disclosure, and it will improve information sharing between agencies. It's worth noting that these are the types of limitations the coalition was concerned to try and address when the act was first considered in 2013. It is worth revisiting the coalition's position on some key issues at that time. Section 31 of the act was introduced to give greater clarity to what would be considered disclosable conduct. The coalition was rightly concerned that the definition of ' disclosable conduct' was far too broad and that the act would capture far more than it ought to capture. Section 31 made it specifically clear that policy disagreements did not amount to wrongdoing and could not be captured. The then shadow Attorney-General, George Brandis, said: … the purpose of this legislation is not to provide a platform for people to agitate political grievances or to provide a forum for people to use to tie up political or administrative decision making merely because they may disagree with the decision that has been made. The purpose of whistleblower protection legislation is and only is to protect whistleblowers who disclose wrongdoing. What we've seen in the Moss review is that the definition still remains too broad. While policy disagreements were rightly excluded by the coalition, employment grievances have clogged up the work of agencies and were never the purpose of the act. Agencies must not ignore issues relating to workplace grievances or conflict. Those matters must be addressed. But the frameworks established by the PID Act are not designed for dealing with those matters and should instead be focused on matters relating to wrongdoing, such as serious misconduct or fraud. Workplace grievances should be resolved through other processes. Finally, the bill makes changes to the National Anti-Corruption Commission to align the definition of 'reprisals' and 'detriment' with the definitions that will be in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. These are material mechanical improvements to the operation of an important transparency mechanism and the coalition supports them. In conclusion, we believe that whistleblowers and witnesses must be able to make disclosures without fear of recrimination, but equally schemes should not be open to abuse by those who would seek to cause mischief or achieve political or industrial outcomes through inappropriate disclosure. Getting the balance right on this legislation is essential. We welcome these adjustments that correct some of the past flaws in the hope that those who make disclosures are genuinely protected and that serious matters of misconduct are investigated by agencies. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee 4 Membership 4 12:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated members to be members of certain committees. 12:17 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Pearce be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works; (2) Mr Gee be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth and that, in his place, Dr Gillespie be appointed a member of the committee; and (3) Dr Gillespie be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 4

Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 4 12:18 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The Australian Constitution took effect on 1 January 1901 and established this parliament, the federal government, the executive government and the judiciary. Our form of government requires that the executive government, the Prime Minister and ministers, come from within the parliament and are responsible to this parliament. This is known as the Westminster style of government and follows the UK's model of convention. On 14 March 2020, the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, chose to have himself secretly appointed to administer the Department of Health and, by the end of May 2021, he had been appointed by the Governor-General to administer four additional portfolios. The member for Cook added Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs to his resume, while the majority of the ministers responsible remained unaware. It was an unprecedented act. Even in the face of the darkest days of world wars, no other prime minister thought it was necessary to consolidate power in a single individual, especially himself. When I first saw the reports in the media about the former Prime Minister's actions, I was disappointed and I was concerned about how the public would view these actions. These actions taken by the former Prime Minister undermine the public's trust in all of us, in all levels of government. Openness, accountability and trust are vital to our society and our democracy. The decision of the former Prime Minister has already been challenged in court, leading to issues with decision-making in the well-publicised PEP-11 case. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill that we're debating in the House today forms part of the Albanese government's response to the Bell inquiry and the actions of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook. When it became known that the former Prime Minister had been sworn into multiple other ministries without telling the Australian public, the current government sought advice from the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. His advice was clear: the 'principles of responsible government' are 'fundamentally undermined' by the actions of the former government. After this advice, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General appointed former High Court Judge the Hon. Virginia Bell AC to conduct an inquiry, which led to the amendments to the Ministers of State Act that we are debating today. The inquiry led by Ms Bell was at arm's length from the government to ensure that it was nonpartisan, independent and fair. This bill amends the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide further transparency and accountability at a Commonwealth level. It ensures that the Australian people are provided with information about the composition of the federal Executive Council, who has been appointed and what responsibilities they have. This bill forms one of the government's responses to Ms Bell's recommendations. Specifically, the bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument—registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as practicable—that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn in an executive councillor to the federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state or directed a minister of state to hold an office. This bill will also require notification of the revocation of any of these positions. The Australian public expect and deserve to know where responsibility is placed. This is the basis of our system. There must always be a clear line of accountability that leads to a responsible minister. That simple, fundamental premise, which was an established norm, is what was undermined by the previous government and the previous Prime Minister. Unfortunately, there's been a clear gap in how our systems operate, but the previous Prime Minister, when he found out about it, didn't consider action was necessary to close it. When it was realised that there was a flaw in our system, it was not fixed immediately; rather, it was exploited. There is no justification for undermining our political system, and it's a shame to me that this bill is even necessary. The former Prime Minister's explanation and justification was based on the COVID crisis. While that's not enough of a justification to erode trust in democracy and undermine the established norms that have formed the foundation of this parliament since Federation, I can understand how, very early in the pandemic, when the government was trying to plan for each and every eventuality, it may have made sense. What does not bear scrutiny is that the former Prime Minister kept swearing himself into portfolios until early 2021, long after the first wave of lockdowns and long before the delta outbreak. In fact, the only exercise of the former Prime Minister's new-found power was political in nature: overruling the other ministers for industry, science, energy and resources on the PEP-11 decision. And now we have the courts telling us how many problems that has caused. The former Prime Minister had all the powers that came with administering these departments, and none of the accountability. Criticism of these actions is not just political, and it should not be. Three previous Liberal prime ministers have also condemned these actions. This bill will restore the checks and balances that our system relies on. It will ensure that one person cannot acquire power without any accountability or responsibility. The Australian people should not find out about the undermining of our political system in a book published two years later. The Albanese government is focused on restoring trust and integrity to politics. This bill, like the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation, seeks to help the Australian people regain lost trust in all of its governments—the trust that has been significantly eroded in recent years. Democracy across the world faces challenges with the rise of authoritarianism. So it is vital—now, more than ever—that we safeguard our political system. The people who elect us to this parliament must feel that they can trust the fundamentals of our democracy and the checks and balances that provide integrity and stable government. That trust is a unique requirement for democracy to function. The power exercised by the parliament derives from the trust that the people of Australia place in us, their elected representatives. We are accountable to them. The Albanese government knows this, and that's why we have moved quickly, closing this loophole as well as providing greater transparency and integrity to the entire political system through the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This is our responsibility to the Australian people, and I commend the bill to the House. The SPE 53517 The question is that the bill be now read a second time, and I give the call to the honourable member for Bruce. 12:26 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce That's two government speakers in a row, Mr Speaker. It's a bit of a sign that the opposition doesn't really want to talk about this. I remember, as a lot of Australians do, the day when Tony Abbott knighted Sir Prince Philip! Some commentators and pundits were distraught, as they concluded that it was the death of irony—that comedians would henceforth be out of business, as nothing could ever be weirder, let's be honest, and also downright hysterical, in a slapstick, WTF kind of way, Deputy Speaker. The former, disgraced, speaker Bronwyn Bishop actually threw member after member out of the chamber—including the member for Franklin, at that time, because she literally could not stop laughing during question time. But then came the previous Prime Minister, who secretly appointed himself as Treasurer, finance minister, health minister, industry minister, resources minister, home affairs minister—and who knows what else. You couldn't make this up. No-one in the years before now could have imagined it necessary to pass a law so that, when ministers are appointed as ministers, Australians are told about it—a new law to say, in our democracy, 'You can't have secret ministers'! Now, this bill, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, is only necessary because of the bizarre actions of the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook— Mr Perrett HVP A loose unit! Mr HILL 86256 Well, you said 'a loose unit'; I wouldn't use those words, Member for Moreton. Aided and abetted, he was, though, by his former cabinet colleagues in the Liberal Party, who knew exactly what he was like— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Member for Bruce, I'll just take a point of order. Mr Joyce e5d Mr Deputy Speaker, just on reflection on the acronym that the member used: I think it was not appropriate for this House and it should be withdrawn. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 You have made your point of order. I thank the member. Now, I was just getting settled into the chair, so I can't say I actually heard the acronym, and I'm not at— Mr Joyce e5d The member knows exactly which one it was. I won't— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Well, to assist the Speaker and the House, would the member withdraw, for just— Mr HILL 86256 Sure. Yes, Deputy Speaker; I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the member. Mr HILL 86256 I wouldn't want to offend you, Member for New England! Your delicate sensibilities are restored? Excellent! But I was talking, actually, about how the previous Prime Minister was aided and abetted by his cabinet colleagues—which includes you, Member for New England—and the Liberal Party, who knew exactly what he was like and what he was up to. If anyone hasn't read it, I recommend Bulldozed by Niki Savva. I started it one morning on my holidays, and finished 12 hours later on the couch. My step-count that day was a total of 506, involving me walking from the couch to the fridge and back again and occasionally to the bathroom, so gripping it was to find out what a truly dysfunctional government you were part of, Member for New England. You still don't actually understand how truly awful the previous government was. But the same people, when they had the chance, who failed to formally condemn his actions in a censure motion, say, 'This bill's alright.' The previous Prime Minister's actions—the trashing of democratic conventions and norms—have been the subject of endless jokes. But I'm going to surprise some in the House; I'm not going to spend my speech repeating them because it is a deeply serious matter, as evidenced by the government's decision to appoint former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC to investigate and report into those actions, so I'll make some serious remarks in kind. Australians rightly expect integrity, transparency and accountability from their governments. They expect a lot more, but those values surely are foundational—the least that people deserve. These are fundamental notions necessary for the effective functioning of democracy to ensure public confidence in our system and the processes of government—know who the ministers exercising executive authority are. But, unfortunately, for the better part of the last decade of our federal government, the government was largely bereft of these ideals, with the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook, having led the way in undermining Australians' public confidence in government. We saw it during the bushfires, the floods and the vaccine rollout. Whenever the country was in crisis the previous Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen, other than occasionally briefly emerging from wherever he was hiding—under the doona, in Kirribilli—to explain to the Australian people why the job of governing wasn't his responsibility, why it wasn't his job at all. He didn't hold a hose in the bushfires. He didn't order the vaccines; that was the health minister's fault—although he was actually the health minister, as we found out later! He didn't build safe quarantine; that was the premiers' problem. There was always someone else to blame. While the former Prime Minister was very keen on telling us what his job was not, he was a lot less keen on telling Australians what jobs he actually had taken on—that is, the five secret portfolios he had sworn himself into as minister. He was like Gollum polishing the ring: 'I'll amass more power. I know; I'll have another one!' But it took until August 2022, nearly 18 months after he was first sworn in as health minister, for Australians to find out what he'd been up to. Even when it came out, he then tried to hide the extent of what he'd done. He said he couldn't remember. Then he tried to make jokes about it on Facebook, undermining the entire system of responsible government—that ministers are responsible to the parliament for the offices they hold and the decisions they make or can make, the very foundation of our Westminster tradition. If only we'd known when he came out last election spruiking a slogan of 'jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs' that Side-hustle Scotty was actually referring to himself! In November 2022, former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC provided her final report to the government on the member for Cook's secret appointments to administer multiple departments of state. This bill forms part of our government's response to that very serious inquiry. The bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publicly announce, as soon as reasonably practicable, any appointments to the office of minister under the Australian Constitution. No-one ever thought this was necessary until this moment! For 123 years our federation has been around and no-one thought it was necessary to pass such a law, but here we are. In plain English, it will prevent anyone in the future from ever doing again what the previous Liberal Prime Minister did. The opposition, to their credit, have indicated they'll vote for this bill. They've said it's very sensible; that's welcome. But they're having a bet each way. They're talking out both sides of their mouths. On one hand the Liberals have described this bill as 'very sensible legislation'—but they're not here to talk about it; they don't want to talk about it—but on the other hand they're in denial about why the bill is necessary. They had their chance to take a stand and they squibbed it. They failed to vote to censure the member for Cook for his actions. When this House rightly censured the member for Cook, those opposite showed their true colours. They consoled him, patted him on the back and said, 'Well done; what a good job you did.' They backed him in. Even John Howard came out and criticised the disgraced former Prime Minister's actions. But the current-day Liberal Party, under this weak Leader of the Opposition, have gone so far off the deep end, so into bed with the extremists, that even John Howard's views hold little sway over them anymore. 'Weak' may seem a strange word to some to describe the Leader of the Opposition, given his aggressive macho carry-on all the time. But it's apt. He has no spine to stand up to extremists in his party room. He's so desperate to hold his ramshackle show together with bandaids, sticky tape and compromises that he couldn't even do the right thing, the basic thing—to defend our system of government and the Constitution and acknowledge that what the member for Cook did was profoundly wrong. Frankly, though, the whole situation wasn't just a reflection, then, on the character of the member for Cook and his obviously perverse obsession with the accumulation of ever more power and portfolios. It was also about his distrust and his disdain for his colleagues. How poorly the previous Prime Minister thought of his own ministers that he appointed his housemate. We'll get to him—we'll get to Joshie. In that respect he was prescient; neither he nor the other minister for health, Greg Hunt, remembered to order enough vaccines in time. Neither of them got around to building enough safe quarantine. Both of them, though, managed to pick fight after fight after political fight with the states and territories when it suited their own 24-hour media cycle interests. Only a few weeks after he took on the health ministry, though, the member for Cook obviously got a bit of a taste for grabbing more power and thought: 'Ooh, this is good! Who else can I secretly become next?' So he had himself sworn in as the finance minister as well—all that money. Unbeknownst to poor old Senator Birmingham, though, the member for Cook was lurking behind him in the shadows the whole time he was the finance minister. Did the member for Cook not trust Senator Birmingham to be able to capably carry out his role as finance minister? Now, I've sometimes found Senator Birmingham to be quite a reasonable person, but maybe the former Prime Minister's obvious distrust for him is a reflection on how moderate people, more normal people, are not welcome in the modern Liberal Party. But health and finance could only satiate him for so long. Just over a year later, in April 2021, he took on Industry, Science and Technology, alongside his very good friend Christian Porter, all unbeknownst to Christian, of course. When old mate Christian eventually walked the plank—'Well done Angus', the member for Hume, took over, never realising that 'Menacing Wallpaper', as a former Liberal MP described the previous Prime Minister, was already the industry minister. Not content, though, with that, he then went after Home Affairs. To her credit, the member for McPherson was rightfully outraged when she found out, calling the former Prime Minister's actions 'unacceptable' and calling on him to resign and leave the parliament. If only anyone over there actually listened to the member for McPherson. But even all this power was still not enough. So he turned on poor old Josh Frydenberg and decided to take his old job back and secretly swore himself in as the Treasurer too. The people of Kooyong, I must admit, did seem to agree with the previous Prime Minister's assessment of poor old Josh Frydenberg at the last election. What happened to Josh? I should say I actually quite like Josh. We went to university together. He's a very personable chap, very decent compared to many. Though he believes in absolutely nothing, except becoming Prime Minister. I said that about him once in an MPI, when I was first elected, in 2016, when he was the environment minister. I said, 'He's saying the right things, but he doesn't believe in anything.' Josh came up to me the next day, after question time, and said, 'I saw what you said about me yesterday,' and I said, 'Oh, what was that?' He said, 'You said I didn't believe in anything.' I said, 'Well, I said you're a nice guy and you don't believe in anything,' and he laughed and walked off, so that was that. He then appointed himself as resources minister. That ended well, didn't it? He made a secret decision on PEP-11. There was a fight within the cabinet. Too gutless was he to ask the resources minister to bring the matter to cabinet—collective, responsible government, what we're supposed to do. Prime Minister first among equals—not everyone. We've now ended up, post the election, as this truth has come out, in litigation before the courts, forcing the government to make a fresh decision with a blank sheet and clean up the legal mess that we've inherited from the previous government because of the previous Prime Minister's actions. This bill shouldn't be necessary. The disrespectful manner in which the Liberal Party—and I say 'Liberal Party', not just the previous Prime Minister, because everyone knew what he was like, yet still they let him remain as Prime Minister—has treated the Australian people and our democracy over the last decade has fuelled growing distrust. It's not the only reason, but it is part of the reason for distrust in our system of government. The Albanese government is delivering on the promise that we made to the Australian people last election to restore trust and integrity to federal politics, though we never even imagined this is what we'd need to do in delivering this promise. We had more in mind things like behaving like adults, telling the truth, answering the question at press conferences, taking responsibility, introducing a national anticorruption commission—stuff like that—but here we are. The bill will provide greater integrity and transparency around appointments to public office. It will be a small step, but it turns out a necessary step, in case those opposite ever get into government again, in restoring checks and balances to make sure that what the previous Prime Minister, the member for Cook, did can never happen again. I commend the bill to the House. 12:40 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I rise today in favour of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 as it will strengthen and protect the foundations of our transparent and accountable democracy. After winning the election, the Albanese government knew we would have to put in the hard yards to win back the public's trust in Australian politics after a decade of rip-offs, rorts and waste. It is why the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission was our top priority and it is why we have brought this bill to the House. It is to uphold what are clear principles and values, to uphold the expectations that the Australian people have of us and the expectations that come with holding high office. The bill will only strengthen the integrity of Australian politics. It will make sure there are mechanisms in place to ensure that never ever again can any megalomaniac individual make unorthodox and secret power grabs. I must admit, I knew a lot of work would have to be done when we came into government. After having nine years of the coalition and with public trust in the government rapidly declining, our place in the global corruption standards was something not to be proud of. Labor developed a plan to tackle the key issues voters brought up during the campaign: integrity, transparency and accountability. But nothing could prepare us for what came next. The member for Cook was able to use a loophole to monopolise and cement his control over cabinet but without them even knowing. The amendment bill is a defence of our democracy and its principles, something the previous Prime Minister wouldn't understand, considering he trampled on these principles in his blind pursuit for power. When the secret ministries of the former prime minister started being reported in August, the nation was shocked. The general attitude of the opposition was that it should be something easy for the Australian people to get over, despite being misled. While five secret jobs are often used as a joke on satire website 'Down the pub', Australians are still feeling a sense of disbelief and bewilderment that something like this could happen within our democracy. What the member for Cook fails to grasp is that what he did may have been legal but no-one who values our democracy or our nation would say that it was right, which is why we on this side are moving swiftly to implement the recommendations of the Bell inquiry so Australians can—which that might come as a shock to the other side—know who is responsible for which ministries and which departments. It is essential for what we do. The Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donahue KC, in the wake of the revelations, said, 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' The review that Virginia Bell AC conducted came from the advice of the Solicitor-General and the outcry from the public for action to be taken. To make this non-partisan, the government appointed an independent person from the outset of the inquiry. The review took contributions of current and former public servants, ministers, ministerial advisors, academics and experts in the fields of constitutional law and public administration. Ms Bell wrote to the leaders of the minor political parties representing the parliament, all the independent parliamentarians, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, inviting them to meet with her. Why do I go through such detail? It is because I want to highlight the lengths that Ms Bell went through to create the rounded picture of the situation and to highlight the utter disregard and, to be frank, disrespect that the member for Cook had during this process. While the member for Cook paraded around and said he would fully cooperate with any investigation, we ended up seeing the former prime minister not having the courage to meet with Ms Bell. He even squibbed it, saying that he would only communicate through lawyers. It is familiar, isn't it? I wonder who else in recent political history was known for running in the other direction when asked to take responsibility? This report found that the former prime minister's actions led to a highly centralised government, with even his own chief of staff in the PMO not being clued into all the portfolios that the Prime Minister swore himself into. The secretive nature of these actions had ripple effects across government. It was a tool that undermined public confidence in government. Yet, despite those findings, we are yet to see any remorse or any effort to help rebuild the institutions the member for Cook took a torch to. For another perspective, constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey from the University of Sydney called these secret appointments 'bizarre' and 'utterly inappropriate'. She went on to argue that the secretiveness of this ordeal spells a wider problem. The pandemic is often used by the member himself and his supporters as an explanation for his actions. If it is so good of an explanation, why did he keep it from the public? Why weren't the Australian people told of his secret plan to take over the government from the inside? If for some reason you are still on the fence about the severity and plain bizarreness of the former Prime Minister's actions, you can simply look to members of his own party and at what they said. The member for Maranoa, when asked about the secret ministries of the former Prime Minister, said, 'If you have a cabinet government, you must trust your cabinet,' and that it was the Prime Minister's job to create an environment where those decisions could be made, not just on his own. The member for McPherson went further and said that the former Prime Minister's behaviour was unacceptable and that she was 'concerned about the impacts of this going forward'. Even members of his own party recognised that our democratic institutions were being trampled and saw the need to rectify and take responsibility for it. The last bit is important—taking responsibility for. Those on the other side should be apologising to the Australian people about (a) what happened, what the member for Cook did, and (b) how they stood by and let it happen. None of them have come out and said that it's time to go. I am in total agreeance with the observations that the member for McPherson made about the ordeal—that the former Prime Minister 'needs to resign and he needs to leave government'. That statement should be read every single day. Every single day we should be reminded of the crooked actions that were taken by the former Prime Minister that left his colleagues in the lurch. His flatmate, Josh Frydenberg, the Treasurer, was his mate and sidekick. Yet he was shafting him from behind by appointing himself as Treasurer and not giving him the decency to even acknowledge that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Point of order? Mr Joyce e5d I think you know what you've got to withdraw. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E What do I have to withdraw? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Just for the benefit of Hansard. Mr Joyce e5d The member has brought into his speech a part that I think is demeaning on this parliament, and he should withdraw it. He shouldn't play games. Just withdraw it. Don't be a clown. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 There has been a point of order for the member for McEwen to withdraw. If it assists the House, I ask the member to withdraw. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Absolutely, to help you out. I'm more than happy to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I appreciate it. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E I won't raise another point of order on irony, because that would be a ripper. Even the member for Cook's flatmate, his best buddy, said his actions were an 'extreme overreach'. This is something the member for New England stands up and says is right and wants to defend. It's imperative that we protect the core values of accountability. It is reasonable for people to be demanding us to make sure this never happens again. It was such a big betrayal of public trust. It was built on a foundation of public trust being broken down by the former government. We saw millions and millions of dollars go on things that the public never saw. We got a $1.2 trillion debt. That was where we were heading if we kept the same regime we had before. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on a drought envoy for a report that was never seen. Apparently only a 40c SMS was all we got. That was the value we got for it. These are the things that happen. That's why this bill is about making actions speak louder than words. The Albanese government will continue to work to improve public trust in the government after what we've seen over the past nine years. We are sewing up these loopholes and putting safeguards in so that the Australian public can rest assured that the ability for one person to monopolise ministerial positions is stopped. The bill is implementing the first of six recommendations from the Bell inquiry, and we have committed to implementing them all. It follows the steps the government has already taken to establish a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, one that was opposed before the last election by the former government. Draw your own conclusions. This will make sure that the parliament, the party in opposition, the Public Service itself and, most importantly, the Australian public will be able to hold government and its ministers accountable. It creates transparent and accessible processes to avoid dodgy dealing in the background. We are doing this to fulfil Labor's promise to make parliament and all politicians more accountable to the people who give us our jobs. This is just one of the many initiatives and pieces of legislation we are introducing after making a policy of transparency and accountability a key element of our promise to the Australian people. I know this is important to Australians, especially to constituents of our electorate of McEwen. From community meetings to chats on polling booths, to conversations I have when I just pop down the shop, I know integrity in government is something that is at the forefront of people's minds. This bill will not only work to increase transparency and accountability to the Australian public but it will prevent people from using their ministerial positions as Pokemon cards, when they try and collect them all. I'll leave the debate with one of my favourite Irish sayings: anything that keeps a politician humble is healthy for democracy. We should all take that to heart, and that is why I proudly support this bill. Debate adjourned. Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 10

Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 12:52 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin This is an opportunity for me to speak on these three bills. At the outset, I will make clear to the House that the opposition will be opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. We intend to support the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and, save for an amendment, which has been circulated in my name, to remove schedule 4, we'll be supporting the remainder of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. Most relevantly for today's discussions, we will not be supporting the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. This is probably one of the most egregious examples of the financial engineering that we've seen from the government. Indeed, it has become a hallmark of the government since very soon after taking office—trying to facilitate significant government spending in off-budget items through funds such as this. I suspect that the genesis of the Housing Australia Future Fund, which we know goes back to the now Prime Minister's budget reply speech of 2021, was driven more by potential headlines, with the then opposition wanting to be able to say, 'We are proposing to invest $10 billion into housing.' Every time someone from the government says that, it is a falsehood. The government is not proposing, in this bill, to invest $10 billion into housing. What it is intending on doing, in a peculiar form of financial engineering, is to set up a fund of fully borrowed money—$10 billion of Commonwealth borrowings—with the hope that the returns of that fund could then be sufficiently high to be able to disburse to housing projects. Let's just look at that: $10 billion of additional Commonwealth borrowing—which, if we look at the current 10-year bond rate and where the markets forecast that it will go, would represent a $400 million interest cost each and every year just on its borrowing—to then be put into a fund to be managed by the Future Fund, in the hope that in good years, when equities and other financial products are strong, there will be sufficient returns to then pass through to housing projects. It's very relevant, I think, that this bill is before the House this week. I think that, unfortunately for the government, it is very bad timing, because I know that out there in the public there's an intense interest, and pain is being felt in households due to cost of living pressures—nowhere more significantly than for those who have a mortgage. What we've seen from the Reserve Bank are very clear messages to the government. The Reserve Bank, in very unsubtle ways, have been saying to the government, 'You need to do some fiscal heavy lifting here to reduce inflation; otherwise the job will be entirely left to monetary policy,' which we have already seen with eight rate rises under this government and the spectre of more rate rises to come. So what's the government's answer to those pleas from the Reserve Bank to get their fiscal house in order—to borrow less and to spend less? It's to set up a fund with $10 billion of borrowings and with a $400 million interest cost each and every year. There are a number of reasons, which I will outline now, for why the opposition will not be supporting this bill, but the first and foremost is that anything that will increase the inflationary environment in the economy and therefore increase the prospect of higher mortgage interest rates cannot in good conscience be supported in this House, and we will not be doing so, partly for that reason. More borrowing from the Commonwealth equals higher inflationary pressures, which equal higher interest rates. That's what this bill represents today. So it is very unfortunate timing from the government in bringing this forward. That also dovetails into my second point, which is the absolute uncertainty of any funding that would emanate from this proposal. When the Prime Minister or the housing minister says, 'We're investing $10 billion into housing,' it's a falsehood. What they are hoping is that, through investments in the stock market, in equities and in other financial products, there will be a sufficient return, above and beyond the cost of borrowing, to then distribute into housing projects. That's a big if, and you don't have to go back too far into history to realise that's a big if, because, had this fund been established last financial year, not only would we as a Commonwealth have spent $400 million on the servicing of the $10 billion of debt but we would have seen a diminution of the fund by 3.7 per cent—$370 million, approximately. So, had this fund been in place last year, we would have seen a loss to the Commonwealth of $770 million. Without one dollar ever going to a housing project or a community housing provider to assist with social or affordable housing, Commonwealth taxpayers would have been down $770 million. That is just an example that there is no certainty provided by this fund of any returns—certainly not regular returns each and every year. In a year when the stock market does well, there might be something to distribute. In years when, as we saw last year, it is a tough year for those invested in equities, we would see not only no returns but also a reduction in the capital of the fund. So this is not a source of stable, recurrent funding for a government program. What has always happened in the housing space is that when a government have an intention to fund social and affordable housing they set up a program, fund that program and then, through recurrent expenditure, fund whatever it is they want to fund. That is not what is being done here. This is a blatant attempt to try to keep this off the budget bottom line. In that being done there is absolutely no certainty that any money will ever—certainly not in this term of government—go to the intended recipients. The IMF has already warned the government, pretty clearly, about the proliferation of these sorts of funds. But you don't need to be an economist from the IMF to appreciate what the government is trying to do here. The government is taking a big gamble and saying, 'We expect that we can get a higher return than the four per cent that we would be paying on this debt.' They're arbitraging, essentially, between debt costs and what they think they can get out of the fund. It's very heroic, in my view, and not how these important projects should be funded. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I think there's every likelihood that we will get to the end of this term of government and find that the government have not delivered a single home that has been promised. They've promised, as we know, 30,000 additional social and affordable houses, plus another 10,000 through their council. Of the 40,000 that they've promised, there's a high likelihood that very few, if any, will even be started, let alone delivered. Australians want governments that make decisions and get on with the job, not kick the can down the road. Setting up this fund, with an uncertain future and no guarantee of returns, and placing an additional $10 billion of debt on the credit card, where we're paying $400 million of interest every single year, defies logic. But, again, it only defies logic if your intention is to keep it off the budget, which is precisely what it is, through this financial engineering. The bill also lacks crucial detail. I suspect even someone who'd come into this House with the intention of supporting this bill would find it very difficult to support it, because of the lack of detail. The investment mandate is yet to be released, restricting scrutiny of key information on the fund's capacity to deliver on the government's commitments. I think we all know why the investment mandate hasn't been released. I suspect it's because, pretty quickly, even more holes in this fund will emerge. Without an investment mandate, the legislation, which is essentially a shell explaining how funds may or may not be spent in a discretionary way, has none of the crucial detail on the fund. Why wouldn't you, nine months after you came to government, be able to release the investment mandate with the bill? There's only one answer to that: you don't want the investment mandate to be scrutinised. I can tell you that that would make any observer even more nervous about this fund. All things being equal, the absence of an investment mandate should mean that no-one in this House, including members of the government, can support the bill. How would you support the bill without seeing the investment mandate? The reality is that the investment mandate will have to come to light at some point in time. The government won't be able to hide it forever. I suspect their intention is to release the investment mandate at some point after the bill has passed the parliament or after an agreement to do so has been reached, at which time it will be too late. The investment mandate needs to go through a public consultation process because, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the sector is very nervous about the way in which this fund is structured. Indeed, the sector has outlined a number of failures in this bill. There's a failure to define key terms. What is the definition of 'social housing'? What's the definition of 'affordable housing'? What's the definition of 'acute housing'? These are all terms which will dictate what the potential future returns of this fund might be spent on, but there are no definitions. Could it be an oversight that the government hasn't thought about definitions for those? Possibly. As a former housing minister, I tend to believe it's more likely that they prefer those not to be defined to provide them with the greatest possible flexibility in spending these funds. They're potential funds. There's no guarantee. But, assuming there's a return out of this fund, they'll be spending it as some kind of slush fund to enable the government to spend as they so wish. That would be the only reason you wouldn't define those key terms. What is 'acute housing'? Ask anyone in the housing sector and there will be slightly different views on what that is. There will be slightly different definitions. What are those? Stakeholders have also criticised the limit on the annual drawdowns, which, again, highlights the lack of funding certainty. There's no mechanism or performance criteria to assess the effectiveness of any grants that potentially come out of this fund. We've got here a cap on the amount which the fund can distribute each year at half a billion dollars. I think that's a very heroic number from the government given, as I said, the $400 million that needs to be paid back each year before any money ever gets distributed, plus any investment related fees that the government has to pay for the operations of the fund. But, putting that to one side, you have a situation here where a program is effectively wholly reliant on the fluctuations of the stock market or other financial products that the fund invests in. So, in good years, there might be a feast and, in bad years, there will be a famine. Can I say very clearly to the government that these projects and any projects that involve social and affordable housing are multiyear projects that require multiyear commitments and certainty of funding. That's why the conventional position of the federal government has been that, if we want to fund social and affordable housing, we will do so through recurrent expenditure and decisions of government in programs. That's how you do it. Each and every year when we spend more than $1.3 billion on the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement—we pay the states and territories through that agreement—that's not reliant on the performance of the Australian stock exchange. No, that's a payment made from the Commonwealth each and every year under that agreement. Well, here, we've got none of that certainty. So it could be feast one year and famine another. Do you know what that will mean? It will mean that projects won't happen. Unless you can provide that multiyear certainty, the projects will not happen. That is a fundamental flaw of this government. We see also in this bill a remarkable attitude for the ministers—the housing minister, the social services minister, the Treasurer and others—with a huge amount of latitude on how this money is spent. The majority of it is earmarked, from what we can tell, to be paid to the states and territories directly. This is in absolute contrast to the approach of the former coalition government. I was the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer when we established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, soon to be renamed Housing Australia. That body was a landmark achievement of the coalition government. I give some credit to the government for embracing Housing Australia and recognising that it is a remarkable achievement and landmark entity for the federal government that should be supported. I give them credit for that. But, in establishing that, we put community housing providers at the centre of what we did. When we established, as it was then, the NHFIC, soon to be Housing Australia, it operated two key activities: the Housing Infrastructure Facility, a $1 billion perpetual facility which financed infrastructure to unlock projects that contain social and affordable housing, and the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, a bond aggregator that had been asked for by the sector for years and took a coalition government to establish. In both of those things, through the Housing Infrastructure Facility and through the bond aggregator, which I will say more about, we put community housing providers as the centre of its remit. Why? We did so because, historically, for every dollar provided to a community housing provider, you get better outcomes than if it had gone to a state or territory treasury department. What we've seen from transfers from the Commonwealth to state and territory governments in recent years has been for every dollar the Commonwealth puts in, there's a withdrawal of a dollar from the state and territory governments. There's always exceptions to the rule here and there but, overall, that has been the experience, which is why we put CHPs at the heart of what we did. We on this side knew Labor didn't like that at the time, because the command-and-control central planners in our great friends in the Labor party came to the fore. They resisted the temptation to trash community housing providers then but they are trashing community housing providers now by basically side-lining them in this bill and with this fund. By channelling the potential proceeds of this fund to state and territory governments and bypassing the CHPs is a huge abrogation of responsibility because, as a Commonwealth, we put in huge resources through NHFIC and through the bond aggregator to help those CHPs leverage their balance sheets, to help them develop the corporate governance they needed to really attract that extra capital, that private capital which, partnered with government money, would see and has seen social and affordable housing projects throughout the country. Now we've gone back to the bad old days, where CHPs are side-lined. CHPs will have to get out the begging bowl and beg state and territory governments for a slice of the action. Now, some state and territory governments might in their infinite wisdom realise that CHPs do it a lot better and deliver a lot more with a lot less but there's no certainty of that and there is certainly no guarantee of that in this bill. So we have $10 billion of borrowed money, which will increase inflationary pressures in the economy and put even more pressure on mortgages and interest rates. We have the uncertainties of the fund, where there is no guarantee of what is going to be spat out of that fund each year. Some years it will inevitably go backwards. Some years there will be zero dollars that can be dispersed out of the fund, or the fund will go backwards and the capital will be eaten into. We have CHPs now going back to the bad old days of being sidelined, of being completely ignored by this government and this fund, and that is why the opposition cannot support this bill. In talking about placing CHPs at the centre of what the former coalition did successfully, here are some numbers, as of the election, that I think are relevant. NHFIC, soon to be renamed Housing Australia—a wonderful coalition achievement—delivered $2.9 billion of government-guaranteed loans to those housing providers, which supported 15,000 social and affordable dwellings and saved nearly half a billion dollars of interest to those CHPs. For those members in the House who are not familiar, once we established NHFIC, CHPs, which previously had to go out and raise their own finance privately at high interest rates, were able to access finance through the bond aggregator with a government guarantee, effectively, slightly above government bond rate, which saved them half a billion dollars in interest. And guess what that half a billion dollars did? It supported or built 15,000 additional social and affordable housing dwellings. It unlocked nearly 7,000 affordable dwellings through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. So more than 20,000—in fact, nearly 22,000—social and affordable homes were supported by the work of the government in a way that put community housing providers at the centre of our thinking. Pulling that away now and going back to the bad old days is a retrograde step. The coalition's record on housing is strong. In our former term of government we supported directly—not in some sort of indirect way—300,000 people into a home. Three hundred thousand people were directly supported into a home by the former coalition government. Of those, there were more than 137,000 projects under HomeBuilder, which was opposed by the opposition at the time. There were 137,000 HomeBuilder projects, which represented $120 billion of economic activity and kept the construction sector busy during the pandemic, for huge numbers of first home buyers. We also assisted more than 60,000 people into a home through our Home Guarantee Scheme. The Home Guarantee Scheme, which I put in place and established from 1 January 2020, helped 60,000—well, it's many more than 60,000 now; it's probably closer to 100,000 now—home buyers get into the market by bringing down the deposit hurdle from 20 per cent, which is what banks had been requiring, to a five per cent deposit for first home buyers. Most recently, there was the Family Home Guarantee, which required only a deposit of two per cent for single parents, 85 per cent of which are single mothers. So we had the 137,000 HomeBuilder projects, the nearly 100,000 now first home buyers under the Home Guarantee Scheme—and credit to the current government for continuing with that, again, landmark coalition policy—and the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which helped more than 25,000 people fast-track their savings, fast-track their deposit, through tax concessions within their superannuation. That's more than 300,000 people supported into their own home through direct action and direct programs by the then coalition government. So the message to this government is very clear. If you want to do something and are fair dinkum about it, you can move the dial. A policy where you can run around screaming from the rafters '$10 billion, $10 billion' that does nothing, that has no guaranteed returns, that's going to cost $400 million in interest and that's going to move the most productive area of the social housing market, that being community housing providers, to the side is not the way in which you get the positive changes that so many Australians require. We've got a government, to be frank, whose housing policies are in tatters. Their whole housing agenda, thin as it was—a very thin agenda to start with—is in tatters. Where is the Help to Buy scheme, which I suspect is a fairly vanilla, shared-equity style of program which we've seen in states and territories? It was supposed to start on 1 January. Where is it? When you go to an election promising a start date and you don't meet it, that's a disgrace. Where is the Help To Buy program? It was supposed to have started six weeks ago. Not only has it not started; we've got no idea when it's going to start. Where has it gone? It's disappeared. We don't know where it is. I suspect that we're now shaming the government into it. They will work overtime to try and get it moving. But where is the Help to Buy program? This future fund is, as has been highlighted here, a major problem for ordinary Australians because it has the real prospect of adding inflationary pressures into this economy and increasing mortgage rates even more. It will cost $400 million in interest to Australian taxpayers every year, just to have the funds sitting there, even if it loses money, as it would have done last financial year, without a dollar being spat out into any good projects. We've seen first home buyer numbers drop month on month under this government—every month, they're down further—and no action from the government to try and encourage first home buyers. The former coalition government took first home buyers to their highest levels in nearly 15 years. When we came to government, they were sitting around 100,000 per year. In the last full financial year of the coalition government, it reached nearly 180,000. That was through effort and through policies and programs that worked. We've seen first home buyer numbers drop. The rent rises to the December 2022 quarter were the highest on record, at 10.2 per cent. So first home buyers are down, rent's up, the Help to Buy program that was promised for 1 January, six weeks later, cannot be spoken of on the government benches—do not mention the Help to Buy program; we don't know where it is. And now the Housing Australia Future Fund will add to the inflationary pressures in the economy with no certainty of any returns ever being invested in housing, leaving the government's promise of 40,000 social and affordable homes in absolute tatters. We will absolutely not be supporting the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. But, given this is a cognate debate, I will reiterate my remarks at the beginning: we will support the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023. We're told that the government's stated objective is to ensure the Commonwealth plays a leadership role in increasing supply, and that the council will set targets for land supply in consultation with states and territories and also collect and make public nationally consistent data on housing supply, demand and affordability. That we can support. In the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, we will support everything but schedule 4. (Time expired) 13:22 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore It's with great excitement and relief that I rise to speak on the introduction of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the bill to create the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. These bills will start the process for the largest boost to affordable and social housing we have seen in more than a decade. Make no mistake, the outcomes from these bills will ultimately fundamentally change people's lives for the better. To say we have a housing crisis on the New South Wales South Coast is putting it mildly. We are no stranger to disasters, but the housing crisis on the New South Wales South Coast is our new disaster. Over many years, the previous coalition government did nothing to even begin to address this growing housing crisis. The housing crisis may have once been a silent crisis particularly impacting our most disadvantaged, but over many years of inaction by the previous government, it has now grown to epic proportions. As the federal member, I and my office are inundated regularly with cries for help. It is heartbreaking to hear these stories of struggle from everyday people in our community. I help where I can, but it isn't easy when there is no stock, when prices are out of control and when community housing is overwhelmed. Our local housing and homelessness providers are doing everything possible to support people, but the reality is there just isn't enough affordable and social housing. Our local councils have also stepped upped up, trying to do their bit to ease pressures. Our community organisations, churches, businesses, individuals, unions and more have also stepped up—that true South Coast spirit I am always singing about. What was lacking was leadership at the federal level. Everyone could see there needed to be a solution, but it just wasn't there under the previous coalition government. Gilmore, on the New South Wales South Coast, which encompasses the Kiama local government area in the north, the Shoalhaven, and the Batemans Bay, Moruya and Tuross Head areas in the Eurobodalla shire, has had a hammering, particularly over the last four years. There has been drought, the Black Summer bushfires, multiple storms, floods, landslides, roads cut, COVID, and a variety of these disasters at the same time. It really has been the unthinkable, perfect, horrible storm. It is difficult to comprehend the immense toll this has taken on people. But what has been left, without a doubt, is the housing disaster. If it wasn't bad enough that hundreds of people lost their homes and had damaged homes from the bushfires, so began the task of finding somewhere to live. This isn't so easy when you're living on the coast and there is great demand for holiday rentals. When people found temporary housing there were heartbreaking stories of people, and people with young children, having to move out multiple times in a short space of time because the house was to be rented out in the holiday time. With COVID, the South Coast was seen as a haven, as more holiday homeowners chose to relocate to the coast—who could blame them? At the same time property prices and rents were spiralling upwards, and many property owners took that opportunity to sell, to realise the gain. Those two actions led to devastating consequences locally. First, it shrunk the private housing stock—so if you were a pensioner that had rented and lived in the same property for 15 years, all of a sudden you had no home. Faced with soaring rents and no homes available, it was the fastest way to become homeless. One day you had a home, the next you didn't. And it didn't discriminate; it didn't matter if you were a pensioner, had a family with young kids, had a disability, were a frontline worker or even had two incomes. Second, it shrunk the stock of social housing as more landlords sold properties, so our community housing providers had fewer homes available. So where do people go? Our homelessness providers have been facing this battle each and every day. It's really one vicious cycle. Everyone knows the problem: there just isn't enough affordable and social housing. There are many harrowing local stories. As harrowing as they are, it is important the House understands the gravity of the situation. Take this single mum of four from Worrigee. She's a hairdresser who works part-time while she tries to take care of her kids and get by. She was ahead on her rent in a private community housing supported home. She paid the bond and was doing everything right. But the house was riddled with mould—an ongoing issue that she couldn't resolve and that was making her two-year-old child sick. She did what any mother would do; she put the health of her child first. She has asked Southern Cross Community Housing for a transfer, but she can't get one. She's asked them for her bond back and for some of the rent she overpaid, to help her financially, but she can't get that either. She and her four kids have been forced to couch surf for the last year—another example of the shambles the Liberals and Nationals let our community housing become. The New South Wales government has said, 'Be sick or be homeless, and don't expect us to give you your money back.' This family has been on a priority housing list for a year, but there is no information on when they can expect a new home. I'd like to say this is a special case, an isolated incident, but I'm sorry to say it isn't. The Moruya North Head Campground is home to around 50 people with nowhere to go. The campground is their home. There is no alternative accommodation. While local homelessness support services, council and the community do all they can to provide support and access to networks and food and essential items, the fact there is no alternative accommodation is one of the biggest blights on society I have seen. Council has continued to call on the New South Wales government to do something to help these people, but those calls are falling on deaf ears. The campground is not meant for people to live there. There is no permanent hot water and there are no enclosed showers, but, with no other sources of temporary accommodation and nowhere else for these people to go, what choice is there? While this bill does not offer an immediate solution, it starts today to correct the immense wrongs and begin the long road back to fixing the huge supply issue there is and to build more affordable and social housing. Salt Ministries and their wonderful volunteers have been providing community meals and outreach support for the homeless for years. But the demand for somewhere to live for so many people grew and grew. SALT opened Safe Shelter Shoalhaven without the help of government funds, and it has been operating locally for the last five years. In that time, it has provided a safe place to sleep for over 850 families and individuals, but without government support, the service has twice been on the verge of closure. I first raised this with the New South Wales minister in October last year, and in December, I stood— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the member for her contribution. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Wannon Electorate: Road Infrastructure 15 13:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I was just speaking to a constituent of mine from Narrawong in my electorate. He broke ribs, got a punctured lung and had to be taken by ambulance from Portland hospital to Hamilton hospital. He had to be severely sedated along the way because of the condition of the Henty Highway in my electorate. The potholes and disrepair of the road meant that the ambulance ride was sheer hell for this constituent. I had to point out to him, sadly, that the Albanese government cut $40 million of funding from that road and the Princes Highway. We have heard from the good reporting of the Warrnambool Standard that the government has no idea about what it's going to do to reinstate that money. As a matter of fact, it doesn't think that it's needed. It doesn't think that investment is required. I have asked the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria to come down to my electorate, drive on our roads and see firsthand the state that they are in, and then say that our roads don't need more funding. Oil and Gas Exploration 15 13:31 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle As the member for Newcastle, I stand in solidarity with my community on opposing PEP-11. This issue has reared its ugly head again as a direct result of the former Prime Minister's utter disregard for proper governance. Our community's message has been loud, it's been clear and it's been consistent: PEP-11 is not welcome. It's not welcome in Sydney, it's not welcome on the Central Coast and it's certainly not welcome in Newcastle. This is a project without friends. PEP-11 has never made sense from an economic, environmental or energy perspective. It puts at risk thousands of local jobs in tourism, in hospitality and in recreational and commercial fishing. Coastal communities from Sydney to Newcastle have overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to PEP-11. I share my community's frustration and anger that this issue was so grossly mishandled by the previous government, and I say unequivocally to my community: due process will be followed. We know very well that we are in this mess because of the former Liberal Prime Minister's secret self-appointment to five ministries, including energy and resources. There are some who think we can throw due process out the window, but we know that just lands us back in court. The Federal Court has today issued orders quashing the former Prime Minister's decision on PEP-11, saying his actions and words were legally indefensible. Herbert Electorate: Crime 16 13:33 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Alice Springs has featured a lot in public debate over the past few weeks, and for good reason. People are living in fear for their safety in their own homes, there is antisocial behaviour on the streets and cars are being stolen and driven dangerously. This is something that the people of Townsville have been enduring for nearly a decade, and it is a problem that the state Labor government continues not to address. The statistics don't lie. From 2020 to 2021, assaults increased by 56 per cent to 5,850, break-ins increased by 21 per cent to 5,024, the stealing of cars increased by 32 per cent to 1,557 and sexual assault increased by 12 per cent to 221, and these are only the ones that are reported. The police do a fantastic job. They continue to catch young offenders in Townsville, only for them to be let out by the courts because of Queensland's weak youth justice laws. Just last month a young offender with a 19-page criminal history was given a sentence of just three months jail for breaking into a house and multiple car thefts, with a release date after serving just half of the sentence. Meanwhile, insurance claims with RACQ for car theft in Townsville have jumped 37 per cent in a year. I once again call on the Queensland Labor government to toughen up the youth justice laws with much stronger measures than the weak tweaks that they announced this year. Cambodia 16 13:34 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I feel like the goldfish going around in the bowl. Here we are again with Cambodian dictator Hun Sen up to his old tricks as a national election looms. On Sunday night he closed down pretty much the only independent media outlet in the country—Voice of Democracy. Their crime? Hun Sen was upset about an article that referred to his son. I don't know whether VOD's article was accurate or not, but that's irrelevant. How can Cambodia even pretend to be a democracy when their Prime Minister shuts down a media outlet in just 24 hours? It's ridiculous and embarrassing for them. Real democracies don't shut down media outlets because a politician is upset. There are complaint mechanisms or courts. But this isn't about inaccurate media reporting; it's about Hun Sen shutting down criticism or opposition before July's elections. Things are set to get worse as he positions his special little boy Hun Manet to take over as Prime Minister. Cambodians are suffering under the same tactics Hun Sen used in 2018. He is threatening to ban the opposition Candlelight Party, just as he jailed opposition leader Kem Sokha and banned the then opposition CNRP. Vice President Thach Setha is already in prison. Australian citizen Son Chhay is harassed in the courts. Chhim Sithar remains in prison. It seems, sadly, the elections in July will be neither free nor fair. Australia must be careful not to lend credibility to sham elections. Afghanistan 16 13:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Today is Valentine's Day, so I hosted a show your heart event in recognition of the confronting plight faced by Afghan women and children. I felt humbled today to work alongside Rita Anwari, Founder of the Australian Afghan Chamber of Commerce; Susan Hutchinson, Director of Azadi-e Zan; Fatima, a young refugee; and Nilofar Ibrahimi, a former Afghan member of parliament. This event provided valuable insight. Members of parliament heard about the stories of Afghan women, the increasing restrictions that are being imposed by the Taliban and the risks that they are facing. The stories shared today provide important lessons on why our government must improve its response to Afghan people in need. In fact, our whole parliament must do this. Delays in the processing of humanitarian visas are leaving thousands of applicants in life-threatening situations. We need to think beyond one visa class. These are highly skilled women. They should be coming here under the skilled migrant stream. I thank the women and the MPs who came along today. I also acknowledge Rose Beltchev from my office, who coordinated the whole event from Mayo. She came here today. I thank all who attended. We must change this. Workplace Relations 16 13:37 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Mantle Group Hospitality employs up to 700 workers across 15 pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants. Mantle Group though, as many of us learnt over the summer, has been avoiding paying its casual workers weekend and public holiday rates because of a zombie Work Choices agreement originally signed in 1999. This deal was terminated by the Fair Work Commission in late 2022, but during the dispute this employer moved all of its staff onto another workplace deal. Ten days after winning full penalty rates for the first time in 22 years the workforce were handed termination notices and rehired under a new entity and a new enterprise agreement stuck in 2019, with who knows how many employees, meaning they do not get paid penalty rates on Australia Day. Just how many employers are there out there like Mantle Group, small or large? Just how many Work Choices zombie agreements are still in existence and being used today? Hundreds and hundreds. That is why this government has acted. This government is abolishing Work Choices zombie agreements and putting dodgy employers on notice. People who work on a weekend or a public holiday deserve penalty rates. They shouldn't have to fight so hard to get a basic entitlement. Twenty-two years of not getting them is wrong. That is why we have acted, so no other worker has to go through this. Budget 17 13:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne We are in a cost-of-living crisis, but instead of spending a quarter of a trillion dollars on giving people real and immediate cost-of-living relief, like getting dental into Medicare or making child care free, Labor is spending a quarter of a trillion dollars on stage 3 tax cuts for politicians and billionaires. Make no mistake: the stage 3 tax cuts are the centrepiece of this upcoming budget. They are the black hole that sucks everything else in with its gravitational pull. I mentioned dental care. The average household is spending about a thousand dollars a year on dental treatment, and many people just can't afford to go, so they put off going at all. Instead of giving people cost-of-living relief by making it cheap or free to go to the dentist, Labor is giving $9,000-a-year tax cuts to politicians and billionaires. The Treasurer is asking everyone else to find cuts to make way for any new spending measures. Well, the biggest cut is in the Treasurer's own portfolio, of a quarter of a trillion dollars that is being spent to drive a flat tax nightmare in this country. If Labor doesn't deliver real cost-of-living relief to people in this budget by getting dental into Medicare, by making child care free, by building affordable housing, it is because they are spending a quarter of a trillion dollars giving the likes of Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart and every politician a tax cut instead of spending that money to deliver real cost-of-living relief. Corangamite Electorate: Veterans 17 13:41 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Federal Labor promised that, if elected to government, we would provide a new wellbeing hub for veterans and defence personnel in the Surf Coast and Geelong region. As with all of our election promises, the Albanese government is now delivering. Later this month the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, Matt Keogh, and I are holding an engagement session for local veterans to share their ideas on what they want their local hub to look like. My electorate of Corangamite has one of the highest number of veterans in Victoria, with around 2,000 veterans and family members, and around 3,500 veterans and family members in the Greater Geelong region. I envisage this local centre will be a family-friendly place providing peer-to-peer support for veterans and their families, bringing together critical services under the one roof. Ours is one of the 10 new veterans hubs the Albanese government is rolling out across Australia. These hubs will act as one-stop shops for local veterans and could include health and mental health services, fitness, advocacy, employment and housing advice, social connection and wellbeing support. There has been an increased need for such support in our region as a result of the pandemic and long delays for services under the previous government. I'd encourage veterans to register with my office to attend the session and engage with the minister. We want to do our best to support our veterans. Hearing what they want is crucial to providing that support. Park Ridge Water Tower Mural 17 13:42 Mr 188315 Forde VAN MANEN (—) (): Over the weekend the Park Ridge community marked the 50th anniversary of the Park Ridge water tower, with the unveiling of a new Anzac mural, which now adorns the iconic structure along the Mount Lindesay Highway. The piece was entitled Reflection under the Southern Stars and depicts an Anzac soldier and nurse, who are both reflecting on their service to the country under our national flag. The location of the water tower has its own special place in our Anzac history, with Park Ridge being home to a couple of airfields during the Second World War. The airstrips ran along what is now Chambers Flat Road, cutting through to Park Ridge Road. Whilst developments are now occurring in that area, you can still see the airfields there, being quickly developed during the time in response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and the entry into the Pacific theatre. A stunning piece, the mural was created by artists Laing Rahner and Paul Turnbull and took 10 weeks to complete. It was a delight to see children joining in to help cut the ribbon for the mural's opening. The unveiling was a terrific event, which included performances from young local artists Nate and Jasmine from Assorted Grains, who entertained the crowd with a range of Australian songs. I was honoured to speak on the day and was joined by local councillor Jacob Heremaia and also Aunty Betty, one of our local Indigenous elders. Congratulations to everyone involved. Croke, Ms Leesa, PSM, O'Neill, Ms Cathie, PSM 18 13:44 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge two Public Service Medal recipients from Bean, Cathie O'Neill and Leesa Croke. Cathie O'Neill provided outstanding public and private hospital coordination, resulting in a structured territory-wide clinical response to COVID-19. She demonstrated incredible leadership through coordinating the clinical services for patients requiring testing, vaccination and hospitalisation, along with significant support from non-government providers in the aged-care, disability-care and health services sectors. This included responding to COVID-19 outbreaks in a range of high-risk settings within the ACT, including public housing, disability service providers, aged-care facilities, private hospitals and the ACT's correctional facility. Leesa Croke has made a significant contribution to public policy over the course of her career in the Commonwealth Public Service and the ACT Public Service. She led the ACT government's engagement with the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions, to ensure the ACT government continued to provide citizens with the highest levels of service. Her leadership ensured the ACT government was apprised of all issues related to COVID-19, not just the health response. Her collaborative and collegiate approach allowed emerging issues to be dealt with swiftly, before significant community impacts were felt. Congratulations, Cathie and Leesa, on these awards. Thank you for your service to the community. Covid-19: Vaccination 18 13:45 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Last month, I sought an urgent meeting with the health minister and the TGA. There has been no response to my request, so I'll ask my questions here. Last year a Queensland GP obtained documents from the TGA under the FOI Act, No. FOI 3727. These documents contained nine assessments conducted by the TGA following reports of someone dying from the COVID-19 vaccine. The deceased people listed on these reports were aged seven, nine, 14, 19, 21, 21, 24, 46 and 44. So I ask the health minister now: why has the TGA not acted with an abundance of caution to alert the public that they were investigating these deaths—including the cardiac arrest of a seven-year-old and of a nine-year-old? Why do these reports not appear on the TGA's disclosure log? Does it have anything to do with the TGA's own response to the GP that they 'contain sensitive personal information about deceased persons' and that 'the disclosure of the documents could undermine public confidence and reduce the willingness of the public to report adverse events to the TGA'? Why has the TGA not responded to doctors who raised these issues with you six months ago, including drawing your attention to those case reports? This information is extremely alarming and demands an immediate response from the TGA. Aged Care 18 13:47 M 300130 Tangney r LIM () (): When one retires, one hopes, in one's golden years, to live in comfort, and to be able to live peacefully, happily and safely. In my electorate of Tangney, we are so lucky to have numerous state-of-the-art, high-quality aged-care facilities. Australian families need to have access to as much information as possible when choosing an aged-care provider. I commend my friend Minister Wells for her great work in delivering the government's plan to fix aged care. One part of this plan is providing Australians with transparency about the quality of aged-care homes by giving each facility a rating of between one and five stars. There are only two aged-care homes with five-star ratings in the whole of WA, and one of them is in Tangney. That five-star facility is the Regents Garden Four Seasons in Booragoon, which has delivered above and beyond on its regulatory and healthcare requirements. I wanted to congratulate all the workers at Regents Garden Four Seasons in Booragoon on this wonderful achievement. You have done your residents and Tangney proud. Thank you. Anzac Day Schools' Awards, Upwey South Primary School 18 13:48 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey In December, I had the honour of attending Upwey South Primary School to present a special award. Grade 6 student Lucy is the Victorian state winner of one of the Anzac Day Schools' Awards, national awards that recognise the work of school students and teachers who engage with veterans and honour our wartime history. Lucy wrote a piece about the role of peacekeepers, focusing on how peacekeeping has changed over the years to become inclusive of females. To inform her submission, Lucy interviewed Major Lyndsay Freeman, who is part of the Australian Defence Force peace operations. They spoke when Major Freeman was deployed overseas as a peacekeeper with the United Nations. I would like to share a key message of Lucy's winning submission: I would like all girls, now and into the future, to grow up knowing they can be whatever they want. There shouldn't be a difference between genders, anyone can do anything. To top off the day, Lucy was also announced as one of the school captains at the end of the award ceremony. Well done, Lucy. Keep up the great work. On a similar theme, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery my friend Rita Anwari, who is part of the Women Empowerment and Leadership group. She is doing amazing work to support women in Afghanistan. It was great to hear her today, and I'll keep supporting her in the work she does to support women in Afghanistan. It's great to have you here, Rita. Thomson, Ms Yvette 19 13:50 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Today I rise to acknowledge the tireless commitment of a local champion of sport in my electorate of Pearce, Yvette Thomson. Yvette has been a driving force of the Wanneroo Districts Netball Association since 1995 and has been on the board since 1999. Her passion to grow the sport and develop its players is legendary in Pearce. The WDNA is now a modern complex with 57 floodlit outdoor playing courts and is one of the largest netball associations in Australia, with 6,000 members and, I believe, the largest facility in the Southern Hemisphere. But it wasn't always that way. Yvette recalls the state of the sporting complex when she started in 1995 as 'bitumen courts that tore your skin off, a terrible limestone car park, goalposts in two sizes that had to be manually changed from juniors to seniors'. One of the highlights for Yvette was meeting the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who provided a $10 million grant for redevelopment works. After decades of service, including roles as president—for two terms of five years—vice-president and director of umpiring and development, Yvette leaves the WDNA board in very capable and committed hands. The association will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year, and I know how much Yvette is looking forward to celebrating that momentous occasion. Fortunately, Yvette Thomson will not be lost to our beloved sport. This tremendous champion of netball is continuing as president of the West Coast Warriors. Small Business 19 13:51 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher As utility bills land on the desks of our small- and family-business owners, I know that families who own a business in Fisher are really feeling the pinch. Indeed, all families across the country are feeling the pinch of Labor's economic policies. Our small businesses are worried. They're worried about whether they can fulfil their orders. They're worried about how they will retain their staff or stay open for as many days, thanks to the skyrocketing of power costs, transport costs and material costs. Small and family businesses are concerned about the impact of Labor's union reforms on their teams of casual and part-time workers. Small and family businesses are trying to make the most of their existing food stock or inventory, with unstable supply chains meaning that they can't always rely on availability in the weeks to come. It's a challenging time to be in small business, and perhaps more so in regional Australian communities like those in my electorate of Fisher. I'll continue to prosecute the case to this Labor government when it comes to their extreme industrial relations reforms, their red tape, their taxes and, on energy, their so-called affordability, reliability and security. Small and family business owners know that the coalition is on their side. Aspirational Australians know that the opposition has their back and will continue to be their voice in this place. Reid Electorate: Australia Post 19 13:53 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Ecommerce has exploded in the last couple of years, with four out of five Australian households shopping online. This is true in the suburb of Wentworth Point in my electorate, one of the fastest-growing suburbs in Sydney, with a current population of about 12,000 and a projected population of 20,000 within the next decade. Unfortunately, the postal service there has not kept up with the demands of the community. Residents are faced with enormous queues and long trips to neighbouring post offices that are not easily accessible by public transport, as well as increasing incidence of parcel theft. Hundreds of residents have contacted me about the challenges they face with their postal service. Here's an example of their feedback: On Wednesday, I had to travel to three different locations to collect my parcels; a time consuming and frustrating process. Last year I wrote to Australia Post advising them of these challenges and the need for a post office in the suburb. Their response? They believe Wentworth Point is being adequately serviced by post offices in other suburbs. I'm not satisfied with this response and will be pushing Australia Post to do better by their customers so that they get the service they deserve. End Youth Suicide Week 20 13:54 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes Suicide continues to be the biggest killer of Australians aged between 14 and 25 years. This week is End Youth Suicide Week. In 2021, 402 young Australian lives were lost to suicide. Each one of those deaths was preventable. These young people have been described as the missing middle, but they are not missing; they are in fact forgotten. I speak today about the excellent organisation Youth Insearch, established in 1985, which is a peer-led youth trauma recovery group working to change our statistics around youth suicide in Australia. All Australians deserve the very best chance for a healthy, happy and rewarding life, yet, despite $11 billion invested by government, business and private funders each year, youth suicide rates are far too high and many young Australians are not receiving the support they need. Since its inception Youth Insearch has supported 32,000 at-risk youth. Its model of lived experience and peer workforce is the key ingredient in both prevention of and early intervention for youth suicide. Research tells us that a young person is much more likely to disclose their distress and suicide intent to a peer, as opposed to an adult health professional. I commend the work of Youth Insearch in saving and rebuilding lives. I mention in particular Ben Shepherd, who passed away tragically in 2003. Orientation Week 20 13:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Orientation Week is just around the corner for many young, and a few not-so-young, Queenslanders. O-week is such an exciting time for people just about to start their university and career journeys. O-week introduces people to university life, helps them find their way around campus and sort out classes, and can even help them sort out accommodation, but possibly one of the best things about O-week is the opportunity it opens up to meet new people and have new experiences. Way back in the Middle Ages—1983—I left the bush and took my first steps towards higher learning. In that first week I met two people who are still my best friends today, 40 years on. Hello, John and Erin! So I say to all the eager or nervous new university students: pay attention to the people you first meet, because you could be making lifelong friends. Whether you are straight out of high school, maybe from a small country town, heading to the big smoke for the first time, or whether you are a mature-age student going back to uni or perhaps changing careers and going to uni for the first time, make sure to say hello and start up conversations with some of the new people you meet. And look after each other. Don't be afraid to ask for help or to band together to find your way to the next event or even back to your car—or to the bus stop. It's better to be in a group of lost travellers than on your own. Cherish this time of your life, as you will go away with some memories and experiences that will live with you forever. Lastly, I'll give a shout-out to another Perrett who will be commencing university life this month. My eldest son, some 40 years after his father, will commence his uni studies. I wish him and everyone all the best. Enjoy the learning experience—and clean your room! Employment 20 13:58 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I want to take everyone on a bit of a history lesson. In 2013, the then Treasurer sat in this place and threatened General Motors Holden with closing up shop in my electorate of Spence. In 2014, the former prime minister Tony Abbott said that there would be a new horizon for the people of Spence, that jobs would be coming. In 2017 Holden shut, but those jobs never came to fruition. I'm proud to stand here as part of an Albanese Labor government that is committing to a national reconstruction fund, and I urge those opposite— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURNELL 300129 I urge those opposite—I'll take your interjections—to get on board when it comes to supporting Australian jobs and Australian manufacturing. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 20 13:59 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Respected independent economist Chris Richardson has said the RBA 'is sending up a distress signal' to the government, warning it can't do the job of reducing inflation on its own. Under Labor, inflation is at a 33-year high. Interest rates have gone up eight times in eight meetings of the Reserve Bank. Every decision Labor has made has increased inflation and pushed interest rates higher than they need to be. Prime Minister, is this why interest rates are always higher under Labor? Dr Chalmers 37998 They were higher under Howard. When you were the Assistant Treasurer, they were higher. The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will cease interjecting or be warned. 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Last Friday I was listened to RN, and the New South Wales Treasurer said: 'Inflation has peaked this year. There are significant headwinds being caused by the war in Ukraine which are driving up the price of coal and gas, and that is feeding through to electricity prices. This is a global issue, and all reserve banks are fighting inflation.' Indeed, the Reserve Bank is fighting inflation, and it says that our action is actually assisting it in doing this. That's why 99 per cent of the revenue gains were returned to the bottom line, making a positive difference. The 53517 Order! The member Hume and the Treasurer will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Those opposite seem to be shocked by the fact that, during a recession that occurred under their watch, what central banks did, not just in Australia but around the world, was lower interest rates in order to stimulate demand in the economy. That's what occurred under their watch. But they seem oblivious to any of that. They seem oblivious to the fact the interest rates were higher when John Howard was in government and when the person who asked the question actually occupied a position as Assistant Treasurer. I don't blame him personally for the fact that interest rates were higher when he was Assistant Treasurer than what they are now, but that is an actual fact and should be cause for some reflection from the Leader of the Opposition. Housing 21 14:02 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's plans for more affordable housing help address some of the broader challenges in our economy? 14:02 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Lalor, the best thing to come out of the 2013 election. I appreciate the question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina! The House will come to order immediately. The Treasurer will not be distracted and get back to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We were elected to take on some of the big challenges facing our economy and facing our country. Inflation is the No. 1 economic challenge in 2023. It was in 2022. That's why addressing inflation is the government's main focus through our three-point plan to provide responsible cost-of-living relief, repair our supply chains and show appropriate spending restraint in a responsible budget. That is the best way to go about this hard task. As the Reserve Bank said on Friday, and as the Prime Minister said a moment ago, we are taking some of the pressure off inflation through our three-point plan to address the challenges in our economy. The Reserve Bank made it clear that somewhere between half and three-quarters of the inflation in our economy comes from the supply side. A lot of that is global, but a lot of it, as well, is the consequence of a wasted decade, where those opposite left neglected for too long too many of our economic challenges. Australians are now paying a very hefty price for the failure of those opposite to manage the economy well over the course of the last decade. We see that in the energy market, with a lack of investment in cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy. We see that in the labour market, with a lack of investment in skills and training. We see it as well in the housing market, with not enough done over a decade to boost housing supply in our economy. They racked up $1 trillion in debt and still did almost nothing about housing supply in our economy. Honourable members interjecting— T 53517 Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. The member for Moreton is warned. When someone rises on a point of order, the House must come to order immediately. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance: the question went to the challenges affecting Australia. It wasn't an invitation— The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Skills and Training is warned. Mr Fletcher L6B for the Treasurer to run through his normal fictitious list of excuses. The SPEAKER 53517 I'm going to ask the Treasurer to return to the question. Dr CHALMERS 37998 No worries, Mr Speaker. Just like we've got a plan to fix the broken energy market and skills shortages, we've also got a plan to help address the housing affordability and supply challenges in our economy. We said we would tackle these challenges, and we will, because we know it's part of the broader inflation challenge in our economy. The Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build more social and affordable homes under the oversight of the housing minister, will be a really important thing for us to do as a country. The new National Housing Accord, an agreement with state and territory governments, local governments, the building industry and the super sector, will also build a substantial number of new homes. Mr Sukkar 242515 More meetings with Jimmy! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will be warned if he continues that behaviour. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It beggars belief that, after being such a big part of the problem for the best part of a decade, those opposite are now voting against the solutions. We are trying to clean up the mess they left, and once again they are standing in the way. We have an economic plan to deal with this inflation challenge and to build more affordable homes in our country. It's all about relief and repair, and it's also about restraint in the budget. They just have a political strategy to get in the way of us cleaning up the mess they left us. Economy 22 14:06 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's description of one interest rate rise under the former government as a 'full-blown cost-of-living crisis'. Since then, Labor have failed to deliver a plan to deal with rising inflation, and the cash rate has risen eight times in eight consecutive meetings of the RBA. If one rate rise was a crisis in May, how would the Prime Minister describe the eight rate rises since? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, nobody wants to see interest rates go up, but it's a reality of a world where there's inflation. The SPEA 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 I think Australians understand that. There's a lot of pressure, upward pressure, on interest rates at the moment. It was his quote, not mine. That's what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in May 2022. That's what the Leader of the Opposition had to say then. The fact that you interjected so loudly and rejected that comment so strongly while I was quoting the Leader of the Opposition says a lot about the turmoil that is in your ranks today. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting, otherwise a general warning will be issued and people will not be staying for question time. Housing 22 14:08 Mr R 300122 Hawke AE () (): My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. What are the consequences for Australians looking for a place to call home if the Housing Australia Future Fund is not established? 14:08 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I do want to thank the member for Hawke for his important question. He understands, as do most of the people on this side of the House, but, unfortunately, not everybody in the chamber, that many Australians are facing challenges as they try to find a safe, affordable place to call home. We know that some Australians are making some very tough decisions. Mr Sukkar 242515 Where's the Help to Buy program? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM Australians are paying the price for the little action from the former government over almost a decade when it comes to housing affordability and housing supply. Our government, the Albanese Labor government, was elected with a plan: a plan to help tackle the housing challenges. We said we would establish a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, and we've introduced that legislation. This will be the single biggest investment by a federal government in more than a decade in social and affordable housing in this country. It will create a secure pipeline of funding for social and affordable housing. It would be there in perpetuity, with returns being invested each and every year in social and affordable housing in this country. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM It's been called 'a golden opportunity' by the Urban Development Institute of Australia. 'With the measure introduced today'—this was when we introduced it last week—'we are structurally equipped to act,' said PowerHousing Australia. This will provide certainty to the housing sector and particularly the community housing sector, and, importantly, it will make a real difference to people's lives— Opposition members int erjecting— Ms COLLINS HWM and those opposite apparently also know this. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume her seat. There is now a general warning. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. When I'm speaking is definitely not the time to interject. I don't know how many times I have to say that. Ministers should be heard in silence. This is not a free-for-all. If people continue and simply disrespect the standing orders, they won't be here. I give the call to the Minister for Small Business, Housing and Homelessness. Ms COLLINS HWM As I was saying, the member for Cowper over there wrote to me highlighting his concerns over 'housing affordability and availability'. The member for Lyne over there last year expressed to me concerns over the urgent need for housing for key workers. Of course, the member for Farrer just this morning said, 'I don't deny that there are housing pressures that Australians face.' They're all too happy to acknowledge the problem, but they don't want to support us when we're acting. They don't want to support us when it comes to delivering on our election commitment of a $10 billion fund. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Ms HWM Indeed, the old 'noalition' over there are saying no to building more homes for women and children fleeing family violence, they're saying no to older women at risk of homelessness, they're saying no to building homes for veterans who are at risk of homelessness and they're saying no to building more homes for people in need right across the country. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM I think Australians today would be totally shocked to hear that those opposite are voting against these important investments in social and affordable housing for Australians that need it most. Gambling 23 14:12 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week we found out that the Minister for Communications, who's responsible for regulating online gambling, accepted $19,000 in donations, as well as repeated hospitality, from large gambling companies. Prime Minister, you promised to bring integrity back to politics. When the minister makes decisions on gambling, how do we know if her decisions are based on what our communities need or on what the gambling companies have paid for? 14:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Curtin for her question and for her ongoing commitment to making sure that the political system that we all operate under is improved. That's why my government has committed, through our minister, the Special Minister of State, to bringing forward reforms to make sure that, along with our Anti-Corruption Commission, there is a change to the way donations can be made within the system, including real-time declarations and including lowering the threshold of donations, as well, in terms of declarations. I do note that the Minister for Communications has declared all donations in an appropriate way, and I know that the minister answered a question on this last week. But I make this point about the Minister for Communications and how you know what a good job she is doing, and why she has my absolute and total confidence: the minister is committed to delivering a national self-exclusion register. That's called BetStop. It'll allow individuals to exclude themselves from all licensed interactive wagering services in just a single step. The minister is also implementing initiatives from— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 the national consumer protection framework, including the changed guidelines for messaging in advertisements. We're also progressing work around the classification of video games with gambling-like features, making a major difference there as well, with changes that currently aren't captured under the Interactive Gambling Act. In addition to that, we're working on a response to recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry into the use of credit cards in online gambling. The Minister for Communications is the person driving that work. That is obviously very important as well. We've also established an inquiry into online gambling, including the impacts of gambling advertising on children. So let me be very clear: the record of the Minister for Communications when it comes to harm minimisation in gambling is exemplary, and that is why she has my total confidence going forward. Housing 24 14:15 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund help women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence? What will delays to the fund mean for the implementation of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, including the Albanese government's goal to end violence in one generation? 14:15 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Thank you to the member for Jagajaga for that question. Of course, ending violence against women and children in one generation is not going to be easy, but we are absolutely, as a government, committed. That's why I was so pleased last week to see my colleague the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness introduce the landmark legislation to deliver the single biggest investment in affordable and social housing in more than a decade. Of course, this was an election commitment, and we, by introducing this legislation, are delivering. Critically it will deliver 4,000 homes for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence or older women at risk of homelessness. Returns from the fund will be used for the government's commitment to provide over $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women who are impacted. Family and domestic violence is one of the main reasons women and children leave their homes in Australia, and it is the leading cause of homelessness for children. In October last year, the Albanese government, together with states and territories, launched the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, which recognises the critical role that housing plays in ending gender based violence. In October the government had already taken action through our announcement to deliver up to 720 safe places for women and children, but these houses allocated from the Housing Australia Future Fund are critical to complementing that investment, making sure that more options are available to more women. Therefore it's incredibly disappointing that we've now learnt that those opposite are going to stand in the way of this investment. Unaffordable, inadequate and insecure housing results in more than 7,000 women each year returning to violent homes because they have no place to live. It is confounding that those opposite will stand in the way of this important investment. Housing for women and children escaping violence should be above politics. Politics should be able to be put aside so that we can actually get on with the job. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is on a warning. Ms RISHWORTH HWA We must all be pulling in the same direction if we are going to achieve this. I ask the opposition in a sincere way to reconsider their position on this. Reconsider this so that we can get on with the job of building affordable and safe houses in this country. Interest Rates 24 14:18 Mr 231027 Hume TAYLOR () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. In 2006 the Prime Minister said: 'The government has failed to keep a lid on inflation in Australia's economy, and, as a consequence, interest rates have kept going up and up.' After eight consecutive rate rises on this government's watch, will the Prime Minister take responsibility for rates going up and up? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked by the shadow Treasurer in 2023 about a quote from 2006. And people say they're backward looking! And they say they can't keep up with the times! I don't know where they get that from, but I'm sure that whoever faxed that quote to the shadow Treasurer—I'll accept that perhaps it's accurate, even though it wasn't detailed what was there. We actually have a plan to take pressure off inflation, and that's the way you take pressure off interest rates. We have a plan also so that monetary policy works with fiscal policy, together, in order to achieve an outcome. That's why the Reserve Bank governor last week was talking about inflation as being at least half and perhaps even more—two-thirds—because of supply chain restraints. What are we doing about supply chain is part of our three part relief— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 repair, restraint. The relief is energy price relief, which they voted against, cheaper medicines, which they don't support, cheaper— Ms Catherine King 00AMR Child care. Mr ALBANESE R36 child care, which they don't support, and fee-free TAFE, which they don't support. The repair is about supply chains—we have legislation for the National Reconstruction Fund so that we make more things here, and they're voting against that—as well as dealing with the skills crisis that we inherited. The restraint was shown by our returning those revenue gains to the budget. That's our plan. Those opposite have no plans except saying no and getting quotes from 2006 faxed through to their offices. The truth is that what we need in 2023 is a forward-looking government, and that's what you have right here, a forward-looking government that's looking at the challenges that we inherited— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 from the former government and the problems that they created. It's one thing to create problems, which you did—you left us with a trillion dollars of debt, a massive skills shortage, no industry policy plans and manufacturing going backwards—but then you stand in the way of solutions, as well. No wonder you won't ask the Treasurer a question. (Time expired) Veterans 25 14:22 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What support is the Albanese Labor government providing to veterans who are suffering homelessness, and what are the obstacles to the support being provided? 14:22 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for Solomon for this important question. Of course, the member for Solomon is a veteran himself and is very committed to the cause of supporting our veterans. I enjoy working very closely with him in supporting the veterans in his community and those around the country. That's all part of how the Albanese government is committed to delivering a better future for our veterans and their families. Australians across the country are confronted by difficulty in accessing housing and by cost-of-living pressures, and that is absolutely affecting veteran community as well. That's why, as part of the budget last year, we expanded the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme with a $46.2 million investment to allow our serving personnel to get access to housing assistance sooner and to remove the cap so those who have left service are able to access the scheme to help them as well. We have an obligation to support our veterans. We have an obligation to those who have put on our uniform to serve Australia, who have put themselves in harm's way, to make sure they are looked after. Too many veterans across this country are experiencing homelessness. Yesterday the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched a toolkit outlining factors contributing to veteran homelessness, their service needs and the available referral pathways. There are also specific veterans homelessness services that are sprouting up across the country. So I say to veterans and families: if you do need support with your living situation or homelessness, please contact DVA on 1800838372 or Open Arms on 1800011046. But more does need to be done. We're getting on with the job in places like Darwin, in the member for Solomon's electorate, with funding for the Scott Palmer Centre. But crucial to expanding this service provision for our veterans is our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. It will support veterans, our First Nations communities and victims of family and domestic violence. Part of that $10 billion fund commitment is a $30 million commitment to support veterans experiencing homelessness and to support veterans that are at risk of homelessness—and not just with housing itself but with the wraparound services our veterans need to support them getting into secure housing. But what do we see when we're putting forward a package, designed to support our veterans, that we took to the last election and that was widely supported by community housing and veterans' organisations? We get those opposite opposing it. There's no support from those opposite for our veterans getting into secure housing. We have a situation where housing for veterans, for some reason, is opposed by those opposite. I say to those sitting opposite: think very carefully about the message you are sending to the Australian veterans community when you oppose a package to support them when they're experiencing homelessness. Energy 25 14:26 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why EnergyAustralia is telling its consumers this week that the increase in electricity bills is due in part to 'some increases in government green schemes and market changes'? Prime Minister, isn't EnergyAustralia right and is this why your government constantly refuses to ever mention your election promise to cut electricity bills by $275? Why do Australians always pay more under Labor? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. The Reserve Bank of Australia have said this in their Statement on monetary policy of this month: Wholesale electricity and gas prices declined in response to the announcement of the temporary price caps on domestic gas and thermal coal in the Energy Price Relief Plan— Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. If there are further interjections, people will leave the chamber immediately. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 It says: Futures markets now suggest that wholesale electricity and gas prices will be lower in 2023— That's now— and 2024 than previously expected … Over this year and next— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 It's not just them. Clare Savage told Senate estimates yesterday: 'In December the National Cabinet announced an agreement for significant interventions in the wholesale gas, coal and electricity markets. We've seen futures markets fall materially since that time, and we think that will mitigate.' An opposition member interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 That's what they had to say. The New South Wales Premier—maybe you can interject on him too!—said: 'I'm a free market guy and also a practical guy. The fact you say I'm a free market guy and I'm supporting it must say something. It's states and territories working with the Commonwealth government. Everyone at National Cabinet is on a unity ticket.' Matt Kean, the New South Wales Treasurer, said this: 'We're not on the side of energy bosses. We're on the side of consumers and businesses.' That's what Matt Kean had to say in drawing a distinction between the two sides of this chamber. I say to the member who asked the question: you would have more credibility if you had voted for energy price relief and hadn't opposed the $1½ billion we will provide. Manufacturing 26 14:29 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Why is it important to invest in manufacturing jobs, and are there any threats to this investment? 14:29 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thanks to the member for Corangamite. Her state is a mighty contributor to manufacturing in this country, and there are over 260,000 men and women in Victoria who owe their livelihoods to manufacturing, so it is a big deal. The government are delivering on our commitment to establish the National Reconstruction Fund. We took it to an election, we said we wanted to do it, we are going to do it and that is what we are working on. It is a key plank in our effort to reduce this country's dependence on broken supply chains, will help in our fight against inflation and help to reduce interest rates. They are the government's chosen priority areas of the economy with a view to growing jobs, playing to our current and emerging industrial strengths, and to our strategic national priorities. Again, we said we would deliver and we are. Manufacturing is absolutely critical to an economy's health because few other capabilities generate so many well-paying jobs. If you look at it, it is the seventh-largest employer. It creates nearly 900,000 jobs. Those jobs are contained within just over 90,000 manufacturing businesses. It is important to note that in some places it makes a huge contribution in regional communities. Notably in Queensland, half the jobs in manufacturing are in regional areas—very, very important. We want to be able to grow those capabilities and we want the National Reconstruction Fund to build those jobs, from research and design to production. We need coders, welders, designers, researchers, machinists and everyone in between. To make all this happen, we need expertise in key enabling capabilities. The Liberals and Nationals say they are pro manufacturing. They love wearing the high-vis but, really, it's the cosplay coalition; they love the dress-ups. They love putting on the high-vis but are never there to back them. I remember that moment when manufacturers, who make up half of the domestic gas demand, needed support, and those opposite chose multinational profits over manufacturers. That is the record. When we are ready to invest in capabilities, some of them—for example, quantum and critical technologies—we will be dependent upon, as part of our strategic alliances. But those opposite won't support the fund that will support the development of that technology, keep companies onshore and make sure we can contribute. They are never, ever there when they are needed. They love to pretend, love to put on the high-vis but are not there to back manufacturing workers. Particularly in regional communities that depend on manufacturing, they will be scratching their heads working out why the Liberal and National parties aren't there. (Time expired) Energy 27 14:32 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. A single mother with six children in Queensland has been hit with a $1,500 electricity bill, much of which is due to the mother's need to charge her NDIS-supported daughter's electric wheelchair. Given a worker at the mother's electricity company told this struggling single mother she will probably be paying her bill 'for the rest of her life', will the Prime Minister immediately apologise to this family for promising them a $275 annual cut to their power bill? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? 14:33 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Forde for his question. I do note he was absent—he had leave—when the vote happened in this parliament, which was $1.5 billion of assistance for people just like the constituent that he raised. That is why the Queensland government, as well as the New South Wales government, as well as every state and territory government, as well as this national government all signed up to energy price relief—$1½ billion, but those opposite, of course, voted against that. They voted against price caps that are already having an impact on prices. We know the member for Hume hide the price rises before the election and then misled Australians about it—actually changed the rules so that it wouldn't be declared. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 Of course, as well we know we're more vulnerable to international price increases than we should be because four gigawatts of capacity got taken out of the grid and only one gigawatt put in. We're more vulnerable because we had 22 energy policies announced but not a single one delivered. They left us with an energy grid that was built for the last century. Snowy Hydro is a positive initiative. They just forgot to plug it into the grid. Those opposite came up with all sorts of fantasies about a way forward, including one in Queensland I well remember—the feasibility study that was happening for the Collinsville power plant. I wonder who they gave $4 million for a feasibility study to. They gave it to the proponent—'Here's $4 million to see if your project stacks up.' They took that to an election. They told Queenslanders that it was going to make a difference. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Members on my right will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B It's on relevance. If the Prime Minister has no practical assistance to offer this single mother and her family— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That is borderline abuse of the standing orders, Manager of Opposition Business. You won't be warned again if that happens. The Prime Minister is in order. The question was about electricity prices and energy. He is answering the question directly. I give him the call. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 We had $1½ billion of price relief that they voted against. They had the Collinsville fantasy that they took to the election. They kept talking about it throughout the entire last term, knowing that it was never going to happen. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Dawson is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's a bit like their glow-in-the-dark nuclear fantasy they're on about now. Manufacturing Industry 27 14:37 Mrs PHILLI 147140 Gilmore PS () (): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting regional manufacturing and what risks are there to this approach? 14:37 Ms 00AMR Ballarat CATHERINE KING (—) (): I very much thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She lives in regional Australia, just like me, and she knows what a great place it is to live and how important it is to actually stand up for regional manufacturing jobs. This government is delivering on its priorities. We know how important the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is to our regions, because it will support regional manufacturing, it will transform Australia's industry and it will create secure, well-paid jobs in regional manufacturing across all of our communities. We know that it will drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products here, particularly in our regional communities. We expect that the investments in priority areas, such as resources, agriculture—not much ag in our cities, I have to say—defence and renewables, will have a strong regional impact. Growth in these sectors we know will help regional areas diversify our economies but also help transform our workforces and provide opportunities for young people in our regions in the future. It will drive economic development in our regions, boost our sovereign capability, diversify the nation's economy and help secure jobs in our regions. I'll tell you what other people are saying about this fund. Townsville Enterprise has endorsed the fund's design and said that it will provide an opportunity for those early-stage projects and emerging industries to gain access to funding and will encourage private investment in the region. Latrobe City Council provide their support for the fund. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Herbert is on a warning. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR It wants it to invest in projects that leverage the strength of the regions to provide secure, long-term meaningful jobs. This fund will also support our rail manufacturing plan— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The member for Herbert is continuing interjecting. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Herbert then left the chamber. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Our rail manufacturing plan is a plan to build more trains here, to have more jobs in our regions, like Maryborough, and in Ballarat—in my own home town. We know that the fund will help transform that manufacturing, to build more rail jobs. Four thousand jobs are already in rail, and we've seen good Labor state governments invest in it, and this is what this fund will help to do. The truth is, of those opposite, that, when it comes to regional Australia and regional jobs, they've buried their heads in the sand for the last decade and failed to support regional jobs. We know, on this side of the House, just how important regional manufacturing is for long-term jobs. I cannot believe that a regional member of this place would be voting against this fund. Hayes, Mr Chris, Fowler Electorate: Grants 28 14:40 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My question is to the Prime Minister. Federal grants are integral to every electorate's community groups. Recent media reports are that a staffer of the former member for Fowler had been given nearly $40,000 in three rounds of grants for an organisation based outside the electorate. Given that the staffer did not disclose a conflict of interest to the selection committee, local communities groups have now raised concerns. What steps will the government take to investigate the matter, to restore integrity and transparency in the grants process? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I have made it crystal clear: that is not the time to interject—when ministers are on their feet, before they even start talking, including the Prime Minister. He has the call. 14:41 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Well, the minister responsible and the government have made it very clear that we are making changes to the way that grants are given. Those opposite who were objecting just before should indicate that, when we announced our budget—which cut out a whole lot of the discretionary funds—they objected at that time. That's why we're putting integrity back into the system. I was talking just yesterday about walking past North Sydney pool, walking Toto the dog, and there you've got a 'regional' pool! And it was justified— Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 That's right! You can see where it is: it's right next to a pylon of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Maybe someone from the bush might have a swim in there, once in a while! The sorts of program that they engaged in were just extraordinary, and the former government did not have enough transparency in the way that they conducted these programs. We're making sure that we do, going forward, and that's why, as well, you won't see, from this government, the sort of disgraceful rorting of bushfire funds that occurred from the National Party. Manufacturing Industry 29 14:43 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Why is a strong manufacturing industry critical for Australia's national security? How is the Albanese Labor government supporting the defence industry? And why is this important, after a decade of neglect? 14:43 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for Hunter, my neighbour and close friend. We face the most challenging strategic environment since World War II, and our sovereign manufacturing industry is critical to our national security. The COVID pandemic and its impact on the supply chains, and the war in Ukraine, have again demonstrated the need for manufacturing sovereignty. We must be a country that makes things. We need to build our key defence capabilities here and we must be able to sustain and upgrade our platforms. That's why the Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting Aussie manufacturing, especially in the defence industry. That's why we'll establish a new defence industry policy, informed by the Defence Strategic Review and supported by the Australian strategic research agency. This defence industry policy will be complemented by the National Reconstruction Fund, which will support and help grow defence manufacturing. I'm proud that defence is one of the NRF priority areas under the Minister for Industry and Science. And that's why I can't understand why the opposition is opposed to the NRF. The coalition's opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund demonstrates that they are opposed to Aussie manufacturing. It also demonstrates that they aren't serious about supporting defence industry and, through it, our national security. I'm asked about a decade of neglect. This neglect started with the very first decision the last government made about defence industry, and that was to send a $1 billion contract to Spain to build the very large Navy supply ships. They sent supply ships offshore. We built the Air Warfare Destroyers here. They killed the car industry. We saved Bendigo through the Hawkei mobility vehicle. They wanted to build submarines in Japan. We will build our nuclear powered submarines in Adelaide. They had 12 defence and defence industry ministers. This neglect was not just bad for defence industry; it led to 28 major defence projects running cumulatively 97 years late. We also heard yesterday that they spent $114 million to place only 200 workers in naval shipbuilding jobs—200 workers. That equates to over half a million dollars per worker placement. The coalition, through its opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund, is opposed to Aussie manufacturing and is weakening our defence industry, which is so critical to our national security. By contrast, the Albanese government is backing Aussie manufacturing, not just because it delivers high-skill, high-wage jobs but because it's vital to our national defence. I say to the opposition: if you really care about a sovereign defence industry, it's time to get behind the National Reconstruction Fund. Defence Procurement 29 14:46 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Can the minister nominate a single major defence vessel that Labor commissioned between the years 2007 and 2013? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and the minister for climate change. The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I'm just trying to find any part of that question that's part of the minister's current responsibility. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, it clearly goes to precisely the matters that the minister has just been talking about. The SPEAKER 53517 The difficulty with that is that you didn't link it to his former answer. If that had happened, the question would have been in order. I'm going to allow it. It's a very, very loose question, and the minister is entitled to answer that question any way he sees fit. 14:48 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Thank you for that very generous question. It's rare to get a dixer from the opposition. I got one last week and I got another one today. I'm invited to contrast our performance on defence with that of those opposite, and I'll do that any day. Let's start with defence ministers. They had 12 defence and defence industry ministers, and what did that lead to? Twenty-eight major projects being cumulatively 97 years late. Let's go through some of my favourites. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume his seat, and I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, it'll come as no surprise to you that this is a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked a question which you allowed and ruled in order. The question couldn't have been clearer or tighter. It said: 'Can the minister nominate a single major defence vessel that Labor commissioned between the years of 2007 and 2013?' I'll give him a hint: it's less than one. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order. The minister is being relevant and he continues with his answer. Mr CONROY 249127 I'm proud of the fact that construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers began in 2009. I'm proud of that. I'm proud that we had to intervene in that project to save jobs in Melbourne— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Fairfax then left the chamber. Mr CONROY 249127 when they gave part of that contract to a tin-pot company in North Queensland that had two employees. They tasked a company that had two staff members with building our air warfare destroyers. I'm proud to talk about defence any time. Twenty-eight major projects, 97 years late. Let's go through some of the highlights: $1½ billion on battle lift aircraft that can't fly into battlefields. That's my favourite. Goldfish lasted longer than defence ministers under those opposite. Let's go through some of the other projects: helicopters where the door wasn't wide enough to fire a machine gun while soldiers came out. That's another good one. If they want to go back further: the Seasprite helicopter, where those opposite spent $1.4 billion and delivered zero helicopters. So we're proud to have delivered the air warfare destroyer. We're proud to be making record investments in defence. We're proud to have members in this government who actually want to be in this portfolio. By contrast, they had a defence minister who said he wouldn't trust the workers of Adelaide to build a canoe. That's why they wanted to send the submarines off to Japan. That's why we're building the submarines in Adelaide. That's why they wanted to build the submarines in Japan. We're proud of our record. They are all press release, not about delivery at all— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left are warned. Mr CONROY 249127 unlike us, who will deliver for defence and will deliver for our nation. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. There is far too much noise. Question time will be heard in silence. Defence Strategic Review 30 14:52 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is a forward-looking defence strategic review important to ensure our nation's security is enhanced? 14:52 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Tangney for his question. This afternoon, the defence minister and I will receive the Defence Strategic Review from the great Angus Houston, who has served Australia so well for such a long period of time. This is about preparing Australia for the challenging strategic circumstances that we face. We committed to, and I announced well before the election, a defence force posture review, but we decided to elevate that to a full strategic review, looking at not just where our Defence Force assets were but what our Defence Force assets are so that we improve our capability, because, of course, it's not just about how many dollars are spent; it's about whether those dollars are going towards creating capability improvements to defend our nation, as the minister has just pointed out. We want to make sure that our assets are fit for purpose and that they deliver the greatest return on investment. So I thank Angus Houston and Stephen Smith for the extraordinary work that they did. And I thank not just all our defence forces and those in the public who made submissions; I also thank the international partners who met with us and who engaged with the review. It's quite clear that we need to do better. When we came to office, we inherited 18 major projects running a combined $6.5 billion over budget; 28 major projects running a combined 97 years late; and a future frigates program that's $15 billion over budget and delayed into the next decade. Those opposite had six defence ministers in eight years, and the shadow minister said: Yes, we also squandered a lot of opportunity through the leadership changes. The former minister himself, the Leader of the Opposition, said last year: I wish that we could have acquired more capability within Defence earlier … Well, that's precisely what we are doing: making sure that we're actually big on delivery, not just on announcements. I do note the matter of public importance today. Matters of public importance are usually looking forward, but, extraordinarily, the matter from the shadow defence minister is 'The continuing consequences of the last Labor government's defence spending cuts'. It's as if the last decade just didn't happen. Climate Change 31 14:55 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Resources. Sixty-eight per cent of emissions under the safeguard mechanism come from corporations and their peak bodies that donated $896,000 to Labor's election campaign, including coal and gas companies. The proposed safeguard mechanism changes won't stop new coal and gas and will allow fossil fuel companies to continue polluting through offsets. Minister, are you willing to make the climate crisis worse by approving new coal and gas projects for your corporate mates? Th 53517 I'm just going to ask the member for Ryan to rephrase the end part of her question. I'll ask her to repeat the question, and I'll ask her to rephrase the end part of the question. Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Are you willing to make the climate crisis worse by approving new coal and gas projects? The SPEAKER 53517 Thank you. 14:56 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I thank—well, I don't actually thank the member for her question, I think it's immature and beneath your position in this place—certainly the tone you adopted toward the end. Of course, as the shadow resources minister when we were in opposition and now as the resources minister, I have dealt and do deal with the resources industry. Of course I would, and no-one would expect any less. I'm not the only one, and neither should I be. I imagine you might meet with the resources industry, and I encourage all crossbenchers, and all members of parliament, to engage with the resources industry, because they're one of the biggest employers in this country and they have been the foundation of the prosperity of this country since we started extraction in this country, whether it be gold or coal or nickel or, in more modern times, iron ore and other commodities—more recently our new developments in critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt and our development of nickel hydroxide, which will be the underpinning of clean energy technologies that will take us to net-zero emissions. All these extraction industries, which have been existent in this country from the 1880s right through to today, will play a part in our economy for many years to come. I think, quite frankly, everyone in this House should respect their role in our economy instead of placing slights on them as I think has just happened. The safeguard mechanism is a part of this government's proactive and active response to climate change in this country. All projects—not just in the resources sector but in other sectors that emit—will be subject to it, and this government will make sure they are accountable for their emissions so that they lower them, whether it be through reducing their own emissions—by changing their technology or adopting new technology—or through credible offsets that we in this country can have confidence in. I acknowledge the report of Professor Ian Chubb, former Chief Scientist, and the work that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy is doing in regard to making sure that people in the wider community can have confidence in those offsets. The truth of the matter is that, for a number of years, we will still need to use some fossil fuels to get us through this. We want to increase activity in renewables. We have a commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050. But, as even the International Energy Agency has acknowledged, we will need to keep using products such as gas to make sure we can process critical minerals which will be required. You are shaking your head. I can see you shaking your head, and you seem not to believe me when I tell you that to process rare earths and critical minerals, which are the basis of all clean energy technology, you will need gas. Gas companies do have to reach net-zero emissions, and they will be held accountable by this government. Defence 32 14:59 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What are the continuing consequences for the Albanese government of the previous government's incompetent spending decisions on defence? Government members interjecting— The S 53517 Order! Members on my right: I would like to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B A point of order, Mr Speaker: to take up the point that the Leader of the House made earlier, how are decisions of the previous government within the minister's area of responsibility? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the question begins: 'What are the continuing consequences for the Albanese government.' That's the answer to the question that the Manager of Opposition Business just asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is in order. The first part is correct. The first part of the question is the key. I'm going to ask the minister to make his answer relevant, and I give him the call. 15:00 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question and thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me explain. This afternoon, the government will be receiving the Defence Strategic Review from Sir Angus Houston and Professor Stephen Smith. It is the single most important re-evaluation of Australia's strategic posture in the last 35 years, against a backdrop of the most complex strategic landscape that we have faced since the end of the Second World War. The review has met with 150 different experts from across academia, think tanks, the defence industry and the Defence Force itself. It has received more than 360 submissions from the general public. I have no doubt that the report the Prime Minister and I are about to receive will be one of the most important works in Australia's defence history. The government will take some weeks to consider the review before we announce an unclassified version of it along with our response to it. But none of this happens in a vacuum, because the decisions this government now has to make come on the back of a lost decade from the former coalition government, the worst government for national security in our country's history. Time and again we watched those opposite make decisions based on politics rather than on policy, decisions such as their decision to down-select the Attack class submarine program to one tenderer before they even competed the design, just so they could do a single press conference in the lead up to the 2016 election. That decision alone cost the Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. It was an epic failure from a government which, when it left office, had 28 different defence programs running a combined 97 years over time. The decisions of those opposite aren't really a surprise, because they never took defence seriously. They had six—really, seven—different defence ministers in the course of nine years, underpinned by another 18 defence ministers over the same period of time. It was for them a revolving door. They could not have treated defence with more contempt, because, for those opposite, becoming a defence minister was simply receiving a trophy. Well, let me say this: the Defence Strategic Review ushers in a new era of defence policy in this country, one where our decisions are rooted in proper judgements, judgements which are based on the national interest, a national interest which has at its heart keeping Australians safe. Migration 32 15:03 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson My question is for the Prime Minister. Last night it was revealed the Minister for Home Affairs received departmental advice highlighting the importance of temporary protection visas as deterrents that support Operation Sovereign Borders. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the dumping of TPVs won't provide an incentive for people smugglers, compromise our border protection and reopen our borders? 15:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question. She refers to last night, and I assume she's referring to Senate estimates, where Mike Pezzullo was asked the following question: Mr Pezzullo, I've just noticed some media reporting … Did the department advise against the changes to TPVs as announced today? Mr Pezzullo: No. No, in a word. He was asked: Unequivocally no? Mr Pezzullo: No … The government, I can assure you, has listened to advice and has put in place the appropriate mitigation, so the short answer … about whether the government has acted contrary to advice, I would say, is no. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McPherson, on a point of order? Mrs Andrews 230886 No, I seek to table a document. I seek to table the relevant page of the incoming minister's brief. The SPEAKER 53517 That's not the procedure. Are you asking the Prime Minister to table it, or are you tabling it? Mrs Andrews 230886 I'm seeking to table. I'm seeking to table the relevant page of the incoming minister's brief, which makes it very clear what advice was given to the Minister for Home Affairs. The SPEAKER 53517 That wasn't relevant to the question. But I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW In terms of the procedure, leave can be sought to have a document tabled that the minister or Prime Minister was referring to. The document the Prime Minister referred to was a transcript from last night's proceedings, and so, if that's sought to be tabled— Mr Burke DYW Then you're outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER 53517 That's not the time to table that document, so resume your seat. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Minister for Home Affairs! Can I have silence so I can hear the member for Bean. Medicare 33 15:06 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government making health care more affordable, and why is this a priority for the government? 15:06 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for his question because he is such a relentless advocate for better and more affordable services in his community in the ACT, and he tells me very regularly, as do the other members for this territory, that it's never been harder to see a doctor than it is right now and it's never been more expensive. Theirs is exactly the message that we're receiving across the country. I think, if members opposite were honest, they'd be saying their constituents were telling them that, as a result of nine years of cuts to and neglect of Medicare, and particularly the Medicare rebate freeze that went on for six long years, general practice is in the most parlous state it has been in for 40 years. Where Australians have to pay gap fees, those gap fees have skyrocketed. More Australians than ever before are having to reach into their own pocket when they see a GP. For the first time— Mr BUTLER HWK Thank you. I'm just getting some fashion advice from the Leader of the Opposition—to do my jacket up. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will continue. Mr BUTLER HWK It shows you how desperate I am for fashion advice, Mr Speaker, that I reach into the bottom of the bucket and take some advice from the Leader of the Opposition! But take it I will, such is the generosity of spirit. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will not take free advice! He will continue with his answer. Mr BUTLER HWK He seeks to distract me from his poor record. The man voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in the Medicare era seeks to distract me with some pretty straightforward fashion advice. But I won't be distracted, because Australians know that, if they're paying a gap, for the first time in the history of Medicare they're paying a gap that is actually higher than the Medicare rebate itself to see a GP. Mr Dutton 00AKI You're right; it is too tight. Mr BUTLER HWK Mr Speaker, protect me! The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will just get on with his answer— Mr BUTLER HWK The fashion advice is swinging from one end of the pendulum to the other. The SPEAKER 53517 and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting and giving fashion advice. Mr BUTLER HWK 'Do the button up.' 'Undo the button.' To see a specialist, gap fees have skyrocketed by more than 100 per cent. This didn't happen out of thin air. Australians remember that, after promising them that there would be no cuts to health, the then health minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, tried to introduce a tax on every single visit to the doctor by every single Australian, including pensioners, concession card holders—a tax that would have wrecked the model of Medicare that has been such a cherished part of our social fabric. So I say to the member for Bean and to all members of this House: get behind the fact that this government has made strengthening Medicare the centrepiece of our health policy because we know how strong Medicare can be. Mobile Black Spot Program 33 15:09 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Minister for Communications. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, just 33 per cent of electorates outside of metropolitan Australia are held by the Labor Party. But, under the government's Improving Mobile Coverage Round of the Mobile Black Spot Program, 74 per cent of locations are in Labor-held electorates. How many of these locations were chosen based on advice from the minister's department? The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Minister for Communications. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for regional development and the member for Macquarie will cease interjecting. 15:10 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for his question. Improving access, especially to regional communications, is a top priority for the Albanese government, and— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Casey then left the cham ber. Ms ROWLAND 159771 for the benefit of the member, I will set out the different elements of our plan to do so. The government's election commitment of $40 million for the Improving Mobile Coverage Round of the Mobile Black Spot Program is to address mobile connectivity concerns at 54 target locations around Australia. The locations were based on feedback from communities to local members, councils and mobile carriers, including reported coverage and capacity concerns; natural disaster risks; areas affected by bushfire; and safety along transport routes. The important thing here is that these were election commitments. They were incorporated in Labor's pre-election costings. In other words, we are delivering on our election commitments because we funded them in our budget. Now— Mr Coleman 241067 Mr Speaker— Mr Burke DYW This can't be on relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being directly relevant to the question, so it can't be a point of order on relevance; otherwise, there will be consequences for abuse of the standing orders. I give the call to the member for Banks. Mr Coleman 241067 Mr Speaker, the question very clearly asked— The SPEAKER 53517 What is the point of order? Mr Coleman 241067 It's on relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 You may leave the chamber under 94(a). The SPEAKER 53517 No. The member for Banks then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the manager. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, with great respect, if you are to say to this side that we cannot raise a point of order on relevance, which is in the standing orders—the wording of this question is quite precise. Were the locations based on advice from the minister's department? The minister has not addressed that. Honourable members interj ecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'll deal with this. Yes, it is correct: points of order can be taken on relevance. If a minister is answering directly about the question—it may not be the specific answer you want—that is not a time to simply get up and ask for a point of order on relevance. I warned the member about that. The minister is being relevant. And if that standing order is going to be abused, there will be consequences. I will return the minister to the dispatch box to continue with her answer. Ms ROWLAND 159771 Now, it appears the member is confusing election commitments with other funding allocations that were made under the October budget. We also have public consultation on the draft grant opportunity guidelines from 14 November to 28 November 2022 conducted by the department. The feedback provided in the consultation process was used to prepare the final grant opportunity guidelines that were published on 2 February. Now, let's be very clear. We also have, under our better connectivity plan, $150 million over two streams. There is $100 million for place based connectivity solutions, and $50 million for mobile black spot solutions, to deliver new mobile coverage to regional, rural and remote areas. So it is very clear that, under this program, which is an election commitment, for which guidelines went out to the public to determine, and for which we had commitments to improve connectivity in areas which had elevated bushfire and flooding risks, right across Australia, we had local communities contribute to these draft guidelines. What I would say to those opposite is that I encourage them to work with their local communities on these rounds of black spot funding, for which the guidelines have been open for public consultation. This government is delivering on its election commitments. This government urges those opposite to do the best by their local communities and participate in that process. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Assistant Treasurer is warned. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 35 15:15 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What is the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme revealing about the previous government's awareness of faults in their scheme, and how has the government changed its approach? 15:15 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. The illegal robodebt scheme was a shocking piece of public administration, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is in denial about the consequences. At the heart of the royal commission, you are running a protection racket. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, I just want to refer you to the ruling that you gave last week where you said: … my approach has been to allow evidence to the commission which has been publicly reported … But what I am less comfortable with is putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions about the conduct of individuals who are parties to the proceedings. The minister did this repeatedly yesterday. He's already started doing it again today, only 18 seconds in, and I would urge you to remind the minister of the ruling that you have appropriately made. The SPEAKER 53517 I have made six rulings from 7 November to yesterday, and I remind the minister that any statements by the minister are constrained to those matters already raised in the public domain. I remind him and all members that statements made in reliance on the evidence provided should not appear to reach a concluded view. I want to hear the answer to the question but with that in mind. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Thanks, Mr Speaker. A key witness has emerged in the royal commission to help explain how an unlawful scheme can run for 4½ years without it being publicly identified as unlawful by ministers. This witness I refer to is Professor Terry Carney. He's an emeritus professor. He's taught thousands of law students, from Sydney university to Monash University. He served on the AAT and its predecessor bodies for four decades. He's identified 210 cases that were decided by the AAT over three years on questions of lawfulness. All were in favour of the applicant, not the Commonwealth. He decided five of them himself. So he's reviewed the whole list and found 210. He ruled on five of them himself. He's gone to the heart of the explanation for how, in an unlawful scheme run by ministers, they did not know about it. How was it 'see no evil, hear no evil'? How was it plausibly deniable? How did they say, 'We didn't know'? What he said is that when governments lose cases on the law—and this goes for all governments of all persuasions across our time—they either choose to act on the decision or choose to appeal it, but neither happened in 210 cases. They did nothing. One case, maybe, slipped under the radar—or two cases or three cases—but it really strains credulity that you can have 210 cases over three years—'Nothing to see here, Your Honour.' The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to ask the minister to return to the question and not to give a concluded view while the royal commission is underway. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG It is a matter of fact that Professor Carney looked at 210 cases and the then government didn't do anything. They literally did nothing. They didn't question the law that they were operating under. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister has one more chance. I want him to answer the question, which was about— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for skills is on a warning. The question was about the royal commission revealing faults in the robodebt scheme and what the government has changed in that approach. I remind the minister for the final time not to give a concluded view, otherwise I will sit him down. I return him to the question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I won't give a concluded view—certainly not. I'm just stating the facts: 210 cases, nothing happened. The problem is that we see this pattern in the evidence emerging. Oh sorry; one thing happened: Professor Carney didn't get renewed in his position in 2017. So we've got a missing million-dollar report, shelved. We've got the Masterton legal opinion, never revealed. On 140 occasions, coalition ministers said, 'I don't recall.' You don't have to draw a concluded view yet, but we know where the evidence is going. Superannuation 36 15:20 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Last week the Australian reported on the millions of dollars flowing from industry super funds to unions, including over $3.5 million from super funds to the CFMMEU, a union which donated $4.3 million to the Labor Party last year. Why did the Assistant Treasurer try to change the rules so such donations would no longer have to be publicly reported? 15:21 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for his question. It is true that Labor stands behind superannuation—30 years of history. It is making our economy stronger. It is making Australians wealthier in retirement. The average Australian woman today is retiring with $120,000 in superannuation, and the average Australian male with $180,000 in superannuation. This July, superannuation contributions will go up by 0.5 per cent. Every single one of those dollars and every single per cent has been opposed by those opposite. We stand for superannuation. We believe that it should be performing well and we believe that every single dollar that is contributed to a superannuation fund should be used for the purpose of advancing members' retirement income, which is why, upon coming into government, we reviewed all of the transparency arrangements that were applying to superannuation funds and the reporting arrangements. When we did that review, we discovered there were big gaps. Yes, it is true that the members opposite, in the previous government, introduced new reporting arrangements. They were politically driven and ensured that members received misleading and ambiguous information. So we have reviewed these arrangements and put in place new reporting and new transparency arrangements. No. 1: as a result of the legislation introduced by me— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Assistant Treasurer will resume his seat. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. I'd like to hear the member for Groom on a point of order. Mr Hamilton 291387 Speaker, this is a cover-up, not an answer. The question was very clear: why did Labor change the rules— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order. I thought I'd made this crystal clear about the abuse of standing orders: you do not rise to your feet and start yelling anything you want. That is an abuse of the standing orders. We've been down this road before. That is not acceptable behaviour. You will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Groom then left the chamber. Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order. The Assistant Treasurer will continue with his answer. Mr JONES A9B As a result of the new reforms that our government has put in place in transparency in superannuation, there will be a new requirement for superannuation funds to publish an annual report and have it filed with ASIC. It didn't occur under this mob over here. They said they stood for transparency. There was no requirement to produce and file an annual report. That is a new legislative requirement. In addition to that, there will be an annual transparency report, including on the matters that have been raised by the member who's been ejected from the chamber, about donations, about payments to related parties—a single point of truth so that it is available not only to fund members but to journalists, to analysts and to members of parliament to understand and look at the payments that have been made and the performance of every single fund that you are a member of and every other fund in the registered superannuation system as well. In addition to that, they will receive a notice of annual meeting. Under the proposition that the members opposite are putting forward, you will not get one extra skerrick of transparency but loads of confusion. (Time expired) Visas, Citizenship 36 15:25 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How has the Albanese Labor government improved the administration and processing of visa and citizenship applications? 15:25 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. I know that in representing his diverse community so well these are issues of great importance to him. He has already been a terrific advocate to all of these questions. He knows, and members on the side know, that when we came into government there were almost one million visas waiting to be processed, an enormous backlog for a country of our size and with huge consequences for our society and indeed for our economy. Today I am pleased to let members know the number is now below 600,000. Working with my friend the Minister for Home Affairs, we have sought to deliver the certainty that is so important for families, for businesses and, importantly, for prospective migrants, because we recognise that we are in a global fight for talents. After the investment in the visa system that was secured through the Jobs and Skills Summit, at which some members were not represented, there are now an additional 485 staff supporting our visa system. These hardworking people have helped process more than 4.7 million visa applications. This is only possible because the investments the Albanese government has been making and, of course, the hard work of these workers. Their work has seen a real difference. Waiting times for visa categories like international students and skilled workers have now been slashed. I am pleased to advise that international students looking to come and study at universities here now wait an average of 12 days instead of the months and months it was when we were sworn in as ministers. Applications for temporary skills shortages are now turned around in weeks instead of the months it was under those opposite. In critical areas of need, which the member for Chifley has been talking about so effectively and so often, like IT and cybersecurity, the time to process a temporary skilled visa is down by 60 per cent. This government is filling skills shortages right across this country, in the cities and the regions, by delivering a regional visa program that is—get this—three times larger than that delivered by those opposite. We have also, unlike those opposite, recognised the importance of citizenship. We are a nation built on citizenship. It is a common bond that unites all Australians. Too many Australians have waited too long under those opposite because of the previous government's long-term neglect of the immigration function of national government. On their watch, citizenship processing times tripled, but I am pleased to announce that now, for the first time in over five years, there are fewer than 100,000 citizenship applications waiting to be processed. We are taking responsibility and getting on with the job, not just talking about problems but solving them. Mr Albanese R36 On that very positive note from the immigration minister, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 37 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Youth Insearch 37 15:29 The SPEAKER 53517 I want to acknowledge in the gallery Youth Insearch, which is a peer led youth intervention organisation. A very warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! STATEMENTS 37 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 37 15:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BURKE DYW I have been, and it's an odd one. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr BURKE DYW On the Notice Paper today the Manager of Opposition Business has described the National Cultural Policy, which I personally announced, as 'only relatively modest new funding for the arts of around $60 billion a year over four years'. I regret to inform the House that I have not been able to secure $60 billion a year over the next four years. I can now understand how the Leppington Triangle happened. While I certainly hope to keep the position of Minister for the Arts, I'd be really happy to have him on the ERC. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 37 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 37 13:30 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I wish to draw your attention to questions in writing Nos 68, 65, 64, 63 and 61 asked of the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Cyber Security and No. 62 asked of the Attorney-General. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to write to the aforementioned ministers seeking reasons for the delay in answering these six questions. 13:30 The SPEAKER 53517 I shall write to the ministers responsible under the standing orders. STATEMENTS 38 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 38 15:30 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to be misrepresented? Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I do most grievously. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR In a similar vein to the member for Watson, both the member for Mallee and the shadow minister for infrastructure put out a press release recently claiming that I had cut $123 billion out of the Western Highway, which also runs through my electorate. It would be gold-paved if we had spent $123 billion. We have done no such thing. DOCUMENTS 38 DOCUMENTS Presentation 38 15:31 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 38 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Defence 38 15:31 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable member for Canning proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing consequences of the last Labor Government's defence spending cuts. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of me mbers required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:32 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning It was a rowdy question time. It's a reminder of how quickly politics can change. Only last week the Deputy Prime Minister rose in this House and said, 'The first responsibility of government is to provide for the safety and security of its people.' In a very solemn voice he spoke of Australian sovereignty and the need to protect it, along with our unique and cherished way of life. We agreed, and we answered in a spirit of bipartisanship. We pledged to work with the government on the strategic challenges ahead, to build our strength and sovereignty, to show resolve in the face of authoritarian aggression and coercion, to deliver nuclear submarines as soon as possible, to act as a robust opposition—in the Westminster tradition—and to hold the government to task and to account for their promises, the trust of the Australian people and our national security. We pledged to be tough but always with the national interest as our guiding star, to make sure that we make Australia safer now and for the generations to come. That's our pledge as the coalition, and it's one we take seriously. Our words in this place matter, as do our actions, and we are rightly judged by both. Therefore, we cannot leave unanswered this government's cheap hyperpartisan misrepresentation and distortion of our record. Today, unlike Labor, we seek not to settle scores; we seek simply to correct the record. Let us consider Labor's defence record over the past two decades. The truth is that when the coalition won government in 2013 we inherited a big mess from the former Labor government. Chronic underinvestment, spending cuts and neglect had badly damaged capability and morale in the ADF. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments drove defence spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest since 1938. That was after inheriting the strong economy the Howard government had built before them. It was a huge mess. Since taking office in 2013 and until leaving office late last year the coalition government increased defence spending in real terms by 55 per cent. Truth matters, and the truth is that all of the investment in defence over the last decade was made by the coalition. Growing ADF numbers; building new capabilities; restoring morale; giving our soldiers, sailors and airmen a new sense of mission and purpose—that was the coalition. It was under our watch. The truth is that the hard analysis of our new strategic reality was undertaken by the coalition. It was our burden, and we stepped up. We did not resile from it. The 2020 defence strategic update, which forecast the rise of authoritarian powers, the return of traditional warfare and the growth of subversive operations in the shadows, was the hard-headed work of the coalition. We were on the right track. The proofs are there, including Russia's brutal war in Ukraine and China's increased aggression in the region and beyond. The truth is that we also took the hard decisions in responding to our dark and strategic reality. Sometimes the right commitment to investing in our national security means making tough decisions. We took the tough but necessary decision to cancel the French Attack class submarines and to acquire nuclear powered submarines through AUKUS. It was necessary in the national interest. We took the tough but necessary decision to acquire Black Hawk and Apache helicopters. That was our call. This was also necessary in the national interest. This call means that, if our troops are once more deployed overseas into harm's way, they won't be relying on allied airlift or air support under fire. Instead, they will have Australian air crew and helicopters watching their backs. These decisions, among many others taken by the coalition, were informed by the lived experience of veterans sitting on these benches and followed through by the Leader of the Opposition. We are proud of our record, and we take exception to this government trashing it in the petty pursuit of short-term partisan applause. We remain circumspect about the Albanese government's commitment to the task ahead. We have good reason for this. In 2007, the Labor Party produced an election document entitled 'Labor's Plan for Defence'. On page 7 we find these words: Labor is committed to maintaining defence spending, including a minimum annual 3 per cent real growth until 2016, and is committed to ensuring that Defence dollars are spent more effectively and efficiently. We know how that campaign pledge finished up. On leaving office in 2013, defence spending under Labor had dropped to just 1.6 per cent of GDP. They promised three per cent; it went down to under 1.6 per cent. The ADF had been fleeced and we had all become more vulnerable. We can't pretend this is ancient history, because it's not. In fact, two of the key contributors to this dangerous record have returned, front and centre, to the political stage. Stephen Smith, the defence minister back then, was entrusted with co-leading the defence strategic review and is now the UK High Commissioner. Dr Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister and foreign minister back then, is now Australian Ambassador to the USA. They are now intimately involved in delivering our nuclear submarines and operationalising AUKUS. We hope they have learned from their past failures and neglect under their watch. We will remain vigilant, watching carefully and reserving our judgement as DSR and AUKUS announcements are made over the coming weeks and months. But perhaps even more concerning than this is the internal difference, the division, within the Albanese government over the nature of the challenge we face. While reading the Treasurer's essay this summer, I enjoyed my fill of anecdotes from ancient Greek history about rivers—we all did! But I was left worried by the gaping hole the Treasurer left. He covered the three crises of the past well enough—the global financial crisis, the pandemic and the energy and inflation crisis we face now. But none of these is the big crisis, the one over the horizon, the one the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly called 'our greatest security anxiety'. Over two years ago, Senator Wong criticised our side for deliberately encouraging anxiety. Now both she and the Deputy Prime Minister admit we need to be clear-eyed about national security or we face the risk of a catastrophic failure of deterrence. While the Treasurer had 6,000 words, he couldn't find a dozen of substance to acknowledge the greatest threat this country has faced since the Second World War. I was proud—indeed, we were all proud—to be part of a government that saw the crisis with clarity and responded with AUKUS and the plan to acquire the most lethal submarine in history. Australia needs nuclear submarines. They will make us strong and change the balance of power in the region in favour of those who seek peace. This is the promise of AUKUS. But these weapons depend on a highly powered economy, and we're yet to see a plan for developing the economic power we will need in the years ahead. AUKUS requires a nation-building approach. We need the submarines, but we also need the highly trained military and civilian personnel workforce and industrial capacity. This is the most important capability advance. How will the Deputy Prime Minister, therefore, reshape the educational system to ensure Australian students can prepare for the jobs AUKUS will create? How is the Deputy Prime Minister streamlining our immigration system so the AUKUS workforce can move seamlessly between Australia, the US and the UK? How is the Deputy Prime Minister going to ensure that legislation that will cut across defence, energy, education and other portfolios is managed in a bipartisan and constructive way? Is he prepared to institutionalise the kind of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration that Australia needs from this parliament so that AUKUS and its fruits will survive not just this government but the many governments hereafter? How is the Prime Minister going to sustain and grow our defence industry? What signal will he send to our partners that this parliament is serious about working on AUKUS and building institutional support for it? We welcome answers to these questions. In the meantime, we suggest that the government gets on with the AUKUS mission and works constructively with the opposition. Look forward, as you'll find no inspiration in your past. I turn to the comments made recently, last year, by the defence minister, who very clearly appreciates the task ahead of him. He said on 10 October 2022: Well, let me start by saying we accept responsibility. We accept the responsibility of government, and we do so going forward. No ifs, no buts about all of that. It's not ultimately for departments to stand here and accept responsibility for government performance. It is ministers. Mr Taylor 231027 Where does responsibility start? Mr HASTIE 260805 That's right; it's the Deputy Prime Minister and his rather lacklustre industry minister in support. We are going to hold you to account. We're going to ensure the Australian people are secured and we're going to make sure this Albanese government is relentlessly mission focused on delivering submarines that are capable of defending this generation and the generations of Australians to come. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Are we finished with the interjections from the opposition benches? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Please, Member for Riverina! 15:42 Mr 182468 Kingsford Smith THISTLETHWAITE (—) (): I want to, firstly, pay tribute to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and let them know that every member of the Albanese government highly values and respects the role they play in defending our nation. Australia faces some of the most challenging strategic circumstances since World War II. The government takes that threat very seriously. We're acting to ensure the Australian Defence Force has the capability and the personnel to ensure the security and wellbeing of all Australians. That's what the Australian people expect of their government, and that is what the Albanese government is delivering. That's why we've commissioned the Defence Strategic Review and the nuclear submarine taskforce, to advise government about delivering the necessary defence capability to defend our nation as quickly as possible and in a fiscally responsible manner. Just as Labor supported the then government, in opposition, when they announced AUKUS, we hope the opposition will support the Albanese government in making the necessary defence investments into the future to give the ADF the capability it needs to defend Australia into the future. When it comes to national security and defence, the Australian people expect unity and cooperation from this parliament. It's a shame that, through this MPI, the opposition appears more interested in politics than in that unity and cooperation on national security. They're well and truly stuck in the past, if you have a look at the motion. They're talking about something that happened close to 20 years ago, yet they want to forget what happened over the last decade under their watch. They're playing politics, and the claims in the motion are simply untrue. They want to ignore the last decade of defence debacles under their government. Under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, not only did we have seven defence ministers in the nine years they were in government; the result was 28 different defence projects running a cumulative total of 97 years over time. It's the coalition century of chaos, and it resulted in some of these projects reducing the capability of the Defence Force. You don't have to believe me when I make these claims; we need only look at what the opposition defence spokesperson said himself on 31 October: 'Yes, we squandered a lot of opportunity through leadership changes. It created ministerial churn, which led to inertia institutionally, and I think it meant we delayed a lot of these decisions. Defence had too many ministers over a nine-year period. It's been a criticism, and I think it's a valid one.' Well, you got that right, champion—for sure you sure got that right! But it was not just you. Mr Hastie 260805 Deputy Speaker— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I don't think I need to hear this point of order. I think I'm going to pre-empt that and say you need to address members by their correct titles. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 I shall. Mr Hastie 260805 Good on you, cobber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 And the interjections likewise—that was you, Member for Petrie, and I heard it. Mr Howarth 247742 Point of order— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sit down, please. Mr Howarth 247742 Point of order— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Will you withdraw your interjection? Mr Howarth 247742 I didn't interject. I was standing on a point of order. I didn't interject at all, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Well, I heard an interjection. If it wasn't you, it was one of your colleagues behind you. Alright, no-one's prepared to own up. You might as well tell us what you want at the dispatch box. What's your point of order? What is it? Mr Howarth 247742 The point of order is that the assistant minister direct his comments through the chair, not to the shadow defence minister. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Right. Sit down, please. Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 The Leader of the Opposition also agreed to this, when he said, with Raf Epstein on 15 August this year: I wish that we could have acquired more capability within Defence earlier … And he's right. These significant projects that the former government messed up have resulted in a number of projects running over budget and beyond time. The $44 billion Hunter Class Frigate Program: start of construction delayed by four years and a $15 billion increase in expected costs. They tried to hide that from the public. The C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifters were delivered 4½ years behind schedule and are unable to fly into battlefields. The $3.7 billion offshore patrol vessels project is running one year behind schedule. The evolved Cape class patrol boats are also nearly a year late. The battlefield command system is three years behind schedule. And several defence satellite communications projects are running two to four years behind schedule. Then, of course, we have the submarine debacle: three different prime ministers, three different submarine projects, which only ended up in delaying Australia acquiring that important capability and left Australians vulnerable. Three different prime ministers, seven different defence ministers—chaos in defence acquisition under their time in government. Once again, it will be up to Labor to clean up the mess left by the former government when it comes to defence acquisition. Just as the Hawke government set the strategic direction for a generation with the Dibb review, so, too, will this Albanese government with the Defence Strategic Review. But we're not waiting for that capability to come into the future. We're acting to put in place measures to fix the mess that was put in place by the former government. We're establishing an independent projects and portfolio management office within Defence; establishing monthly reports on projects of concern and projects of interest to the ministers for defence and defence industry; establishing formal processes of early warning criteria for placing projects on the concern list; fostering a culture in Defence of raising attention for emerging problems and encouraging/enabling early responses; and providing troubled projects with extra resources and skills. They are the changes that the new government is making in defence acquisition to ensure that we avoid the mistakes and the debacles of the previous government that left Australia vulnerable when it comes to our defence forces. But it's not just about capability. Importantly, Labor will invest in the members of the Australian Defence Force. Over the course of this government, we will grow the Australian Defence Force—in the military, in the reserves and in the civilian workforce—to ensure that we have the best trained, best equipped defence force in the world. I want to pay tribute to those Australians that are currently in the United Kingdom that are training Ukrainian soldiers. If you ever want an affirmation of the skills, dedication and competence of the Australian Defence Force, look no further than the request made by the Ukrainian government to have our soldiers pass on their expertise to their brave soldiers who are going into battle—many of them are civilians who have never had defence training in the past—and we pay tribute to them. But it's not just about recruitment. It's also about ensuring that members of the Defence Force are supported during their honourable careers serving our nation. That's why, recently, this government improved the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme—improving the eligibility—to provide more support for defence members and their families and to ensure that they feel supported in their career in the Australian Defence Force. Not only is it important to support our service personnel during their active service, but it's also equally important to support them when they leave the Australian Defence Force. One of the most disgraceful policy failures of the former government was the staff cuts and the staff cap that they introduced in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That has led to a massive backlog of DVA cases, which has resulted, unfortunately, in mental health issues, depression and, in some circumstances, suicides, as identified by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. As the new government, one of the first actions we took was to remove that disgraceful and arbitrary cap that was put on the DVA—the people who were dealing with and actively processing claims to support members who'd been injured in their service. We removed that staff cap. We're employing an additional 500 staff to ensure the DVA has the resources it needs to support those who've actively served our nation and who deserve the respect and support of the Australian people. We are not stuck in the past, as the opposition is on this matter of public importance. We are getting on with the job and, importantly, we are looking to the future. We are looking to ensure that the Australian Defence Force has the capability and is the best trained, the best equipped and, more importantly, the best supported defence force in the world, and that the members of the ADF will have pride in the service of our nation. 15:52 Mr JOYCE e5d New England On a very important issue, it gives me great pleasure to be able to rise and contribute. We were talking about time frames, and I think I'll take the time frames back a little. We'll go back to the Peloponnesian War, 411 BC, and the Thucydides effect. This is really important because, as we see, there is always a concern that the clash of two empires—as one is rising and one is falling—can inevitably bring about, through uncertainty, a move that has cataclysmic effects. I don't think the United States is falling. I think that is a huge mistake that people would make, and I think it's a mistake that has been made about the United States twice before—that being during the First World War and prior to the Second World War. What I do believe is that it's incredibly important that we understand the uncertainties of our area. I'd go to other dates, and especially around 4 March 1942 and 7 March 1942, when the Japanese imperial command were making decisions about whether they would invade Australia. They came to the decision—it came under the terminology 'Operation FS'—that they weren't going to invade Australia; they were just going to choke us to death. They were going to starve us out, they were going to psychologically torment us, they were going to bombard us and they were going to bring us into subjugation. One of the reasons that that this was delayed was submarine interdiction, which was, basically, the destruction of supply lines that the Americans were able to deliver to the Japanese. Why is this important? Because it drives Australian policy in such a way as to understand the pre-eminent platform that you need to secure Australia, which is submarines—nuclear submarines. And I'd like to commend the opposition—as they were at that stage—for supporting that decision for Australia to go to nuclear submarines, because it's incredibly important. Australia does not have the time to bicker or to go into an internecine debate because the threat is before us right now. Mr JOYCE e5d Yes—but right now. It's really important that we understand that this belittling by the government of the efforts that we both have, to try and make this nation as strong as possible, as quickly as possible, has to be taken into account. When the Minister for Defence, day on day, comes to the dispatch box and his contribution to the defence of our nation is to belittle the combined task that we both have to make our nation as strong as possible as quickly as possible, he undermines and debases the purpose that should be part of his job. We see that Minister Wang Yi of China goes to Dili, to Port Moresby, to Kiribati and to the Solomons. He has conversations with the Cook Islands, wants to be in Fiji, and goes through the process that is exactly what the Imperial Japanese Army would have done for the encirclement of Australia. That is what is before us right now. If you don't take it seriously, if you smirk and smear with funny little grins at the back when the future of your nation is before you, then you don't understand exactly what the job is of the people on your front bench. We have to make sure that the effort to make Australia as strong as possible as quickly as possible is not just on the military platforms. We must have baseload power. We must have the capacity at least to entertain a civil nuclear capacity with decisions and things like—if you're going to have nuclear submarines, you're going to have to have nuclear technicians, and if you're going to have nuclear technicians, you've got to consider things such as small modular reactors. You've got to have the skillsets. But if you say, 'No, the world is going to change for me. The world is going to live to different rules. I will live in splendid isolation from history and splendid isolation from the world which is so apparent around me,' then you put Australia in a confounded threat from which no great speech at this dispatch box will ever get us out of. So I commend this resolution, and I commend you to the task that is before you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The member for Paterson. 15:57 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Thank you, Deputy Speaker Claydon— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— Mr Joyce e5d You're such a moron The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me. Withdraw that comment now, please. Mr Joyce e5d I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 And I ask for interjections to cease on my right as well. Thank you, Member for Paterson. Ms SWANSON 264170 This is supposed to be a matter of public importance, and indeed it is. On that, I do agree with the opposition. However, what we've seen here today is a fractious display, a display that does a great disservice, quite frankly, not only to the good men and women who serve in the Defence Force but, indeed, to the safety and security of our nation. This is not a matter to quibble over. I'm proud to say that I am part of a government and, within that government, a defence team that is working incredibly hard to make the serious and long-term decisions for our future and for our security. Today we've heard from the alternative defence minister harking back two years and speaking about defence in a way that does not serve our people— Mr Howarth 247742 He was serving—as a soldier Ms SWANSON 264170 I respect the opposition defence spokesperson's service to our country, and I will take the interjection that he did serve our country. I thank him for that. I've done that both privately and publicly. As members— Mr Howarth 247742 Thank you. when you guys cut funding The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Petrie, you are a serial offender in this regard. I have asked members on my right to stop the interjections. I would like you to respect that ruling and also show some restraint. Thank you. Ms SWANSON 264170 I think that goes right to the nub of this. This is about respect—respect for the defence forces and respect for the Australian people but, essentially, respect for the portfolio of defence in and of itself. This is not about cheap political point scoring, it is above and beyond that. A former deputy prime minister stood and quoted Thucydides. Well, we can all read ancient history, and again the opposition wants to take us back to when we were last making decisions about defence. We made those decisions in good faith, and we appropriated the funds to see the required capabilities come to fruition. In the last 10 years, we have seen a government that has handed this portfolio around like either a prize or a punishment for someone. That, in and of itself, is a disgrace as well. It is not about the amount of money that a government spends on defence and defending our people; it is always about capability, whether that be materiel or personnel. We've got to have the best, most well-trained people to fulfil those incredibly difficult tasks that—let's face it—most of us here in this room would not be able to stomach. But they've also got to have, if I can use Defence parlance, Gucci kit. What I see from those opposite is a lot of spraying of cash but very little kit, and let me tell you: what these people brought to Defence wasn't Gucci. It was inefficient. In some cases it could not even be used on the battlefront. So we have conducted a review under Minister Marles, who is truly being the adult in the defence world here, and under the guidance of Angus Houston, who has served his country, and Stephen Smith, who has stood at that dispatch box as the defence minister. They are seriously reviewing our capacity to not only defend our nation but participate in the defence of a rules based order and a democratic process. We are fighting the good fight with our friends and allies across this world. We will make mature decisions. We will appropriately spend good taxpayers' money. We won't waste it, and what we won't do is politick when the people of Australia are relying on us not just for their safety but for their future. 16:02 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I would like to bring to the House's attention this MPI today and the continuing consequences of the last Labor government's defence spending cuts. This is about facts, and the facts remain that the last Labor government cut the guts out of Defence, and it affected the ability of our personnel to do their job. The Minister for Defence Industry said today in question time that the war in Ukraine has demonstrated that we need sovereign capability, and he said: By contrast, the Albanese government is backing … manufacturing … The problem is that, under this minister, defence industry is in paralysis. Small and medium enterprises in defence industry right around this country are receiving nothing. Small decisions are not being made. There have been no program decisions made by this minister, the Minister for Defence Industry, since Labor came to power 10 months ago. The member opposite whom I just quoted mentioned the war in Ukraine, but he might understand as well that, since the war in Ukraine started, there have been over one million 155-millimetre artillery rounds fired—one million rounds fired in Ukraine. So I ask the Australian government: since the war in Ukraine started, how many orders have you placed for 155-millimetre artillery shells? None. Zero. Not one order. Guess what: under our coalition government, we set up a factory in Queensland, set up as a partnership between Rheinmetall and NIOA, that produces these rounds, and this government hasn't even ordered one round, when over a million rounds have been fired in Ukraine. The problem with that is that we go right to the back of the queue, because countries right around the world, since the war in Ukraine started a year ago, have been starting to order. They understand. This government waits till after the DSR. They'll place their order— 'Oh, yes, we might deliver that in three years for you.' So we have a failure here by this government, an absolute failure. They are in paralysis, and the small and medium enterprises in defence industry have received nothing from this government. They won't meet with them, they don't attend shows, absolutely nothing—all talk. The minister opposite comes into question time every day and acts like the question time clown. He actually tries to make jokes. What did he say today? He said that the former coalition government was the worst national security government in our nation's history. This, from the member for Corio, who, between 2007 and 2013, was guilty of cutting since 1938, as was the member for Sydney, as was the member for Grayndler, the current Prime Minister, as was the member for McEwen and as was the member for Kingsford Smith, the assistant minister, who is the only minister here today; the others couldn't be bothered to be here to listen. Ms Plibersek 83M I am here. Mr HOWARTH 247742 The member for Sydney is here; she is on duty—sorry. In fact, they are now saying capability is paramount ahead of domestic manufacturing. That is what they're now saying. They're not just crab-walking away from their own election policy of a future made in Australia; they are running away. That's what the industry is telling me. They're absolutely running away. They have been in government for nearly a year. They squandered the last year and left medium and small enterprise businesses waiting in the wings. The Prime Minister said today that they will receive the DSR, that Labor is big on commitment and not just announcements. But the reality is they have committed to nothing. They're not big on commitment. They haven't ordered the artillery shells that obviously we will need. Labor, when last in government, cut it to the lowest level since 1938. The Minister for Defence Industry today, when asked if he could name one naval vessel commissioned between 2017 and 2013, couldn't name one because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, there wasn't one. The last time Labor was in government, the decision to cut defence spending was simply playing Russian roulette with our nation's safety and security. I have the whole book here on what the coalition did in government. When this man is back as the defence minister one day, we will have a competent defence— (Time expired) 16:07 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce We should be debating defence and strategic issues. Our nation faces the most serious and deteriorating strategic circumstances that we have faced since World War II. That is a fact, universally agreed. On the very day that the government is receiving the Defence Strategic Review from Sir Angus Houston and Stephen Smith—the very day—the opposition choose to bring this debate. We could be debating important strategic matters such as the forced posture review, the future pathway for nuclear submarines, or exploring the policy issues. I agree with those speakers opposite, not the last one but part of what the member for New England said and part of what the shadow minister said. I agree that these are serious issues. We should be seeking cross-party agreement. As chair of the defence subcommittee, that is what we strive to do with bipartisan reports, sensible briefings, sensible thinking. They are speaking against their own motion because the motion is new heights of bizarre. When you listen to the words in the motion they brought, they say we shouldn't be politicking yet they bring a ridiculous motion that says they want to talk about the consequences of the last Labor government. Kevin Rudd was elected 16 years ago. That is the debate they choose to bring today on this very day, given the seriousness of these issues. It says everything about how hopeless they are that they want to talk about the last Labor government 15 or 16 years ago. I would prefer a debate about strategic policy but those opposite chose this. This is what those opposite chose to bring here—their choice. Why, you might ask. They are desperate to distract from their decade of dysfunction and dithering and delay on defence. I will quote the shadow minister, my favourite line from his 10 minutes of Churchillian-like application for the Leader of the Opposition's job one day. He drifted from defence matters into the economy to things which must underpin our prosperity. I like the wing cut collar. That is a nice touch, shadow minister. He said, 'Look forward, as you'll find no inspiration in your past.' Never truer words were spoken in relation to the opposition's record on defence. Those opposite are hoping Australians will forget that they were the government for the last 10 years, a long decade—well, nine years. There were three prime ministers: Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison—the ATM government. And wasn't it an ATM! The cash just whirred out. There was a trillion dollars of Liberal debt and nothing much to show for it. Billions of dollars in compensation was paid for submarines that we did not get—another broken contract. There were three Treasurers, six defence ministers—you've got to go to two hands for that. I haven't had time to total up the number of ministers who churned in and out of the portfolio over their decade in office. It was chaos. They cut promised defence investments and failed to deliver projects on time. There were 28 projects running a cumulative 97 years late. Year after year on the audit committee, which I've been on, it was like goldfish: around in the bowl we go again, major projects report after major projects report. The cover-ups! It was all announcement, no delivery. They must have run out of Australian flags for the number of announcements they made, hundreds of flags flying behind them, on billions of dollars of new investment, none of which was delivered. Too little capability is the key point here: battlefield airlifters which can't fly to a battlefield, patrol boats with substandard aluminium and rust problems. Then there were the submarines. How did the Japanese submarines go? Tony Abbott left; that stopped. How did the French submarines go? Billions of dollars were paid out when Malcolm Turnbull left. There's AUKUS—no submarines ordered. As a defence minister has said to this House, you can't take a press release onto the battlefield. You can't hold up the budget papers and say: 'Don't shoot! We haven't got any missiles yet, but they're coming in the forward estimates or sometime thereafter.' Yes, I'm someone—a proud lefty—who says that we are going to need to spend more on defence as a percentage of GDP. The progressive side of politics must never cede national security to those opposite, given their dismal record. During the Second World War, Australians called on a Labor government, with John Curtin and Ben Chifley, to save us at that time. But it's the quality of the spend that matters. It's not how big the spend is; it's what you do with it that counts. And you deter from a position of strength. The finance department—let's be honest—don't like defence. They say, 'You want to spend how many billions of dollars on stuff you hope you'll never use?' Well, that's the point. But if deterrence doesn't work, if the very worst happens—the absolute, ultimate failure of politics—then the men and women of the ADF deserve the very best. And that's what we're committed to giving them, in contrast to the record of those opposite. They brought this debate. It should be above politics, but they chose this. (Time expired) 16:12 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina At the outset, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll say that I heard the member for Wills—and I might have misheard him—call out to the shadow minister for defence, 'Walk the walk.' If anybody has walked the walk in this place, it's this bloke behind me. He was a member of the SAS regiment, and there's no finer regiment than that. In a minute we're going to hear from the member for Herbert, another fine soldier, somebody who has represented his country. I acknowledge all members in this place—including the member for New England, who's been a reservist—for their service to our nation and in uniform. This matter of public importance discussion is about the last Labor government's defence spending cuts. I was a member of this parliament when Labor cut the heart out of defence spending. Indeed, a production in late 2013 spelled out exactly what Labor did. Labor's defence policy—what Labor said in this particular publication—and what Labor did were two completely different things. We've heard that Labor, during those six sorry years of chaos and dysfunction, reduced the defence budget as a percentage of gross domestic product to its lowest level since 1938—and we all know what happened in 1939. Labor's 2009 defence white paper said, 'For the first time, an Australian government has committed to funding a defence white paper for the life of the white paper.' That's what Labor said. What did Labor do? Well, it never adequately funded its own defence white paper in 2009. In May 2009 federal Labor 'released the most comprehensive defence white paper ever produced by an Australian government'. That's at least what they said they had done. What did they do? It was a disjointed, unfunded and unmitigated disaster. 'The government remains committed to a defence budget which ensures the ADF can meet the government's operational, force posture and preparedness requirements'—that's what Labor said it was going to do. What did it actually do? It kept defence spending at historically low levels. Federal Labor has delivered a new secure funding model for Defence, including a commitment to an average annual three per cent real growth through to 2017-18. That's what Labor said it was going to do. After the 2012-13 budget, defence was left in an unsustainable mess. And we, as an incoming coalition government, had to fix it—like always. The … Government is also committed to making strategic, risk-based decisions about Australia's long-term national security and defence needs. That's what Labor said it was going to do. Labor's 2013 Defence white paper was a political document designed to whitewash over its appalling defence record in policy. 'The government remains committed to fiscal discipline and improving the sustainability of the budget'—again, that's what Labor said it was going to do. But what did Labor do? It spent at least $150,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money to provide a backdrop for its 2013 Defence white paper. 'There is no greater responsibility for government than the defence of Australia and Australia's interests.' I agree with that statement, which Labor made in its 2010 election document. But what did Labor do? Well, I can remember Prime Minister Gillard—as much respect as I have for her—sent her bodyguard to national security meetings. And that just simply wasn't good enough. Labor's defence policy, through the white paper, 'confirmed the centrality of the alliance relationship with the United States'. What did Labor do? Well, its budget cuts earned a rebuke from respected US statesmen at the time. A Rudd Labor Government will maintain a generous military superannuation system, in recognition of the importance of the ADF and the immense responsibility placed on personnel in securing and defending Australia. Again, it's what Labor said it was going to do. What did Labor do? It never fairly indexed, and will never fairly index, military superannuation pensions. The Defence Capability Plan (DCP) sets out Federal Labor's detailed planning for delivering Force 2030 through major projects and equipment acquisitions. It gives industry the guidance necessary for planning future investment and maximising involvement by Australia-based companies. That's what Labor said it was going to do. But what did it do? It failed to articulate and enact a clear defence industry policy, and it forced local companies to the wall. I think you get my drift. I was only up to number 11 of 30 defence failures. Thirty defence failures—I'll come back to those in a future speech, be sure of that. But you can clearly understand how Labor did leave our defence unprepared and how its policies were not in the national security interests of our nation. The first order of government is to protect its people. Labor, during the years from 2007 through to 2013, failed in that task. And, rest assured, I ask the government to make sure they make amends this— (Time expired) 16:17 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen This MPI is just another example of the shadow opposition we have over there. The shadow minister for defence wants to talk about this but not to refer to anything that has happened in the last decade. We've just heard every single speech. They didn't refer to anything that they actually achieved in defence, because they didn't. In fact, we do know that the pressure that they put on our relationship with one of our great allies, France, and the billions of dollars that were wasted on submarines that were never delivered—they were things that we had to get into government and fix straightaway. The fact is that none of them could talk about it. I think I counted 132 times that the member for Riverina said 'Labor', but he never once said anything about what they did. Ten years, seven ministers and God knows how many press releases—I mean, they think that you could defend this country on a pile of press releases, because that's all they did. They talked about, 'Oh, we're going to spend'—'We're gunna, gunna, gunna'—but they never did. They never actually delivered anything. And when you're relying on the member for Petrie as one of your intellects, you know you're in trouble. This guy couldn't deliver a pizza, let alone a submarine, let alone for the defence of our nation. But the consistent thing that we have seen is that, under the chaotic mess we had for nine years, defence was treated poorly. They like to wrap themselves in flags and say, 'Ra-ra-ra,' but what did they do? Remember: it was a Liberal minister who said that he wouldn't trust Australian workers to deliver a canoe. What a disgraceful thing to say! But that's what we got under this lot. Ninety-seven years we were going to have to wait for them to get to everything that they promised to do and never ever did. It's no wonder that they want to go back and focus on things that happened 15 or 16 years ago, because they know, in their own hearts, that they failed in defence for nine years in government. All we saw was announcement after announcement after announcement after announcement, but never a delivery. Defence is important. I think it was the member for Bruce who said that it's probably the most important thing we need to do. But what you don't hear from those opposite is how they want to actually build, how they want to go forward, how they want to increase things and how they can actually work together. Australians made it very clear at the last election that they want a government focused on the future. We're at a time in history that is challenging, to say the least. What we found when we came to govern was that we have holes in our capability that we've never had before—issues we face, travelling forward, in the next 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. Talking about nuclear subs—for them, we made a deal with everyone on the planet. But never once did you actually invest in the workforce. In the rant by the member of New England, he talked about nuclear. Let's talk about nuclear. We have a shortfall of engineers. We have a shortfall of people for these subs coming forward, because, under the plan that you had in your government, for 40 years we're going to have a hole in submarines—because all you did when you, the LNP, were in government was create press releases and deliver nothing. We've got issues with things you have been involved in. We've seen 28 projects running late—28. Under the last Labor government, in six years we listed 21 projects of concern. What did you do? Four—four projects. Part of the problem was MRA— Mr Howarth 247742 You were part of the problem. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E It's great that the member for Petrie likes to interject, because, let's face it, you're really clueless. You've done nothing but fail. You sit there and say we haven't ordered shells— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, Member for McEwen. Please withdraw that comment. And I'm going to ask the member for Petrie, for the second time in this debate, to refrain from those interjections. Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E Nothing changes the fact that we've got those opposite talking about shells. It's just irrelevant. We're not in the Ukraine war, just by the way; that's Russia and Ukraine. This is, I guess, about the inability of those opposite to stand up and take responsibility for the failure they were for nine years. Never once did they come in here and say, 'Let's work together and push and see how we can build Australia's defence capability in the future.' But the best they can come up with on the day that the Defence Strategic Review is being delivered, to talk about the future of the nation, is to run back to a time long ago. We've had nine years that didn't disappear off the Australian calendar. They were nine years of abject failure, and an abject waste of money that has left us facing $1.2 trillion worth of debt—and you delivered nothing. (Time expired) 16:22 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert If history has taught as anything, it's that the last thing we should ever do is cut spending to defence, especially as we face the most uncertain global strategic environment in our generation. As a former infantry soldier I've spent a lot of time with people on the ground, the ones who feel the effect of government decisions. We need a government that invests in its people. This government needs to ask the questions about capability and kit to the people who use it every day. You must remember that you are the party and you were the government that cut defence spending to its lowest levels since the 1930s. Under the last Labor government, defence spending as a percentage of GDP dropped to 1.56 per cent. That compares to 2.09 per cent in our last year as the previous government. Those figures correlate with what we see on the ground. I remember being in the Army when Labor was in power. It wasn't hard to see the effects of the cuts to spending—MCBAS, for example, which is body armour. You couldn't shoulder your rifle to get into the fight if you needed to, because it was poor kit. It wasn't good. It was a failed bit of kit, and it was because the people who made the decisions didn't talk to the people that used them. You need to be speaking to the soldiers, the aviators, the sailors, the people that use the equipment every day, not listening to people that sit in here or that maybe sit at the highest levels at Russell. You need to be speaking to the people that use it—the people that are at the tip of the spear when it comes to conflict. That means investing in the right areas at the right levels at the right time. That's not always easy, but it's our job as people who hold the positions that we do in this place. It's the job of the Deputy Prime Minister and his team of defence ministers to listen and to act. It is the job of those of us on this side of the House to do the same. That's why it's important that we continue to implement and develop the AUKUS partnership and make the most of that huge and historic strengthening of our strategic posture. We're already seeing the Defence strategic review be used to disguise cuts to defence, like we saw under the previous Labor government. The Deputy Prime Minister, the part-time defence minister, has flip-flopped on his position on announcements on major coalition initiatives in the portfolio. Take the acquisition of the Black Hawks from the US to replace the MRH90 helicopters. At first it was said that the Black Hawk decision was under review as part of the DSR and no decision on it would be taken until the outcome of the review was announced. But then, 145 days after he said that, and months before the DSR is to be finalised, he announced the acquisition is going ahead. So what is it, Deputy Prime Minister? Are these decisions subject to the DSR or not? That's leaving aside the fact that the 5th Aviation Regiment has now had cuts to its capability as Black Hawks won't be based in Townsville, leaving no replacements for the MRH90s that are there now once they're phased out. Then we have LAND 400 phase 3. That decision was meant to be made months ago, but, again, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that is subject to review. Does it mean that we might not have an infantry fighting vehicle in the future? We don't know. There are units of the Royal Australian Regiment at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville who are using APCs. They are World War II relics. They are in museums around the country and around the world. It's absolutely critical that this new Labor government does not continue along the path of its previous term. We are feeling the effects of those cuts and, as I have outlined, we are seeing the signs of the same approach being continued. We must invest in the people that keep us safe. We must invest in the people that do a job that many people don't want to do or haven't done. We have right now the 3rd Battalion using infantry fighting vehicles that are APCs. They can't train properly in them. They definitely can't fight in them. They don't manoeuvre like any of the LAND 400 vehicles. The defence of our nation is of critical importance, and we cannot afford to cut costs with our national security. Our approach is that, whilst members in the government have not liked things that have been said, we will work constructively and we will put our brave men and women first, because they are the ones who stand up every single day in support and defence of this nation. 16:27 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite It is pure hypocrisy for the members opposite to be pointing the finger at the former Labor government on defence matters. After all, it was the former coalition government which had six defence ministers and seven defence industry ministers over its time in office. Under former Prime Minister Morrison, there were four defence minister in just four years. The result was chaotic and dysfunctional leadership, with inadequate oversight and focus on the defence portfolio, leaving a significant procurement mess for the Albanese government to fix up. On coming to office last year, we inherited a defence mess. We had to move swiftly to rectify significant and systemic issues in the delivery of crucial defence capabilities left behind by the outgoing government. A series of major Defence projects with approved budgets totalling more than $69 billion were facing significant schedule delays and budget variations. Of these projects, at least 28 were a combined 97 years behind schedule. At least 18 projects were found to be running over budget and at least $6.5 billion of variations from the approved budgets were identified. This underperformance on Defence projects is due in no small part to the chaotic former coalition government. Let's have a look at some of the project failures left for the Albanese government to fix. The start of construction on the $44 billion Hunter class frigate program was delayed by four years, with a $15 billion increase in expected costs, hidden from the public by the coalition government. The $1.4 billion C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifters were delivered 4½ years behind schedule and are unable to fly into battlefields. The $3.7 billion offshore patrol vessel project was one year behind schedule. The $356 million evolved Cape class patrol boat was running nearly a year late. The $970 million battlefield command system was three years behind schedule. Several Defence satellite communications projects, worth $906 million, were running between two and four years behind schedule. And, most recently, the Multi-Role Helicopter Program for the MRH-90 Taipan is another project of concern because it's not fit for purpose. Need I remind you it was the Howard government which decided to acquire the Taipan against the advice of Defence to acquire Black Hawks? That's the dazzling track record of the people opposite, yet they have the audacity to point the finger at Labor. In contrast, the Albanese government is fixing, strengthening and revitalising defence projects. We are doing that in line with six reforms announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry last year. We're establishing an independent projects and portfolio management office within Defence. There will be monthly reports on projects of concern and projects of interest to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry. And we're fostering a new culture in Defence, drawing attention to emerging problems and encouraging and enabling early response, and we're providing those troubled projects with extra resources and skills. These things should have been in place under the coalition, but they weren't. Now, under the guidance of our defence minister, things are changing for the better. Last month, we announced the acquisition of 40 Black Hawk helicopters for the Australian Army to replace the current fleet of Taipan helicopters, and we are substantially increasing the ADF's guided weapons, explosive ordinance stocks, naval strike missiles and long range surface-to-surface high-mobility rocket systems—several projects that we are putting in place. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring Defence can deliver the capabilities ADF personnel need when they need them. In doing so, we build our defence capabilities at home, upskilling our workforce, improving the defence of Australia and, most importantly, protecting our people and our democracy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. COMMITTEES 48 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 48 Report 48 16:32 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to present the committee's report entitled Report by statement: review of the 2022 relisting of four organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr KHALIL 101351 by leave—This report by statement from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is for the review of regulations relisting four organisations as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995. These organisations are al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qa'ida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), Islamic State in Libya (IS-Libya) and Islamic State Sinai Province (IS-Sinai). Under the Criminal Code, regulations may be made specifying an organisation as a terrorist organisation for a three-year period. Organisations can be relisted, provided the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism, or advocate the doing of a terrorist act. AQAP was first listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government on 26 November 2010, while AQIS, IS-Libya and IS-Sinai were first listed on 29 November 2016. All have been relisted consistently since, and the regulations under consideration in this review relisted the four organisations as terrorist organisations for a further three years from November 2022. The regulations were tabled in parliament on 28 and 29 November 2022. The committee's review examined the Attorney-General's decision to relist these organisations. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation which lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the 15-sitting-day disallowance period. This report serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period. In determining whether the regulations relisting the four organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the Attorney-General's explanatory statement and statement of reasons for relisting the organisations, and other publicly available information. The committee also invited public submissions on the listings. One submission regarding IS-Sinai was received. The committee noted the following information about the four organisations. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula is a Yemen based religiously motivated violent extremist group which, since its establishment in 2009, has undertaken numerous terrorist and criminal activities. Formed through a merger of Saudi Arabian and Yemeni branches of al-Qa'ida, it is a recognised affiliate of al-Qa'ida, it has undertaken or attempted to conduct attacks within Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Since it was relisted in 2019 AQAP has claimed responsibility for multiple attacks, and has conducted bombings, kidnappings and assassinations against Yemeni and foreign government interests in an effort to destabilise the Yemeni state. AQAP has advocated for the undertaking of terrorist attacks within Yemen and internationally, including praising attacks against Australia's allies. Al-Qa'ida in the Indian Subcontinent is an al-Qa'ida affiliated religiously motivated violent extremist organisation, which seeks to advance al-Qa'ida's objectives in South Asia. AQIS currently recruits from Muslim communities across South Asia, with its leadership based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While Australian interests have not been attacked by AQIS, in 2014 an Australian Navy vessel was specifically mentioned in the planning of an attack, although targeting of the vessel was ultimately abandoned in favour of so-called easier targets. Since AQIS was last relisted in November 2019, Pakistani authorities have regularly disrupted plots, with members arrested in possession of large numbers of weapons. AQIS was also involved in fighting the former Afghan government alongside the Afghan Taliban. Islamic State Libya is a religiously motivated violent extremist organisation and an officially recognised Islamic State affiliate. It has undertaken terrorist attacks and kidnappings against police and military personnel in North Africa, resulting in multiple deaths. Since its relisting in 2019, IS-Libya has undertaken multiple attacks including bombing of a police checkpoint and attacks on Libyan National Army soldiers. IS-Libya has advocated for attacks on the US and its allies. Islamic State Sinai is a religiously motivated violent extremist group located in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and is officially recognised by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL. Since its last relisting in 2019, IS-Sinai has undertaken multiple attacks including against the Egyptian government, detonation of a gas pipeline and killing civilians and Egyptian soldiers through use of explosive devices. All four organisations seek to revive or re-establish a caliphate within the territories they operate in and seek to do so through a militant jihadist ideology and fomentation of sectarian violence. All four organisations have expressed sentiments against Australian allies and interests. The Australian government's assessment is that AQAP, AQIS, IS-Libya and IS-Sinai continue to be directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the undertaking of terrorist acts, involving threats to human life and serious damage to property. Based on the evidence provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting process and considers that it has been appropriately followed for all four organisations. The committee therefore supports the relisting of AQAP, AQIS, IS-Libya and IS-Sinai under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests and finds no reason to disallow these regulations. I'd also like to thank and acknowledge the work of the deputy chair, who is also present, in this relisting process. I commend this report to the parliament. BILLS 49 BILLS Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 49

Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

Second Reading 49 16:39 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I first raised this with the New South Wales minister in October last year. In December I stood with local Labor candidates Katelin McInerney and Liza Butler to announce that a Minns government would support Safe Shelter Shoalhaven with $250,000 to keep their doors open. But after months of the government knowing the dire situation the shelter was in, the Liberals waited until the 11th hour, the day the Shoalhaven shelter was to close, before stepping in with a short reprieve until June, just far enough to get it out of an election cycle. Salt does more than just run this shelter. The Salt store delivers free food, clothing and furniture to more than 1,100 families weekly. Realising what a gap the New South Wales government had left in emergency and temporary housing, Salt began actively seeking out private rentals and managing them to provide housing for the homeless. The Salt assisted housing program has over 35 long-term homes which they sublet to people in need. They want to do more but they need more support because, on their own, they simply cannot provide enough support for our homeless, such is the demand for and lack of affordable housing. The housing crisis affects everyone. The worker shortage on the south coast is dire. One of the main issues is even if people want to move here to take up work, they most often cannot find housing. I have heard story after story of people not taking up jobs because of this. I have heard the extraordinary lengths employers will go to to secure housing for prospective staff members to entice them to move to the coast for work. We have many exciting road and community infrastructure projects happening on the coast: a new hospital at Moruya and an upgraded Shoalhaven hospital at Nowra. Where will the hundreds and hundreds of additional frontline workers for the hospitals live? As the federal member for Gilmore, I have been raising the dire housing situation on the south coast for years, first with the then shadow minister for housing and homelessness, Jason Clare, and with the now Minister for Housing, Julie Collins. There have been many visits to the south coast to meet with homelessness providers. You only have to visit to get an understanding of the immense problem. I tried the former ministers as well but, no surprises, nothing came from it. That was why, in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, I was delighted and relieved to see Labor's commitments around affordable and social housing. Today, as a proud member of the Albanese Labor government, I am happy to be speaking on these bills because I know these bills in time will lead to intergenerational reform, change lives and create a better future for everyone. But today also has a bitter taste because apparently it wasn't enough that the former Liberal-National government took no action to address our housing crisis; apparently it wasn't enough that at a state level the Liberals and Nationals have left community housing and homelessness services in shambles with funding cuts and neglect. No. Today, the Liberals and Nationals have decided they want to inflict even more damage and, worst of all, with the help of the Greens party. They are fighting against the millions of people this bill will help, people like the young mum in Worrigee and the dozens of others contacting my office every week, or the 50 people in Moruya living in a campground with nowhere else to go. They are fighting against people fleeing domestic violence, our veterans, First Nations people, so people around the country who need a home. It is absolutely appalling, and every member of the Liberals, The Nationals and the Greens should be ashamed. Clearly, Labor is the only party willing to do every single thing we can to address the housing crisis with the biggest investments we have ever seen. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 will establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, with annual dispersements used to fund social and affordable housing and other acute housing needs. It will provide a source of funding to support increased social and affordable housing as well as fund other acute housing needs for remote Indigenous communities, women, children and veterans. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as an independent statutory advisory body. The council will inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on housing supply and affordability. I am pleased that the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council will play a leadership role in bringing all levels of government together to work through the myriad issues and get that boost in affordable and social housing happening where it is needed most. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 facilitates the transition of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia, extends the Commonwealth guarantee of Housing Australia's liabilities, and expands its activities to manage delivery of social and affordable housing under the Housing Australia Future Fund. Extending the Commonwealth guarantee recognises the importance of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator and Housing Australia's role in continuing to offer community housing providers low-cost and longer-term finance. So many local organisations—our councils, community housing, our homeless provider network, our homelessness task force—have good solutions. But it needs leadership from the federal government. For the first time the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council will be the vehicle for that leadership to drive home policy and reforms to assist the biggest boost in affordable and social housing. I would like to sincerely thank every person that has contacted me with their own housing story. The strength they showed just to ask for help has given me strength to battle on with this enormous change, so that it might help the thousands of local people that need help. To everyone working and volunteering in the affordable and social housing space and supporting our homeless: you are the brave ones too. You have never given up, despite atrocious circumstances. The Albanese government will never stop trying to do what is right for you. I will never stop trying to do what is right for you. While we can't undo the last nine years, we can make the next nine years better. It's going to be a long road, but these bills are a sensible and much-needed step in the right direction. I say today to all members of the opposition and the Greens: don't get in the way of the people of the South Coast getting the affordable homes they deserve. Do the right thing and support these bills. Our community cannot afford to wait any longer because of your political games. I commend the bills to the House. 16:46 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I'm a bit worried, after listening to the previous speaker and to the minister who introduced the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills, that the government is offering these bills as a solution to a problem it doesn't quite fully understand. The assumption is there is a market failure in homebuilding. But the failure doesn't sit with the market; it sits with government. If there's one thing the Australian economy knows how to do, it's build homes. Home construction is not an emerging or declining industry, and we have been world leaders at this for a very long time. We have millions of Australians who want to buy homes or rent homes. We have thousands operating in the property sector keen to build homes. We have ample capital that wants to be invested. Yet we find ourselves in the midst of an ongoing affordability and rental crisis in most parts of the country. What we really need is for governments to get out of the way of homebuilding rather than interfere further in the market. These bills have been wrapped up in many empty platitudes about this being the beginning of a golden era for Australian homebuilding. But behind the rhetoric these bills essentially do three things: they create the Housing Australia Future Fund; they rename NHFIC to Housing Australia, making some modest changes to the operations of that agency; and they formally establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. The coalition has in-principle concerns for the establishment of funds such as the Housing Australia Future Fund due to the increased debt burden on the Commonwealth. The Housing Australia Future Fund will be an additional $10 billion in borrowing, requiring hundreds of millions in interest repayments each year. With a 10-year government bond rate at approximately 3.6 per cent and rising, the $10 billion drawdown will cost the Commonwealth approximately $360 million per annum in interest on the debt. The IMF has already warned the government that the proliferation of these sorts of funds is something that should be avoided. At latest count, this means $45 billion in off-budget spending from the Labor government—a staggering amount of money. And all this has inflationary pressure and will have an impact on the cost of living for Australian households. The shadow minister made an important point this morning: had the fund been established in the last financial year, the Commonwealth would have lost approximately $370 million in addition to the approximate $400 million in interest on borrowing. This total loss of approximately $770 million would mean not one dollar would be available for social and affordable housing projects under this scheme, if the conditions of the last 12 months were repeated over the next 12 months. Labor's plan to build 30,000 homes over five years is less per year than the coalition delivered in social and affordable housing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. The stark reality of the government's policy is that we could easily get to the end of this term of government and have none of these 30,000 homes delivered. In contrast, it is important to remember that the policies introduced by the former coalition government have supported more than 300,000 Australians into homeownership. Clause 41(1) of the bill provides the housing minister, Treasurer and finance minister—or the responsible ministers, as referred to in the bill—the power to provide the Future Fund Board with written directions regarding the performance of its investment functions and the exercise of its powers. Direction under clause 41(1) is not subject to disallowance or subject to sunsetting. The Housing Australia Future Fund investment mandate may comprise of multiple directions issued at different times. Given that the investment mandate is yet to be released, it's hard to scrutinise the fund's capability to actually deliver the government's election commitments. Without an investment mandate, this legislation is effectively just an empty shell, with all aspects of the operations of the fund likely to be contained in the investment mandate, which has not been released publicly yet. It is also customary for the investment mandate to undergo a public consultation process, which of course has not occurred to date. With this in mind, the coalition will not be supporting the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. Of course, many stakeholders have outlined concerns with the bill, including the limited capacity for conferring grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund and failure to define key terms. I've worked in the property sector and I know that a lot of the key terms that are used in different legislation and regulations really do make or break it. We haven't yet got a definition of what social housing is and of what affordable housing is. And what definition is going to be used for acute housing? There are also, of course, the limitations on the annual drawdown, which has been highlighted by some stakeholders. There is no mechanism or performance criteria to assess the effectiveness of the grants and there is no guarantee that grants started under the Housing Australia Future Fund will continue. Importantly, there is the small number of social and affordable homes that the fund will actually provide. An aspect of the government's approach that I find odd is the intense focus on just one element of the housing continuum. I'm going to attempt a metaphor here, or an analogy, so bear with me while I torture this for a bit. Consider Australia's housing market like a swimming pool. There's the shallow end—this is where people often start out and perhaps need to remain, if they need assistance. And then there's the deep end, where you'll find those who can confidently move around without support. When the supply of housing is meeting demand, it's like a pool that's full of water: everyone's comfortable no matter in which part of the pool they are swimming, and whether they are a new home buyer or a renter or a social housing tenant, or even someone who finds themselves in need of emergency accommodation. But, when the market gets tight, when the water level starts going down, the natural way the market works means that those in the shallow end—those needing rental assistance and those receiving government support—are the ones who'll be first to feel the pain. Conversely, when the pool gets filled, the water goes up from the deepest point. It seems to me a pretty odd approach for the federal government to be targeting a very limited element of the whole market and neglecting the bigger picture and the bigger problems. Saying that the government will focus on well-located social and affordable homes, even going so far as to identify the professions and the genders of people they want in these properties, is as mad as saying you're going to put a litre of water into the pool to take care of the particular needs of one section of the shallow end. You may fill the pool up from the shallow end or the deep end, and, as long as it is adequately filled, it doesn't matter. Just focus on filling it up as quickly and efficiently as possible. What I'm trying to say is that the affordability and access issues are all issues of supply. If you want an example of how surface-level the Albanese government's approach to our nation's housing shortage is, you only have to look at the cover of their National housing accord, which boasts a stock image of Wynyard Central apartments, one of the most sought-after addresses in Auckland's Viaduct Harbour. Overseas luxury apartments seem to me a strange choice to adorn the Australian government's affordability manifesto, but it is emblematic of how their approach is more about style than substance: pretty pictures and pretty words but no real solutions to the core problem. The much-heralded new accord sets a target to build a million new homes from 2024-29. This is not exactly a 'stretch target', given that this is par performance for pre-pandemic home construction. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the entity that one of these bills seeks to rebrand and that will be relied upon for advice by the government moving forward, is expecting that 1.7 million new households will be formed in Australia over this period. So we've got the Labor government saying that they will create the settings for a million new homes, but the experts are saying, 'Excuse me, Minister; we will actually need 1.7 million just to stay even.' The Labor government's goals are unambitious and dangerously so. Even if they are met, housing in Australia will be significantly less affordable at the end of this decade than it is today. I'll turn my comments now to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. These bills provide for the establishment of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as a statutory body. The explanatory memorandum has estimated that this will come at a cost of $4.4 million each year over the forward estimates. Given how much external help this government clearly needs to understand this area of public policy, I welcome this move. But I do warn the government not to fill this council with union reps, academics or former Labor members. I note that the Treasurer's new Investor Roundtable, which is informing policy in this space, contains five current or former Labor ministers. On this body we need people from industry, people who understand the planning and tax obstacles that prevent the market from meeting demand. The coalition will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill, but we'll seek an amendment to remove schedule 4 from this bill. As I've outlined, we're opposing the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. The bills will also rename NHFIC to Housing Australia. This rebranding exercise is estimated to cost half a million dollars, but I'm sure it will cost a lot more than that all told. This is largely a vanity exercise, I feel, trying to recast NHFIC as a Labor initiative. But it is important to reflect on the short history of NHFIC and all that it has achieved to date. NHFIC was established by the former coalition government to operate two key activities: the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers. NHFIC has been a landmark coalition achievement and, since its creation, it has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. It has unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand. It's important to remember that investor interest has never been an obstacle to housing supply in Australia. Supply is currently not being constrained by a lack of capital but by a lack of land. Our states and territories control most of the policy levers which currently restrict supply, and the Albanese government's approach to housing only makes fleeting reference to any focus on streamlining planning systems, not to mention the removal of inefficient property taxes. The minister has celebrated the re-establishment of regular meetings of the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council. I'm sure there will be many good things discussed between these ministers, who are primarily responsible in their jurisdictions for building regulations and public housing stock; however, where we really need ministerial collaboration and discussion to boost housing supply is between state planning ministers and treasurers. Without Commonwealth-led reform in the areas of planning and property taxes, we will never get housing supply in this country to a point where it meets demand. This is where I would encourage the government to invest their time and taxpayers' money. Far from being a $10 billion investment in social housing, as we heard in question time today and from the earlier speakers—it's certainly not a $10 billion investment in social housing—this is a structure to invest the potential returns of borrowed money. As the shadow minister pointed out, there is no guarantee on that return. In fact, the Future Fund lost money last year, so we have no way of telling how much this investment will be or how many homes it will create, but we do know it will be no time soon and it will be nowhere near enough. I'll finish with the point I try to convey to the minister whenever she reaches the dispatch box in question time: more government is never going to be the answer to housing affordability. The government's new approach to housing has so far established two new strategy documents, two new government bodies, and four new funds and amended financial facilities. The Commonwealth has a role to play here, but it certainly isn't this. We need governments to get out of the way and let the Australian construction industry do exactly what it does best: building homes for Australian families. 17:00 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The member opposite got one thing right in that speech, and that is that the situation the country faces today is a failure of government—most particularly a failure of nine years of failed Liberal government. I rise proudly in support of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, which will get more Australian families in safe and secure housing. This is a keystone policy of the Australian government that will provide a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social and affordable houses built. It is by far the biggest single investment in housing in more than a decade. This bill provides an ambitious housing and reform agenda to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. With the passage of this bill, the Albanese government is ensuring the next stage of our broader housing reform agenda. This Labor government has already achieved great things in such a small time in government. We have reached a landmark National Housing Accord which provides a shared ambition, with the state and territory governments of all political colours, to build one million well-located homes over five years from 2024. We've provided $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes. We've widened the remit of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. We've implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 Australians into a home, including some in my own electorate. And we've provided the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people get into a home sooner. This government understands that safe, secure and affordable housing is core business for government. It is central to ensuring security and dignity for Australians. We have made a very good start as a government in tackling the housing crisis that affects so many Australians, but there is so much work to do. Currently across Australia, too many people are struggling to achieve secure and affordable housing. With growing rents and an investor-centric housing market, homelessness is something too many Australians are facing or experiencing. We all know there is a severe housing crisis affecting our country, but knowing it is not enough. You've got to do something about it, and that's what we are doing on this side of the House. We have heard of the pressures in Sydney, where ramshackle buildings are selling for prices in the millions and our young people are unable to compete in an investor-rich market. Closer to home, in Hobart and the outer suburbs of Hobart, a deep rental crisis is causing more homelessness than has ever been experienced before in Tasmania, which was once known for its affordability. It is not unusual for Tasmanian applicants to line the street at house inspections in a vain attempt to break into the market and find somewhere to live. More broadly, even in our regions we are experiencing housing stress. Rents in rural towns of my own electorate, such as Fingal, are going through the roof, and many are struggling with the cost-of-living pressures that are imposed alongside these rents. In seaside towns such as Bicheno, the prevalence of short-stay accommodation, which the state Liberal government has shamefully failed to appropriately regulate, means locals cannot find housing and businesses are struggling to recruit workers because people coming into the town are unable to find somewhere to live. So, if those opposite aren't convinced by the social equity arguments, they should be convinced by the economic arguments. Homelessness is affecting business. Business is crying out for action, and we are providing it. Housing is one of the issues that constituents seek my assistance with the most. It is testament to the grave failures of nine years of failed Liberal state government, because the Liberals talk a big game but they simply do not do the hard work. The Tasmanian housing minister, Mr Guy Barnett, bragged last year that the Liberals would build 1,169 homes in 2022-23. They've delivered 142. In the middle of a housing crisis, the state Liberal government spent $7 million less on housing in 2021-22 than in the previous year. That illustrates the state Liberals' commitment to housing, and it reflects the lack of commitment shown by those opposite when they occupied the government benches. The personal stories can be tough to hear. David, from Bridgewater, has been trying to find secure, suitable and affordable housing so he can resume visitation with his children. Bree, from Herdsmans Cove, is a full-time carer for her mother. Their private rental is not only unsuitable for disability needs but increasingly unaffordable, with higher rent. Bree has been on the social-housing waiting list for a disability modified property for four years. There's a constituent in the north of my electorate, who I won't name, who is currently living with her former partner in circumstances that can only be described as volatile and who has been on the housing waiting list since October 2021. This is a person who feels she has no option but to remain in a potentially dangerous living situation or simply risk homelessness and be on the streets. That's what she has to weigh up. She has no other option available to her. What a terrible choice for any person to have to make. This situation should not be happening in Australia in 2023, and this Labor government is determined to repair the damage of nine years of failed Liberal government neglect. It takes a broad, intergovernmental approach to deal with this housing crisis that is affecting so many thousands of Australians. With this bill, the Australian government is taking bold steps to uphold its end of the bargain and take serious action on social and affordable housing across the country. This bill is an ambitious but achievable housing legislation package that provides a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable homes in Australia. It enables one of the most significant investments from the Australian government in a generation, and it is a raft of legislation that we should be proud to vote in support of, and we are. It will vastly improve Australia's housing stock and the lives of everyday Australians. This legislation implements the Australian government's commitments to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, provide a stream of funding to ensure there is a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need, transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as the national home for key housing programs and expand its activities, and establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability. But this bill goes further than being just about a bricks-and-mortar fund. It tackles real issues that are being faced by everyday Australians. It supports the quiet Australians who need us most, including First Nations Australians, those affected by and seeking to escape family and domestic violence, and our veterans. Under this bill, $200 million will be provided over five years for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities. This is a crucial act as we continue to seek to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and to improve health and social outcomes in remote Indigenous communities. We are earmarking $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence and for older women at risk of homelessness. Too many women in this country feel that they cannot escape family and domestic violence because of the uncertainty they have in finding safe, secure and affordable housing. I gave a personal anecdote on this earlier. Women should not have to decide whether to remain in a domestic violence situation with their kids or risk homelessness in escaping it. This government is working hard under the fantastic leadership of the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, the member for Franklin, to ensure that this is not the case. We are working hard to ensure there is safe and secure housing for women who need to escape family and domestic violence. We know that the population group most effected by homelessness in modern Australia is older women. Far too often they are left with nothing, following a divorce or breakdown of a relationship. They are all too often pushed into homelessness as a result, often completely blindsided by the circumstances. This must change, and under the Housing Australia Future Fund it will change. This fund will also take care of our veterans. Under this fund, $30 million will be provided by the Australian government to build housing and to fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. I note the opposition person at the dispatch box, the member for Herbert, is a veteran himself, and I thank him for his service. He would know all too well, through his work with the veterans community, the pressures veterans find themselves under. I know you are part of the coalition, Member for Herbert; do what you can to get your people over the line on this. This is supporting veterans. People who served our country and fought to protect it should not be left behind. The government take veterans affairs seriously, and we are taking steps to address and prevent veterans homelessness. As I've said before, this bill is about more than just bricks and mortar. It's about building safe and secure affordable housing for those who need it most, with services and assistance that will actively prevent homelessness and the risk of homelessness. I will be proudly voting in support of this legislation. I call on those in the coalition opposition, the Greens and the broader crossbench to vote in support of this legislation. Failure to do so would be a massive step backwards for housing security in this country. Stop the politicking. Stop the attempts to delay its implementation. We've waited nine years; we can't waste another day. I refuse to be the person who votes against housing security in remote Indigenous communities and outback Australia. I refuse to be the person who votes against a mother escaping family violence achieving safe and secure housing. I refuse to vote against an older woman at risk of homelessness finding secure housing to restart her life in safety. I refuse to vote against a veteran who has served this country with pride finding safe and secure housing and a home and the support services that they need. I refuse to vote against this bill which provides so much opportunity and hope for the future of housing affordability and security in this country. I will be supporting this bill and I hope everyone in this place will too. From the outset, this government pledged that we would not waste a day in delivering an agenda which would get more people into safe and secure affordable homes. With this bill we are staying true to our promise. For perhaps the first time in Australian history, we have a prime minister and a minister for housing and minister for homelessness who have personal, lived experience of social housing. The Prime Minister and the member for Franklin spent their early foundational years in affordable housing. My own parents lived in a council flat during my infancy. We understand the importance of affordable housing because we have lived experience of it. I say to those opposite and to those on the crossbench: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Right now, across this country, thousands of people need the support this legislation will provide. With the passage of this bill, the mother seeking to escape family violence, with her children, will be able to do so, and she won't be left to fend for herself on the streets. With the passage of this bill, the veteran who served this country with pride will be given the dignity and respect they deserve, with access to safe and affordable housing. With the passage of this bill, young people will for the first time in such a long time have access to the property market that they simply have never had before and perhaps thought was forever out of reach. They will be able to achieve the increasingly elusive Australian dream of homeownership. I commend this bill to the House and I call upon all members' support for its passage. 17:14 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Late last year I visited a school in Goldstein to speak to the students. After the event, one of the children in year 5 approached me to ask about inflation and when I thought it would stop rising. She said, 'My mum and dad are really worried. They are fighting, and I am worried we might lose our house.' In general, Goldstein is a well-off community, but not everyone is comfortable. This exchange illustrates how the cost and supply of housing, coupled with cost-of-living issues cut across demographics. Young, low-income and single people, especially older women, struggle to enter the market. Those who are in the market are often saddled with enormous mortgages and the impact of rising interest rates, as we're seeing now. Unfortunately, many who bought into an inflated market are now struggling with increasing rates. Young families and couples, even with both adults working, particularly in suburbs in Goldstein like Bentleigh, McKinnon, Highett, Cheltenham and Hampton East with median house prices of between $1.2 and $1.8 million, are forced to resort to crystal ball gazing now, while the Reserve Bank issues opaque guidance and its governor briefs investment bankers behind closed doors rather than providing clarity to the public. While this may fly in the face of perception of Goldstein, housing stress is high, with very low social housing stock. In the city of Glen Eira, for example, more than 42 per cent of houses are paying high mortgage repayments and almost 47 per cent are paying what is defined as high rental payments. More than a third of renting households are paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. Renters, an increasingly large proportion of the Australian population, largely can't access the kinds of decades-long leases available in Europe that provide stability of accommodation. Instead, they are forced into bidding wars for often below-par housing. In some of the wealthier precincts in my electorate, there are older women, separated from their long-time partners, who have a house but don't have the income to maintain it. In one such precinct, a four-bedroom house recently came up for rent. It couldn't be heated properly, there was significant water damage and it had not been repaired between tenants. For all that, 50 family groups were so desperate to get a roof over their heads that they all turned up to make applications. In addition, few of our older rented homes are fit for purpose and there are few incentives for landlords to make the improvements that would do much to help us to get to net zero. Landlords get tax relief if a stove breaks down and they replace it but nothing if they seek to improve the quality of the appliances or the energy efficiency of the rental property they own. This is a hole in our tax laws, which have become a general no-go zone in the discussion about housing policy. As you will have gathered, I see this government's initiative on housing as a start but not a full solution. The policy provides for 30,000 social and affordable homes in five years, plus another 10,000 affordable and well-located homes delivered between the federal government, the states, local government and institutional investors via a housing accord. Yet we need to build 36,000 houses per year until 2036 just to catch up with demand. This puts the 6,000 social and affordable homes proposed per year—and we have to find the land, people and materials to build them—into perspective. The government's budget also has each home costing just over $68,000. Lack of housing, both social and affordable, is a particular problem for one very big cohort: women. Older women are at greater risk of homelessness than any other group. According to a 2020 report by the Housing for the Aged Action Group and Social Ventures Australia, the number of older women at risk of finding themselves without a home was 405,000. According to the Mercy Foundation, women over 55 are at great risk of financial and housing insecurity due to systemic and compounding factors like lack of superannuation, working part-time or casually throughout their lives, taking time out of the workforce to care for family, bearing the brunt of the gender pay gap, an increasingly unaffordable private rental market and age discrimination. The proposed Housing Australia Future Fund specifies 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence and older women on low incomes at risk of homelessness. This is welcome but it's inadequate. It is just one per cent of the women identified by the Mercy Foundation as being at risk. Labor went to the election promising to fund the HAFF off-budget to the tune of $10 billion. The government estimates the fund will generate an annual surplus of $500 million to spend. This is subject to the vagaries of the investment market. According to authoritative advice to my office, there is the risk that the amount of money available to the fund is far less than the land value required, the build costs and debt required versus the income yield and capital growth of the fund. In short, whether the fund is underfunded remains a reasonable question that also raises a second one: will the government guarantee the fund if there's a shortfall? There is also the key question of governance. What does the government's claim of independence for the new council really mean? Strong oversight and clear guidelines for any grants paid are critical for the integrity of the fund and public confidence in it. We don't want this to be at risk of another colour-coded spreadsheet exercise. The questions for the government and the minister are many. There are many bodies involved, and experience tells us that opens the way to blame- and responsibility-shifting. What will be the lines of accountability to deliver the number of homes proposed? Why does the National Housing and Homelessness Plan not sit with one of the new bodies being created under this package? Will the fund capital be sufficient to fund delivery, and is it to be a permanent capital base? What happens after the first five years of the fund's operation? We need more detail. My office has had discussions with the minister's office on these matters, and I am grateful for that engagement. I would argue, though, that these questions and potential gaps in this legislative package need to be addressed before it passes both houses. The legislation appears to provide for many owners and stakeholders, which makes it even more important that the funding decisions, approvals and independent advice by the council are genuinely independent and that reporting requirements to the parliament are regular, timely and transparent. Unusually, to my eye, the legislation proposes that a member of Treasury sit on the independent council. Treasury has the personnel and funding to brief the council, yet the council doesn't have its own internal resources—which means it runs the risk of being dependent on lopsided advice from a conflicted source. The council needs its own source of advice, I would argue, and the ability, staffing and funding to commission its own independent research data and analysis. This is not just a problem in this instance; it's a problem for other independent boards appointed by the government to provide supposedly independent advice, the Reserve Bank board being one example. At a minimum I have argued to the minister's office that we need the following: that the forthcoming 10-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan have in-built regular review requirements, with reference to this legislative package and its interim impact, every two years; that the minister report to parliament at the above intervals and table the outstanding shortfall of social and affordable rental housing; that the discretion of the minister be limited in relation to disbursements from the fund, and that there are clear guidelines for grants paid; and that the fund be maintained at the end of five years at a minimum. I understand that the government's trying to futureproof the fund so that it exists in perpetuity, and that this is a difficult task given the scale of the problem. It's also important that all housing built or upgraded via the fund must meet best practice levels on energy efficiency with a seven-star rating, not just that housing built under the accord. The government has climate change and addressing the housing crisis at the top of its agenda. Whatever the complexities of dealing with state governments and community housing organisations about delivery of this plan, the issue of energy efficiency should not be ignored. Too many of our homes are already not fit for purpose. Renters and owners on lower incomes either cannot get or do not have the resources to upgrade their homes or rental accommodation. And then, as we're seeing now, their energy bills bite into their household budgets even more than they should. We'll also be making it even harder to get to the target of 43 per cent by 2030, let alone net zero. Further, I argue that the body tasked with providing independent advice is genuinely given this responsibility and enshrined with the powers to do so, and that the need for a national regulatory system is addressed. Why is this responsibility of one of these bodies not being set up to achieve this? Is it not important, as we're saying we're taking housing seriously as a national issue, that there is also a regulatory system to deliver it? We need to ensure that state and local governments are incentivised to match new social and affordable housing targets and are facilitated to partner with institutional investors. Lastly, these bills need a specific gender lens and a gender impact statement with specific reference to affirmative action for women. The Housing Affordability Fund must urgently address the compounding disadvantage for women. Overall, it's a great aspiration to tackle the housing crisis. I will support this package in light of that, because something has to give, but I ask the government to take on board these remarks, gathered and synthesised from experts and key stakeholders, because the genuine feedback is that this package is full of holes. 17:25 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My electorate of Corangamite is magnificent in its natural beauty, but beneath the surface there are housing challenges—challenges made worse by nine years of gross inaction by the former coalition government. Business owners across the Surf Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula tell me that a lack of available houses is making it harder to attract workers. And then there is the growing number of single mums with children, and women in their 50s, living in their cars, moving from house to house and relying on the generosity of friends and family to put a roof over their heads. Jenny is one such single mum who shared her very challenging story with me. She was couch surfing with her children, relying on friends for help, and sporadically living in her car. We supported Jenny to find a safe place to live, but everybody deserves a roof over their head, a place to call home. That's why the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 is so important. The Albanese Labor government recognises the urgent need for a comprehensive housing plan for the nation. We recognise that we must act now. Unlike the coalition, Labor went to the last election with an ambitious housing reform agenda to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. We said we won't waste a day in delivering that agenda, which is why with this legislation we are implementing a number of our housing commitments. The package is a comprehensive suite of measures which will enable one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in a generation. We will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability. Unlike the coalition, which abolished the former National Housing Supply Council, we value the data and advice provided by that council as a crucial planning tool. It must be said that the abolition of the National Housing Supply Council by the coalition has significantly contributed to the crisis in housing affordability and availability across our nation and, therefore, to the hardship being experienced by so many Australians. It was short-sighted decision-making by a visionless government. Reliable, trusted data didn't exist. Booms and busts snuck up unseen, making house prices difficult to predict. Too many Australians are being hit by growing rents. Too many Australians are struggling to buy a home. Too many Australians are facing or experiencing homelessness. This is largely due to the former government's ineptitude to recognise and act on significant housing issues. In my own electorate of Corangamite the G21 alliance of five local municipal councils, businesses and organisations across the region say the need for social housing is acute. G21 believe there are at least 880 homeless people in the Geelong region and more than 5,000 people experiencing severe rental stress. Last October the Geelong Advertiser reported rental affordability in the region was at a record low, with just one in every 12 homes on the local rental market considered affordable. In the city of Geelong, just 8.7 per cent of rentals were considered affordable. That was dramatically down from 24.5 per cent in 2012 and 76.7 per cent in 2002. Late last year, the Community Housing Industry Association said the Surf Coast Shire, taking in areas in my electorate like Torquay and Anglesea, was experiencing huge rises in homelessness and rapidly increasing rents, with rental vacancy rates lower than 1.8 per cent. The severe shortage of accessible homes and the spike in homelessness is forcing regional councils to set aside land for future social housing. This is a worthy approach that includes public housing and homes managed by non-profit groups for people on low incomes. Similar challenges exist across the Golden Plains Shire in my electorate. In fact, each municipality in my electorate is developing their own plans to counter these challenges. Our housing plan will be pivotal in helping councils, states and territories meet the current housing challenges. We will establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a stream of funding, ensuring there is a future pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. We will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as a national home for key housing programs, and we will expand its activities. These commitments are part of the government's broader housing reform agenda which is already progressing. We've reached a landmark National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes over the next five years from 2024. We've committed $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes. We're widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing. We're developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve household outcomes across Australia. We're implementing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 Australians into homeownership. I will now address the specifics of the three bills before the House. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 establishes the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund as a source of funding for social and affordable houses and acute housing needs. The government will credit the fund with $10 billion after establishment. It is to be invested by the future fund board of guardians to produce returns to fund social and affordable housing and acute housing needs. The proceeds from the fund will also help deliver the government's commitment to build 30,000 new social and affordable homes. Importantly, the fund will also help address acute housing needs by providing $200 million over five years for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities. Significantly, there will also be $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence, and the growing number of older women at risk of homelessness. There will be $30 million to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. The government, through Housing Australia, will work with community housing providers, state and territory governments and other providers to improve housing outcomes in Australia. In addition to establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund, the government has expanded the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to make $575 million immediately available to fund social and affordable housing. The immediate availability of funding is important, as the shortage of housing inherited from the coalition is with us now, impacting people right now. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as an independent statutory advisory body. Establishing the council will help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in tackling the housing challenges facing Australia. Labor committed to establishing the council as a part of the housing agenda it took to the federal election, recognising the importance of access to safe, secure and affordable housing for Australians. The council will provide a centre of expertise to bolster the evidence base for ways to improve housing supply and affordability. In addition to providing independent expert advice to government, the council will research and report on matters relating to housing supply and affordability. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renamed the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia and will increase the responsibilities in line with the government's election commitment. The functions of Housing Australia are changing to better reflect its role, including responsibility for helping to deliver the government's commitment on social and affordable housing. Housing Australia will continue the activities of the previous National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. That includes the operation of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, capacity building for community housing providers, administering the government's Home Guarantee Scheme and the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. Housing Australia will continue to operate as a corporate Commonwealth entity governed by an independent board and reporting to the Minister for Housing. A further schedule of the amendment bill streamlines the relevant functions of Housing Australia. It also establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, allowing the government to regularly review its performance. Another schedule of the amendment bill extends the legislated Commonwealth guarantee. That underpins the bonds issued by the previous National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to provide low-cost finance for community housing providers, applying to contracts until 30 June 2028. The housing availability and affordability shambles inherited from the coalition desperately needs fixing. It will not happen overnight, but we recognise it must be done. These bills go a long way towards achieving our aim. The Albanese government reforms are much needed and urgent. They deserve our attention and the support of this parliament. They will help our most vulnerable, such as single mothers like Jenny and her children, who deserve to have a place to call home. There is nothing more important. So this bill deserves support from those opposite and a speedy passage through this parliament. I commend the bills to the House. 17:37 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I rise to discuss the three bills to be debated together: the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill and the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, with amendment. The coalition will also be supporting the accompanying Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill once schedule 4 is removed. Yesterday, in question time, the minister said there was a decade of little action from the coalition. I would now like to spend some time correcting that statement from the minister. During the coalition's last three years in government, our housing policy supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. The coalition supported more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which due to this legislation is soon to be renamed Housing Australia. Imitation genuinely is the greatest form of flattery. In particular, under the coalition, first home buyers reached their highest level for nearly 15 years, with the number of first home buyers rising from approximately 100,000 when we came to office to nearly 180,000 in our last full financial year in government. The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation was established to operate a $1 billion perpetual facility for financing critical housing related infrastructure to speed up the supply of new housing through the provision of loans and grants and the making of investments and there was the Affordable Housing Bonding Aggregator, providing cheaper and long-term finance to registered community housing providers. The NHFIC has been a landmark coalition achievement, and since its creation, it has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. I had the opportunity as the member for Casey to visit a house that had been built through one of these loans and through community housing. It was amazing to talk to the recipients and the organisation and understand the impact the fund had. That's built, and it's there today, and people are living in those houses because of the former coalition government, so it's quite rich of the minister for her to stand at the dispatch box and insult all those Australians who in community housing, because the coalition delivered. The NHFIC also unlocked 69,000 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility to make housing supply more responsive to demand. It supported more than 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent, respectively. Of these guarantees, more than half of the 60,000 guarantees issued were taken up by women, which is well above the market average. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers, almost 35 per cent of whom were nurses and 34 per cent of whom were teachers, and 85 per cent of family home guarantees were used by single mums. The corporation protected the residential construction industry with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications, generating $120 billion of economic activity. We established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. I would definitely not call that insignificant. After spending time, with those who have benefited from the schemes, I know there are people behind these numbers. The government will argue and has argued that the Housing Australia Future Fund will fund and facilitate the building and supply of social and affordable housing, as well as support acute housing needs for Indigenous communities, vulnerable women, children and veterans. The government says it will include 20,000 social housing properties and 10,000 affordable homes for frontline workers over the first five years. When the Prime Minister delivered his budget reply speech in 2021, he announced the fund with the annual investment return to build social and affordable housing and create thousands of jobs. It sounds impressive, and they are worthy goals that, I have no doubt, all in this House support. Unfortunately, this bill follows in the tradition of so many government bills. It follows their very standard formula. It's a four-step process. Step 1 of this formula is an impressive-sounding name. 'Housing Australia Future Fund' sounds very impressive. Step 2 is: 'We will commit a lot of money and make it over a long time-horizon so every time we mention that number it sounds very impressive.' In this case, it is $10 billion over ten years. However, they exclude the fact that the HAFF will be capitalised with $10 billion of additional Commonwealth government borrowing. Step 3 of this important four-step process is a really crucial one for the Treasurer. You've got to place the fund in off-budget spending, because that allows them to continue the facade of responsible economic management. Step 4 of this important process is to ensure significant lack of detail in the bill so the government is not held to account when rushing this bill through parliament. I'll go through the four steps in more detail. Step 1 is the impressive sounding name. 'Housing Australia Future Fund' sounds good. The government have simply renamed the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to something, I'm assuming, they polled to make sure it polls better for them. I wonder how much time and money was wasted coming up with that irrelevant change. But they've got their impressive name, so they've got to commit a lot of money. Ten billion dollars sounds very impressive. Over 10 years? Not so much. I'll move on to step 3. The government has already committed to tens of billions of dollars of extra borrowing in off-budget spending. That's going to have a direct impact on inflation, and I'll get to that in a minute. But for all this off-budget spending the money needs to be borrowed and repaid. The impact of that is going to be felt across the economy. Let's remember that the government made these promises a couple of years ago, when there were no interest rates, but we're borrowing money now. With the 10-year government bond rate approaching four per cent—and let's hope they lock it in before interest rates go up under this government—$10 billion in borrowing will cost the Commonwealth approximately $400 million per annum in interest to service the debt. So the government are going to spend $400 million a year before they even spend one dollar on social housing—all so they can stand up and talk about the $10 billion and say, 'We're taking action.' That $400 million a year in interest payments is before they spend a dollar on actually achieving an outcome. And that's not to talk about how this increased borrowing will add to inflationary pressure in the economy, leading to even higher interest rates. There is no certainty about disbursements from the fund, because it will be wholly reliant on the financial performance of the fund's investments in equities and other financial products. For those listening at home, it's like taking out a personal loan of $20,000—you'd be paying a lot more than four per cent; I can guarantee that—and then gambling that on the stock market and hoping the market will go up and the money you make will cover your interest repayments. I'm not a financial adviser, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm not going to give anyone financial advice, but personally I would not gamble on the stock market going up and taking a loan out to do it. It's staggering that this government is. As an example, if the fund had been established in the last financial year then the Commonwealth would have lost approximately $370 million in addition to the approximately $400 million in interest on the borrowings. So last year we would have had a total loss of approximately $770 million before we'd even spent a dollar on these worthy initiatives—all so the Prime Minister and others can stand up and talk about their $10 billion. It's not about delivering outcomes; it's about the politics of it. The mechanism that dictates how the proceeds of the fund are distributed has very little oversight. We heard today, from the Minister for Communications, and yesterday about inequities in regional funding and Labor seats—the 74 per cent. So there's one thing we all know: there definitely needs to be oversight, because what Labor said during the campaign and what they're doing are completely different things. In addition to all the issues with this off-budget spending, the fund risks driving inflation higher. It's not just me and others on this side saying that. The Australian Financial Review last week reported that the International Monetary Fund and economists have said: Strong aggregate demand and the tight labour market warrant continued focus on fiscal consolidation in the near term … The IMF also said—here's the kicker: Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles— like the National Reconstruction Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund— should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister love to quote the IMF in this House. They have not quoted that in this House yet. It's very easy to selectively quote from the IMF. Real leaders, real economic managers, would take the advice of the IMF and understand. The Prime Minister probably doesn't know the economic implications of it because he doesn't know the cash rate or the unemployment rate, so I'll take it that he's just not aware of the implications. Dr Chalmers should know, given he's the Treasurer—although he's a Doctor of Political Science, Mr Deputy Speaker, so again there's a risk that he knows the politics of this four-step plan but doesn't actually know the economics. If he doesn't know it is incompetence and if he does know the inflationary impacts of off-budget spending and he is committed to $45 billion, it's a disgrace, because he's abandoning the Australian people for his own political gain. Stakeholders have also criticised the limit on annual draw-downs, the lack of funding certainty, with no performance criteria to assess the effectiveness of the grants. The bill describes a five-year review time frame. That is wholly inadequate given the uncertainty I've just outlined around the funding model. Stakeholders have requested a much shorter period but, again, we know this government talks about transparency but nothing in their actions actually show it. This is a crucial question, because by designating this fund as off-budget spending, the government are committing to a return on investment for this capital. The reality is that this is smoke and mirrors from this government. We're on to step four, and those opposite are ensuring a significant lack of detail in the bill so they're not held to account. The investment mandate has yet to be released, restricting further scrutiny in key information on the fund's capability to deliver the government's election commitments. Without an investment mandate, this legislation is essentially a shell, with all key aspects to the operations of the fund likely to be contained in the investment mandate which has not been made public. On that basis alone, the coalition will not support this bill. There is a failure to define key terms in the bill, such as: What is definition of social housing? What is the definition of affordable housing? And what is the definition of acute housing? The lack of detail in this bill flies a red flag, and taxpayer money is too important and hard earned to waste $1, especially at a time of high inflation. I've listened to the contributions of those from the other side. I'm sure the member from Robertson will add his contribution as well. They've all spoken really well about the importance of social housing and the impact social housing has in our communities. I commend them for that. I'm on a unity ticket with them on the importance of social housing. I will support the legislation that gets the most vulnerable into the housing they need. I will always support that but I will not support legislation that does not deliver, that does not hold this government to account, that drives up inflation and that makes the lives of everyday Australians— (Time expired) 17:52 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I must say thank you to the member for Casey over there. I didn't realise that I got tickets to stand-up comedy today, because he must have been joking when he said the coalition delivered in the housing space. I was physically chuckling in my seat when that line was said. Look, what I am going to do is describe to you a scene, as I have before in this parliament, in the emergency department about people who are trying to get into housing or who are homeless. I'm talking about multiple shifts day after day, night after night, where people come in, not because they need medication, not because they need a medical illness treated but because they're fleeing family and domestic violence. They're unable to get into emergency accommodation. They're unable to get into housing at all. That is right across the spectrum of our community, but in particular those at-risk groups that the member for Casey listed for me, so that's fantastic that he is aware of that. I'm talking about women over the age of 50, the fastest-growing group of women who are becoming homeless in this country. I'm talking about the men and women of our armed services who have put their lives on the line to defend this country. Veterans in our community are unable to get into emergency accommodation, unable to get into housing. That is an absolute disgrace. Talking about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, as a Wiradjuri man, that is heartbreaking for me. In the land of the Darkinjung people on the Central Coast, people not able to get unto housing in this country is a disgrace. So not only is it shameful that the opposition and other members of this parliament aren't supporting housing legislation that's only going to benefit this nation; it's disappointing, because the Housing Australia Future Fund is one of the biggest investments made in housing in this country in history, and that is absolutely something that needs to be supported. My friend the member for Swan knows how important housing is in our communities. From Perth all the way across to the New South Wales Central Coast—east to west, north to south, regional, rural, in cities, in the country, inland and on the coast—it is absolutely vital that the men, women and children of this country have access to social and affordable housing and a safe place to call home for the night. That's what our government, the Albanese Labor government, understands: that safe and affordable housing is central, core and critical to the security and the dignity of Australians. Too many of our fellow citizens are being hit by growing rents, too many are struggling to buy a home, and, as we have heard, too many are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why we have this agenda that the Australian public voted for in 2022, so that we focus on and put money into things like housing, because we need to. People's lives depend on it. We said that we wouldn't waste a day in delivering this agenda, and that's what we're doing right now. That's what members here, including the member for Bruce and the member for Swan, are talking about today. Housing is important for our communities. The housing legislation package that establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund, as has been said, is a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable homes for those people I was talking about who end up in the emergency department at night—in particular, women over the age of 50, veterans in our community and Indigenous people. It is so important, and it enables the most significant Australian government investment in housing in a generation. This legislation implements the government's commitments to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, to provide a stream of funding to ensure that there is a pipeline for new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. It's going to transform NHFIC, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, into Housing Australia, the national home for key housing programs—a much-needed change. It will make sure we expand activities into those at-risk areas, and it will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government—'independent' being the key word there—on ways that we can increase housing supply and housing affordability, because we all know in this place that we need more independence and transparency, particularly when it comes to government policy. These commitments are part of the broader agenda of our government, the Albanese Labor government, when it comes to housing, particularly reforming the space. Just recently, we reached a landmark National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes over five years from 2024. We widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and made it up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing. We developed a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. We implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 people into homeownership, and the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people to buy a house sooner. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 establishes the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, as I said earlier, as a source of funding for the social and affordable housing and acute housing needs—acute housing needs being exceedingly important. The government will credit the fund with $10 billion after its establishment, to be invested under the management of the Future Fund Board of Guardians to produce returns to fund the social and affordable housing and acute housing needs. It will also help address acute housing needs by providing $200 million over five years for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities, one of those at-risk groups that I was telling you about who come into the emergency department seeking shelter. I am talking $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by domestic violence. In my clinical experience, I have seen people less than one month of age who have been impacted by family and domestic violence and who have been unable to get into a house that night. The only place they can go is the hospital because it is the only place with the lights on. There is no place for them to go. There is an additional $30 million to build housing and to fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. They have put their bodies on the line, they've risked their lives for our nation and we need to make sure that we are providing for them when they come home and are here in our communities. The government, including through Housing Australia, will work with community housing providers, state and territory governments and other providers to improve housing outcomes in Australia. In addition to establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a funding source for social and affordable homes and those acute housing needs, the government has expanded the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to make $575 million immediately available to fund social and affordable housing. I know that I continue to tell the House about my experience in the emergency department, but it is one of the reasons that I am here. I spoke about it at length to this parliament during my maiden speech and I continue to speak about it on many pieces of legislation, including this one on housing, because it is important. The emergency department has become a social hub, not an acute medical facility. People are coming in because they are fleeing family and domestic violence, they can't afford their medications, they can't get in to see a GP or they can't get a roof over their heads and a safe place to call home overnight. It is particularly true of those at-risk communities. Women over the age of 50 are the fastest growing group of homeless in the country. It's the veterans in our community. It's the Indigenous people in our community. If we don't make this investment now, if we don't invest in housing, if we don't invest in addressing homelessness, the situation is only going to deteriorate and people in this country are only going to be worse off, and that's not what being in government is about. Being in government, being on this side of the chamber, being in this House, for every member here, is about supporting our communities, our electorates and the country. It's about making sure that we are making good financial and economic decisions, like for the construction of social and affordable housing. It is about making sure we're putting good social policy forward like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will provide for social and affordable housing that is so desperately needed in this country. People are crying out for housing, and now we—all of us here—finally have the opportunity to make it right. We have the opportunity to invest in an area of need and we have an opportunity to make sure that men, women and children all across the country have a safe place to call home. 18:03 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I acknowledge the member for Robertson's contribution just now. There is no argument; of course we need to improve prospects for people who so desperately need social and affordable housing. The number of people who are experiencing homelessness is a concern for every member of this parliament. There is no doubt about that. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 together, as a housing legislative package, are some of the most significant housing reforms we have seen in the last decade. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill will create a $10 billion funding stream to support and increase social and affordable housing and address other acute housing needs for the groups in our society who need it most: Indigenous Australians, women and children experiencing domestic and family violence, older women with low incomes who are at risk of homelessness and many of our veterans. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill sets up an advisory body for the government, to ensure they make well-informed, sensible decisions on how this money is spent. It aims to research the conditions that impact housing affordability and supply by working with all levels of government—including, and importantly, local councils—to find out where housing is needed the most and the barriers to getting it. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill will expand the remit of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to deliver the government's social and affordable housing programs. As we've heard today—with some mirth, but nevertheless—it will be renamed Housing Australia. It's easier to say, that's for sure. I support these bills. They are the start of much-needed housing reform in this country—an area that has been neglected for far too long and is reaching crisis levels across the country, and, indeed, in my electorate of Indi. We are currently experiencing, in my patch, an unprecedented level of housing demand—something that I have not seen in the long, long time that I've lived in the area. From big towns, like Wodonga and Wangaratta, to small towns, like Corryong in the north and Alexandra in the south, people are constantly talking to me about the housing crisis. Before the pandemic, people on low incomes struggled, actually, to find social and affordable housing in my community. But once the pandemic hit, that increased. One of the reasons was that, after the pandemic hit, there was an influx of people moving to the regions from the cities. And why wouldn't you? We have so much to offer: a magnificent natural environment and welcoming communities, and we are ripe for opportunity. But what housing stock was available was snapped up. Demand rapidly outstripped supply of new homes. And obtaining a rental lease in my electorate is like winning the lottery. For years, in rural and regional Australia, we've said: 'Build it and they will come.' Well, they've come, and no-one's built it. Unfortunately, population increases also mean that house prices and rental payments in regional Victoria have increased significantly. Some towns in Indi have recently seen house prices increase by 34 per cent. A rental report released by Domain this year found that, in the last 12 months, three of the top five local government areas with the highest rent increases in Victoria are in my electorate, in Indi, in the local government areas of Strathbogie, Indigo and Alpine. You can't get a cheap place to put a roof over your head in regional Victoria anymore—certainly not in Indi. The lack of affordable housing has massive flow-on impacts, particularly for our workforce. Whenever I speak to a business owner, they tell me they're unable to fill job vacancies because people cannot find anywhere to live in a town. And the thing about regional Australia, of course, is that you can't just look in the next suburb. You need to look in the next town, and the next town is not five minutes away. Towns like Beechworth and Bright are struggling to find hospitality workers because there's no housing available. Essential workers in the area of health can't find a place to live. If 10 per cent of workplace positions can't be filled due to housing shortages, this flows on to a $200 million economic loss to our region. The pressure on the housing market means that the social housing needs have skyrocketed. The previous balance—of low incomes, low housing costs—has been depleted by an overall increase in housing costs. Affordable and social housing needs are no longer large-city or capital-city concerns. They have quickly become a crisis in regional and rural areas. Across Australia, including in the regions, these reforms will see much-needed affordable rental housing for the most vulnerable groups. As we've heard today, older women are the fastest-growing group of people at risk of homelessness in Australia, and they've come to me in my office to tell me so. In 2020, 405,000 women aged 45 years and over were estimated to be at risk of homelessness, and I can't recall a time where we've seen this. For Victorians who are facing violence, are already homeless or need to move for health reasons, the wait time for housing has just blown out. In Indi, there are 1,600 people on the waitlist for social housing, including 782 on the priority list. The total number on the waitlist has gone up 65 per cent since 2014, and the priority list has more than doubled. Around 300 people who leave the Australian Defence Force each year experience homelessness—three times the rate of the Australian general population. I think that's extraordinary. The Wangaratta RSL recently contacted me about the need for targeted housing for veterans. Again, they were shocked by the need. Veterans, women and children fleeing domestic violence, and older women at risk of homelessness deserve a stable, safe home. I am pleased that this bill is specifically investing to address this. This is a good bill, but it could be better. I will move amendments to ensure the specific needs of regional, rural and remote Australia are explicitly considered under these bills. I will do this because we have seen that if you don't explicitly target rural, regional and remote Australia, they can miss out. The previous government promised to spend $1 billion to help us unlock housing supply. Unfortunately, less than 25 per cent of that money was actually spent, and none of it came to my electorate in the last financial year. There was no dedicated, explicit consideration to the dire housing needs in regional Australia. That's unacceptable. This government has an opportunity to make this explicit, and I call on them to do so. I have worked with the minister on this to make sure that she considers this. It's extremely important. I don't want to see rural areas forgotten. My amendments will ensure that they are not by adding that an object of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is to provide a funding mechanism for the acute housing needs of Australians living in regional areas. Any reviews of the act must also consider the extent to which the fund is meeting housing needs in regional Australia, so we know whether the funds are actually going there or not. We need to see that. We need that transparency. My amendments will also ensure that at least one member of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council has demonstrated and relevant experience and expertise in housing needs in regional, rural or remote Australia. Under my amendments, one of the council's functions will be to advise the minister on issues of housing supply and affordability specifically in the regions. These aren't outrageous amendments. They're not controversial at all, I don't think. They are very simple. They should not be held back by a lack of consideration. In fact, I call on my colleagues across the House to back me in on this—particularly those members from rural, regional and remote Australia. When this government proudly talks about building 30,000 social and affordable homes within five years, the housing needs of regional areas absolutely must not be forgotten. I really urge you all to back me in on this one. This government has the ambitious goal of building tens of thousands of new homes. They have told us this, and we have heard it in many speeches today. I struggle, though, to see how they are going to fulfil this election promise if they do not specifically invest in critical enabling infrastructure—critical infrastructure like a functioning sewerage system. That doesn't sound very glamourous, but it's absolutely essential if you want to create new housing. Right now in Wangaratta, you can't build any more houses because the main sewer line is at capacity and it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade that infrastructure. That's money that a regional council doesn't just have lying around. I've spoken about this before, and I'm going to keep at it. Benalla has a similar problem; it needs $10 million worth of drainage works in the west and north-west of the town, otherwise they simply can't build any more homes, whether they're affordable social housing or not. This must sit squarely on the government's agenda. This is an issue, I am sure, across many other regional electorates. My amendments will add as an object of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill to fund critical enabling infrastructure for social and affordable housing in regional Australia. It will clarify that any references to increasing social and affordable housing includes funding the critical enabling infrastructure to fully realise this goal. Again I say to government, please do this. This will make a real difference. My amendments will also clarify that local governments can receive grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund. Local governments, often partnering with community housing providers, are the key enablers of the critical infrastructure communities need. Those things are not only things like sewerage but also parks, sporting grounds, lighting, drainage. As I've said, these are the things that actually create a neighbourhood. I will also move amendments to the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 to ensure that one of the council's research functions is to monitor how critical enabling infrastructure is impacting housing supply and affordability. If we closely monitor this, whether this enormous $10 billion fund is delivering critical infrastructure, we will know if it's also building the thousands of homes that it says it will, and particularly in the regions. For a long time we have prioritised giving Australians the opportunity of homeownership, yet we need to value rental homes just as much as homeownership. Homeownership is not in everyone's reach. We need to create safe, comfortable, affordable, long-term rental houses. To date we haven't done that. A July 2022 report found that the north-east Victorian region experienced the second highest rent increase in the entire state of Victoria, with rents increasing by an average of 10 per cent. This is despite average wages for workers in the retail, health care and social assistance sectors only increasing by 2.3 per cent over those three years. This shows that tenants in north-east Victoria are at the mercy of the toxic combination of rising rents and stagnating wages. In Indi, we know that the problem with housing affordability is not just rising prices; it's supply as well, and there are simply not enough houses to rent. I met with constituents in the town of Wodonga, the biggest town in my electorate, who submitted over 170 rental applications before finding a place. This is why I'm moving amendments which clarify that, when the bill refers to 'affordable housing' it means affordable rental housing. I want to make sure this is upfront and centre, absolutely clear, no mistake. The amendment is supported by the not-for-profit group BeyondHousing, who are extraordinary, and I thank them for all the work they do in providing people in Indi with a pathway to a home. If my amendments pass, they will ensure the specific housing needs of regional Australia are considered. They will ensure enabling infrastructure for housing in regional Australia is specifically considered. But I think we can actually do even more. We need to think a bit differently. We need to think contextually. We need to think about rural and regional Australia and what we need there to open up housing stock. I mean housing stock that's at all levels, not just social and affordable housing. We need something creative. We don't want to create suburbia in regional towns, but we need medium-density housing and we need social housing; we need clever housing. I have put a proposal to government to set up a dedicated regional housing infrastructure investment fund. This would be a $2 billion fund to unlock private investment in new houses by building the basic infrastructure needed for new developments, including social infrastructure like community centres. The fund would also provide local government assistance to fast-track planning approvals. They're held back by that as well. I think my proposal is a simple one. It's a clear one. It puts rural and regional Australia right there where it needs to be, explicitly in this housing policy. We all know how great it is to live out in the regions. That's why we stay, and that's why people are coming. The last thing I want is our young families moving out of the electorate because they don't have the means to build in our communities. The last thing I want is our local hospitals, our local schools, our local childcare centres and our local tradies having to say, 'I'm sorry, there's nowhere for you to live,' and those people who want to come and take these jobs moving somewhere else. Addressing the housing crisis in regional Australia is the first step to addressing that challenge—the challenge of workforce. This bill is a great start, but we can do better. I urge the government: take up my amendments and work with me to develop these funds. 18:18 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce These housing bills are an important part—key planks, if you like—of implementing the government's election commitments in relation to housing. But the context is important. There's no point pretending otherwise. There's a housing crisis across the country, and the housing crisis is a human crisis. There are untold thousands of Australians struggling to get a place to live, whether that's renting, buying or even emergency accommodation for over 100,000 Australians. This is affecting people of all ages in every part of the country—and I do acknowledge what the member for Indi has said, rightly, around regional Australia—in particular, First Nations communities, women fleeing domestic and family violence, and one of the fastest growing groups of homeless people: older women in this country, often with no superannuation, maybe broken-down relationships and little time in the workforce. The government inherited this mess—a decade of delay and dithering. When I was elected six and a bit years ago the previous government didn't even have a minister for housing. That's how seriously the previous Liberal government took housing. They didn't even have a Commonwealth minister for housing. They did invent one. It was like a kind of little bauble—'Look, we've got a Minister for Housing.' It was the member for Deakin—not who I would have chosen for a pretty bauble, but there you go. They didn't do anything useful. In nearly five years there was no meeting of the housing ministers. One of the jobs of the Commonwealth housing minister is to get all of the states and territories together, because the levers sit with both the states and territories and the Commonwealth. There is something worse than doing nothing. On the rare occasion that the previous government decided to try doing something on housing they actually made the problem worse. There were nice-sounding schemes after schemes. They all had fancy names—HomeBuilder and what have you. They were all about putting more cash into people's pockets, which pushed up the cost of housing. HomeBuilder, as we know, was largely an expensive renovation scheme randomly enriching people who were already planning to do renovations, including bathroom renovations—'I'll have some better quality taps.' It wasn't a serious housing program. It just pushed up the cost of housing. The government didn't make this mess, but we recognise and accept responsibility to intervene and grapple with it. As I said, this is a federation. We have the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It is fundamentally impossible to make any serious impact on the housing market—whether that's growing supply or making housing more affordable—if you don't work together, because the hard reality in our Constitution is that it's state governments, and under them local governments, that have many of the levers in relation to supply: planning and building approvals, zoning in particular and bringing on new supply. They have a responsibility to manage the social and public housing stock, and indeed to fund that. The Commonwealth has many of the demand levers, including obviously migration over time, taxation arrangements and so on. They are the facts of life. You can't deal with this stuff unless you get the states and territories together. I commend the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, the member for Franklin, on her work. Now that adult government is back we actually get everyone around the table and start dealing with problems. I know this stuff is lost on the Liberals. I occasionally talk about my gold medal for policy stupidity. The Assistant Treasurer there at the table would know the winner of that is the super-for-housing idea. It was pioneered by the former member for Goldstein. What happened to him? He's no longer here, is he? He was running around with this ridiculous idea. We didn't think anybody would seriously adopt it. Mathias Cormann and Josh Frydenberg both said: 'No. It's a dumb idea to let people raid their superannuation to buy houses. If you understand supply and demand, you know what that would do. If you put more cash in people's pockets, it pushes up the cost of housing.' This is the reality we've inherited—neanderthal-like policies, which the Leader of the Opposition recommitted to last year in his budget reply speech. Their policy to make housing more affordable is to make it more expensive. If you go to an auction and you're bidding against people and you've your superannuation in your pocket, what's going to happen? You're just going to push up the bidding, so you may as well just give your superannuation to the guy selling the house. That's the reality. These bills before us are a key election commitment. The supply council in essence is a role that the Commonwealth can take—if you like, the convening power of the Commonwealth to get the states and territories together and to hold that mirror to reflect in an honest, balanced way what's happening with supply. We did have efforts on supply under the former Labor government, but of course Tony Abbott got elected and abolished them all. This time—I think sensibly—we are reinstituting this as a statutory authority to make it a lot harder should—woe betide the country—the Liberals get elected again one day. It will be harder for them to wind this back. It needs to be entrenched permanently, and this bill will do that. In a former life, many years ago as a public servant in Victoria, I looked after metropolitan planning. I was in charge of the long-term plan for Melbourne, including land supply. We instituted then a program that is still going—the Urban Development Program. Every year the government publishes accurate, evidence based, independent, impartial forecasts about land supply in each of the major growth markets and the established councils. We also look at competition in those markets. There's no point in having lots of land zoned if you've got two or three developers who are price-fixing, effectively, by holding back the lots. Hence, often there needs to be a role—I know this will be shocking to those opposite—for a government public land developer to come in, buy land and bust up the cartels and get it on the market to get the prices down. But all of these things sit with the states and territories, hence the National Housing Supply Council is a critical Commonwealth intervention to hold that mirror back at the states. Then there's the Housing Australia Future Fund, to deliver more social and affordable housing. There's a $10 billion investment in the fund to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable houses over five years. This is capital investment to create a revenue stream—again, foreign concepts for those opposite and, indeed, the Greens political party—which means it's sustainable. So every year there will be money flowing in, instead of what we have seen for too long, which is lumpy investments and programs that come and go. We need to make it an ordinary part of the business of government to slowly but steadily increase the supply of affordable housing. That's what the bill does. It's desperately needed. There are hundreds of thousands of people on social and affordable and public housing waiting lists across the country. They are crying out for action, and the government has a mandate for this. It was a key election promise of the government, and this bill is implementing that promise that people voted for. But there is a threat to getting this done. The Liberals and the Greens appear to be teaming up in an unholy alliance to stop the creation of more social and affordable housing that is desperately needed, right across the country. We understand from the coalition, the 'noalition' as many have been calling them, that they would instinctively oppose progress. They've never supported social and affordable housing. They funded nothing for social and affordable housing in their last wasted decade in government. If you see a good idea, you can guarantee they would oppose it. But I am stunned by the Greens' yet again teaming up with the Liberals to block progress. I want to record my dismay at, frankly, the idiocy of the Greens political party on this issue. They are set to oppose the bill, they say. The Greens are set to oppose social and affordable housing. How do we know their position, you may well ask. It's not because they've told the government. The minister has had three meetings, at least, sitting down, talking through the bill, inviting them to contribute and inviting thoughts and feedback. But no, they came up with a set of amendments and dumped them, leaked them, to the media. That's how serious they are about impacting government policy, about making a difference. For any Australian who thinks the Greens political party are some kind of constructive force, that we should vote Green because it might push the Labor government to be more progressive, consider the facts and have a serious look. This is the archetypal case study on how pointless and ineffectual and juvenile they are. The Greens are saying they don't want a $10 billion fund and they don't want $500 million a year in a sustainable way for affordable housing. They want grants—$5 billion a year, 10 times. That sounds nice, except there are two big problems. It's inflationary in the current environment. Can you seriously think of anything more irresponsible than throwing petrol on a fire? Throwing $5 billion a year out into the housing market. Just make up a number; that's what they do. It's all fake money in their imaginary government and their fantasy budget there in the Greens political party, frankly. That's what it is. They're never accountable; they just say stuff. But it would be highly inflationary and push up the cost of housing. They're impossible numbers in the current construction environment. Anyone trying to find a builder at the moment would know that. The more cash that governments splurge on infrastructure—goodness me, $5 billion a year from the Commonwealth would further push up the cost of housing. The Greens are calling for rent caps. Small problem, Greens Party: the Commonwealth has no power. But that doesn't stop them; it's all about a headline. The whole point of parliament for the Greens political party seems to be to move ridiculous motions and call for things which the federal government has no power on, purely for stunts and memes on social media. That is the point. At least once a week we get a silly motion so they can force the government and the opposition to vote together and create this fiction of the old parties that we are somehow all the same. It's a business model. I've been here for six years. Week after week, that's what happens. It's a stunt. I was interested to read TheAustralian on the weekend. It said the Greens and the coalition are working together to scuttle the $10 billion fund and the flagship housing policy—classic Greens behaviour. They don't come here to build and influence; they come to wreck. The member for Griffith, their housing spokesperson, took to Twitter on the weekend. There was a rambling statement full of, frankly, misinformation and scaremongering. He said 'A $10 billion fund represents a cut.' That is just ridiculous and untrue given the former government invested nothing. How on earth could it represent a cut? Then he said, 'The fund is a $10 billion gamble on the stock market.' That is also nonsense. It has been carefully designed with the guardians of the Future Fund, drawing on design of the Medical Research Fund, the Future Drought Fund and so on to smooth out the variations in returns so there is a steady flow of money over the next few years to construct 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. One of my favourite moments in question time is when the Greens housing spokesperson gets up and asks the Prime Minister some sanctimonious question full of nonsense about affordable housing and they rightly get a whack. I was a mayor of a council the 22 years ago. I know how hard it is with the community battles—Dai Le, the member for Fowler, you've done this—how hard it is to get residents on board for social and affordable housing. But I will stand by my record over the Greens political party any day. Whenever anyone complains on their councils, they vote no. At any opportunity, their deeds don't match their words. They vote against affordable housing, just as they're threatening to do in the parliament here in Australia. If you really care about housing, you actually have to vote yes. When I was the mayor of a council, I was criticised by the local Greens. The council owned 450 houses. We took a tough decision to vest the houses in a trust and set up an affordable housing association to leverage the balance sheet and attract funding—you know, adult council. The Greens opposed it, just as they oppose any sensible reform now that makes a difference if it upsets their ability to get a silly meme up on social media. Two months ago, if we go with the theme of hypocrisy, the member for Melbourne, Dr Bandt, the Leader of the Greens, sent a heartfelt message to supporters asking them to think about housing and homelessness and those struggling to pay the rent over Christmas. I have a copy. Right in the middle of this lovely email the Greens political party sent to their supporters, he said, 'If you really care about the homeless at this difficult time of year, maybe you'd like to make a donation to the Greens Party by flicking the orange button'. We're not here to use this as a fundraising opportunity. Labor members don't see the parliament as an opportunity for stunts and memes. I noticed not one member of the Greens Party in the House has joined the parliamentary committee, not one of them. They are not here to do serious policy work. They don't try and influence colleagues. None of them have ever knocked on my door to talk about an issue. The point of parliament for the Greens is stunts and memes, like this is one big never ending episode of student politics. I say to them: stop the opposition, stop the stunts, don't scuttle the legislation in the Senate and vote for the fund. Without 30,000 new dwellings, the consequences for people right across Australia would be horrendous. They're fighting against the millions of people this bill will help, people fleeing domestic violence, people who fought for our country—veterans—First Nations Australians who live in remote communities, and people across the country in the cities and the regions who need a home. 18:33 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for allowing me to contribute to shaping the bill by raising some important issues. I acknowledge the minister is taking long-term steps to secure social hosing now and for the future. As someone who has grown up in public housing, I understand the importance of a safety net and I support the work that community housing providers do to ensure people have a roof over their heads. While this legislation is not perfect—let's face it, no bill is—it's definitely a good start to building more social and affordable housing for all Australians. Therefore, I move amendments to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 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: (1) acknowledges the housing crisis is locking out low-to-middle-income Australians, and is increasing demand for social and affordable housing schemes; (2) recognises the overall need to deliver 45,000 social and affordable homes a year to tackle the housing crisis—as per data from the National Housing and Financing Investment Corporation; and (3) calls on the government to: (a) address development issues in the building and construction sector, including: (i) skilled labour shortages; (ii) supply chain issues as a result of the pandemic; and (iii) rising interest rates and inflation causing significant increases in basic building costs; (b) mandate state governments to streamline planning, processing and approvals, which would increase availability of development-ready land; (c) implement incentives similar to the previous National Rental Affordability Scheme to boost housing delivery by both the private sector and community housing providers; and (d) work with states to enact uniform tenants' rights laws". My electorate of Fowler has the sixth-highest rate of families in public and social housing across Australia and the fourth-worst rental affordability in the country. In Fowler, 46 per cent of our rental households have rental payments that are more than 30 per cent of their household income. There is little room to negotiate, with rental vacancy rates in Sydney at 1.3 per cent. In Sydney's south-west, the vacancy rate is at one per cent as of January 2023. The Reserve Bank has just made its ninth interest rate rise in a row, causing more financial stress and pressure for our middle-income-earning Australians. With these tough economic times, it's a very real possibility that many of my residents who own homes may be forced to default on them and, with such a low vacancy rate, may find themselves with nowhere to go. As many of us in this House know, the cost-of-living crisis is hitting the hip pockets of many Australians right now, especially in electorates like Fowler, where our median income is 20 per cent less than the national average. How can people afford to save for a deposit while they pay rent and they're struggling to simply put food on the table and pay for petrol, while looking after their kids and elderly parents? My second point refers to a 2021 report by NHFIC which states that 45,000 social and affordable homes are required each year to tackle the current housing crisis. Similar views are shared by the community housing providers I have consulted with regarding the lack of housing supply. St George Community Housing, based in Bonnyrigg, have suggested the $500 million fund would fall short to make 30,000 homes, let alone the projected 45,000 homes required for both social and affordable housing. Hume Community Housing, in their joint submission with PowerHousing Australia, also state that 30,000 homes could have a capital construction cost of approximately $10.5 billion alone. This does not include upkeep, maintenance and providing other much-needed services to these communities. They have also provided data outlining that wait times for homes in their Fairfield and Liverpool branches are all at capacity, and people are having to wait 10 years plus to secure a home. Hume Community Housing are currently housing over 12,000 people in Liverpool and Fairfield. Their support networks are integral to getting the homeless off the streets and providing as much support as possible to vulnerable people like Jessica, a young person whose life spiralled out of control due to drug addiction. But, with the support of Hume Community Housing, she is now reformed and is helping others with the issues she once struggled with. This includes being a shoulder to lean on, helping people fill out their paperwork and reaching out to those in need through her social media channels. Addiction doesn't discriminate. Jessica says that it's not only about having a home but also about having solid support around you to keep you going and focused on the future. Another provider I spoke with, Evolve Housing, operates out of Parramatta and manages 2,000 homes across Western Sydney. They have told us that their priority waiting list takes five to 10 years, while the general waiting list is 10 years or more. St George Community Housing, another community housing provider in my electorate of Fowler, provide essential services to nearly 1,500 residents in Bonnyrigg Newleaf. They provide funfairs, movie nights and family outings but also help residents upskill with development programs. These include an IT and computer literacy class, which they're proud to say has led to two of the class of 10 people gaining part-time work so far. These examples go to show that the CHPs are working hard to provide tenants with a roof over their heads as well as ensuring residents are not only housed but their overall wellbeing is looked after. But they're having to deal with the lack of social and affordable housing. The supply is simply not enough. While the Housing Australia Future Fund has set out its mandate to build these homes, more needs to be done to ensure the longevity of the scheme and to safeguard community programs that CHPs offer so tenants ultimately benefit. My third point that I hope the government will address concerns the skills and supply chain shortages that are plaguing most, if not all, industries. According to the ABS, input costs for house building grew by 14.2 per cent in the 12 months to December 2022. In pre-pandemic times, the average build time for a detached dwelling was roughly nine months. In many locations across the country, build times have ballooned out to 24 months. It's all well and good to commit to building 30,000 homes, but this is not achievable if we don't have the workforce or the materials to do so. I support skilled migration to fill the immediate gaps, but I urge the government to also look towards increasing apprenticeships and training positions to upskill our local residents to join the construction sector as well. While the rest of the country faces all-time-low unemployment rates, the story in Fowler is very different. We have an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, nearly three times the national average. Here I want to commend the work of St George Community Housing in also introducing pathways to employment, therefore bringing down the unemployment rate in our area. It was through the work of St George Community Housing that I learned the story of Wiradjuri man Arthur and his two sons Arthur Jr and Thomas. Arthur spent a large portion of life in and out of jail and abusing drugs but made the decision to get clean while Arthur Jr's and Thomas's mother was in the last stage of cancer. It took him years to get clean, gain custody of his kids and move into Bonnyrigg Newleaf. With the support of St George, both boys, now teenagers, are working part-time, with Arthur Jr pursuing courses in construction and hospitality. Their very proud father says: 'The courses are building their confidence. They are not hanging around the streets and with their friends but are doing something for themselves and getting skills they wouldn't have been able to get otherwise.' This is one example of how CHPs can inspire their residents to contribute to the trades and construction sector and also tackle the workforce issue. It's clear that, while construction of housing is important, community engagement is pivotal to tenants' wellbeing and provides them with opportunities to grow their skill sets so they may be able to become self-sufficient through employment. I hope the government and the minister are genuine and authentic in wanting to jump start the manufacturing and construction sectors, which they are proposing under the National Reconstruction Fund—especially supporting the small and medium enterprises in places like south-west Sydney to enable them to create local jobs and local products so we are no longer reliant on other countries for what we can create ourselves. My fourth point refers to the National Rental Affordability Scheme but is an overall issue we need to address in the HAFF's investment mandate. We must ensure we encourage investment both from private entities and community housing providers. Hume Housing and St George Community Housing have also echoed the need for co-investment into social and affordable housing. When we talk about co-investment, the National Rental Affordability Scheme comes to mind. Starting in 2008, in light of the global financial crisis, it's incredibly unfortunate that the NRAS is beginning to wrap up during another cost-of-living crisis. Evolve Housing raised concerns about the end of the scheme, citing the 436 private properties they manage under NRAS have reduced to 360 as of February 2023. They have assured us the 300 or so properties they developed under the scheme will remain subsidised. They said: 'Even with the stars aligned, and we miraculously get these 30,000 properties in the next five years, the net impact will be close to zero without the NRAS.' As the scheme draws to a close, thousands of people living in affordable homes will be out on the street with some of the lowest rental vacancy rates in the last 10 years. This will therefore put more pressure on community housing providers to develop more houses, but it isn't possible to do this overnight. I acknowledge that many private developers took advantage of this scheme, building cheaper and smaller homes while receiving the same subsidies. However, if there was a regulation that ensured proportional funding depending on the size of the build as well as the location of the build, this would not be so easily taken advantage of. With rising interest rates and inflation, I understand why mum-and-dad investors will be pulling out of this scheme early. After all, it's untenable to continue subsidising rent if they're haemorrhage money. The government should look to safeguard the current tenancies by incentivising altruistic private investors to stay on the scheme, but with the above regulations. There's a lot to be learned from NRAS. I sincerely hope the government takes the lessons onboard when forming the investment mandate for the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. My last point is to safeguard tenant rights and to call for the federal government to work with the state governments to create a national tenants' rights policy. This would ensure that private developments meet minimum standards and renters can be in habitable conditions, boosting their health and wellbeing. At the moment, many of the renters in Fowler go without proper heating in the cooler months or air conditioning in the hotter months. Last year in South-Western Sydney, six people were hospitalised from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a charcoal barbecue to heat up their homes. How is this an acceptable standard of living in this day and age? Tenants also fear they could face eviction on a whim, and this is particularly concerning given that 42 per of people in my electorate of Fowler rent rather than owning their own home, nearly 10 percentage points more than the national average. It will be devastating to see more people get evicted into a scarce rental market with some of the lowest rental vacancies in the last decade. In sum, I want to make it clear that I agree with CHPs who have raised concerns that the funding is inadequate and that 30,000 homes may not be enough, but we must start somewhere, and having some social and affordable housing is, I suppose, better than having none. I support the minister in her efforts to take these measured steps to ensure we are helping the most needy and vulnerable. Community housing can change lives, as it has changed mine and my family's. Jessica, whose life was transformed by community housing, reminded us why we must get this right when she said, 'Having a safe place to go to is the most important thing in life.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Tink 300124 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:47 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 are some of the most important legislation that will come before this House this year. I'll go into why that is so in the course of my speech. For anyone listening, just to summarise what those three bills are about, this set of bills establishes a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to deliver more social and affordable housing; establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent expert advice to government on housing; and makes Housing Australia the home of Australian government housing programs. Housing Australia effectively takes over from the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. Last week the Property Council of Australia launched their paper A stark reality here at Parliament House. Their paper—which is more than just a paper; it's actually a book of some 50-odd pages—goes through the issues relating to why we effectively have a housing crisis in this country today. It's an important document that outlines a number of key statistics. I just want to go through some of those statistics and then come back to the substance of this legislation. Firstly, the Australian population by the year 2060 is now projected to be 39 million people. It's expected to be something like 30 million by 2033. Of all the cities surveyed around the world, Sydney is now the second-least affordable city for housing in the world, out of some 92 cities that were surveyed. Five Australian capital cities—those being Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide—sat inside the worst 20 cities for affordability, and all Australian major city markets ranked as severely unaffordable. It goes on to say that homeownership rates in Australia have fallen from around 71 per cent in 1994-95 to 67 per cent in 2019-20. Importantly, the proportion of people who own their own homes but now have a mortgage has increased from 29 per cent in 1994-95 to 36.8 per cent in 2019-20. It's also expected that over the next seven or eight years there will be a housing shortfall of around 160,000 homes in this country. We also saw that only last year the national rental vacancy rate was down to as low as one per cent. Effectively, there was no vacancy rate because I'm sure, for that one per cent, there were good reasons why those houses were not rented. The other point that is important to note with respect to that report is that we have in Australia today 418,000 social housing properties. Of those, 274,500 are provided by state and territory housing authorities. The important thing here is that those numbers have hardly moved over the last two or three decades, while the population of Australia has increased significantly. So, as the population has been going up, the number of social houses has remained pretty stagnant. Even worse—and this is a personal observation—over the last decade or so of the last coalition government we saw absolutely no commitment, no policy initiatives, towards addressing what was a problem 10 years ago and should have been picked up by the government. It is for that reason that, right now, we have the situation that we do. The reason is neglect over a 10-year period. This legislation talks about what the Albanese Labor government is going to do to try and rectify those problems. I will come back to some specific comments a bit further on in my speech. But I just want to make some general points about the urgency of why we need a national housing plan and for this legislation to go through parliament. Homelessness has been a real concern for this parliament and for governments ever since I came into this place. I can well recall one of the first issues that we were trying to address was homelessness, with over 100,000 people estimated at the time as being homeless. That was 15 years ago. I can recall the $6 billion fund the Rudd government at the time brought in to try to overcome some of that. Homelessness causes major social welfare problems and it adds to the social costs of government through health services and the like that have to be picked up further down the track. We then have housing affordability. If people cannot afford their homes, then, quite frankly, it is one of the worst things that can happen for them. Not only is housing probably the biggest individual investment that any family will make but housing creates stability within families and within communities. A stable roof other a person's head, whether it's a rental roof or a roof on a home that they own, creates absolute stability, which in turn goes to health effects and so on which again are picked up by governments if housing is not available. That's not to mention the personal stress and grief that it causes families when they find themselves homeless or when they find themselves in a situation where they may become homeless. With respect to that, in the last 12 months alone, I have had more people come to my office seeking assistance for housing matters than I've ever had in previous years. Again, that just confirms the urgency of this matter. There are many contributing factors as to why we are in the position we're in. I think the decade of neglect by the previous government is something that they will live to regret. Another issue—again an issue that I hold the previous government responsible for—was stagnant wages. When people's wages didn't go up, people couldn't afford to buy a home; in fact, some of them couldn't afford to rent either. Stagnant wages are a problem which this government, the Albanese government, understands and is doing something about. Government investment in public housing, as I said earlier, has been diminishing over the years, rather than increasing. And we have responsibility for housing shared across all three levels of government: federal, state and local. It's not easy to pinpoint who is responsible, so each level of government passes the buck to another level. With respect to that, I applaud the Albanese government's initiative of a housing accord whereby all three levels of government are now expected to work together to try to overcome that very problem. We also have a very cumbersome planning process across all jurisdictions. I've heard speakers from other states talking about that very issue, and I have my own experience from local government of how difficult the planning process can be for home builders and developers. We need to streamline that and do more to make it just that bit easier. We then have—and, again, I think the Property Council of Australia highlights this point very well—a plethora of obligations, particularly from state and local governments, on anyone who wants to build a house. I could go through all the levies and taxes, the open space contributions and the other rates and taxes that have to be paid, not to mention the skills shortages that were mentioned by the previous speaker. When you combine all those factors you can understand why we have a housing shortage. I might say, with respect to skills shortages, that one of the other critical issues we face right now in this country is a shortage of certain key materials. Again, all these issues didn't just happen overnight; they happened gradually under the watch of the previous government, who did nothing about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the last few minutes of my comments on this legislation I will say this: this is a $10 billion proposal that will go a long way to overcoming many of the problems I just spoke about. It may not fix them all but it will go a long way to addressing them. It is disappointing to hear that members opposite are likely to oppose this legislation. It is difficult to understand why. Quite frankly, the projects that will come from this legislation, if they're followed through, will go a long way to rebuilding our economy, creating jobs, creating skills and ensuring that as a nation we're in a much better place in years to come. I will close by quoting some comments made by the Minister for Housing in her speech, on 8 February, at the launch of the Property Council of Australia's report A stark reality. I can't say it better than she did, so I'm going to quote from her speech. She said that initiatives under the Albanese government would include: Agreeing to commission the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to review barriers to institutional investment, finance and innovation in housing. …   …   …    Expanding and broadening the Home Guarantee Scheme, including delivering our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee three months ahead of schedule which has already helped more than 1,700 Australians into home ownership. Broadening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to allow it to support new social and affordable housing, in addition to financing critical housing infrastructure such as roads, electricity and gas. Establishing the Housing Policy Partnership, which comes under Priority Reform One of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Announcing the development of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan— and, importantly: Establishing the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to support 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings in the first 5 years of the Fund's operation. That's a comprehensive package of measures that the Albanese government is bringing to this parliament, to try and overcome the critical issue of housing shortages in this country and ensure that people have a future ahead of them where they will have a roof over their head. Again, I implore members opposite to support this initiative. It may not be everything they want, but it goes a long way to addressing the housing crisis that we currently face. I commend this legislation to the House. 19:00 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney As I rise to speak to the bills before the House, the reality is that the Australian housing market is in crisis and Australians from all walks of life are facing the cost-of-living crunch. In my own seat of North Sydney, over 50 per cent of those with a mortgage report that they're under financial stress, and, with interest rates set to only increase in the coming weeks, that stress is only going to grow. At the same time, the one-in-two people who rent in my community are also under increasing stress and what many would say is unsustainable pressure. Properties are hard to come by, with the national rental vacancy rate at a record low of 0.9 per cent, while, nationally, the cost of rent has increased by 8.2 per cent. Capital cities like Sydney are even worse off, with the average rent increasing by 10.2 per cent in just the last 12 months. Unit rents have increased two per cent over the quarter, to $500 a week—a rate of growth which is double the previous quarter. Indeed, as it currently stands, the average weekly rent in my electorate of North Sydney is actually $561, which is more than 10 per cent higher than the state average. In this context, then, the social and affordable housing crisis is one that knows no geographical boundaries. Essential workers, families, older women and the most vulnerable in our community need appropriate housing right across our country, and it is for this reason that robust debate regarding this Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 is something we must all commit to in this place. A recent independent review conducted by the Australian government found that an investment of around $290 billion would be required over the next two decades to meet the shortfall in housing options. Devastatingly, well over 100,000 Australians are homeless on any given night. While we are fortunate to have a number of social housing operators and facilities in North Sydney, these are not nearly enough, and pressure always remains on those that do exist to, potentially, be repurposed, as the land value is so high. Homelessness is ultimately the result of systemic issues, including the lack of safe and affordable housing in Australia, and it is an issue that none of us in this place can turn our back on. The North Sydney community consistently raises issues of housing affordability and rental stress with me, with many concerned not only for the current residents and the current generation but, importantly, for future generations. Housing affordability is one of our society's most pressing issues. But let's be clear: this is not a problem that we can solve simply by throwing money at it. Housing affordability is a complex problem that has been building for decades, and, just like climate change, if we're going to make moves forward in this, it requires a transparent, non-political, evidence based process to develop long-term, sustainable solutions. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 creates a $10 billion fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, it is proposed, will provide a sustainable and ongoing funding stream, in perpetuity, to build the social and affordable homes Australians need. The objective of the fund is to build 20,000 social and 10,000 affordable homes over the next five years, with the fund expected to also provide $200 million for the repair and maintenance of and improvements to remote Indigenous housing; $100 million for crisis and domestic violence housing; and $30 million for veterans' housing and specialist services. Additionally, the Australian government is developing a National Housing and Homelessness Plan to help more Australians access safe and affordable housing. It's a 10-year strategy designed to broadly assess issues constraining the current housing system. The national plan provides us with a chance to identify actions needed to address the significant challenges facing the housing and homelessness sectors. The bills we are debating today will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia, as the national home for key housing programs, and expand its activities, and will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, to provide independent advice to government on options to increase housing supply and affordability. The housing legislation package purports to offer a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social and affordable homes on the ground, with the government frequently stating that it signifies the most significant Australian government investment in housing in more than a decade. Overall, these bills before us today are a step in the right direction. I do, though, fear that the scale of the problem is so daunting that the results they seek to deliver may be just a drop in the ocean. I also fear that political parrying will stop us making progress at all. Ten billion dollars and 30,000 homes over five years sounds like a big deal. But, in reality, we must acknowledge it is barely a drop in the ocean. In terms of my broader concerns, there are two that I'd like to particularly call out. Firstly, the funding model proposed under this legislation only provides outright grants, so there is potential for rorting. In this context, the oversight structure guiding Housing Australia must be above reproach. We cannot afford for Australians to only lose faith in this system as they perceive that, potentially, consultants or profit-driven developers are the ones who truly win. Secondly, as the legislation current exists, it could overlap with other existing housing assistance schemes like rental assistance, and for this reason I'd like to better understand what the success measures will be for this fund. This is a large sum of money with what appears to be little accountability as it currently stands. The independent housing affordability council is a good step. It will work with other bodies and make sure we have good data to make informed decisions. It is my hope then that the council will show some bravery, more bravery than many in this place, to assess the role tax policy and settings can play in hindering and assisting housing affordability. Beyond the scope of the bills before us today, I would like to see the government show more leadership in a number of key areas, including tenants rights reform including no-fault evictions. As stated before, my community of North Sydney has a high concentration of renters, and we should be looking to make renting a viable, long-term option for families who want it. We could encourage this type of development in our community through schemes such as build-to-rent. I would also encourage this government to actively consider how public policy might best balance differing needs between those who desire more high-density development in established suburbs, with the very real need to build more housing on greenfields sites. There are trade-offs which need to be balanced between quality of life, planned infrastructure and environmental protection—in particular, places like the Cumberland Plain, where endangered bushland unique to Western Sydney is under direct threat from urban growth. I also believe it would be to the benefit of all if this government could give significant consideration to mandatory inclusion zoning to ensure a minimum percentage of affordable housing in new development projects. To achieve all that may be possible in this space, all levels of government, Housing Australia, registered community housing providers and the private sector must work together. Homelessness Australia, whilst welcoming the new capacity for policy leadership on housing, notes: … while each body potentially has an important role to play, the legislative package lacks sufficient clarity about how each body relates to each other, and where the responsibility for policy leadership lies, particularly in relation to homelessness. The current housing shortage is stark—an at-market shortfall of approximately 200,000 dwellings, an affordable shortfall of about 173,000 dwellings and a social housing shortfall of around 103,000 dwellings. These figures are only set to deteriorate further in coming years. Powering Australia has noted that delivering 30,000 social and affordable housing units will only meet a fraction of the unmet demand, which is estimated to be as high as 640,000 units. A constituent recently called my office in tears because she's been knocked back by more than 50 apartment rental applications around the North Sydney electorate. In desperation, she is using Airbnb as an interim shelter since she lost her home in a house fire in 2022. She's not seeking subsidised or public housing. She has a job, and she can afford to rent. But, in reality, her daughter is living with her dad in Campbelltown, as she cannot provide consistent housing right now, so her family is split apart. She didn't ring to ask for anything. She just needed to know that we knew—that we in this House knew—how challenging the rental market is right now for real people. In addition to all of this, until recent changes to the National Construction Code, Australia's housing stock has lagged behind that of many countries in terms of its thermal performance and the performance of heating, cooling and other energy systems. Inefficient buildings are unhealthy for occupants and lead to a range of poor respiratory and cognitive outcomes, particularly when inefficient fossil fuels are used indoors for heating or cooking. This fund, and the government's broader housing policy, is the ideal opportunity to ensure all new buildings built under this scheme are obliged to deliver net zero emissions from energy through efficient design, electrification, onsite renewables and the contracting of renewably generated grid power. Furthermore, I am aware that some state policies are misaligned with the objective of building electrification, such as planning requirements mandating gas connections for new dwellings and, in the case of New South Wales, a BASIX requirement that perversely preferences gas stoves over electric. Clearly, given the urgency and complexity of the changes needed to improve energy performance and reduce emissions, including requirements for workforce developments, there's a real need for central coordination by the federal government. I have seconded the amendment moved by the member for Fowler, and I wish to thank her for her considered review of this bill. I rise to speak in favour of that amendment because I believe her suggestions would strengthen the bill. Part of that amendment relates to the investment mandate of the bill, which hasn't even been released yet. As it currently stands, there is no certainty as to whether community housing providers must start developing these houses alone or whether the private sector can help contribute. I believe there should be every incentive built into our system to encourage co-investment between the two sectors. Each brings different expertise to the table. Community housing providers, like St George Community Housing and Link Wentworth, who operate in my electorate, have their finger on the pulse of what is needed where and by whom. The private sector can lead in planning and development. The sectors should go hand in hand. This co-operation also applies to co-investment. It actually boggles my mind that a scheme like the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which started in 2008 during the global financial crisis, is being wound down during our current cost-of-living crisis. While NRAS, as it's known, is not perfect, there is something worth holding onto in its model of co-investment, to ensure that investment continues to flow, from mum-and-dad investors to community housing providers and developers. This is a challenge which requires many shoulders to the wheel. In finishing, is this legislation perfect? No, it's not. But it's a start, and a start is what we must make. To delay would leave thousands of people languishing. Inaction is the only action that is unacceptable. I would like to end on a reminder. A house is more than a dwelling. It is easy to get caught up in the size of the public policy problem before us, but, as policymakers in this place, we must remember that a house is a home. A home is a place that provides shelter. A home is where you raise your family. A home is where you create memories. In this context, then, if we can invest in securing more homes for all Australians, we will all be the better for it. 19:13 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It is pretty unbelievable to me that I'm standing here to appeal to other members of this place to support the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. I thought, in the lead-up to the election, there were some things that we announced that may not have the full support of those opposite, but I thought this was one thing that no-one could argue with. We all know the crisis that exists, and I guess it's disappointing, and maybe not surprising, that the opposition's decided that saying no is going to be their fallback position. But the Greens opposing it takes me back to a time I don't want to remember, when there was other legislation in this place—long before I was here—to take action on climate change, and they blocked something that would have also made a world of difference to our economy and our environment. That was in 2009 with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Like with our action on climate change, we on this side of the parliament are trying to shift things after a decade of nothing, a vacuum on housing policy. Those who were in government in the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years thought the market would fix itself somehow. They were so wrong on that, and we are now paying the price as a community. Everybody is worse off when there are people who are struggling. I want to share a story about young people that I was told just in the last few days. In the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, young people sometimes head to the city when they are stretching their wings and establishing themselves in university and then later in their careers. I heard a story from the inner west of someone going to look at a two-bedroom apartment. Two-bedroom apartments are really popular because you can share rent with someone else; it's not all on you, as it is with a one-bedroom apartment. They counted 71 people in the queue to view this apartment, including a single dad and his son. This young person said, 'How hard is it for that single dad and his son to compete with a couple of professionals who might also be looking for it?' The inequity in the current system in this crisis is evident every weekend when homes are open for inspection for rentals. This isn't even about people trying to buy a home; this is just about people trying to put a secure roof over their head somewhere close to where their work life is. We've had no action from the Liberals and Nationals for a decade. No action to work with the states to do the one thing that can actually make a tangible difference in a reasonably short space of time—that is, to build more homes. Build them. They do take a bit of time, but they are one of the things we can do on the supply side. Yet those opposite are not interested in doing it, and, for whatever reason, the Greens are not willing to support more homes being built. As I say, I am just stunned that I am standing here, making a speech pointing that out. This should have had universal support. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that there is a really big need. The previous speaker talked about emails she gets. These are not new emails. I went back several years through the emails I have had. Back on 8 April 2022, Jo got in touch with me to let me know how unaffordable it was to try and rent a home in the upper mountains. The increases she was talking about were extraordinary—increases of 25 per cent in the last year or so. That's April 2022. This is not something that just happened in 2023 or since May 2022 to now. This was happening. Then I go back to August 2021 and an email from a single mum who was trying to get something affordable right at the top of the mountains. Back then, she noticed a total inability to get something affordable within her income. She was a TAFE teacher. I've got emails from nurses, from teachers, from single parents, from women who have escaped domestic violence and are re-establishing their lives. They have been crying out for this, and we are delivering it. In this bill are the first steps to shift things so that the inequity that currently exists can be transformed. Yet, for some reason, people in this place think that it's not good enough or it's not something they're willing to support. It just defies logic. We know that we can't fix all of this in one go, but the bill before us contains the biggest single investment in affordable and social housing that Australia has ever seen. It tackles the one part of the problem where we can do something that will help reasonably quickly; we can tackle this supply side and we can provide more social and affordable housing right across the country. I feel like I shouldn't have to tell people why secure and affordable housing matters. We've had a lot of groups in parliament in the last week talking about mental health; that's one of the No. 1 reasons why it matters. People who have secure housing are better able to tackle their health issues, whether it's mental health issues or physical issues they face. They're just better placed because they're not worrying about a roof over their head or how long they're going to have a roof over their head. Long-term, affordable and secure housing creates a new beginning for any woman who has fled a relationship of violence. It's a new beginning for her and her children. I don't understand why anyone would want to stop that from happening and want to stop us from making some improvements in this way. There's a tonne of research that shows the cost of providing stable and affordable housing, whether it's to the individual or the wider community or from government. We would call this investment, which is why it is done in the way that it is because these will be investments. All this research shows that the health outcomes are much better. We also see increased social participation from people. We see reduced incidents and interactions with law enforcement. We see better family relationships. We see improvements in education. All these things are key to breaking cycles of intergenerational disadvantage. At every level it's something that is better for people, better for our society and better for our community. I've held forums in the last couple of years on a whole range of issues, whether on talking about wellbeing or on domestic violence or around mental health. Every single forum has identified housing as a key issue. For women over 55, the largest and fastest-growing group of homeless people—women of my age—and for every single group of people I've spoken to, like the young—those young ones who aren't even sure whether they can ever dare to dream of owning their own home; right now they're just thinking about a decent rental—the need for secure housing has come up in every single forum. It's come up when I've been talking to veterans and their families. There isn't a part of society that's not going to be touched by what the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 starts to put in place. Even more specifically, in my community in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, $1 million of this funding, as it starts to be returned—because the fund is created, and it's making returns, and we're able to take out the funds we need—is going to go to my community for additional crisis accommodation. Anyone opposing this is saying to the people of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, 'You don't deserve what has been committed to you.' I urge those opposite, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens: please support this fund. Please do something that may not be perfect in your mind but you know is going to make a significant difference, and help us stop the 10 years of policy drift that this sector has seen that has landed us where we are. This is one really practical step we can take to start to turn things around. 19:24 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane In my home state of Queensland, social housing currently makes up less than four per cent of the housing market. Last year the state government was found to be evicting vulnerable tenants to sell public housing stock off to the private market during a time when housing waitlists are soaring. Housing is treated as a commodity instead of a human right. Perhaps this is no surprise, as, according to the Electoral Commission, property developers have donated over $30 million and the banks have donated over $70 million to the major parties in the last 10 years. This means that the major political parties in Australia have an active stake in keeping the housing market the way that it currently is, a housing market that makes it easier for a property investor to purchase their sixth property than for a young person or a family to buy their first home. The stories of people in my electorate provide insight into the pain and extent of the housing crisis. I would like to share one story in particular. Emma Howard is a disabled woman with mobility issues who has been struggling to find appropriate, accessible housing for a long time. When she first contacted our office, Emma had been forced to live in her car with her service dog, Badger, because the apartment she was provided by the department of housing was unsafe and did not cater to her disabilities. Emma lived in constant fear of her safety as she would not be able to use the stairs or the lifts in the case of a fire, but she and Badger had no other options. We were able to advocate for Emma, and fortunately, she is no longer living out of her car. However, she still has not been provided with a home that is fit for purpose for someone with a disability and who has suffered injuries that could have been avoided. There simply isn't an adequate supply of accessible social homes. In fact, they're almost non-existent. Any future social housing must be built to meet minimum standards of accessibility. Countless renters also have reached out to express their concerns at the huge rent hikes they have experienced. I have heard of rent increases ranging from $80 a week all the way up to $400 a week. These stories range from students who are studying and working full-time to single parents balancing work and ever-increasing child care costs and families who are just doing their best to get by. There is a new layer of renters being impacted, as well. I heard from a couple who are both public servants on decent dual incomes who were priced out of their home and the community they had been part of for the last 15 years. In my electorate of Brisbane we are at great risk of the affordability of housing worsening because of the upcoming 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympics have been shown to increase housing costs in host cities across the world. In an electorate-wide survey that our office conducted, close to 80 per cent of respondents stated they believed that any infrastructure built with public money should stay in public hands. This includes the athletes village, which could be built as disability-accessible residential accommodation, not short-term accommodation, with the intention of it becoming social housing after the games conclude. This is an idea that was brought to us and championed by dozens of community members within the survey. Incredibly, and even in the face of countless stories like Emma's, the government's Housing Australia Future Fund will actually worsen the shortage of social housing and cut its yearly housing funding. Let's break down why. Labor's plan will see $10 billion invested in a fund where they pay investment managers to put that money into the stock market in the hopes that it will generate a return. It's not a $10 billion direct investment in housing. It's a $10 billion gamble on the stock market, with spending on new homes capped at $500 million per year and not indexed to inflation. At best, this plan will only see three per cent of the current need in Australia addressed. The Brisbane community are lucky to have organisations like Community Canteen, Valley Hearts and Coffee Brigade which work tirelessly to provide for unhoused and struggling individuals and families, but these organisations are being stretched further and further, being expected to make up the gaps in services left by the government. I want all those who contribute to the many support organisations in my electorate to know that I see you and I am so grateful for the immensely important work that you do in assisting the vulnerable. The time for bandaid solutions is over, and the Greens are calling for a minimum of $5 billion to be invested in social and affordable housing every year, indexed to inflation, and the removal of the $500 million spending cap. To help those struggling right now, we want to see a national plan for renters and a commitment from the government and Prime Minister to put a national freeze on rent increases on the National Cabinet agenda. We also know that First Nations people and people with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis. In response to this, the Greens are seeking a $1 billion investment in remote Aboriginal housing over the next five years and to have all housing funded through this scheme meet minimum inclusive-design standards. This crisis is not something far off in the future that we can deal with slowly, bit by bit. There are thousands of Australians who are homeless right now. There are far too many people and families in my electorate living in their cars, and one is too many. There are young people couch surfing because they cannot find an affordable rental right now. Our communities are not asking for the world; they're just asking for shelter. They are simply asking for the government to have their back. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Waste Management and Recycling 76 19:29 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the issue of plastic pollution that is overrunning our streets and our beaches. Over the last 10 years there has been a large shift in conversations to address the issues posed by plastic pollution, with Australians united in the fact that it poses great risks for the future. Despite this, plastic pollution has continued to increase exponentially, with the amount of plastics in the ocean expected to triple in the next 20 years. Waste forms in islands in the Pacific, and the World Wide Fund for Nature estimates that 90 per cent of all seabirds and 52 per cent of all sea turtles ingest plastics, to name but a few. The breakdown of plastic and microplastics poses further risks to marine life, leading to blockages in their digestive systems, malnutrition and death. It really is no surprise that many are so concerned. Plastic pollution is a global crisis that is harming our environment, our wildlife and ultimately ourselves—because we do ingest it in so many ways as a result of how prevalent it is in our oceans. For years Australians have been promised reduced plastic waste and increased recycling rates. However, today we're faced with the prospect of over 12,000 tonnes of recycled plastics heading to landfill. Last November REDcycle, a program aimed at recycling soft plastics—mainly from our big supermarket chains: Coles, Woolworths and Aldi—collapsed after plastic bags were revealed to be stockpiled in warehouses across the country. Since then hundreds of millions of plastic bags have been sent to landfill while we wait for the scheme to restart. However, even if infrastructure were in place to recycle the copious amounts of soft plastics in Australia, the demand for the recycled products would not meet the increased supply. Therefore, while it's important measures are put in place to ensure soft plastics in circulation are recycled, we must look at ways to reduce the amount of soft plastics produced and increase the use of recycled products. Therefore, I support the call for a tax or a levy on the use of virgin plastics. We need to make sure recycled plastics are more cost competitive, to drive down fossil fuel use and create value for the circular economy. In the UK they have introduced a plastic tax of around $350 per tonne of plastic, and even there there still is demand. The UK are also proposing mandatory reusable foodware from 2025. They aren't the only ones. Across Europe and the US they are implementing bans and taxes on single-use foodware and coffee cups. We need to catch up and demonstrate leadership. We must also consider minimum recycled content standards. We should also look at product stewardship schemes to make the producer of the plastic liable for its collection, recycling or disposal. I welcome the commitments of our state governments, including New South Wales, to ban some single-use plastic items, but we need more to be done. We need national level regulation to drive change in the behaviour of big importing businesses. We also need innovative businesses, such as devolver in my electorate of Warringah, which is aimed at getting away from single-use takeaway containers, providing shops and customers with reusable takeaway containers. We have all sorts of new ideas and ways to replace them. We need demonstration stands visible in our community. We need education. Community groups are working at a local level towards educating people on plastics and waste in order to change behaviours. Last year I was visited by a group called Ocean Action Pod, a group seeking to raise awareness about the impact of waste through a pop-up multimedia education experience and online activities. I fully support such great initiatives. There are many other great local initiatives in my electorate, including the strawkling crew and the Northern Beaches Clean Up Crew, to name just a couple. Locally we have implemented the Roadmap to Zero to raise awareness of waste as well as provide positive and proactive ways for businesses, community groups and individuals to reduce their waste footprint. There's so much more to be done, especially as we find ourselves not dining in but dining out more during the pandemic and in our way of life. I call on businesses in Warringah to sign up to the Roadmap to Zero and reduce our waste footprint. Migration 77 19:34 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to record a few words to explain to the House how truly life changing it is for thousands of people living in my electorate the government's announcement yesterday implementing our election commitment to grant a pathway to permanent protection in this country for people who have been living here for over 10 years on TPV and SHEV visas. This only applies to people who arrived before Operation Sovereign Borders. They are already here. They have been here for a decade, overwhelmingly working, paying taxes and being a part of the community. It's not—as the opposition has been mischievously trying to say, spreading fear and rumours—starting the boats. These people are genuine refugees. They have been living here as part of our community. They have spent a decade with their lives in limbo. I know a lot of words. I use a lot of words but I couldn't find the words to convey to this House the hopelessness and the fear that these people have had for a decade, the anxiety. For anyone born in this country, I don't think any of us could truly understand the abject terror that is caused from a temporary visa status—the threat of deportation hanging over your head, never being able to put roots down, never being able to build a life. It does our society no good and no credit. It's been to our shame as a country and society for 10 years under the former government to have this permanently temporary underclass of people. It's not the Australian way. Our country has been built for 70 years on permanent migration. People come, they pass the thresholds and they can formalise their commitment to our country. We are a permanent-settler society. The Liberals had no plan, none. Deport them to Afghanistan, to the Taliban, deport them to Iran, deport them to Myanmar, to be spot and killed? No, those opposite didn't do that. They just left them living here with their lives in limbo. I've lost count. I could never count and convey the number of conversations I've had, year after year after year, with grown men crying in my foyer because they've missed their children growing up and have been unable to see their wives for years on end, with the unimaginable pain of family separation. Some days I struggle. My staff do, too. They have time off sometimes because they can't cope. They come back because they feel the pain of the community and they want to make a difference. This announcement gives hope. It is not a resolution immediately; it gives hope because people will now be able to apply for a permanent visa. These 19,000 people are Australians in all but name. We now need to process them as quickly as humanly possible, and I hope the bulk of them will be done this year. We've also got to examine as a government how quickly we can progress these people to citizenship, not just because it's the right thing to do, to enfranchise them and formalise their commitment to our country, but for the thousands of people from Afghanistan, their families. If they're not dodging the Taliban's bullets and trying to avoid being turned into sex slaves, they're living in fear in Pakistan. A year or two ago Pakistan changed their rules, so these people in my electorate have no longer been allowed to travel there on a travel document. So until they get their citizenship and get a passport, they cannot see their children. So every time that mob over there talk to us about family values, I encourage members to remember just how cruel and heartless and un-Australian they actually are. It should scar them, and I invite any of them to come and sit down and talk with these people. They work. They're the painters, the tilers, the future anythings in our country. We also need to find the resources for what I've termed will be the boa constrictor swallowing the elephant of partner visa applications that rightly will come. Fast tracking them is the right thing to after 10 years of not seeing their children growing up. But it will also reduce the caseload because many of them have applications sitting in the humanitarian visa caseload. But the job is not done. We have 12,000 people on bridging visas that we need to turn our minds to. They will have to be dealt with through ministerial intervention or by lifting the section 48 bar. We obviously won't deport them to Afghanistan, Iran and Myanmar, but the mess goes on. We've employed 500 new staff in the Department of Home Affairs and it will take years to clean up the mess. (Time expired) Queensland: Dams 78 19:39 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I bring to the attention of the House the dire situation that farmers and businesses in the Pioneer Valley and Eungella region are finding themselves in. On 28 September last year, the Queensland state government announced a plan for a pumped hydro scheme to be built in the Pioneer Valley, located west of Mackay, in my electorate of Capricornia. As is the case with most announcements from the Labor government, it came out of nowhere, with little to no research and not one resident from the Pioneer Valley consulted. The local community was shocked to learn, through various media platforms, of the state government's plan to acquire their homes and land. The proposed $12 billion pumped hydro scheme, with $32 million committed by the federal Labor government in the October budget, will impact 79 properties in the Pioneer Valley, destroying prime agricultural land and one of Queensland's unique areas of rainforest wilderness. The road through the Pioneer Valley will also be inundated, in which case it will be need to be realigned. Just to defy logic even more, this project is for energy production only and has no planned use for water storage. The environmental impact assessment will take three to four years to complete, and it's going to take two wet seasons to fill the dam. Queensland is currently experiencing an abundance of unseasonal rainfall. This presents a perfect opportunity to store water for future seasons of drought, yet the proposed hydro scheme has not been designed to hold a single drop of water to provide the water security vital to Central Queensland. There will be no water available for agriculture, tourism or urban use. To say this announcement was made to distract from the real issues Central Queenslanders are currently facing is an understatement. The lack of housing, the state health crisis and the drastic increase in youth crime are being glossed over by the Labor government in its fixation on climate targets. Following the announcement by the Premier, I visited the residents and some of the properties that will be affected in the Pioneer Valley. Some had thought it was a late April Fools' Day joke when they heard their land would be inundated with water and turned into a reservoir. They reported to me that, in the time since the project was announced, many had been unable to sleep or eat. This should come as no surprise, given that the legacy that residents plan to pass on to their families is going to be ripped away. Following the announcement, many are still living with anxiety and depression, with a now uncertain future. They are questioning: where do we go? Apart from the shock and stress that has been caused to the residents of this tight-knit community, the question needs to be asked: why is the Queensland state government wasting taxpayers' money on a project that clearly has had minimal prior planning and will take 10 years to build? This begs the question: why not Urannah Dam? I have lobbied for Urannah Dam for years. When in government, the coalition committed $483 million to the Urannah Dam project, which would transform the north and provide water security for the nearby towns and dozens of resource projects. The No. 1 reason the Urannah Dam project is a superior model to the proposed pumped hydro scheme is that it is ready to go. Urannah Dam is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to open new areas of agricultural land, and it stands to unlock long-term and sustainable irrigation for Queensland farmers, property owners and primary producers. The high position and deep structure of Urannah Dam delivers 80 per cent of the capacity of the Burdekin Falls Dam, while covering less than 20 per cent of the land. Another point that makes the pumped hydro scheme project an inferior model to Urannah Dam is the fact that studies confirm the Urannah Dam site has the heaviest and most reliable rainfall. The economic benefits are expected to generate $323 million over a 25-year period and provide a major boost to local businesses in the area. Up to 1,200 jobs will be provided in the construction phase of the Urannah Dam project, with 650 new jobs on offer when the project is operational. The path to providing water security, reliable catchments and a large-scale pumped hydro plant producing clean energy for this region has been made glaringly obvious. It is for the Labor government to deliver on the funding that was committed by the coalition to complete the Urannah Dam project. Central and northern Queensland needs a reliable action plan for future water storage, farm irrigation, water catchments and pumped-hydro clean energy. The groundwork is done on the Urannah Dam project. It ticks every box and, most importantly, will not cause the emotional upheaval to the valued local community of the Pioneer Valley. Climate Change: Manufacturing 78 19:44 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I came to this House to drive change. I'm familiar with change. I was a doctor, as you know; I served for a very long time in the Public Service; and I became an activist. I chose politics because really there is nothing, as Julia Gillard has said, that compares to politics if you want to drive change at both speed and scale. I, perhaps naively, thought that great ideas in this House would garner some bipartisan or multipartisan support, because that last election was, honestly, the Australian people penalising short-termism and penalising their parliamentarians who were working in self-interest and putting self-interest ahead of the national interest. That's what that election was all about. I would have thought, following that momentous and historic win—only the fourth time a Labor government has won from opposition since World War II—that those opposite would have learnt those lessons of history and really heeded the message from the Australian people. I've now been in the House now for nine months, and I've seen a pattern emerge—a pattern of opposition for opposition's sake from those opposite. It started with the historic Climate Change Bill. You would have thought after that election that those opposite would have understood how fundamentally important it was to get this right and to course-correct this nation from being a climate pariah and a climate change denier to a climate doer. That is exactly what our historic Climate Change Act did. But those opposite opposed it, actually for no reason. There was no credible reason to oppose it. We know that the fossil fuel industry is in decline. We know that Australia is a petrostate, but we are pivoting this country to become an electro-state. We are going to do that, and we are going to do that through passage of this act. It has given industry and business, both domestically and internationally, certainty to do so. So we are going to achieve that goal of reaching 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and taking this country to net zero by 2050. But we can't do it unless we address other bottlenecks. The key bottleneck that I speak of is industrial capability. The other lesson that was made stark by this pandemic has been our lack of sovereign manufacturing capability. There is no getting to net zero unless we can make our solar panels, wind turbines and undersea cables; lay those large-scale transmission lines, as thick as my arm; and, indeed, invest in skills in order to do that. Again, completely perplexingly, those opposite have opposed our National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion investment in Australia's ambition, to unleash the Australian people's talent so that Australians don't just have jobs. I didn't just have a job; I had a career. It's more than a job. That's what Australians yearn for: they want careers, because a career is what gives you longevity and that upward mobility which enables you to create wealth. That is a good thing, and that is something we on this side want for the Australian people. So our National Reconstruction Fund is there to kickstart a renaissance of manufacturing in this country. I still remember when those opposite waved away the car industry. At the time, I didn't understand what that meant, but I do now, because a car industry is at the pointy end of technology, with massive spillover effects for the whole economy—into design, engineering, artificial intelligence and materials science. When those opposite goaded the car companies, they left, and those things atrophied. Those workers are still there, and I am hoping that we will have passage of our National Reconstruction Fund. It's not too late to support this bill. It is not too late to be on the right side of history. I would strongly urge those opposite to do so, because in doing so you will send a strong signal to Australians that you support their future and their ambition. That is exactly what we intend to do on this side. It's not going to happen with press releases; it is going to happen with structural reforms that embed changes into this country. We want to be good ancestors. We want to leave a legacy that those who follow us will enjoy: a secure, prosperous nation that is sustainable, competitive and inclusive. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 79 19:49 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm calling on the federal Labor government to immediately expand the listing of Trikafta on the PBS to children aged six to 11 with cystic fibrosis. In November 2022 the PBAC recommended that access to Trikafta be expanded to these children. There are approximately 500 children waiting for access to Trikafta, and there is no reason for the government to delay this listing. These wonderful young people deserve access to the best medications possible, because the treatment will make a profound difference to their lives, reduce the need for hospital admissions, reduce the need for lung transplants and improve their quality of life. In 2021, when the PBAC assessed Trikafta, they estimated that it could give people living with cystic fibrosis 27 more years of life when compared to supportive care and 21 more years of life for patients previously treated with other medications, either Orkambi or Symdeko. So I'm calling on the government to immediately expand the listing of Trikafta to children aged six to 11. In paediatric patients, there is evidence of early structural lung damage even prior to the emergence of symptoms, including those of a respiratory nature. Early diagnosis and intervention is fundamental to achieving better outcomes for these children. Cystic fibrosis is considered one of the most common life-threatening genetic conditions, affecting 3,500 Australians. Three hundred and seventy-five of these people live in my home state of Western Australia, and 80 of these are children aged six to 11 who would be eligible for Trikafta when it's listed on the PBS. I'm speaking up tonight to support these children, the one in 2,500 babies who are born with cystic fibrosis in Australia, the ones who live every day with this progressive genetic disease that causes persistent lung infections and defects that limit the flow of chloride and water through the cell membrane, causing a thick, sticky build-up of mucus in the lungs, pancreas and digestive system. It limits children's and adults' ability to breathe and makes it much easier for germs to grow. It begins at birth and leads to cumulative health decline over time and premature death from respiratory failure. The most recent figures I saw set the median life expectancy for Australians with cystic fibrosis at 47 years, significantly lower than for the average Australian—and there is no cure. The management and treatment is a lifelong and relentless process. There are people with cystic fibrosis who may have to take up to 60 capsules a day to help digest food and have up to four hours a day of airway clearance physiotherapy. Hospital admissions can be frequent and extended, and it is the leading cause of lung transplants in Australia. So, early and effective interventions is critical, given that in paediatric patients there is that evidence of early structural lung damage. While the coalition were in government, we listed Trikafta, Orkambi and Symdeko. They were amongst the 2,800 new or amended listings we added to the PBS. It was a $15 billion investment. Orkambi was also expanded for children from two to five years of age. It allowed that earlier access to life-changing medicine that works by improving that flow of chloride in water and helps improve the lungs' function and breathing. But we now need the federal government to add Trikafta to the PBS immediately for these young patients. Please provide this life-changing medicine to children aged six to 11 who live every day with the debilitating and progressive effects of cystic fibrosis. I'm hoping that sooner rather than later our researchers and scientists, the wonderful ones in Australia funded through the Medical Research Future Fund that we created in government, will be able to find the ultimate cure for cystic fibrosis. Until then, the federal government needs to list this PBAC-approved medication for children aged six to 11. As I've said, this is a progressive disease. The sooner the medication is available, the better the result. We've certainly had that recognised by other governments in other countries who have already granted access to Trikafta in this age group. I strongly urge the Australian government to do the same. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 80 19:54 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck 'Coming from all points of the southern sky'—does that sound familiar? It's part of the opening sentence of the Uluru Statement from the Heart: We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart … In my first speech, which seems a long time ago but hasn't quite been a year, much less 60,000 years, I reflected on the fact that it is a lot to stand anywhere and purport to represent anyone. And, yet, we do this. It is the nature of our democracy, our very system of government. We do our best. The representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who met at Uluru and who initiated the Uluru Statement from the Heart and so the campaign for a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to this parliament also sought to represent. They called for voice, treaty and truth, and they named them in that order. Not everyone agrees on this order. That's okay. There will be a referendum later this year. I've been proud to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters which reviewed the legislation for that referendum. The Uluru statement mentions the Constitution not once but four times. Constitutional change is required because, after having failed to properly listen to Indigenous people for over 200 years, this country needs as an enshrined voice which cannot be easily overlooked. The torment of powerlessness needs to be met with a change at the very heart of our power, the Constitution. Centuries ago now the first representatives of the British Crown were instructed to take possession of land with consent. If they thought they had consent, they weren't listening. It's time to start listening. Sovereignty is also mentioned in the Uluru statement. It is there described as 'a spiritual notion' that 'has never been ceded or extinguished and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown'. As Teangi Brown wrote in 2016 on the wall of the National Museum of Australia: 'There is no separation between country and culture. They're one and the same, intertwined.' This is the basis upon which the voice campaign establishes itself. Some have raised a red herring in this discussion and suggested that efforts to establish a constitutional voice would be better directed towards closing the gap. It is not, and never was, a choice between these ends. Successive governments have invested in closing the gap. Progress is glacial. Something has to change. Both symbolism and action are important. The voice will help ensure targeted place based solutions. Minister Burney released the Closing the Gap: Commonwealth implementation plan this week. It details hundreds of millions of dollars of funding directed towards better outcomes. This government will continue to invest in closing the gap. The next government will do the same—and the next and the next. Every one of those governments will benefit from having the voice in place, benefit from expert advice, born of lived experience and millennia of wisdom, and benefit from criticism from the same source. There is an unfortunate error that has crept into the discussion about the Voice to Parliament. That error is the idea that this campaign somehow originated with the Labor Party or with the PM or with Minister Burney. It's an error that's easy to make, especially given the way in which some politicians on both the Left and the Right have dragged their feet or wilfully inserted themselves in a sad and desperate attempt to make this issue about them. It's wrong. The Prime Minister has spoken many times of a hand outstretched from Uluru to the rest of Australia. He speaks of an offer made to all Australians. He speaks of the Voice to Parliament as an opportunity for us all. The voice is recognition, respect and reconciliation and it provides a pathway to treaty and truth. It is our chance to walk forward as one. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 81 NOTICES Presentation 81

Tuesday, 14 February 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Kennedy Electorate: Infrastructure 83 16:00 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Hughenden's population when I was elected to parliament was 4,000 people and 3½ million sheep. Across the map of Queensland it said, 'The best natural grasslands in Australia.' Hughenden today has a population of 1,000, dwindling and vanishing. It has nearly a quarter of its area covered by prickly acacia tree in a rapid invasion and destruction of our natural soils, grasslands, and flora and fauna. Where we had the railways and some of the drivers and shearers earning $200,000 a year, now there are no railways and no shearers. The town is 1,000 people and, population-wise, dying. We're going to put a dam there and pull a measly, tiny little 1/16 of the waters of the mighty Flinders River—a little tiny bit of it—and turn that town into 15,000 to 20,000 people, prosperous and rich, with 150 farmers owning their own irrigation farms, with drought gone forever, a place where those farmers will earn $500,000 each per year. There will be contractors in the town earning $500,000 a year, and they will have freedom and space. This will be a land of prosperity, freedom and space. This will be where every Australian wants to live instead of the destruction that's been wrought by successive ALP and Liberal governments. They deregulated the wool industry and completely destroyed it. Three and a half million sheep went down to about 100,000 sheep. They destroyed the railways completely. There are no railways now at all except the railway line carrying minerals—and very few minerals at that. They were completely destroyed, again, by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. That is what has happened to Hughenden, and we are telling you what is going to happen to Hughenden. We hope that, through Anthony Albanese, who has visited Hughenden twice, it will also be the home of the biggest wind farm in Australia. The Keir family, very famous in climate and construction, will be coming from Townsville to build the windmills, and Twiggy Forrest will be building the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere at Hughenden as well. We thank Anthony Albanese for putting the money in to make it on the crossroads, north-south, east-west. His contribution really was the touchstone to get that highway built. It cuts 2,000 kilometres off the road from Cairns to Melbourne. (Time expired) Broadband 83 16:03 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Digital access is so important to our lives. While I and many in this place grew up in the precomputer age, nowadays those with poor or no access to the internet are significantly disadvantaged, and I can't imagine having to write a university assignment without the internet these days. Fast broadband is important for students, whether they're learning online, trying to research online or submitting assignments online, but fast broadband's also important to businesses. Retail businesses need to access the bank for financial transactions and perhaps expand their markets online, service based businesses operate online to gain and provide services nationally and internationally and there are simply the activities of running a business such as submitting BAS statements. There is recreation, whether it's researching your family tree, streaming television shows, participating in online interest groups or being part of the 67 per cent of Australians who play online games. And, of course, so much of our daily lives interacting with government and other services now occurs online, whether it's dealing with myGov, My Aged Care, NDIS or telehealth. Those households and businesses that are stranded on the old copper network are significantly disadvantaged. I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, that at some stage you've been in a situation where your internet has cut out at just the wrong time. You are five minutes away from finishing the last episode of your TV show or movie, two minutes away from submitting that crucial assignment, one click away from sending an email to your boss or trying to access government services like myGov, My Aged Care, the NDIS or telehealth, and then the internet fails. You frantically click at the button, reload the page, restart your device, but there's nothing you can do about it; you have to start again. So I'm thrilled with the announcement to upgrade the NBN to fibre to the premises in the Boothby suburbs of Blackwood, Belair and Bellevue Heights. They join Hawthorn, Marion, Morphettville, Pasadena, Plympton Park, South Plympton and St Marys, which have all recently been upgraded. In total, 4,336 more properties in Blackwood, Belair and Bellevue Heights and neighbouring parts of Mayo will be upgraded to fibre to the premises. It will no doubt add a significant benefit to their ability to access the internet for work, study, recreation and their everyday lives. In our modern age, fast reliable broadband is vital for households and businesses. The Albanese Labor government is delivering. Moore Electorate: Federal Funding 84 16:06 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore With the federal budget due within three months, my focus is on lobbying the government to secure more federal funding for the Moore electorate amid difficult economic conditions. I have worked closely with the cities of Joondalup and Stirling to lobby for an increase in federal financial assistance grants to our local government authorities. I am pleased to inform the House that, as a result of strong advocacy efforts, the annual grant delivered to the City of Joondalup in the current 2022-23 financial year will amount to $6.43 million, representing an increase in funding of 33 per cent from the $4.84 million received the previous year. Similarly, federal funding to the City of Stirling also increases, by 35 per cent to $7.94 million. In addition, the cities of Joondalup and Stirling have been successful in securing $2.9 million in funding under the latest round of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This Commonwealth funding represents a significant subsidy for ratepayers, enabling our local councils to deliver the priority local road and community infrastructure projects listed in the forward capital works budget. The City of Joondalup has been allocated $1,439,855, whilst the City of Stirling will receive $1,431,569 under phase 4 of the program. Both councils will be able to access their funding allocations from July 2023, with projects to be delivered by June 2025. I've also been busy campaigning for an additional $120 million in federal funding for major road projects—namely, the connection of Whitfords Avenue to a realigned Gnangara Road and the grade separation of the Reid Highway with the extremely busy Erindale Road intersection with a traffic bridge. During the election campaign I secured a federal funding commitment of $20 million for this project, which will make the daily commute for 8,000 Moore residents safer and more direct. I now call upon the Albanese government to match this funding. Similarly, the Reid Highway flyover will connect residents of the coastal suburbs of Moore to the economic activity hubs of Balcatta, Malaga and beyond via the Tonkin Highway and NorthLink. For the thousands of FIFO workers in Moore who are commuting to Perth Airport regularly, this will be a huge advantage. The previous budget delivered $2.5 million towards the design of the project, and the Albanese government now needs to take the next step: to announce a funding commitment of the order of $100 million to deliver. Hotham Electorate: Bright Moon Buddhist Temple 84 16:09 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I rise today to speak about a tragic accident that took place recently in my electorate of Hotham and also about the incredible display of strength, leadership and courage in my community that's shone through in the aftermath. The Bright Moon Buddhist temple in Springvale spectacularly lit into flames about nine days ago. One hundred and fifty-five firefighters were called to the scene, and it took about 2½ hours to bring the flames under control. The heartbreak that this has caused in my community is really hard to put into words. This temple has been under construction for 25 years and, to see it burnt down in 2½ hours, the local community is just simply and completely devastated. All of you who have places of worship in your electorates would know that these temples are not just religious centres. This was a community hub, where thousands of my constituents would gather together to share spirituality. It was an unusual temple in the sense that lots of different communities worshipped there. I have lots of Chinese constituents, and constituents of Cambodian and Vietnamese ethnicity, who worshipped there. Even some of my Indian-Australian constituents would use this temple as a gathering place. It was the heart of the Buddhist community in my electorate. The local community has suffered an intense personal loss by the fact that this important piece of our local area has suffered so much damage. But something else which has been very, very distressing for people is that somewhere between five and 10 per cent of the 600 urns containing ashes were destroyed in the fire. Those are enormously important, spiritually, to the people of my community. I want to share with the chamber, just briefly, that I visited this community on Sunday to stand with them and talk to them about how I wanted to help their rebuilding efforts. They told me that when the firefighters arrived, they explained the importance of the urns. The firefighters were able to salvage almost 90 per set of those urns. It really made my heart sing to think that the community came together, understanding the importance of the urns to that community and were, in the end, able to save most of them. I want to acknowledge the emergency service workers who slaved so hard to try to minimise the damage from the fire. I value you intensely, and your hard work does not go unnoticed by our community. It's going to be a really long road to rebuild, but I can say that if there is a community out there that can do this that then it's my community in Hotham. It was a privilege to stand with Mr Vinh Ly, who is the president of the community there, on the weekend and discuss how we can try to work together to do this. It's moments like this, where everyone in my community is hurting together but also building with optimism together, which make me very proud to represent this amazing part of south-east Melbourne. Farrer Electorate: Australia Day Awards 85 16:12 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer We're all part of the story. Regardless of how you chose to mark Australia Day, that's a wonderful phrase which captures our nation's spirit: we are all part of the story. With those words, I wish to tell the story briefly of some of those in my electorate who were recognised a few weeks ago. Stuart and Annette Baker, from Albury, are among nine new OAMs in Farrer. They have fought tirelessly since the death of their daughter in 2011 to help reduce the stigma surrounding mental health. Another champion for mental health awareness and reform, Lourene Liebenberg, the Edward Rivers Citizen of the Year, is a passionate advocate for her Deniliquin community. With much of Farrer suffering from flooding late last year, Nick Smith from Rankin Springs dropped everything to help locals escape overflows from Lachlan River. Nick is Citizen of the Year in Carrathool shire. Leeanne Dalitz is Oakland's go-to person for help has provided 30 years of service to schools, sporting clubs and community groups. She was presented with Federation Council's top gong. To the leaders of tomorrow: young Daniel Hawkins from Curlwaa is Wentworth's Young Citizen of the Year. During the year, as primary school prefect, he managed to pack in local football, cricket and rowing, as well as the Scouts, volunteering at the annual swimming carnival, the Wentworth show, the gymkhana and Pooncarie's Desert Dash. Speaking of events, I was delighted to see the Euston Salami Festival celebrated with an award. If you want a marker of modern Australia's melting pot of personalities, customs and flavours, I suggest you book early for the next festival, in November. Another event celebrated, and one I was honoured to attend last year, was the opening of the Berrigan Memorial Wall. Helped with some federal funding, the local RSL and community have built a magnificent and considered tribute to those who have served in this nation's conflicts and peacekeeping operations. I want to make a special mention of Paul Maytom, a mayor and former councillor for over 30 years with the Shire of Leeton. Paul was made a Member of the Order of Australia after countless hours spent on various community groups and charities as a volunteer. He, like so many local Australia Day honours recipients, noted that he never sought such recognition but it's kind of nice when it comes along! It was the same for Albury's volunteer of the year, Chris Thomas, the driving force behind local cancer support group Brave Hearts on the Murray. Time prevents me mentioning every one of the honours bestowed to so many worthy recipients, but you are all part of the story. So too, the 100 or so new citizens of Farrer who chose to become part of our proud, ancient, multicultural nation. And however you marked 26 January, this is very much worth remembering. Morrison Government 85 16:15 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Labor is red; the Liberals are blue; on this Valentine's Day I have a poem for you: In just 12 months so much is new Let's have a look at what we've all been through; Back then our ex-PM did not hold a hose Said t'was not a race—did he lie? Macron knows; We went to an election and the choice was easy Australia did choose Prime Minister Albanese; His plan for a better future is what the country had needed A positive vision for Australia as PM Morrison receded; Onto these benches were moved, and that's when it all came out All the secrets they'd been hiding, all the mistruths they had spout; Weeks before the poll, in a cunning secret of plot The member for Hume gave nondisclosure a shot No, it wasn't doctored travel receipts—it was much worse It was Minister Taylor's secret hit to the purse; A 20 per cent jump in the price of our power Kept hidden during the campaign, released in the final hour; Mr Fletcher L6B On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That's in clear breach of the standing orders, casting inferences against another member, and he shouldn't be doing it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The assistant minister may continue. Mr GORMAN 74519 Thank you: But that wasn't all, and the truth did flow Because there was much, much more Australia did not know; Prime Minister Morrison was not busy enough So he started coveting his colleagues' stuff; With Josh as his Treasurer and Greg Hunt in health Our ex-PM decided to do those jobs in stealth; Without telling the public, he played his constitutional tricks Deciding he was so good at his job he would take on another six; Despite this betrayal, this detailed hidden proof His colleagues could not criticise despite the harsh truth. In contrast, our new PM has led from the front Tackling challenges head on and not being such a—stick in the mud; Already we've enacted a wave of reform And anticorruption commission and Public Service to transform; There's fee-free TAFE places, new spots at uni too We're fixing aged care and the NDIS for you; We're helping to relieve costs, with cheaper child care There's discounted medicines and a budget to repair; And this year we embark on a constitutional choice On whether we should have an Indigenous voice; The reasons are clear: to give our First Nations a say And to those who have supported it, I say: Happy Valentine's Day. Armenia 86 16:17 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Today I rise to address the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and I call on the Australian government to clearly state a position on this matter, on behalf of Australia and the Australian people. This conflict, which tragically reignited in September 2020, has resulted in the loss of life, the displacement of innocent people and the destruction of infrastructure. As members of the international community we all share a responsibility to speak up, to clearly call for an end to the violence and to call for the protection of citizens. I want to acknowledge the work of the Armenian National Committee of Australia, who have been consistent advocates for peace in Artsakh and have been consistently highlighting the need for safety of the Armenian people. The recent upsurge in violence has resulted in the displacement of thousands of people and has had a devastating impact on civilians in the region. If I can quote the words of the Armenian National Committee, they say: On 12 December 2022, Azerbaijan launched a new wave of aggression, cutting off the only land link between Artsakh and Armenia in an attempt to subjugate the civilian population to a new form of psychological terror. This conflict is causing enormous harm to the people of Armenia but also great pain to the many Australians of Armenian background. Many Australians of Armenian background live in the northern suburbs of Sydney, including in my electorate of Bradfield and in the neighbouring electorates of Bennelong and North Sydney. Many members of this community have raised their concerns with me, and I am pleased to have the chance to speak up on their behalf, in our national parliament, to highlight the grave concerns they have and that I very much share. I want to specifically express my concern about reported human rights abuses occurring as part of this conflict, including credible allegations of the targeting of civilians and credible allegations of the use of illegal weapons. These actions are wholly unacceptable, they are inconsistent with international law, and they must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I call on Azerbaijan to cease hostilities and to engage in negotiations to find a lasting and peaceful solution. And I call on the Australian government to speak up clearly in expressing the principle of the sovereignty of borders, and in raising our clear concerns as a nation about the conflict in Artsakh and the aggression demonstrated by the nation of Azerbaijan. Homelessness 87 16:20 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro In my electorate of Eden-Monaro the community of Queanbeyan found themselves grappling with a homelessness and housing affordability issue. Did they sit back and do nothing? Absolutely not! This community took the bull by the horns, and they enacted the Queanbeyan Housing Action Committee, a voluntary collective consisting of the St Benedict's Community Centre, Molonglo Support Services, Karabar Housing Cooperative and the Terry Campese Foundation. They realised the need for urgent action. They identified a project, sleepbus, the brainchild of Simon Rowe. Sleepbus has the simple aim of providing a safe, temporary overnight accommodation for our community's most vulnerable. And a big shoutout to Kelli Rixon, a superstar who steps up every week in all different roles to ensure that sleepbus is open for vulnerable people in our community. I was so incredibly proud that she was recognised on Australia Day as Queanbeyan Citizen of the Year. Since sleepbus Queanbeyan began its services in March 2021 it's been able to provide over a thousand safe sleeps. That's a huge achievement for a volunteer-led organisation in our community. Karabar Housing Cooperative currently provide 21 affordable homes to our local community. They manage another six and they have plans to build more. They believe having a place to call home has an enormously positive impact on an individual's quality of life and wellbeing. Their mission is to provide quality, affordable housing for people on low to moderate incomes in the Queanbeyan region. Karabar Housing Cooperative have established a fundraising committee, and they are working towards a fundraising launch date of 22 July 2023 in Queanbeyan, and I urge people to get on board and support the work of this vital organisation in our community. We are doing our bit here too. The Albanese Labor government is now taking action against homelessness through the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which is the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing from a federal government in over a decade. The plan will deliver 30,000 social and affordable homes in its first five years. It's legislation that is making a real difference to thousands of people's lives, and I really encourage those opposite to support the 10-year strategy that will address the mess that we've inherited from the previous government. The Albanese government is making a real difference in regional communities. Flinders Electorate: Sages Cottage Farm 87 16:23 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders This Valentine's Day I want to talk about one of my true loves: my mate Chris and his colleagues at the beautiful Sages Cottage Farm in Baxter. Sages Cottage Farm in my electorate of Flinders is a brilliant, innovative and unquestionably hardworking property that is owned and managed by Wallara, a leading disability support provider and a social change agency. Since 2016, Wallara has provided life-changing pathways to employment for people with a disability in the heritage-listed Sages Cottage Farm and Cafe. The farm caters for varied needs and provides a safe space for the development of skills that sit outside conventional employment pathways, including horticulture and hospitality. The cottage has been seeking state and federal government funding for their proposed inclusive jobs hub; however, this proposal and Wallara's multifaceted services continue to fall outside of a particular portfolio, resulting in repeated unsuccessful funding requests. I was proud to have committed $750,000 in the lead-up to the last election, but with the change of government this commitment was unable to be followed through. The inclusive jobs hub will double the training capacity of Sages Cottage Farm, which will also provide meeting rooms, activity rooms and administrative space that will allow staff to vacate the heritage-listed cottage itself. The cottage will then be used to house a gift shop, staffed by clients with disabilities, which will diversify the skills that can be taught at the farm. The upgrade will double the farm's training capacity from 50 clients to 100 clients. It will also create a highly flexible space for our partner organisations, which in turn would create more engagement between those organisations, the Mornington Peninsula community and Wallara itself. Wallara has already invested or committed $2 million of their own modest reserves to purchase the farm outright and to upgrade the facilities to their present state. They've done a torrent of work recently to raise funds from friends, family and philanthropists. They have taken in-house their food and beverage offerings at their beautiful cafe so that the proceeds go to benefitting their future plans. But they need our help. I have sought the assistance of the Albanese government, asking the member for Maribyrnong, the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to come and visit the beautiful Sages Cottage with me and see the magic that is happening there. I do hope that at some point in the future he will accept my invitation. Equally, I encourage the new state member for Hastings to use his seat at the table in Spring Street to support Sages Cottage. There are few organisations as worthy as this one. I shout out my thanks to the great Phil Hayes-Brown, the CEO, for his endless and inspiring advocacy for Wallara and Sages Cottage. Funding from state and federal governments would allow this magical place to grow and provide invaluable resources for disability employment on the Mornington Peninsula and in Greater Melbourne more broadly. McEwen Electorate: Youth 88 16:26 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Last Friday we were lucky enough to have the wonderful Minister for Early Childhood Education and the Minister for Youth, Hon. Dr Anne Aly, come to visit our electorate of McEwen. We visited the Mernda Early Learning Centre, where we toured the facilities that had both long day care and three- and four-year-old kindergarten programs. We met with centre director, Bianca Elsayed, and I got to chat with the staff about how the needs of childcare staff are to be respected and valued. We were happy to tell them about the support Labor is giving through fee-free TAFE, which will help attract more people and ensure educated professionals come into the profession. We also talked about the real impact cheaper child care will have on all their families, and the conversations they've had about how Labor's policy would provide some much-needed cost-of-living relief for so many families at the centre. Of course, we had a bit of fun, rolled up our sleeves and had a good play with the kids, before packing up and heading across to Woodend to visit Youth Live4Life. Youth Live4Life is a program that focuses on youth mental health and suicide prevention. It is a very sad fact that the already alarming teen suicide figures increase for youth in regional and rural areas. That's why programs like Youth Live4Life are so important for an electorate like ours in McEwen and my neighbouring electorates, such as Bendigo. We met with CEO, Bernard Galbally, and the youth crew, who were happy to sit around the table with the minister and I and discuss the biggest issues that the teens who access the program are facing now. We chatted with Jasper Selby, Alannah Sander, Sasha Anderson, Laura Crozier and James Selby, who are only some of the great crew at Youth Live4Life. We both came away determined to do the right thing by these strong and wonderful people. The minister assured them that the Prime Minister is a champion for youth, and values their insight into the development of policy—which is why we are investing millions into mental health and wellbeing in schools to support children who have struggled following COVID. Quite often, sadly, we hear the opposition misrepresenting the recent positive changes around free mental health care when, in fact, the government is just following through on the commitment they put through on their policy. We followed through with this, because the added visits led to strain on our mental health system, with more people who were in crisis missing out—especially in regional and rural kids, where resourcing is already an issue. We will do more than slap a bandaid on this issue, when the problem is systemic. I was incredibly lucky to have the minister out to our beautiful electorate of McEwen and to show her the amazing work done for our young children and teens. We know that this work is delivering positive results, and it's an absolute asset. I would encourage all members to look at the Youth Live4Life program and see how these young champions can come into your area and help build stronger mental health capabilities. Groom Electorate: Mr Robert Brown 88 16:29 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom My hometown of Toowoomba is grieving the death of Mr Robert Brown at the age of 75 yesterday. Mr Brown died of injuries sustained in an attack that took place in broad daylight outside the Grand Central Shopping Centre. His young attacker, with great cowardice, violently shoved him from behind before stealing his backpack, running off, stealing a car and racing through our community. We've heard this story all too often in Toowoomba, but the death of Mr Brown stirred something in us. He was a gentle man who faced something of a hard life, dealing with his impairments with a smile on his face and something akin to grace in his dealings with others. The Toowoomba Chronicle has given voice to our anger, starting its 'Enough Is Enough' campaign. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. Apologies, Member for Groom. BILLS 88 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 88

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

Second Reading 88 16:30 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak about putting data ownership where it belongs: with consumers. It's tempting to sit in this House and pass legislation based on the written word. Customer data rights remind us that we are really here to do is benefit our communities and help all Australians get a better deal. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 follows in the footsteps of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Act 2019, which inserted a new part IV(D) into the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and allows consumers to share their data with trusted parties. Over the last few months, we've had a lot of scandals and headlines about the retention of data by certain companies and how secure that has been, so it's quite at odds to know that, whilst companies are holding it, consumers themselves do not have that right to their consumer data. At its core, the intention of the CDR initiative is to hand back to consumers ownership of their own data. It is a truly transformational initiative. So far, it's been rolled out in banking, energy was initiated at the end of last year and telecommunications is currently being considered. The bill being considered by the parliament now takes it to the next logical step. It enables consumers to use their data to take actions which are designed to, amongst other things, get them a better deal. To achieve this, the minister must declare by legislative instrument the types of actions that can be initiated under the CDR. Certain parties must also be assessed and accredited. Importantly, consultation with Treasury, the ACCC and the Information Commissioner is mandatory. In the current and evolving environment, the CDR initiative is becoming increasingly important. Many consumers are already under stress, and this will only increase. CDR can help consumers to alleviate that stress. CDR creates an opportunity not just the individual consumers but also for small businesses. Small businesses can either use CDR to get better deals or be participants in the provision of CDR services. Small business has an added layer of complexity, and this needs to be incorporated in implementation. To make this real for consumers, we need to focus on what's important to them. Consumers want to get a better deal, so they need to understand how they go about it. The implementation of this bill will be critical. Consumers must have knowledge of how it operates; must have trust in the participants, processes and outcomes; and must have the confidence to use it. It's critical at this stage of the development of CDR that consumers be involved and how it is going to be rolled out. To maximise the benefits, this will require a flexible, collaborative and innovative process than may otherwise be the case. Consumers and what is most important to them must be an integral part of the rollout. What we do in this next stage will dictate the success or otherwise of CDR as an initiative. We need to put consumers squarely at the centre of the outcomes of this bill, and I urge the government to really put that at the forefront of their mind. We do this actively by engaging and educating them now. I welcome the measures proposed in this bill, as would all consumers, because it gives control back to consumers and enables them to reap the benefits of their own data. I encourage the government and the minister to adopt innovative approaches to expeditiously designate the types of actions that can be initiated under the CDR. Such approaches must not compromise consumer protection, rigorous data management or risk minimisation for all participants. Last year, we saw what could happen, and we must avoid any repeats. I implore the minister to exhaustively address the need for extensive engagement and education so consumers can take advantage of this excellent initiative. And I urge the government to do a review, nevertheless, of a number of legislative instruments to ensure that we are up to date with data protection, because we have seen the cost, the damage and the impact when there are insufficient protections in place. I commend the bill to the House. 16:35 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey With each and every transaction that all Australians make, whether it be online shopping, scanning rewards cards or liking posts on social media, we produce data for companies. And, whether we realise it or not, these companies are collecting data on our behaviours and spending habits in order to monetise that data. The reality is our data has become a product that can be packed up and sold to those looking to target us and make a profit. Data is used to target ads towards individuals with certain interests or towards a certain demographic. It's used by retailers to target their regular shoppers and by banks to manage risk. Data collection is the reason that we all get emails about our favourite snacks that are on sale at Woolworths or Coles and why the banks call us about their latest products. While there are some benefits to this, there are clearly some risks as well. Prior to my time in parliament, I spent 15 years in business and worked in small business. I had the opportunity to work at Mars Australia, a large multinational, and we used a lot of data. In many ways it was a great asset to us. It allowed us to make sure that we could target the products that consumers were looking for and ultimately make it easier for consumers to find what they were looking for. I also spent time at a tech company called Ritual, and at the business we had access to a significant amount of people's data: their personal data, their spending habits and even their movements through their iPhone. There are significant benefits to us as consumers and to society by being able to maximise that data. But it does bring risks, and there is no doubt that businesses profit from that. So it's only fair, if we're going allow businesses to use that data for their own means, that consumers have the right to protect and own their data. That's why there is so much power in the data, but until the Consumer Data Right was introduced, the power sat primarily or solely with corporations. Consumers themselves had no power or opportunity to access that data. The Consumer Data Right was a significant economic and consumer-centric reform. It was the previous coalition government that spearheaded the rollout of the Consumer Data Right. We did this to protect consumers, reduce red tape, improve cyber-resilience and support digital innovation in the delivery of core business functions. It was first launched in the banking sector in 2020 to give consumers and small businesses more power over their own data and to compare and switch banking products. I would note that, at that time, the lead minister for introducing the Consumer Data Right was the then minister for the digital economy, Senator the Hon. Jane Hume. I have called before in this House and will continue to call in this House for the government to appoint a minister for the digital economy, to oversee and implement a national digital strategy. The former coalition government formulated the Australian Digital Economy Strategy 2030, which set the foundation and frameworks for how we as lawmakers could make sure that society and the economy benefited from data but also that rights were protected. It's something you need an overall minister for because it impacts so many different portfolios. So I'll continue to urge the Albanese government to give the digital economy the respect it deserves and the leadership it needs and to appoint a minister for the digital economy. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 would further expand the rights of consumers to access their data, and it is a bill the coalition is supporting. The bill will introduce action initiation reforms which will enable consumers to direct accredited persons to take actions on their behalf using the Consumer Data Right framework. Consumers may direct an accredited person to make a payment, open an account, switch their provider or update their personal details across a range of providers. At its core, this bill is all about improving consumer outcomes, while driving digital innovation and productivity across our economy. The Productivity Commission says that digitisation is a doorway to greater economic growth and a boost to our productivity. We all know, with the significant economic challenges we face at the moment and the high inflation, productivity is a key driver to bringing prices down and continuing our economic success. Reforms like this are necessary because of the impact that red tape is having on the economy and on consumer outcomes. Independent research has estimated that the annual cost of red tape to our economy is $175 billion each year. In the financial sector alone, there are 140 prudential standards and practice guides covering the five APRA regulated industries. The Australian Law Reform Commission's legislative framework for the financial services sector sits at over 43,300 pages. The burden of compliance is significant, particularly for small businesses in my community who do not have the luxury of in-house legal teams or the ability to appoint administrators to cover paperwork. That's why it is so important that we get this reform right. It has got to make life easier, not harder, for consumers and for small business owners. This bill will allow consumers to go to one of their service providers and say, 'Please update my address on all my accounts.' No longer will we have to let every service provider know, or get those ones that are missing, and suddenly the bill never comes through. So it is going to improve the lives of many Australians. Do it once and transform it all the way through. It's such an important initiative. By expanding the Consumer Data Right to include action initiations, consumers will be empowered to authorise and manage their data securely in the digital economy. It will further allow them to share the data that Australian businesses hold about them, but, importantly, for their own benefit. I have spoken previously in this place about the importance of the digital economy. It has the potential to contribute $315 billion to our economy, but one of the greatest setbacks to growing our digital economy is consumer reluctance. Consumers often misunderstand how their data is harvested and used. We know there are significant concerns that consumers rightly have in the current environment about whether their data is safe and secure, and we must always make sure that we are setting frameworks that ensure cybersecurity and consumer data protection is at the front of everything we do. Through giving consumers expanded control over their data being shared, we are increasing their faith and confidence in the future of our digital economy. The Consumer Data Right was always designed to grow over time. While in government, the coalition pursued expansion into the banking sector through open banking. We also pursued expansion into open finance, the energy sector and telecommunications. Not only is the Consumer Data Right enabling consumers to benefit from their data, it is spurring the creation of new tech companies and encouraging more innovative products and services. The Consumer Data Right is underpinned by stringent privacy and security protections, which are so important, as I mentioned. It prioritises consent, meaning consumers can choose whether to use the data right, and providers must receive explicit and informed consent to use their data. And, really importantly, it gives consumers full visibility over who their data is being shared with. This bill expands a consumer data right from a data-sharing scheme to a scheme that allows consumers to act on the information that they receive. For example: this could allow consumers to change energy providers following receipt of information about other providers offering lower prices or more suitable circumstances. And, in this current environment, the ability to switch easily and to take advantage of lower prices is so important. This is all about making it easier for consumers to compare products and services, and to access better value for money—something that is so important with the energy and cost-of-living crises that we have. We all know that many Australians are doing it tough, and anything we can do in this House and in this place to make their lives easier is such important legislation. It's one of the many reasons why I'm supporting this legislation. However, this legislation, on its own, will not be enough. We need to acknowledge that. The government must do more to support business and our economy, because Australian businesses and families are struggling. They need a government that listens to them, not one that tells them the government is the centre of the economy. Businesses in Casey, and across the nation—and I've spoken to many of them—have identified the issues and offered the solutions to Australia's economic challenges, but they feel that they're not being listened to. The challenges they face are significant and not just on the expenses side. I was talking to a small business just last night whose revenue has dropped by over 30 per cent since Christmas as consumers are starting to pull back. So small business has significant challenges, whether from increasing costs or lower revenue. We need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to support them. The legislation that the government plans to pass in the next year calls for a huge $45 billion in extra borrowing for extra spending. This spending is off-budget spending; it's not going to be shown in the budget. But the IMF has already warned how this will drive inflation and make the cost of living worse for Australians. These are things that we have to avoid. So while we're supportive of this bill for its benefits to consumers, the digital economy and productivity, Labor must start listening to businesses and address the issues that we are facing today. With this government's priorities, Australians will always pay more under Labor. It's essential that the government brings small business with them on this reform. The consumer data right has been carefully designed from the beginning to ensure that strong privacy and security mechanisms are built into the design. The government must get this right to maintain the integrity of the scheme and to strengthen consumer faith in our digital economy. I will finish by again urging the Albanese government to appoint a minister for the digital economy, because if we do not have one person overseeing our strategy, we will miss significant growth opportunities. And we will also leave Australians exposed to some of the cybersecurity risks that we saw last year. If we don't have a plan, how can we implement anything to make sure that we are maximising the opportunities available to the Australian people when they need help so often? 16:48 Mr FLETCHE L6B Bradfield R (—) (): I rise to speak on the Treasury capitals Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022. The coalition understands that our digital economy matters. It is crucial to our success as a nation that our businesses are innovating and adopting digital technology. Not only does digital adoption enable entirely new businesses and sectors to grow and flourish, creating jobs and prosperity, but it also delivers efficiency gains for businesses in sectors like mining and retail because it creates efficiencies, lifts productivity, generates more profits and raises incomes for workers. In government, we developed a digital economy strategy with a view to driving the digital advancement of small businesses, our workforce, start-ups and infrastructure. Under the current government there is no such focus. There is no minister for the digital economy and there should be. There is no clear digital economy goal committed to by the Australian government and there should be. The Digital Transformation Agency has been relegated to the bowels of the finance department. The Albanese government should make our digital economy a national priority. There needs to be a serious drive towards digitisation in sectors where such take-up is falling behind. The government should be getting on with the work the coalition started on a digital identity scheme. Australians should have access to better and more efficient government services, meaning more of how we interact with government should be digital. And, in the increasingly challenging security environment in which we live, cybersecurity should be prioritised—for example, incentivising businesses to take practical steps to reduce their risk of hacking. I've spoken of the coalition's digital economy strategy, and the consumer data right was a key part of that. Established through legislation introduced in 2019, the consumer data right represented a bold step in increasing the level of digitisation in Australia's economy. A consumer data right gives Australians the ability to have their data shared with businesses when they want that to happen—for example, when comparing and switching providers for an energy plan or a bank loan. This is particularly relevant in 2023, as the Albanese Labor government presides over a worsening cost-of-living crisis, having wholly failed to implement its promises of cheaper mortgages and a promised $275 cut to household and business power bills. In July 2020 the consumer data right became active for financial products and services, referred to as open banking, with the big four banks able to meet customer requests for banks to share their data for home loans, investment loans, personal loans and joint accounts. In the 2021 budget the coalition invested $111.3 million to speed up the rollout of the consumer data right in banking, energy and telecommunications. The coalition's detailed work to bring the energy sector within the net of the consumer data right meant that this was able to occur in November last year. Following advice from government agencies as well as thorough consultation with the sector and with experts, strong privacy and information security provisions were built into the legislation. The privacy protections under the regime have been developed on the advice of the Australian Information Commissioner, and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will have the job of enforcement. The reality is that Australia faces an environment in which our national productivity growth, according to the Productivity Commission, is at its lowest rate in 60 years. This is where digitisation holds great promise as a doorway to greater economic growth and efficiency. In the case of the consumer data right, the capacity for a consumer to have his or her data shared or passed from one competitor in a sector to another means that businesses that are competing in those sectors will have to work harder to keep existing customers or to acquire new ones. They will have to evolve to become more productive. In 2021 the Treasury undertook a strategic assessment of the economy-wide rollout of the consumer data right. The then coalition government's response to that report summarised key factors to support future prioritisation and sequencing of the expansion of the consumer data right. These included the benefit for consumers: that inclusion of data search should enable improved decisions to be made by or for consumers which are beneficial to them. The second factor was the value for data recipients: Inclusion of datasets should create value through enabling innovation by data recipients, which improves productivity. The third was the transformation of sectors: Inclusion of datasets should align with the need for the sector to be digitally active. A fourth consideration was the cost for data holders: Inclusion of datasets should not cause an unjustifiable net cost to data holders. And a fifth policy driver was inclusion—that datasets should align with or support the achievement of other policy goals. The bill before the House today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022, amends the Competition and Consumer Act to enable consumers to 'authorise, manage and facilitate actions securely in a digital environment' under the data rights framework. The coalition supports this bill and, as we have made clear, we will seek to refer it to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to report back by the end of the financial year. The bill further implements the rollout of the consumer data right by introducing a new channel within the legislation that enables consumers to instruct a business to initiate actions such as making a payment, opening or closing an account, switching providers and updating personal details across providers on a consumer's behalf with the consent of that consumer. It therefore provides consumers with the ability to initiate actions under the data right, rather than simply having their data shared. As an example, under this legislation, the consumer can instruct a single service provider to update his or her personal details. There are clear benefits, in terms of a stronger set of cybersecurity arrangements, from making this possible, as well as the more obvious benefit of giving consumers access to a simplified, streamlined and less onerous process. This particular measure implements a recommendation from the report of the 2020 inquiry into the Future directions for the consumer data right. That recommendation was that the consumer data right's functionality should be strengthened and deepened. That recommendation was accepted by the previous coalition government. That being said, the opposition notes that, in consultations, we have detected some concerns about the capacity and ability of businesses to implement these reforms effectively and in compliance with the rules. Small business operators and businesses that primarily service small business and rely on high levels of data have concerns about their obligations under the consumer data right and their ability to implement reforms on the time lines proposed by the government. Datasets that fall within the net of the consumer data right can be large and complex. It is therefore critical that these consumer data right reforms are implemented properly and tested, so consumers can have confidence that their data is safe and so that public faith in the scheme, more broadly, is preserved. This is a key reason why the opposition is seeking to have this bill referred to a committee in the Senate so that that committee can more closely examine the way that businesses are envisaged by Treasury to implement these reforms, in line with the time line that's been laid out. The consumer data right has the potential to deliver significant benefit to our economy, in driving both better consumer outcomes and innovation by businesses, as they compete to provide the best products and services for their customers and as they compete to win customers. However, we do know, regrettably, that, when it comes to the task of implementing policy, Labor governments often go woefully, disastrously and spectacularly wrong. There is a litany of public policy disasters that Labor governments have presided over in the past 20 years, and, if we're to go back earlier than that, we'd find an even longer litany. Therefore, we, in opposition, take very seriously our role in scrutinising the work of the government, composed, as it largely is, of a ramshackle collection of former union secretaries. We do think it's appropriate to bring to bear some expertise in implementation, which I'm pleased to say that those of us on this side of the chamber—many of us who have significant private sector backgrounds—are able to deliver. Mr FLETCHER L6B We don't deny the skills that, for example, the minister who's presently in the chamber learnt by standing in front of demonstrations with a megaphone, yelling out: 'What do we want? X. And when do we want it? Now!' I could acknowledge the Deputy Speaker's own expertise in that critical function as well. All of these are important skills; I don't doubt that. But the question that I simply ask is: to what extent do they equip those people who are presently ministers in this government with the capacity to actually implement complex reforms? And, if we look at the record that the minister present in the chamber has racked up in about eight months, that's a very obvious question. I'm pleased to tell the chamber that we're here to help. We're here to offer the benefit of our extensive private sector expertise, and we'll be doing that conscientiously when it comes to the consumer data right bill. 16:59 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022, and it's always a pleasure to follow the member for Bradfield. I want to pick up on a point he made, when he observed that the closure of nine years of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott government left Australia with the lowest productivity growth in 60 years. At the end of the day, as Professor Paul Krugman, a famous US economist, said: Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it's almost everything. And nothing sums up the legacy that the coalition government have left the country than the worst productivity growth in 60 years. I do agree with him that the Consumer Data Right has the capacity to provide productivity enhancements, particularly in the delivery of services. But, I've got to say, it takes a lot of gall from the member for Bradfield, who as minister was responsible for flogging off a $3 million block of land for nearly $30 million. With somebody like that in charge of money, you'd be very worried indeed. These were the mob—and the idea that they're lecturing us on a digital strategy and the infrastructure necessary for a modern economy is the stuff befitting of comedy. The man who was single-handedly responsible for campaigning against the establishment and building of an NBN when they were last in opposition promised us that we were going to have an NBN that would be faster, cheaper and quicker. Yet they delivered an NBN that was slower and more expensive—not just by a little bit. It cost us twice as much as it otherwise would have cost us and has taken much longer to complete. The modern business registry, a critical piece of IT infrastructure, they promised would be delivered for somewhere in the vicinity of $460 million. We now know that project will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $1.5 billion. So their track record on delivering IT projects is woeful. The digital IT project was handed, under the previous government, from minister to minister to minister, and each and every one of them has failed to deliver on the promise. They talk about cybersecurity and scams. Scams are costing Australians $2 billion a year. On their watch, there was no strategy to deal with it. They advised us that they are going to refer this bill—and, indeed, the future of the project—to a Senate committee so it can be scrutinised. We welcome that. I think that would be good. As they're scrutinising the project they're sending to the Senate committee to investigate, I might ask them questions about the funding that was allocated under the previous government for this project. We are told by them it was critical to the productivity-driving future of our economy. If it was so important, why did they cease funding for it in June this year? It's a project, we've just heard from the member for Bradfield, that was central to their economic reform yet they left it unfunded. So I think we can take with a pinch of salt the claims that have been made by the member for Bradfield. There are some things we do agree on though: the Consumer Data Right has the capacity to significantly enhance productivity, particularly in the services sector. Once this bill is passed into law, it will set the basis for expanding, to combine the power of data sharing with the ability for consumers to safely and securely instruct third parties to initiate actions on their behalf. In future, this could include things such as opening and closing accounts, making payments and applying for services. The reform will give individuals and businesses more control over their data and empower them to make informed choices as well as many other things. This will reduce the time pressures, cost and complexity experienced by individuals and small businesses when carrying out everyday tasks. These changes to the CDR are underpinned by strong privacy and information security provisions that are at the core of the CDR, and security and other checks outside the CDR will continue to apply. It's important expansion, empowering consumers to authorise, manage and securely make informed choices in a digital economy. I thank members for their contributions to the debate and 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. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 94 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS National Security 94 17:05 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I would like take note of the statement made to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister for Defence on 9 February 2023. The ministerial statement provided the House with an appraisal of Australia's sovereign capabilities, speaking broadly to security challenges within a local and global geopolitical landscape, which we reside and participate in. However, this ministerial statement was holistic in the sense that it spoke to the maintenance of Australia's sovereignty in the face of our strategic partnerships, as well as the challenges that we face in the present and in the years ahead. We were presented with blueprints for how Australia can coexist in a complex, challenging strategic environment and prosper by utilising our talents, our natural advantages and our ability to innovate and by punching well above our weight as a nation. The ministerial statement touched on a few core themes worth mentioning here. The first is the current set of strategic circumstances that Australia finds itself in—the state of play in a geopolitical sense. Next, it began to describe Australia's position in the world and particularly our role within the Indo-Pacific region. It also further outlined a set of broad principles that Australia prescribes to when it operates alongside strategic partners and allies—namely, how Australia ensures that it acts in a manner consistent with its interests and at its behest alone. The ministerial statement devotes a large section to outlining the importance of Australia's strategic relationship with the United States of America, describing the United States as 'our most vital security partner', as well as outlining the benefits of joint facilities and partnerships with the United States and the terms in which our strategic allies—namely, the United States—operate on our soil. Lastly, the minister's statement speaks to the future of this strategic partnership, the AUKUS partnership—a security partnership forged between Australia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. Australia is fundamentally a lucky country. It has relative political stability coupled with strong established alliances and partnerships in the regions surrounding our lands and beyond. Australia is, after all, a country girt by sea. A natural advantage in many ways this may be, but, on the other hand, it can be isolating to an extent. There are many out there, sadly, who view this isolation as something that we should actively seek out. As one of the founding member states of the United Nations, this is a very unfortunate attitude for some out there to possess. Since the end of the Second World War, we have been at the forefront of ensuring that diplomacy should be tried before violent alternatives are sought. The ministerial statement itself contends that we live in an age of strategic circumstances that are the most complex and challenging since the end of the Second World War as well. It is why we need to seek out friends, strategic allies, and join them to further our goals and extend offerings of friendship where relationships are at best mixed. It would be wrong to see the blue ocean abroad and label the map, 'Here be dragons', for we know Australia's involvement in our region is a positive one, in the sense of both our soft diplomacy—fostering and encouraging shared values and ideals with our neighbours—and unlocking new and exciting avenues for trade. It would appear that I have spoken on an issue without speaking about my electorate of Spence, a state of events that I simply can't endure any longer because, as a proud local member, I feel obliged—duty-bound, in fact—to highlight some of the numerous ways that Australia's strategic needs have been enhanced and fulfilled within my electorate of Spence. As many would know, my electorate includes RAAF Base Edinburgh, along with the Edinburgh Defence Precinct, which was built around the base and contains a number of organisations, both government and civilian, with a large focus on defence manufacturing and technology. Speaking of manufacturing, the heart of the northern suburbs of Adelaide was first established to operate as a satellite town around our manufacturing industry. I, like many of my constituents, lament the death of General Motors Holden a few years back. The death of car manufacturing was felt not just in the loss of jobs but in the loss of our soul in the north. It's why I am especially proud, long before the ministerial statement was delivered last week, to take every opportunity that I can get to come into this place to speak about defence industry and associated advanced manufacturing capabilities that exist within Spence. Many of the big players in defence industry circles operate within Spence, primes such as Lockheed Martin Australia, Saab Australia, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. I am sure many members of the Edinburgh Industry Alliance, had they been listening to the minister's statement, would be heartened that there is a coherent strategy in place to utilise hubs such as the Edinburgh Defence Precinct. Within the precinct renowned innovators operate, with engineers had at work innovating the next big technological advances that will give Australia the leading edge. As it so often is, defence research has been the catalyst for technological advances in the civilian sector. Many of those advances have been born out of the minds that work in the Defence, Science and Technology Group, or DSTG, such as the architects behind the invention of the black box flight recorder. There are always big things happening at RAAF Base Edinburgh, one of the hubs that help to ensure being girt by sea remains an advantage. The base is home to the P8-A Poseidon, which can perform maritime surveillance operations. It's SIGINT capabilities within the base are second to none. I am proud that Australia can hold its own in that respect, but it's always a little better when it's happening in your own backyard. My electorate of Spence is also home to a number of agricultural ventures and secondary food industries, such as the Safcol cannery, which, at extensive scale, contributes to safeguarding Australia's food security for tomorrow while feeding Australians today. We can all do our part within our patch in this great country, but it gives me comfort to know that my electorate of Spence is well poised to strengthen our sovereign capabilities and make a positive contribution to our national security. The ministerial statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister may not have received widespread coverage on every evening news channel, but you can guarantee that many an embassy or high commission down the road would have been tuning in. This statement sets a tone for many countries that interact with Australia. Whether it be a strategic relationship, one involving trade or whether your nation is seeking Australian support, financial or in-kind, to fund a number of development goals, you will know, in broad terms, where you stand and how the government will look to interact with you under different sets of circumstances. It represents a modicum of consistency in an ever-changing world and geopolitical landscape. I am content knowing that the nation states are going to have a similar realisation to the Australian public—that being the realisation that the adults are in charge of the Australian government, and it is ready to adapt to changing headwinds and grow our country in its international standing, and also its economic outlook in the process. It is true to say that these times may have challenges associated with them, but they can still be exciting ones, where our country grows to meet those challenges and ends up better off as a result of doing so. As a nation, we can have a booming defence industry, yet lead the region with our diplomats. There is no opportunity cost. It just takes the right kind of leadership to foster this—leadership that I am confident we have at the helm. I thank the House. 17:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina These words: Here is their spirit, in the heart of the land they loved; and here we guard the record which they themselves made. were spoken in 1948 by Charles Bean, and they appear at the temporary entrance to the Australian War Memorial. They evoke great patriotism and great nationalism. They are in the right place because, hopefully, as everybody who walks through that national monument—that Australian treasure—and past those words they read them and might just take them in and reflect on them after their visit is over. Indeed, in the War Memorial, that proud national monument, the names of 103,000 men and women who sacrificed their lives in the service of our country in wars past and deployments present are on the rolls of honour. This is a motion about Australia's sovereignty, and I will reflect on this and two former Labor prime ministers. The first is Billy Hughes, who fought the good fight in World War I. Certainly, when the Treaty of Versailles was being drawn up he wanted to make sure that the blood of Australians was not forgotten, and the blood that was shed in Gallipoli, on the Western Front, in Africa and on other front lines was very much respected by those putting the treaty together. The other Prime Minister I want to mention is John Curtin. We all know the furious communications that occurred between London and Canberra when the 14th Prime Minister of this country said that he was bringing our troops home. Our troops were needed here. Not a lot of people realise that there were more bombs dropped on Australia's north-west and north in World War II than were dropped on Pearl Harbor. We were under threat—we were under attack. I know that Gundagai, in my electorate, was the scene of a famous wartime cabinet meeting between Mr Curtin and his colleagues, and they made the right decisions at the right time. We need our governments to do just that: to put our country and our people first. As the shadow defence minister said in his contribution to this debate: Let me begin by saying that the opposition shares the minister's view that our sovereignty, our territory, our values and our way of life are a sacred duty of the Australian government and, indeed, of this parliament. On this question, the coalition are of one mind and spirit with the government, for if we cannot secure and defend ourselves we have failed at the most basic duty entrusted to us by the Australian people. He's right. And the Deputy Prime Minister, when he spoke about those very traits, was correct too. We need, in as bipartisan a manner as we can, to defend absolutely that sacred duty. I am proud to be the federal member for Riverina, which takes in Wagga Wagga, the only inland regional centre of its size with all three arms of the Defence Force. We've just had a changing of the guard, as such, at the Kapooka base, where Colonel Tim Stone has taken over as the commandant there. He has the huge responsibility of leading the recruit training at that base. Every recruit does their basic training at that base just south-west of Wagga Wagga. We're very proud to be a military city. If you spend any time in the Royal Australian Air Force you may very well end up at Royal Australian Air Force Base Wagga Wagga, at Forest Hill. It's a very important logistics base and a very important training camp. Combined with that camp is a Navy base. We're a long way from the nearest drop of seawater, but we have a Navy base in Wagga Wagga. They do a lot of important strategic work. I know that when they have their special occasions in Wagga Wagga's Victory Memorial Gardens there are many young Navy personnel there in uniform. What is remarkable is their youth; they are so proud to turn up and represent that proud form of service in our tri-service city. This motion before the House is important, because we need to have a commitment to national security. And it doesn't matter who is in government; it doesn't matter what side of politics: We can't drop the ball when it comes to national security. And I have to say, we never have, as a coalition. We've always put our national security first. I know the commitment that we made when we returned to government in 2013 to, I have to say, readjust some of the thinking and some of the spending that had lapsed. It was important that we do so at that time. It was the former coalition government that increased investment in defence to more than two per cent and invested more than $270 billion into capability to 2030. I'm very pleased to say, as a former Assistant Minister for Defence and a former veterans' affairs minister, that considerable spending—almost $1 billion—is going into upgrading the infrastructure at both RAAF Wagga and the Kapooka base, and I mentioned earlier the importance they both play in our national security. That is going to replace, in RAAF's case, some of the very ageing 1950s and '60s infrastructure that was badly in need of replacement. At Kapooka it's going to take them to the next level. In training they do an obstacle course. They put those young recruits, men and women, through their paces, and they turn out the best, the bravest and the boldest, and that's who we need wearing our khaki. It stretches back to Gallipoli and even before that—that level of commitment by Australian soldiers. Indeed, Kapooka has been there since the Second World War. RAAF Wagga has had a commitment there on the old Allonville property since the late 1930s, and Navy has been in Wagga Wagga since 1993. As I said, the coalition made sure that our investment was what it needed to be, and I must say that our investment was highest when the now opposition leader was Minister for Defence. So, he has a commitment. He has a track record for making sure that we've got the right money in the right places. I heard the member for Herbert, himself a former infantryman, talking during the debate on the matter of public importance today about making sure our soldiers have the right kit, and that's so, so important. I know that the member for Bendigo is proud of the fact that her home town produces the Bushmaster. Indeed, as part of a coalition government, I'm glad Labor has, since coming into government, backed our commitment to Ukraine to provide those vital personnel carriers so they can do what they can to repel the illegal invasion by Russia. There is a lot of pressure on Australia and on the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere across the globe at the moment. A lot of pressure is being brought to bear on those who want to preserve democracy and those who believe in freedom and peace. And Australia has always been there, whether in Afghanistan, with our previous commitments to that, or whether in the current deployments, peacekeeping and otherwise, that we need to make sure that we are a part of—make sure we're on the right side—and that we are always there. I commend our ADF. I commend those people who run the Australian Defence Force for doing just that. And it's a big ask of those who serve in this place, because we are the ones who commit Australian soldiers and other defence personnel into battle. We do that, and it's a heavy burden to bear. I never thought it would be until I was part of those motions and debates before the House of Representatives when we were talking about Afghanistan and other conflicts that we've fought in during the recent past. The coalition will always be there. Sovereignty is so, so important. The level of trust on Labor at the moment is very high, because they are the ones in government now, but they certainly have bipartisan support when it comes to national security. 17:24 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Before I begin, I want to agree with the member for Riverina. Defence of Australia's sovereignty is a bipartisan issue because defence, national security and Australian sovereignty affect everyone. They affect everyone in this room. They affect my community, in Robertson, on the New South Wales Central Coast. They affect people in the member for Reid's electorate and that of the member for Riverina. They're so important that we have a bipartisan approach to our national security and to Australia's sovereignty, because they affect us all. With that, I say the Albanese Labor government is committed to the safety and security of our people in every electorate, in every corner of the company, rural and remote, metropolitan and regional, coastal and inland—everyone. We realise that this is of paramount importance. As was said by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence recently when this statement was brought before parliament, the risk of conflict is now less remote than it was in the past, and we now live in a less safe and less stable world. This highlights to me, to every member of this parliament and to our community the importance of international diplomacy and the fact that we need to work collaboratively with those within our region, particularly those throughout the Indo-Pacific. Our interests are not only onshore. Our interests are not only within Australia but across the entire Indo-Pacific region, across our neighbours, and peace and security throughout our region are what we must absolutely strive for. Every person in this place must continue to champion that for the sake of Australia's sovereignty. As was also noted by the Deputy Prime Minister, we have benefited from our trade with China and we absolutely value a productive, mutually beneficial relationship with China and seek as a government to stabilise this. Furthermore, Australia and the government must continue to work collaboratively and constructively with countries throughout our region to continue to reduce tensions but also to maintain the peace and security which has led to years of ongoing economic prosperity right throughout the region. Our international partnerships and relationships are vital in advancing our interests and allow us to navigate the complex strategic environment that is our region and that is our world. We must ensure that the norms, the principles and the rules throughout the Indo-Pacific are reinforced by our partnerships with nations throughout our region. Moreover, it is important that, with these partnerships, we champion a free, open and prosperous Indo-Pacific. That is done by pooling resources and combining our strengths. In doing this, we can deter conflict. We can have a free and open region. We can have peace. We are continuing to strengthen our cooperation and partnerships with our neighbours throughout the region. I am talking about the likes of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, a nation I have spoken about in the chamber before—teman-teman di utara, our 'friends to the north'—a nation we will continue to strengthen our relationship with now and into the future. Our continued commitment to investing in groups and bodies that champion peace prosperity throughout our region such as ASEAN and the Quad is paramount. It is crucial to stability, security and, importantly, economic development in the Indo-Pacific and the broader region. To give some further examples that were discussed by the Deputy Prime Minister in parliament earlier this week, for over 30 years our friends the nation of Singapore, in South-East Asia, have trained in Australia to mutual benefit and for Australian sovereignty. From major exercises in the Shoalwater Bay area to helicopter training and pilot training at RAAF Base Pearce, Australia's been proud to support Singapore in building its capabilities. This cooperation continues to our shared security and, furthermore, to ensuring a secure Australian sovereignty. Singapore training in Australia has brought significant advantages, particularly for sovereignty, including investment in our ADF facilities and economic benefits to Australian business. And they have helped us in our times of need. Singapore have definitely helped us in our times of need. The Singaporean armed services made a significant contribution to our local communities here in Australia during the Black Summer bushfires in 2020 and the floods in 2022. I want to reiterate what the Deputy Prime Minister said: we are no longer blessed with a benign strategic environment. The world is a less safe place than it was years ago, and that's why we need to work collaboratively with our partners through the region—in particular, I should stress, Indonesia, our friends to the north—and make sure that we champion those ideals that I've mentioned to make sure that we have peace. 17:31 Mr 176304 Sturt STEVENS () (): I take the opportunity to talk about defence sovereign capability at every opportunity in this place, particularly as a proud member from the city of Adelaide, and it won't surprise members that I'd like to focus my remarks on naval capability—where we've been, where we are and where we are going to—from a sovereign capability point of view. It's vital for any nation to have sovereign capability to produce the major assets, the major capabilities that underpin our national security capacity. Not surprisingly, that wasn't always the case in Australia's history. In the early days of the Royal Australian Navy, the United Kingdom was the provider of most of our major capital ships and our technical capability and capacity. The Oberon class submarines that preceded the current Collins class submarines were a British vessel. But it has been the case that over the last few decades we have dramatically developed our own capability in naval shipbuilding in Australia, and this is vitally important for our future. The Collins class submarines were conceived and built in Adelaide, and that was really the milestone decision of the federal government, the Hawke government—I give them credit for that, of course—to develop a naval shipbuilding capability centred on Adelaide, and the future for that couldn't be brighter going forward. We have six Collins class boats, as they've informed me submarines are called—not vessels or ships but boats—which were all built in Adelaide and continue to be maintained in Adelaide. The full-cycle docking that occurs there is effectively a complete rebuild of the submarine. They take the boat out of the water, crack into the pressure hull, which is a very significant thing to do, and when the full-cycle docking happens every 10 years on each of those six that is a major ongoing piece of engineering capability that we have in South Australia. Frankly, it is as significant, some say even more significant, than the original construction of the submarines themselves, such is the significance of full-cycle docking, which happens a couple of times in the lifetimes of those submarines. And the Collins? The previous government made the important commitment, which I understand this government is sticking with, to the life-of-type extension to the Collins which we need in order for the Collins to still be the capable boats, the capable submarines, that the Navy need while we transition to nuclear propulsion. This is also happening in South Australia. I was very engaged in the campaign, to make sure the awareness was there within the decision-making structures of Navy, Defence and the then government, that the commitment to keep that in South Australia was maintained. Indeed, that commitment was made at the same time as the announcement of AUKUS. The air warfare destroyers—all three—were also built in Adelaide, and so from a surface vessel point of view we are also very proud in South Australia of the capability that we have for surface vessel construction. That was underscored by the decision, in 2015, that the nine future frigates would be built in Adelaide. That was a very welcome decision, a very significant decision, to replace the Anzac class frigates. There are nine Hunter class type 26 based variant frigates to be built in Adelaide, by BAE and their partners, including the ASC, and that was a very exciting decision for South Australia. When you add the extremely exciting opportunity of constructing submarines that now will be nuclear propelled submarines in Adelaide, we are unquestionably the major naval shipbuilding hub of at least the Southern Hemisphere—and, in some metrics, one of the largest and most diverse naval shipbuilding capabilities on the planet. There are not too many shipyards, anywhere, that are building the variety of vessels that we have the capability to build in Adelaide. In the last decade or so, naval shipbuilding capability has completely consolidated to my home city of Adelaide, my home state of South Australia, and it wouldn't surprise the chamber to know I'm very excited about that. It is an enormous opportunity, from an industry point of view, for my home state. What it also underscores is the significance and how far we've come, when it comes to sovereign capability, in naval shipbuilding. We will have, in the Royal Australian Navy, every vessel—and any decisions, into the future, I am confident, will also involve national sovereign construction, here in this nation, centred in Adelaide. What that means is the Royal Australian Navy's capability is all sovereignly constructed and maintained and means that—whilst we're very committed to the alliances that we have and they are very important to us—the fundamental capability of the Royal Australian Navy relies on no-one but the people of this country. It means that none of the decisions that might need to be made, from a national security point of view, in the interests of our country, are ever going to be reliant on anyone else other than our sovereign capability. That is what this debate is about, in taking note of that statement. We've all made contributions in committing towards the bipartisan imperative of sovereign capability of our national security. That doesn't mean that we don't want to take the opportunity of acquiring the absolutely best capability that is available. We are very lucky, and it's one of the very significant elements of our important alliances, particularly now within the AUKUS framework, that we will always seek to get the best capability and the best technology for our armed forces, both the technology that's developed here and that which is available from our major allies and partners. The United States and the United Kingdom have made the decision, through the AUKUS structure, to provide us with an unbelievable capability that we would have no ability to develop ourselves, which is the nuclear propulsion of submarines for the future submarine capability of our Navy, and that is a great example of the benefit of that. But we're equally proud of the technology, research, development and capability that we are creating here in Australia. We're a valued partner to a nation like the United States, evidenced by their decision to entrust us with this very closely guarded technology around nuclear propulsion and the other partnerships we have with them. The most important thing is that they are also entrusting us, and we are working with them, on developing capability to manufacture that capability here in Australia and have the sovereignty underpinned by that local domestic capability. We're also investing in and ensuring that the defence sector industry in Australia is capable of meeting those needs and is producing all of that capability here. I've got some great defence firms in my electorate. All members, no doubt, have stories of SMEs and businesses that people have created which are employing people and contributing into the supply chains that are providing that national security capability at the highest standard, but which are also getting the economic dividend that is very important with the enormous amount of expenditure involved in defence capability here within the Australian economy. We always want to make sure that we've got the highest standard of capability. We also want to make sure, from both a national security point of view and an economic point of view, that the enormous amount of investment we are making is giving the most significant economic dividend and that we've got the security of having that capability within our nation so that we're never reliant on anyone else except for ourselves. That is something that I'm very confident will always be bipartisan in this place. In all the major discussions and debates we have, I'm very confident that there will always be a complete consensus on the importance of Australians having the capability to make our own decisions in our own interests, without having to rely on anyone else. That is what sovereignty is all about, and on that basis I commend this motion to the House. 17:41 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak about defence minister Marles's ministerial statement on securing Australia's sovereignty. As previous speakers have alluded to, securing our sovereignty is the government's top priority. It is the capacity of our people, through their government, to determine their own circumstances free from coercion. It underpins every other public good that the state delivers, from essential services to our economic growth and from our secure borders to meaningful action on climate change. While it is not the only one, defence capability is a key determinant of sovereignty. In a world where the threat of armed conflict is less remote and foreign interference is more prevalent than ever, it has never been more important to guard our sovereignty. This is urgent, because we face the most difficult circumstances, strategically, since the Second World War. An example of that is Russia's illegal and immoral war in Ukraine. It gives us daily proof that industrial war, large-scale war, is no longer a thing of the past, as we had all hoped following the carnage of the Second World War. In our region, the Indo-Pacific, we see large military build-ups rivalling any in the post-war period. We are also seeing increasing strategic competition, with a more assertive China seeking to shape the world around it in our region, and grey-zone activities that bring tensions to our shores. So we now live in a less safe and a less stable world. This is why we must ensure the security of our strategic geography in our region and also the viability of our trading and supply routes. And it is why we must work with like-minded countries and partners, and our United States ally. Our partnerships represent a network of states that reinforce norms, principles and the rules based system to ensure a free, open and, of course, prosperous Indo-Pacific. Our government, the Albanese government, is strengthening our partnerships with not only the US, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and India but also PNG, Indonesia, the ASEAN group and the Quad. While all these relationships strengthen Australia's sovereignty, by maximising our influence, today I would like to take this opportunity to speak to our US ally, which has been central to our national security since the 1940s. The Labor Party is proud to have led the wartime government that laid the alliance's modern foundations during the Pacific War. Our 1951 alliance with the United States is one of the most important bipartisan achievements of Australian diplomacy and one that enjoys broad public approval. Now our government is committed to building on that record. A significant step change in our security cooperation with the United States was the establishment of the bilateral Force Posture Initiatives by the Gillard government in 2011. This began with the first rotation of US marines to Darwin, which has ramped up to the full rotation strength of 2,500 troops. I'm sure honourable members will remember when President Obama visited Darwin—we certainly do in my electorate of Solomon. Successive Australian governments have held the view that a strong and active US military presence in the Indo-Pacific is vital for deterring threats to the stability of the region. There is one development in the alliance that is hard to miss—namely, that it is becoming increasingly Australianised. What I mean by that is that the alliance is growing more visible on Australian soil, above all in the north of our country—in Darwin, in the Northern Territory. I've already mentioned the ongoing deployment of marines to Darwin, which was expanded at the 2022 AUSMIN meeting in Washington DC to include rotations of US Army, US Navy and US Air Force elements, including bombers and fighters, training out of Australian bases over the coming years—Tindal, near Katherine, being foremost among those bases. AUSMIN communiques are worth paying attention to because they function as the shared to-do list, if you like, of our alliance. The latest one committed the allies to supporting enhanced US Force Posture Initiatives by co-developing northern Australian bare bases and associated infrastructure, including runway improvements, parking aprons, fuel infrastructure, explosive ordnance, storage infrastructure and facilities, to support the workforce. An example of this is the stockpiling of jet fuel at a US owned storage facility in Darwin. These Force Posture Initiatives, which Japan has been invited to participate in, strengthen Australia's security, which in turn increases America's ability to deter blatant challenges to the rules based order of the kind we see in Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. As the 2022 communique states, Australia and America are concerned by excessive maritime claims in our region that are inconsistent with international law. As Australia's strategic real estate increases in significance to our great and powerful American allies, so too does our alliance continue to deepen. I see this trend continuing over the next decade for, essentially, geopolitical and geostrategic reasons. America's Force Posture Initiatives in the region respond to their need to disperse forces and to not over rely on its bases in other nations in our region—South Korea, Japan and Guam being examples that face growing limitations. But Darwin and our other northern and southern Australian bases offer good options, safer options, for our allied forces to consider. It would be wrong to reduce the alliance to this simple arithmetic, but it is undeniably helping to shape its future. Our trilateral AUKUS partnership with the US and the UK is the next chapter in our strategic co-operation. The strongest deterrent and strategic effect that Australia can hope to contribute to the alliance is, without doubt, the acquisition of a nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarine force. This was not its only promise, which also included long-range strike capabilities, but it was the main thrust of the 2021 AUKUS technology-sharing agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. Obviously, this was not a bilateral deal with our US ally only, but it must inevitably be understood in the context of the alliance. While the UK is an extremely close defence partner and not a treaty ally, these submarines are highly likely to operate in an alliance framework. Far from increasing our dependence, as some argue, AUKUS will strengthen Australia's sovereignty by delivering nuclear powered but conventionally armed submarines. To update the House: in January 2023, in my capacity as Chair of the Australia-United States Parliamentary Friendship Group, I led a state-department-sponsored visit to the United States by a bipartisan delegation of members and senators. It was clear to me that, in the United States of America, there's increasing fondness and a realisation of the importance of us within the alliance, and it is in good shape. 17:51 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin It's always interesting, listening to the member for Solomon, because he certainly knows what he's talking about when he talks about defence, because of the experience of his own service. Last Thursday, the Deputy Prime Minister made a ministerial statement entitled: Securing Australia's sovereignty. It was an important statement that outlined Australia's national security and sovereign capability. We heard today that the Defence Strategic Review has now been handed to government. I'm sure that that review will add to those very issues, and I'm sure we'll also be hearing more about it. But I want to quote three phrases from the Deputy Prime Minister's statement last week: firstly, 'The world around us is uncertain'; secondly, 'We now live in a less safe and less stable world'; and, thirdly, 'Our partnerships build our national capability and security.' I'll come back to some of that if time permits, but I think that those statements sum up very well the issues that we are confronted with and how we are to respond, if we're going to strengthen our national security and sovereign capability. National security and defence—when we think of those two concepts, the first image that I suspect comes to most of us is the image of the men and women in uniform serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force. They enlist in a dangerous service for our country and for our people. We honour their lives, their service and their sacrifices through numerous services throughout the year, with Anzac Day, I believe, now being Australia's most significant national day. We honour their service with a world-class national war memorial, probably the most visited national facility we have in Australia, and the regular Last Post services held there. Today, on 14 February, as part of National Servicemen's Day, we honour and remember those people who were referred to as 'Nashos', and, as a nation, we think about the 280,000 plus who were called up to serve between 1951 and 1972. More than 15,000 of them served in Vietnam, where, I understand, more than 200 lost their lives and around 1,200 were wounded. In my own region, the National Servicemen's Association of Australia, South Australian Para Districts branch, has, for years, provided a friendship and support group for the Nashos. Over the years, I've had a close association with the Para District branch, and I've not only learnt so much from them but also made very good friends from amongst those Nashos. This Sunday 19 February, I know there will be commemoration services remembering the Bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942, which then went on for some months, until November 1943. That bombing was perhaps the worst mainland attack we've experienced in this country. At least 236 people were killed—perhaps a lot more. It's difficult to get the precise statistics. Some 400 were wounded. Again, as a nation we commemorate those people who served, made sacrifices and lost their lives. Within my own community and my own region, particularly in Mawson Lakes, at Edinburgh and the Australian Submarine Corporation, we have hundreds of defence-related industries and have had them for some years. I note that other members who have contributed to this debate have referred to south Australia's contribution to our national defence and a number of defence-related industries that we have in South Australia. Amongst and within those industries, we have world-leading expertise and knowledge. I've been through several of them. I've listened to their presentations. I've looked at what they do and how they contribute to global affairs through their expertise, and it never ceases to amaze me how good and how important their work is. It is work and know-how that is complemented by dozens of manufacturing firms who equally have expert skills and capability, and they are also critical to Australia's sovereign capability because we cannot secure our country without a strong manufacturing sector. Regrettably, under the last coalition government, our manufacturing sector was crippled, and certainly that was the case in South Australia when the coalition government turned their backs on the Australian carmakers. They then offshored defence manufacturing. Doing that led to a loss of so much engineering, specialist trade, design and even some science skill that not only benefited the carmakers, the defence industries and so on but also benefited the broader community and other manufacturers throughout the country. Their research and development dollars that were also lost had a flow-on effect throughout the country. Maintaining a strong manufacturing sector is as critical as putting together all the other components of securing our country and making sure that we have the strategic capability to do so. We just had a debate in the main chamber about defence spending in this country. I say this with regard to the last coalition government. We hear a lot about their commitment to defence spending in this country. The reality is this: in the last nine years under which they were in government, our submarine program, which was a critical issue at the time they came to office, ended with the wastage of over $5 billion on the French contract, which went nowhere. At the change of government nine years later, we did not even have a contract in place to replace our submarines. Now, I stress that point for this reason: only the other day I made a 90-second statement about the importance of maintaining a workforce in the defence area—a workforce with absolutely specialised skills that we cannot afford to lose, because, as we were told by leaders from that workforce, many of those skills take many years to develop. It is not simply a case of doing an apprenticeship and then being able to work within those industries. After the apprenticeship, you need to go into the sector and do some real work to further develop your skills. If we don't have a continuous build in naval construction, then those skills will be lost. Already many of them are and it has been claimed that, in order to rebuild our naval construction workforce, we need to start finding skilled workers from elsewhere. But the reality is we need to ensure that there is continuous work, and we will only do that if we get on with building our naval requirements here in Australia and we have a continuous build in place. That message has been told to this parliament loud and clear for year on year, and regrettably it seems that it is sliding away. The Albanese government have committed to rebuilding Australia's manufacturing sector, and we've done that through the National Reconstruction Fund. That fund goes to the heart of rebuilding Australia's manufacturing capability, but, again, what are we seeing? We're seeing the opposition opposing the establishment of that fund, opposing the very purpose for which it has been designed and opposing the programs that it will sustain, which I would have thought the opposition would have seen were in the national interest. Regrettably, that is not the case. It seems to me that if we are going to rebuild our national manufacturing capability, which goes to the heart of securing our national security and our defence capability, then we need to get behind that fund. Debate adjourned. National Apology to the Stolen Generations: 15th Anniversary 101 18:01 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Monday marked 15 years since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued the apology to the stolen generations. It's 15 years since the nation offered a formal apology to our First Nations peoples, which acknowledged the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments had resulted in the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, and 'inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians'. It was a profound moment for this place, and for our nation. It was a moment where, as a nation, we could collectively acknowledge the wrongdoings of our predecessors and start to look together towards the future. It was a moment where, collectively, we told the truth. The apology 15 years ago was just a step on the path of reconciliation. As the Prime Minister has said, one of the greatest achievements of the apology was to: … keep alive the faith in decency and the hope for reconciliation that illuminate the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It paved the way for the next steps on our national journey of reconciliation—voice, treaty and truth. I want to say a few words about this anniversary in my role as Australia's Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs. This journey, this national journey of reconciliation, frames the way that the world sees Australia. And in framing the way that the rest of the world sees Australia, it underlies and underpins our influence internationally. Gough Whitlam recognised this as Prime Minister when, in 1972, he said in a significant foreign policy speech: More than any foreign aid program, more than any international obligation which we meet or forfeit, more than any part we may play in any treaty or agreement or alliance, Australia's treatment of her aboriginal people will be the thing upon which the rest of the world will judge— it. Whitlam was right. As Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs I can see how other nations with similar histories to ours, similar colonial pasts, are further along this path of national reconciliation with their first nations people, particularly when it comes to constitutional recognition. New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway—all democracies comparable to our own—all have structures in place to represent first nations people. In comparison, Australia is an outlier. We sit alone, without a formalised recognition of First Nations people. So it's no surprise, in this context, that the Albanese government's commitment to the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, our work to enshrine both constitutional recognition of our First Nations people and a First Nations voice to parliament, has not been lost on our international counterparts. The Albanese government understands that we need to incorporate the 60,000 years of Indigenous wisdom present in our nation, a gift that all of us have inherited, when we engage with our international partners. That's why we're progressing a First Nations foreign policy, centring Indigenous perspectives, voices and practices in the way that we engage with the rest of the world. As part of this, we're appointing an ambassador for First Nations peoples. I've seen how this isn't just a 'nice to do' thing; it's not a piece of PR. It's really deepened our engagement with other countries, and the First Nations peoples in other countries, and it's really shaping the way that those countries view Australia. We know that we need to harness the knowledge of the world's oldest continuing culture when we engage with the world. But some nations that we compete with, in our region, like to portray Australia as a colonial outpost, out of place in our own region. The process of constitutional recognition of First Nations Australia, the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament, puts paid to this lie. It shows the ability of our nation, of our political system, to change, to grow, to become a greater nation tomorrow than we were yesterday, to recognise and address the mistakes of our past. This process of national growth and evolution is a living demonstration of the strength of our nation as an evolving society and country and of the strength of our political system. It's a comparative advantage of our democracy to be able to recognise mistakes and to change course, to set off on a more positive, inclusive course. I have seen the enormous interest in Australia's process of Indigenous, First Nations, constitutional recognition, firsthand, in my travels as Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, particularly in regions like Africa and South America, that there's substantial interest in our process to appoint a voice to parliament. I think this is important because, among the many reasons for the Voice, constitutional recognition is fundamental to ensuring our international counterparts see us for who we are: a proud and diverse country that lays claim to over 300 different ethnicities, a country that embodies what Noel Pearson has described as the three stories that make us one as Australians—the tens of thousands of years of continuous Indigenous culture, the Westminster traditions that followed and the multicultural migration that has enriched our society in recent decades. You cannot tell the one story of Australia without telling these three stories. As Noel Pearson has said, together these three stories tell an epic. Our job as parliamentarians is to bring these three stories together into the one national story. The process of the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, particularly the referendum that we will hold this year to enshrine the Voice to Parliament in our Constitution, is an important moment to bring together these three stories of Australia. It is an important moment of nation-building. It's a great obligation on our part. I see it as part of the continuum from the apology that we saw 15 years ago, in this building, to the implementation of the Voice to Parliament. It's important that we trace the history of the Voice to Parliament. When the constitutional recognition committee, Indigenous Australians, got together to consider how they wanted to be recognised in our Constitution, how they wanted to be recognised in the birth certificate of our nation, they did not want a mere symbolic recognition. They didn't want to be simply included in the preamble of our Constitution; they didn't want a tick-a-box exercise. They wanted something substantive. The consensus ask they came up with was the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament. It's a great gift that we have been given—a gift that is an opportunity for nation building. In my community in Melbourne's west we are very proud to be the home of that wonderful, outstanding Indigenous leader William Cooper, who lived in Footscray. His magnificent moustachioed visage is visible from the Footscray train station to everyone commuting into the CBD. William Cooper wasn't just a trade unionist; he wasn't just a pastor. He was an advocate before his time. His ideas were before their time. In the 1930s he called for land rights, but he also called for direct representation of Indigenous voices representing Indigenous peoples in Parliament House—in the 1930s. He included that in a petition to the Prime Minister and later to the King. And we can clearly see the echoes in that petition—that desire for an Indigenous voice, a First Nations voice in our Constitution, in our parliament—in William Cooper's advocacy in the 1930s. This is part of Noel Pearson's story of the great epic of Australia. But it's incumbent on us to take it forward. I would suggest to colleagues that while the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament are a great opportunity to tell that epic story of Australia to the rest of the world—to grow our reputation, to show the ability of our country to grow and become ever greater—there's also a risk. If we fail to grasp this moment—if, as a nation and if, as parliamentarians, we fail to rise to meet this moment, to seize this opportunity for nation building—then we will be judged very harshly in the eyes of the international community who are watching our journey. I think it's incumbent on all of us to realise the scale of the opportunity before us and the gravity of it and to put aside the petty things that sometimes dominate the discussion in this building—to take the guidance of the Apology 15 years ago, that very significant moment, and to take that shared unity of purpose together towards the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament. 18:12 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in response to this motion on the 15th anniversary of the Apology to the Stolen Generations and the introduction of the latest Closing the Gap implementation plan. In doing so, I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri elders of the Canberra region, where parliament gathers. I also acknowledge the traditional custodians of my area in Warringah. Their names remain contested, but they are part of the longest surviving culture in the world. And in acknowledging them I acknowledge, too, their sorrow and the cost of sharing this land, and I commit myself to genuine healing—and I acknowledge that the land was never ceded. I commend the Albanese government's commitment to closing the gap for Indigenous Australians and support the 2023 implementation plan introduced on Monday, accompanied by the $420 million of new funding for practical action. The implementation plan represents an important step forward in enacting the promises made by this government. The government must emphasise working with Indigenous people on policies that will affect them. That is so important. I firmly believe that the Voice will be a vital contribution to future Closing the Gap implementation plans and other policies impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The success of Closing the Gap must be determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities themselves. The third review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap tells us that, as a government and as a parliament, we need to move away from giving updates and seeking endorsement and towards enabling and sharing decision-making. The progress of some targets in the plan continue to go backwards, including children's school readiness, child removal rates and incarceration rates. We need to work on coordination across related areas like alcohol and drugs and like health and mental health and to look at the links between areas such as housing, unemployment and health. We need to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander local groups, hear their feedback and work on engaging with grassroots communities. It is so clear that, while progress has been made in some areas following the 2008 Apology, Australian governments along the way have failed to truly close the gap, in so many drastic areas. While so many in our communities are faced this year with the question of the referendum and the Voice, it's important that people remember where we are. Child removals: in fact, in 2020 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children represented around 37 per cent of children in Australia living away from their families. That is increasing at a staggering rate. So whilst we celebrate the Apology to the Stolen Generations that shocked so many by making them understand the rate of the practice of removing children from their families, to know that in 2020 we still have a rate that shows an over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children being removed says that this is not working. To compare, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children represent about six per cent of the total population of children in Australia. They are six per cent of the population but make up 37 per cent of the children living away from families. The number of Indigenous children being removed from their homes has increased over the past decade. Of these children, those who are adopted are usually placed with non-Indigenous families, removing them from culture and community. We must acknowledge the fact that the number of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care is now greater than the number of those removed during the decades of the Stolen Generations. That is just a staggering fact. Obviously, it's indicative that there is a serious flaw in our system; what we're doing isn't working. Raising the age of criminal responsibility: let's illustrate this differently. Sixty-five per cent of children aged between 10 and 13 held in juvenile justice systems are Indigenous. Our government currently invests far more in out-of-home care support, taking children to live away from their families, than they do in actually solving the issues that lead to child removal. It's also the product of the age of criminal responsibility. In the majority of states and territories in the country, it's still only 10 years of age. There has been debate and some progress towards raising it to 12. But the recommendation is 14, and I urge the government to increase the age of responsibility to at least 14 years of age to bring us more in line with international standards and to reduce the contact of our youth with the criminal justice system. We know that this is the beginning of a spiral—of a journey that doesn't end well—and by having such a low age of criminal responsibility, it discriminates, and Indigenous youth are over-represented. The story of Dujuan from the documentary In My Blood it Runs is truly heart-wrenching. His plea to the United Nations in 2019 highlighted that raising the age would make a huge difference. The rate of recidivism from those locked up at such an early age is huge. This was made plain in the report released late last year by the Attorney-General at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General: Studies have shown that the younger the child is when first having contact with the justice system, the more likely they are to go on to reoffend. The key recommendation of that report was to raise the age to 14. The states have committed to a plan to raise the age to 12, which many experts claim will be virtually meaningless. It's pretty simple: children belong in classrooms and playgrounds, not in handcuffs, court rooms and prison cells. I'm not excusing where there are instances of civil unrest and difficulty, but we know the current approach is not working. Underlying factors: ultimately, these statistics are a product of the government's—successive governments'—historical failures to intervene early enough to prevent intergenerational trauma. Without concrete action being taken to close the gap, the government will likely look back on our time, marked by so much child removal, and will be apologising again. Child removals are just one example of the issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people today. Many Australians did not know the extent of the removals occurring during the Stolen Generations, and were shocked in 2008 when the apology was done by former prime minister Kevin Rudd. But we must acknowledge the statistics we have access to surrounding child removals and other issues today, and the fact that they are still so bad, or we risk these issues continuing and getting worse. Why the Voice matters in this context is just so clear. The Voice to Parliament would represent a step in the right direction. It is the next step towards our reconciliation. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap's priority reform No. 4 aims for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to: …have access to, and the capability to use, locally relevant data and information to set and monitor the implementation of efforts to close the gap, their priorities and drive their own development. This must embody how we pursue the implementation plan and the Voice to Parliament. Indigenous representation and advice in parliament will prove instrumental in achieving the goals set out in the 2023 implementation plan, and it will aid the government's continued mission to close the gap. As a country, we have become far better at acknowledging our Indigenous heritage and at celebrating it. We are such a lucky country, in that we have the oldest living continuous culture in the world—some 65,000 years. It boggles the mind to even stop to think about it. Yet we are still so far from truly recognising it, acknowledging it and celebrating it. We need to get much, much better at the crucial step of inclusion and engagement, of providing genuine opportunity and optimism for our Indigenous people. For so many communities, their history is ultimately Australia's history. By improving their lives and outcomes, we improve all our lives and outcomes. That's why it is with excitement but trepidation that we engage this year in this process of conversation and listening when it comes to the referendum and finally achieving constitutional recognition. I remind so many that, when the Constitution was drafted, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not included and not consulted. They were not in any way referred to. That is an omission that needs to be fixed. It is a very basic step. So it is with trepidation that I think that, this year, we're going to have a conversation as Australians—a mature conversation about what kind of nation we want to be. We can't undo the wrongs of the past and we can't change them, but we can certainly decide what kind of Australia we want to be in the future. I have a deep, deep faith that we can be a much better Australia. 18:21 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm In rising to speak on the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, I'd like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples of the Canberra region, as well as the Indigenous people, the traditional owners, from my electorate of Chisholm, the Wurundjeri and Bunurong people. What a significant week in the life of our parliament and our nation this has been, with the cross-parliamentary friends of the Uluru statement and, of course, the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. The occasion of the apology 15 years ago, on 13 February 2008, was and remains a momentous day in our country's history and in the process of healing, which is necessary to walk towards real reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While state and territory governments had already made their own apologies for the violence and harm rendered on the Stolen Generations before 2008, it took Kevin Rudd's election in 2007 to see a national apology. This apology came after the harrowing Bringing them home report and related inquiry, which heard from over 500 people who had been impacted by forced child removal and assimilation, which had been government policy. It was brave and it was generous for those who participated to share their often very painful stories with the inquiry. It was only right that their words, their stories and, unfortunately, their trauma could lead to taking the next step towards healing. It's an unfortunate truth that children's homes in my own electorate, long gone now, were sites of horror, and I'm very sorry that that happened in our community. I remember the debate, when I was at school, around whether the Stolen Generations should be apologised to by the government and the extent to which it was even considered bad. Now, when I visit schools—and it's one of my favourite parts of the job—it's clear that the apology is now embraced by young people as a turning point in our nation. And the history of First Nations people is not sanitised; the brutal truths are known, as well as the 60,000 years of continuous culture of First Nations people in this country. That is taught and that is celebrated. In a similar vein to the way the apology opened up a pathway for reconciliation, for understanding and for healing, our nation now has the opportunity, with the voice referendum, to continue down that pathway and ensure constitutional recognition for our first people and to really listen to first Nations People in this country. The work of this nation will not end once the referendum to enshrine a voice is voted on—even with a 'yes' vote. This is just another step on the journey towards reconciliation, towards better outcomes for Australia and Torres Strait Islander people, towards Closing the Gap. The voice is the first part of implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which we are committed to as a Labor government—voice, treaty, truth. Our nation does have a way to go to ensure that, on critical measures, including infant mortality and life expectancy, there are improvements for First Nations people. The statistics on health and educational outcomes are not good enough for First Nations people, and there needs to be more done in relation to the justice system to ensure there is not a disproportionate number of First Nations people incarcerated. We must do better. The voice is a step towards a better nation. The national apology, too, was a leap forward in our healing journey. For all those impacted by the stolen generations, by government policies that sought to separate children from families and from culture, I am sorry. It is right that, 15 years later, we are still sorry as a nation. I hope that people across this country make the decision to be on what I believe is the right side of history and vote for constitutional recognition and an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. I hope we as a nation can take the next step towards reconciliation, towards better outcomes and justice for First Nations people in our country and for a stronger Australia for all of us. 18:27 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to speak in response to the 15th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations and the introduction of the latest Closing the Gap implementation plan. I'm not going to reiterate the statistics about Aboriginal disadvantage, which we all know. Instead I want to share what I've learnt about why symbols like the apology and the voice are important and, indeed, practical. I started working as Aboriginal affairs manager at Wesfarmers at about the time of the national apology to the stolen generation and the commitment to Closing the Gap. At the time, I don't think I realised how significant it was. I now realise that more than half of the adult Aboriginal population in Western Australia is either stolen generation or descended from the stolen generation. This was not a historical issue; it was a very real and current open wound. I came to the issue with a fairly corporate way of thinking. I saw the apology as a symbol—a good symbol but just a symbol. I now understand why it was much more than that and why symbols are vital. The commitment to partnership and accountability around Closing the Gap fit better with my corporate framework of measuring your key performance indicators and managing to them. Since then, I've seen the bureaucratic knots we tie ourselves in and the layers of Closing the Gap documents and structures, but committing to quantitative targets meant that we had to accept our failures as well as our modest successes. As the Aboriginal affairs manager at Wesfarmers Ltd, which was the largest private sector employer in the country, I was on a steep learning curve about Aboriginal history and culture, guided by some wonderfully wise Noongar leaders. Like so many others on that journey, the more I learned about Aboriginal history and culture, the more I realised I didn't know and the more I questioned my own culture. I had a number of moments on my cultural awareness journey that were characterised by the feeling of having the rug pulled out from under me—moments when I realised that all that I confidently believed to be true was a bit shaky, that made me question so many of my own assumptions. I'm talking about this because I think it's deeply relevant to how we now think of milestones like the apology and the upcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. My experiences helped me understand why this was important to First Nations people and that maybe they were on to something. Here's what I learned: the Noongar people in the south-west of WA recognise six seasons during the year. They see the weather, plants and animals change every year through this cycle: from Makuru, the season of fertility; to Djilba, the season of conception; Kambarang, birth; Birak, childhood; Bunuru, adolescence; Djeran, maturity; and then back to Makuru and fertility again. After I'd been working with Aboriginal people for a while, I heard from someone— The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next setting. The member for Curtin will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 106 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Ryan Electorate: Public Transport 106 18:30 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan Like other Ryan residents, I know that traffic and travel can be an enormous daily challenge. Congestion, travel times and poor connectivity and frequency of public transport all affect the people of Ryan every day. Many have raised these issues with me. Federal money goes into transport via Black Spot safety funding and support for specific infrastructure projects. I believe the federal government should have a greater role in funding transport solutions so people can spend less time in traffic and more time with their families, and so our environments can be cleaner and our places more accessible for all. My team and I recently conducted a comprehensive transport survey in Ryan, and the enthusiastic uptake and the results were very telling. We asked about congestion, street safety, public transport, footpaths and cycleways. The comprehensive and thoughtful responses have inspired me to propose solutions around how all levels of government could collaborate on broad, positive change to answer transport issues in Ryan and beyond. The motivations for this survey and, indeed, for urgent action are manifold. Petrol prices, like the cost of everything, are going through the roof, and transport costs are a growing strain. Every year, Australian households spend over $50 billion on petrol, with the average Brisbane household spending $458.38 weekly, in total, on transport. Increasing road congestion causes many hours to be lost every day to sitting in traffic. Main roads in Ryan are amongst the most congested in Brisbane. Transport is the third-largest and, in fact, the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, with emissions from cars and light commercial vehicles contributing 11.6 per cent of annual emissions. In Ryan, which is quite representative of many Australian conditions—from dense inner urban areas to outer suburban areas and rural and bushland zones, and with a broad socioeconomic spread—our survey found over 55 per cent of people reported that driving was their main mode of transport to get to work or to the school drop-off or pick-up. So it's no wonder that a whopping 93 per cent of people reported road congestion. Unfortunately, only 32 per cent of people take public transport, and 13 per cent use active transport methods like walking or cycling. But, unfortunately, as we uncovered in our survey, there are many barriers to the uptake of public transport. Inaccessibility, lack of connectivity, inadequate frequency of services and, not least, cost are all impediments to public transport use. In many areas of Ryan and, indeed, Australia, it's simply not safe to cycle or walk. It's clear to me that a robust public transport network would take cars off the road and reduce congestion and carbon emissions, and should be less expensive than travel by private car—it's a win-win. This is what we used to call in my previous professional life a 'triple bottom line solution'. There was agreement across Ryan that we need to move on this. So how do we get there? What are the current barriers to people using public transport? They're myriad. Our survey respondents reported fundamental problems with our public transport network, with nearly half of respondents rating public transport as poor or very poor. People said: the system isn't connected enough, there aren't enough stops near where people live, the services don't go to where people actually want to go, the system is inaccessible in places—for example, we're still waiting for the Queensland government to move on train station upgrades in Taringa—and the services aren't frequent enough. An overwhelming 70 per cent of people said that fares are too expensive. How can we reduce congestion and carbon emissions without building expensive infrastructure? Making public transport free would be a great way to increase uptake. Crucially, in a cost-of-living crisis, families would save money on petrol, parking and fares. The federal government could implement funding agreements with each of the states to release federal funds on the condition that states deliver their public transport systems for free. Public transport is already heavily subsidised by state governments. For example: in Brisbane, fares have covered less than 20 per cent of operating expenses since 2016, and that includes covering the cost of the privatised ticketing systems that enforce the fares. So it's not a radical idea, I believe, to fill in the funding gap that's currently covered by fares and make transport free for everyone to use. The people of Ryan agree: 72 per cent of survey respondents supported the idea that the federal government should trial a period of free public transport across the country. Alongside this, making active transport safer and more attractive for people can make a huge difference. Sixty-four per cent of people say that cycling is fairly or very unsafe, and so it's no wonder that people aren't cycling more. Only about one in 20 people think that their local area is very safe for cyclists. Our survey showed that 83 per cent of people support more government investment in safe cycling infrastructure, so over the next few months I'll be advocating for broad systemic changes, as well as liaising with other levels of government for action on some of the specific issues that were brought up in the survey. The recommendations I've made, based on the results, are as follows: council and state governments should collaborate with locals on integrated transport plans around schools, maximising safety and public active transport usage; we should investigate the possibility of undertaking a federally funded trial of free public transport; and we need to connect and expand safe cycleways on the west side. Some, but not all, key locations have state or local government projects already underway or in consultation, and on 1 April I will join the Greens state member for Maiwar, Michael Berkman, MP, for a community bike ride to advocate for the completion of the Indooroopilly bikeway. In addition, we need more local public services and facilities, including a new school in the Moggill-Bellbowrie area to relieve congestion from school traffic on Moggill Road. The recent bus network review by Brisbane City Council has neglected the west side. We need an expansion of funding to improve routes, including updating or extending current routes and turning key routes into high-frequency services. We need a full accessibility review for the west side, with the findings to inform train station upgrades, bus stops and footpaths. Addressing these fundamental issues will bring enormous benefits to the community and to the environment. It's something that all levels of government should be collaborating on. I look forward to what we can achieve together. Albanese Government: Legislation 107 18:38 Mr BRIAN 129164 Lyons MITCHELL () (): Before the House right now are two very big pieces of legislation: the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. These two bills represent two key planks of the Albanese Labor government's election platform: to address the nation's housing affordability and homelessness crisis, and to strengthen the country's sovereign manufacturing capabilities. Together, the bills will put $25 billion into reserve funds, the proceeds of which will be used to fund various initiatives. You wouldn't think that this would be controversial. Both measures were key planks of our election platform and both measures address key pressure points in our economy. But the Liberals are opposing them. The Liberals are opposing an initiative that will, over five years, build 20,000 affordable and social homes—4,000 of which will be reserved for women and children fleeing domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. The Liberals are opposing the provision of 10,000 homes for frontline workers such as police, nurses and cleaners who are being priced out of being able to live near where they work. The Liberals are opposing the National Reconstruction Fund, a manufacturing fund that will back thousands of jobs in our regions. The Liberals often talk about sovereign borders but they seem to have no idea about the importance of sovereign capability. We know from the pandemic the importance of making more things in Australia so we are less dependent on global supply chains, which can all too easily be broken. This Labor government wants to value-add our raw materials. We don't want to dig up our critical minerals and simply ship them offshore for processing; we want to turn them into finished products, here, at home. We want to back our brightest minds so that they don't feel they need to go overseas. If we mine it here, we should make it here. If we invent it here, we should make it here. Yet the Liberals are simply not onboard. They are running the same arguments against the NRF that they used to run when they opposed Labor's creation of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation 10 years ago. Never mind that the CEFC has invested $11 billion and leveraged $2.61 of private sector investment against every dollar of government funding. It's been a success, by any measure. But that does not matter to the Liberals who, under opposition leader Peter Dutton, are channelling the 'oppose everything' blueprint of Tony Abbott. In doing so, they clearly have decided to put their own narrow ideological and political interests ahead of the national interest. Unfortunately, it's not just the coalition—or the 'noalition' as they've been referred to in the main House. The Greens too, I'm sad to say, are playing cute with the housing legislation. If they join with the coalition in the Senate, it makes it much more difficult for the government to get this package through the Senate. My message to the Greens is this: think of the First Nations people, the women, the domestic violence victims-survivors, who will continue to suffer if this legislation is not passed by this parliament. The parliamentary process is not a game nor an opportunity to horsetrade whenever you see fit. The stakes in this place are Australian lives. Frankly, I'm tired of being lectured to by Greens MPs who come into the parliament to tell us to do more about affordable housing, while Greens on councils around the country oppose projects that would provide more affordable housing. They come into this place demanding action but do nothing to demand, from their own colleagues, that Greens dominated councils get behind affordable housing projects. Both housing and national reconstruction were key planks of Labor's election platform last year. We could not have been clearer with our intentions. Yet the Liberals—I hope the Greens come onboard—have said they're opposed to this and remain opposed. They stood right here, in this parliament, so many years ago and baited the Australian car industry into leaving this country. You know what? That's exactly what the car industry did. They left, taking with them components capabilities, manufacturing abilities, the skills, the know-how. We've lost it all. We've lost that sovereign capability to manufacture motor vehicles. The NRF's investment decisions will be independent. It's important that we say this because for too long, while those opposite were in government, decisions were made in the interests of the coalition and their mates, not in the wider interests of a national interest. The focus on this government is on renewing, revitalising, rebuilding, Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians—for small-business owners, for the regions, like mine, for jobs. The Liberals' opposition is about playing narrow political games, because they think they can score a win on the media cycle. They need to look at the wider national interest. The pandemic taught us we need to improve our supply chains, we need to build more things here. The opposition have a choice, a choice of revitalising manufacturing or turning their backs on Australian manufacturing once again. The NRF will be independent. It will have an independent board that makes independent decisions about investments in Australia's best interests—not in political sectional interests, in Australia's best interests. So the irony of the coalition talking about inappropriate ministerial discretion is just so rich. There won't be a colour coded spreadsheet in sight, and there certainly won't be a secret industry minister making decisions for their mates. The NRF is one of our key planks, as is the Housing Australia Future Fund. Other key planks of this government in the eight months since the election include fixing aged care, strengthening Medicare, extending paid parental leave, making medicines cheaper, providing fee-free TAFE, funding extra regional uni places, improving the NBN, creating the National Anti-Corruption Commission, launching the robodebt royal commission, a renewable energy future and holding a referendum to include First Nations people in the Constitution and provide a voice to the parliament. We are getting on with the job that we were elected to do We are just eight months in, and repairing the damage of nine years of Liberal neglect is a big job. We are not wasting a day. Climate Change: Safeguard Mechanism 108 18:45 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Labour's plan to introduce the safeguard mechanism is just another attack on the high-vis workers of Australia and the heavy industries that keep the lights on in our country. The Safeguard mechanism is another carbon tax with a facelift. Not unlike the carbon tax of the Gillard era, the safeguard mechanism serves to place a dollar figure on carbon emissions. Labor has determined that any heavy industry facility that emits more than 100,000 tonnes of scope 1 greenhouse emissions must purchase credits for every tonne of carbon output over their baseline. When Julia Gillard introduced her carbon tax, the price she put on a tonne of carbon was $23. The Albanese government has decided each tonne will cost a business $75 and by 2030 it will increase to $100 a tonne. Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions are assigned to any industry that emits carbon through a manufacturing process such as manufacturing cement or steel, emissions from a mining truck transporting natural resources or the production of electricity. The climate change minister made a passing visit to Gladstone in January to announce the 215 heavy industry business that fall under the scope 1 emissions and will be required to purchase credits. It will also be mandatory for these facilities to cut their emissions by 5 per cent every year until 2030, in order for Labor to hit its climate targets. Of the 215 businesses that will be hit, 63 are located in Queensland and all but two of these businesses are situated in the regions. Central Queensland will become the epicentre of Labor's carbon tax, with almost 75 per cent of the facilities located in just two federal electorates. There are 28 operating in my electorate of Capricornia and 18 in the electorate of Flynn. Some of the facilities affected in my electorate include a rail freight facility, a magnesia processing plant and a number of mines across the electorate, all of which contribute heavily to the economy. In Capricornia alone, the total economic contribution of the resource sector in the 2021-22 financial year was worth over $315 million dollars in gross product, and 1,918 locals were employed. In the same period, 166 local businesses and charities situated in Capricornia shared $50 million in direct spending. Coal, metal and gas mining has pumped $9.4 billion back into the Queensland economy, and one in every six jobs in the state is within this sector. There are 14,303 businesses and 1,415 charities that have all shared in $27 billion of direct spending. Some might think they don't benefit from the hard work of miners, yet in the 2021-22 financial year $9 billion in royalties went into funding education, roads and health. Queensland supplies the world with elements, minerals and metals, supporting the economic development of Australia and many other nations. There have been many federally funded projects that, without the wealth of regional Australian mines, would never have happened, such as the Rockhampton Airport redevelopment, with $45 million; flood-proofing the Bruce Highway into Rockhampton, with $136 million; Rookwood Weir, with $183.6 million; and safety upgrades to the Eton Range, with $166 million, were all made possible because of the resource industry. While the resource sector has been a mainstay of the Australian economy for the past 100 years, the strength of the industry was particularly noticeable during COVID. Supporting the Australian economy, it helped cushion the blow of damaging economic impacts that may have been experienced in the past few years. The growth within the resources industry has been nothing short of astonishing. In 20 years, the gross value added to the Australian economy grew from $35 billion in 2000-01 to $222 billion dollars by 2020-21. Despite what the Treasurer would like Australians to believe, Labor inherited a strong budget, largely supported by the minerals and energy sector. In my electorate of Capricornia and across Australia, families and businesses are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. The announcement by the Labor government to impose a carbon tax has more far-reaching effect than just on the companies operating these facilities. It will affect how much families pay to switch a light on and put fuel in their car and will also affect their grocery bills. We as a country continue to rely on coal as a source of affordable and reliable electricity. Australia is on the verge of a key resources mining boom to meet the high demand for critical minerals that are required for creating low-emission technologies, battery production and electric vehicles. An electric car requires six times the amount of minerals as a regular vehicle. A wind turbine requires several times more minerals than are required for gas- or coal-fired power stations. More than 220 tonnes of coal is needed to build a wind turbine. It is a rather inconvenient truth for climate activists that in order to decarbonise our nation we need more mining. With the cost of living already bringing people to their knees, now is not the time to impose new legislation to make it harder for families or risk heavy job losses across an industry that has supported Australia to become what it is today. During the previous government we invested almost $2.5 billion to support the resource industries that support us. Thousands of new jobs were created to help families and the towns in which they live. But the Labor government want to impose further legislation to stifle the industry and prevent further growth and investment, while in turn driving up household bills even further to meet their climate objectives. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, the coalition does support emissions reduction. What we are not backing is Labor's move to legislate taxes to reach targets. We must learn from what is occurring across the world. There have been more than 2,000 climate change legal cases related to carbon emission reduction legislation that has shelved major projects in countries like the United Kingdom. Major infrastructure projects have ground to a halt while activists have claimed that the work is not conducive to supporting emissions reduction. Our country and its people cannot afford the economic ramifications of stopping major infrastructure development. As seen in my home state, the state Labor government increased coal royalties, which has had major negative impacts across Central Queensland. Following the Palaszczuk government's decision to create higher coal royalties, BHP suspended its plans to build a new coalmine, causing the loss of $1 billion of investment into the region; 750 construction jobs and 1,200 mining jobs were lost. BMA, which has delivered $17 billion back into the Queensland economy, has stated that it will not make further investments into Central Queensland. These decisions have dire consequences for the small rural towns who rely on these mines to boost their economies. Nationally, the effects of the safeguard mechanism are already beginning to occur, with Ampol revealing that they will suspend investment decisions worth hundreds of millions of dollars because of Labor's energy policy. While the coalition was in government we supported a carbon trading scheme that allowed businesses to voluntarily reduce their emissions while being rewarded. Labor's changes to the safeguard mechanism will force businesses to buy credits. This is a tax. This safeguard mechanism—carbon tax 2.0—is going to drive up living costs at a time when Australian workers and families can least afford it. Businesses will be forced to pass the increased costs of production onto consumers through higher electricity prices, higher food bills and higher fuel costs, during a time when the government must be looking at putting downward pressure on inflation, interest rates, costs of living and business. The Labor government is determined to make decisions that will negatively impact the industry and everything that relies on the benefits that resources bring. Our economy is already under the strain of a Labor government, and we are not 12 months into their leadership. Labor do not have tangible solutions to see our country through the cost-of-living crisis. Their only plan is more taxes—taxing the companies that drive the economy, bring investment to the regions and deliver jobs that support families and communities. It is clear that energy-intensive companies and agribusiness, transport and mining will be hit. That is why we got rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax. Day after day the Prime Minister talks about everything but the cost of living—the No. 1 issue that Australians are facing. This government has broken multiple promises to ease living pressures and instead has taken actions that have directly placed pressure on interest rates and electricity prices. Families and businesses across Australia are still waiting on the promise delivered 97 times during the election that their electricity bills would be reduced under a Labor government. By the government's own admission, power prices are set to rise by more than 63 per cent and gas by 40 per cent over the following two years. Families and businesses can't afford this. New solutions, not taxes, must occur. The global demand for mineral and energy commodities will continue to accelerate as new technologies call for larger supplies of our resources. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be on the line if the Labor government continues with its plan to punish the resource sector with taxes. The ones to suffer will be families and communities that greatly benefit from the industry. Boothby Electorate: Australia Day Awards 110 18:55 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I rise today to congratulate some of the brilliant citizens from my electorate of Boothby who were rightly honoured in this year's Australia Day honours. First amongst them is the Australian of the Year, Taryn Brumfitt. Taryn is an inspirational woman whose courage and authenticity has inspired millions around the globe to love their bodies. She also happens to live around the corner from me. Hi, Taryn! I'm sure Taryn will be an excellent Australian of the Year, and the Boothby community is so proud to count Taryn as one our own. I would like to take this time to congratulate some of our local citizens and events, which also were given awards across Boothby this January. The City of Mitcham Citizen of the Year is Peter Cranwell. Peter and his wife, Nancy, have made an extraordinary commitment to their local and wider community since returning to Blackwood from Leigh Creek, in South Australia's outback, in the 1990s. As the project manager of the Climate Action Resources Expo, which was held in Blackwood in November, Peter brought together a host of speakers, along with workshops and displays, to raise awareness and share ideas on sustainable living. Peter and Nancy have also been long-time supporters of migrant families and international students, remote First Nations communities and residents of Minda House supported accommodation at Craigburn Farm. City of Holdfast Bay Citizen of the Year is Cheryle Pinkess. As a member of the Brighton Church of Christ, Cheryle has been the driving force behind Grocer with a Heart—a local shop where people can get healthy food at little or no cost. Using connections with supermarkets, farmers and bakeries, Grocer with a Heart distributes fruit, vegetables and grocery items to people experiencing food insecurity. Many of their customers are ineligible for other charitable programs and are at risk of falling through the cracks. Cheryle has invited me down to visit Grocer with a Heart, and I look forward to seeing this fantastic operation. The award for Active Citizenship went to the Rotary Club of Holdfast Bay. Since 2019, the club has run twice-yearly food drives in local shopping centres. In that time, it's estimated that more than $90,000 worth of food and household items have been distributed to people in need. Rotary Club representative Kim Harvey accepted the award. I joined them for their Christmas drive at Brighton Foodland last year, and the generosity of locals and the commitment of the club members was overwhelming. It was also quite a lot of fun. Holdfast Bay Young Citizen of the Year is Hayley Hosking. Hayley is a role model for young and female surf lifesavers. She joined the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club when she was a child, and the now 19-year-old has progressed to be vice captain of patrols, and has volunteered more than 400 hours on patrol in the 2021-22 summer season. In 2022, she was named the Youth Life Saver of the Year at the Surf Life Saving Australia National Awards of Excellence. Many congratulations to Hayley. Our Holdfast Bay Local Hero is Bronwyn Watt. Bronwyn put together the Sister Love 27 Hour Spin FightMND challenge fundraiser. The challenge was held at the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club to raise funds to support research into a cure for motor neurone disease after Bronwyn's sister was diagnosed with it in 2021. More than 500 riders participated, and Bronwyn raised an amazing $80,000 for the cause. Having worked in the fundraising field, I can tell you that is amazing for one event. The Holdfast Bay Community Event of the Year Award went to the Youth Photographic Exhibition. It was presented to Phil and Kathy Holdgate from the Somerton Park Rotary Club, which instigated the exhibition held at the Bay Discovery Centre last year. Local schools and young people were encouraged to get involved and use photography as a way to explore their creativity around the themes of nature and the environment. The two-week exhibition showcased more than 100 photos taken by 67 primary school students and attracted more than 1,700 visitors to the Bay Discovery Centre. Thirdly, I'll talk about the City of Marion. The City of Marion Citizen of the Year is Pat Munden. Pat is known affectionately as the matriarch of the Cooinda Neighbourhood Centre, having volunteered at the centre for 40 years. Pat also received a commendation in the South Australia 2023 awards for active citizenship. The commendation was presented at an Australia Day Council South Australia ceremony hosted by the Governor of South Australia, Her Excellency the Hon. Frances Adamson AC. The City of Marion Young Citizen of the Year is Zane LeBlond. Zane is an active member of City of Marion's Youth Collective Committee, volunteering his time and social media skills to many events for local young people. The 18-year-old is also involved in the Channel 44 community television documentary on the Skate Daze 2 event and the stage 2 opening of the Capella Drive Reserve at Hallett Cove. He facilitated workshops for the Youth Collective Committee at their Voice It! report. I have had the pleasure of meeting Zane, and I have to say, he is indeed very impressive. The City of Marion Sports Person of the Year award went to Jamie Morgan. Jamie is the director of the juniors and seniors at Plympton Football Club, and he played an instrumental role in the mighty Bulldogs taking out the SANFL Junior Club of the Year for 2022, as well as helping the club win six premiership flags. The club thanks him for his very long hours and dedication to the cause. The City of Marion Community Event of the Year is the Oaklands Estate Reserve parkrun. This was established in early 2022 by Denise Brendt, Kevin Thomson and a team of volunteers, and it has become extremely popular with local residents. The event is part of the parkrun movement, where volunteers run free five kilometre events for walkers and runners of all ages and all levels of fitness. Some come with dogs, some with prams and some as a family, every Saturday morning. The Oaklands Estate Reserve parkrun provides a positive outlook on fitness, and they also have a vision impaired guide for those who need. The great thing about parkrun is that you never come last. There's a tail walker whose job is to come last. Oaklands Estate parkrun is also my home parkrun on those rare occasions I can make it at 8 am on a Saturday morning! We also had a number of Boothby members who were nominated for Australia Day awards, including Professor Emeritus Linda Barwick for significant service to the preservation and digitisation of cultural heritage records, Barry Presgrave OAM for significant service to veterans and emergency service organisation, the late Mr Neville Cordes for service to the community of Kangaroo Island, Keith Fowler for service to veterans and their families, Professor Emerita Ngaire Naffine for service to law and to the legal profession and Dr Joy O'Hazy for service to the community and to medicine. Dr O'Hazy is one of the founding member of Zonta's birthing kits program that saves the lives of mothers and babies in Third World countries around the world. I've been pleased to join her and Zonta for a birth kit packing day. Mr Rodney Smith was awarded for services to music education and Mr John Woodside for service to the construction industry. I'd like to offer my congratulations to all of these amazing people, as well as those who were nominated. You've all achieved amazing things, and it's people and organisations like you that make our community what it is. Australian Labor Party 111 19:03 Mr JOYCE e5d New England It's a great pleasure that I rise for this grievance debate. I want to start with a quote from the Labor candidate for my seat—and that's great; that's what I want. I want a Labor candidate against me at election, because we want to give the people a free run. She said, 'Labor has already made two significant local announcements in this campaign, which go ahead if an Albanese government is elected, regardless of the result in New England.' That sounds great. 'Labor has committed to the establishment of an urgent care clinic to relieve the pressure on Tamworth Hospital and $580,000 to establish more crisis accommodation for 52 families escaping domestic violence, including four staff to support these families through their crisis.' And there it is on the Labor Party paraphernalia. Now we asked a question—or Senator McKenzie asked the question—because we're curious about this. We wondered what had happened to it. Senator Bridget McKenzie, a Victorian senator, asked, 'Can the department advise whether either the Investing in Our Communities Program or the Priority Community Infrastructure Program are delivering the government's election commitment to establish more crisis accommodation for 52 families escaping domestic violence in the New England electorate, costing $580,000?' As per the Labor flyer; as per the Labor announcement. 'Regardless of who won the election.' The answer has come back. 'The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has no record of any commitments to crisis accommodation projects being delivered by our department in the local government area within the New England region.' This is the Labor Party: completely and utterly unbelievable; completely untrustworthy; does not stick to its word. I don't know whether anyone's watching this—I don't know if you are because you can't get to sleep or whatever—but this commitment should be honoured. You can't make promises and just not honour them. I want to go through a couple of others which are very important for my electorate. There's Dungowan dam. Mr Albanese used to always taunt us when the member for Riverina and I were in government that we hadn't built dams. We actually put a lot of money on the table for dams: Wyangala Dam, Dungowan dam, Hells Gate— Mr McCormack 219646 Emu Swamp. Mr JOYCE e5d Emu Swamp, up there at— Mr McCormack 219646 Scottsdale. Mr JOYCE e5d The Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme. We actually did a fair bit of that. There was the Bowen pipeline, Urannah dam. And as soon as Labor and the Greens got in of course all the dams went. But Dungowan dam was a big one because the city of Tamworth is just growing; it's growing like Topsy. People are pouring in from Sydney. I was talking to one real estate agent: one in every four houses in Tamworth is now sold to someone moving out of Sydney. These people who are coming in from Sydney want a job. They can only get a job if there's water security for the city. We had to fight to get the extension to Chaffey Dam. The Greens fought against it. The Booroolong frog raised its head. We couldn't do it. Apparently, the problem with Dungowan dam was a skink. There was a lizard. I don't know, I thought the lizards might just walk up the hill a bit. But if we don't get an extension of water security for the city of Tamworth, then the billions of dollars—and I mean that, the billions of dollars—of investment and the thousands and thousands of jobs—Tamworth is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, processors of animal protein in Australia. If Tamworth's not working, you're not eating. Eighty per cent of the meat you eat, if you get it from Woolworths, gets killed in Tamworth. They need water security. These are blue-collar workers. They're boners. They're the people who work in that blue-collar Olympics called animal meat processing, whether it's sheep, whether it's cattle, whether it's eggs, whether it's poultry. That's why we need the dam, but the dam's been delayed. What 'delayed' means here is kicked into the long grass. That's a terrible shame. It shows that the Labor Party and the Greens—forget about the Greens. I don't know why you carry them. I don't know why they run you, but it shows you don't have the courage to do something which would actually get you votes. If you want to get this candidate, whatever her name is—Laura Hughes? She seems like a really nice lady—a nurse; a good lady—but she hasn't got a hope in a place like New England unless the Labor Party shows some gumption to stand up against the Greens and say: 'We're going to build the dam. We're going to do it.' Otherwise, Laura Hughes is just going through the motions. There's not a chance for her. There are other things that were delayed. We want to make sure that Armidale becomes the epicentre of agvet chemicals not only in Australia, but in South-East Asia. We need a regulatory science. A lot of other countries like Thailand, like Indonesia, say: 'Why do we all have different regulatory programs? Why wouldn't we just have one and we can base it?' Armidale was the place they were all turning up to. They'd say, 'We'll go through the process with the university there.' We put some money aside to get this thing started. This was going to give us—to be quite frank, people would probably never vote for me. When I moved APVMA up to Armidale—I'll give you one thing: it was a great move and I'm pretty sure most of those people don't vote for me. But it was a great move. This would also be a great move, and it would actually support some of those really high-line jobs for people who could extend their experience in the sciences into a job in a regional area to get a better bang for their buck—a more affordable house; easier access to where the kids go to school; a better lifestyle because they're near national parks, near the beaches. A lower cost of living and better bang for their buck. But why was the funding pulled? If I were really parochial, I'd say, 'You pulled the funding for a group of people who—I'll be frank; I'm a realist—would never vote for me.' They should have done that. They should have been big enough to say, 'Let's do this.' It's a good thing for Armidale, a good thing for Australia and a good thing for Labor Party voters, to be quite frank. You pulled the funding for Guyra early learning centre—$4.2 million. You talk about wanting to look after kids and families, except when you get to a regional area. Then you don't want to look after them, so the people in Guyra can just go without! They've got kids, too. Vikki always informs me that how you get your kids looked after is one of the big issues. If the kids don't go into a childcare centre, into an early learning centre, mum or dad can't go to work. I'll be factual regarding country areas: mum doesn't go to work—mum has to stay home. So, if Guyra's not funded, mum stays home, which means mum doesn't have a job and which means you disenfranchise her from her potential, by reason that you haven't funded this. It should be done. If you want to be a government for Australia, not a government for some parts of Australia, then make sure you look after regional areas. When I went to Armidale Rams Rugby League Club and went to their grandstand, the girls—guys and girls are both playing rugby league now—were getting changed under the grandstand, under the seats. It is horrific: it's cold, and people can stare into the change room and see you as you're having a shower. We're trying to get it fixed, and we want it fixed, but that funding is gone. That means that they have to go back to it. When I announced that, the ladies who arrived at that announcement were crying. That's how important it was to them—they were crying. It was so important to them. In the scheme of things, $600,000 is a lot of money, but in a federal budget it's not. It really touched me that we could make such a difference and that people were driven to turn up—they were so emotionally affected. But you've ripped the rug out from underneath their feet. You want Tenterfield bypass to be safe, but we had a truck that, with flammable liquid, caught on fire just outside my office. If that had blown up, we would have had deaths. We've got to get those trucks out of town, and Tenterfield bypass does that. I've heard on the grapevine—this is a big part of my grievance—about something that the Labor Party is going to do, and the member for Riverina will be interested in this. The way they're going to fix our country roads—listen to this, Member for Riverina—is that they're going to reduce the speed limits. So, rather than make the roads suitable for the speed, they're reducing the speed limits so that everybody just has to go slower in regional areas. You'll never get a better grievance than that! So I say to the Labor Party that, when you get the great opportunity—the great blessing—of running this government, you have to be a government for everybody. Maybe this is something for the Prime Minister to think about when he's got a bit of spare time—when he's getting bored at Mardi Gras, walking along and wanting something to think about. As he's holding his glow wands, walking along and having a wonderful old time, he might like to think about the people he's left behind. Adelaide Electorate: Infrastructure 113 (Adelaide) (19:13): Mr GEORGANAS DZY I, like most of us in this place, take the job of being a member of parliament very seriously, and you'd like to think that most MPs who are here do the same thing. The people in the electorate of Adelaide deserve to be heard and to be listened to, and I find that that is my No. 1 responsibility as a member of parliament—to hear what they have to say and to try and fulfil their needs. This has been my focus ever since becoming a member of parliament, and I will continue to fight for my electorate, listen to my electorate and try and deliver for my electorate. One of the first things I campaigned about before I became a member of parliament, when I was a candidate way back in 1998, was the Adelaide Airport curfew. There was no curfew back then, and the residents had formed a residents association in and around the airport and were demanding a curfew—in other words, not to allow planes in between 11 pm and 6 am. I fought very hard for that and I give credit as well to my predecessor, Chris Gallus, who brought a private member's bill to displace and had it passed. But, if it weren't for the action of the community, nothing would have happened. So we were finally successful in establishing a ban on those passenger-carrying jet flights between 11 pm and 6 am, and that was in the year 2000. Many airports in major cities have curfews; it's not unusual. For example, La Guardia, in New York, has a curfew. Even Hong Kong has a curfew of a sort, where flights are allowed to come in only through one direction, and it begins much earlier than ours; I think it's after 9 pm. In Holland, the major there has a curfew as well. Adelaide Airport is so close to the city. It's six kilometres from the CBD, and we're very lucky to have an airport so close. It keeps transport and freight costs down because it is so close to the CBD. But it also means it's smack-bang in the middle of thousands of residential homes, so you need a good balance between the interests of the airport, the interests of the economy in good airport infrastructure and the interests of the residents who live in and around the airport. I continue to receive e-mails from constituents, and I have received emails, letters and phone calls from constituents in and around the airport from day one when I was elected. They are on all sorts of things, like flights coming in after curfew hours or cargo planes coming in. I'm actually pleased that the member for Riverina is here as well, because when he was transport minister I wrote many letters to him, and I have to say he always responded and tried to do what was best for the residents and airport. For example, recently I wrote to the minister the transport on behalf one of my constituents in North Adelaide. Now, North Adelaide is the northern part of the CBD and it's right under the flight path, so it is affected by aircraft noise continuously. My constituent was frustrated by the number of flights that appeared to be landing at Adelaide Airport using flight path 23, which requires them to fly over North Adelaide, Walkerville and other residential areas—Mile End, Cowandilla, Richmond, a fair bit of Torrensville and Brooklyn Park, which is actually in the electorate of Hindmarsh now. He was saying to me that he felt it was an unacceptable number of flights using flight path 23 both during and outside the designated curfew. According to the Adelaide Airport Curfew Act, these flights are not to go through flight path 23—my constituent says they're illegal—unless they're given dispensation before leaving their departure airport. During the curfew, flights must land using runway 5. The curfew doesn't mean that there are no flights coming in; it's the less noisy aeroplanes and the non-commercial-passenger flights that are coming in. The reports I've been getting from constituents is that they're often woken by flight using landing path 23 when they should be using landing path 5, which is over the sea. Clearly, there are times when the wind conditions might require this, and we can understand this; however, this seems to happen even when conditions are favourable. You can see the concern by the residents. If Hong Kong can do it during curfew hours—if Hong Kong International Airport can have them flying in over the ocean into the airport, I can't see why a city like Adelaide can't do it. The disruption and noise pollution caused by the number of flights is a serious problem for residents. If you're a shift worker or you have small children—I recall all sorts of issues from many years ago when doorknocking in Richmond. I remember seeing a mum who had four kids, and she was saying the kids got woken up in the morning as soon as the first flights take off. She was very close to the airport; maybe from here to the Senate was the distance. You can imagine the jets revving up in the morning. To warm them up, they actually start them a good hour before they fly in the morning, apparently. I actually went down there at 5.30 or 6 am, at this constituent's invitation, and, yes, by 5.30 it was noise galore. Everything else was quiet so the noise travelled, and her kids, true to her word, woke up, one by one, when they weren't meant to make up until seven or 7:30. I've raised this, again and again, with past ministers and the current minister, and I'll continue to fight for the strengthening and preservation of the Adelaide Airport curfew. From time to time, we have different groups that come out and call for the curfew to be abolished, and that would be outrageous if it happened. We're very lucky in Adelaide to have the curfew six kilometres from the CBD, which is a great help to businesses and transport agencies, to a whole range of businesses that use the airport, and to constituents that live near the airport. It only takes me 10 minutes to get to the airport. I could walk down there within 25 minutes. So I'm very lucky, in that sense. But, at the same time, the airport is smack bang in the middle of 25,000 residential homes, and we've got to have a good balance. I think we've got the balance quite well at the moment. It's just getting them to stick to some of the rules. Sticking with transport and infrastructure, when I became a candidate in Adelaide in 2018-19 one of the first things that people raised with me was the dangerous level crossing at Ovingham, at the Churchill and Torrens roads intersection. If anyone knows that area, there are massive freight trains that go by regularly. The bars would go down and you could get caught there for up to 30 minutes. This intersection is one of the busiest. It leads from the western suburbs to the northern suburbs. About 22,000 cars per hour use that road, so you can imagine the disruption they've had for years with the trains. As the member I campaigned very hard for an upgrade, writing to different ministers. The former minister for infrastructure and transport is here. The infrastructure work started under the previous government, but it was called for by many people in the area, the state members of parliament and myself. Last Sunday, I was very pleased to go to the opening of the Ovingham overpass and see it come to fruition. It is now a beautiful bridge that flows over the train lines and veers to the right for people wanting to go to the northern suburbs and down to the Port of Adelaide and the western suburbs. I'm so pleased that it's now delivered and is up and working. It was an absolute pleasure on the weekend to join local residents, the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, and the state member for Adelaide, Lucy Hood, to officially open the upgrade. The intersection is used by many commuters. In fact, more than 21,000 vehicles—I'll correct what I said earlier—cross the new bridge each day. You can imagine taking 30 minutes out per day—if you get caught out there two or three times a week that could be anything up to an hour that you're delayed, that you miss out on your home life. It could be the difference between getting home on time and putting the kids to bed, and reading them a story, or just a good family time—even if it's 10 minutes per day, 10 in the morning and 10 at night; all of a sudden there's a good hour there that you can spend with your family. These are the infrastructure projects that make a real difference to people's lives. I also asked some of the people involved in the build, who were down there on the weekend, how many people were employed. They said over 1,000 people were employed, directly and indirectly, through this job. There was $253 million, I think— (Time expired) Riverina Electorate: Commonwealth Bank of Australia 114 19:24 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I have a real grievance with bank closures. I'll give credit where credit's due. I received a letter yesterday from the regional general manager of the customer service network at the Commonwealth Bank, Norm Swift. He wrote to me advising that following consideration of a request, from the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, for them to pause regional branch closures until the end of 2023 they have agreed to do so. This includes postponement of the current closure at Junee. It's probably just as well that I'm doing this grievance and that Maisie Robinson, 88, is not, because she would probably choose her words less carefully than perhaps I am. She's pretty annoyed—she's hot under the collar! She has been a member of the Commonwealth branch at Junee for 80 years and she has been told to change her banking habits and practices. When you've been a member of a branch for 80 years, and you've given them your money, your loyalty and your commitment, and they just shut the door in your face, it's not good enough. So well done to CBA for postponing this closure. I hope that 'postponing' isn't the word; 'cancelling' should be the word. They absolutely need to give that permanency to Junee and they need to make a commitment to regional Australia. They've done very, very well out of regional Australia, particularly out of Junee. It's a railway town, it's a jail town and it's a vibrant agricultural town. It has a lot of things happening for it. The fact that they have pulled out of Junee—or, are intending to pull out of Junee—is simply not good enough for a town with a population of 6½ thousand people. And it would leave Junee without a bank. It's time that the Commonwealth Bank realised that their customers have been loyal—in Maisie's case, for 80 years—and that they need to rethink this really hard. The mayor there, Neil Smith, is not going to take it and nor is the general manager of the shire, James Davis. And nor am I. Rest assured that Maisie and the rest of the Junee community feel let down, and they will air their grievances long and loud. Albanese Government: Legislation 115 19:26 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Before I begin, I'll say that I concur entirely with the comments made by the member for Riverina about bank closures! I am completely perplexed to understand why there is opposition in this parliament to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 and the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. Both of these bills were not only election commitments which the Albanese government has a mandate for but both of the bills make significant investments in our country and in our economy. Indeed, they are perhaps two of the most important bills that will come before this parliament in the term of this government. That is why the Albanese government is bringing them on early, because they deal with matters that need to be addressed urgently and which will take years to address. These are matters which cannot be fixed overnight. Both of the bills will rebuild and strengthen the Australian economy. For example, by rebuilding manufacturing capability we not only create the skills—in itself, an area of debate in this place—but create jobs. It will provide security for the nation and for individuals, and it will create exports that we can send overseas. In turn, that will mean that we will be less reliant on imports coming from overseas—and we saw particularly how that crippled the nation over the last couple of years as a result of the COVID pandemic. The bills will also reduce social costs and the stress currently placed on people who, for example, can't find work or can't get a roof over their heads. Those social costs lead to health outcomes which also have to be addressed and the costs that come with all of that. I'll make these two points, which I think are very simple. In the years after World War II, governments of both persuasions—Labor and Liberal—right around the country did exactly what these two bills propose to do. They may have done it differently, but the general principle of building homes and building housing stock, and of building a manufacturing base, are exactly what they did to boost the economy and to secure the future for our country for the years that followed. That did happen, and I can certainly speak from experience in South Australia, where I witnessed it with my own eyes. It made a difference, and I can say that it was led by a Liberal government, not a Labor government. It was the same with the housing policies, which put a roof over people's heads. I say to members opposite: the bills certainly may not do everything you want them to do. If that is the case, move amendments. But to oppose them simply doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense from a political point of view and it certainly doesn't make sense from the point of view of trying to secure the future of this country for all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19: 30