2023-03-08 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 8 March 2023

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:02, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1 Report 1 09:03 The SPEAKER 53517 I present Report No. 10 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 20 March 2023. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 7 March 2023. 2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 7 March 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 20 March 2023, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023) (Notice given 15 February 2023.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to s tanding order 142. 2 DR REID: To move—That this House: (1) acknowledges the Government's $3 billion in funding in the 2022 October budget for the infrastructure that residents of New South Wales need, including; (a) $40 million to upgrade roads across the Central Coast; (b) $400 million for the New Richmond Bridge; (c) $17.4 million for upgrades to Brindabella Road; (d) $50 million to plan for the Castlereagh Connection; and (e) $12.5 million for upgrades to Blue Mountains roads, (2) notes this funding will make journeys quicker, and make sure residents of New South Wales can get home to their families safely, and comes after a decade of neglect for New South Wales infrastructure by the former Government; and (3) thanks the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Prime Minister for working to deliver for New South Wales. (Notice given 6 March 2023.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Dr Reid —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 DR HAINES: To move—That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) the Government has set a target of net-zero emissions by 2050; and (b) Australia's agriculture sector currently generates 16 per cent of Australia's national emissions; (2) notes that climate change represents a serious and present threat to the Australian agricultural sector's continued productivity and profitability, including on the international market; (3) further recognises that: (a) the Government is continuing to support a carbon market through the use of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), including under the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Bill 2022; and (b) the Government is encouraging farmer participation in new markets including the: (i) ACCUs market, via programs such as the Carbon Farming Outreach Program; and (ii) biodiversity credit market through the proposed Nature Repair Market Bill; and (c) Australia's agriculture sector may need to retain their own credits for carbon in-setting, in order to comply with international trade requirements that will require farmers to address their own emissions; (4) further notes that agricultural extension officers have historically played an important role in translating science into practice for Australia's agricultural sector; and (5) calls on the Government to do more to encourage farmers to deploy low-emissions technologies and practices, and participate in carbon and biodiversity markets, by: (a) providing ongoing and increased investment in agricultural and climate science research and development, including in accurate measurement of soil carbon and nutritional additives to reduce methane emissions in livestock; (b) funding a network of 200 context-specific, trusted and neutral agricultural extension officers through providers such as Natural Resource Management or Landcare organisations to provide educational outreach services and advice on technology, products and practices that will help farmers lower their emissions and subsequently participate in new carbon and biodiversity markets; and (c) allowing farmers to certify their products as net-zero through a dedicated carbon neutral certification standard for farms through the ClimateActive initiative which would help farmers access price premiums for their products and protect their access to overseas markets. (Notice given 7 March 2023.) Time allotte d — 20 minutes. Speech time limits — Dr Haines —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MRS ANDREWS: To move—That this House: (1) notes that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee tabled its report into the human rights implications of recent violence in Iran on 1 February 2023; (2) acknowledges that submissions to the inquiry overwhelmingly called for the Government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation; (3) recognises that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps poses a threat to Australia's national security and the security of Australians at home and abroad, especially the Iranian-Australian community; (4) further notes that Australia's international partners have taken or are taking steps to categorise the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, including the United States of America and the United Kingdom; and (5) calls on the Government to urgently take the necessary steps to formally categorise the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an organisation involved in supporting and facilitating terrorism. (Notice given 6 February 2023.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits — Mrs Andrews —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MS STANLEY: To move—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) climate change will cause irreversible damage to Australia's unique ecosystem; (b) communities across Australia are experiencing the impacts of more severe natural disasters attributable to climate change; (c) action on climate change is beneficial both environmentally and economically; (d) delaying action will lead to lost opportunities for Australia and worsening climate impacts; (e) the hydrogen industry will be a key component of the transition to a low-emissions economy, and could add $50 billion to Australia's gross domestic product and support 16,000 jobs by 2050; and (f) the former Government's lack of policy certainty on energy and climate change led to a wasted decade; (2) acknowledges that: (a) the Government's legislated emissions reduction targets of 43 per cent by 2030, and net-zero by 2050 provide certainty for investment in low emissions technology; (b) the establishment of a Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS) will drive the uptake of new renewable dispatchable capacity and support the Government's target of 82 per cent renewable energy in the electricity grid by 2030; (c) Australia has signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030; and (d) the Government has continued to invest in Australia's hydrogen industry and has fostered international partnerships to establish Australia as a major hydrogen exporter; and (3) recognises that: (a) climate action is important to Australia's Pacific neighbours; and (b) the Australian people voted for greater action on climate change and the Government is delivering. (Notice given 6 March 2023.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Ms Stanley —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MRS MARINO: To move—That this House: (1) notes that the Government: (a) has failed to admit that the headline aged care promises they made to older Australians and their families, at the 2022 election, are undeliverable; and (b) has blatantly ignored the Opposition's concerns that their expedited timeframe could force aged care homes to close because they can't access staff, residents kicked out of their homes, and caused older Australians from rural and regional Australia forced to travel miles away from their community to receive support; and (2) further notes that the University of Technology Sydney Ageing Research Collaborative report released in 2022 confirms that the Government's expedited requirements for aged care facilities will see homes closed down and older Australians abandoned, and the report states: (a) that meeting the incoming mandated standards will require an additional 6,922 full-time registered nurses in Australia; and (b) less than five per cent of the surveyed homes currently have the required direct care workforce needed to fulfil the requirements that will be placed on them; (3) acknowledges that the recent budget failed to make provisions for the immediate support needed by the sector so they can ensure continued operation of their critical services under the additional requirements; and (4) condemns the Government for making promises to older Australians and their families that it knows cannot be delivered. (Notice given 29 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mrs Marino —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of th is matter should continue on a future day. 3 MS CHESTERS: To move—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) March is Endometriosis Awareness Month; (b) endometriosis is a progressive, chronic condition that can start at puberty and continue beyond menopause; and (c) endometriosis affects one in nine Australian women and girls; (2) acknowledges that the Government is addressing endometriosis at a national level via the National Plan for Endometriosis, which includes: (a) $8.57 million for awareness and education; (b) $49.65 million for clinical management and care; and (c) $28.97 million for research; and (3) congratulates the many endometriosis patients, their families, organisations and health sector leaders for their continued advocacy on endometriosis awareness and education. (Notice given 6 March 2023.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Ms Chesters —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MR WOLAHAN: To move—That this House: (1) acknowledges: (a) the release of the myGov User Audit, which stated that the previous Government's investment in the platform was 'well-crafted and implemented' and 'put in place much needed building blocks for a better myGov'; (b) that there has only been a single gathering of the Data and Digital Ministers' Meeting since the election of this Government; (c) the previous Government's efforts to progress the implementation of digital identity by introducing the Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021; and (d) that the myGov User Audit calls on the Government to 'urgently' legislate on a national identity framework; and (2) calls on the Government to prioritise digital transformation across Services Australia and national digital identity, making service delivery safer, simpler and more seamless. (Notice given 7 March 2023.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time pri or to 1.30 pm. Speech time limits — Mr Wolahan —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices — continued 5 MR VAN MANEN: To move—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) yourtown has been providing vital services for young people across Australia since 1961, with a focus on mental health and wellbeing, long-term unemployment, prevention of youth suicide, child protection, as well as support for those experiencing domestic and family violence; (b) for over 30 years yourtown has been providing free professional counselling and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week for children and young people aged five to 25 in Australia, through its Kids Helpline service; (c) Kids Helpline is the critical safety net for children and young people needing mental health support and is often the only mental health service available after hours, or for those living in rural and remote areas; (d) Kids Helpline's provision of professional, free counselling support ensures equality for all children and young people, regardless of their location or circumstances.; and (e) in the 2021-22 financial year, Kids Helpline was contacted directly by over 443,000 children and young people from across Australia, with millions more using resources and content across multiple channels; (2) recognises that: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated communication and social issues for young people; (b) Kids Helpline experienced a significant surge in calls for support during lockdowns; (c) for the first time in its over 30-year history, more than 50 per cent of callers now require counselling, when previously they were referred on to external supports; and (d) demand for Kids Helpline service remains high and now exceeds capacity; and (3) calls on: (a) all Members of Parliament to continue to raise awareness of the important services available to young people through Kids Helpline 24/7, by calling 1800 55 1800 or online through kidshelpline.com.au; and (b) the Government to support further growth in Kids Helpline's services, in order to meet the ever increasing demand for support. (Notice given 7 March 2023.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr van Manen —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 6 MR J WILSON: To move—That this House: (1) notes: (a) the Australian community is justifiably dismayed at the collapse of REDcycle's return-to-store soft plastics recovery program, with reports that over 12,400 tonnes of plastics were found in warehouses in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, a quantity of which has degraded to an extent that it is not suitable for reprocessing and will end in landfill; (b) a statement made by the former Government Minister for the Environment in 2020, who said Australians want to be 'confident that when they put things in their recycling bin, or deliver them to a collection centre, they will be repurposed effectively, and not dumped in landfill or simply sent overseas'; (c) the Australian community's concern about the significant harm caused by plastics pollution to marine life, including by the proliferation of microplastics; (d) that only 16 per cent of plastic packaging was recycled or composted in Australia in 2019-20 whereas the 2018 National Packaging Target is for 70 per cent of plastic packaging to be recycled or composted by 2025; and (e) that plastic packaging only contains 3 per cent recycled content, whereas the National Packaging Target is for plastics to contain 20 per cent average recycled content by 2025; and (2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to addressing the woeful state of plastic recycling through: (a) an agreement with state and territory environment ministers to reform the regulation of plastic packaging by 2025; (b) the provision of $60 million in the October 2022 budget for state-of-the-art advanced recycling solutions for hard-to-recycle plastics, as part of the $250 million Recycling Modernisation Fund; (c) the creation of the Soft Plastics Taskforce which is now taking steps to reinstate plastics collection systems; (d) the establishment of a national taskforce on the circular economy to reduce waste and pollution, improve product design, and transition to a more circular economy; and (e) timely membership of the High Ambition Coalition for an international treaty to end plastic pollution by 2040 and signing the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment. (Notice given 7 March 2023.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr J Wilson —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 7 MR BIRRELL: To move—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the October 2022 budget contained an undisclosed amount intended for water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin, and that confirmation of the Government's intention to recommence buybacks has already had an impact on the water market; (b) the country's largest water broker, Adelaide-based Waterfind, issued and then withdrew, an expression of interest for Commonwealth buybacks; (c) water entitlement holders have withdrawn from the market to wait for the expected premium when the Government enters the market; (d) a 2018 agreement reached by Australia's water ministers guarantees that positive, or neutral, socio-economic outcomes must be demonstrated for approval of any further recovery of Murray-Darling Basin environmental water; (e) the Government is ignoring expert reports and is pursuing a timeline for completion of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and buybacks which will cause economic and social harm in Basin communities; and (f) the Government is ignoring former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's stated position on the additional 450 gigalitres when she announced with the then Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, that it would only be recovered via water recovery projects that minimise the impact on communities, to ensure there is no social and economic downside for communities; (2) acknowledges that Murray-Darling Basin communities have already done the heavy lifting on the recovery of water for the environment and any further recovery should be done in a manner that does not deliver more social and economic harm to those communities; and (3) calls on the Government to extend the timeline for completion of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and work with Basin communities on projects to recover further water for the environment in a manner that has a neutral or positive socio-economic impact. (Notice given 30 November 2022.) Time allotted — 40 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Birrell —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 1 TEACHERS: Resumption of debate (from 6 March 2023) on the motion of Ms Sitou—That this House: (1) acknowledges the extraordinary contribution teachers, principals and school support staff make to our students and the future of Australia; (2) recognises we face a critical and unprecedented teacher shortage that will have consequences across our society; and (3) notes the measures the Government has already taken to attract, train and retain teachers. Time allotted — 25 minutes. Speech time limits — All Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Notices — continued 8 DR SCAMPS: To move—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) forestry destroyed or degraded 40,000 hectares of Australian public native forests in 2020, and each year releases an estimated 30 MtCO2-e of greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to around 6 per cent of Australia's emissions; (b) logging destroys and damages the habitat of numerous threatened species, while Regional Forestry Agreements exempt logging from classification as Matters of National Environmental Significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and (c) logging dries out forests (increasing their vulnerability to bushfires), reduces water quality in rivers and dams by causing sediment erosion, and threatens regional tourism businesses by degrading the natural resource base; (2) recognises the need: (a) to rapidly end the logging of Australian public native forests; and (b) for structural adjustment funding to support the transition to plantations and manufactured wood products; and (3) calls on the Government to take its international responsibilities to respond to the nature and climate crises seriously, and lead the nation in ending industrial native forest logging. (Notice given 7 March 2023.) Time allotted — remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm. Speech time limits — Dr Scamps —5 minutes. Ot her Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. THE HON D. M. DICK MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 8 March 2023 BILLS 7 BILLS Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 7

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:04 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I would like to note at the outset that this bill is the first of a set of bills I will introduce this morning. Taken together, they will establish the Financial Accountability Regime, extending the provisions of the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime to the superannuation and insurance sectors, and also establish a Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, for consumers who have suffered financial losses and have received a relevant determination in their favour from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. Members will note that bills with these same objectives were introduced into the House last year—indeed, they were also introduced into the House under the former government—and progressed as far as a second reading in the Senate. Two material things have changed since then. First, it became clear that the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort component, which replicated an even earlier bill introduced by the previous government in October 2021, was no longer fit for purpose. As I will set out in introducing the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023, a back log of complaints that have been lodged with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and that are expected to be eligible to claim on the CSLR will be funded through a one-off levy on Australia's 10 largest banking and insurance groups. Since the original bill was introduced by the previous government, a material event occurred in the market that significantly increased the amount that would need to be paid out of that one-off levy. That, combined with the passage of time and the need to collect the levy based on the best available and most current data, led us to pause the bill, and now require minor amendments to it. Such amendments could not be moved in the Senate, on account of section 53 of the Constitution. Second, after productive discussions with Senator David Pocock, the government decided to adopt an amendment he proposed for the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, to articulate more clearly the scope of the minister's exemption power and to provide for parliamentary oversight. The combination of these two things mean that reintroducing the bills in the way we are doing today is the neatest, lawful path to the agreed objective. I will move now to the substance of the first bill, the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023. The Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 establishes the Financial Accountability Regime, or FAR, which replaces and extends the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime, following a number of recommendations from the banking royal commission, commonly known as the Hayne royal commission. The bill underscores the government's commitment to finalise the action necessary to fully address the banking royal commission and implement measures that compel the financial services industry to act in the public's interest. Financial services executives make decisions that impact upon the lives of ordinary Australians who have no choice other than to engage with the system that they operate. As a result, the community reasonably expects high standards of accountability and integrity of financial services directors and executives. The banking royal commission revealed too many instances of misconduct across the sector and highlighted that industry practices often did not meet community expectations. These issues were frequently found to be systemic and part of corporate cultures that can only be improved and remedied from the top down. The bill would establish the FAR with substantially the same design specifications originally introduced by the former government in October 2021 which lapsed with prorogation. The requests made by the former Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee were considered and have been addressed in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill. In essence, the FAR extends the existing responsibility and accountability framework to the insurance and superannuation sectors, to ensure that heightened accountability obligations are in place across the wider financial industry. The FAR ensures that, where these community expectations are not met, appropriate consequences will follow. I'd now like to turn to the provisions of the bill. The FAR imposes heightened accountability obligations for prudentially regulated financial institutions, meaning banks, insurers, and superannuation entities. These institutions are referred to as accountable entities in the regime. The FAR regulates directors and the most senior and influential executives of accountable entities. These individuals are referred to under the regime as accountable persons. The FAR imposes four core sets of obligations. Firstly, accountable entities and accountable persons must conduct their business in a proper manner, which includes: acting with honesty and integrity, and with due skill, care and diligence; dealing with Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in an open, constructive and cooperative way; preventing adverse impact on the accountable entities' prudential standing and preventing breaches of certain specified financial services laws by their accountable entity. Further, accountable entities must ensure clear identification of accountabilities for accountable persons in the organisation across key areas of operations and defer at least 40 per cent of the variable remuneration of accountable persons for a minimum period of four years. Variable remuneration will be reduced where accountability obligations are breached. Ensuring that there are financial consequences for accountable persons who do not meet their obligations will increase their focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions. The FAR will be supported by the imposition of compulsory notification obligations which require accountable entities to provide APRA and ASIC with certain information, such as information relating to the responsibilities of their accountable persons or breaches of certain obligations by the accountable entities or their accountable persons. Both APRA and ASIC will jointly administer the regime. They will have the power to disqualify accountable persons, investigate suspected breaches of the regime, and direct entities to take remedial action and to apply to the Federal Court to impose a civil penalty on accountable entities. The government notes the recommendations made by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022, the Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022. The committee's report was tabled on 24 October 2022, and we thank the committee for its recommendation that the bills be passed. The bills that I introduce today are substantially the same as those considered by the committee, though, as previously mentioned, it now incorporates a small amendment, previously circulated by Senator David Pocock, to articulate more clearly the scope of the minister's exemption power and to provide for parliamentary oversight of the exercise of that power. After careful consideration, the government has not adopted the Australian Greens' recommendation to introduce civil penalties for breaches of accountability obligations. I will say some more about that. The government's bill already contains effective measures to address executive failures to comply, including disqualification, loss of deferred bonuses, and individual civil penalties for assisting in an entity's contravention of its obligations. That is to say, the bill already contains instances where individual civil penalties apply. These sanctions are on top of penalties for misconduct already in place in other financial services laws. These measures are finely balanced to improve, on the one hand, executive conduct and accountability in the financial services sector without adversely impacting the sector's efficiency. Adding individual civil penalties on top of those that are already extant within the general law and within this bill is not likely to substantially increase the level of deterrence that already exists, noting that the removal of access to deferred remuneration acts as a financial penalty on individual accountable persons under the regime. So, while it may impact on firms seeking to attract and retain the best executive talent, it would not add to the already extant penalties in a meaningful way. The FAR will apply to the banking industry six months after royal assent and to the insurance and superannuation industries 18 months after royal assent. Through this bill, the government is finalising the necessary action to ensure that financial institutions are meeting the community's expectations, and that they're focused on outcomes for all Australians. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 9

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:17 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 is part of a package of bills that finalises a number of remaining recommendations from the banking royal commission. The bill will make minor and consequential amendments to various Commonwealth laws to support the Financial Accountability Regime and provide transitional arrangements relating to the repeal of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, otherwise known as the BEAR. The government acknowledges that most of these reforms will require some time for industry to implement, so the bulk of the proposed changes will commence six months following royal assent. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified of this bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023 9

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:19 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023 is part of a package of bills to establish and fund a financial services compensation scheme of last resort. I'll hereafter refer to it as the CSLR. The government remains committed to establishing a CSLR. The background to the CSLR is well known. In 2019, the financial services royal commission recommended that a CSLR be established. In doing so, the royal commission endorsed the three principal recommendations of the 2017 supplementary final report of the Review of the Financial System's External Dispute Resolution and Complaints Framework. It was known commonly as the Ramsay review, and I'll refer to it hereafter as the Ramsay review. The Ramsay review noted the inadequacy of existing redress measures in ensuring that all consumers are compensated for losses, and recommended the establishment of an industry funded and forward-looking CSLR that targets the areas of the financial sector with the greatest evidence of need. The CSLR is designed to provide compensation to consumers who have received a relevant determination in their favour by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, commonly known as AFCA, where that determination remains unpaid. Claimants may receive compensation of up to $150,000 where they have an unpaid AFCA determination in their favour for the following financial services or products: personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients, credit intermediation, securities dealing and credit provision. The cap on claims helps maintain the ongoing financial sustainability of the scheme, whilst balancing the interests of consumers. The operator of the CSLR will be a subsidiary of AFCA, limited by guarantee and operating on a not-for-profit basis. The operator must act in line with the primary legislation and regulations, with compliance ensured by ASIC. The operator will be managed by a board consisting of an independent chair appointed by the minister, a person who is a member of the board of AFCA, and an actuary who has at least five years of actuarial experience. Passage of this legislation in March 2023 is essential to facilitate the CSLR being operational from December 2023. I want stress that point, Mr Speaker: passage of the legislation in March 2023 will facilitate the CSLR being operational from December 2023; any delay in the passage of this legislation will mean that the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort will not be operational and available to pay claims this year. The CSLR is designed to act as a last resort mechanism. After the claimant has notified AFCA that their determination remains unpaid, AFCA will be required, where appropriate, to take steps to ensure that the relevant entity—that is, the entity against whom the award has been made—pays the compensation owed. The CSLR operator will also need to confirm that no other statutory scheme is available to pay all or part of the compensation owed, including any state or territory arrangements. Measures have been added to reduce the incentive for financial firms to rely on the CSLR, and to facilitate better compliance with AFCA determinations. For example, ASIC must cancel an AFCA member's Australian financial service licence and/or Australian credit licence if the CSLR provides compensation as a result of that member's misconduct. As set out earlier, legislation to establish a CSLR was previously introduced by this government on 8 September last year. That legislation proceeded to the Senate. In December 2022, the government identified the issue that I mentioned earlier in relation to the one-off levy, and so the CSLR legislation was not passed last year while further consultation was undertaken. The CSLR bills package being introduced today reflect the same intent and are substantively the same as the legislation considered by parliament last year. Minor and targeted amendments to reflect the passage of time and further stakeholder feedback have been made. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified of this bill, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Finally, I take this opportunity to respond, on behalf of the government, to the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in relation to the CSLR bills. The committee recommended the passage of the bills that were before them, which contained substantively the same CSLR provisions as are being introduced today. Additional comments were also provided by coalition senators who recommended additional parliamentary scrutiny of AFCA and the CSLR operator, consideration of ASIC's enforcement capacity and capability and consideration of three other technical matters. In response, the government notes the work being undertaken in the other place to conduct an inquiry into ASIC's capacity and capability to respond to reports of alleged misconduct. The government also notes the appearance of AFCA at Senate estimates last year. The government acknowledges the coalition senators' recommendations and restates its commitment to ASIC as a key financial system regulator, AFCA as the external dispute resolution provider, and the establishment of the CSLR to support relevant consumers when compensation has not been paid. Debate adjourned. Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023 10

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 09:27 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is the first of two bills which form the levy framework to fund the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, hereafter 'the CSLR'. The Commonwealth will fund the establishment of the CSLR, which is intended to be operational from December this year. The Commonwealth will also fund the scheme's initial operation until 30 June 2024. A backlog of complaints that have been lodged with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and that are expected to be eligible to claim on the CSLR will be funded through a one-off levy on Australia's 10 largest banking and insurance groups. The costs of the CSLR from 1 July 2024 are to be funded fully through industry funded levies. The levy framework provides for an ongoing annual levy on entities that fall within a subsector within the scope of the scheme. The framework will issue levies in advance of a financial year, based on expected claims, AFCA fees and administration costs in that upcoming financial year. The ongoing annual levy will follow an approach already applied under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission industry funding model. The first ongoing annual levy notices are expected to be issued by ASIC in May 2024 to fund the scheme for the 2024-25 financial year. The CSLR is designed to be financially sustainable and provide assurance to relevant financial market subsectors about the maximum amount expected to be levied. The scheme applies subsector caps of $20 million and an overall scheme cap of $250 million. This limits the amount leviable within a single levy period, whilst maintaining the ability to accommodate any unexpected large-scale events or failures. The levy framework provides the minister with the ability to issue special levies to in-scope and out-of-scope entities, in response to higher-than-expected outlays such as may be experienced with the failure of a large financial firm. The financial market subsectors that will pay the ongoing annual levy will be detailed in regulations. The regulations will also detail the methodology to be applied by ASIC in its calculation of levy notices. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023 11

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 09:31 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is the second of two bills which form the levy framework for the financial services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR). As noted previously, the Commonwealth will fund the establishment of the CSLR, which is intended to be operational from December 2023, if the bill is passed through both houses of parliament by March. The Commonwealth will also fund the scheme's initial operation until 30 June 2024. A one-off levy to fund the back log of Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) complaints that are expected to be eligible to claim on the CSLR will be issued by December 2023. This levy will be payable in two instalments. The ongoing annual levy to fund the 2024-25 financial year will be issued by May 2024. The ongoing annual levy will then be issued in advance of each following financial year. In advance of the issuing of a levy, the CSLR operator will determine the amount to be raised through the levy. The CSLR operator's determination will include, as relevant, estimated compensation claims and AFCA fee costs and associated administrative costs. The CSLR operator's determinations will be disallowable. Levy notices will be issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in accordance with primary law, regulations and the CSLR operator's determination. ASIC will collect the levies and have the power to facilitate and enforce the payment of levies. These powers include the ability to seek information from relevant entities for the purpose of correctly calculating an entity's levy, to impose penalties for late payment and to impose a shortfall penalty where incorrect information has been provided. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 11 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 11 Report 11 09:34 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Annual report of committee activities 2021-22. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr 101351 by leave—I present the committee's annual report of its activities for the year 2021-22, which was presented out of session and published on 22 February 2023. In line with the legislative obligations set out in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 that the committee report annually on its activities, the report provides details of the committee's work in the financial year ending on 30 June 2022. Of course, this is in fact a report of the activities of the former committee during the final year of the 46th Parliament. The committee recognises its responsibility to the Australian public to provide as much transparency as possible with respect to its oversight functions for agencies within the national intelligence community while at the same time respecting the unique secrecy and confidentiality requirements of those agencies. Between July 2021 and April 2022, when the 46th Parliament ended, the committee maintained a very high pace of activity, despite the impacts of COVID lockdowns across many jurisdictions. In those nine months, the committee worked in a bipartisan manner across 21 inquiries and presented 17 reports. Over the review period, the PJCIS completed work on four statutory reviews, seven bill inquiries, two administration and expenditure reviews and three reviews of terrorist listings under the criminal code. This reflects the significant increase in matters referred to, and required of, the committee over recent years. Moreover, during the period, four new acts included amendments to the Intelligence Services Act, adding further to the functions of the committee. During the period, the committee also worked on two general policy inquiries referred by ministers. These examined the national security risks affecting Australia's higher education and research sector and extremist movements and radicalism in Australia. With recent legislative changes, we continue to see the evolution of the intelligence community. It is crucial that parliamentary oversight through the PJCIS similarly evolves to keep up with the intelligence sector and its work. Ensuring that the legislation which enables this committee's work is fit for purpose is essential in this regard. The committee therefore looks forward to the opportunity to review the Intelligence Services Act during the 47th Parliament, with a view to assessing where it should be updated. We know the operations of the PJCIS are central to ensuring accountability and providing oversight of Australia's intelligence agencies. The committee has and will continue to take this role seriously as we look to safeguard the interests of all Australians. On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank all those who made contributions to the various inquiries and reviews undertaken over that period of 2021 to April 2022—that financial year. I acknowledge the work of the former committee and I acknowledge my predecessor, who was chair at the time, Senator James Paterson, in leading that work. I commend the report to the House. BUSINESS 12 BUSINESS Rearrangement 12 09:37 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 12 BILLS National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 12

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022

Second Reading 12 09:38 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth This debate on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 happens as we enter the third decade of the 'no-alition'. In the 2000s we saw them adopt this policy of saying no to everything, when Tony Abbott became Leader of the Opposition. In the 2010s, we saw the 'no-alition' move on to the car industry, saying no to the car industry. Now, and I must say that I am surprised, we have the 'no-alition' saying no to, of all things, investing in the manufacturing industry of Australia. It is no surprise that my view is that those opposite do not bring any policy ideas into this chamber. They have now had nine months, and the only policy idea that has been brought in is a reheated policy idea from Tony Abbott, a reheated policy idea of saying no to everything that this government has an electoral mandate to deliver. So we have an opposition leader with a one-word policy manifesto: no. I give former Prime Minister Morrison credit that when he looked at this 'no' policy he at least turned it into a three-word slogan. He went from 'no' to 'not my job'. At least he had a three-word slogan there. I've listened to the speeches that have been delivered in this place telling us why they will not vote for this legislation, and I still don't understand. I've seen people putting arguments and rent-seeking as to why we should invest in things in their electorate and why we should do all sorts of other policy initiatives, but there's been no clear reason as to why they do not support this piece of legislation in front of us. Maybe, if we had $1 for every time those opposite said no, we would start to make a dent in the trillion dollars of Liberal-National debt that was left for this government to clean up. In the context of this policy, I think it's important to note that we developed the National Reconstruction Fund having seen the errors of those opposite: always opposing, always cutting, never seeking to build the nation up, with no manufacturing plan. It's no wonder this lack of vision—not sharing the vision that the government brings about trying to invest in the future of our manufacturing—is the tone of those opposite. When we look at the history of how they acted when they were in government—and I refer, in particular, to the Leader of the Opposition—there were cuts. Cut? Yes, they cut $50 billion from hospitals. Taxes? Yes, he tried to introduce a $7 GP tax. Privatisation? Yes, they launched the Medicare privatisation task force. None of those things were about backing medical manufacturing. This bill is about backing medical manufacturing. We saw the now Leader of the Opposition cheer as we waved goodbye to the Australian car industry. Again, to this day, that's something that's hard to believe—that that was something the opposition, when they were in government, encouraged. They dared the Australian car industry to leave and then cheered when it happened, saying it was good. We saw the terrible economic judgement of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues when they were in cabinet. Not only did they leave us without a car manufacturing industry; they left us with $1 trillion of Liberal debt, agreed to, every single step of the way, by the now Leader of the Opposition. He's proudly the leader of the 'no-alition'. He's proudly voting no to this legislation. I'm probably less generous than the minister for manufacturing and industry, who at least noted that sometimes the opposition backs manufacturing when there's a TV camera around. I'm not even sure if that's true anymore. Let's talk about what this legislation seeks to do. We seek to invest in the long-term interests of the nation. The National Reconstruction Fund will provide the finance to drive investments in seven priority areas. First, it will add value in resources, expanding Australia's mining science and technology, and increase domestic processing in Australia. That's incredibly important to my electorate, the headquarters of some of the largest mining operations in Australia. I speak all the time to people from the CEO of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Rebecca Tomkinson, through to the CEOs of those major mining companies. We know there is so much more we can do if we back the science that is already being developed in Perth, already being developed in Western Australia, already being developed across Australia, to make sure that we secure the future of our resources industry and all that it can become. I note that's also on the agenda for the Minister for Resources, as she travels with the Prime Minister and the trade minister to India today. Second, it will value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors. We know that we can do so much more to add to the raw materials which we, in this nation, extract from the beautiful land we call Australia. If we think about this in terms of what it means, again, for Western Australia, we have some incredibly lucrative export industries, including the crayfish industry. We've got the Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour. We can do so much more, particularly in fisheries, to make them sustainable, high tech and high value for the future. Third, we want to invest more in the technology of transport, making sure that we're backing transport manufacturing. I was incredibly proud, late last year, to represent the wonderful minister for infrastructure and transport at an event where we announced our commitment to investing in electric buses for Perth. That's good for my electorate. It's clean transport. It's more transport so people can get to where they work and wherever else they want to go without having to rely on a car. Importantly, I commend the work of Rita Saffioti, the state minister, and the state government, who are working in close partnership to make sure that we make those buses and the charging infrastructure, where we can, in Western Australia, building on the great success of the Metronet's Bellevue manufacturing centre, which I have also visited with the minister. Fourth, investing in medical science, making sure that we back our world-leading researchers so we not only have those essential supplies that we need but also those breakthroughs that we need for tomorrow, to improve the quality of life for Australians and people the world over. I know that this will be welcomed by the Harry Perkins Research Institute, just about seven metres outside of my electorate in the electorate of Curtin, home to some of Australia's great researchers and it will be welcomed by the universities, not just of Western Australia, but Australia over. Fifth, making sure that we invest in the future of renewables and low-emissions technologies. I know for towns like Collie in Western Australia, where we are undergoing that complex but important transition to clean energy sources, that if we invest in these technologies then we provide a future for those towns. I think about what we're doing at Midland TAFE in Western Australia, where we're investing in making sure that we train people up for those new jobs in wind turbine installation, manufacturing and maintenance. I was pleased as well to stand with the Prime Minister and the minister for training when we announced the new energy apprenticeships at North Metropolitan TAFE in East Perth, again backing the future of manufacturing, backing the jobs that come with the exciting transition to renewables and low-emissions technology. Sixth, invest more in defence capability, making sure that we can maximise Australian suppliers, backing our sovereign manufacturing, backing those who serve in our defence forces, backing the Australians who work in manufacturing to make sure that we can do everything necessary to defend this country and build up our armed forces. Seventh, invest in making sure that we enable the capabilities in data science, engineering and software development. This is a great opportunity if I think about how exciting these opportunities are when it comes to advanced manufacturing, science and technology. I was at Cassia Primary School with a range of people, including Asta Morton from the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, seeing the wonderful work that the Chamber of Minerals and Energy does in investing in technology training for kids in primary school, teaching them how to code. It was really, really exciting to see children in year 2, 3, 4 and 5 actually seeing how this technology applies with these little Bee-Bots and wom-bots. I'm not going to do them justice in terms of the little devices that the kids can code; they go off and do a thing. They've built a program that's uniquely developed for children learning in the Pilbara. I note that it was part of the Port Hedland cabinet meeting that happened a few weeks ago. It was a very exciting moment. I'm conscious that we need to get this legislation voted on today because it is important, so I conclude by noting that this morning parliamentarians from across the political spectrum gathered just down the road at Old Parliament House to unveil the statues of Enid Lyons and Dorothy Tangney, something that is welcomed by parliamentarians the nation over, but it is particularly exciting for those of us on the Labor side of politics from Western Australia to see that statue of Doherty Tangney. It was a proud moment. I'll finish by noting her words about the importance of manufacturing and industry in her first speech to the Senate. She said: Particularly, I pay tribute to the women in industry who, for the first time, have been called upon to take their places in fields hitherto the prerogatives of men, especially those engaged in the engineering industry who have turned night into day, and have pursued a way of life completely foreign to anything they had known before. I have seen them at work in munitions factories. I have seen them going on shifts at midnight with the same heroism as has marked the wonderful exploits of our men on the battlefields. I hope that when the day of peace comes what has been so willingly surrendered by our workers in industry will not be forgotten, and that the maximum of what they have voluntarily given up in the war effort will be the minimum upon which our new industrial standards will be based. She saw that great opportunity for the manufacturing industry of Australia to grow out of the challenges that Australia faced in World War II. She saw that it was a great enabler of gender equality in this country. I think it was wonderful to see the parliament, the nation, the Commonwealth acknowledge her contribution and that of Dame Enid Lyons just down the road this morning. 09:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I want to make three points in the time available to me. Firstly, experience teaches us that Labor's bold promises are very unlikely to be matched by delivery. Secondly, spending $15 billion of borrowed money is bad economic policy. Thirdly, so much remains uncertain about how this is going to operate that it's not appropriate that the parliament vote in support of it. We've had plenty of bold promises about what the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation is going to achieve. It's going to apparently 'support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and economy, helping to create secure, well-paid jobs, securing future prosperity and driving sustainable economic growth.' For anyone who's been around for more than five minutes, this sounds very similar to the bold promises that Labor made under the National Broadband Network under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government from 2007 to 2013. They promised that they were going to roll out a national broadband network which would deliver fibre to the premises to 12.2 million premises. It would attracted significant private sector investment and it would all be done in eight years. This was what then Prime Minister Rudd said when it was all announced in 2009. Well, what actually happened? First, there was no private sector investment, despite it being promised. Secondly, rather than getting to 12.2 million premises, they had connected barely more than 50,000 premises to the NBN by the time they left government. Thirdly, of course, it got nowhere near getting done in eight years. It was a rolled-gold implementation disaster. Of course, the list of Labor's implementation disasters goes on and on. Some of their greatest hits include naval ships and submarines. How many were delivered in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government? There were none. The mining tax failed to deliver just about any revenue at all. Of Labor's GP superclinics, 28 were promised at the 2010 election. By 2013, just one was operational. I could easily use up 15 minutes going through a long list of Labor's implementation failures, but for anybody who has been around this place for more than five minutes, we know there's a yawning gulf between Labor's bold promises and what they actually deliver. We should apply appropriate scepticism, therefore, to the bold promises being made now, including the claim by the minister that the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will be up and running by July this year. Even the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the model on which the government says this fund is based, took three years to design, to legislate and to start making investments. The second proposition I want to put in the time I have today is that spending $15 billion of borrowed money on the National Reconstruction Fund is bad economic policy. Of course, it's not being done on a standalone basis; it's one of three such investment vehicles being established by the Albanese government in rapid succession: the National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation and the Housing Australia Future Fund. In total, this government is borrowing $45 billion to put into these various funds. Whether they generate a positive return, lose 100 cents in the dollar or come in somewhere in between, it will be the Australian taxpayer who is on the hook to repay this money and the accumulated interest on it. Currently, the 10-year bond rate is around four per cent, so if the Commonwealth borrows $45 billion then, every year, the Commonwealth needs to spend $1.8 billion in interest. This goes to making the budget position, the underlying cash balance, worse by that much every year. This is doubtless why the International Monetary Fund has been clear in its commentary that a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. Now, this $45 billion will not show up as an expense in the budget, because the theory is that it's a capital investment, but the simple fact is that, while this consequence of public sector accounting treatment means that the spending is less visible, it costs real money, and that money needs to be paid by taxpayers. There is no free lunch. Those who champion these kinds of funds like to argue that because the Commonwealth can borrow at low rates then it can invest in a range of projects which earn a higher return and generate a profit. Of course, the logical end-point of this argument is that the government ought to borrow without limit and invest in every project it can find. But the economic reality is that there is no certainty that the projects in which the National Reconstruction Fund invests will be profitable. If the projects that the fund invests in meet normal private sector standards of risk, then of course the project proponents could simply secure their funding from the private sector. If this has not happened—if the project is one that the private sector refuses to finance—that should be a flashing red light as to the amount of risk that this taxpayers' money is exposed to. We have to recognise that a government organisation is inevitably subject to political pressures that private sector financiers and investors are not. If there is a factory proposed in a marginal seat or championed by somebody who's been a major donor to the Labor Party, there is a real danger of a decision being made to fund the factory even when the business case does not stack up. The Australian Banking Association has described the core problem with the model the government is using here as follows: 'The ABA has concerns that the investment mandate and the proposed priority areas for investment will need to be carefully articulated so as not to have the effect of crowding out the private sector market from areas in which it has an appetite to invest or the risk profile can be appropriately managed.' As this quote highlights, the government is hopelessly confused between two competing and opposing principles. The first principle is that this fund is supposed to operate on a commercial basis and generate a return, which raises the obvious question of why you would set up a government entity which simply crowds out the many private sector parties which are in the business of providing equity and debt finance. The second competing principle is that this fund is supposed to put money into projects that the private sector would not put money into. That's a hopeless confusion between these two competing and opposing principles. It is certainly true that there is an important role for funding by government when it comes to supporting and stimulating start-up businesses, developments of new technologies and so on. But the logical and coherent way to provide such funding is through the use of grants as opposed to pretending that it's an investment on commercial terms with a reasonable prospect of a positive return. Grant funding is exactly what the coalition did when last in government, with our $2.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which aimed to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability and which supported over 200 projects across Australia. We've seen a rich array of completely nonsensical purported economic arguments being put by various ministers in favour of the National Reconstruction Fund, such as the claim—from the Treasurer, no less—that it's designed to 'help combat the inflation challenge'. That is an absolutely ludicrous argument. In fact, it's the direct opposite of the economic reality. By borrowing $45 billion to set up this fund and the other two funds, the government will put more pressure on debt markets and it will drive up interest rates and, in turn, inflation. We know that the Prime Minister has form with these kinds of funds. He argued for one in the 2016 election, when he was infrastructure minister—his $10 billion concrete fund, which was going to be a financing facility. This was, in the words of the Labor policy document: 'for Infrastructure Australia to provide, if needed, a combination of guarantees, loans or equity investments to get new projects underway. Once the project is under way and financeable, Infrastructure Australia could sell its equity or debt interest to long-term investors like super funds.' The idea appeared to be that you could borrow money from a concrete bank towards the cost of an infrastructure project, and then that project would generate returns to allow repayment of the loan. The huge problem was that just about every one of the projects that Labor indicated as likely to receive funding were projects that do not generate a revenue stream. Most of them are multibillion-dollar heavy rail or light rail projects, such as Melbourne Metro, or Cross River Rail in Brisbane and the Gawler Line in Adelaide. Public transport projects like this do not even cover their operating costs, let alone generate a return on capital. Of course, that's not to say that large rail projects aren't very worthwhile, and I was certainly involved in championing them when I held infrastructure portfolio responsibilities. But to pretend that the concrete bank advocated by the then shadow minister for infrastructure and now Prime Minister was in fact going to generate a return was nonsensical; it was deeply ill-conceived. And I'm sorry to say that the idea the Prime Minister is now proposing, and which this parliament presently has before it to vote upon, is equally ill conceived for both microeconomic and macroeconomic policy reasons. And I'll make this additional point about pumping this additional stimulus into the economy: we have fiscal policy going in precisely the opposite direction to the monetary policy settings pursued by the reserve Bank of Australia. I turn, thirdly, to the fact that so much remains unclear about how this fund is going to operate that the parliament could not responsibly support the bill that is before us this morning. While the government's commentary has focused on manufacturing and technology priorities, and on 'rebuilding Australia's industrial base', the bill itself does not mention any specific sectors; does not limit eligible priority areas; has no reference to reconstruction, other than in its title; and no reference to rebuilding. One powerful piece of evidence for how unclear and unspecified the list is of areas into which this fund might put money is the attempt in recent weeks by the minister to argue that if the National Reconstruction Fund does not go ahead it will put at risk the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United States and United Kingdom. That is an argument which is, arguably, even more ludicrous than the argument I cited earlier from the Treasurer about the way that this fund is going to help fight inflation. It would be a very hard choice to determine which of these two arguments were the more ludicrous, but both of them, by any standard, are objectively and entirely ludicrous. The reality is that this fund is being set up in a way which will allow the minister to splash money around in any direction that pleases him. We've heard a lot from this government about their unswerving commitment and dedication to the principle of arms-length funding and yet, under this bill, the minister has an extraordinary amount of discretion on everything—the appointment of the chief executive and the board through to the priorities of the fund are at the minister's discretion. In effect, this parliament is being asked to sign a $15 billion blank cheque for whatever the minister decides he wants to spend the money on. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has observed: There is no clear definition of what a 'priority area of the Australian economy' is. The Bill leaves it open to the minister to declare that each or any area of the Australian economy can be identified as a priority area. Equally troubling is that it would be very difficult for the parliament or the Australian public to know how good or bad a job the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation is doing in its stewardship of this $15 billion of borrowed taxpayers money, with a reporting requirement only at the end of the asset's life cycle. However, what is, regrettably, all too clear is that for some bizarre reason the government has abandoned the commitment made by the previous coalition government to support the Australian space sector. A key pillar of the Morrison government's manufacturing strategy was our strategic decision to bolster Australia's capabilities in the space sector. We supported funding locally to design, develop, manufacture and deploy specialised space products, equipment, systems and services for export to international markets, and to support national and international space missions. But Labor has not included space industry manufacturing as a priority area. The space industry, as well as the broader Australian public, are yet to understand the basis for this shift in focus. What is also, regrettably, all too clear is the extent to which this body will have extensive union involvement in its decision-making. Perhaps that's unsurprising, given that the minister is a former union official. Just on a random check, is the current Labor minister at the table a former union official? Yes, he is! What a surprise! It is very likely that this fund will pursue a traditional union agenda of assisting certain favoured industry sectors for a essentially political reasons—one of which, of course, is their wish to compel more Australians to join unions. As Professor Gary Banks, former chairman of the Productivity Commission has warned: … industry assistance that targets import replacement and job creation in certain sectors is generally 'bad for Australia's productivity and prosperity, … And the Australian Industry Group has rightly highlighted the very real risk that the National Reconstruction Fund will, 'operate as a means for unions to attract members'. I conclude with the observation that this is a bad idea and badly executed. Labor has a long track record of financial disaster with these kinds of schemes, and the current Prime Minister seems to have a particular enthusiasm for them. I confidently predict this fund will not live up to the breathless claims being made. A lot of taxpayers' money will be wasted. It's a bad bill. I have no hesitation in voting against it. 10:05 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My electorate of Hawke is home to some of Victoria's fastest-growing suburbs—indeed, some of Australia's fastest-growing suburbs. Thousands of new families, of all colours, creeds and backgrounds, enjoying the fine Australian ambition of building a new home, of raising kids and of providing the best possible life for them. The Albanese government shares their ambitions. We want to empower that ambition by creating opportunity, by easing the pressure of cost of living and by fostering an economy where no-one is left behind. The National Reconstruction Fund represents the biggest ever peacetime investment in Australian manufacturing capacity. It is a critical and necessary investment in the future of our nation, ensuring the strength of our sovereign capabilities and outlining an aspiration for the economy that we want to be. Its outputs will be consequential and wideranging. But, importantly, for the people of my electorate, the National Reconstruction Fund is about being a country that makes things again. It's about providing a new pipeline opportunity for them and for their children. It will mean that the students at Sunbury Downs College studying science, maths or technology, who hope to go to one of our world-class universities, know that this government will back them if they choose a career in research and development; that this government wants to see them succeed, see their work commercialised and see that their talent stays here in our country. It will mean that the TAFE student studying for free, thanks to Labor governments, know the skills they are learning will fill jobs now and well into the future. That training in advanced manufacturing and the industries that support it is a worthy endeavour. It will mean new, good, well-paid, honest jobs in my electorate and in so many others across the outer suburbs and regions of our country. It recognises the workers who proudly fill manufacturing jobs. Let's remember that it recognises them 10 years since those opposite dared the car manufacturing industry to leave this country and to leave my state of Victoria. It says to manufacturing workers that we value them and we value their work, that their skills and labour are a critical part of our economy and that they will never be forgotten or left behind by this Albanese Labor government. In his recent address to the National Press Club the Prime Minister outlined Labor's plan for Australia for this year. He put forward a clear agenda that seeks to shape our nation's future, not be scared of it. After a wasted decade of inaction, drift and reactionary politics under the Liberals, Labor, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, is balancing the urgent action needed to address global challenges and fix the mess left behind by those opposite with long-term reform and investment that will deliver the lasting progress that Australia needs. The National Reconstruction Fund is an investment in this progress and, indeed, it is an investment. Based off the model of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the National Reconstruction Fund will be required to generate a positive portfolio rate of return. This means the government's $15 billion investment will be returned with profit to reinvest in the fund itself, ensuring that it becomes self-sustaining. It will generate growth across our economy, it will boost productivity and it will create decent, well-paid Australian jobs. The National Reconstruction Fund will provide finance to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These leverage our natural and competitive strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and shore up our supply chains. The seven priority areas are: firstly, transport, where we need to develop capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains for our car, train and shipbuilding industries; secondly, resources, to expand Australia's mining science technology and ensure a greater share of the raw materials we extract here are processed here, value-added here and not shipped off and imported back at higher prices; and, thirdly, agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors, to unlock potential and value-add to raw materials in sectors like food processing, textiles, clothing, and footwear manufacturing. A fourth priority area is medical science, to leverage Australia's world-leading research to manufacture essential supplies like medical devices, PPE, medicines and vaccines. A fifth area is renewables and low-emission technologies, to capitalise on the opportunity presented by building the components for cleaner, renewable energy right here in our country. A sixth priority is defence capability, to close the capability gap left by those opposite, with Australian defence suppliers employing Australian workers to keep Australians safe. The seventh priority area is a range of other enabling capabilities to support and develop key enabling capabilities across engineering, data sciences and software development, from artificial intelligence to robotics and quantum. These priority areas cut across the broader sections of our economy. They are deliberate and are about building a diversified and resilient economy well into the future. Those opposite have decried the National Reconstruction Fund as interventionism. Many in their ranks think that the government have no place in this space and that we should not be, as they claim, picking winners. This is a tired, narrow-minded and diminished view of what governments can do. We need modern solutions that meet the challenges we face today and considered, strategic investment in research and manufacturing across these priority areas. It's critical to rising to those challenges and putting us in the best possible position for the future. The pandemic and Russia's illegal war in Ukraine have shown the vulnerability our country faces in being the last stop in the international supply chain. We know that supply-side shocks are a significant driver of the economic environment and the economic challenges that we face today. Indeed, the inflation that is currently putting extreme pressure on households across our country is largely driven by supply-side pressures. Indeed, the Reserve Bank of Australia noted in its most recent Statement on monetary policy that supply-side factors likely account for between half and three-quarters of the inflationary pressure currently facing our economy. With a strong manufacturing base, we can stand on our own two feet as a nation. We can protect ourselves from these challenges emanating from across the seas, but we can also commercialise Australian smarts, create new industry and build well-paid, decent Australian jobs. The National Reconstruction Fund is a very wise investment in a smart economy for the future. That is why it is so shocking to me and to my colleagues that those opposite are not supporting this bill. They were a failed Liberal government that has become a 'say no to everything' opposition. They say no to power bill relief. They say no to sensible and targeted cost-of-living relief. And now, in voting against this bill, they are saying no to Australian jobs, no to Australian industry and no to Australian research. Here in this place they show their true colours. Underneath the Sharks hats, behind the 'daggy dad' get-ups—nonsensical facades they think will appeal to working Australians—and through their confected culture wars designed to divide our communities, we see them for who they are. Australians know that, deep down, this Liberal opposition has not changed since Joe Hockey stood in this place and dared Ford to leave our shores. The people in my electorate, in my community, know the coalition are against good conditions. They're against well-paid union jobs, and they're still fundamentally antiworker. Once again, they have made a choice to turn their backs on Australian jobs. The Albanese government backs in workers. We back in Aussie smarts, and we're backing in Australian jobs. The National Reconstruction Fund is a smart investment in the potential of our nation. It is about renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for Australians, for small-business owners, for the regions and for Australian jobs. It's not a handout and it's not about picking winners. It's about creating opportunity from Australian smarts for the people in my community and so many others like it. 10:16 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon I rise today to speak to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, a bill that the opposition will, indeed, oppose. It's a bill that fails to support the manufacturing and industry sectors on the ground across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania. In the electorate of Braddon, you'll find the most practical, pragmatic, hardworking people in small business anywhere in the country. Our region is the engine room of Tasmania, and that engine is driven by our fantastic small business sector—by mum-and-dad businesses working hard. We punch well above our weight when it comes to the contribution to the state and the nation's wealth. There's one thing that practical enterprising people hate more than anything else, and that is bureaucracy. Big government inserting themselves into their lives, their livelihoods, their businesses and the way they go about their work every day is their biggest frustration, when there's no reason for this intervention in the first place. On this side, we firmly believe in and steadfastly stand on the side of the individual. We celebrate initiative and personal responsibility. We know that our nation was built on the back of our enterprising mums and dads, our small businesses and our small to medium sized enterprises. We know that our SMEs are strangled by senseless oversight and bureaucracy. They never reach their full potential because of this bureaucratic burden. Bureaucracy is slow and unresponsive, and modern businesses can't afford to be slow and unresponsive if they are to compete in a competitive global environment. Standing in this place, I feel ashamed telling our manufacturers and our industry that the Albanese government has introduced yet another piece of legislation that will make their life more difficult and make their life harder, not easier. This National Reconstruction Fund is described by the Albanese government as a funding opportunity. All I can see is that this fund is a source of endless frustration for practical small businesses. There have been more phone calls to my office, asking me: 'What on earth is this government doing now? What were they thinking?' It was only a few months ago that I was standing in this very place, speaking against the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This was a bill that took away the gains that we've made in the workplace over many decades, a bill that took us back to the old dark days of industry-led government intervention and back to the time of the previous Labor governments, who sold their soul to their union masters, a bill that unfairly targeted our small mum-and-dad businesses and a bill that took control away from small business and put it back in the hands of Labor's union masters. And here I am again! Here I am again on a different day, at a different time and speaking on a different bill, but, yes, it's the same old story. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, you know what they say. Providing what industry requires at any time is our responsibility as government. In typical style, this bill's underlying assumption is that the Albanese government knows what's best for small business. This is something that they are demonstrating time and time again in this place. It beggars belief that you would implement $15 billion worth of financing in that mechanism to drive investment without genuinely consulting industry on the ground. Let's take our world-class forestry sector, for example. The NRF does not alter in one way the landscape or improve the opportunities for this sector. This includes our native regrowth industry, of which Tasmania leads the nation. Our leading forestry industry bodies such as AFPA, the Australian Forest Products Association, and AFCA, the Australian Forest Contractors Association, work hard on behalf of world's-best-practice industry, and they support and underpin their forestry-sponsored industry workers and businesses in the wood fibre industry. I was pleased that AFPA and AFCA made a submission to the NRF consultation process and outlined the real story on the ground. The issues that they've raised are just common sense to me and common sense to people on this side, but it's a shame that that common sense hasn't found its way to the land of the bureaucrat and to this big-government approach to small business. If their submission had landed in the world of the real people, they might have had a fighting chance. Their submission basically noted: 'Our timber processing facilities are limited in the investment that they can justify due to a shortage of wood fibre supply. This shortage is being exacerbated by some state governments and their move to shut down native forestry. In turn, this impacts on potential returns for the investment of the Australian manufacturing side of sustainable timber products.' AFPA and AFCA want the Albanese government to at least try to understand, at least try to listen. Our forestry industry is crucial when it comes to our renewable future. It's crucial to our renewable jobs, our resilience and affordable housing strategies, but it is being held back by a government and that government's inaction and militant attacks on this enterprise. But what's this government's solution to this? They're planning to add another layer of complexity and bureaucracy on top of all of that. Unlike Labor, I believe in a world with more boots and less suits. This gets back to what I said earlier. The last things that we need for our environmentally responsible, sustainable, safe and professional forestry industry are more bureaucrats, more rules, more bureaucracy, more government and more union involvement. This won't get the logs out. That won't help our young contractors pay those payments every month. It won't put families who work in the industry at the forefront of their own destiny. In an industry which in Tasmania often is run by small businesses and families, these are generational businesses that are handed from father to son, from mother to daughter. So again I ask: what is the National Reconstruction Fund going to do for them? I think it will be zip, nada, nil. I think the government didn't consult, didn't listen or didn't act on the advice that industry peak bodies, like AFPA and like AFCA, raised in this question. The question remains, after all of that: who are they listening to? I must admit I read with interest the extensive list of stakeholders that the government did consult in drafting this piece of legislation. This included Austrade, and I accept that this is an appropriate stakeholder. The next 15 on the list are all federal departments: the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; the Department of Finance—the list goes on and on. I ask: where's the consultation with industry on the ground—the manufacturers, the welders, the log truck drivers, the dozer drivers, the mums and dads who are going about their business every day? Where's their consultation? If one is to develop a funding opportunity that aims to boost investment in manufacturing, to create jobs, to grow local capacity and to rebuild Australia's industrial base, then I reckon a great place to start would be to start listening to the people on the ground, the ones that really matter. It beggars belief to me! But, true to form, this government has hand-picked a small cohort of their mates, asking them to contribute to the design of this bill. It will come as no surprise to anybody who got an invite to the table—the Australian Council of Trade Unions; the former Labor cabinet minister Anna Bligh, who leads the Australian Banking Association; Industry Super Australia. The list goes on and on. It was a big get-together. We all know that unions largely underwrote the Albanese government's election victory. They spent $37 million in donations on campaign materials and election advertising, of which $16 million was paid directly to the Labor Party. We also know that there's no such thing as a free donation—or a free lunch, for that matter—and it seems the national reconstruction corporation is a payday for that union movement. One-third of the corporation's board positions will be hand-picked by the Council of Trade Unions. In effect, that means that the trade union movement will choose who gets the funding and who doesn't. Alarmingly, an enterprise agreement with the unions is a pre-condition to even making an application. You wonder why we're upset on this side. You wonder why we're against this. They are demanding that applicants commit to direct employment, and, if contractors or indirect workforces are used, then they must be employed on the same conditions as the direct workforce. This essentially enshrines compulsory unionism into any and every workplace that wishes to apply for these funds. I'm standing up for my local manufacturing sector. I'm standing up for those mums and dads that go about their business every day. I'm standing up for those forestry workers that go to work, trying to get those logs out into that sector every day. I'm standing up for industry on the ground. I'm standing up for the battler. It's an exciting time for industry, as we're seeing many emerging opportunities, but the sector is also facing significant and ongoing intermediate challenges. I'm out and about every day, onsite, talking to business owners. They're telling me they have three major challenges. Firstly, the cost of energy. Secondly, workforce shortages: they're finding it difficult to get employees. And, thirdly, the disrupted supply chains, which really impede on their cost of doing business. These are the three things that we want government to support them with right now, but the Albanese government have turned their backs on them and are focusing on scrapping the former government's funding programs and putting bureaucratic, union-led programs in their place. Industry should know that I'm always on their side. They know that I'll fight for them in this place and remind government of the importance of our local manufacturing sector and industrial sector. I'll remind the government that industry must be free and agile and as unencumbered to bureaucracy as possible in order for those small businesses to maintain profitable. And—here's a news flash—I'll remind all those on the other side that governments and bureaucrats don't create jobs. It's our enterprising mum-and-dad and small and medium sized business sectors that create jobs, and that's why the opposition will be opposing the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. 10:29 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is with great delight that I rise in this chamber today to speak in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. This bill presents such an enormous range of very exciting opportunities for my electorate of Newcastle—and not just my electorate. All of us on this side understand the profound impact that this can have in terms of helping shape our nation's future. This bill gives effect to the Albanese Labor government's commitment to establish a National Reconstruction Fund Corporation. The government is providing the corporation with $15 billion to enable it to invest in priority areas in the Australian economy. It is gobsmacking to those of us on this side of the House that we would have an opposition voting against such important investment in critical infrastructure and projects for this nation—doomsayers, naysayers. It's not good enough. One of those priority areas for Australia, of course, is investing in renewables and low-emissions technologies, and we have $3 billion already earmarked for this sector. As the world urgently focuses on the need to decarbonise, the transition to renewables and low-emissions technologies will play a critical role in delivering Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. This is a commitment we have signed up to, that we have pledged to the international arena. This bill plus the investment mandate guiding investments combined are going to make sure that the $15 billion fund absolutely will be driving Australia's already natural inclination towards innovation. While the National Reconstruction Fund will be administered at arm's length from government by an independent board, as it should be, the investment mandate will guide the board on making investments in key sectors which leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths and reflect the government's priorities. A commitment to lower emissions is one such priority, and the National Reconstruction Fund will help accelerate regions like Newcastle and the Hunter in becoming a renewable energy hub, indeed a superpower. It could support investment in renewables and low-emissions technology so we can pursue big commercial opportunities that lay ahead, including, in my part of the world, manufacturing of components for wind turbines. We know the critical role of offshore wind in the future of energy, so being able to manufacture those important component parts of turbines here in Australia and in towns like Newcastle is a very, very bright part of our future. Things like the production of batteries, new solar technologies, modernising steel and aluminium production, hydrogen electrolysers and innovative packaging solutions for waste reduction are all critical areas that my constituents and Australian citizens everywhere care deeply about. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting carbon-intensive regions like Newcastle and the Hunter to take full advantage of the enormous economic and job opportunities that come with renewable energy. With our skilled workforce, abundant resources, industrial expertise, and critical rail and port infrastructure, Newcastle is poised to take full advantage of these new energy industries. Newcastle and our region have powered Australia for generations, and the Albanese Labor government is ensuring that we will continue to do so for many generations to come. The Port of Newcastle, as many know, is the largest coal export hub in the world. But we are looking to the future and we know that these new energy industries are going to play a vital role in that future. We know that industries like green hydrogen will be critical to the diversification of the economic base of our region. They are a critical part of the diversification plans for the Port of Newcastle and are integral to the shaping of our region's future. We've had 10 years of people putting their heads in the sand, pretending this wasn't going to be, that they didn't need to plan. They pretended everything was going to stay the same. They lied to people in Newcastle and the Hunter. They were going to leave us hanging out to dry as the global economy transformed, leaving regions like mine that are carbon intense with nothing to plan for in the future. Well, that changes with the election of this government. The Albanese Labor government has already committed $100 million to ensure the green hydrogen readiness of the Port of Newcastle. Just last month we opened consultation on a proposed offshore wind zone for the Hunter region, an exciting opportunity for Newcastle to ensure large-scale, reliable and clean electricity for decades to come. In fact, community information sessions are happening in Newcastle today, and I encourage Novocastrians everywhere to attend, to hear, to listen to the experts and to have their voices heard. Supporting Newcastle to become a clean-energy superpower will create thousands of new jobs while critically diversifying our local economy. It is unimaginable that we have members opposite opposing such investments. The CSIRO predicts that the hydrogen industry alone would account for 7,600 jobs and $11 billion in additional GDP by 2050. Heavy industries moving to carbon-neutral processes like green-hydrogen-manufactured steel could also create 92,000 new jobs over the next decade. These are not insignificant investments. Australia could create as many as 400,000 new jobs by targeting industry support towards zero and low-emissions manufacturing, including renewable energy and battery storage production. Labor's Powering Australia plan will see five out of six new energy jobs in regions like mine. Again, I say to members opposite: how dare you seek to stop and prevent such important, critical investments into regions like Newcastle and the Hunter? How dare you? You pretended nothing was going to happen and were prepared to leave hundreds of thousands of families hanging out to dry. You've been part of the problem and now you seek to prevent being part of the solution. You seek to stop the solutions that we put before the Australian people and now the Australian parliament. It is unacceptable, and I implore all thinking individuals on opposition benches to give very careful consideration to your votes. You say you are a party that issues free votes; let's see how many exercise that freedom when it comes to the crunch. The National Reconstruction Fund is the first step in Labor's plan to rebuild Australia's industrial base. We want Australia to be a country that makes things again—it is that simple. In November last year the honourable Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, addressed the National Press Club and said: We import the bulk of what we need across sectors. And yet, the signs are there that we can take a different path. He also said: We have the smallest manufacturing industry relative to domestic purchases of any OECD country. Our consumption of manufacturing output is nearly double our domestic manufacturing output. And we have slipped in economic complexity from a modest 55 in 1995 to 91st in the world in 2020. The Albanese Labor government was elected on a mandate to drive the transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products here in Australia again. We saw, through the pandemic, how those global supply chains were under huge pressure, and products that we expected to be able to access were very hard, if not impossible, to obtain. We need to revitalise manufacturing after years of neglect under the coalition government. Those opposite had nine years—and nine industry ministers in those nine years—but left Australia's manufacturing industry in tatters. And they have again shown that they are not on the side of Australian manufacturers. Our focus is on rebuilding Australian manufacturing industry for Australians. With Newcastle's strong background in manufacturing, the National Reconstruction Fund brings enormous potential for our region. Newcastle is ready to take up that challenge. Our region, taking in Lake Macquarie and the Hunter Valley, is ready and is the lead employer of manufacturing in regional New South Wales. Manufacturing is Newcastle's largest output-generating sector, supporting an estimated annual output of $5.76 billion. It generates an estimated $3.13 billion in regional exports, and Newcastle's manufacturing sector spends an estimated $3.492 billion on regional imports—more than any other sector. Despite this, right now Australia ranks dead last among the OECD countries in manufacturing self-sufficiency. This is untenable! The National Reconstruction Fund provides a crucial financing vehicle specifically to drive investments in projects that will build prosperity, broaden our industrial base and boost regional economic development. The NRF has been welcomed by the Hunter Jobs Alliance, a regionally based alliance comprising nine unions and four community environment groups. Those are not two camps which necessarily sit together too often but, together, they understand fully the benefits that come to regions like ours from the National Reconstruction Fund. In response to the National Reconstruction Fund consultation paper, Hunter Workers said: 'We strongly support the NRF as essential to address investment gaps that are constraining manufacturing opportunities, including in the Hunter and other regions. This is a critical national investment that must be well designed as a durable program for the long term. We commend the Australian government on the initiative and on the rapid development of the NRF program to date.' That's what Hunter Workers had to say. Australian know-how, our scientists and our innovators are among the best in the world. Photovoltaic technology and solar cells were invented here, but 87 per cent of those cells today are made in one country—and it's not Australia. In the next three years, that number will be 94 per cent. If we invent it here, we should make it here: that is Labor's proposition to the Australian people. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time meaningful work and secure jobs. The $15 billion in capital provided through the NRF will support projects that create secure, well-paid jobs; drive regional development; and invest in our national sovereignty and our sovereign capability, broadening and diversifying Australia's economy. These are all good things. How anyone would vote against them is unfathomable. Through the National Reconstruction Fund, Labor will partner with business to unlock further potential private investment of more than $30 billion. And the NRFC will invest strategically in high-value-adding projects and priority areas with a strong regional presence—this means in areas like resources, agriculture, defence and renewables. It's anticipated that this will drive scale and growth, creating high-value jobs in the regions. Investments, including those targeting emerging opportunities, will help regional areas to diversify their economies and to create workforce opportunities. This investment will play to the strengths of Newcastle and the Hunter region, supporting new and emerging industries; transitioning existing industries to net zero emissions; and making it easier to commercialise innovation and technology. We are great at all these things; however, people need support now. After 10 years of neglect we need to invest—we need to remedy that. Our future in Newcastle is looking bright indeed under this government. 10:44 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise to provide qualified support for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. A version of this bill is an essential step forward if we want to reduce supply chain risk, shape our future economy and achieve our potential to become a renewable energy superpower. There is so much opportunity in Australia, and in some areas, where markets fail or enabling investment is required, government support is justified to kickstart new industries. For example, in my electorate there's huge potential under the $1.5 billion committed to medical manufacturing under the medical science priority area. In Curtin, we have six medical research institutes, four hospitals, a university and a number of med-tech startups. But Australia's wealth hides a serious failure of national strategy. The wealth generated from our abundance of resources should have led to an investment in the industries and skills that Australia doesn't currently have. Due to our geography, we'll always be a country that digs stuff up and ships it overseas, but we have so much potential, including for value-adding to our commodities. As an alternative to exporting green energy directly, we can move further down the supply chain, using our abundant sun and wind and embedding green energy in our commodities and adding to our economic complexity. Australia's main exports are in low-complexity categories such as mining and agriculture. According to the Atlas of Economic Complexity, in 2020 Australia ranked 91st of 133 countries, just above Namibia and just below Kenya. Economic complexity is important because it not only allows countries to produce unique, sophisticated and high-value products with diverse export destinations but also guards against major economic shifts that could dramatically affect a country's reliance on a small number of industries, as we do. We need to add to our economic complexity as we can foresee significant changes in demand for our second and third largest exports, coal and gas. There are huge opportunities to add value to our largest export, iron ore, by processing it using green energy, but this will require some government support to ensure we don't miss the boat. Many of these industries will only become competitive with some foresighted government support, especially as we see other countries, like the US, positioning themselves to lead in the opportunities presented by decarbonisation. So the priority area for focus on renewable and low-emissions technologies in the fund is essential, as well as value-add in resources. I would like to be a hundred per cent supportive of this bill, but, like many of my crossbench colleagues, I'm concerned about the potential of this government or future governments to abuse the intention of this legislation and this fund. Government support is only needed if market forces do not provide adequate incentives for investment. This mainly occurs in emerging or immature industries. There is a risk that the fund could be used to grow economic activity that's contrary to the sustainable long-term robustness of our economy. For example, value-adding to resources will need to leverage our natural advantage in renewable energy, not embed or grow the use of fossil fuel energy sources. While I understand that fossil fuel investment is not the intention of the bill, it's important that we guard against the fund being used to satisfy powerful interests, such as the fossil fuel companies, with strong connections to political parties. Before I can support this bill, I would like to see an explicit carve-out for fossil fuel industries to ensure that this or future governments cannot use the fund to support fossil fuel based industries that have a declining role in our future economy. There are some broad challenges with the legislation which I expect will surface in the report to be tabled on Friday from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. I understand the rationale for securing the full $15 billion to provide certainty for private sector co-investors, but the discretionary nature of the $10 billion component to be provided in due course raises some concerns. There is very little transparency or guidance on how the fund will be used. There are seven broad priority areas based on analysis from 2020. It's not clear whether there is actually market failure in all of these areas, whether government intervention is justifiable. We don't want to see government investment that takes the place of private investment. I would like to see more recent or ongoing analysis—say, by the Productivity Commission—into whether these areas are and continue to be fields that require government intervention to promote future healthy industries. I have a similar concern about the transparency of the investment mandate. With such a large amount of money, there should be an opportunity for parliament to scrutinise the investment mandate. This could be done, for example, through a disallowable instrument. Taxpayers have the right to know how this money will be invested. Another concern relates to timing. Having just seen the 10th consecutive interest rate rise, I believe it's clear that the economy remains overheated. It will take some time to get the fund up and running and it's expected that inflation will peak in the next 12 months. It would be preferable for the first investments from the fund to occur after inflation is more under control. The timing may work naturally, but the government could consider linking the two to avoid fiscal policy working counter to monetary policy. The government has stated that the board will be independent, but the ministers' power to appoint the board means the ministers potentially have significant power in relation to a significant discretionary sum of money. I will support the member for Mackellar's amendment, which aims to improve the transparency and accountability of the board. I hope that the board will have the skills and experience to make appropriate trade-offs between the seven priority areas and take a long-term view of the industries in which Australia is most likely to have a long-term competitive advantage. Our economy depends on diversification into growing sectors and our world depends on meeting our emission reduction targets. I think there is potential to achieve both of these aims through this bill, and I encourage the government to consider the concerns I've raised, along with the outcome of the Senate inquiry, to ensure that the fund doesn't replace private investment, extend dying industries or industries where we have no competitive advantage, or exacerbate inflation. 10:51 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I, too, rise in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, which will be driving transformation of Australian industry. Now, we know that driving that transformation of Australian industry is vital to reviving our ability as a nation to make and manufacture world-class products once again, and in South Australia, my home state, we understand this very well. We were a good manufacturing state. We had car plants where we could manufacture a motor vehicle from design—in other words, designing it on a piece of paper—right through to the showroom selling that actual vehicle. We were one of only 13 places in the world, 13 countries, that had those skills. What we saw from the then government, those on the opposite side today, who had nine ministers in this area in nine years, was that it left Australia's manufacturing in tatters. And what a line-up it was! There was Macfarlane, Pyne, Sinodinos, Cash, Andrews, Porter, Taylor and, of course, Mr Morrison as well. They stood right here in this place and goaded General Motors-Holden out of Australia. Who could forget that speech by Joe Hockey, the then Treasurer, goading General Motors-Holden out of Australia! They just had absolutely no regard for those workers who were working in these manufacturing jobs in South Australia, where the loss of Holden cost us 30,000 manufacturing jobs. There were approximately 1,500 workers at GMH and another 30-odd thousand people working in smaller companies that manufactured products for General Motors-Holden. The National Reconstruction Fund's investment decisions will be those of an independent body. For too long, while those opposite were in government, decisions were made in the interests of coalition held seats and of their mates, not in the interests of Australia. You will not see a single colour coded spreadsheet when this is up and running in Australia. And the irony is that the coalition is talking about inappropriate ministerial direction in regard to this thing; it is just bizarre to me. You would think that they would be supporting manufacturing. You would think that they would be supporting jobs—jobs in their areas, in regional areas, in rural areas, in outer suburbs, in cities—because that's what this bill is designed to do. We know that for too long, when those opposite were in government, decisions were made not in the interests of Australia but in the interests of the coalition and their mates. Our focus is on renewing, revitalising and rebuilding Australia's manufacturing industry for all Australians: for small-business owners, for the regions, for jobs, for innovative technologies, for the people of Australia and their future. The opposition have a choice: to either vote for and support this bill and help create jobs and make this nation a manufacturing nation once again, or to not support jobs. That's the choice they have when this comes up for a vote later on today. During the pandemic, we experienced firsthand the potential dangers of being a country that doesn't make things locally. All of us would have witnessed it in our electorates, when there were shortages of things on supermarkets shelves and products that we needed to manufacture. The demand on supply chains was huge. As I said, who could forget the empty supermarket shelves, the months waiting for deliveries and the shortage of construction materials, which is still felt today? We have an abundance of natural resources, but we need to expand how we value-add to these products. For decades, we've mined our resources and shipped them overseas to other countries to process them and add value to them. We then import them back at many times the price we originally sold them for. This sends any potential manufacturing industry profits and thousands of jobs overseas. That's what we've done over the last 10 years. This is what we've seen. We need to keep businesses here. We need to value-add to products. Australian know-how and our scientists and innovators are amongst the best in the world. As I said before, we were one of the only nations that could actually design a car and from that point go right through the process to actually producing it, adding to it and then selling it in the showroom. We were one of only 13 nations. So we have a proven track record. Another example is that we invented photovoltaic technology. Solar cells were invented here. But today, as we heard the member for Newcastle say, 87 per cent of the world's cells are made in one country. And in the next three years that number is expected to rise to 94 per cent. We need to change that, make more of those here and see more of that product being exported. We need to keep our people working in local industries, and we want Australians living overseas to come back home with their special technology. Of course, many young people leave Australia seeking support and funding for their ideas. Those opposite like to talk about manufacturing, but the reality is that the manufacturing sector has been neglected for years under the former coalition government. Those opposite had, as I said, nine ministers. That is why this National Reconstruction Fund will be a total game changer, and that's why those opposite must support it. It sets aside $15 billion as a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and create sustainable, well-paying jobs. As a South Australian, in the history of South Australia we had two major motor vehicle producers. We had Mitsubishi, formerly Chrysler, and General Motors-Holden's. They produced vehicles and provided well-paid and secure jobs for thousands and thousands of people in South Australia. One of them was my father, who worked at General Motors-Holden's. We're focusing this fund to drive investment in a number of priority areas. As I said, these areas include value-adding in: resources; the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector; transport capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains, including for cars, trains and shipbuilding; and medical science, to take advantage of our world-leading research—we know we have world-leading research—to ensure we always have essential supplies such as medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. The pandemic certainly taught us the importance of this. Then I come to the priority area of renewables and low-emission technologies. This is an area that has been underinvested in in this country. Why is that? Because there was no certainty. We had a government—those sitting opposite now—that for nine years had so many different policies on climate change, on renewables and on low-emission technologies. No-one in their right mind would invest when there's no certainty. That's what we want to give investors. We want to give them certainty so we can become world leaders in renewable technologies, such as making components for wind turbines, batteries, solar panels and innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste—just to name a few things. There are many more. The NRFC will also support our National Battery Strategy. It will send a very strong message to investors about our Australia's industry and battery supply chain capabilities. We know we're one of the world's places where lithium is mined and we want to value-add to that. That's what's required in batteries for electric vehicles. These are some of the areas that've got great potential for Australia. The other one is defence capability, so we can employ Australian workers, whether they be in technology, infrastructure or skills in another area that is very important to South Australia. As I said, with those opposite for too long we were a government that made no decisions in this area. It was an area that was neglected and an area that shouldn't have been neglected. This government, this Albanese Labor government, is going to turn that around with this particular bill that will help manufacturing; will help innovative technologies; will invest in real jobs, secure jobs and jobs that pay well. 11:01 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The National Reconstruction Fund is ill considered and I fear will be poorly implemented. I'm here, very strongly, to provide my commentary and my view. I do that as the member for Barker. The House might not be aware, but in terms of manufacturing Barker is the electorate division in Australia that has more people employed in full-time employment in food manufacturing than any other electorate in this place. I'm not much of a pin-up boy, but when it comes to the grocery council of Australia I'm it—sometimes perhaps because I consume far too much of their product! The reality is food manufacturing is going gangbusters in Barker, or at least it has been. There are significant headwinds pressing up against the ability of Barker's manufacturers to take the opportunities that world-leading free trade agreements—established by the former coalition government—with some of the most populated and aspiring countries around the world. They are headwinds that are pushing back the opportunity not only for those manufacturers but for people working in those sectors. Importantly, from my perspective, and I know it's important to other people in this place, it's pushing back opportunities for primary producers who provide the raw product that goes into manufacturing facilities and comes out as some of the world's most valued food and fibre. What are those headwinds? These are headwinds that this bill and this effort should be targeted towards, but in fact without addressing those headwinds this is a complete waste of time. Those headwinds that I speak of are labour shortages for the sector and energy costs. Not a month ago I came to this House with a really stark and particular example of what energy costs are doing to manufacturers in my electorate. Nippy's are fruit packers and fruit juice and otherwise drink producers in my electorate. It's a third generation family business. It's family owned. All of their product is Australian grown. They came to me alarmed that their energy bill was going to from at gargantuan $900,000 to $1.8 million. This is a relatively large business. It was going to increase by 92½ per cent. Imagine opening that email. Well, that's what Ben Knispel did in that business. Then imagine him having to take that email to his parents, Jeff and Tina, who have worked so hard in their lives to establish that business, and having to say, 'Mum and Dad, I've got some bad news for you.' 'What's that, son?' 'Well, the electricity bill is going up.' 'By how much?' 'By almost double.' That's bad enough news for the Knispel family and for Nippy's, and for everyone who works in that business, like the citrus producers that provide the product that go into what I think—well, I know—is Australia's best fruit juice. But I'll tell you who it's really bad news for: the mum-and-dad consumers who are wheeling their trolleys down the aisle of Woolworths or Coles and who really want to buy that 100 per cent Aussie-grown fruit juice. Instead, as the price of that product necessarily increases because the cost of producing it in Australia increases, they look to cheap substitutes. Of course they would; they have to. I don't blame them for that, I get it. In this place we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, or the crunch. Well, the crunch occurs, item by item, as you walk down grocery aisles. When it comes to fresh fruit juice, the alternatives are cheap and nasty concentrates which have been rehydrated from foreign concentrates. But that's where we're pushing Australian manufacturers. We're pushing them to the wall because they're competing with jurisdictions that have cheaper costs for energy and cheaper costs for labour. While I'm on the question of labour: the second thing that this government should be looking to address in this space is labour force shortages. A number of years ago I'd visit the odd employer who would say to me, 'Tony, we're having some difficulty accessing short-term labour.' It was often in fruit picking and the more difficult kind of work. I'm here to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander—in fact, I don't need to tell you—that everyone in this House is having the same conversations I'm having, I am sure, with employers who speak variously politely and less politely—in my case, scream at me—about the need for more people in the labour market. We're seeing two things occurring in my electorate, and I confirmed it with employers who were visiting Parliament House yesterday. There's a capital strike going on—that is, manufacturers are not investing in capital. That's not because they don't have capital, which I want to address in a minute in terms of the bill. They've got access to capital—there's no issue about that. But the reason there's a strike on is because they've got no confidence that, when they expend the capital and they expand their plant and equipment, they'll have the staff they need to undertake that manufacturing activity. That's why there's a capital strike. To the extent that any of them are expending capital in my electorate at the moment, they're all doing so to substitute automation for labour. They're not doing that because it's cheaper, which is the rhetoric that you sometimes hear—not necessarily from those opposite, but in the civic square from other participants. They're doing it because they need to de-risk their businesses. They need to de-risk their businesses from the prospect of not having a workforce to be able to do this work. So, increasingly, when I visit manufacturing businesses in my electorate, nobody drives a forklift anymore. These are all automated vehicles. It looks a little bit like something off the set of Dr Who. But businesses are spending gargantuan sums of money to do that for no reason other than they've tried and tried to fill those roles. Instead, what they do is spend, as I said, gargantuan sums of money to automate those processes. For those opposite, the priorities are all wrong here. This is a bill that effectively tries to incentivise, with capital, manufacturing development in our country. I'm pretty close to those manufacturers, and I can tell you that there's no shortage of capital for them. What there is is nervousness. That nervousness is born of the cost of energy and the uncertainty around our labour markets. Solve those problems first, before you try to pat yourself on the back in this place because you're standing up for Australian jobs and Australian manufacturers. With respect—and as someone who has a bit to say during question time, much to the frustration, I think, of the Speaker—if that were true, I wouldn't be able to easily barb the relevant minister about his paper. You'd think that the federal Minister for Industry and Science would be the first person to buy Aussie paper. But, because I'm able to barb him, it's a classic example of what's going on in this country. You see, I and other members of this place have people come to us from time to time concerned about the prospect of various industries. There are two industries I'm desperately concerned about in the Australian business ecosystem—those that are involved with cement and aluminium. The Portland Aluminium smelter is in the member for Wannon's electorate, but it's effectively a pitching wedge from mine. There are many people who live in my electorate but work at that smelter. The risk we face with the agenda that's being pursued aggressively by those opposite is that those businesses—and there are literally a handful of smelters lefts in in this country—become unviable. What would then happen? Nobody in this place presumably anticipates that, as a result of that, Australians would consume or use less aluminium. That's not going to happen. What's going to happen is that our ore will be put on boats; it will be shipped overseas; it will be processed into aluminium; and then it will come back to Australia, again on a boat, either as a finished product or as a refined product for manufacturing. That's a bad outcome for Australian manufacturing. It's a bad outcome for Aussie jobs. I'd suggest to you it's a really bad outcome for the environment. That's because, assuming, if I could for a moment—which I don't think we should—the environmental standards in the country that our manufacturing effort exports itself to are exactly the same as Australia's, which I think is unlikely, you've got the footprint of taking massive amounts of ore overseas, only to bring back the refined product. As I said, that presupposes that the environmental standards in other jurisdictions are equal to Australia's, which I think we can accept is unlikely to be the case. The more likely reality is that we would create a massive footprint shifting material OS and bringing it back, only to manufacture it in a jurisdiction that has less stringent regulations around environmental protocols, pollution, energy, carbon, carbon abatement et cetera. But that's what this aggressive agenda is doing. On the one hand, you've got the minister for carbon reduction fighting for these outcomes, and on the other hand you've got the minister for industry saying, 'We're all about Aussie jobs.' I'm really struggling to draw the connection between the two. But it's not just me; it's Australian manufacturers, who feel like they're on an extinction pathway. Trust me. I speak to them all the time, and they say, 'Tony, it's getting harder and harder.' You see, I don't want that to be the future of Australian manufacturing. Those opposite are fond of saying, 'The car industry is not here anymore; Australian manufacturing is dead; we don't make things anymore.' Rubbish! Like I said, there are more people employed in food and fibre manufacturing in my electorate than in any other division and it is the No. 1 cohort of employers. We manufacture all sorts of products that the world is desperate for: proteins, milk products, wood, wine. What we need is a government that understands what the headwinds are and doesn't come up with a shiny new thing that they can market in a retail political space saying, 'Look at us. We want to be the government that makes things again.' Please! Provide the settings that business needs to get ahead. Back manufacturers in. The first thing you could do is say, 'We're going to take an agnostic approach to energy generation in this country.' What we've got to do is find the cheapest form of energy generation now, in the medium term and in the long term. Before those opposite say, 'That's renewables'—it may well be in the long term, but right now without baseload renewables, it's not. And solve the issue around labour shortages, please, but not by a lottery that allows those Pacific Islanders who win the lottery to leave their homes. Solve those two problems before you rush in here with this shiny product and ask me to vote for it. 11:16 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce We were just treated to another in the series of bizarre contributions from those opposite. Using a reasonable voice can't cover up the abject nonsense which is being spouted by those opposite. They're talking down Australian manufacturing saying, 'It is terrible. It's stuffed. There are no workers. Energy prices are out of control.' We even heard, from the previous speaker, that manufacturing in Australia is now 'on an extinction pathway.' It's like they forget they were the government for the last nine years. It hasn't all changed overnight. The people opposite were the government of the country, through the last decade of dysfunction, dithering, delay and decay. They're responsible for the situation we're in. I'll just remind the speakers still to come: maybe try taking some responsibility and have a look at your own record as you talk about the situation the country's in. We had eight industry ministers—actually, we had nine. We only had eight that the Australian people knew about and the ninth, of course, was Scott Morrison, who was the secret industry minister when he was also Prime Minister. So that's nine industry ministers in nine years. Apparently, it's Labor's fault that they made such a mess. There's a joke in my community: 'How do you know there's an election on? The Liberals turn up at a mosque.' It's a little bit like what we're hearing here. How do you know the election's over? The Liberals start to care and talk about Australian manufacturing. It is pathetic. If COVID taught our country anything, it's about disruption to supply chains. If Russia's illegal war in Ukraine taught us anything, it's about the need to manufacture the consumables of war and conflict. If history and common sense teach our nation anything, then it is the critical importance of urgently boosting our sovereign manufacturing capability. The government says, as we're mocked, 'We need to make more things here.' We can make more things here. We should make more things here and we must make more things here. As the Prime Minister has been saying, before the election and since, we need 'a future made in Australia.' That's what our suite of policies, together, are about. And the National Reconstruction Fund, the $15 billion fund, which is the subject of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill, is a critical part of that. We have a mandate. We announced it, we released it before the election, and it was carefully designed with industry to respond to actual issues out there in the economy. And yet, those opposite say they're going to vote against it. I encourage them to reconsider their position. To the Greens political party: don't join with the Liberals. Back Australian manufacturing; it's now urgent. It's got two big goals: to transform industry—bringing new technology and critical sectors—and to create more secure, well-paid jobs, which are so important in my community in south-east Melbourne, covering part of the great south-east metropolitan manufacturing precinct stretching through Dandenong and Hallam. It's the largest single employment sector in that region. It really frustrates me when we hear the common media narrative talking down Australian manufacturing. That said, there are a few home truths. We'll never make everything here. We're a country of 25 million people in a globally connected interdependent world of complex supply chains; we can't make everything here. Of course we have to work with the rest of the world but we need to do much better. If you look at the stats, we are now around the lowest for manufacturing self-sufficiency of any developed country in the world. It is the record we have inherited from the former government that they do not want to own, don't want to talk about. They want to use a reasonable voice so people forget that they were the government responsible for this. That is what we hear. It is all doom and gloom. We heard the former Speaker say, 'My businesses yell at me, 'We are on a path to extinction.' Well, I tell you what you can do if energy prices are such a big deal. You could have voted for the government's energy price relief plan. We recalled parliament in December to cap gas prices to give immediate relief to manufacturers, and what did those opposite do? They voted against it. And what did they do before the election? They changed the law to cover up—I would say 'lie', but we are in the parliament, so I can't say 'lie'—the power price rises that were coming down the pipeline which consumers and businesses are now suffering from. But instead of working with the government to clean up the mess, they voted against it. They voted against power price relief, just as they say they are going to vote against support for manufacturing. We are also too low in economic complexity, which is a nerdy measure that economists use to look at how complex our economy is. Can we make a wide diversity of goods, particularly high-value complex goods? Japan is at the top of that list. A few years ago we slipped to 87th out of the 133 countries measured and it went down over the decade this mob were in office compared to the previous decade. It is now urgent that this bill passes after a decade of neglect and drift. Those opposite chased the car industry out of Australia. Right here in the parliament, from the government benches, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott were daring them to leave and guess what?—they left. Those opposite played politics with grants. The former prime minister made himself the chief decider in the modern manufacturing grants. He was going to make all the decisions. At least that was honest. It was not the series of coloured spreadsheets and dodgy stuff that the Auditor-General found in all the other grants programs. At least he owned it—well done. We have an inquiry into that, and some public hearings on Friday. We will see what went on. As I said, there were eight industry ministers. We will name the rogues' gallery: McFarlane, Pyne, Hunt, Sinodinos, Cash, Andrews—she's still here—Porter, Taylor and Morrison—he is sort of sometimes here. But despite their wasted decade, the $1 trillion in Liberal debt, all the mess, they have learnt to nothing. They are still here in their reasonable voice talking down Australian manufacturing instead of working with the government in the national interest. In voting for the bill to urgently revitalise manufacturing, they say 'no, no, no'. I think we are not allowed to call them the no-alition in here at the moment. It is one of those grey areas. We will stay away from that but we do it outside, though. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 I think that is right. Mr HILL 86256 Yes, okay, I've got that. I am going to quote myself. Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons used to quote himself, so I will be that guy for a moment. In my first speech to this parliament, I talked about the future of Australian manufacturing and said: 'If we are going to succeed, the story of manufacturing has to be like, will be like, the story of agriculture over 100 years. We will see greater investment in technology, more mechanisation.' We want to climb the value chain, value-add to our natural resources, the raw products. It will mean higher skilled jobs, higher wage jobs but fewer jobs overall, more productivity. That is the future we want to chase—high wage, secure, good, well-paid, skilled jobs. We can't compete with the low-wage countries. That is not where we want to go. We want to climb that value chain across the globe. That is future success and that is exactly what this bill is about. It will provide finance, including loans, guarantees and equity to drive investments in seven priority areas in Australian manufacturing. It will be loans, guarantees and equity, not grants, modelled on the very successful Clean Energy Finance Corporation, an initiative of the former Rudd-Gillard government. Oh, it was Tony Abbott's mob actually, wasn't it, who tried to get rid of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation? Thank goodness they could not get through the Senate because it is still there today and it has made record investments into clean energy, stimulated new investments in new technology and has gone some way—one of the few things that was working under that mob—to lowering our emissions. The seven priority areas include: value adding to resources; value adding in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors; unlocking potential and value-adding to raw materials like food processing, textiles, clothing, food manufacturing; developing capabilities in transport manufacturing and supply chains—cars, trains, shipbuilding are all important in so many other states and territories; medical science—leveraging our world-leading research. You know about this, Deputy Speaker Freelander, from your life as a renowned medical specialist, teacher and researcher. It is about providing essential supplies such as medical devices, PPE, medicines and vaccines. We can say 'PPE' post the pandemic, and people know what it is because we learned as a country that we need to make that stuff here and not rely on other countries when a crisis happens. We're too vulnerable to supply shocks. We're too vulnerable, frankly, to military blockades should the worst happen, because we don't make enough basic stuff here. It's urgent. On renewables and low-emission technologies, we almost got an admission from the former speaker in his reasonable voice. He almost admitted that renewable energy might be the cheapest form of new power. We will take that as a baby step forward from the nuclear brigade over there. We might get two steps backwards today as they go on their nuclear tour of world disaster sites with Uncle Ted over there and his home-made videos. Defence capability is so important—a lesson from Ukraine. You've got to make the consumables of war. You've got to be able, at the very least, to maintain, repair and sustain the platforms and capabilities that you do have—you can't make all the big, new, shiny stuff here—and all the enabling capabilities such as engineering, data science, software development, artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum. So get with the program. I say to the opposition: have a serious look at the challenges we face and back this. Maybe they object to the fact that it's not a slush fund. Whenever they hear 'fund', their little eyes light up from their time in government. 'Oh, how can we rort this? How can we distribute this to all the Liberal marginal seats? We did a good job with the congestion fund, didn't we?' Apparently, congestion only happens in Liberal electorates. That's why you put 83 per cent of the congestion fund into Liberal-held electorates. Maybe that's the issue: they're worried that Labor will fairly distribute this. Well, they're not going to be decisions made by politicians. They will be made by an independent board. You could learn from that. In closing, I say to the opposition and the Greens: get with the program. Back Australian manufacturing. I say in particular to the Greens political party: don't vote with the Liberals all the time. Don't team up with the Liberals. Back Australian manufacturing and support this bill. 11:27 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise today to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. Just like with the Albanese Government's radical industrial relations agenda, Prime Minister Albanese is going to rush this bill through, sidestepping parliamentary scrutiny and avoiding appropriate consultation with industry. The coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy was delivering for our manufacturers. In Dawson, manufacturing champions such as CQ Field Mining Services were successful in a grant through round 2 of the Modern Manufacturing Fund to transform the met services for our future growth. Mackay business conveyor specialist Diacon Australia was another local organisation successful in round 1 of the Modern Manufacturing Fund. Businesses like CQ Field Mining Services and Diacon applied for funding through the Modern Manufacturing Fund. This fund was administered professionally through a structure of competitive grants with robust processes. By scrapping the Modern Manufacturing Fund and replacing it with the National Reconstruction Fund, this government will make it more difficult for smaller manufacturers to access. The process outlined appears to be far more complicated and laborious. We are also being told by this no-plan government that this fund should be up and running by next financial year, but they haven't committed to a launch date yet. Industry leaders have told us this type of funding model takes years to get right and the government has chosen to redirect the modern manufacturing initiative funds without even having rolled out their own National Reconstruction Fund. This has left out manufacturing industries in the lurch without certainty. I don't get it. This is like bulldozing your house down before you build a new one. You will have nowhere to live. The government clearly has no understanding that these delays will damage and likely cancel the businesses that they have in the pipeline. What this means is years of work from the coalition have been lost. It begs the question: who is the National Reconstruction Fund delivering for? Is it delivering for our struggling Australian manufacturers? Or is it delivering for the Labor Party and their union mates? I find it hard to believe it's for our Australian manufacturers when this bill will put in place a Labor hand-picked board to oversee $15 billion of taxpayer funds. The unions have already demanded a third of the positions on this board. This bill gives the minister inappropriate discretions, all while the Albanese Labor government promises the Australian people and transparency. Another ridiculous union demand is that the applicants must commit to direct employment and, if the contractors or indirect workforce is used, they must be employed on at the same condition as a direct workforce. This, essentially, enshrines compulsory unionism to be a successful applicant—very tricky indeed! While manufacturers across the country struggle with rising power prices, Labor's focus is making it more difficult for industries to employ and keep workers and, in turn, grow their businesses, because the Albanese government's budget took active steps to spitefully wipe out key features of the coalition's industry policy. The first step for increasing manufacturing in Australia is to have affordable and reliable energy. Unfortunately, under Labor's watch, electricity and gas prices are going through the roof, and the renewable pipedream is creating uncertainty due to lack of reliability. Another important requirement for manufacturing businesses is the cost of finance. Under the Albanese Labor government, we've seen interest rates go sky high. And, speaking of sky high, the Albanese Labor government has scrapped the space industry as a priority. This is a reckless decision. Investment into the space industry can and will yield many benefits. Space and manufacturing go hand in hand, and by backing this space Australia can deliver an entirely new space supply chain. It is important that we have total control of the development and building of our satellites to be assured there is no risk of foreign eyes receiving our intel. The satellites that we build and own can enhance our military and defence capability. With the current geopolitical tensions, it has never been more important to have our eyes on the seas. While I talk about eyes on the seas, locally built satellites can provide monitoring for illegal fishing, coastal surveillance and early detection on foreign boats coming to our shores. Space technology for propulsion can be used for missiles and high-tech weapons to further protect our country. But everyone knows Labor is weak on border protection and soft on defence. The coalition supported funding to companies like Gilmour Space to locally develop, manufacture and deploy satellites into low-space orbit. Gilmour Space is a pioneer new space company and a leading, venture-backed manufacturer of launch vehicles and satellite platforms in Australia. While Gilmour Space's manufacturing hub is based on the Gold Coast, its launching centre is in my home town of Bowen, smack bang in the middle of my electorate of Dawson. Bowen is uniquely located 20 degrees south of the equator. This is the ideal place to launch a rocket and put satellites into space. These innovative guys tend to launch the Eris rocket into space later this year. If successful, it will be Australia's first homegrown orbital space craft. Under the coalition modern manufacturing fund, Gilmour Space was awarded $52 million to develop sovereign space capabilities in Australia. The satellites Gilmour Space intend to deploy will enhance and enable earth observation, fire detection and enhanced navigation. They will be there for agricultural opportunities. There is also the potential for manned flights and for deeper space missions in the future. On the back of this comes a tourism component. The Gilmore Space launch is a growing tourist attraction. Bowen could be Australia's next Cape Canaveral, with tens of thousands of people flocking to watch the launch. But let's not stop there. We could have a visitors interpretive centre and a simulator for those who've always dreamed of reaching the stars or walking on the moon. The space sector will create thousands of jobs, from engineers working on the development of these rockets to tour guides handing out tickets at the launch viewing platform. The possibilities are out of this world. But, alas, the coalition's progressive and forward thinking has been completely wiped out by the Albanese government's scrapping of the space industry as a policy priority. This is short-sighted, and takes major manufacturing opportunities away from all Australians, not just the people in my electorate. I'm also very concerned about the decision to scrap food and beverage manufacturing as a standalone priority for Australian industry. The coalition laid out an ambitious plan to double the value of the industry by 2030. The Prime Minister said at the last election he would leave no-one behind. What a joke! He is leaving whole industries behind. Changing these priorities leaves investment decisions in limbo. Decisions like these from the Albanese government, when paired with other cuts and pillaging from our regions, make it clear to me that Labor just don't care where their food comes from, and Labor certainly don't care if the country ends up with food shortages. Maybe when this government starts to feel hungry, it might realise that this is bad governing. But I fear it might be a case of too little, too late. Since coming to government, the Albanese government has been on a go-slow, wasting time for our manufacturers with countless reviews, cuts to coalition programs and finger-pointing. It needs to start acting like a government. The Albanese Labor government is not in opposition any more; it is in control. It needs to take control and work for all Australians. As surging costs continue to cripple our manufacturers, the challenges presented by rising energy bills, workforce shortages and disrupted supply chains smash small businesses. The Albanese government remains focused on a union backed agenda. Instead of pleasing its union buddies, the Albanese government must address rising energy prices, increased gas costs, increased finance costs and labour shortages. This is the only way manufacturing can succeed in this country. It is vital that government supports Australian manufacturing, and with this bill the Albanese government is, clearly and sadly, leaving our manufacturing industry behind. Ten months in, the manufacturing industry can certainly say with confidence that life isn't easy under Mr Albanese. 11:39 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This legislation, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, is about nation building, economic security, national security and job security. But, most importantly, it's about reducing Australia's reliance on other countries. COVID exposed the vulnerabilities and extreme risks that arise when nations become too dependent on global markets and just-in-time imports. For Australia, as an island nation, the risks of reliance on overseas imports, overseas markets and overseas services, including overseas call centres, are even greater than they are for most other countries. Cutting Australia off from the rest of the world right now would cripple Australia. As an example, 90 per cent of our petroleum fuel comes from overseas. Only a few months ago, the AdBlue crisis almost brought Australia's trucking industry to a standstill. That would have also crippled the nation. It was only because of the $29 million government investment in the Incitec Pivot plant in Queensland that we were able to get through—again highlighting that the very problem we faced could have been resolved, were we manufacturing much more here in Australia. We have the capability to do so and we have the industry able to do it. So many of Australia's essential goods and services which are currently sourced from overseas could easily be manufactured, or at least provided in part, within Australia. Certainly, if a crisis did then arise we would at least be able to get through it. The ability to make things in Australia will bring peace of mind to Australians, create economic growth, encourage innovation and increase export opportunities. As, quite rightly, highlighted by other speakers, this legislation will support investments in seven key areas of Australian industry through loans, equities and guarantees. Those seven key areas are: renewables and low-emissions technology; medical science; transport; agriculture—where, again, we could add so much value; forestry and fishing; resources; and defence capabilities. In particular, we already have a very strong defence manufacturing sector here in Australia. It has proven that it can compete with the rest of the world, and so we should do everything we can to support growing that sector. It is much better to have our products made here in Australia than to be reliant on other countries for them. Australia not only has the natural resources which we can add value to by turning into finished products but, through the CSIRO; our universities; our existing defence industries, which I mentioned just a moment ago; our medical sciences sector; and so many other research institutions, Australia has significant world-leading research and development capabilities. Yet too many Australian ideas and human expertise are lost to overseas countries. Across the world, the leading economies all have strong manufacturing sectors. In China, manufacturing accounts for 39 per cent of their GDP; in Ireland it's around 35 per cent; Japan and Germany sit at around 20 per cent; and in Russia it's now 14 per cent. In the USA and the UK, where it has fallen to 12 and 10 per cent respectively, both governments have committed to rebuild their manufacturing base. Both countries see the importance of having a strong manufacturing centre and have made it a national priority for their countries. In Australia, sadly, manufacturing has plummeted to a paltry 5½ per cent of GDP, after having reached a high of around 30 per cent half a century ago. From 30 per cent we're down to just over five per cent. This highlights not only the foolishness of how we allowed manufacturing to slide in this country but also that we were able to manufacture so well in times gone past. In fact, in the post-World War II years, state and federal governments on both sides of politics drove a manufacturing agenda by investing in manufacturing, investing in skills training and boosting the manufacturing workforce through immigration. They focused on a manufacturing nation, and did so by making those appropriate investments. In South Australia, where I come from, the Liberal Playford government of the day grew the state by investing in manufacturing, particularly in Adelaide's northern suburbs. The satellite city of Elizabeth was established as a centre of manufacturing, including being home to the iconic General Motors Holden plant, which we talk about so often in this place. South Australia's economy grew on the back of manufacturing. Sadly, in 2013, the now opposition drove GMH out of South Australia, out of Australia, and then spent a decade dithering over submarines. No decision was ever finalised in their time in government, after nine years. Both of those actions did widespread harm to South Australia's manufacturing sector, where industries could no longer survive as a result of the lost contracts, and therefore the skilled workforce was also gradually lost to South Australia. With advanced technology in use today, the argument that Australia cannot compete with overseas cheap labour is simply no longer credible. As I pointed out, countries like Germany, Japan, Ireland and other European countries are all proof of that, because they have strong manufacturing sectors. In my own electorate, only a few weeks ago, Tindo Solar, which was established in 2011—so it's been there for over a decade now and is Australia's only solar panel manufacturer—opened its new plant in Mawson Lakes. It's growing and it's competing in one of the most competitive areas of manufacturing, and it's doing it in Mawson Lakes in Australia with Australian conditions. The reality is that manufacturing adds to the country in so many ways, and I want to highlight this particular point: there's another very important reason why rebuilding Australian manufacturing is so important. Not everyone has the opportunity or the desire to go to university, but those people still need a secure job. Manufacturing industries offer employment opportunities to everyone, including new arrivals with little education and limited language skills or those people who, for whatever reason, never ended up with a university degree. They are people who, over the course of their employment, not only find security but learn new skills, make friends and build their own self-confidence. In summing up, I've listened to the debate of members opposite, and they're clearly all talking from the same talking points because you see the same irrelevant arguments being put up. It truly is bewildering that they are not supporting this legislation. The reality is that in recent times coalition governments have not backed manufacturing in this country at all, and, in not doing so, it is actually a betrayal of what the Australian people want and expect governments to do. I suspect the truth of the matter is that they don't want the Australian economy to grow over the next few years because that would be a tick for the Albanese Labor government. They want the Albanese Labor government to fail and therefore they are trying to block legislation which they know is in the national interest and which will be a feather in the cap of whichever government was to promote a rebuilding of Australian manufacturing. Regrettably, what they are really doing is putting their political interests ahead of the national interest, and they should hang their head in shame for doing that. Those members opposite who come into the House and argue against this legislation should think carefully about what they are actually doing. Ultimately, what they are doing is betraying the will of the Australian people, who I know want us to rebuild a manufacturing base in Australia. This legislation begins that task, and I commend it to the House. 11:48 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak in support of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. This bill seeks increased inflows of finance into the Australian economy by financing businesses, state and territory governments and other entities through concessional loans, equity guarantees and a wide range of other financial instruments. The expenditure is significant and restricted to government priority areas—a total of $15 billion, in fact, to be expended by July 2029. Government investment in areas prioritised by the government of the day is not new, nor is it necessarily bad; however, any government expenditure should have a very robust framework that provides the community with confidence that the money will be invested wisely. It is, after all, an investment that belongs to all Australians. As a political centrist, I believe it is appropriate and important for targeting government investment, particularly where there is a market failure that warrants intervention and where the objectives of government require market stimulus to achieve a stated aim. This approach is not controversial. It forms the basis for the activities of most governments in contemporary Western democracies. It is in this context that I will raise concerns I have with the bill but also outline my qualified support. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation to be established under the bill will be the entity responsible for the fund—all good so far. The corporation will direct the flow of finance to priority areas identified by the government. Here is my first concern: the bill does not identify what these priority areas are, nor does it allow, through a disallowable instrument, a mechanism for the parliament to question or challenge these priority areas. This leaves us to support a bill that will in essence give the government a $15 billion chequebook for directing Australian taxpayers' money to projects at its will. Ministers have announced that the fund will provide up to $3 billion for renewable energy and low-emissions technologies, $1.5 billion for medical manufacturing, $1 billion for value-adding in resources, $1 billion for critical technologies, $1 billion for advanced manufacturing and $500 million for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. These may well be appropriate investments; however, this grab bag of headline investments is merely a media announcement. There is no detail and no broader policy strategy; nor is there any investment analysis. The second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Science did identify seven priority areas. However, this is simply an indication; it's not legislation. The bill in its current form gives the government unlimited discretion to set and reset priority areas and the investment mandate. We often refer to policy as 'not passing the pub test'. Well, I'm confident that if I went into any pub in my electorate and asked the locals in the front bar if they thought it would be a good idea to give the government $15 billion to spend without identifying what they were going to spend it on, without even identifying a priority area, their answer would be a resounding no—and that would be a polite response! The Parliamentary Budget Office noted that conventional budget reporting makes it complicated to evaluate the fiscal risk and impacts of equity investments as proposed in this bill. Again, if I went back to my locals in the front bar and said, 'In addition to giving them the $15 billion, it's going to be difficult to assess the physical impact, the potential risk or even whether projects will require private investment,' I think the polite response I referred to would quickly change to something quite animated. It doesn't stop there, Mr Deputy Speaker. These are some other concerns I have. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has called on the minister to appoint union officials to the fund's board. The Australian Industry Group's Chief Executive, Innes Willox, has publicly relayed his concerns, referring to the request as 'union overreach' and saying: Any compulsion for funding to go to unionised workplaces or those who agree to roll over on union demands is discriminatory and would see businesses who would otherwise consider involvement instead simply walk away. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union is a little more bolshie, in wanting a secure jobs code that would include an 'enterprise agreement with unions as a precondition of tender'. In its submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee it stated: In the case of start-ups, we may consider that an MOU to enter into an agreement as part of the tender process, but the agreement must be finalised prior to award of tender. I fear the discussion in the front bar would now be resembling a full-fledged melee—and I'll come back to that. Australians are experiencing high inflation, a high cost of living, difficulty in purchasing a house, and, for some, difficulty in finding a place to live. Employers can't find staff, and this is particularly problematic in our regions. In response to COVID-19 we overstimulated the economy and created debt not experienced outside of wartime eras. Australian government securities are around 45 per cent of GDP, and that is not expected to fall until after 2026 at least. In dollar terms, gross debt is forecast to increase to more than a trillion dollars in 2023-24, reaching a peak over the forward estimates of $1.193 trillion. These are truly staggering numbers. We've never gotten to a trillion before. Some will argue that debt is okay, offering advice that our interest on securities remains low, so why worry? This won't always be the case. Indeed, interest rates on Australian government debt have already started to rise. That was last year in 2022, and we've seen that continue this year. Interest payments will increase over time as new debt is issued at higher rates and existing debt that was issued at historically low rates matures and needs to be refinanced. The Institute of Public Affairs cites that a worst-case scenario, where interest rates are at six per cent instead of four per cent, based on Treasury forecasts in the budget, would result in an interest rate bill of $64.1 billion from 2023 to 2031. That would make interest payments the third-largest expenditure item, behind health and income support for seniors, and would represent about 7.5 per cent of the Commonwealth budget. That is an extraordinary amount of money that needs to be found, that needs to be paid year on year and that takes money away from other needed spending. In their report, Selling Australia's Future, the Institute of Public Affairs argues that, by increasing debt today, the government is effectively borrowing from the wealth of future generations to pay for current expenditure, concluding that all Australians should be concerned with the high level of government debt. It is them, their children and their grandchildren who will be paying for it. High levels of debt also place the country in a vulnerable position, with little capacity to absorb or respond to future shocks. Perhaps there will be another pandemic in a few years. Who knows? We just don't know, but we're not addressing that at the moment, and I think we would be in quite a precarious position if we needed to go through the spending that we've done in the last three years again in the near future. Given our high levels of debt and the associated risk, we must ask ourselves: 'Can we afford this debt?' I mentioned earlier that government expenditure and investment in the right circumstances is appropriate and necessary. We know that government investment can grow our productive capacity. However, we also know that the government—and it doesn't matter who's in government—doesn't necessarily have a good track record of picking the right investment. It is this issue that concerns me perhaps the most. There is no doubt that investment in the areas that the minister referred to in his second reading speech, such as renewables, low-emissions technologies and medical manufacturing, among others, is important. But, as mentioned, they are not identified as priority areas in the bill. There are still too many unanswered questions, and these answers are so important for the aforementioned pub debate and for my support. Australians need assurances that this bill won't simply give unbridled power to the government to pick investment sectors, individual businesses and projects without public scrutiny. We need the government to publicly dismiss the demands of the unions, who are pushing to exploit the funds for their own vested purposes. We need clarity on the fiscal risks and how government will approach financial analysis and due diligence for each and every investment. It's also incumbent on the government to ensure any investment provides economic and productive returns that are measurable and meaningful. Finally, the government must consider the inflationary impacts of increasing the flow of money into the economy and proceed in a manner that doesn't add to the existing inflation pressures that are now hurting so many Australians. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you may ask, after me giving that speech, why I'm supporting this bill. I'm supporting this bill because we used to be a nation that made things, and we're no longer a nation that makes things. I'm the daughter of a factory worker. The member for Makin, who spoke before me, spoke about Holden and how he made cars in South Australia. Holden was one of a number of car manufacturers in South Australia. My dad worked at Mitsubishi. It provided a good, solid wage. It paid the bills and kept us in a house. We don't have the manufacturing that we had, and it has gone in one generation. When I was in my final years of school, we were visiting Mitsubishi. We visited the Kelvinator factory. We used to make fridges in South Australia too, and we used to make glasses. We used to make so much, and we have allowed our manufacturing capacity and capabilities as a nation to significantly diminish in just one generation. That's why I'm supporting this bill—because we need to be making things again. If COVID has taught us anything, it is that manufacturing, national sovereignty and security are intrinsically linked. This bill provides a significant opportunity to improve Australia's economic complexity, broaden our manufacturing capability and take advantage of our abundant natural resources, without continuing to treat Australia like a sandpit, which is what we've effectively been doing for the last 30 years. However, without the insurances sought, I do remain concerned that such a large investment may yet become another squandered opportunity. 12:01 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 is a big step forward, both for manufacturing and for jobs in our country. The opportunities that are presented by the National Reconstruction Fund have the potential to shape the future of Australian industry. While some in this country—and that does include those opposite—gave up on Australia having a future in manufacturing and our industrial capability, this government has not. We know that Australia can be a country that makes things once again. We can have a bright future as a country that makes world-class products right here. We can secure our own future by supporting, diversifying and transforming industry and creating secure, well-paid, good, sustainable jobs not only for those people who are working now but also for those who will enter the workforce in the future. This is such an exciting opportunity, and this government knows that the future ahead of our country is one where we make things here in Australia. We've seen in the past that funds similar to this can have a big impact. We've seen the value that comes from having a body like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for the climate and energy sectors. This $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will do the same work for manufacturing in our country. It is the biggest government investment in manufacturing in living memory. It is so important that this government gets behind and backs Australian manufacturing and Australian industry. Importantly, it will have an independent board to assess projects at arm's length from government; to provide equity, loans and guarantees; to back in Australian businesses and our knowledge base and our people; and to see returns on investment in the longer term to allow for reinvestment—and so on and so on. What we are starting here is something that will provide a legacy for Australians to come and a legacy for Australian manufacturing and industry to come. Throughout this period, it will be creating secure, well-paid jobs. Our country learnt a lot of lessons through the recent pandemic, and some of those lessons are very pertinent to what is trying to be achieved through this fund and this bill. We did learn that our supply chains have vulnerabilities. We cannot entirely rely on things being able to be manufactured, things that we need in our country for the safety of people in this country, and know that we will always have access to those things. We learnt that we need to become stronger and more self-sufficient in many areas and that we do, in fact, have the domestic capability in our country to not only support ourselves but also sell that capability to the world. That's the future that's in front of us—that ability to not only support people and industry and manufacturing here but also be a place where people around the world come to Australia looking for those products, looking for that knowledge and looking for that manufacturing base. The National Reconstruction Fund will help us achieve all of this. The fund will provide capital to capture new high-value market opportunities, and it means that, when capital markets tighten, it will provide those longer term co-investment funds for industries and investors that are so important. It will drive Australia's sustainable economic growth, and with that it will drive jobs—good jobs. It will enable Australian companies to plan ahead—to know that they can make these investments that mean that they will be here for the long-term, and to consider the long-term projects that help with innovation and adapting new technologies. It is a really exciting future ahead of us. Our government wants to turn back the years of neglect we saw under the coalition government. We know that they left Australia's manufacturing industry in tatters. We felt the effects of that during the pandemic. Those opposite baited the Australian car industry to leave our shores, and, guess what? They took up the invitation. They're gone. I hear from manufacturers in my electorate about the flow-on impacts of that decision, not just for those who were directly involved in manufacturing those cars but for all the small enterprises who were supplying parts. There is the lack of knowledge now that we have in our country from that entire industry going, because those opposite told them they were welcome to shut up and leave and failed to support Australian manufacturing. When those opposite did made decisions, it was not in the interests of Australians. It was them backing in selected supporters who they chose to throw their weight behind. Under their watch, we have seen far too many good ideas that were grown right here in Australia, and that should have been Australian products and Australian ideas, leave. That's because they couldn't get the support they should have got from the Australian government at the time. Things are going to be different under this government. By letting the opportunities go, the previous government, the Liberal-National government, let go more jobs. They let go the industries we should have in this country—the jobs, the knowledge, the skills. They let go Australians with bright ideas who just needed support, government investment and surety to make a go of it. This government wants Australian manufacturing to come home. We want the people who want to work in Australian manufacturing, who want to bring their knowledge and skills to Australian manufacturing and industry, to come home. We want them and we want budding innovators here to know that Australia not only welcomes them and their ideas but is going to support them. We're going to back them in. We will empower the National Reconstruction Fund to invest in Australians and in their experience and knowledge. Through the fund, our government wants to make the most of Australia's strengths. We want to back-in industries that we know are important, both now and in the future. Importantly, that does include renewables and low-emissions technologies. This is a massive area of potential growth for our country. We can, indeed, be a clean-energy superpower, and that comes with government backing this industry. Up to $3 billion of the National Reconstruction Fund will be set aside for targeted investment and for opportunities like wind turbine components, the production of batteries and solar panels, new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions, modernising steel and aluminium, finding solutions to reduce packaging waste and developing ways to make food that is low in impact and high in nutrition. These are products that are ideal for exporting. There is a lot of potential for our country in this space. Australia is already a world leader in medical research, but, again, there is more than we could be doing. Another of the funds targets will be leveraging this expertise to provide essential medical supplies like medical devices, personal protective equipment, medicines and vaccines. We will value-adding in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, unlocking our country's potential in food processing, textiles, clothing and footwear manufacturing. We will be backing in transport manufacturing, developing capabilities and supply chains for cars, trains and shipbuilding. My electorate of Jagajaga is not concentrated with manufacturing, but we do have some strong local manufacturers based there. I know from talking to them over the years that they are looking for government to back Australian industry and Australian manufacturing. In Heidelberg West, we have a precinct of 600 businesses, including manufacturing, warehousing and commercial businesses, as well as growing technology production and related services. The backing the government is giving in this fund will support my business community in Heidelberg West to do what they are already doing well, but they need government support to go even further. There a companies like Leeson Solar, who are absolutely passionate about the growing uptake of solar for homes and businesses, and who are breaking the mould when it comes to the solar industry and the directions it can take in this country. I'm excited about what this fund might mean for them. And outside of that immediate precinct in Heidelberg West, across the electorate, I'm excited about what this fund might mean for companies like Lovitt Technologies in Greensborough, who are already doing great work in precision engineering and in the aerospace industry. These are the companies that governments should be backing in and that governments should be supporting. I'm so proud that this Labor government is doing exactly that. The National Reconstruction Fund will supercharge the opportunities for Australian manufacturing. It will be supporting Australian businesses and Australian workers. There's so much potential here in Australia. It is up to us to harness that potential. It's up to us to grow our ability to make world-class products right here, to bring out the best of Australian expertise and ideas and to allow for investment that delivers good, long-term, secure jobs for Australians now and into the future. This government will not be goading industries to leave. We will be backing in Australian manufacturing and Australian industry and we know that this means a brighter future for all Australians. 12:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Before I begin on the content of the bill, I might advise the member for Jagajaga to have a look at when Ford Australia and Mitsubishi Australia decided to pack up and leave the car manufacturing industry in this country, because it certainly wasn't under a coalition watch. Then to come to the bill itself, the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I must say I take umbrage even with the name of it. I think it was Shakespeare who wrote that a rose is a rose by any other name. That's not the case actually. If you put a connotation on a name it carries something else. The Macquarie dictionary defines 'reconstruction' as 'to rebuild'. Oxford says it's building something that's been damaged or destroyed. That doesn't change the intent of the bill, but you can see what the Labor Party is doing here. They're indicating that the economy was broken when they came to government, when, in fact, it was not. Sure, the economy needs maintenance and upgrading—all things do—but it wasn't broken. It hasn't been smashed, as the title of this bill would suggest. As of May last year, at the time of the election, Australia was the 13th largest economy in the world, despite only being 55th in the population stakes. I don't think that indicates a broken economy. The World Population Review says in fact that Australia is No. 1 in the world when it comes to standard of living. That also doesn't indicate to me that the economy is broken. We have some issues with our health system. We could have a better health system, there's no doubt about that. But despite the number of challenges, we are No. 6 in the world and that would not indicate to me either that the economy is broken. I could go on and on and on in this area. I maintain that the very premise, the connotation that this bill is sending, is offensive. The member for Jagajaga said as much in her comments that the economy was smashed when they came to government—the dereliction of the coalition government. I refute all of those allegations. Now let's come to the $15 billion fund. It's a lot of money. It seems not so long ago that we used to speak in millions of dollars but now we speak in billions of dollars. Of course, one has a thousand times more impact than the other. I'm not sure that the population is completely across it. It does have a bit of a ring of The Hollowmen doesn't it? '$5 billion perhaps?' 'No, not $5 billion.' '$10 billion?' 'No, $15 billion. We will have $15 billion.' 'What are we going to spend it on?' 'Well, it doesn't really matter, because we don't know.' I could go on further with that as well. But the point here is that this $15 billion didn't grow on a tree. It hasn't even been taxed out of your super yet. The government is going to borrow. I thank the member for Mayo for pointing out how much the interest on that might be in a rising inflationary economy. We know that interest rates are going up all the time—only yesterday in fact. She thought that the idea of the government borrowing $15 billion to spend on its pet projects may not go down in the front bar of many pubs in Mayo. I don't think they'd go down in the front bar of many pubs in Grey either, I have to say. Normally, when governments invest off budget, it's for net tangible assets. The most prominent one I can think of off the top of my head is the NBN, and it cost a lot of money: $43 billion. In 2015 it had a return of $160 million a year. It's now up to $5.1 billion and it's rising, so it looks like it is at least getting to the point where it's a performing asset. But who knows with the National Reconstruction Fund? That is going to be operating in the area of cheap loans—and, by definition, a cheap loan is money you loan to an organisation or a people who can't raise the money in the straight financial market, so the likelihood of it performing as well as a loan is lower. The next thing, of course, is equity. It's the same analogy. In private enterprise, people can take money out of their pockets and invest in the scheme themselves. If they're not prepared to invest in an industry, proposal or project, it really calls into question whether the taxpayer should be willing to invest in that project as the default investment. Of course, what happens when you've got equity in a project and it falls over is that it becomes a completely new issue altogether. The government may end up owning equity in something that doesn't even exist anymore. So that gives me a lot of concern about the directions around how this money might be invested. Given the abandonment of the program that existed under the Modern Manufacturing Fund, which was a competitive grant, it is unclear how these investments will be decided. The minister said he will appoint an independent board, but remember these are ministerial appointments, so the minister will actually get to select who goes on the board, and presumably they might be thinking about the same way as the minister or the government does. I think it's very concerning that we don't really know; the government has given us broad guidelines on where they would like to see that board invest, but we don't have a clear indication of what that might be. I think there are some big questions lying underneath this legislation. I think we wax lyrical in this place and others about Australia's sovereign capacity. It's been referred to by most of the speakers on this bill. The things that Australia needs to have its own capacity in have been highlighted over the last three years through the COVID crisis and some of the tensions in the Pacific Ocean, it must be said. To come to the point of what these essentials are: one of the ones that's been thrown around quite liberally is critical minerals. That raises the question of what critical minerals are. They can be things such as lithium and graphite but also be more mainstream minerals like zinc. Zinc is going to become one of the high-demand minerals in the foreseeable future. And of course there is copper. We have capacity in those areas in Australia. In fact, some of these things are smelted in my own electorate, in Port Pirie. The Nyrstar smelter is there. But at this stage there are not any clear alternative technologies to a blast furnace being fed by coke, which of course has the accompanying emissions. In other areas, the government, in one of its first moves as a new government, legislated a 43 per cent reduction target for emissions by 2030. That means these industries that run things like blast furnaces are going to have to meet these 4½ per cent reduction targets per year but have no alternative technologies. These are the very industries that we need to expand in Australia today. If we are going to produce more critical minerals, we're going to have to put in more production platforms. At the moment, because there are no alternative technologies, it means that emissions will rise from those industries. How is that is going to be dealt with, at a time when they are being told to bring down emissions? To bring it back to the point of this bill: we are told this fund will be interested in investing in critical minerals, so I challenge the government to tell us how they're going to do that. Are they going to overturn the 43 per cent, or bypass the 43 per cent, or find some way around it, or are they not going to invest in these industries? There is another issue, in the same light, that causes me deep concern. The previous government had put some money on the table to get a urea plant off the ground in Western Australia—in your home state, Mr Deputy Speaker—where we could take Australian gas and turn it into urea. It's proposed on the Burrup Peninsula. We extract Australian gas and send it to overseas markets where, at least theoretically, it gets turned into urea and then sent back to Australia. So we've chewed up a heap of energy freighting the raw product out of Australia and a heap of energy bringing the raw product back in. But I can tell you, if we put a urea plant in place in Western Australia, it will increase Australia's emissions. Whether or not that will get funding from this new board, who knows? And I would like to know before we vote on the bill, but I know we're not going to. The government is not going to give us that information. But, if we're not going to invest in things like urea plants and critical minerals, it then brings up the question of where this $15 billion is going to go. I just want to make that point again: if we build a urea plant in Australia, it will reduce world emissions, but it will increase Australian emissions. It's one of these great problems I have with the international accounting mechanisms for greenhouse emissions. I've often said in this place that it's designed by Europeans for Europeans, and we are the victims of that in many, many cases. Another issue that would come into this space is gas itself. At the moment, we are dealing with a crisis in Australia, with high gas prices and high electricity prices. Absolutely every day we are getting examples from the opposition benches in question time about people dealing with their electricity bills. The government has put in place a cap on gas in Australia, and, of course, this is leading to a reconsideration of investment in the extraction of gas. It stands to reason that, if you're going to limit people's profits, you'll limit their interest in investing in those very industries that we need. What we need in Australia is more gas. In this space, the minister for energy has said that he is not interested in licensing a new gas mine unless it's carbon neutral. That's going to be fairly difficult to achieve, I might say. But we need more gas in Australia, not less gas. And, once again, will this fund have enough independence from government, to invest in the gas industry, to bring more production online? I suspect it won't have that kind of independence, and we will not see that kind of investment coming out of this government. If you're talking about manufacturing—and they are talking about manufacturing—the very premise that we can compete in manufacturing in Australia is built upon having cheap energy. And we should have cheap energy in Australia; we are blessed with energy. So I am concerned in so many areas with this bill: the quantum of it, the $15 billion; the fact that it is off-budget borrowing; the fact that we're in an environment where interest rates are rising, and the service costs on that debt will continue to rise; and the fact that we have a board which will be appointed by the minister, and we're told that it will be independent, but we have all these other decisions that have come out of government that would almost seem to preclude the investment by this new board of this new fund in the very industries that we need to drive Australia forward. On so many fronts, I do not think this National Reconstruction—and I have told you why I don't like that word—Fund is sitting on sound foundations or is good for Australia, and that is why we on this side of the chamber are opposing it. 12:25 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth The National Reconstruction Fund exists to implement the government's industry policy, and I acknowledge the goals on this are trying to set Australia up for the future and build the industries which will deliver long-term prosperity to Australians. This is a laudable goal and one that I share. We are going through a unique transformation in the global economy, the transformation from fossil fuels to clean energy, as well as the ongoing digital transformation of our economy. There is a role for government as we go through these transformations, but we must acknowledge the historical challenges of industry policy and ensure that lessons are learned from past mistakes. I can see in this bill and in discussions with the minister a more modern approach to industry policy. I will be supporting the fund but I want on the record the risks and concerns which I and others share in the spirit of constructive engagement. I have raised my concerns with the minister and would like to acknowledge his willingness to engage with me and me and to make time to discuss these concerns, and that he has discussed these in good faith. That said, not all of my concerns have been resolved and I will be moving three amendments, which I hope will be supported, to try and improve the bill. My first concern is there is nothing to stop investments being made in industries or in activities where there is no public benefit. These interventions can be perfectly appropriate in circumstances where an externality exists, like carbon emissions or airborne pollution or where there is a failure of market to provide capital to certain industries. I accept that. That is when the government should step in and change the regulatory framework, provide subsidies or make investments. That is the rationale for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, both of which have done great things for Australia and which I wholeheartedly support. But the great work is not in their ability to get money out of the door or in their ability to earn a profit on their investments; it is their ability to remedy a market failure. This fund does not exist to remedy market failure; it exists to funnel money to particular sectors, even if they already have adequate access to private capital markets. I can't support that. That is not prudent use of Australia taxpayer money and it would diminish Australia's already stagnant productivity growth, particularly if this or future governments choose to redirect the fund's investments into areas where there is no public benefit but where there may be clear private political benefit. My amendment will seek to put guardrails around future investments to ensure that investments are made to address market failures and ensure they address public benefit, not private benefit. My second concern is that the investment mandate is not disallowable. The mandate is essentially the rules of how the fund operates, how it invests, and the risks and the outcomes it seeks to achieve. As we seek to legislate the fund today, we don't know what the rules will be. We do know that, as the bill currently stands, the minister will be able to establish a mandate and that it will be available publicly, but parliament has no role in agreeing to the mandate or the ability to rescind the mandate should it prove to be problematic. This is a concern, and I believe it is one that we should fix. My view is that parliament should have a greater role in overseeing and scrutinising public expenditure and it is appropriate for the mandate to be disallowable, especially since we have not even seen at the draft mandate and are effectively giving the minister this power without knowing how he or future ministers will use it. I take the point that the investment mandate for other off-budget funds is similar to this one and not disallowable either. But rather than allowing this fund to adopt an inferior practice, I think it is an opportunity for parliament to insist on improved practice and then work to raise standards across the board, and that is what my amendment will seek to do. My third concern is with the review process, which I believe could be improved. There is a requirement in the bill for reviews of the fund every five years and that this process must be independent and include public consultation. I welcome this requirement but I would like this bill to go further. Parliament should require that the first review be completed before any investments beyond the initial $5 billion are undertaken. This is a simple matter of good governance. The government has said that the fund will receive $5 billion when it is established, and an additional $10 billion before the end of the decade. Before we commit to additional resourcing I think it's reasonable to have an arm's-length review that provides confidence in the fund's effectiveness and that where any deficiencies are identified they be acknowledged and resolved. This should occur before providing what is a very significant amount of money to an off-budget entity. Finally, I would like to note a general concern with the government's use of off-budget vehicles. This year, the government will establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the $50 billion National Reconstruction Fund and the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund. Each is expected to unlock private co-investment, and could well account for between $100 billion to $150 billion of total off-budget investment. There are circumstances where off-budget spending is appropriate, and I certainly acknowledge the need for the Housing fund, the National Reconstruction Fund and the Rewiring the Nation Fund. But we must acknowledge that the reporting, scrutiny and accountability mechanisms are weaker and less direct than on budget spending. There is a clear opportunity to improve the integrity of how public funds are used. I have decided not to pursue the those improvements in this bill as they would only apply to one off-budget vehicle, when we need a comprehensive response applied across the board. But I intend to pursue changes that would improve integrity and confidence in the use of off-budget vehicles. Integrity is the theme of the three amendments I am moving today, in what I hope will be seen by the government as a good faith attempt to improve this legislation constructively—legislation which will, hopefully, contribute towards the greening of our economy and to the building of significant new export industries for Australia and new high-wage occupations for Australians. This is the kind of long-term vision and legislation which I and the community are seeking from our government, and which I will support. Thank you. 12:31 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I rise to speak in opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. In doing so, I say that Australia is a country that is blessed with so much. Aside from making things—and apart from a series of fantastic tourism ads—we also have significant natural resources, a motivated workforce and, most importantly, that good old Aussie ingenuity and pride in our products that we stamp as 'Australian made'. In my electorate of Cowper, we have a number of manufacturing businesses that employ a significant number of people. In the small town of Smithtown, just outside Kempsey, is the Nestle factory. Some say 'Nestles' and some say 'Nestlay', but I'm told reliably that it is pronounced 'Nestlay'. It has been operating since 1921 and has just recently unveiled a new hot 'choccy' production line. Previously, only part of that hot chocolate product could be made at the factory, but a recent investment has meant that the complete product can be manufactured locally. The innovative new recycled cup that is produced on site will also help to reduce up to 95 tonnes of waste from entering landfill each year. Or we can look at Planet Lighting in Bellingen, which manufactures and supplies some of the country's most advanced medical and surgical lights, as well as LED and custom lighting solutions. It's just another small but brilliant manufacturing company in regional and rural Australia. And of course everybody knows Akubra! Akubra are in Kempsey, and I'll give a shout out to Steve Kier, who is the fourth generation manufacturing there. Akubra employs dozens and dozens of people in the Kempsey and Macleay Valley areas. It is known all around the world and highly respected. I do, however, appreciate that it would be disingenuous not to recognise that in recent decades the number of products proudly adorned with the 'Made in Australia' stamp, such as the products I have described, have been declining. A number of economic factors have fed into this. But it should be noted that this does not sit with one single government or one government term, but has been occurring gradually under several successive governments. For all its disadvantages, the one thing that COVID-19 brought to the fore of the national consciousness was the need to protect and enhance our sovereignty when it comes to supply chains and manufacturing. Rather than being an issue almost solely discussed in this place and in corporate boardrooms, it was a topic discussed over the dinner table at home with families right across the country, not just in our traditional manufacturing towns. The sight of bare shelves and restricted pantries was more than a metaphor—it was a reality and a wake-up call for the nation. I'll circle back to the number of economic factors that have influenced Australian manufacturing in recent decades. I don't pretend to be an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but before this place I was a small-business owner and, believe it or not, I am the one who does the weekly shop on a Sunday. I understand that higher input costs ultimately mean higher price points are required for the customer. That means reduced competitiveness both locally and internationally. For all its complexities, the success of manufacturing in this country does boil down to just that. As members of parliament, we need to ask: does this bill, combined with the current policies, assist manufacturers with input costs? I think it would be naive at best and at worst wilfully negligent to reply 'yes' when this bill arrogantly ignores one of the most prominent current input costs—that is, the cost of energy. This is not an issue that we can sidestep with ideology. It's one cost that has already skyrocketed and has future increases of over 50 per cent on the horizon. That's not a figure I'm throwing out; this is a figure that this government acknowledged in the October forecast. This is a cost that will continue to go up without meaningful policies in play, and this bill provides the perfect opportunity to address this for our local manufacturers, yet it is stunningly omitted. Why? I'm sure that for every member travelling around their electorate—it's particularly true in mine—electricity costs are on the top of the list of topics of conversation each day not just with manufacturers and business but also everyday constituents. I was at Expressway Spares, which borders my electorate and Dr David Gillespie's electorate of Lyne. They employ over 300 people, and in the past six months their electricity bill has doubled. That is obviously causing them great concern about being able to cover their costs. I hate to mention payroll tax because it's a tax on employing too many people, but the increase in cost is just not sustainable. I think everyone understands that if it costs more to keep the lights on at home, it's also costing businesses more to supply products, and means higher prices on the shelves. It's economics 101. Any reasonable person would acknowledge this, so I question why the government is sticking their head in the sand. Some people may agree with the proposed financial supports contained in this bill, but if not combined with a reduction to the cost of energy, any funding provided at one end will ultimately be used to combat the other end, rendering them effectively impotent and being an exercise in grandstanding and headline-grabbing rather than meaningful change. I fear this practice is becoming all too common with this government. The second key economic factor affecting growth of Australian business that is completely ignored in this bill is the current labour market shortages. I mentioned before that electricity costs were on the top of the list of issues. Well, labour shortages would have to be number two, particularly when speaking to small businesses. It can't only be coalition MPs hearing this, so I ask again: why is the government sticking their head in the sand? If we're not willing to address these basic principles, throwing obligatory cash at would-be manufacturers is an exercise in futility. Let's put those two issues aside, pretend that these basic principles can be ignored, take a step back and look at the funding streams and mechanics that are on offer in this bill. I think it's necessary to point out that there was an existing coalition policy in place providing funding to Australian manufacturers that was already in play and working, and that was the Modern Manufacturing Initiative. The initiative had already started to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability, and over 200 projects had been successfully funded. This government swiftly changed that and dismantled the important initiative that already had momentum before the National Reconstruction Fund was even at a point that it could be used to replace it. What this has meant, in very real terms, is that there has been a significant time loss in providing support. It would be one thing if that delay had been in place to sort out the aforementioned energy costs and the labour market implications, but it simply wasn't. Additionally, the method by which the funds are to be awarded is comparatively volatile when seen next to the Modern Manufacturing Initiative's model. Removing the competitive grants process is a mistake, in my view, and I should add that private economists also share the same view. The model in its current form proposes that government should acquire equity and provide loans, behaving more like a financial institution by imposing return on investment thresholds and repayment plans. As a business owner of 18 years before coming into this place, the last thing I would ever want is to be in business with government. Whether it's federal, state or local government, keep your nose out of my business. That fact has significant implications when it comes to businesses' agility and the pursuit of innovation—two of the key driving factors in long-term success. Couple this with the psychological importance of retaining ownership of your own business, particularly when you're looking at the plethora of family owned and run manufacturers in this country, and the National Reconstruction Fund is looking more like a hurdle than a leg-up. The ambiguities contained within this bill are also of concern, and the lack of definition and detail, again, seems endemic in Labor policies. Why are the national manufacturing priorities not defined within this bill? It leaves the door open for a continual change in the eligibility criteria based on political whims of the minister, particularly when they are able to personally appoint the chair and board members charged with overseeing the corporation and its funds. The dismantling of the Modern Manufacturing Initiative and introduction of the proposed National Reconstruction Fund can be seen as blatantly partisan decision-making and ultimately reveals, once again, a government unwilling or unable to provide reasonable detail and definitions in their policies. The Australian manufacturing industry deserve certainty, and they deserve a clear path to grow, not ambiguity and not an unwillingness to address basic economic principles. In short, they deserve better than this. Before I finish, I'd like to make an observation. If the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill is so important, where are all the government speakers? I have watched people speak for the better part of today—and I note the member for Jagajaga is sitting on her own— Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Yes, next to the member for Riverina—but where are the speakers from the government if this is so important? The only inference I can draw from the lack of speakers is that this is just another ill-considered and ill-conceived bill that the government is trying to ram through this place. I think it's demonstrative of the way this government is adopting policy and adopting the bills. To be perfectly honest, I think it's disgraceful. 12:44 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn As I begin my contribution, I would just like to concur with some comments that the member for Grey made that relate to the simple word 'reconstruction'. That has connotations that the Australian economy has fallen apart, that it is not existent and that we have to totally rebuild it. That is absolutely not correct and he pointed that out in his contribution. This bill has some specific issues. The National Reconstruction Fund Bill 2022 delivers on the ALP's $15 billion election commitment and signature manufacturing policy. The fund will be administered by a corporation with an independent board who will deliver funds against an investment mandate set by the government. The design and execution are fraught with issues. First of all, the bill ignores key economic issues. The government must address rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains if our manufacturers are to succeed. Without policies to create strong economic decisions, any government spending is in vain. The coalition is opposing this bill because this arrogant government is telling our manufacturers what they think they need, rather than addressing what they want or what they need. The simple fact of the matter is that, without addressing these key economic challenges which are holding back industry, government spending is useless. Under the economic mismanagement of the government, any proposed financial support will be whittled away by increased input costs. It seems that every time Labor are in government, they have terrible luck. Every time they come to government, there is a sudden and dramatic economic crisis. This is one of the consistent themes when canvassing industry stakeholders, including those who welcomed the NRF model. Second, the bill will create even more lost time for manufacturers. In this broken model, it will take significant time for money to start flowing. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, on which the NRF is modelled, was established in 2012, and the first investment was only made some 10 months later. Our manufacturers cannot afford to wait this long. The government announced that the NRF would be up and running by the next financial year but have not committed to a launch date. Industry feedback suggests that this type of funding model takes years to get right and those years will be lost to manufacturers. Third, the NRF has a poor funding model. The model shifts from competitive grant programs with robust process to government requiring equity and providing loans. Unintended consequences include government equity and loan schemes that are less accessible than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet return on investment thresholds or put together detailed business cases in-house. What will happen to failed or failing loans? It is clear that the last experiment down this path, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, uprooted manufacturers. Eligibility is another issue. Certain industries might have margins which are too small or it could be too risky with disrupted supply chains. Many will no doubt miss out, and the fund could become equivalent to a white elephant. Risks to creating private investment are also concerning but beg the question: If there is such a great investment opportunity that the government will acquire equity in, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities? We must also not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given that many of our many of our manufacturers are family-owned businesses. The bill will also stifle innovation, as beneficiaries of the fund will be unlikely to invest in innovation without a guaranteed return. The funding model does not entertain failure, which is inherent in innovation. Fourth, there is an inappropriate ministerial discretion in this bill which allows the minister to appoint the chair and the board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. The government has already demonstrated in its early appointments that it cannot be trusted to make sensible, non-bipartisan decisions. The Minister for Industry and Science has already shown that from his form on issues of ministerial appointments. The minister has rejected the recommendations of his own department on appointments. Worse than that, he has appointed a self-declared socialist and union member to the board of a robotics policy committee. The same appointment has previously labelled the previous government as 'self-serving, entitled halfwits' and even referred to the Leader of the Opposition as 'Voldemort'. Minister Husic cannot be trusted to appoint truly independent members to the board of this $15 billion fund. Fifth, the bill undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a political whim, undermining investment decisions and eroding investment confidence. This is particularly pertinent to the space industry, complementary medicine and, to a lesser extent, recycling. The government's new priorities are too vague and strip industry policy of the focus needed to drive investment to specific sectors. This is typical of Labor—choosing to spray money indiscriminately instead of continuing investment certainty for our manufacturing industries. Finally, the bill is fiscally irresponsible, delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy. An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill, but the timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the IMF, who stated: Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles— such as the NRF— should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. And this is the important part. The IMF said: Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms. Let's not forget that Labor are carelessly rushing through a total of $45 billion of off-budget spending, and this must be stopped. I will talk about the negatives of this whole thing. The budget was a missed opportunity for the government to support industry and business to tackle spiralling costs, workforce shortages and the supply chain crisis. Instead, the government has chosen to forge ahead with radical industrial relations legislation, facilitating a spike in industrial disputes and paving a path for thousands of job losses. Mark my words: this will have a devastating impact on our industries. Their industrial relations bill will cause mayhem for industry and business when combined with the ideological scrapping of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the funding cut they handed the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Their union paymasters will be allowed to run rampant without proven oversight and dispute resolution. While manufacturers across the country struggle with rising power prices, Labor's focus is on making it more difficult for industry to employ and keep workers and to grow their businesses. The budget took active steps to spitefully wipe out key features of the coalition's industry policy. The coalition provided $2.5 billion to create the Modern Manufacturing strategy. This support sought to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability and empower over 200 projects in Australia. Despite Labor promising over and over again that their National Reconstruction Fund would re-invigorate manufacturing in Australia, we saw next to nothing in the budget to roll out this program. Let me be clear: Labor have chosen to spitefully redirect the Modern Manufacturing Initiative funds without having even rolled out their own National Reconstruction Fund. Additionally, we saw the minister conduct politically motivated reviews into already committed funds issued under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, funds which had already undergone independent assessments by subject matter experts and the department. The government have displayed a callous lack of understanding as to how these delays may have damaged these projects. But one of the key pillars of this new manufacturing strategy was our strategic decision to bolster Australia's capabilities in the space sector. We supported funding to locally design, develop, manufacture and deploy specialised space products, equipment, systems and services for export to international markets and support national and international space missions. The government chose, effectively, to wipe out the coalition's efforts to develop our space industry manufacturing by removing it as a priority area. The space industry and the Australian public are yet to understand the basis on which this shift in focus was made. The government must address these critical issues affecting our manufacturers, not tinker with a proven model. With power prices forecast to likely spike by 56 per cent over the next two years, many businesses across the country may be pushed to the brink. It is time this government delivers inflationary support for the industry and put forward a plan to deal with spiralling power prices. 12:56 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I'm pleased to speak on the topic of manufacturing and Labor's National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I know a little bit about manufacturing because it runs in my blood. Both my grandparents, my father and both my brothers all worked at General Motors Holden in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, Elizabeth, where I was put up, so, of course, I'm very passionate about the topic of manufacturing, as are those on this side of the chamber. The coalition understand the value of manufacturing in our great country, particularly when it comes to our sovereignty. We are passionate about manufacturing. We understand the importance of manufacturing. And I think Australians also understand that. They understand how important it is that we rely more on our own nation's capability than on that of others. I want to contrast what the coalition believes in and delivers with what the Labor Party promises and fails to implement. The coalition believe in incentivising business and manufacturers, as we've proven time and time again with lower taxes and much stronger economic credentials. We took corporate tax from 30 to 27.5 and then to 25 per cent in our last term. Lower taxes: that's what the coalition stand for, not like this Albanese government, who have already had tax hikes for hardworking Australians. During COVID, it was the coalition who held the nation together with JobKeeper, the cash flow boost and many other financial programs and incentives that positioned Australia to bounce back better than any other advanced country around the world, including our $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which assisted hundreds of manufacturers around the country, including on the Gold Coast and in my electorate of Moncrieff and many others, to grow and thrive so that they could employ more Australians. Of course, we've seen our record low unemployment rate when we left office, which the Labor Party inherited. Manufacturing on the Gold Coast particularly is a very large employer. The segment is actually the third largest employer. It grew to $8.3 billion and currently employs 22,880 people. Tourism is a staple; it's a primary industry for the Gold Coast, and it's going gangbusters again. It will, no doubt, break all records, but it was approaching $6 billion when COVID hit and it suffered a $2 billion body blow, but manufacturing during COVID grew 22 per cent over the last five years and continues at an annual growth rate of 24 per cent on the Gold Coast—in textiles, chemical products, metal products, boatbuilding, glass, food, space and many other segments. The coalition's focus, when we were in government, was to modernise manufacturing. Our focus was on sovereign capability; on jobs; on medical products; on defence; on food and beverages; and on resources technology and critical minerals processing—in my own electorate there is a $200-million business, Mineral Technologies, in Carrara. I took the Prime Minister there when we were in government. It's a successful mineral technology processing plant. And we also had our focus on recycling, clean energy and, of course, space. I've mentioned Gilmour Space Technologies many times. Adam Gilmour is a constituent of mine, although his business, Gilmour Space Technologies, is in the member for Fadden's electorate. Adam Gilmour is doing great things for space and was a recipient of a modern manufacturing grant. When Labor came to office at the last election they inherited a country in a strong economic position, as they always do after the coalition has been in office. As I said, there was an historic low unemployment rate—the lowest since 1974—with the national debt at 34 per cent of GDP. Let's just compare: in the United States, national debt is at 130 per cent of GDP and is expected to hit 133 per cent by the end of the year. In the UK it was at 99.5 per cent of GDP at the end of last year. But what do those opposite do when they inherit a strong economy, when they're faced with out-of-control inflation, a cost-of-living crisis and interest rates that continue to go up—in fact, 10 increases in 10 meetings of the RBA, versus zero increases in 100 meetings under a coalition government? That's a long question, but a shorter question is: what do they do when they're in charge of the treasury benches? They add fuel to the inflationary fire. They issue government bonds and they borrow more money. They increased the debt that COVID forced the country into, and pushed up inflation in the process. That's what we're seeing. In short, they ruin the Australian economy—and history will repeat itself. Then the Reserve Bank has to increase interest rates, as we've seen again, to curb the inflation beast, and every Australian with a variable-interest-rate mortgage has to pay for Labor's bad decisions. There are 800,000 of, let's say, families—certainly, mortgage holders—who will come off this historically-low interest rate and will have their repayments more than doubled, crippling household budgets. Families are having to make very difficult decisions. We're not seeing any empathy from the Albanese Labor government for families across Australia who are having to make those really tough decisions to change the menu every night or to change the school that their kids are enrolled in because they simply can't afford it. The minister on the government bench here is sniggering at my remarks— Mr Giles 243609 No, I'm not—that is absolutely outrageous! Ms BELL 282981 This is about empathy— Mr Giles 243609 You should withdraw that! Ms BELL 282981 This is about empathy for Australian families and the extra bills that they're having to pay. They're really struggling, and 800,000 mortgage holders will have to pay more than double. When inflation is out of control it affects every Australian at the supermarket, in local cafes and in restaurants—you name it. We all pay more. This government is making it worse. They use the line that they're providing cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation, but that's simply not the case. In December alone we saw early childhood education out-of-pocket costs for parents increase by 4.5 per cent. If that's not an inflationary cost caused by Labor's incoming policies, then what is? What further evidence do we need? Under us, those costs decreased by 4.5 per cent in the election quarter to June 2022, which is evidence that we know how to make decisions that improve the economy and the lives of Australians through economic measures. It seems that every time Labor is in government they have terrible luck: every time they come to government there's a sudden and dramatic economic crisis. Why? It's because they make bad decisions which exacerbate the economic circumstances of the time. The coalition opposes Labor's NRF because it's another bad decision by Labor. It's bad for taxpayers, for business, for manufacturers and for the economy. It has a poor funding model—surprise, surprise! The government's funding model has unintended consequences and is likely to fail. That's why we don't support this bill. It's not because we don't support manufacturing. The minister likes to bandy across the chamber in question time and say that we on this side of the House don't support manufacturing. That's utter and absolute rubbish. And because it's another bad economic decision from the Albanese government, we will see the ramifications through the economy. The shift the government is making to the funding model, from primarily competitive and non-competitive grants to government acquiring equity and providing loans, is likely to have unintended consequences that those opposite are simply not able to grasp, as terrible economic managers with barely an economic degree between them. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill is the ALP's $15 billion election commitment in manufacturing policy. That is what we know. The fund will be administered by a corporation with an independent board who'll deliver funds against an investment mandate set by the government. The design and execution are fraught with issues, and I would like to outline just a few of them. Firstly, the government is telling our manufacturers what they think and what they need, rather than addressing what they actually need. What they need is the government to show leadership on high energy prices, disrupted supply chains and acute labour shortages across the economy. Without addressing these key economic challenges which are holding industry back, government spending is ineffective. It won't address the real problems, and many of my colleagues outlined those concerns. Secondly, the bill is fiscally irresponsible, delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy. An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill, but timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the International Monetary Fund, who stated: Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles— such as the NRF— should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. 'It should be avoided'—but those on the other side are not listening. They are not listening to manufacturers and they are not listening to the IMF. They're running head-long off to off-budget or below-the-line funding that the IMF distinctly warned against. In addition, the IMF said: Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms. That's small family business. That's what the coalition would do, and always does, when in government: support small and family business, which is the backbone of our economy and certainly the backbone of the Gold Coast economy in the electorate I represent. Labor are carelessly rushing through a total of $45 billion of off-budget spending, and it must be stopped. Thirdly, the bill will create even more lost time for manufacturers. In this broken model, it will take significant time for money to start flowing; whereas, that money was already in place under the modern manufacturing fund. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, on which the NRF is modelled, was established in 2012 and the first investment was made only some 10 months later. Our manufacturers cannot afford to wait that long, particularly with energy prices going through the roof as they are right now. The government announced that the NRF should be up and running by next financial year but haven't committed to a launch date. Industry feedback suggests that this type of funding model takes years to get right—and those years will be lost for our manufacturers. Eligibility is another issue. Certain industries might have margins which are too small or it could be too risky with disrupted supply chains. Many will no doubt miss out, and the fund could become equivalent to a great big white elephant. There are risks to crowding out private investment, and they are very concerning. If there are such great investment opportunities the government will acquire in equity, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities, when we all know the private sector works at speed light compared to the wheels of government? We must also not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given that many of our manufacturers are family-owned businesses. The bill will stifle innovation at a time when our country needs innovation, as fund beneficiaries will be unlikely to invest in innovation without a guaranteed return. This funding model does not entertain a failure, an inherent ingredient to innovation. Also, there's an inappropriate ministerial discretion on this bill which allows the minister to appoint the chair and board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. The government has already demonstrated in its early appointments that it cannot be trusted to make sensible, non-partisan decisions. Also, the bill undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a political whim. They are just some of the major concerns that we have with this bill. Instead of supporting industry and jobs, the government has chosen to forge ahead with radical industrial relations legislation, facilitating a spike in industrial disputes and paving a path to thousands of job losses. Let's watch the unemployment rate go up. Instead of dealing with power prices forecast to spike by 56 per cent over the next two years—many businesses across the country may be pushed to the brink—this government is focused on bad, economy-wrecking policy. It's time for the government to deliver inflation support for industry and put forward a plan to deal with spiralling power prices. While manufacturers across the country struggle with rising power prices, Labor's focus is on making it more difficult for industry to employ and keep workers, to grow their business and to keep their costs low. Labor's policies are simply not working. 13:10 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's always a pleasure to rise in this place and speak about business in this country and the wonderful job they do for us as a nation. We all know that we have the capabilities and expertise in this country to manufacture a wide range of high-quality products. It was the previous coalition government that understood this best and understood how we could harness the potential of our manufacturing base, particularly in advanced manufacturing, to drive our economy and ensure sovereign capability. That's why the coalition, when we were in government, implemented the $2.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which was designed to position Australia as a globally recognised, high-quality and sustainable manufacturing nation. This support sought to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability and empowered over 200 projects across Australia. It was all about government backing enterprise led growth, strategically investing in harnessing our world-class science and research to secure our manufacturing future. Sadly, the proposed National Reconstruction Fund is the Modern Manufacturing Strategy's polar opposite. This policy proposed by the government sets the tone for the overarching policy direction of this Labor government, an agenda guided by sheer arrogance. It sets out to tell business what Labor thinks they need, instead of addressing what they want. The coalition government's manufacturing funding model centred on a competitive grants program with extremely robust processes, awarding funding to businesses that were investment ready. Labor's preference, however, is for a poorly designed funding model built on the government having to provide equity and loan schemes, which has raised far too many unanswered questions. As I've said many times in this place since the election outcome, Mr Deputy Speaker: have a look at what the government does, not what it says, because nine times out of 10 they are two very different things. In increasing Australia's manufacturing output, the role of government should be not to dictate but to ensure that business are able to operate in an environment where they are best placed to compete on a global scale. Government equity and loan schemes are less accessible than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet return-on-investment thresholds or put together the detailed business cases in-house. Furthermore, an unanswered question is what will happen to failed or failing loans or business ventures. That is a key part of the business development process. As unwelcome as it is at times, it is the way the market cleans out the system. How will eligibility be met on these loans when certain industries have margins that are too small or the approval is seen as too risky? What about private equity? The Australian Bankers Association have stated that banks are already involved in providing loans in the priority areas identified in the consultation paper, meaning that the government will be discouraging further private investment instead of addressing current issues, such as input costs, noted by industry stakeholders. That is certainly the feedback I get from my manufacturers, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I go around my electorate of Forde. Compounding their poor policy direction is the failure of this Labor government to deal with the economic issues facing businesses more generally, let alone manufacturing. Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is in vain. We see before us that this government fails to deal with these issues. Rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains are issues that must be addressed if we want to see our manufacturers succeed. Power prices have been forecast to spike by over 56 per cent over the next two years, with many businesses across the country already feeling the pinch—sadly, some may be pushed to the brink. Inflation remains far too high, with every increase in interest rates not only impacting consumer spending but also curtailing business confidence. This government loves to congratulate itself on its extensive budget repair that it has undertaken from its midyear budget last year. However, when pressed, the government struggles to be specific, not only noting that it has sought some vague plan—which is not unusual for Labor governments—while spending continues, as with this proposal, off the balance sheet and hidden away from the budget. While manufacturers across the country struggle with rising power prices, inflation and rising interest rates, the government is failing to enact any productive policy that will address these issues. It likes to say it has a plan, but in reality it has no plan to address these economic conditions that are impacting our economy, hurting everyday Australians and impacting our local businesses. What I find very interesting about this proposed National Reconstruction Fund is that on one hand the government is talking about wanting to build and grow manufacturing in this country while another piece of legislation that is before this House will do exactly the opposite—that is, the proposal by this government in the TLAB 1 bill to change how franking credits can be paid in the event of capital rising. I am sure that's just the thin end of the wedge of what the government wants to do with franking credits, but let's leave it where it is as this point in time—we all remember the 2019 election, when Labor wanted to change the way franking credits worked, very substantially. Let's just focus on the impact on manufacturing businesses—particularly large listed manufacturing businesses—of this franking credit proposal. One of the best ways and one of the cheapest ways for business to obtain or retain capital to grow and develop is by re-investing the profits of that business. The beauty of our franking credit system is that those companies will pay tax on their profits and then they will make a decision at board level of how much of that profit they wish to distribute to shareholders via a franked dividend and how much they wish to retain for capital to grow and develop their business. If you do that, the consequence is that you build up a pool of franking credits in the franking credit account on your balance sheet. If they say, 'We're going to raise some more capital in addition to that to grow our business,' and then at some undetermined future point say, 'We want to pay out some more franked dividends,'—whatever that amount may be, because the company makes that decision in its best interests and the best interests of its shareholders—the company may well be prevented from paying out that dividend in a franked form. That is complete and other nonsense. This is the hypocrisy of this government: on one hand you're talking about building and developing our manufacturing base and giving growing businesses the ability to grow, yet at the very same time you have another piece of economic policy over here which mitigates against exactly that. Where's the economic sense in that? There is none. The government should have a good hard look at itself and, if it's genuine about something like the National Reconstruction Fund, then maybe it should have a look at some of the other policies it has in place to see if they're actually mitigating against what it says it wants business to do. Why it's the case that the government can't work that out for itself is beyond comprehension. In contrast to that is the coalition's record from when we were in government. As I mentioned earlier, as part of our economic recovery from the pandemic, and earlier, the coalition had the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This was a $2.5 billion policy to provide pathways for manufacturers to expand across six key priority areas: medical products; resource technology and critical minerals processing; food and beverages; defence; recycling and clean energy; and, importantly, space. The Modern Manufacturing Strategy's aim was to secure our sovereign manufacturing capability and to unlock a new generation of high-wage, high-skill and high-tech jobs. By listing our local space industry as a national manufacturing priority, the coalition understood and appreciated the extensive opportunities that could be taken advantage of by developing that. But I can also add that prior to the Modern Manufacturing Strategy we had the Modern Manufacturing Fund. A number of businesses in my electorate, and across Logan and the northern Gold Coast, were successful in obtaining funding through the Modern Manufacturing Fund. Anybody in this place who wants to say that manufacturing in this country is dead or dying should maybe come and have a tour through some of the industrial estates around this country. I never cease to be amazed by the quality of small-, medium- and large-manufacturing businesses across my electorate—or even a little outside my electorate, in the Treasurer's electorate of Rankin. These are businesses that are using innovative ideas, or re-using the technology they have already developed for a particular product segment in the marketplace. They're taking the lessons from those and developing new products for a new market, whether in defence or in other areas I just want to touch on a few of those businesses in the remaining time I have. Take a company like Merino Country Australia at Shailer Park. They received $400,000 through our Modern Manufacturing Fund to adopt new technologies for sewing machines and garment production in order to support the international expansion of their wool and clothing business. Or there is ATP Science, which is at the forefront of the fitness industry and which experienced tremendous growth. To support that demand, ATP received $1 million in funding to expand production of their unique high-protein products. Under our Sovereign Industrial Capability Priority Grants, Holmwood Highgate at Loganholme received $1 million to enhance the manufacture of bulk liquid transport equipment, not just for the commercial sector, which they have done a fantastic job in for nearly 70 years, but for where they have branched off into defence industry. That isn't just for the support of our Australian Defence Force; they're exporting that technology to the world. Frontline Manufacturing at Meadowbrook received $710,000 to purchase equipment that would allow them to manufacture metal plate for armoured fighting vehicles in their big factory at Redbank, in conjunction with Rheinmetall. These competitive grant processes have provided businesses with the freedom to follow the most appropriate road to prosperity and growth, and these successful local grant recipients developed a vision for their future and, in turn, reaped the benefits. This successful process of delivery is in direct contrast to the government's plan for a loan-and-equity scheme rolled out against an investment mandate which crudely dictates how a business must implement its strategies for growth. Government doesn't know what business is good at or capable of doing, and government should stay out of businesses' lives. But what we are seeing now are proposals by this government not only to have an equity stake in your business but they want an equity stake in your house and they want an equity stake in your super. What else does this government want an equity stake in in your life? We should oppose this bill, because it's bad policy and it's bad for the country. 13:25 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I want it to be known that I support manufacturing's long and prosperous history in Australia, which has promoted innovation and secured jobs for Australians. When I look around my own home, back at Clontarf, only a few of the items were made in Australia. On my roof I've got solar panels from Tindo Solar, the only manufacturer of solar panels in Australia. Pretty much nothing else is made here. I've got a barbecue in my backyard from Heatlie Barbecues, made in Australia and designed and manufactured here. I've got a Polyworld water tank, manufactured in Clontarf, where I live in Queensland, and RM William boots—you'll know about them. They're made from kangaroo leather produced by Packer Leather in my electorate. From BlueScope Steel, I've got a COLORBOND roof and a steel frame—all Australian steel products. But it is fair to say that we could do a lot more, and I'd love to see a lot more manufacturing come back into Australia. I must say that the Labor Party have been responsible for the loss of a lot of manufacturing, through higher demands through unions that have sent businesses overseas. Look at what they've done since coming to government: they're governing for the unions again, governing for their political donors, by scrapping the ABCC and making industrial relations changes that weren't flagged prior to the election. With the Labor Party, it's all about looking after their political donors, and they take no responsibility for jobs that are being sent offshore through their actions whilst in government. The reality is that there's a really good manufacturing policy right now that the Australian government has in law, rather than bringing in this crazy bill. You'd think that, when they came to office, the current government might actually govern—be it through a minister or the Prime Minister—and say, 'Hang on, we already have a Modern Manufacturing Strategy with six National Manufacturing Priorities.' But, instead, they said: 'No, let's throw that out. Let's just do something completely new, off books and off the budget.' There's no budget surplus for the next four years, and none for 10 years, yet they go on about debt, $250 billion of which they racked up during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. This government can't tell the truth. That's the reality. But let's talk about what the coalition government did for manufacturing in our time in office. The former coalition government delivered the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. It identified the six National Manufacturing Priorities, including around food and beverage; medical products; resources technology in critical minerals processing; recycling and clean energy; defence; and the space industry. I'll say more about the space industry, because it seems that the minister for industry has completely abandoned space. They want to leave that to overseas countries. Take note: that's what they want to do—this government is completely abandoning space. We invested $1.5 billion in the Modern Manufacturing Strategy, strengthening and building a competitive economy. That $1.5 billion generated over $113 billion in value in products manufactured—that was in 2021—and more than $50 billion in exports from the $1.5 billion in the Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which the coalition government put in place. So you'd think that this government would do something, rather than delaying this for a couple of years. It's 10 months in, and they haven't even got anything in place. They've ignored the previous Modern Manufacturing Strategy for the last 10 months, and by the time this National Reconstruction Fund gets established it will be—what?—two years down the track, and manufacturers will be left wanting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. Your speech was interrupted, so you will be given leave to continue speaking when the debate resumes. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 46 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Maltese Community 46 13:30 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser The Maltese community's reputation as a hardworking, hospitable people is well deserved, given their service to the community. Fraser electorate resident Carmelo 'Charlie' Desira is emblematic of the commitment of the Maltese community to serve. Charlie was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in this year's Australia Day Honours List. A founder of the Loaves & Fishes Foodbank, Charlie has been volunteering up to 30 hours a week for the past 23 years, delivering hampers and collecting, sorting and handing out food. At the weekend, I thoroughly enjoyed celebrating St George's Day with a fantastic night of great food and music. St George is a patron saint of Malta, and the size of the celebrations was a testament to how important he is to Maltese culture. Close-knit communities Sunshine and St Albans have been known as 'Little Malta' since the 1960s. The first Maltese-born Australian arrived in Australia in 1810, and then migration increased after 1944 when the Maltese were classified as 'white British subjects' for the purposes of Australia's White Australia policy. The Maltese were offered assisted passage under the 1948 Malta-Australia assisted passage agreement, which facilitated large waves of migration and brought many Maltese people to Sunshine. In Melbourne, most Maltese Australians reside in the western suburbs of Sunshine and St Albans, and they contribute to that community to this day. Thank you to you all. International Women's Day 46 13:31 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay Today, as we celebrate International Women's Day, I'd like to draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the remarkable women in my community—women who have broken barriers in traditionally male-dominated fields. One woman, Gina Field, who for over 25 years has been leading Nepean Regional Security, has picked up numerous awards along the way. We have female doctor Dr Nhi Nguyen, who, during COVID, provided a calming and reassuring voice. She stood up in press conferences and helped lead the charge against COVID. She is at our own Nepean Hospital. We have Penrith's own gold medallist Jess Fox, who has inspired young girls right across our country to pursue their dreams. They have been inspired to go for Olympic gold and pursue their passion in sport. We also have women who have devoted their lives to serving others, like Katie from YAMHS, who works tirelessly as a volunteer to improve the lives of young people struggling with mental health. People like Katie are the backbone of our community. However, we cannot talk about women's empowerment in our local community without acknowledging that we still have a lot of work to do, particularly in getting ourselves off the top of the list when it comes to domestic violence in our state of New South Wales. We need to do more. We need to educate our young people about healthy relationships and we need to hold perpetrators to account. Without this, we can't have women's empowerment. It is an important day to acknowledge the successes but also to remember all the work we still have to do. International Women's Day 47 13:33 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite International Women's Day is an opportunity for celebration and reflection. On this day, I celebrate that my daughters, Lily and Isobel, will grow up in a fairer country. I reflect on my 86-year-old mum, a nurse, artist and advocate for women, and the journey she has taken to help make positive change. Such change means that I can stand here today as part of the first federal government with a female majority. The Labor Party has always driven gender equality and progress for women. Under Labor, Australia had its first female Prime Minister. And Labor has policies that drive equality of opportunity: cheaper child care, enabling women to return to work, build a career, earn a wage and save for retirement; the greatest boost to paid parental leave since the scheme was introduced by Labor in 2011; and, now, 10 days paid domestic violence leave so that no woman is forced to choose between safety and her job. I'm proud that 13 years ago, when I was Mayor of Surf Coast Shire, we were the first organisation across our nation to introduce such leave. Today is about more than celebrating our past accomplishments. We must continue to address the challenges women face every day and create an environment where women will thrive. When women thrive, we all thrive. Happy International Women's Day! International Women's Day 47 13:34 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders It being International Women's Day, I rise to speak on this morning's gathering on the grounds of Old Parliament House to unveil the sculptures of Dame Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons, the first female senator and member of the House of Representatives, respectively. Victorian artist Lis Johnson captured the moment they first walked into Parliament House on 24 September 1943. Most of the women elected to this place and the other one were present, and proceedings were graciously addressed by the member for Eden-Monaro, but also recognised was the mighty member for Forrest, whose ferocious persistence produced these sculptures. As it turns out, they are the only sculptures of women anywhere in the Australian Capital Territory. Parliamentarians and the public alike were regaled with family tales from Libby Lyons and Maxine Muir—who, may I say, bears a striking resemblance to her aunt Dorothy—including fine descriptions of the anticipation these tiny but towering women would have felt that day. It was clear from the stories, if not from their stride, demeanour and, indeed, the fox fur hung feistily around Dame Enid's neck, that both women meant business. As I stood with colleagues from across the parliamentary spectrum, I had the occasion to feel, and to now express in this place, my gratitude towards all the women in this place, both elected and unelected—some of whom, like Senator Jane Hume and my office manager, Julia Doyle, I have known for over 30 years. Equally, the gratitude extends to those I've just met across party lines. You make this place better and more effective and, indeed, more fun. Holi and Hola Mohalla Festivals 47 13:36 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt The vibrant and colourful festivals of Holi and Hola Mohalla hold a special place in the hearts of millions of people around the world. They are a time of celebration, joy and unity of the unique cultures and traditions that make Australia such a wonderful place to call home. Holi is a Hindu festival that celebrates the arrival of spring, and it is a time to put aside our differences and come together as one community. The colours of Holi symbolise the vibrance of life, the richness of our cultures and the diversity of our nation. Hola Mohalla, on the other hand, is a festival that celebrates the warrior spirit of the Sikh community. It is a reminder that we must always stand up for what we believe in, and we must never shy away from defending our values and our principles. As we celebrate these festivals, let us remember the importance of kindness, compassion and empathy. I wish everyone in my electorate of Holt and across Australia a happy and joyous Holi and Hola Mohalla. International Women's Day 47 13:37 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I want to celebrate the incredible contributions women have made to our country and our parliament. We're fortunate to follow in the footsteps of courageous, determined women like Dame Enid Lyons, Doris Blackburn and Cathy McGowan. I'm so proud that women now comprise 38 per cent of this chamber and 44 per cent across the parliament—more than that number has ever been. It's a tremendous improvement from the year when I was born, when zero women stood in the House of Representatives. However, we have a long way to go. This progress will only continue if we continue to support and empower the next generation of women in public life. We must work together to overcome the barriers that women face and ensure every woman has the opportunity to succeed. I want to highlight some of those groups in my electorate that do make a huge difference to women, including the B Miles Women's Foundation, Bondi Cottage, the National Council of Australian Jewish Women as well as the surf lifesaving clubs, who are promoting women, and groups like Chief Executive Women, who also encourage women to be their best. On this International Women's Day, I'm committing to empowering women in my community who can make a real difference in public life, tapping them on the shoulder and telling them they can do it because they're capable, qualified and ready, and because we all need people to believe in us and to get behind us. This is how I will honour the legacy of my predecessors. I hope many others here will join me and do the same in their own communities. International Women's Day 48 13:39 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Today is International Women's Day. Happy International Women's Day to everyone! Today we celebrate the incredible achievement of women all over the world. I'm so lucky to represent a seat that is named after a woman, Dame Dorothy Tangney. She was the first woman to serve as a Labor senator, and she served for almost 25 years. Today, I was proud to be present for the unveiling of the Dame Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons statues. They are now immortalised, never to be forgotten and always a reminder to women in politics that you can do it too. Without their presence and perseverance in what was a male-dominated race at that time, our government would not be who we are today. We acknowledge that we still have a long way to go in achieving true gender equality. Women continue to face significant challenges in our society. I say this not because I have a wife, daughters or granddaughter whom I love, admire and learn from; I'm saying this because women are equal to men. So let us work together to create a world where every woman and girl has the opportunity to try to succeed equal to that of men, because we as men may be the bones, but women are the mind, the body and the soul of our system. International Women's Day 48 13:40 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein International Women's Day is about celebrating the gains while recognising there's still a lot of work before women have true equality. One of many glaring gaps is superannuation. Across Australia, women generally retire with one-third less super than their male counterparts, meaning more of them face the prospect of poverty in retirement. On average, women in Goldstein have $54,000 less super than men when they retire. So, on a day when the spotlight is firmly fixed on how to improve the economic equality and wellbeing of women, I urge the government to add superannuation to paid parental leave. Around 170,000 women receiving Commonwealth PPL this year will miss out on super while on leave. Australia is ranked equal first in the world for women's education, but the report card sours after that. We rank 38th when it comes to economic participation and opportunity, and that's because of discrimination, caring responsibilities, gender segregation in the workforce, high levels of part-time work, the gender pay gap and a lack of women in leadership. Enough. Women want secure work and respect, and that's exactly what I will continue to fight for as the member for Goldstein, in the name of the trailblazing Vida Goldstein on 8 March and every other day of the year. Boothby Electorate: Health Care 48 13:42 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby When I speak to the people in Boothby, I constantly hear about how it's never been harder to see a GP than it is right now. Ten years of cuts to Medicare and the pressures of the pandemic have meant it's harder than ever to get in to see your GP and gap fees are higher than ever before. This is especially challenging when it comes to those non-life-threatening-but-urgent emergencies which are all too common. We know that roughly half of all emergency room presentations are classified as non-urgent, because, if you can't see your GP quickly, you end up there. Of course, the emergency department needs to treat the life-threatening emergencies first, so the urgent-but-non-life threatening cases have to wait hour upon hour. That's why the announcement of an urgent-care centre in Boothby is an welcome step in addressing ED congestion and getting treatment for the people of Boothby faster. On 24 February, Minister Mark Butler called for expressions of interest for the urgent-care clinic in Boothby to support the Flinders Medical Centre ED. This bulk-billed, after-hours urgent-care clinic will transform the way people receive care in Boothby. From my background working in the health sector, I'm sure this exciting step will kick-start the important process of taking pressure off our local emergency departments and increasing accessibility of primary health care for those who need it most, providing the long-awaited relief people in Boothby have been asking for. Gympie Music Muster 49 13:43 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My home town of Gympie is the true home of Australian country music. Sorry, Barnaby Joyce! The Australian Institute of Country Music, in Gympie, fosters emerging Australian talent, songwriters and performers, who get the opportunity to then strut their stuff on the biggest stage in Australian country music, the Gympie Music Muster. What started in a paddock in 1982 is now a massive fundraiser and festival, returning more than $20 million to not-for-profit community groups since it started. An entire town of over 44,000 people emerge on Amamoor when the festival is on. Over $350,000 was donated to community groups just last year, but the Gympie Music Muster needs government support to upgrade facilities such as the sewerage, water and electricity so they can keep going. Their structures—especially the toilet blocks and the iconic main stage, fencing and campgrounds—are in disrepair and need major upgrades to cater for the growing festival. Some desperately needed funding would allow these improvements to the festival precinct and allow the muster to continue supporting Australia's best home-grown talent. I invite the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, to put on his RMs and his akubra and join us for a Bundy rum and a bit of bootscooting at the true home of country music, the Gympie Music Muster. Trove 49 13:45 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to speak about the importance of funding Trove, Australia's wonderful online archive of history, literature and culture. It is an integral part of our national identity and heritage and it is crucial that we ensure it is properly maintained and resourced. It is also a vital way that people who can't access libraries and other institutions in person can access their collections. But it is under threat, and the National Library has warned that the future of Trove is dependent on a fresh injection of funding. We must ensure the future of Trove. Since its launch in 2009, Trove has become an essential resource for Australia's researchers, historians, students and anyone interested in Australian history and culture, providing access to over six billion items, including books, newspapers, photographs and maps. The online archive has revolutionised the way we research, study and understand our nation's history, enabling all Australians easy access to primary source materials from across the country, and it plays a crucial role in preserving our cultural heritage. Trove allows access to digitised versions of rare and hard to find books, preserving them for future generations, and it is a vital educational resource, providing remote and regional students with access to sources and information that would otherwise be inaccessible. Trove is crucial for the preservation, promotion and celebration of Australian history, literacy and culture and must be resourced for future generations. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: Fiasp 49 13:46 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax As an 11-month-old little baby girl, Freya Goldston was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. She is now 14, and she came and saw me with her mum Jackie last week. For some years now she has been using an insulin drug called Fiasp and it has been life changing, especially at school and with her sport, because it kicks in so quickly. But the federal government has now delisted Fiasp off the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, off the PBS, having the most dramatic impact on Freya. Freya's family has been paying about $7 a script. They received advice, and it looks like they will now be having to pay around $280 per script for this drug. They found out, by the way, through a blog, social media, which goes to the zero consultation on the part of the government with this. I talk about Freya, for a good reason. I have met her. She has told me her story. But here is the thing: Freya is just one of 15,000 people across this country for whom Fiasp has been stripped away off the PBS. The government and the minister must act. International Women's Day 49 13:48 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I am incredibly humbled to stand here today on International Women's Day amongst my Labor colleagues, some extraordinarily strong, kind and principled women. We in the Albanese Labor government can be incredibly proud of the efforts and the achievements that we have made in a relatively short period of time with regard to furthering the interests of women and the issues of gender equality in our society. Even in the last 10 months, we have pushed through cheaper child care; we have put in place paid leave for family and domestic violence; and even this week we passed some very important legislation to improve the gender equity arrangements around paid parental leave. There are so many women in my community who play leadership roles, whether it be in their families, in their workplaces or in the community more generally who I am so proud to be associated with, who I get to learn from and who I get to work with to achieve great things for our community. At a personal level, today I also pay tribute—as I have done previously—to my own mother, who was a teacher, who devoted her life to education, and to my partner, Zoe, who guides me in all things. I wish them both a happy International Women's Day. Health Care 50 13:49 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Studies show that cancer patients living in rural, regional or remote Australia are 35 per cent more likely to die within five years of a diagnosis relative to their metropolitan counterparts. The main driver of that dichotomy is, of course, access to services and the distance travelled to access them. The Limestone Coast, which is amongst my constituency, is a community of 65,000 people. To put it bluntly, postcodes should not be a factor of whether you survive cancer or not. It's why I advocated on behalf of the Limestone Coast community, way back in 2019, for the Limestone Coast to be included in the 2019 federal budget for funding to establish a radiation treatment centre. But, without state government support, a proposal like that is unworkable. In my community, a petition is circulating. It's been circulating since 6 February. It calls on the state government to support the establishment of a radiation treatment centre in Mount Gambier. It's garnered, in a month, over 7,000 signatures, well on the way to 10,000 signatures. It's a credit to the community working party who organised it. We're going to collect that petition before Easter, which is in about a month, so, if you think the Limestone Coast deserves radiation treatment services, sign the petition. Our postcode shouldn't determine our future. First Nations Voice Week of Action 50 13:51 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I recently hosted a free community barbecue in Annerley to kick off the First Nations Voice Week of Action, an opportunity to gage support for the Voice in Moreton and an opportunity to hear directly from the people who will decide on the referendum. Almost 100 locals turned up to Jessica Andrews Place to talk about the Voice, and there was a real buzz in the air. Thanks to all who turned up and who communicated with my office that they couldn't attend but that they do want to get involved. It was encouraging to see support throughout Moreton for the referendum. There was a clear appetite from everyone who attended to become more active in the campaign. Plenty of volunteers signed up to help campaign for a 'yes' vote. I especially mention Renee, who, despite her senior years, has signed on to help. Bonjour a Renee. Mon ancienne prof de francais et habitante de Moreton. J'etais tellement hevreux de te voir au barbecue. Sorry, Jerome, for that pronunciation! The southside will be out raising awareness and advocating loudly for a 'yes' vote, and I encourage all MPs and senators to do the same. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recognise First Nations people in this nation's Constitution, our faulty birth certificate—or perhaps it's a case of updating the nation's driving licence. We don't need the glasses or blinkers anymore. We should enshrine a voice to parliament for First Nations people to have a say in things that affect the community. Lastly, I want to give a quick shoutout to local Yuggera elder Uncle Des Sandy, who has recently moved into a nursing home. I'll miss his guidance. Tasmania: Dairy Industry 50 13:53 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon I spruik Tasmania's world-class dairy industry a fair bit in this place, and today I'm going to milk it even more! Dairy is the largest segment of the Tasmanian agricultural industry. With just two per cent of Australia's population and less than one per cent of Australia's landmass, Tasmania produces more than 10 per cent of the nation's milk. My passion for this great industry has again been vindicated. The 2023 Australian Grand Dairy Awards have just been announced, and the winners are: King Island Dairy Stokes Point Smoked Cheddar was awarded Champion Flavoured Cheese. Ashgrove Pure Cream won the Champion Cream award. Duck River Premium Butter claimed the Champion Butter award, and Elizabeth Town's Van Diemens Land Creamery impressed the judges with its lemon curd ice cream, winning the Champion Full Cream, Ice Cream or Gelato award. The north-west and King Island are blessed with fertile soils, reliable rainfall and the cleanest air in the world, all of which underpin our premium-quality dairy products. Our region is also home to the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture's dairy research centre at Elliott. At this site, world-leading research is being undertaken to boost productivity, profitability and sustainability of the wonderful Tasmanian dairy industry. I wish the industry all the very best. Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths 51 13:54 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Women in science, technology, engineering and maths punch above their weight. The thing I love about my profession is it's about your technical competence. Imagine a career where people are judged on their intelligence, not their looks or the way they sound. For me, my STEM career was liberating. Despite this, only 27 per cent of the STEM workforce is female. We need to buck the trend, and that starts from childhood. The song shouldn't be 'Do You Want to Build a Snowman?' It should be, 'Do You Want to Build a Robot?' That's exactly what the Minister for Industry and Science and the member for Tangney saw at Murdoch University. There I met Curtin University's robot team called Can't Control. These students built a wondrous remote-controlled, pneumatically operated robot. This pink robot spins around, has arms and can lift things over its head. Extraordinarily, these were high school students, not university students, that built this. These students have been inspired to study STEM degrees. I'm so proud that Minister Husic announced $51,000 as a part of the maker projects and science community grants. Thanks to Dr David Berryman and Tim Keely for making this program a success. A special shout-out to Curtin's Can't Control team: Nicole Irons, Anna Pedersen, Samantha Goh, Kieran Jarvis and Harry Cassidy. Good luck at the Southern Cross regional robotics competition in Wollongong, and happy International Women's Day. Redlands Domestic Violence Awareness Ambassador Program 51 13:56 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Last Friday I had the privilege of attending the inaugural Redlands Domestic Violence Awareness Ambassador Program lunch at Sirromet winery in my electorate. This was an initiative born of a need in the Redlands community to better support victims of domestic and family violence and to raise awareness of this important issue. RDVA is an alliance of local Redlands male ambassadors who will use individual and combined resources, knowledge and expertise to positively impact and reduce the scourge of domestic and family violence in Redlands city. I'm pleased to be amongst the first cohort of ambassadors, alongside the city's male state MPs and other business and community leaders. The money raised through the very successful lunch last week will go to support the efforts of four amazing local organisations who work tirelessly to support those affected by domestic and family violence in my city: Maybanke Accommodation and Crisis Support, the Redlands Community Centre, the Cage Youth Foundation, and the Centre For Women & Co. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Rabieh Krayem, Rebecca Young, Linda Grieve and all those involved in putting together the RDVA concept and our inaugural fundraiser. I also want to thank all the businesses and local individuals who supported the event through their attendance and generous donations. I look forward to updating the House on our progress in the future. International Women's Day 51 13:57 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today as Labor's first female Chief Government Whip to wish all the women in the House happy International Women's Day. I stand here proud to be Labor; proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government, the first majority female government in Australia's history; proud to follow Julia Gillard as the first female Australian PM and the first female member for Lalor; proud of the Labor women who drove the change to equality in parliament and lead the change now; and proud of the Labor men who got it then and help drive it now. Together, we pursue and deliver for gender equality every day. I note the unveiling of three statues in the nation this International Women's Day: those of Dorothy Tangney, Enid Lyons and, in Melbourne, Sharelle McMahon. And I call for more statues of women, and I say that we start in this place and call for a statue of the great JG, Julia Gillard, the 27th PM in this country, in the parliamentary precinct. Albanese Government 51 13:59 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Before the election the Prime Minister promised he would deliver a $275 cut to household and business power bills—not promised once nor twice but 97 times. Before the election the Prime Minister promised 'real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages'. Before the election the Prime Minister promised Australians would be better off under Labor. No equivocation, no fine print, a clear promise—better off. And what's been delivered since then? Broken promises. Since the election, energy bills have been going up and up. The Prime Minister promised that his price cap would be 'deflationary by reducing power bills'. Yet, energy bills keep rising for families and businesses. What happened to the 'real, lasting' cheaper mortgages? All we have had under this prime minister is the very real and lasting impact on families of nine straight interest rate rises. It's clear Australians are worse off under Labor. This tricky Prime Minister has broken every substantial promise he made. His latest were solemn commitments that he had 'no intention to make any super changes.' The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the debate has concluded. MINISTRY 52 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 52 14:00 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I inform the House that Prime Minister will be absent from question time today and tomorrow, as he is leading a delegation to India. I will answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister. I also inform the House that the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Northern Australia will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will answer questions on her behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Gas Industry 52 14:01 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. The Prime Minister said yesterday that gas must play a key role in providing peaking and firming power for Australian businesses and households. Does the minister agree that gas will play a crucial role in providing secure energy supply for Australians? How many gas projects has the minister approved since been sworn in? 14:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Yes, it will play a crucial role, and I'm not going to comment on individual assessments. International Relations: Australia and India 52 14:02 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting greater opportunities for Australia through our partnership with India? 14:02 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. Tomorrow is going to be a very exciting day as the coin is tossed at the beginning of the fourth test at the largest stadium in the world, the Narendra Modi Stadium in Gujarat. Right now on the field is a banner which proclaims 75 years of friendship between Australia and India through cricket. Indeed, Australia was the first country with whom India had formal diplomatic relations after independence, and cricket has been at the heart of our relationships since independence. Indeed, months after Indian independence, Australia and India played our first test match together when India toured Australia in 1947-48. It was the one series that Bradman played against India, and in the first test in Brisbane he scored 185 not out. I'm pretty sure that my father was there to watch it. When Prime Ministers Albanese and Modi walk onto the ground tomorrow there is every chance that they will do so in front of a world record crowd for a test match—a record which up until now has been held by the MCG, and has been since 1960. Cricket is perhaps the best symbol of what we have in common as two countries. You can have an engrossing conversation with a taxi driver in New Delhi about Virat or Tendulkar in a way you can't really have even with a taxi driver in New York. Foreign relations is not very different to human relations and, as two countries, we are the very best of friends. Right now, that matters. Because India is becoming a superpower. India and Australia have greater strategic alignment now that we have had at any point. There is an enormous opportunity for us to be trading with India, and a large part of Prime Minister Albanese's delegation to India is as a trade delegation. This is a relationship which matters because we share an ocean, we share a region and, increasingly, we are becoming security partners. Last year I had the enormous honour, when I visited India, of riding aboard a P-8 Indian Navy aircraft—the plane that we operate. This is a really sensitive platform which is engaged in reconnaissance and surveillance, and it says everything about the trust that India has in our country that they would allow an Australian defence minister to be aboard. What transcends our relationship from one of being friends to family is the vibrant and growing Indian diaspora which is in our country today, and which will very soon be producing cricketers for our own test team. As our two countries consider our relationships with China, with the United States, with the region and, indeed, with the world, we are strikingly similar. We do live in an era of strategic complexity and threat. But, while the way forward is not obvious, some matters are clear. Now is a time to be close to friends and, in the community of nations, India stands in the very top tier of the very best friends that Australia has. The SPEAKER 53517 I call the Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence. 14:05 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to join with the Acting Prime Minister, endorsing his words and wishing the Prime Minister and the delegation every success in what is a crucial opportunity for both of our countries. As the Acting Prime Minister pointed out—I can't say 'Acting Prime Minister' enough, of course, Richard!—the relationship between our two countries is certainly based on our mutual respect for the game of cricket. But it's so much more than that. When you look at the diaspora community here, there are young students who are escaping poverty and creating a life here in Australia that couldn't have been imagined a generation ago, or two generations ago. The opportunity that they're bringing to their children and their grandchildren, and the role that we play here in that story, is a remarkable one. I want to pay tribute to all Australians of Indian heritage, because they are entrepreneurial, they work hard, they educate their children and they're an integral part of Australian society. Prime Minister Modi points out in discussions the opportunity to export that talent from India into countries like ours. We will be anxious about the first and second days. For all the cricket tragics in this place, we haven't seen too much cricket in days 3 and 4 in the recent past. I hope that we can tidy it up in the last session of the second day, but we'll see. But we do wish the Prime Minister every success in this opportunity between our two countries. Minister for Government Services 53 14:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Government Services. I refer to the minister 's comments yesterday on Sky News about the attack on franking credits from this government, and the attack on franking credits he proposed in the 2019 election. Has the minister reflected on the difference between his honesty in 2019, which saw him lose an election, and the Prime Minister's dishonesty which saw him win an election? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I think I know what the Leader of the House is going to say, but I give him the call. Mr Burke DYW I submit that the question is out of order on a number of grounds. Certainly, the tag at the end is something that can only be made by direct resolution, not through the form of a question. And, in terms of the policy carriage of the issue, it's not directed to the accurate minister. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The question relates directly to comments that the minister made in the media yesterday. The principle is well established, that a minister can be asked questions about comments that he or she has made publicly. If there are concerns about the last sentence then the member ought to be given the opportunity to rephrase the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW In respect to the point that the Manager of Opposition Business just made about whether a comment that someone makes can automatically be asked about during question time: the reference to that in the Practice is specifically when it refers to a previous portfolio. That's on the basis that you can't ask someone about something other than their portfolio. You can only ask about a previous portfolio if they've made a statement on it. To say that if they make a statement on any policy at all it suddenly becomes open slather in question time. It would be a brand-new precedent that we've never had. The SPEAKER 53517 I am going to allow the deputy leader to rephrase the question and I want her to rephrase the question with respect to standing orders regarding the minister's portfolio. I will give her another crack to ask the question and I am asking her to rephrase the question so it is in relation to his portfolio and the administration that he is responsible for. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for Home Affairs is not helping. Ms LEY 00AMN I refer to the Minister for Government Services' comments yesterday on Sky News about the attack on franking credits from this government and the attack on franking credits he proposed in the 2019 election. Has the minister reflected more broadly across his portfolio responsibilities on the difference between his honesty in 2019 when he spoke about franking credits which saw him lose an election and the Prime Minister's dishonesty which saw him win an election, a dishonesty that covers every portfolio in this government? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right. That question was barely in order but I will allow the minister to respond in relation to his responsibility as a minister, and if he strays too far he will be sat down as well. 14:11 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I did have one prepared about honesty and government in my portfolio. The royal commission into robodebt reflects, I think, one of the low points of honesty by a government, and in our portfolio now we are cleaning up the mess. But one important point which goes to— Ms Ley 00AMN Welcome back to the dispatch box, Bill. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Thanks for the robodebt question, Sussan. One important point which goes to this question of honesty in government is really this: there have been a lot of witness statements given by a lot of victims of robodebt in the royal commission and they do make harrowing reading. I'm not sure that the member— Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER 53517 Manager Opposition Business, the question was so broad in terms of honesty and the minister's responsibilities. He is in order, but I'll hear from you. Mr Fletcher L6B It goes to relevance. It was a question about franking credits and this minister's track record. If he can't answer it, he should sit down. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. To reflect about his portfolio, I'll give him the call. He is in order. You've asked the question. It was very broad. The minister is in order. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The robodebt royal commission is casting a light on matters which haven't been dealt with before the royal commission. The members opposite, I think, are aware that for 4½ years there was an unlawful scheme raised—an unlawful scheme. And as much as the members opposite don't like to talk about the robodebt royal commission, part of the reason why we are having the royal commission is for 4 ½ years the then government did everything they could to bury the truth. We have heard in a number of question times—oh, my goodness. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, you've been very clear on your rulings when it comes to the royal commission that the minister is not entitled to draw conclusions. He is only entitled to refer specifically to evidence. He has been a serial offender on that. He is offending again, and I ask that you direct him back to your ruling. Mr Burke DYW As the Manager of Opposition Business and members of the opposition know, the question they've asked goes to all areas of honesty across the portfolio. That is what the question goes to. So, therefore, drawing on material about that doesn't have to draw on whether or not there will be a particular conclusion from the royal commission. The question of those opposite has given us a much broader way of asking those questions. The SPEAKER 53517 You may resume your seat. We just need to get through this. I give the call to the minister. Do not reflect on findings within the royal commission; proceed with your answer. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The robodebt royal commission is necessary because, after 4½ years of breaking the law, the old government never actually explained how it happened. We've had the harrowing statements from witnesses. We've had countless statements from victims. At last count, there were about 400,000 victims of the previous government's illegality. This goes very much to the honesty of services. In the royal commission, the evidence has come through, and it tells a terrible story. But the reason we're having the royal commission, and the reason why members of parliament should listen carefully to some of the stories that we're hearing now, is that it went on for 4½ years. I don't think any government is immune from making mistakes. I understand that. But surely we need to have the conversation both on this side of the House and on that side of the House. How could you keep breaking the law? That's not a matter for the royal commission. The Commonwealth solicitor said the scheme was unlawful. That's already a fact. But has anyone on that side stopped to think, 'How did we keep breaking the law for 4½ years?' Coalition members may see this as just a partisan issue, but, if we don't understand why it happened and how it happened, so far what we've had is a lot of people saying, 'I don't recall.' But I contrast the honesty of the victims who are bravely retelling their stories with the cowardice of the— (Time expired) Gender Equality 54 14:16 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. What has the Albanese Labor government achieved for women since getting elected last May, and what's next on the government's agenda for women? 14:16 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Can I wish all of the women in this place and across the country a very happy International Women's Day. I know many of us were delighted this morning to join Minister McBain and the Tangney and Lyons families at the unveiling of the Dame Enid Lyons and Dame Dorothy Tangney statues in the parliamentary precinct. It was a very fitting way to honour them, and we all acknowledge the ongoing work to recognise women across all roles in public life. International Women's Day provides us with the chance to reflect on the accomplishments of women in our lives and where we're achieving change. This government is really proud to be leading that change. We are proud to be the first majority women federal government in Australia's history. That's a huge achievement. It means that the Australian government is more representative and more diverse than ever before, and that is a result of hard work by Labor to make representation of women in parliaments a priority. In just nine months of this government, we've already delivered cheaper child care to help women back into work after they've had children, 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave so that no-one has to choose between their safety and their job, the biggest boost to paid parental leave since the scheme was introduced by Labor in 2011 and gender-responsive budgeting. We've handed down our first budget in nearly a decade, which cast a gendered lens over every single spending decision. We've delivered the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, supported by record funding of $1.7 billion; a wage increase for aged-care workers, the majority of whom are women; the National Women's Advisory Council to improve Australia's health system for women and girls; and funding and legislation to fully implement the 55 recommendations of Respect@Work. We've opened up consultation on amendments on the Family Law Act 1975 to ensure that it is less traumatic for women and children impacted by domestic, family and sexual violence. We've introduced legislation for $10 billion of the Housing Australia Future Fund, with 4,000 properties for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence. We introduced, of course, legislation to close the gender pay gap, exposing those industries with 100 or more workers where gender pay gaps are significant. We know that there is a lot more to do. We know that women still experience inequality. We get paid less, have less superannuation, have fewer assets, experience higher levels of domestic and family violence, have greater unpaid work across caring responsibilities and hold fewer leadership roles. As women in this place and across the country, we know the job is never done, and the job is not yet done. 14:19 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer On indulgence, I would like to associate the opposition with the remarks of the Minister representing the Minister for Women and note that many of the measures, including the record funding for the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and record spending on women's safety, were initiated by the previous government. International Women's Day is an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of all the incredible women who contribute so much to Australian society every single day—mothers, carers, professionals, pilots, journalists, , teachers, farmers, doctors and small business owners—and it is important to reflect on the progress we have made as a society towards gender equality in Australia, while we also acknowledge that work still needs to be done. This year's International Women's Day theme, 'Cracking the Code', highlights the role that bold, transformative ideas and technologies can play in achieving gender equality. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 55 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS His Excellency Enkh-Amgalan, His Excellency Mr Wan-joong Kim 55 14:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I am pleased to inform the House that in the gallery today is the Minister for Education and Science from the parliament of Mongolia, His Excellency Enkh-Amgalan and His Excellency Mr Wan-joong Kim, the Ambassador for the Republic of Korea. A very warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 55 14:20 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Under the government's safeguard mechanism, big polluters will seek to offset emissions by purchasing ACCUs from farmland. But farmers say this could lock up productive land and it relies on the availability of credits they need to insert their own emissions for carbon neutrality and avoid hefty tariffs on international markets. How will the safeguard mechanism work if it can't rely on offsets from agriculture? 14:21 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question and recognise her leadership on matters of climate in the regions and climate in agriculture. The honourable member asked a number of very important questions—firstly, in relation to the safeguard mechanism. There has been a debate across the public sphere in recent days and weeks about the use of offsets. Where the government has proposed such an ambitious scheme to see a 4.9 per cent reduction in emissions each and every year, it is appropriate that we provide flexibility to businesses as to how to do that, and offsets are a very important part of that. Offsets are the net in net zero which all parties are effectively committed to or meant to be committed to, and agricultural offsets play a very important role as well. The safeguard mechanism is an important degree of flexibility for big industrial emitters. Of course, there will be a debate in this parliament when the bill comes forward for a vote, and there will be one in the other house, and when I issue the appropriate regulations. I have interacted with some members of the crossbench and I am happy to have further interactions with them about the issues. In relation to the offsetting proposal and the concept that the honourable member refers to, I am aware of that proposal and that concept. The National Farmers Federation is interested in it and Farmers for Climate Action are interested in it, and it is a concept that has been consulted on by Climate Active. It is one of the options available to farmers potentially going forward. I would remind the honourable member and the House of the existence of the government's farmer carbon offset scheme—the $20 million in funding over four years—to provide farmers and agriculturalists with all the information and best detailed advice that they could possibly assess to give them the informed choices they can make to ensure they are maximising their involvement in the way that they choose to. I am aware of the honourable member's concerns about some misinformation that is common in agricultural areas about some of the benefits of carbon credits as opposed to some of the risks. Farmers should be able to make those choices themselves but in a fully informed way. I am more than happy to engage further with the honourable member about any sensible suggestions she may choose to make in this area. Economy 56 14:23 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians, and what steps is the government taking to address the inflation challenge that the government has inherited in the economy? 14:24 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Holt for her question. That is the third question that the member for Holt has asked me since November. That means three times more questions than the shadow Treasurer has asked me over exactly the same period. So I thank the member for Holt for her question. Even with the big boss away, I can't get a question from the shadow Treasurer. I thought today might have been the day. But, alas, today is not the day. We know that the interest rate rises which began before the election and continued afterward are really tightening the screws on household budgets, which are already tight enough. We know that there are global issues at play here, but we also know, understand and accept that some of the issues in our own economy, particularly in our supply chains, which have been neglected for too long, are also part of the inflation challenge. The Reserve Bank governor has said that something between half and three-quarters of the inflation in our economy is from pressures in our supply chains. That's why the bills before the parliament, whether it's the National Reconstruction Fund, the housing fund or the safeguard mechanism, are all designed to lift the speed limit on the economy and to make the economy more resilient so that it can grow without adding to these inflationary pressures. That's an important part of our plan. An equally important plan is cost-of-living relief for Australians who are doing it tough and providing that in a responsible, methodical and affordable way so that we don't add to these inflationary pressures in our economy, whether it is cheaper early childhood education, expanded parental leave, cheaper medicines, more affordable housing, getting wages moving again or the energy bill relief that those opposite voted against. We need to provide this cost-of-living relief, like we did in the October budget and like we will in the May budget as well, in the most responsible way, and that means finding room for cost-of-living relief in a budget which is designed with spending restraint at the same time. That's why we were so pleased to see the Reserve Bank governor, for example, when he was before the parliamentary committees here in this building last month, was talking about how welcome it was that we banked 99 per cent of the upward revision to revenue in the budget over the two years where inflation was most acute. Showing restraint in the budget at the same time as we find room to invest in our economic capacity, at the same time as we provide that cost-of-living relief—these are all equally important parts of our three-point plan to get on top of this inflation challenge in our economy. We expect that inflation has already peaked, but it will be higher than we'd like for longer than we'd like. It is the defining feature of the economy right now. It is the main reason why Australians are feeling such pressure. That's why it is the highest priority when it comes to our economic policies. Energy 56 14:27 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm telling the Australian people, weeks before the last election, on 6 May 2022: 'Labor has a plan when it comes to the cost of living. We're going to ease the pressure on power bills'? Can the Acting Prime Minister name a single suburb in Australia where power prices have been reduced? 14:28 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio When those opposite were given an opportunity to vote on power prices, they voted against it. When of those opposite were given the opportunity to support the household budgets of this country by supporting the $1.5 billion plan to reduce energy prices in this country, they voted against it. When the shadow Treasurer had an opportunity to be upfront with the Australian people about the increase in power prices under his government, he hid it. That's what they did when it came to power prices. We have made really clear that we are focused on cost of living and particularly on reducing the pressure on power prices. The measure that we put in place in this parliament when we brought the parliament back in December is working. When you look at the forward electricity prices as they were presented in February of this year, they are half of what they were in November. It made a difference, and those opposite voted against it. Early Childhood Education 57 14:29 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government giving Australian women more choice by delivering on our commitment to make early childhood education more affordable? 14:29 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. What a fantastic Labor woman the member for Macquarie is, one who is a passionate advocate for her electorate and her community and one for whom the affordability of early learning for children is a deeply personal issue, as it is for many women right across Australia and, indeed, as it is for me. Affordable early learning was absolutely essential for me as a single parent who was working and who was studying, as well as managing my responsibilities as a parent at that time. Without access to the quality early childhood education that my two boys were able to have and the educators who did so much for my children, I certainly would not be standing here today, because, put quite simply, I would not have had a choice. On this side of the House, we believe that women should have a choice. That's why, from 1 July this year, around 1.2 million families right across Australia will benefit from our reforms that will make early childhood education and care more affordable. We know that women will be one of the main beneficiaries of our reforms, because it's true that the vast majority of primary caregivers are women and because it's most often the women who have to pause or stop their careers or give up, sometimes, on their aspirations due to the high costs of early learning. Our reforms give women the opportunity and the choice to return to the workforce and take on more hours if they need, to be able to contribute to the household budget and, importantly, to go back to study if they so wish. This is real and responsible relief to the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families. There are women like Gemma from Adelaide, who told me that the reforms will give her more choice in her working hours. She says: 'The costs of care were a big factor for me in weighing up how many days a week I would go back to work. It just doesn't make sense to work full time for less in your pocket. This change will help me work more.' She echoes the sentiments of many women whom I've spoken to across Australia. As we celebrate International Women's Day today—and I wish all women right across Australia and across the world a happy International Women's Day—we do need to remind ourselves that, whilst we've come a long way, there is still some way to go. I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that recognises this and that has, in the short time that we have been in office, already achieved so much towards women's workforce participation and towards equality for all Australian women. Cost of Living 57 14:32 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Treasurer. At a press conference in Homebush on 29 April 2022, the Treasurer said, 'On every shelf in every shop in every suburb'—maybe he can name one—'is a reminder of the cost-of-living crisis.' This government has an excuse for everything. They want to talk about international comparisons. Australians couldn't give a stuff what inflation is in the United States. Will the Treasurer apologise to families in Western Sydney who have had nine rate rises under this government, making it even harder for them and their children? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for O'Connor will cease interjecting before a minister speaks— The SPEAKER 53517 and so will the member for Barker, who is now warned. I give the call to the Treasurer. 14:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the honourable member for her question. Isn't it interesting that, when those opposite talk about interest rate rises and say there have been nine in a row, they seem to conveniently leave off the fact that there have been 10 in a row and they began before government changed hands in May. That's just the fact of the matter, as much as they might try and deny it. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, member for Fairfax! Dr CHALMERS 37998 I also thank the honourable member for reminding the House that the most acute quarter, when it comes to inflation in our economy, was the March quarter of last year, when those opposite were still in office. As for the comments that I made then, I think it remains the case that, in every part of our economy, there is a reminder that people are under pressure because the cost of living is unacceptably high. If the honourable member and those opposite were listening a moment ago, I ran through in some detail the three ways that we are looking to address the inflation problem in our economy. As important as it is that we understand what's happening around the world, it remains the case that the most important thing for Australians is what's happening to them. I stand by that. It's still the case and that's why the overwhelming focus of our economic plan, the overwhelming focus of our cabinet, the overwhelming focus of everybody here is the cost-of-living pressure that people are under. If you look right across the board at all the economic data that was there in May what was abundantly clear is that the situation that we inherited from those opposite, after a wasted decade of missed opportunities and warped priorities, was a difficult situation for Australian families and pensioners. If they really cared about the cost-of-living pressures that're on Australian families they would have voted to help them with their power bills, but they didn't do that. They had a decade to deal with the issues in our economy. They wasted that decade with their messed up priorities. We inherited a mess from those opposite. We are doing our best to clean it up on behalf of Australians who are still doing it tough. Paid Parental Leave Scheme 58 14:36 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How will Australian families, and particularly Australian women, benefit from the government's paid parental leave changes which passed parliament this week? 14:36 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Werriwa for that question and, on this International Women's Day, recognise her fierce advocacy, over many years, not just for women in her electorate, but right across Australia. Of course, improving paid parental leave is a critical reform. It's critical for families, it's critical for women and it's critical for the economy. We know that when done right paid parental leave can advance gender equality and grow the economy. New modelling from Impact Economics and Policy shows that the establishment of the paid parental leave scheme under Labor in 2011 resulted in nearly 75,000 more mothers joining the workforce and added $8.5 billion to our GDP. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy and the Albanese government is building on this legacy. Paid parental leave reform was the centrepiece of our first budget, where we invested half a billion dollars into a fairer, more flexible and more generous scheme. We know what happens when both parents are not supported to take time off work to care for young children. Usually mums work much less or leave the workforce altogether while dads remain in full-time work. This pattern persists for years after a child's birth and is a key driver of the gender pay gap. We heard the messages loud and clear at our very successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September where gender equality and economic growth went hand in hand. Businesses, unions, gender experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support to families and more opportunity for women. Shared parenting is critical to advance gender equality and our changes mean that from 1 July this year it will be much easier for both parents to access paid parental leave and share care. After 10 years of policy stagnation from those opposite we lag behind other OECD countries. This government has made investing in paid parental leave a priority, giving more families access to the payment and expanding it to a full six months by 2026. A paid parental leave scheme that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy. Gender equality is at the heart of this government's agenda. This is just one measure of many that we are delivering to Australian families and Australian women. Superannuation 58 14:39 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that farmers holding their farmland or family businesses holding their assets in self-managed super funds could be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes under Labor's superannuation changes due to nothing more than fluctuations in volatile commercial property prices? Isn't this just another unfair new tax on family farms and family businesses? 14:40 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, Labor created superannuation, and it's a success story. With over $3 trillion of national savings, Australians are now retiring with more money than they ever have before. The thing that honourable members need to understand is that every single dollar was opposed by those members over there. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr JONES A9B In fact, in three of the last four years, they've tried to stop Australians getting an increase in their superannuation payments. We've started a conversation in this country about the objectives of superannuation. It is unusual to have a piece of public policy in operation for 30 years without an agreed understanding of what it's all about. On this side of the House, we understand that superannuation is about providing a retirement income stream. We understand that Australians find there are lots of taxation incentives for investing their money in superannuation, and that is by design—we want to encourage people to save for their retirement. I don't think any reasonable person—perhaps apart from the Leader of the Opposition—could argue that somebody with $100 million in their superannuation account has their money saved for the purpose of— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Assistant Treasurer will resume his seat for a moment. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland is not helping. I want to hear from the Leader of the Nationals. Mr Littleproud 265585 A point of order on relevance. The question goes to farmlands and small business. The minister has been given a minute-and-a-half to talk about the specifics of this and he has failed to even touch on that in any way shape or form. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! If the member for O'Connor would like me to rule on the point of order—stop interjecting. The minister was asked a specific question; I draw him back to the question. Mr JONES A9B The reason we are doing this is we want to ensure that superannuation is operating as it is intended—to provide a retirement income stream. The member opposite asks me about self-managed superannuation funds that have illiquid assets in them, like property. It is a requirement under the current law that superannuation trustees have provisions within their accounts to account for liquidity events. That is a requirement under the current law. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately or people will leave the chamber. The minister will return to the question. Mr JONES A9B The current law requires that superannuation trustees, including the trustees of self-managed superannuation funds, have provision within the fund for liquidity. We understand a change like this is going to represent a challenge for some funds, which is why we are consulting about the implementation of it and will ensure that there are transition arrangements. This might be difficult for them over there to understand— (Time expired) National Reconstruction Fund 59 14:44 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How will the National Reconstruction Fund help Australia to meet key national challenges, including creating new, high-skilled, secure jobs? Why is this important, and what are the risks to these reforms passing parliament? 14:44 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I want to thank the member for Dunkley for her question. I know she's very proud of manufacturers in her neck of the woods—manufacturers like Clark Masts, in Carrum Downs, who are our only manufacturer of portable masts used in emergency services communication. It's very important, so please pass on our thanks for their great work, Member for Dunkley. The National Reconstruction Fund is all about jobs. It's about creating real, paying, secure work in our regions, through to remote Australia, and in our outer suburbs as well—suburbs like Carrum Downs, I might add. These are jobs across the whole supply chain—high-vis jobs, tech jobs. Sustainable jobs creation is at its heart. We want Australia to be a country that makes things, and the National Reconstruction Fund is part of that plan. We hope to see, as a result of the NRF investments, jobs emerge across supply chains and value chains. They will include jobs not just in the production phase but also in research and development at one end, in sales and service at the other, and, in between, in design, logistics, distribution and marketing. According to a 2020 report from the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, around half of the jobs in modern manufacturing are in the production phase. So, for every 10 jobs we can create on the factory floor, we create two in research, four in logistics and distribution, two in after-sales service, and so on. So the NRF is delivering for jobs across the manufacturing value chain. But I'm asked about risks. I don't want to say it, but I've got to introduce you, Mr Speaker, to 'the demolition coalition'. They're the wreckers—an opposition defined purely by opposition for its own sake. The contrast couldn't be clearer, Mr Speaker. We're about building the nation up; they're about knocking stuff down. We're about more made in Australia; they're about more made overseas. We're about more manufacturing jobs onshore; they're happy to see them go offshore. The only time that the Liberal and National parties are happy to turn the 'no' into a 'yes' on manufacturing is when there's a chance to pretend in front of the media. They put on the high-vis, strut in front of a mic—it's all lights, camera, cosplay! There they are with the high-vis, lovin' it—lovin' it! But there's a vote coming up, folks, and they can show whether or not they will back Aussie manufacturing and blue-collar jobs. They will be asked to vote for the National Reconstruction Fund, and it will be on the record: whether they support good, blue-collar jobs in Australian manufacturing or whether they must go back to their communities and explain why they're against Aussie manufacturing. Economy 60 14:47 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Treasurer. Australians want their governments to focus on the long term, not the news cycle. They understand we need economic reform because our fiscal arrangements are not sustainable. But past governments, Labor and Liberal, have not delivered the fundamental changes necessary for long-term growth and prosperity. With a trillion dollars of debt, high inflation and low productivity, the choices have only gotten harder, so when will we see a real tax and spending reform agenda from this government? 14:48 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Wentworth for her question and for her interest in all of the areas in her question. It is true that governments are called to deal with the long-term opportunities in our economy at the same time as we deal with some of the nearer-term pressures as well. If we think about the 2020s as Australia's defining decade, and about how we set ourselves up for another generation of prosperity like that which was delivered by the reform agendas of the eighties and nineties, we need to think about how we manage the big shifts when it comes to energy transition, how we manage data and digital shifts and the opportunities there, how we make sure that we've got the workers that we need for the care economy and the services economy, and how we broaden, deepen and diversify our industrial base in the ways that so many of the cabinet ministers over here are engaged in. So I think it is crucial right now, in the 2020s, that we have the capacity to work on the longer-term agenda while we deal with this inflation challenge in our economy. The National Reconstruction Fund is part of our efforts. The safeguard mechanism is part of our efforts. The Housing Australia Future Fund is part of our efforts. All of these things which are before the parliament will help determine whether we succeed in the 2020s and into the 2030s—whether we can reform and change our economy so that we're managing the shifts in the economy but maximising the opportunities that flow from those changes at the same time. We do need to be able to do that while we deal with his nearer-term inflation challenge in our economy in ways that I outlined in the answers to other questions before. Now, when it comes to tax reform, which I understand was the main feature of the member's question, we are reforming the tax system in modest, methodical but meaningful ways when it comes to superannuation tax concessions, when it comes to aligning the off-market and on market treatment of a share buybacks and when it comes to multinational tax reform, one of the key things we discussed with our international partners at the G20 and on other occasions as well. These tax reforms, these modest, methodical but meaningful changes to our tax system will make our budget more sustainable over time. They will make it more sustainable than it would be without these tax changes. In addition to that, we do have a whole bunch of other priorities when it comes to our economic plan: fixing our supply chains, lifting the speed limit on the economy so we can grow without adding to inflation. Tax is part of that but not the only part of that. I look forward to working closely with the crossbench, with the member for Wentworth and with anyone who understands we have a big opportunity in this country to turn the difficulties of the last few years into immense opportunities for our country. More importantly, economic reform is part of that and we are up for it. Climate Change 60 14:51 D 295588 Chisholm r GARLAND () (): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring Australia's biggest emitters contribute their fair share of emissions reductions? Why is this important, and are there any threats to progress? 14:51 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for her question. I note it is the second question the honourable member has asked me this week, which means she has asked me twice as many questions this week than the shadow minister for climate change and energy has asked me this year. I thank the honourable member for her interest. As the member knows, this parliament does have an opportunity in this upcoming period to implement very important reforms. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 Why did you break your promise of $275? Mr BOWEN DZS Welcome back to Australia. Welcome back after your successful movie tour of Japan. I recommend his movies to honourable members—Nuclear: What can we learn from Hiroshima and the sequel: Nuclear: What we can learn from Fukushima, the all-time classics from the honourable member opposite. The member for Chisholm asked me about the opportunity and the necessity of reducing emissions from our large industrial emitters. If you are going to write a note you have to do it in texter. Nobody can see that. We have an opportunity in this parliament to ensure that we reduce emissions from our 215 biggest emitters, and industry and business are crying out for this certainty. This came up this morning at the AFR business summit, where business leaders one after another called on the opposition to support the passage of this legislation. Tim Reid, the president of the Business Council, said it was disappointing that there was a lack of bipartisan support for the safeguard reforms and indicated that business supports it. Frank Calabria, the CEO of Origin Energy, said, 'We think we should get on with it and move forward. We support the safeguard mechanism.' Of course, the crediting mechanism, as we have always indicated, was the policy of the previous government we are seeking to continue, and it was no one-off policy from the previous government. In October 2019, the previous government commissioned a review and, on 19 May 2020, that review reported and recommended below the baseline crediting, and the government accepted that. But then the minister gave a press conference and said, 'It is so important—so important—that we introduce below the baseline crediting.' They then issued consultation on the design and took it to the election. Of course, recently the member for Hume said they had already legislated it and it was working, when it was not legislated and clearly was not working because it was not the law of the land. We are making it the law of the land. Those opposite have had multiple occasions when they supported this, except when they actually get a chance to vote on it in the parliament. Because we have introduced it—something they never got around to doing—they have become so negative that they are not only opposed to our policies; they are opposed to their own. Superannuation 61 14:54 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Minister, under the government's super changes, if a family's farm is owned in their super fund and increases in value during the financial year, will they pay tax on that gain, even if they have not sold their farm? 14:55 Mr JO A9B Whitlam NES (—) (): I thank the honourable member for the question. I think we should deal with this in three parts. First, why are we doing this? The reason we are doing this is that this government has inherited a trillion dollars of debt from those opposite. Simply doing nothing is not an option. We also need to ensure that the superannuation system is operating as it— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume his seat. I can't hear a word that's being said. If this noise continues, there will be no warning; people will be ejected immediately. I hope that's clear to everyone. Mr JONES A9B Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have inherited a debt, and we've got to deal with it. We've also got to ensure that the superannuation system operates as it was intended and that there is integrity in the system. That's what these measures are all about: ensuring that there is integrity in the system. To the member's question, he may not be aware—but certainly the member for Deakin is aware and certainly the member for Hume should be aware—that under the current laws there is a requirement for superannuation funds— Mr Sukkar 242515 Answer it! Mr Joyce e5d Surely you know! Mr Taylor 231027 The farmer just wants to know! Mr JONES A9B Just be quiet! You might learn something. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Deakin then left the chamber. Mr JONES A9B There is a requirement for superannuation funds, including self-managed superannuation funds, to have provision for liquidity events to ensure that they have a diversified asset base and ensure that they have provisions to draw down. I know that the member for Deakin knows this— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is on a last warning. Mr JONES A9B because when he was the minister responsible for the tax office he had the tax office write— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr 00AKI Mr Speaker, this was a very clear question: is the family liable for tax even though they don't sell the farm? If he doesn't know, ask him to sit down and put him out of his misery. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 If the House will come to order. I can't hear what the minister is a saying. I remind members again: I can't hear a word that he is saying, because of the noise in this chamber. I ask him to return to the question so I can listen to him carefully to make sure he is being relevant. He has the call. Mr JONES A9B The Leader of the Opposition's objection underscores the lack of knowledge that he has—and presumably many others have—about the current requirements of the superannuation system. If he did know what the current requirements of the superannuation system were, he would know that, currently, under the current law, funds are required to have a diversified asset base. So, if the only asset in the superannuation fund is one asset, as the honourable member describes, they are in breach of the current laws, and they should take that up with their financial advisers. They should raise the issue with their financial advisers. As I was explaining, the Leader of the Opposition may not know this, but the member for Deakin does, because, when he was the minister responsible for the tax office, he had the tax office write to all of those funds that had only one asset in them and warn them that they had to make provisions for liquidity events. They may not understand what the current law is, but the member for Deakin does. (Extension of time granted) Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately. The question before the House was an extension of time. There'd better be silence so I can hear him; otherwise, people will leave. Mr JONES A9B It's important that the opposition, members who are gathered here—in fact, all Australians—understand exactly why the government is introducing these changes and the process that we intend to have to consult with stakeholders to ensure that we get the absolute detail right and to ensure that we explain to members opposite how it fits in with current arrangements. The reason we are doing this is that we have inherited a $1 trillion debt. Opposition members interjecting— Mr JONES A9B You are a joke. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Dutton 00AKI The point of order is on relevance. Is the farm, with its unrealised— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. There is no point of order. Mr JONES A9B It is worth noting that they will get anybody but the shadow minister to ask me a question in this House. The S 53517 Continue with your answer. Mr JONES A9B The reason we are doing this is that we've got a debt. The reason we are doing this is to ensure the integrity of the superannuation system. This is a matter that the majority of Australians seem to support—but not the Leader of the Opposition and not the members opposite. It is also the case that, under the existing law, the example that the honourable member opposite gave us would be in great difficulty, because that type of asset in the fund, described in the way the member opposite has described it, would be in breach of the existing laws. It would be a breach of the existing laws. Members opposite make a lot of noise, but they may not understand the way the existing laws operate. (Time expired) Pacific Engagement Visa 62 15:02 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. Why is the Pacific engagement visa crucial to repairing the damage done to Australia's relationship with the Pacific? What has been the response to the visa and what are the implications if the visa is not supported? 15:03 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for Solomon for his question and his deep interest in these matters. The truth is our national security is founded in part on being the partner of choice for the Pacific, and the truth is also that there's a great strategic competition occurring in the Pacific and our standing in that region has been undermined by the last government's incompetence and attitude. We saw the member for Cook's bad treatment of Pacific leaders at PIF meetings. We saw the new opposition leader joking about Pacific islands being wiped out by climate change. We saw the former deputy prime minister saying Pacific Islander people should be grateful we let them pick our fruit. Then we saw the then foreign minister Payne refusing to visit the Solomon Islands in 2022. In contrast, the Albanese government has been repairing our relationships and has been repairing our standing. Central to that is the Pacific engagement visa, which builds our people-to-people links with the Pacific, builds diaspora and deepens our engagement and relationship with the Pacific family. It complements our increases to ODA, our expansion of the PALM scheme, our increased security ties and our support for Pacific journalism. Now, one would think those opposite would have learned their lesson after presiding over the Solomon Islands-China security pact, but no. They're blocking action on climate change, they're undermining confidence in the PALM, and now they're saying no to the Pacific engagement visa. 'No,' they're saying, on the spurious grounds of opposition to the ballot system. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume is on a warning! Mr CONROY 249127 This is in total ignorance that the ballot system has been very successful in the New Zealand scheme and in the US green card lottery. It's in total ignorance of the fact that our extensive consultations in the Pacific have said that the ballot system is critical to avoiding a brain drain. Only by making the visa random, with strict conditions around health, age, character and a job offer, do you guarantee that a high school graduate has as much chance of winning a visa as a cardio surgeon. If you eliminate the ballot, you eliminate that randomness and you actually eliminate any chance of avoiding the brain drain. In fact, you deliver a brain drain and you undermine our standing in the Pacific. That would be a bizarre outcome, but that's what they're advocating for. Equally bizarre was the media statement they put out yesterday, where they said that they support a permanent visa but then said that they don't want people to come here permanently. They also said that they want to pick the most skilled people, so we can't use a ballot, but that we don't want the Pacific to lose their best people. The truth is that by undermining our position in the Pacific, they're undermining our national security. They're going back to their bad old ways of hurting Australia's national interest and being patsies for the interests of other countries in the region. (Time expired) Fowler Electorate: Infrastructure 63 15:06 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My question is to the minister for infrastructure. I understand that our current Prime Minister set up Infrastructure Australia under the previous Labor government. Recently, this authority listed the Sydney Metro link between Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport to Paramatta as a priority area. This critical line would have brought job opportunities to my Fowler electorate and reduced congestion. But New South Wales Labor has slashed this line in favour of buses, which don't connect the three major cities. What will you do to restore this critical transport link for my community? 15:06 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Thank you very much to the member for her question. I know that she's asking this as a strong advocate for her community in relation to public transport. I visited Western Sydney International recently to announce that it now has its international code, WSI. It's well and truly progressing well. The Albanese Labor government has committed over $5 billion, alongside the New South Wales government, to the Western Sydney Airport metro line. In fact, I had the opportunity to dig the first sod on that rail line, along with Minister Elliot, not that long ago. It's a very important rail line; it will provide important links. Obviously, we want to see that project to fruition. Of course, there is money that the New South Wales government has put on the table for a business case for part of that line to Paramatta, but no other funding has been committed. No other funding has been committed to that project. We will certainly, as a government which is committed to public transport and committed to the Western Sydney airport metro link, consider any proposals that the new New South Wales government puts to us on the table. But no level of government has committed the money to build that project. Marine Sanctuaries 63 15:08 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. Healthy oceans are central to Australia's economy, culture and lifestyle. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to protect our oceans for the sake of our kids and our grandkids? 15:08 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Corangamite for her question. We've had some great visits to the beaches in her electorate—they are really quite beautiful. It's the Labor government's goal to leave a nature-positive Australia, leaving nature better off for our kids and our grandkids by protecting more of what's precious, repairing more of what's damaged and managing nature better for the future. While that applies to the land, of course it also applies to our oceans. The oceans in Australia are very close to our heart. Under the previous Labor government, we more than doubled marine protected areas—which, again, were cut by those opposite. We have the most beautiful beaches on earth and an ocean economy that is the envy of the world, supporting recreation, tourism and fishing. More than 85 per cent of us live within 50 kilometres of the shore. Thanks to the strong action of the Albanese Labor government, it's been a great nine months for Australian oceans. Soon after the election, we committed to protecting 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. That's a goal that is now supported by the entire world after a big push from Australia at the nature conference in Montreal last year. Just a few days ago, we saw another important international agreement, an Australian backed global treaty to better protect biodiversity on the high seas. This will allow the establishment of marine protected areas in international waters, covering about 60 per cent of the world's oceans. What an incredible advance that is! Targets and agreements matter, but action matters more. On this side, we've got a plan to more than triple the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park, adding an area the size of Germany to the highly protected oceans around Macquarie Island. It's the only place on earth where royal penguins live and breed. It's where 10 per cent of the world's king penguins mate. It's home to creatures like killer whales, elephant seals and wandering albatross. Of course, while we're massively expanding protections, we'll also allow the existing sustainable fisheries that have been operating there to continue to operate. In the first nine months, we've seen a $1.2 billion investment in the Great Barrier Reef; our plan for plastic-free beaches; our support for blue carbon projects, mangroves and salt marshes, seagrass; and our new cuttlefish sanctuary right off the coast of Whyalla. We promised to leave nature better for our kids and our grandkids, and that's exactly what we're delivering. Mr Marles HWQ I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 64 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE International Women's Day 64 15:12 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise today, International Women's Day, to call on the House to note that, in the nine weeks since 2023 started, 11 women have lost their lives in acts of domestic violence. That's more than one woman a week. The shocking truth is that intimate partner violence is the main cause of illness and death in women aged 18 to 44. But let's make no mistake. These tragic deaths are preventable. There are many areas of urgent unmet need across specialist sexual, domestic and family violence services and a need for increased investment across all pillars of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. Advocacy group Fair Agenda have collected testimonies from survivors, and I'm privileged to read one of those today. She said: 'I had to stay living with my abuser as there were no services that could assist me to get out. I never even received a return call from 85 per cent of the services I contacted. Women's and children's lives are on the line.' On behalf of my community of North Sydney and all in this place, I say here and now: we must and can do better. International Women's Day does provide us with an important opportunity to reflect and celebrate those that have come before us and all that has been achieved, but it must also always be held as a space and time where we can regather as a parliament and a community around the significant work that is still left to do. The loss of these women's lives should never be accepted silently. 15:14 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat To the member for North Sydney, I thank you very much for bringing this really important issue to this place. The women whose voices have been silenced deserve our attention and they deserve us to raise our voices to make sure that what has happened to them, what is happening to women across this country as we meet here, is heard and addressed by this nation. They are our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our friends, our nieces and our aunts. They're the people that we love. The fact that one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner is just simply so shocking to all of us. We see these women on the pages of the newspaper. We hear their stories, but then they fade. We have the opportunity here to actually recognise that these women have died, that these women's incredible opportunity has been lost to this nation and that this is something that we have to do better at. We know that one in three women experiences physical violence up to the age of 15, and that one in five has experienced sexual violence. For one in those three women, that violence is perpetrated by someone they know. For one in four, that physical, sexual and emotional violence is from a current or former partner. These statistics, the number of women who deal with violence, are shocking—one woman a week is murdered. The most recent figures show that two in five Australians do not know where to get help when they are experiencing domestic violence and, as the member for North Sydney said, even when they do, they often go unanswered. That's why the government has acted to enact the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and, in the last October budget, committed funding to it. But I don't think any of us here in this place think that it will ever be enough—that anything we do will ever be enough—and that's why it is so important that we have so many women in this place raising our voices on behalf of those women who no longer can, because these services desperately matter to these women, families, children and the people who love them. 15:16 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for North Sydney for moving this important motion on International Women's Day. On this day, across Australia, morning teas and events have been held, words have been spoken and pledges have been made. Women have been recognised, rightly, and achievements lauded. We have congratulated and commended, and progress will be and should be praised, yet that experience will not be felt equally by women across Australia, because far too many women are falling behind and being forgotten today. A woman wakes in her hospital bed in Alice Springs, unable to stand because of her injuries. Her daughter hides in the street, too afraid to go home. Another woman wakes and cracks the window of her car. Condensation fogs the glass—she has slept another night in her car, unable to afford the rent and trapped by a tide of ever-rising costs. A woman knocks on the door, the same door she fled through last night. She knows she's going back into danger, but there is no other choice. A young girl looks in the mirror and says that she doesn't deserve to eat today. Her heart is filled with despair. Another walks off to school and, giving into the jibes of those around her, she tells herself that she wouldn't cut it in her career path, so she makes a different choice and she takes a different path. Today, as we gather to recognise the journey that we have traversed to lift women up, we should not allow these stories to simply be the stories of the forgotten women of Australia. Today, it is important that we recognise the hard-won progress we've made in lifting women up, but it is equally important that we don't forget the women who are being left behind. We can all make grand speeches and pledges, but what matters is what we do and the decisions we make. So, today, on International Women's Day, let's not forget the women being left behind. Let's not let their stories go untold. As the sun rises in Australia, too many women are being forgotten, and we don't want it to get any worse. Just this morning, parliamentarians from all political persuasions attended the unveiling of statues of Dame Enid Lyons and Dame Dorothy Tangney to mark International Women's Day. It was a real moment for this place. The statues depict the iconic moment the two dames walked into Old Parliament House 80 years ago. They were incredible women paving the way. I also want to say that the unveiling of these statues, the first statues of women in Canberra, would not have been possible without the member for Forrest. The member commissioned these statues in 2021 and has been a fighter for women well and truly before that day and ever since, as have so many of the women in this place that I have seen in my over 21 years in this parliament. So, today, it does all start with us making a choice—a choice not to forget any women and a choice to do what's right, not to do what's popular. Time is running out for too many women, as the member for North Sydney said. I thank the House. The SPEAKER 53517 As a mark of respect for the lives lost to domestic and family violence, I ask all in their place to rise. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 65 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Australian National Flag 65 15:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Members are aware that during a recent storm there was significant damage done to the flag that flies above this building. I think it would be appreciated by all members if you could update the House on the progress that's being taken in rectifying that. 15:20 T 53517 he SPEAKER (): The importance of the Australian national flag cannot be overstated. Parliament House is an iconic Australian building, and being a location of national significance we need to maintain a level of consistency and pride in its presentation and facade within the parliamentary precinct. The Australian national flag is part of the building and our national identity. I understand the concern from members and members of the public about the current condition of the Parliament House flag. This is an issue the President of the Senate and I are aware of and take very seriously. The Department of Parliamentary Services have advised that as a result of a combination of high winds and the requirement to undertake urgent maintenance of the mechanisms, it is making it unsafe at the moment to change the flag. We have been assured that the changeover will occur as soon as it is safe to do so. I will continue to work with the Department of Parliamentary Services to make sure that the delay is kept to a minimum and I will keep members informed. 15:21 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon on indulgence—I have a follow-up. What would be a likely time frame? Do you have any idea? 15:21 The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume his seat. I have updated the House. He can contact me personally regarding further details. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 66 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 15 of 2022-23 66 15:22 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 15 of 2022-23 entitled Procurement of 1800RESPECT: Department of Social Services. Document made a parliamentary paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 66 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 66 15:22 The S 53517 PEAKER (): I have received a letter from the Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to reduce cost of living pressures for Australian families after 10 successive interest rate rises. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:22 M L6B Bradfield r FLETCHER (—) (): Yesterday saw the 10th successive increase in interest rates. The cash rate is now 3.6 per cent compared to 0.35 per cent when the current government came to office, and, of course, the rate that most Australians are paying on their mortgage is much higher than that. On a typical mortgage the impact of the cumulative increases that we've seen since this government came to power is around $1,700 a month, around $20,000 a year. Now, who could forget that the Prime Minister promised Australians—not on the fly, not just in response to an unprepared question, but at Labor's campaign launch on 1 May 2022 he promised that the Labor Party, if they came to government, would deliver cheaper mortgages. He said Labor had real, lasting plans to do so. And, of course, earlier in his career, when the current Prime Minister was merely the member for Grayndler, he was very quick to hold the then government responsible, saying that there were 10 interest rate increases in a row which have cost Australian families on an average mortgage some $400 every month. He said, 'This is Costello's $400 charge on average Australians every month.' That is the principle that the then Prime Minister articulated earlier in his career. You could not find a clearer statement that the government of the day is, in the view of the member for Grayndler, accountable for interest rates. These rising interest rates are hitting households, hitting Australian families very hard indeed. The latest national accounts showed that interest paid on mortgages grew by 23 per cent in the December quarter. Of those 10 interest rate rises, nine have been on this government's watch. This is the highest number of consecutive increases in interest rates in more than 30 years. We have a government which is not doing enough to support the Reserve Bank and make its job easier. More than 800,000 Australian households will be moved off fixed mortgage rates onto variable rates this year, which will put even more pressure on already tight budgets as interest rates climb sharply. With no economic plan from this government, the Reserve Bank is being left to do all the heavy lifting, and, without such a plan, hardworking Australian families and struggling businesses will pay the biggest price. In question time yesterday we offered the Prime Minister the opportunity to respond, to explain—to put in context, should he choose—the commitment that he made at Labor's campaign launch in May 2022: 'Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper mortgages.' But did the Prime Minister take that opportunity? He did not. He could not turn away more quickly. These interest rate rises are having a very grave impact on the cost of living of ordinary Australians, because it simply means there is less money left to pay for all of the other essentials of life: food, support for their children and all of the other things that families need to pay for. Don't take my word for it; there's a long list of respected Australian organisations who are making this observation. Lifeline Australia says, 'Our centres are reporting an increase in help seekers who have never experienced financial stress before.' Foodbank says: These are often double-income households, or sometimes households with adults working two jobs … All the expenses in their lives are increasing faster than their incomes. Suicide Prevention Australia says, 'We're deeply concerned about the impact that cost of living is having on Australians.' And St Vincent de Paul Society says, 'Unemployment is rising; real wages are plummeting,' and wages are at an all-time low, so this latest increase is a real blow. The fact is that more people than ever are seeking help from charitable groups to put food on the table. There are so many Australians who've had no choice but to take on a second job to be able to pay the bills. According to research from Roy Morgan, an estimated 1.19 million mortgage holders—that's almost a quarter of mortgage holders—were at risk of mortgage stress in the three months to January 2023. Canstar research showed that 54 per cent of Australians are losing confidence in the government to ease cost-of-living pressures. Its research also revealed that one in 10 mortgage holders and renters report having missed at least one repayment or bill payment since rates started rising in April 2022. So this is very, very serious. Not only have we seen the direct impact on households of this relentless rise in interest rates; we've also seen that many other aspects of Labor's supposed plan have turned out to be complete fizzers. Before the election, the Australian people were told that Labor would deliver a $275 cut in the power bills of Australians. They weren't told that once or five times or 10 times— Opposition members: How many? Mr FLETCHER L6B They were told 97 times. And how many times since the election has the Prime Minister used that number, $275, in the parliament? Has it been 10? Opposition members: No. Mr FLETCHER L6B Has it been five? Opposition members: No. A government member: I'd go zero. Mr FLETCHER L6B It's been zero! It's been zero times since this government came to power that the Prime Minister has been willing to repeat in this parliament a promise he made on 97 occasions: that the power prices of Australians would go down by $275. The reason for that is obvious, because, far from going down, power prices are going up for Australians all around this country. For households, for families and for businesses power prices are going up. He called parliament back in December last year. Apparently, this was going to be the big solution. Indeed, the Prime Minister went on Radio National on 12 December. He said he had 'worked out a way that will actually be deflationary by reducing people's power prices next year'. Well, where are these Australians to be found, these lucky Australians who have received this reduction in power prices from this deflationary reduction in power prices that the Prime Minister told Australians and told Radio National on 12 December that they were going to be getting? Not only had his first plan failed, his second plan is not having the claimed impact. When the Prime Minister says that it is going to be deflationary, that we are going to reduce people's power bills next year, tell that to Ross and Cynthia—age pensioners who live in the member for Cowper's electorate. This week they were told by their energy provider that their new power bill is about to skyrocket by more than 40 per cent to $474 per quarter. Or tell that to Ian Mortlock in the member for Mallee's electorate. For 20 years he has operated a tomato growing business under this government. His company endured a 400 per cent rise in gas prices for his last gas contract. He has been quoted a new price but, despite the much-hyped price caps, it is still so high that it will damage his business. Or tell that to small business owner Kieran, who runs the Hutch and Co cafe in Lilydale in the member for Casey's electorate. Kieran is bracing for his power bill to increase this year by $2,438. So, far from getting power prices down, this government is presiding over sharp increases in power prices, and what is the Treasurer doing about this—the man whose job is to deal with these problems? He is writing 6,000-word essays. He is making excuses. In fact, if you closely study his essay, he has not one but five excuses as to why the economy might go bad on his watch: No. 1—war in Europe; No. 2—if China recovers from COVID; No. 3—recessions in the northern hemisphere; No. 4—when and how rate rises will bite; and No. 5—future natural disasters. He has every excuse covered. Not for the Treasurer the boring old 'the dog ate my homework'; he has five separate excuses. We have seen his hands-off attitude time after time, every time mortgage interest rates have risen. The Treasurer is not just a passive observer; he is the Treasurer. The Treasury reports to him. He appoints the board of the Reserve Bank. He keeps saying 'the independent Reserve Bank' but he appoints the board. It is his job to fix this stuff. These kinds of excuses we are hearing from the Treasurer, it is as if the ship's captain were to write in his log, 'If we hit the log, it will be the obvious consequence of the man at the wheel failing to steer around from it.' Like the exasperated coast guard official who screamed at the captain of the Italian ocean liner the Costa Concordia, we want to scream at the Treasurer, 'Get back on the bridge and take charge.' 15:32 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Amid the hustle and bustle of this place and the everyday of this place, there are moments for each and every one of us that stand out in our memories, little vignettes that are seared into our minds. For me, one of those was during my first term when I stood right there on the benches as an opposition backbencher. I spoke on behalf of a constituent of mine named Mary. Mary had come to see me during one of my 'meet your member' events. As she spoke to me and tears streamed down her face, she told me about the cost-of-living pressures on her and how they were affecting her, how she couldn't afford the vital pain relief medication that she so desperately needed to do even the most simplest and menial of tasks, things that we take for granted every day. I remember standing right there and looking over the aisle as I was talking about Mary and sharing her story with the House and watching the members opposite, those who at the time were on the government side, shake their heads. They weren't taking their heads in empathy for Mary but they were shaking them in disapproval and disdain, as if Mary's story did not matter to them. That was their attitude. Well, it took the election of a Labor government for Mary's story to matter, the election of a Labor government for Mary and her story of cost-of-living pressures to be heard. The fact is that this motion comes today after a wasted decade of inaction and warped priorities from the Liberal-National coalition—priorities that put keeping wages low as the centrepiece of their economic plan; priorities that ignored the Australian people and ignored people like Mary. This is a motion that comes from those who did nothing to help Australians deal with the rising cost of living, even as it went up and up in front of their eyes; those who sat back and watched Australian families struggle; those who drove a trillion dollars of debt at a time of rising interest rates; those who deliberately kept wages low. From day one, the Albanese Labor government have acted. We've acted on addressing the great challenge that our nation is currently presented with—the great challenge of inflation—through a plan that is about relief, about repairing supply chains, and about restraint and responsible spending. It is about responsible action that makes a real difference to household budgets and cost-of-living relief that doesn't put extra pressure on inflation—things like our more affordable early childhood education and care, expanding paid parental leave and cheaper medicines. And I stand here next to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who delivered that. He is the architect of cheaper medicines, which would help Mary. Things that would help Mary are more affordable housing and getting wages moving again. The economic plan that our Treasurer has put forward is direct and is a deliberate response to the challenge facing Australia today: the challenge of inflation and the challenge of the cost of living. In fact, one of the very first acts of this government, the Albanese Labor government, was to successfully argue for a minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. Does everybody remember that? Does everybody remember how those opposite voted? Does everyone remember how those opposite wouldn't give even a $1-an-hour increase to Australia's lowest paid workers. And they want to stand here and talk to us about the cost of living! That's what they want to do. They want to raise a motion about the cost of living when they wouldn't even give the lowest paid workers a $1-an-hour increase in their wage. One dollar—I think I found one dollar hiding somewhere behind my sofa one day—that's how much they didn't want to give to our lowest paid workers. That was one of our very first acts. And do you know what that did? That act itself helped around 2.7 million Australians. We know that rising interest rates and global uncertainty have impacts on families, and that's why the Albanese Labor government is acting responsibly. That's why we're showing restraint. That's why we're delivering real relief to Australian people. That's what we're doing here. And let me just talk about our early childhood education and care reforms, because they're an important example of that relief. Under the previous government, the Liberal-National coalition, fees for centre-based child care rose by over 40 per cent. They sat on their hands and watched the fees for early childhood education and care rise by over 40 per cent. Now, I know, and I know that many on this side know, that families sit around the table and work out their household budgets, and one of the first things they factor in is the cost of early childhood education and care. Then they work out how many extra hours the primary caregiver can work before that money that he or she has earned—predominantly, that she has earned—is eaten away by those fees. That's why we took to the election a promise to cut the cost of early childhood education and care, and might I remind the House that during the election those opposite said it was unnecessary. Those opposite said it was a waste. Those opposite did not support it. Again, they were saying no to real cost-of-living relief for families—things that this government has done in its very short time in office. We said we would deliver that cost-of-living relief, and we have. So early learning, benefiting 1.2 million Australians right across Australia— Ms Ryan 249224 It's 14,000 in my electorate. Dr ALY 13050 it's 14,000 in the member for Lalor's electorate, as she has said—doesn't just make a tangible difference to household budgets by making early learning more affordable. It increases the opportunities for women to re-enter the workforce, to take on more hours and to contribute to that household budget. So, when they are sitting there working out how many more hours they can take on before their extra money is being eaten away by early childhood education and care fees, they know that, as those fees come down, they can work more hours and the household budget can increase. We know that the rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard, and inflation is the defining economic challenge in 2023, as it was in 2022. Let me say, in my electorate of Cowan, in some of the lower socioeconomic suburbs, cost-of-living pressures have been on those people for much longer than the last two years. I'm proud of the fact that I've been able to stand here for the last six years in my two terms, and now third term, as the member for Cowan and speak on their behalf. Unfortunately, every time I spoke about cost-of-living pressures for the people in my electorate, it fell on deaf ears while those opposite were in government. Not only did it fall on deaf ears; there was absolute disdain whenever we mentioned issues around cost of living or mortgage stress for the people in our electorates. When they were in government, they did nothing about it except shake their heads whenever we spoke about it. We've acted successfully as a government in the short time that we've been here in arguing for a Fair Work Commission minimum wage increase in line with inflation and in introducing legislation that will drive investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, putting downward pressure on power prices. The May budget will include direct energy bill relief for households and businesses—something which the opposition tried to block. We're delivering cheaper and more affordable early childhood education. We're delivering cheaper medicines—something that is hugely important for so many people in my electorate of Cowan, as I know it is for electorates right across Australia. We're delivering fee-free TAFE and more university places, expanding paid parental leave and building more affordable homes. Pensions, allowances and rent assistance have all increased in line with inflation. We've brought in a new pensioner work bonus so older Australians can keep more of what they earn without it affecting their pensions. In May last year, the Australian people voted for a Labor government. They voted for this government because they realised that this was the government that was going to give them the cost-of-living relief that they so desperately needed. I'm proud to stand on this side of the House, and I'm proud to now look down the lens here and say to Mary: 'Mary, you finally have a government that thinks you matter.' 15:42 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee Times are tough for so many people right now. It's tough on everybody, no matter their colour, creed, gender or where they live. Today, on International Women's Day, we stand here after a 10th consecutive interest rate rise. Nine of those interest rate rises have been under this Labor government's watch. That's nine consecutive increases—the most in more than 30 years. We stand here with the pressure building on Australian families. There's only so much that any family can bear. Women are often at the centre of these families. They are experiencing the burden of the cost-of-living crisis. These women are often taking the lead in parenting and in running their household while also working in jobs outside their homes, just to make ends meet while they continue to be failed by this federal Labor government. Their government said that, under a Labor government, nobody would be left behind. It is increasingly obvious that people are being left behind, and this government is only adding of to their problems. Shockingly, this week's 25 basis point interest rate increase means a person with a mortgage of $750,000 is now paying $1,700 per month more than what they were when rates started to rise last year. That amounts to an extra $20,000 a year for Australian families that they will have to find to keep food on the table, the lights on and their kids in school. The latest national accounts show interest paid on mortgages grew by 23 per cent during the December quarter. How much more can our families take? This is a terrible situation, and it only looks like getting worse with a government that shows it has no plant to fix it but rather instils more uncertainty while breaking election promises. This government is not doing anything to make the Reserve Bank's job easier. You would think at this critical time that the federal government would be working in tandem with the RBA to bring down inflation, yet those opposite are instead putting all their energy into breaking election promises and increasing taxes. Australians are only too right to be worried about where their next tax is coming from as they pull back on their own spending. Household savings are plummeting. Nobody can afford to save up money when every resource is going into simply existing. The Prime Minister promised cost-of-living relief during the election, but here we are, and times are getting tougher. Where is their economic plan? Not self-serving essays that wax lyrical about remaking capitalism, but their real economic plan. Without this economic plan, it is up to the Reserve Bank to do all the heavy lifting in trying to drive down inflation. Because of this government's lack of an economic plan, it is our families and small businesses who are paying the price. We are facing a full-blown cost-of-living crisis. More people than ever are seeking help from charities to feed their families. Many people have had no choice but to take on second jobs to keep a roof over their heads. Research from Roy Morgan shows an estimated 1.19 million mortgage holders—24.9 per cent of them—were at risk of mortgage stress in the three months to January 2023. Meanwhile, Canstar research showed that 54 per cent of Aussies are losing confidence the government to ease cost-of-living measures. Its research also revealed that one in 10 mortgage holders and renters reported missing at least one payment or bill payment since rates started rising. A further one in five reported they were worried about missing a payment in the near future. Lifeline has reported an increase of almost 50 per cent in requests for help and support in relation to financial issues. Those are harrowing statistics, highlighting the real situation out there among Australians. They are crying out for help. Before the election, the Prime Minister and Treasurer made grand promises to all Australians. They promised they would have cheaper mortgages, they promised to cut Australia's electricity bills, they promised no changes to superannuation—the list goes on, and it helps prove Canstar's research to be true. How can Australians be confident in this government to ease cost-of-living pressures? How can they trust that their government can lead them back— (Time expired) 15:47 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley With all due respect to the member for Mallee, whom I have quite a lot of personal regard for—oh my goodness! We've now had two speakers—following every other MPI of this parliament put up by the opposition—which just have complaints, complaints, complaints, and the suggestion that we do not have a plan—and they can make that suggestion only because they do not listen when the Treasurer and Prime Minister talk about our plans—and not a single suggestion of what actually should be done. We had the shadow minister for industry, who was the head boy, really, of a pathetic mob of performative whingers—just be negative, negative, negative for his entire 10 minutes in this MPI, with not one suggestion of what should be done or could be done other than what this government is doing. He just wants to say everything's bad and everything's wrong, but put not a single suggestion forward. This is why the Liberal Party is not in government anymore. Australians are sick and tired of negativity, negativity, negativity from an oppositional opposition for opposition's sake without any suggestion of how it might actually make things better. They are sick and tired of responses from politicians to important, complex and deep conversations about how to fix some of the structural problems in this country which are all: 'Oh, what a pathetic essay! Oh, you've got an idea of changing something and we don't like change!' How about engaging in an actual conversation about where we need to go and how we might get there? Change is hard, but be part of the conversation, instead of being so negative all the time without any suggestion as to how things might be fixed—things like the inflation crisis, as the member for Mallee rightly described it, and its impact on Australians. Families, single people, young people, old people—people all across this country—are feeling it, and it's tough; it's absolutely tough. It's not as though this has happened overnight or in the last 10 months. When the shadow minister talked—over 10 successive minutes—about 10 successive rate rises, he didn't talk about their almost 10 successive years in power. He didn't talk about almost 10 successive years of making decision after decision that made the structure of the economy, the housing market and inequality worse. Apparently, the Albanese Labor government is to blame for not fixing all of those problems in its 10 months in government. When we do put forward positive plans and legislation to fix those problems, what do those on the other side of the parliament do? They vote against them. They come in here, talk about the difficult lives Australians are having, raise issues that exist and then vote against the solutions. That's the way to get back into government! Keep on it! The government, we on this side of the chamber, are providing responsible cost-of-living relief, like my colleagues have said: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, direct energy bill relief. The National Reconstruction Fund—which the mob over there, in continually wanting to be performative whingers, oppose—is a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and create sustainable, well-paying jobs that will help families pay the bills and help manufacturers in my electorate, like Australian Blowmoulding, Brumby's, Clark Masts and many others across the Carrum Downs industrial precinct. Why don't the opposition come in here and support positive plans for once? 15:52 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Australians are doing it tough. Families and small businesses are on their knees from the pressure they're enduring from the current cost-of-living crisis. Yesterday we saw the Reserve Bank of Australia increase interest rates for a ninth consecutive time, bringing them to the highest level seen in a decade. This is the highest number of consecutive increases since Paul Keating was Prime Minister. The announcement means that the average mum and dad, who are paying off a home loan worth $750,000, are now forking out $1,700 a month more than they were in May last year. That's an extra $20,000 per year that hardworking families need to find to keep their heads above water. The statistics get even more concerning, with more than 800,000 Australians moving from a fixed-rate mortgage to a variable-rate mortgage this year. Roy Morgan has released research showing that approximately 1.19 million mortgage holders were at risk in the first quarter of this year, while a recently released National Australia Bank report shows that families with wages between $50,000 and $75,000 are struggling to keep up with their bills. We haven't seen an end to the hard times under a Labor government. The National Accounts are showing that making ends meet will only get harder, with the latest statistics showing that interest paid on a mortgage is up by a whopping 23 per cent. This government insists on not working with the Reserve Bank to introduce an economic plan that will have a real effect on reducing inflation. Without any plan or direction, the Reserve Bank is doing the heavy lifting. There's a lack of guidance and leadership from this government. This lack of leadership and an economic plan to move forward is causing already struggling families and businesses to pay the highest price for goods and services ever seen. A local bakery in my electorate has been supplying its goods to supermarkets, cafes and restaurants for many years, yet it is left with the question: when are the rising costs to businesses going to stop? Wage increases, electricity prices skyrocketing, raw materials becoming more expensive and transport costs on the rise every week: these things are bringing this business to its knees. This is just one of hundreds of thousands of small family-owned businesses across Australia who don't know how much longer they can keep going. During this full-blown cost-of-living crisis, now more than ever, Australians are seeking assistance from charities to put food on their tables. Organisations like Lifeline have reported an increase of almost 50 per cent in calls for help and support to ease financial pressures. Charities already stretched to their limits are preparing for a tsunami of need as more and more families are left at the end of their tether. Following a meeting that I had this morning with a not-for-profit organisation, I know that charities are also concerned about how they will continue to support the community. As people's purse strings tighten, donations to charities dwindle. This forces the organisations to reduce how much help they are able to deliver. People who rely on these charities, like those living with cystic fibrosis, depend on the vital assistance offered. It is troublesome to think that these children, who, in some age groups, are still waiting on the life-saving treatment Trikafta to be added to the PBS, will have to go without things that give them more quality of life because their family simply can't afford to pay for treatment and medication while enjoying the things in life we take for granted. This crisis that Labor continues to bury its head in the sand over is affecting the very thing that people who are in need turn to. Probably one of the most concerning aspects of the cost-of-living crisis is the latest reports from Suicide Prevention Australia showing that 46 per cent of Australians have reported they are feeling increased pressure as this crisis deepens. This is up by five per cent since the previous year, and numbers are only going to continue to grow as the nation gets up to its neck in inflation and this cost-of-living predicament. Life is only going to continue to get harder under the Albanese government. Prior to the election, the Prime Minister was spruiking that only he would be able to deliver cost-of-living relief. The reality is that life has only gotten harder for families under this Labor government. Australians are now living in the land of broken promises. Before the election the Prime Minister and the Treasurer made a slew of promises. 'Your electricity bills will be cut by $275.' Broken. 'Your mortgages will be cheaper under a Labor government.' Broken. 'Your super will be left untouched.' Broken. 'Your taxes won't be increased.' Broken. The list goes on, with promises for wage increases, for cuts to the cost of contractors and consultants, for inflation to be lowered and for franking credits to remain untouched. All these promises have been broken. On 10 April last year the Treasurer stated Australians want a government that does its job well. Well, Treasurer, we want you to do your job. Do something constructive about this cost-of-living crisis. 15:57 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Like the Treasurer, I was raised in a family with a single mother. Like the Treasurer, I was raised in an area that, in this place, would be called an area with the low socioeconomic profile. Like the Treasurer's mother, I paid a mortgage, with three children, on my own, working part time. There were people in my community at the time who assumed I was renting, because how could I possibly be paying a mortgage as a single mother? We all know the stereotype. I understand what it means to pay a mortgage in a crisis. I understand what the people in my electorate of Lalor are dealing with at the moment. I represent a community of the youngest families in the country. I represent a community where everybody has a mortgage or everybody is paying off someone else's mortgage by renting their home. Bluntly, that's the community I live in. So I understand what's happening in the kitchens around the country. I understand what's happening in my community. I've stood on my feet here, in this place, for nine years, talking about what was hard for my community, while those who now sit on the opposition benches sat here and ignored those issues. To come into a discussion today on the matter of public importance around the cost-of-living—which, as the member for Dunkley said, seems to be on a fast rotation for those opposite, raised day in, day out—and to have those opposite still not understand the things that we have done since coming to government to address those issues for our community, to hear those opposite talk about community organisations having people make increased demands for food support—hello! How many times did I raise that in this House after the 2014 budget, when you slashed funding for community organisations? In communities like mine, that hurt? So bear with me if I fail to understand why those opposite continue to do this, when they have a track record over nine months of coming in here and saying no to every solution we've put on the table. Forgive me for not taking advice, on behalf of myself and the communities I represent, from those opposite when they didn't even have the decency to show up at the Jobs and Skills Summit straight after the election—summits that we ran across the country to hear our communities talk about what they needed. Forgive me if I don't want to listen to those opposite when they balk at the notion of a one dollar pay rise for our lowest-paid workers. Forgive me if I'm not going to listen to those opposite when they were mortified and did nothing about the crisis in aged care for the residents in aged care and nothing—absolutely zilch, zero, dot—for the workers in aged care. Forgive me if I'm not going to listen to those opposite lecture us about life through the pandemic and the lessons that were learned, because we learned those lessons and we bring to this place plans for a better Australia on the back of that. We have an economic plan about relief, repair and restraint. Those opposite have said no to everything we've put on the table so far. They demand an economic plan and yet they sit here screaming while the Treasurer outlines an economic plan day after day in question time, because they don't want to hear that there is a plan. To my community at home: we hear you; we know you. We know how tough it is. We know that mortgage interest rates are going up. We know there have been 10 consecutive rate rises. We know the cost of living is an issue. That's why we're taking action in this place to give you some relief. I know in my community there are over 11,000 families who will benefit from our childcare scheme on 1 July. I know that will make a difference. Know that, along with many on this side, I pay a mortgage. I'm calculating, like you're calculating, every week about how we're going to do that. But, more importantly, I repaid a mortgage while having three children and working 0.6 part-time as a teacher. And I always paid more than the bank recommended I pay, so I was always tight on the margins. I know your pain, and I'm determined with my colleagues over here to do everything in our power, unlike those opposite, to give you that relief and to build that economic plan. 16:02 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Yesterday was another very tough day for millions of families and businesses in this country—to hear again another month, another increase in the Reserve Bank's cash rate. This is obviously something that is weighing more and more heavily on decision-making around the kitchen table on the family budget, as people factor in and do the calculations on how much these ever-increasing interest rates are having an impact on them and the sorts of decisions they hope not to have to take around whether or not they can afford to have a family holiday this year—maybe in more serious cases, whether they may have to consider selling their home at some point—if these increases continue. I am sure all members of parliament are hearing the real, personal stories that come with these opaque economic decisions that, in the macro, are significant enough, but are most significant when you think about the way they impact on individual families. I don't think it's unreasonable for the opposition to want to debate the most significant challenge facing the people of Australia in this parliament on a regular basis. If those opposite are indignant about this topic being raised regularly, why don't you do something about it? Then we won't have to keep talking about it. That's an option. There's an option for the government: to actually address the most significant challenge in the lives of Australians. But to suggest it's somehow inappropriate for us to raise this as a matter of public importance—I'd love to understand what you think is more important than the dramatic increase in cost burdens on families in this country. The other thing that is really concerning which is coming from members of the government is the suggestion that they've actually got a plan. If they didn't have a plan then at least we might have something to look forward to. Apparently, what they're already doing is as good as it gets. So if you're an Australian family then just strap yourself in for more of exactly the same: more interest rate rises, more reduction in real wages, higher mortgage payments and higher power bills. That's because their plan is fully implemented; they have this great economic plan and what's happening right now to the families of this country is the dividend of that plan. There's nothing more to come. They're implementing a plan, and the result of that is the significant pain that Australian families and Australian businesses are bearing. Regrettably, interest rates are one of the challenging pieces of economic data that are out there. But I worry most about the dramatic reduction in real wages. For the party which is purportedly of the workers to preside over the greatest contraction of real wages in my adult lifetime is something that they should be focused on, and which they should certainly be ashamed of. There is nothing in their plan—which, apparently, has been fully implemented and which is resulting in all this disastrous economic data—which is helping to increase wages whatsoever. Wages are currently going backwards. Regrettably, more data, sector by sector and industry by industry, is showing that economic strife is continuing to come at an ever-growing pace. That's not the fault of the invasion of Ukraine and it's not the fault of all these forces from overseas. Those were well known to the government when they handed down their budget in October last year. They made a promise then, 92 times, to reduce electricity prices—and they're now going up. They say that they have an economic plan which is fully implemented, and that we should get behind it and support it. And yet the outcome of that plan is that every significant economic measure which is relevant to families and businesses is going backwards. If they're proud of that and want us to support them, then they have another think coming. Far from breaking the economic destruction and the wealth destruction that they are meting out on the people of Australia, we have a vastly different ambition for the future of families and businesses in this country. Government members interjecting— Mr STEVENS 176304 Frankly, you might rubbish the record of the previous government but I think that most Australians are wishing that we were at the helm again! They're looking back at the glory days of not waking up to power prices exploding, broken promises and inflation at 7.8 per cent. They're wishing they had confident economic management in this country so that they weren't worried about whether or not they'd have to sell their house because of interest rates going up month after month, and they can't afford it. To the families and businesses of Australia: we will keep sticking up for you. We look forward to the opportunity that you'll soon have to throw this government out of office. 16:07 Mr R 298840 Hunter EPACHOLI () (): I rise today to speak on the important topic of the cost of living. Yes, it is indeed a matter of public importance. It's an insult to suggest that we on this side of the House don't care about the cost-of-living pressures impacting on Australians, and I won't cop it. It is electorates like mine, in the Hunter, which feel the brunt of the cost-of-living pressures. I understand that the rising cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians hard, including those in my electorate. Inflation is the defining economic challenge of 2023—as it was in 2022 and in late 2021. The government has been working hard to address these issues. The Albanese Labor government has a three-point plan to address the inflation challenges in the economy, and it's all about relief, repair and restraint. Responsible cost-of-living relief is something that those opposite know nothing about. It will see us deliver cheaper early childhood care and education; cheaper medicines; and direct energy bill relief. The only thing those opposite have been responsible for is a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities which left Australia dealing with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and a trillion dollars worth of Liberal Party debt, without an economic dividend to show for it at all. Those on this side of the chamber are repairing the supply-side constraints. We have started the long-term work to repair our damaged supply chains, which have only worsened the inflation challenge. We are doing this with fee-free TAFE, cleaner and cheaper energy, the National Reconstruction Fund and more affordable housing. The 'no-alition' opposite are hellbent on taking down the economy at every chance they get. By voting against energy bills relief, the NRF and the Housing Australia Future Fund, they are voting for higher inflation for longer. We have delivered a responsible budget, with spending restraints. Our Treasurer is returning almost all revenue upgrades to the bottom line and keeping spending essentially flat over the next four years, to not add to inflation—the issues left to us by the 'no-alition'. We know that there is still a long way to go, but the plan is working and we need to stick to it. Despite the negativity of the 'no-alition' opposite, cheaper medicines took effect on 1 January, giving Australians access to medicines that they need without breaking the bank. Cheaper early childhood education and care will benefit 1.2 million families from 1 July—something they didn't vote with us on. This means families will be able to afford to send their children to child care, leaving more money in the bank to ease other expenses and giving parents a chance to get back into to the workforce. We have made sure that 180,000 fee-free TAFE places are now available to tackle the skills shortages. This will allow people to upskill and find employment. Electricity bill relief will be a key feature of our May budget. I honestly can't wait to hear that. We have delivered ten days of paid family and domestic violence leave, which means those escaping violence are no longer forced to choose between their safety and pay. We are building more affordable homes, including through the new National Housing Accord. Pensions, allowances and rent assistance have increased in line with inflation, to ensure people are not left behind. We have brought in a new pensioner work bonus, so older Australians can keep more of what they earn without affecting their pension. We are delivering on our promises and we are making sure that we are putting measures in place to help those hit hardest by cost of living. We are focused on growing the economy in the right way so that more Australians can benefit from good skills to get good jobs and have good wages. But the 'no-alition' opposite are just not serious about cost-of-living relief. If they cared about supporting families to ease the cost of living, they would support our cheaper childcare legislation and changes to paid parental leave. If they cared about people being able to afford thing that they need to survive in their day-to-day lives, they'd support our initiatives to make medicines cheaper. But all they do is sit over there saying no to all of these measures that we have put in place to have real impact on the lives of everyday Australians, like those in my electorate. At the end of the day, it is only an Albanese Labor government that cares for Australians—all Australians. We care for everyone in this country. (Time expired) 16:13 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to talk about the government's failure to reduce cost-of-living pressures at this time, I can assure you. It's right to talk about the impact that mortgage costs going up is having on families, and what it's like growing up in that situation. Labor certainly does have a mortgage on a working class background, I can assure you—as someone who grew up in Ipswich. These pressures are felt across the nation, and how we respond to them is very, very important. It's the issue of our times. Families are making some very difficult decisions. I was saddened to read an article in this week's Courier Mail talking about a great Toowoomba charity, Protea Place, that has had to cancel its major fund raising event this year because it simply wasn't able to sell tickets. People across Toowoomba had previously, for the last several years, been in a position where they could donate. In those good times, when there was money flowing through the economy, they were able to contribute and look after a local charity like Protea Place. I want to quickly say what a great job Protea Place do helping with a very sad situation. This is charity that looks after women over 65 who, increasingly, are coming to Toowoomba from regional areas hoping that they can find some housing in our region. They come all the way here and, sadly, find there is no room at the inn. Protea Place was built by the amazing Amanda Dalton to deal with this. This is the first time their event had to be cancelled because they simply couldn't sell enough tickets. This is a charity that I'm sure Toowoomba will gather around and support. The same article spoke of the increase, year on year, in household costs—across mortgages, fuel, groceries, electricity and insurance—that the average Queenslander is facing. It's $1,150 per month. That's how much costs have gone up in the last 12 months. These are real pressures. The last speaker was right: this is an important MPI. It's great to see so many Labor members of the economics committee here. They'll remember well the Governor of the RBA saying that the economy relies on confidence. At a time when we're talking about these cost-of-living pressures and at a time when we want the economy to be in a stronger position, he wants to see confidence. I'm not sure anyone got confidence out of the Assistant Treasurer's response today in question time. Apparently, there were three parts to the answer. That, I think, was part 2, following the infamous honey pot comments. This is a time when we need very, very focused measures that are going to have impacts, both short and long term, on the economy. We talk about confidence. Every time we put an example to the government of the impact on our constituents of increasing energy prices, they say, 'Why don't you go back and tell them that you didn't vote for the Energy Price Relief Plan?' This is legislation that has happened; it has passed and it has failed. The government's response is, 'You should have voted for failed legislation.' Prices are still going up, and, worse, the obvious impact that always happens when you introduce price caps is happening before our eyes—we will see, and we are experiencing, a limitation in supply. We saw that with Senex's decision to pull out over a billion dollars of investment and, today, in speaking to APLNG about the impacts in my region of a reduction in their investment in the gas industry. At a time when we need the economy to regain confidence and when we need a clear direction forward, what do we have? Quite frankly, we have statements that are just baffling. What compounds this failure is the litany of broken promises that preceded it. I know that the member for Fairfax has made the point many times, but we have not heard the number 275 from the government since the election. This was a promise repeated over and over again: 'Your energy bill will be reduced.' Opposition members: By how much? Mr HAMILTON 291387 $275. I've heard that enough times, and I think the Australian people will continue to hear that number for a long time yet. An opposition member: They're going to wait a long time. Mr HAMILTON 291387 They are going to wait a very long time, because that number will be repeated over and over. Energy prices are only going one way, and that is up. We also heard a promise about cheaper mortgages. Today, the government was unable to talk about anywhere in the country where that has been experienced. The last one, of course, is that there would be no changes to super. Again, this is simply undermining confidence at a time when there is significant financial pressure on Australian households. 16:18 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan Thank you to the member for Groom. From one engineer to another, I say to him that I think it's important to look at the root causes of problems, and you need to understand the foundations of the nation and what we've inherited. I recognise that the cost of living has gone up, and these costs started going up under the coalition government. During the election campaign, my team and I knocked on 45,000 doors, and the cost of living was the No. 1 issue for people. But who was sleeping at the wheel? Who had a decade of delay and waste? Who had nothing to show for it? We know what the root causes were. There were disruptions to supply chains due to the pandemic. The war in Ukraine had an impact on energy commodities. And we had skills shortages as well. So this is what we inherited after a decade of waste, rorts and wrecking. That's what Australian businesses and households had to deal with. Talking about supply disruptions, we had to lift the scab off and see this weeping wound that was festering under the Liberal government. Frankly, they did not have meaningful industry policy. How could they, with nine industry ministers? That's nine years with no plan. Harvard University's Center for International Development, which ranks economies according to their diversity and complexity to assess their potential for growth, placed Australia at 91 out of 133 in 2020. Our neighbours on that scare were Kenya and Namibia. In the last decade we have slipped 21 places. I wonder who has been at the wheel in the last decade. Meanwhile, the Albanese Labor government has a once-in-a-generation nation-building exercise to build our industry capability. The National Reconstruction Fund will help diversify our economy and broaden our base. Leaders know that Australia needs to transition from a lucky country to a smart country. This is precisely what the NRF does. On energy policy—I know you guys are passionate about this—while one may think that having nine industry ministers with nine policies over the decade was bad, we had over 20 energy policies. Holy moly! I worked for 12 years with the ASX200, helping them with their energy and climate related needs. Do you know what the No. 1 thing was that they said that they wanted? It was certainty. That is certainly something the coalition failed to provide. Those on the other side that accepted the science on climate change lost their seats at the last election and are now left with climate deniers. The lack of decent energy policy meant that the National Energy Market was horribly exposed to those energy shocks caused by the war in Ukraine. It meant that those price rises were worn by businesses and households—because, again, you were asleep at the wheel. Meanwhile, the Albanese Labor government has legislated a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We didn't have to legislate that target, but we did that because we wanted to send a strong signal to markets to show that we were serious. Do you know what? We have seen financial markets move. There's a whole bunch of renewable energy being unleashed, and that is happening because of the Albanese Labor government. This is being coupled with our safeguard mechanism, which will help big emitters know their trajectory to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and what we expect them to achieve. What they wanted was for it to be predictable and known. When the coalition introduced Emissions Reduction Fund, they also introduced the safeguard mechanism. That was to ensure that there weren't increases elsewhere in the economy when the ERF was reducing emissions elsewhere. They failed to do that. The safeguard mechanism was actually put in the architecture but it did nothing. We are trying to get this to work to help businesses. On skills shortages, again, they were asleep at the wheel. The coalition government were not interested in thinking about the skills we need for the future. I guess that is because they had no vision. They didn't invest in skills for the future. I know that a good education is a ticket to a better life. But maybe the coalition doesn't want to support Australians' aspirations. The Albanese Labor government is investing in 180,000 TAFE replaces with an additional 20,000 university places. At Curtin University, in my electorate, we got an additional 1,000 places. So what did the demolition coalition government do? (Time expired). The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate has now concluded. BILLS 75 BILLS Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023 75

Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 75 Third Reading 75 16:24 Ms KE LTU Cooper ARNEY (—) (): by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023 75

Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 75 Third Reading 75 16:25 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022, Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 76

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 76 Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 76

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 76 16:26 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Medical Device and Human Tissue Product List and Cost Recovery) Bill 2022 is a part of an initial package of three bills necessary to support the modernising and improvement of the prostheses list. The initial package of bills also provided for financially sustainable cost recovery arrangements. Among other things, the bill updates the cost recovery arrangements by providing a fee-for-service cost recovery arrangement. The government amendment to schedule 2 of this bill responds to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills about the breadth of each discretion in sections 72-20 and 72-25 of the PHI Bill. The government amendment includes matters the minister must have regard to when exercising certain powers, specifically where there are unpaid fees or levies under section 72-20 and 70-25 of the PHI Bill. The power in section 72-20 provides for the removal of a listing if there are unpaid fees or levies. The power in section 72-25 provides that the minister may refuse to carry out or may direct a person not to carry out specified activities until unpaid fees or levies are paid. The government amendment requires the minister to have regard to whether the exercise of these powers would be detrimental to the interests of insured persons, also known as patients; and whether the exercise of these powers would significantly limit the professional freedom of medical practitioners, also known as clinicians, to identify and provide appropriate treatments. This measure provides appropriate safeguards and guides the exercise of the powers in section 72-20 and 72-25 of the bill. I thank the Senate for their support of this amendment and I commend the amendment to the House. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 76 Report 76 16:29 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Affairs, I present the committee's report incorporating dissenting reports entitled Inquiry into community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms PRICE 249308 by leave—I rise, as I said, to table the report of the inquiry into community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory. This inquiry was conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I am the deputy chair of the joint committee, and Senator Pat Dodson, from the other place, is the chair. As noted in the acknowledgement in the report, the report predominantly discusses provisions and initiatives relating to the stronger futures legislative package and its precursor, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, commonly known as the intervention. The terms of reference of the inquiry were as follows: Community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory, with particular reference to: a. The preparation for the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures legislation b. Community safety and alcohol management c. Job opportunities and Community Development Program reform d. Justice reinvestment communities services, and e. Any related matters. The most significant outcome of the sunsetting of the stronger futures legislation was the cessation of alcohol restrictions in parts of the Northern Territory. It is worth noting that, during the course of this inquiry, soon after 24 January 2023, the Commonwealth government announced a $48 million investment in Central Australia's community safety. This followed a visit by the Prime Minister to Alice Springs. Around this time, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Ms Dorelle Anderson as the Central Australian Regional Controller. Ms Anderson's role was to consult broadly about the potential to reintroduce alcohol restrictions and to give consideration to an opt-out model for alcohol protected areas, and to report by 1 February 2023, which she did. On 14 February 2023, the Northern Territory reintroduced alcohol restrictions in town camps and communities. On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank all those who took the time to provide a submission and/or provide evidence either in person or by video. The committee is incredibly grateful to you for taking the time to share the often difficult life experiences of your community members. The committee understands that you have often been asked to repeat these often painful stories, and we are incredibly grateful for your contribution. Thank you to all the committee members for your participation. I give a special thanks to the committee secretariat, members of whom I note are sitting here in the House today. Thank you very much. I appreciate that you did the best you could under very extreme circumstances and under a very tight timetable. I commend the report to the House and move: That the House take note of the report. The 248181 The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 77 16:32 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Human Rights Joint Committee 77 Report 77 16:33 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 2 of 2023. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I am pleased to table the second scrutiny report of 2023 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In this report, the committee has considered 18 new bills and 89 new legislative instruments. The committee has commented on one of the bills and three legislative instruments and has also concluded its consideration of four pieces of legislation. In particular, the committee has commented on the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023, which is now an act. The act provides that aggregate sentences—that is, one sentence for multiple offences—may be taken into account for all relevant purposes, including assessing whether to automatically cancel a person's visa on character grounds. The bill also retrospectively validates past decisions and actions. The committee considers that there is a significant risk that the bill, in expanding the basis on which a visa can be automatically cancelled—which results in mandatory immigration detention and subsequent removal from Australia—may be incompatible with human rights. Having regard to these significant human rights implications, the committee notes that the bill passed both houses of parliament within three sitting days, which did not provide adequate time to scrutinise this legislation. The committee is also seeking further information in relation to the human rights compatibility of three legislative instruments. The first relates to the requirement to report the administration of the japanese encephalitis virus vaccine to the Australian Immunisation Register. The second relates to the requirements for passengers from China, Hong Kong or Macau to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test prior to boarding a flight to Australia. The third instrument restricts access to certain court documents to nonparties until after the first directions hearing. The committee has also concluded its consideration of three bills and one legislative instrument. In doing so, it has made a number of recommendations to amend the legislation to improve its human rights capability. For example, the committee has recommended some minor amendments to the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022. These amendments would require entrusted people, when disclosing information obtained under export control powers, to consider certain matters prior to disclosure, such as if there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect individual privacy. The committee has also recommended an amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Bill 2022 in relation to the prohibition on foreign campaigners engaging in certain referendum campaigning or expenditure, which may include people who have lived in Australia for a number of years. On the one hand, the committee absolutely acknowledges the legitimate purpose to protect our democratic processes from malicious foreign actors, but the committee notes the potential impact on a number of rights, including the right to freedom of expression. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended to require the Electoral Commissioner to consider if the foreign campaigner has a genuine connection to Australia and the extent of campaigning before imposing a civil penalty. Finally, the committee has recommended amendments to a legislation instrument: the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Amendment (Code of Conduct and Banning Orders) Rules 2022. In particular, the committee is concerned that a register of all aged-care workers subject to a banning or is published on a public website. While the committee considers this measure is directed towards the important and legitimate objective of protecting vulnerable older Australians, the committee has considered that it has not been demonstrated that it is a proportionate limit on the right to privacy to publicly publish these details. The alternative the committee made is that the register should be made absolutely available to all aged-care providers who need to consult it when determining who to employ in aged-care facilities, but recommended that it not be published on a public website. With these comments, I thank the secretariat for the expertise provided to the committee, as always, by the very high-quality staff. I thank the committee members and I commend the report to the House. BILLS 78 BILLS National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 78

National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022

Second Reading 78 16:37 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak in continuation on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The modern manufacturing strategy accounted for a quarter of Australia's national research and development investment. We expanded and modernised Australia's sovereign manufacturing capability, secured supply chains and invested in the skills and world-class research our manufacturing businesses needed through the six priorities I listed before. Australian manufacturing helped keep our economy moving and Australians safe during the pandemic, producing medical equipment, securing supplies of fertiliser, keeping supermarket shelves stocked and increasing our defence force capabilities. Under the coalition's modern manufacturing strategy, an additional 3,300 manufacturing businesses were created in Australia. Manufacturing turnover increased to its highest level since 2010. There was a bit of a fall-off in the last three years of the Gillard and Rudd governments, and then when we left office in 2022 it was right up there again. In fact, there were over a million jobs in manufacturing at the height of COVID. But the new Labor minister stated on this bill just yesterday that there are 900,000. Is that a 10 per cent drop since they came to office? Because there were over a million. More than 220,000 trade apprentices were also in training under the coalition. That's the most since records began back in 1963. We hear those opposite talking about TAFE and what they've done with it. They've been talking about TAFE for 30 years. The issue is—and the member for Barker would know—a lot of the TAFEs are empty. We brought in JobTrainer during COVID, which got a lot of people back into training, including those 220,000 people in trade apprenticeships. That will not only help the government but also the Australian people going forward. For example: as we know, there's a lot more housing stock which needs to be built. That nearly quarter of a million apprentices that the Liberal-National government got into training will go a really long way with that. And manufacturing represented a quarter of all merchandise exports under the Liberal-National government. I'm proud of the strong manufacturing legacy of the former coalition government. We understand manufacturing in Australia. If Labor really wanted a win for our manufacturing industry, one that's economically sustainable and built upon our sovereign manufacturing industry, then building upon this legacy would have been a better strategy than the establishment of an entirely new National Reconstruction Fund that has its priorities wrong and threatens to weaken our manufacturing—plus they're spending $15 billion initially, $5 billion initially. It's off-budget—not even included in the budget. As I said before, the minister and the Prime Minister should have hit the ground running 10 months ago. They should have picked up the Modern Manufacturing Fund that we already had in place, and which is currently law. They should have picked up on that, rather than saying: 'Let's get rid of that; let's create something new and off-budget, with a whole lot of extra bureaucracy. And we'll reward our union friends.' This is the thing. When talking about governing, right now I'm hearing, particularly in defence industry, that these people have been ignored. The minister has been missing in action for the last 10 months. He was contacting them all prior to the election; he was putting his hard hat and high-vis on. But now, guess what? When those same businesses that he visited try to call him or get an appointment with him he's nowhere to be seen. They can't see him and can't even get in to see his staff! Mr Pasin 240756 He's at the tennis or the cricket! Mr HOWARTH 247742 I was actually talking about the minister for manufacturing. The National Reconstruction Fund that this government has put forward, with the accompanying administrative corporation and independent board, is really poorly designed. Labor's manufacturing policy will drive up inflation and interest rates through this reckless off-budget spending, while ignoring the critical economic issues which have been amplified through this government's poor policy decisions and which have left homegrown Australian manufacturers calling out for this government to address. These are issues like rising energy prices. We know the Prime Minister promised to reduce energy prices 97 times—almost 100; we'll round it up to 100—before the last election. And those have continued to go up, even after the legislation was passed the end of last year. They're still going up! A constituent of mine from Griffith sent me an energy bill today, and it has increased by 50 per cent. Labour market shortages are also a big issue for this government. And what are they doing during this time? The minister for employment is actually getting rid of mutual obligation and making it easier for those who are currently on JobSeeker not to have to look for work and not to have to do training. In fact, the minister opposite is, I believe, abolishing the ParentsNext program that the coalition government put in place. That's a remarkable program, which has done great things, and they're getting rid of it! They're not addressing energy prices and they're not addressing labour market shortages, and disrupted supply chains need to be addressed first. Any investments through this off-budget National Reconstruction Fund will be in vain, when it eventually gets going nearly two years on; if this government does not address these critical economic challenges, any proposed investment will be eaten up by increased input costs and inflation. You would think that the Albanese government would try to tackle the rising costs in energy prices as they become a rising problem for our manufacturers. From fruit pickers in the agricultural industry, through medical manufacturing and to critical technologies, right across the board, manufacturers are being hit by massively increased costs in electricity and gas bills. The latest report by the Australian Energy Market Operator on the state of Australia's energy grid has a clear warning that the government's energy policies are failing our businesses. They're causing higher costs, and look at what the government is doing in renewables and by refusing to look at other options, like small modular nuclear emissions-free energy: they just rule that out completely, but then say, 'Let's do more off-budget spending through the Rewiring the Nation Fund and let's run high-voltage powerlines right around the country.' That's bad for the environment—it kills birds. It's probably through farmland in your area, member for Barker. And guess where all of this is made? It is all made overseas. If we are talking about manufacturing, every solar panel outside of Tindo, which is 97 per cent of the market, is made in China. All the wind farms are made overseas. None of it is recycled at the moment. I see state and federal governments saying it should be recycled. That's all good but when is that going to happen? Right now, it's all just put into landfill. They talk about manufacturing but it is costly. Imagine the amount of money that is going to be spent in offshore wind farms out in the ocean. With the Rewiring the Nation policy, some businesses, where energy costs are going up, can pass on these costs to the consumer and that will just contribute to more inflation. Australians can see that their grocery bills and higher costs of living are going up under this government. In fact, today in a question time, the Treasurer went out of his way to point out to the opposition that there was one interest rate rise prior to the election—one—and nine since they came to office, yet I am sure all these newbies on the other side here on their social media put up 'Inflation is high at 5.1 and now it is 7.8 per cent,' or 'Interest rates are high. Mortgages have gone up $400.' Now they have gone up $2,000. I am sure the good people of Robertson and other seats over there, their mortgages have gone up by $2,000 and these guys think they are doing a good job. It is an absolute joke! But, of course, not all businesses can do that. Businesses in defence industries, for example, deal with fixed-price contracts that run for years. The rising costs will have real, long-lasting damage to manufacturing industries over the coming years. Small and medium operators within defence industry tell me that once again that ministers opposite were all keen to see them before the election but, since the election, nothing—crickets. They can't get an appointment with the Albanese government; they don't want to know about it. They are running away from their pre-election commitments again on manufacturing, particularly for small and medium businesses. The Prime Minister proposed we would be better off under his government. But the fact is, under Labor, businesses are not only being hit with higher energy prices and more union interference but they are now also being told to brace for blackouts as soon as this summer. You would think that this government would try and fix the labour market shortage for manufacturers to meet their orders and consumer demand but, instead, they are neglecting the labour market and adding further strain on already disrupted supply chains. What will we on this side do in relation to this bill? We will not be supporting it. It is bad policy. It is just like their super changes—bad policy. So if you want to actually get some support from this side of the House, come up with proposals that will help the Australian people, that are not bad policy and that are just looking after your union mates. 16:48 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I appreciate that you have noticed me in the room. I like to look back on the Abbott, then Turnbull and then Morrison governments in one very fine light, where a light shone brightly and that light that shone brightly was investment in manufacturing, not just across our cities but across our regions. We actually went into the regions, and my region of Gippsland—I cover mostly West Gippsland and Darren has East Gippsland—was able to focus very specifically on what we were good at. This is really important. We are good at timber manufacturing. We are good at technology. We are good at issues around hydrogen, which I will come to in a minute. Especially under the Turnbull government and our manufacturing program, we were able to help people invest in companies. But there were criteria all around those grants that they received. That is why I think the grants program is better than what has been put to me on the government's program this time. The grants program was: 'Yes, you applied for it. Here are the criteria. If you can perform all these things, including the number of increased jobs you will bring to the region, which we're desperate for'—Deputy Speaker, you would know very well, all the way back to the changes in the Kirner and Kennett governments, our region has changed in the coal industry and it has really affected the job opportunities for our young people, our engineers. There was the change to the SCC all those years ago, where we created engineers in La Trobe Valley that were so good that they're now working all around the world. All around the world you will find people who were trained as apprentices in Latrobe Valley, in the mining industry and all of the other associated industries that went with it. It must be a real badge of honour for a lot of people to know they trained those people so well that the world wants their expertise. That's where I think the government's bill misses the mark. I would rather have had the government wait awhile—not too long—and do more investigation into where the nation is going to be in 30 years and what manufacturing the nation of Australia, this great southern land, should be investing so we're investing in niche markets that are going to provide jobs for our children, their children and their children? Where can we do that expertly so we have strategic industries? At the moment, sadly, because my state government, the Andrews government, is determined to wipe out native forest harvesting that's been supplying our paper industry and our furniture industry and creating about 800,000 jobs relying on that—and now our paper manufacturers in Australia are shedding jobs at Traralgon on a daily basis because they haven't got the timber supply. What you have to know is that we only harvest 0.5 per cent of the available timber. It's a renewable industry, and governments, over a long period of time, have invested in paper manufacturing in Morwell and Traralgon. Why Morwell and Traralgon? It is because we want to proudly say that we manufacture our own paper. This paper here comes from Traralgon. It is good hands, good people, good men and women who have made that paper, and we can be proud as a nation to say, 'We make our own paper.' We don't import it from a country overseas that has none of the environmental controls that we have. None of them do. But we put so many restrictions on our manufacturers, and then we come along with a new government and say: 'We're a new government. This is a Labor government, and we're going to have new plans. We're going to do it our way and we're going to have a new independent board. They're going to direct how this whole thing's going to go, but half of that board have to be union representatives.' I don't mind if they're trained in the field. I don't mind if they've got a history of manufacturing. I don't mind if a new government wants to direct who's on what board and how and when. My experience of manufacturing in Gippsland has been positively enhanced by the previous government's programs. Now, I'm not a great fan of everything governments do. Don't get me wrong; I'm really not. I don't think governments are as efficient as they should be. But, if they place funds targeted into specific businesses that can grow in your region and export, manufacture, produce or create in the full knowledge that they have to do what they say they were going to do—I think a lot of the innovation and everything that's happened across my region of Gippsland and that of Darren Chester, the member Gippsland as I am the member for Monash, have worked really well. I have great hopes that in manufacturing the government won't be able to muck this up, that they will actually work out where our future lies. You need to know where your future lies and not be harking back to the past to say, 'This was Australia. It lived on the sheep's back.' We don't live on the sheep's back anymore, but we have some of the finest wool products in the world that we get manufactured overseas and then brought back to us and we buy them. We're buying our own wool back. This suit that I am wearing is Australian wool but it wasn't woven here. It was probably woven in some factory with terrible conditions in the Middle East or in Vietnam. Then it goes to the UK—someone correct me if I'm wrong here—and they put a print on it which says made in the UK. Where was it actually manufactured? I would suggest somewhere else. There are a whole lot of issues that fall around manufacturing as a whole. I suppose the rest of Australia would call me a Melburnian, because Melbourne has grown so big. I am just on the outskirts of Melbourne so I am a Melburnian. Melbourne was one of the greatest manufacturing hubs in the world. Melbourne is no longer one of the greatest manufacturing hubs in the world, because of the restrictions we've put on ourselves not to free up business, not to give them the opportunity, not to tell them what they should be doing. If the government makes the mistake of telling them what they should be doing, rather than investing where business tells us they need to invest for future prosperity, well, that will be a fail. I don't want government to fail in manufacturing and in grants to manufacturing or in this particular case it's your new National Reconstruction Fund Corporation. I have a bit of a problem with the word reconstruction. Whilst this nation has faced some pretty tough times over the last 12 months, don't tell me it's a National Reconstruction Fund. We haven't just been through a war. We haven't had our cities decimated—only through flooding where we've had massive damage to infrastructure, but outside of that our cities are going pretty well. I am not saying that will be the same case, but don't call it a National Reconstruction Fund. Why would you call it a reconstruction fund? What are you reconstructing? Are you reconstructing the program or are you reconstructing manufacturing in Australia? It's very unclear. I have the highest regard for the minister in this portfolio, Minister Husic. Since he arrived in this place I have always had the highest regard for him. I know he's dedicated and I know he's determined. I know he wants this to work, but I wonder what outside pressure is being put on him, because this gives the actual minister of the day an enormous amount of power as to where that money is spent. Is that going to be politicised like I've seen so many other government programs be politicised? That would wreck manufacturing in this country. If you want to win seats in Adelaide you put all this money into Adelaide. If you want to win a few seats in Brisbane you put it into those seats in Brisbane that you need to win. Is that what this is all about? We can direct all the money to our seats. It is likely that we give state governments money for housing then they go and spend it in marginal seats for the long-term disruption of the Liberal and National parties—if they're a Labor government. It's sort of underlying corruption. I am not accusing Ed Husic of this, because he has an enormous amount of power under this legislation to direct what happens. If you have got a senator John Button of the past—and that senator John Button put together a car plant that kept manufacturing going in Australia for all those years. The world has regard for what John Button put together and directed, what happened in the vehicle manufacturing industry in this country. He probably saved it from immediate decline in the late sixties and early seventies. There's a minister who only acted in the interests of the Australian people. How wonderful it would be if I could believe that every action taken by a political party was only in the interests of the Australian people; that it was fair, just, reasonable and equitable; that it lifted the community up in every action it took; and that it gave opportunities to our newcomers, to people who have come to this country as refugees—who should be given the greatest opportunity, because you often find they are the hardest workers and they want to go out there and they want to do things. The Japanese came to us a few years and said, 'We'd like to put a hydrogen production plant in Gippsland,' and they have done it. Today, there was a huge spread in the paper detailing how the Japanese government are now putting $2.35 billion into the hydrogen plant in the Latrobe Valley. It will create jobs, opportunities and everything else for people in the Latrobe Valley. It's the best news ever! The Japanese are doing that. The state government put in $50 million to get the pilot plant going and there was $500 million from the Turnbull government. I was there for the announcement. So they approved the plant and approved the operation and they have proved that it works. It is hydrogen from brown coal. We have enough brown coal to make enough hydrogen to keep the world going in a clean way for the next 10,000 years. I've never believed we shouldn't be using it to create electricity and building more efficient power plants. Why wouldn't we? Why do we have to kick ourselves in the foot in this nation every time we go to do something? Every time we make a decision now it seems that we're kicking ourselves in the foot and the rest of the world is laughing at us. That is why our manufacturing sector is so important. That is why it is so important to have the best innovation, the best technology, the best people and the best opportunities, and to encourage these start-up companies and not put barriers in their way all the way through. You've got to make it easy for government to be able to deliver on behalf of those people that are going to do the best for our country. This should be seen as an opportunity. I understand governments want to come in and put a new label on a new minister and say, 'We're going to do it a different way.' I hope and pray it works. If it doesn't, we kick ourselves in the foot again. I want this to work. I want it to happen. I want this nation to succeed. Every time we succeed as a nation, we enhance the opportunities for our children and their families. That has to be important to everybody in this House. If we're not putting the Australian people first, whether it comes to manufacturing or any other job, we're doing the wrong thing. So let's have regard to equality, fairness and opportunity. 17:03 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise this evening to speak on the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. Although on the surface it has the appearance of trying to achieve something that we all want—increasing the manufacturing industry in this country—this is a bad bill for so many reasons. The government are the masters of smoke and mirrors and slogans. They are exceptional in stating the problems—which just about anyone in the country can do—but rarely provide solutions, which is the very function that governments are supposed to perform. As is the practice of this all-show and no-substance government, they introduce bills with little to no detail with underlying motives and they then try to hide those motives from the Australian people: hidden agendas that serve one purpose—to increase the membership of their masters and puppeteers, the unions. Labor have always been and always will be the enemy of small business. No matter how hard they try to spin it in a different way, their underlying obligations and first loyalties will always lie with their union masters, who will always try to steer any government business assistance to the big corporates, who they can negotiate union membership deals with—something much harder to do with the thousands of small businesses across the country. In reading this proposed legislation and the structure of the corporation, there are red flags everywhere. The fund will be administered by a board. Clause 19, on the appointment of board members, says that the board members are to be appointed by ministers. In other words, it'll be stacked with Labor and union-friendly board members that will ensure funds are distributed to businesses that will have a union membership component to them. To be truly transparent and avoid any pork-barrelling and involvement from outside parties, the process should be via the robust competitive grants process, with politicians removed, to ensure decisions are made without partiality and on merit only. As is the practice of this 'just write a blank cheque, and we'll fill in the details later' government, there are no details on the eligibility of potential applicants and recipients of funding under this program. Does a business have to be of a certain size, as far as staffing numbers, turnover or floor space? Is there a geographical location requirement? What happens if the loan is not able to be repaid, either through poor management and business decisions or through factors that are outside the business's control, like supply chain issues or lower margins to a more competitive market? If the government has an equity in a business, what is the government's tax obligations? What happens if the majority of the business is sold to overseas individuals or shareholders? Another problem with this bill is that it's modelled on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation initiative, which took way too long for funds to start flowing. Industry feedback suggests this type of funding takes years to get right, and that means lost years for manufacturers. This government needs to leave business investment to businesses and the private sector, and get on with supporting them to get on with whatever their business is by ensuring there are workers with the required training available to employ and that there is reliable and affordable energy to meet the needs of the business. They need to cut red tape and compliance so businesses can spend their days actually focused on manufacturing the products and not in an office filling out government forms to meet, in the main, unnecessary regulations dreamt up by politicians and bureaucrats. The only other reason I can see for them wanting to go down this path is that they have finally realised that under any Labor government business confidence falls, and falls rapidly; therefore, private investment dries up. My own experience in business for over 20 years is that when a Labor government has been in power, the growth in my businesses has been modest—in the low, single digit range at best, or zero growth. In contrast, when the coalition have been in government, every business I have had ownership of in that period has had double digit growth. Again, Labor have missed an opportunity to provide practical support to the business community for three reasons: firstly, they simply don't get business or the economy; secondly, they have to consider their union masters in every decision; and, thirdly, they will never be able to inspire the most critical thing of all, which is business confidence. You see, I know that in my own business, when Labor are in, we stop spending because we simply don't trust them or their union masters. This is something that cannot be changed, as a business community knows a leopard never changes its spots. Conversely, when the coalition are in government, business open their chequebooks, as we know they have our backs. And, if you look after business, this flows through to the worker. Another question that must be answered is: if this is to work—which it won't—where will the workers come from to fill the jobs in these new manufacturing businesses? There is a critical labour shortage, and Labor's ridiculous idea to bring in workers from the Pacific islands via a lottery system is flawed. It will result only in the Pacific losing their youngest and brightest people, therefore causing a detriment to their societies—not to mention the clause that allows them to come over on a visa and leave a job after a week and be qualified for our welfare system, which will only create greater cost to our already overburdened welfare system. That is a joke. The coalition's $2.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Fund, which was underway and which had empowered 200 projects across the country, had been independently assessed by experts in this field and in the department. It was reviewed by the minister purely for political reasons—again, causing another delay in getting manufacturing going in this country. If anyone knows anything about manufacturing they know that with the highest labour costs and one of the highest energy and compliance costs in the world, we simply cannot compete against countries which have much lower costs and which make low-margin fast-moving products, like the electrical appliance industry that I was in for 20 years. We have to focus on the niche products that have the majority of the focus on quality rather than price. This is why it beggars belief that the coalition's Australian space manufacturing industry has been kicked in the guts by the decision of this Labor government to remove it as a priority area. Again, they simply have no clue. This government makes out that the opposition never votes with or agrees with them. This is untrue, because in fact we have voted with them on some bills. But it is true that we don't vote with them on bills that are duds, and there have been plenty of those. There's the one that was the first step to what I call the 'communism bill'. Last December we were flown in from around the country and saw the result of the renewable energy 'Kool-Aid' program that the Labor Party has got involved with. It's driving up energy prices. They flew us all in to cap—to cap!—in this country, in this democracy, pricing. The most ridiculous part about it was that it was wholesale pricing; it wasn't even retail! So that allows retail to price gouge. Again, it just reinforces that they have no business sense at all. I ask: what is next? Are we going to cap the price of milk? Of bread? This is not what a democracy in a free-enterprise country does. Of course we aren't going to agree with or vote for an undemocratic and anti-free-market bill like that. And we won't support this union-membership-drive bill either. Australia, make no mistake: every decision this Labor government makes doesn't have the best interest of Australian business or Australian workers in mind. It will always have the primary function of driving up union membership, whatever the cost. This bill is a classic example of that. 17:13 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I am somewhat pleased to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, because I'm doing the right thing. But, at the same time, I'm somewhat disappointed, because a National Reconstruction Fund which is purporting to improve manufacturing in the nation and give people jobs sounds like a great thing. It ticks all the right boxes emotionally, that's for sure. It makes you feel good, like a lot of what Labor announces—it's all about the feel good. But the reality, and the reason why I'm disappointed, is that with this bill the detail just does not pass muster—the detail of how this reconstruction fund will be applied is really quite concerning and limited. I know that the government went to the last election with this as an election policy plank. But, in saying that, since that election, Prime Minister Albanese has broken so many promises I don't think he can be trusted to implement a $15 billion spend of government money—of taxpayer money, our money—with any degree of competence. Certainly, on the integrity level, and on the trust level, the trust is broken. Let's not forget that this is the Prime Minister who in the lead-up to the last election promised to lower our electricity bills by $275. That was a really important promise that he made to average Australians like my kids. I was at my son's place the other day and he showed me his electricity bill. He's a young guy starting out in life with a little family. This promise to Australians in his position where every cent counts—$275 is something they listen to—turned out to be an absolute broken promise. Cheaper mortgages were, once again, another promise. We'd have cheaper mortgages under this Labor Albanese government and what do we have? We have had nine consecutive interest rate rises. These are the promises that have been broken that make me think I can't support a National Reconstruction Fund. What will it turn into in this government that can't be trusted and this Prime Minister Albanese, who also can't be trusted? This will no doubt turn into some sort of, as has been said here before, union slush fund. I understand there is a place for unions in this country. Absolutely, they are a important part of the industrial make up of industry and our economy. But when Labor get their hands on the Treasury benches, we know they do the wrong thing and they certainly look after the unions in a way that the average Australian would not think is right. Another broken promise that makes me think this National Reconstruction Fund is never going to be applied as said is 'no changes to superannuation'. I mean, you could not get it any clearer that the Prime Minister and the now Treasurer stated in the lead up to the last election that they would not tamper with superannuation, but what did we get? We have serious changes to superannuation that have rocked confidence. People like, as I said, my kids who are starting off in life, do not know what is happening to their future now because of this government that can't be trusted. If this government really wants to do something about manufacturing, if this government wants to turbocharge manufacturing—we all want to turbocharge Australian manufacturing and we want products made in Australia—there are two things they can do straightaway: get out of the way of business with unnecessary regulation and forget all of this ridiculous green tape that ties every business down in this country, that stops them from progressing and give them confidence and lower electricity prices. They can do that instead of capping production, which is always going to increase the price of electricity. Increasing supply will bring the price of electricity down. You would be bringing down a significant input into manufacturing. And guess what? If you stimulate businesses like that, they are going to make more, they are going to innovate more, they are going to employ more, and the economy will start moving again. But no. Of course, the ideology of the left, which is running the Labor Party and which will control the policy is, no, let's bog it down with green tape and really strangle business. I have sugarcane farmers in Wide Bay who need to irrigate and their power bills have soared from $2,000 a month to $6,000 a month. This is what we need to be targeting—lowering those electricity prices—but that is not what is happening here. That is not what is happening with this piece of legislation. I have a butcher in my area and he runs his business 24 hours a day. His power bills have soared to $4,000 a month. If you want to increase manufacturing, if you want to create jobs, if you want to stimulate the Australian economy and get us going like we should, do something about that. Increase the supply of those products—gas and coal—and those products that our economy is being built on. Increase supply and that will help with inputs for business in Wide Bay. Power brokers have warned businesses in my area that they should expect an increase of 20 per cent when signing a new contract. Is it not obvious that this is an area we need to target to stimulate growth? This relates to manufacturers who already exist in Wide Bay, which has a proud manufacturing industry. We support the mining industry with heavy manufacturing, particularly in and around the areas of Gympie and Maryborough. We don't need to establish new businesses. New businesses are always nice, but we need to support the businesses that currently exist. Instead, people are being told that, under an Albanese government, they're to expect a 20 per cent increase in their power bill. LNG costs have risen 30 per cent. Liquid carbon dioxide, for the rapid chilling of fresh trimmings, rose 366 per cent for one of my meat processors. That's approximately $450,000 a year, heading towards half a million dollars a year. That's money that doesn't go into building that business and doesn't go into expanding the market. Meat processing plants need diesel, mainly for mobile plant and equipment. Prices of diesel for them have increased in the order of 160 per cent. What is the government doing about this? Absolutely nothing. Cooling the products in line with the refrigeration index and other standards is essential to maintain eating quality and food safety. If we have an unreliable electricity network, resulting in outages for a business that needs to refrigerate products, the net loss per incident for the product alone could be more than $900,000 for some of my producers for a medium-term part-day outage and up to $7 million for a long-term several-day outage. These are problems we have with our power supply as we go down the path of implementing these policies from Labor that will undoubtably add unreliability into the network. These are the things we should be addressing. We should be putting confidence into manufacturing, not destroying it. Abattoirs are only efficient when running at total capacity with limited interruption. Due to the processing being quite labour-intensive, they have a large workforce. My local one has about 550 people. I would really like to support a bill that is genuine and can be trusted, and a government that can be trusted to implement a big economic responsibility like this. Within the very short time this government has been in power, it has shown that it can't be trusted. Today, when the Minister for Financial Services gave an explanation of self-managed superannuation funds, it could only be described as either not telling the truth or incompetent; it was one of the two. So how can we trust this government to implement a program that is going to spend $15 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money? I would like to do it, but I simply can't. 17:24 Mr THOM 281826 Herbert PSON () (): I would like to join my colleagues and make my contribution for the people of Herbert in this place today. The opposition opposes the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill on a number of grounds. The member for Longman said it quite clearly. He hasn't seen a lot of detail; it's been lacking. He hasn't seen anything of substance that would make him want to stand up and vote for this bill. I don't think anyone around the country, at any level of government, should say to their constituents: 'Trust us. We're the government.' That's not a good thing to say. People want to see the detail. People want to see all the little parts of the bill to ensure that what that their members are voting for and what they could be getting is actually going to benefit them. I believe we should be doing absolutely everything we can to support the manufacturing industries, and I think that they drive this country. They absolutely have kept the lights on and they are an integral part of our growth and our development of the nation. There is no question of that. There are, in fact, a lot of manufacturers in the electorate of Herbert, in Townsville, who do a fantastic job contributing to the economy, creating jobs, providing goods for the rest of the nation and exporting through our awesome Townsville port. They are incredible businesses. Often they've started as small local businesses. They've seen a gap and have decided to manufacture products or to corner a market share that's been lacking, and they are always the most enjoyable to go visit. It's always incredibly amazing to see what our local industry can achieve and the output that they produce. We don't have a problem with government providing manufacturing businesses with assistance to grow their business and invest in local jobs. Townsville is the largest city far away from a capital city, so, if you're talking about creating jobs, if you're talking about ensuring that people have well-paid professions that they enjoy going to and that drive our nation, we get behind that. The former coalition government supported many businesses like this in the electorate of Herbert, not just through the Modern Manufacturing Initiative but through the Northern Australia Development Program too. For example, the former government invested in a fantastic local manufacturer by the name of Gough Plastics. This is a family owned business that provides plastics for domestic environmental engineering and rural applications. Through a nearly $5 million grant, the business is going to be able to build a new facility to expand their operations and build more products. This is a really good local, homegrown manufacturing organisation. When I go out and visit the brothers out there, I see these fancy, different-coloured hi-vis shirts that they would wear. I asked, 'Why are you wearing different hi-vis? What's this for?" and they said it's to promote positive mental wellbeing and suicide prevention. It took me back a bit because, when I talk about it, I talk about it from a personal experience within the military, but they have had a personal experience for them within their workplace, and now Gough Plastics wear these shirts to promote positive mental health, to promote suicide prevention. It really resonated with me. It was one of those moments where everything else is going on and I just wanted to know more about their business. At the end of it one of the directors actually gave me a hug. They could see that it affected me. I think that it's appropriate to say thank you to them and to everyone else who does their bit around the nation to promote positive mental health and suicide prevention in manufacturing, construction and all other industries as well. I will get back to what they are doing now. Through a nearly $5 million grant, the business is going to build this new facility, and it will increase the output of Aussie-made products. That gives an injection of confidence, and they will immediately go on the hunt for 10 new apprentices. We know that building the apprentice workforce and growing it is something that's needed. I did a traineeship. I didn't do an apprenticeship. I did it in construction when I was concreting, and I think apprenticeships are a fantastic way to build the workforce and give another option for our young people, whether they're in school, leaving at a certain age, post year 12 graduation or even some that have graduated or gone through university and gone back to do trades. It should never be viewed as university or a trade—that one is better than the other. They are both equally important to drive this nation, and I know that we need more trades to continue to grow these sorts of industries. That means more jobs for our region; but it also means more training jobs. Another investment of $11 million is helping Wulguru Steel grow and expand its manufacturing operations. So, make no mistake, we're not against manufacturing and we don't think it's a bad thing to support small business and industry to grow and expand. That's why, on this side of House, we took a very conservative approach, in the context of an economy that was performing well because of good economic management. But we do think this new $15 billion fund is a bad way of going about it, and I want to run through some of the reasons. Firstly, the government is failing to provide the right economic environment for this initiative to have any chance of succeeding. It's like starting a fire: you might have the match and the kindling, but, if you starve it of oxygen, you're not going to be able to keep the flame going. It's the same with this initiative. The economy needs to be in a position of strength for us to get a strong outcome, but, in only nine months of this government, we've seen higher interest rates, soaring inflation, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains. Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is in vain. I can't tell you the number of manufacturers who come to me asking and begging for help to get workers. What's the use of stopping the importation of products so that we can make them here when we're constantly having to import more workers from overseas to get them made? Even those industry stakeholders who supported the NRF model shared these concerns. Meanwhile, the bill will discourage investors from backing key national priorities because it undermines their investment certainty. That's because the government of the day can change Australia's national priorities whenever they want and on a political whim. The bill doesn't put into legislation what the priority areas are for investment. The minister has come in here and listed off some important areas in his speech, but the fact that that can be changed at any time doesn't fill me with much confidence and it isn't going to fill investors with much confidence. It's particularly concerning given it could be influenced by the political situation of the day to suit the government of the day. The word 'reconstruction' isn't even defined or mentioned in the bill, except in its title or when referring to the name of the corporation. This is a big-government approach. As the dissenting report of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the Australian manufacturing industry said: The majority report proposes a number of recommendations which would underpin a government driven interventionist approach in the manufacturing sector. Such policies have not worked in the past and there is no evidence to suggest that they will work in the future. The danger is that they will distort the market and cause more harm than good. It's something the Productivity Commission commented on extensively in its submission to the manufacturing inquiry. Instead of broad enabling reforms and investments, it advocated a small number of limited expectations. Along the same lines are worries that industry could be required to comply with a mountain of paperwork to be able to gain investment through the corporation. Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox had this to say: It is critical that no special regulatory requirements should be placed on the businesses engaged with the NRF that would not apply if the NRF was not involved in their financing. For example, there should not be particular conditions imposed on the governance of recipients of NRF financing; the workplace relations requirements of these businesses should not be required to satisfy additional conditions; and there should not be additional requirements on the share of local content in the production undertaken by these businesses. On the workplace relations point, that's essentially enshrining compulsory unionism in legislation for businesses that want to participate. That is never a good thing. It's also incredibly concerning that the minister can appoint the chair and the board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. We know that the minister has already appointed a union mate to a board and has rejected recommendations that his department has made on appointments. And we've already seen the unions calling on their Labor mates to give them a seat at the table. The ACTU said: The Bill puts forward a model of independent directors that are appointed by the Minister (s.19). The ACTU does not support this model. The Board of the NRFC should have equal representation from trade unions, industry and other expertise. If the unions are saying that, that's something that we should be worried about. This government, I believe, has stooped to a new low, relegating Australia's allies and our defence pact, AUKUS, to being a bargaining chip for their rushed National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill. AUKUS should be above politics, but for the Prime Minister it is not. The Prime Minister promised bipartisanship on AUKUS. It should sit above the day-to-day politics of any specific legislation, but the Minister for Industry and Science has broken that promise today. The government should be embarrassed because of this shameful and desperate attempt to pass this flawed bill. This act of desperation from Labor makes it clear that the National Reconstruction Fund isn't about national security; it's all about politics. When the minister for industry introduced the National Reconstruction Fund bill, he didn't mention the words 'AUKUS' or 'national security'—not once; not at all. This is desperate politics from a desperate government. If the National Reconstruction Fund is about national security, then why did Labor cut space industry out of its priorities? If Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions in funding to critical defence manufacturing projects funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy? And if Labor are so concerned about defence and national security, then why have they held up the LAND 400 deal? Now the price that it was set to has been halved, or thereabouts. We have the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, in Townsville using the APC, which is an armoured tracked personnel carrier that is literally in museums as a relic. LAND 400 would support them. It would give them the vehicles that they need to do their job, which is to fight and win wars, and they would have the kit to be able to do it correctly. I think that everyone wants to support manufacturing in this country, but trying to tie this light-on, changing with the wind bill to AUKUS to emotionally blackmail the coalition, because they know that AUKUS is something that we negotiated, that we took to the table and that we put in this position, is nothing more than bad, bad government from a lazy, tricky government. And that's all we've been seeing from this Prime Minister. ( Quorum formed) 17:42 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill of 2022. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill purports to deliver on the ALP's $15 billion signature manufacturing policy. It establishes a fund that will be administered by a corporation with an independent board that would deliver funds against an investment mandate set by the government. However, the design and execution of this bill are both fraught with issues. The first thing is the bill ignores key economic issues which drive our manufacturing industries. The government must first address issues such as rising energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains if our manufacturers are to succeed. Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is in vain. The coalition is opposing this bill because this represents the Labor government telling our manufacturers what they think they need rather than addressing what they actually want. The second main problem with this bill is it will create even more lost time for manufacturers. In this broken model, it will take a significant time for money to start flowing through to the manufacturing industry. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, upon which the NRF was modelled, was established in 2012, and the first investment was only made some ten months later. Our manufacturers, with the current economic conditions, cannot afford to wait that long. The government has announced that the NRF should be up and running by next financial year but hasn't yet committed to a launch date. The third issue with this bill is the poor funding model upon which the National Reconstruction Fund has been built. In this instance, the model shifts from competitive grant programs with robust processes to government acquiring equity and providing loans. Unintended consequences of the way that this has been modelled include government equity and loan schemes being less accessible than grants, and manufacturers may struggle to meet return on investment thresholds or put together detailed business cases in-house. What will happen to failed or failing loans? It is clear that the last experiment down this path—the Victorian Economic Development Corporation—totally uprooted manufacturers. Eligibility is another issue. Certain industries might have margins which are too small, or it could be too risky with disrupted supply chains. Many will no doubt miss out, and the fund could become equivalent to a white elephant. Risks to crowding out private investment are also concerning with this legislation. This begs the question: if there are such great investment opportunities for the government to acquire equity, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of these lucrative opportunities? We must also not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given that many of our manufacturers are family owned businesses. A fourth problem with this legislation is that there is inappropriate ministerial discretion to allow the minister to appoint the chair and board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. This flies in the face of specific recommendations given by the minister's own a department on such appointments. There's a fifth issue with the NRF, and that is that this bill undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priorities on a political whim, undermining investment decisions and eroding investment confidence. This is particularly pertinent to the space industry, for example, complementary medicine and, to a lesser extent, the recycling industry. The government's new priorities are far too vague and strip industry policy of the focus needed to drive investment into specific sectors. This is demonstrative of Labor choosing to spray money indiscriminately instead of continuing investment certainty for our manufacturers and our industries. Finally—and this is the sixth problem with this bill—it is fiscally irresponsible. It's delivers funding well in excess of the coalition's former Modern Manufacturing strategy. An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of this bill, but the timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. In fact, similar financial structures to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism from the IMF, which stated: Implementation of below-the-line activity through newly created investment vehicles— such as this NRF— should be phased appropriately, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. And this is the important part. The IMF said: Cost-of-living support in light of high energy prices should be targeted, aimed at protecting vulnerable households and small viable firms. Overall, again, the budget in October last year was a missed opportunity for the Labor government to support industry and businesses to tackle spiralling costs, workforce shortages and the supply chain crisis. Instead, the government has chosen to forge ahead with radical industrial relations legislation, facilitating a spike in industrial disputes and paving a path to thousands of job losses. All of this will have a devastating impact on industry. The industrial relations bill will cause mayhem for industry and businesses when combined with the ideological scrapping of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the funding cut Labor handed to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Labor's union paymasters will be left to run rampant without the proven oversight and dispute resolution required. While manufacturers across our country struggle with rising power prices, Labor's focus is making it more difficult for industry to employ and keep workers and to grow their businesses. But, rather than embracing it as an opportunity, the budget took active steps to spitefully wipe out key features of the coalition's industry policy. The coalition had provided $2.5 billion to create the modern manufacturing strategy. This sought to bolster our sovereign manufacturing capability and empowered over 200 projects across Australia. Despite promising over and over again that their NRF would reinvigorate manufacturing in Australia, we saw next to nothing in the budget to roll out this program. Let's make that clear: Labor has chosen to redirect the modern manufacturing initiative without ever having rolled out their own National Reconstruction Fund. One of the key pillars of the coalition's manufacturing strategy was our strategic decision to bolster Australia's capabilities in the space sector. The coalition supported funding to locally design, develop, manufacture and deploy specialised space products, equipment systems and services for export to international markets, and to support national and international space missions. This Labor government chose to wipe out the coalition's efforts to develop our space industry manufacturing by removing it as a priority area. The space industry and the Australian public are yet to understand the basis upon which this shift in focus was made. The government must address the critical issues affecting our manufacturers, not simply tinker with a proven model. The Labor government is rushing this bill through, just like it rushed through its radical industrial relations agenda, sidestepping parliamentary scrutiny and avoiding appropriate consultation with industry, and the Australian taxpayer will end up wearing the bill for this recklessness. That is because the NRF delivers on what the Labor Party and the unions want, and not what our struggling Australian manufacturers need. Labor is rushing this bill through, because this bill is what put Labor in power—a chosen board to oversee $15 billion of taxpayer funds on Labor chosen priorities. The bill hasn't passed but unions are already salivating at the prospect of the NRF and have listed their demands as thus: a third of the board positions handpicked by the Council of Trade Unions—positions which will determine who gets access to the funding; and enterprise agreements with unions—a precondition to make an application for any money under the fund; applicants must not have engaged in conduct that treated workers unfairly—a very vague way of saying that, if you're not with them, you're against them. Finally, the unions have demanded that applicants must commit to direct employment and, if contractors or indirect workforces are used, they must be employed on the same conditions as the direct workforce. This essentially enshrines compulsory unionism to a successful applicant. Again, Labor rewards its union mates. Let us turn then to what some of the stakeholders have said about this. The ACTU said: The bill puts forward a model of independent directors that are appointed by the minister. The ACTU does not support this model. The board of the National Reconstruction Fund should have equal representation from trade unions, industry and other expertise. The Australian Industry Group said: Cuts to the Modern Manufacturing Initiative and Entrepreneurs Programme in 2022 deprive the NRF of two main pipelines for preparing innovative SMEs to be investment-ready. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: There is no clear definition of what a 'priority area of the Australian economy' is. The Bill leaves it open to the minister to declare that each or any area of the Australian economy can be identified as a priority area. The Australian Banking Association said: It is noted that banks already invest in many of the priority areas proposed to be targeted by the Fund, such as renewables, transport and defence. Investments in these priority areas would be better suited towards the beginning of their lifecycle, such as during the research and development or commercialisation phases of a project or business, where it is more difficult for banks to manage the risk profile. In addition, the AWU's submission said: In responding to the consultation paper, the AWU supports the ACTU's submission and recommendations for the purpose, governance and structure of the NRF. Again, unions being thanked by Labor. The Australian Forest Products Association said: 'Our timber processing facilities are limited in the investment they can justify due to a shortage in fibre supply. This shortage is being exacerbated by state government ongoing moves to shut down native forestry, while the plantation forestry estate is shrinking, with land being moved to other more lucrative areas and uses. This in turn impacts on the potential returns for investment in Australian manufacturing of timber products.' The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies said: The fastest way to attract investment to the sector, is to approve and open more mines in a timely manner. The longer the approvals process, the greater the perceived risk. Therefore, the ALP is again shooting the program in the foot, as mines can take up to a decade to approve. For all of the reasons I have outlined, I oppose this bill. It is not supported by industry groups. It is not supported by business. It is supported by unions. It will do nothing to improve our manufacturing industry. (Quorum formed) 17:59 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. The Albanese government is breaking promises but it's also breaking the hearts of kids all across Australia who had the dream of being in the space industry. When I attend schools and when schools come to Canberra, I ask kids what they would like to do when they leave school. One of the most popular choices, when almost every child puts up their hand, is when I ask: 'Who wants to work in the space industry?' The kids get so excited, because in Western Sydney under the coalition government they had that opportunity within their grasp. We supported funding to locally design, develop, manufacturer and deploy space products, equipment, systems and services for export to international markets and to support national and international space missions. But the government has decided to remove space manufacturing from its plans for manufacturing in this country, therefore breaking the hearts of those kids who wanted those future careers. For me in Western Sydney, that was about creating new and exciting jobs so those kids didn't have to leave our local area for a job and do those long commutes. They could have dreams. They could have reached for the stars under the coalition's modern manufacturing plan. But that is to be no longer. When I was elected as the federal representative to my community of Lindsay, I committed to working hard to ensure that we have more local jobs so people could live, work and stay in our community. It is something I am extremely passionate about, which is why I'm extremely sad for all those kids who wanted to work in space manufacturing in Western Sydney. As someone who commuted out of the area for many years for work, one industry that I completely back and will always back is Australian manufacturing. To back Australian manufacturing we must leverage the strengths that give our industry a competitive advantage. We cannot compete with mass-producing nations on low-value products, and nor should we. The new era of manufacturing will focus on our strength, where we can compete on quality and value and not just price. I've always believed Western Sydney can be at the forefront of this new era of Australian manufacturing. We have the existing network of established manufacturers and the coalition government was making significant investment to support emerging capabilities in advanced manufacturing. As we look to our country's strengths, backing Australian made things is what would help us create more local jobs and grow our economy. That's why I established the advancing manufacturing taskforce to bring together our local manufacturers with leading scientists, entrepreneurs, and representatives from schools and TAFE and universities to address the challenges facing local manufacturers and to grab hold of the opportunities. I was and still am particularly focused on ensuring that our local kids are educated and trained in the jobs of the future that are coming to Western Sydney. From Baker and Provan in St Mary's to Grant Engineered in Penrith and Plustec in Emu Plains, we already have a strong local manufacturing industry. Western Sydney is home to Australia's largest industry concentration of manufacturing, generating in excess of $41.5 billion per annum. The manufacturing sector employs more than 114,000 people in Western Sydney across transport, warehousing and logistic supports—an additional 71,000 jobs. When the coalition was in government, I was really excited about the future of Australian manufacturing in Western Sydney, and I knew that we were delivering what people and manufacturers in Western Sydney needed because we asked them. We didn't just expect that they would go along with our policies. We sat down, we had taskforces and we were delivering what they said they needed. Our record as a trusted and dependable trade and defence partner presented further chances for us to grow in the field of advanced manufacturing. That's why I have risen today to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I strongly object to the bill on a number of areas, particularly as it does not include something as important as space manufacturing. That's completely extraordinary. I would like to acknowledge some of the companies and manufacturers in my community that I've met with on a number of occasions through my taskforce, through visiting them and through listening to them to support them throughout their journey to create more jobs for local people. Like I've said, there's SpanSet at Emu Plains, which specialises in work safety equipment. There's Baker and Provan in St Marys, which is a heavy machinery and heavy fabrication company that has been in the community for over 70 years, now. That's 70 years of manufacturing in St Marys. Of course, there's a new manufacturing hub on Castlereagh Road in Penrith. When we were in government, there was a lot of confidence in investing in manufacturing in our local area in Western Sydney. Of course, Western Sydney international airport is creating opportunities for advanced manufacturing jobs. But, without investment from the Albanese government, those jobs certainly will not be in the space industry. Under the previous government we saw positive steps forward, and that's why I'm standing today to talk about why I oppose this bill. This bill misses some key points and ignores the economic issues that the government must address, such as rising energy prices. One manufacturer in my community talked about their prices going up 600 per cent and how they would not be sustainable into the future. That is hundreds of local jobs in manufacturing on the brink because they can't afford the skyrocketing energy prices, not to mention labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains. Without policies that create strong economic conditions, any government spending is absolutely in vain. The coalition is opposing this bill, because, as I said, when we were in government we would sit down and listen to manufacturers. I had a taskforce where they would consult with me, and we would take their needs to government, rather than what the government thought they needed. Rather than coming to the table and addressing what manufacturers want, particularly in Western Sydney, the government is just telling them what they need. The simple fact is that, without addressing these key economic challenges which face our country right now, government spending is absolutely wasteful. Under the economic mismanagement of this government, any proposed financial support could be whittled away by increased input costs. The bill will create even more lost time for manufacturers, taking significant time for money to start flowing to them, if it works at all. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, on which the NRF is modelled, was established in 2012. The first investment was only made some 10 months later. It took 10 months for any money to start flowing to manufacturers. Our manufacturers, who are already struggling, as we know, just cannot afford to wait that long. Like I stated earlier, some manufacturing businesses in Lindsay and others close by in Western Sydney could absolutely fold under the cost of energy prices. The government announced that the NRF should be up and running by the next financial, but, like many things with this government, they have not committed to a launch date. It's eerily similar to the commitment to have Medicare urgent care clinics up and running by May this year. One of those was promised to my community in the electorate of Lindsay, but I'm yet to have any information on it. I believe it has been pushed back to the end of this year. Is that what's going to happen with manufacturing as well? Will they be pushing back those much-needed funds for manufacturers to push through the struggles of this time of high energy prices? Industry feedback that the coalition has had suggests the funding model the government is proposing takes years to get right. Those will be lost years that manufacturers just can't afford. The NRF has a poor funding model. The model has shifted from competitive grants programs with robust processes to the government acquiring equity and providing loans. Manufacturers have to come to the government to get a loan. The unintended consequences include that government equity and loan schemes are less accessible than grants, and that manufacturers may struggle to meet return-on-investment thresholds or put together detailed business cases in-house. And what will happen to failed or failing loans? It's clear that the last experiment down this path, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, uprooted manufacturers. We do not want that to happen. I certainly don't want to see any Western Sydney manufacturers impacted by this, causing job disruptions or job losses. Eligibility is another issue. For example, certain industries might have margins which are too small, or it will be too risky, with disrupted supply chains. Many will no doubt miss out. The fund could become equivalent to a big white elephant. Risks to crowding out private investment are also concerning. It also begs the question: if they're such great investment opportunities for the government to acquire equity, why hasn't the private sector already taken advantage of them? We must not overlook the importance of retaining ownership, especially given that many of our manufacturers are small and medium-sized family businesses. The bill will also stifle innovation, as beneficiaries of the fund will be unlikely to invest in innovation without a guaranteed return, and this funding model does not entertain failure, which is an unfortunate reality for some firms developing capacities and engaging in innovation. In this bill there is an inappropriate ministerial discretion, which allows the minister to appoint the chair and board members who will oversee the corporation and its funds. The government has already demonstrated in its early appointments that it cannot be trusted to make sensible, non-partisan decisions. The bill also undermines investment certainty in national priorities, with the government changing Australia's national manufacturing priority on a whim, undermining investment decisions and eroding investment confidence. Think of all those investors in the space manufacturing industry, Mr Deputy Speaker. What are they thinking and doing now? The government's new priorities are too vague. They strip industry policy of the focus needed to drive investment in specific sectors. This is absolutely typical of the Labor government—choosing to spray money indiscriminately instead of continuing investment certainty for our manufacturers and industry. Finally, the bill is fiscally irresponsible, delivering funding well in excess of the coalition's Modern Manufacturing Strategy. An initial $5 billion appropriation is provided upon passage of the bill, but the timing of the remaining $10 billion will not be subject to further parliamentary approval. In fact, financial structures similar to the one underpinning this bill have drawn criticism internationally from the IMF, who stated that below the line activity through newly created investment vehicles, such as the NRF, should also be phased appropriately, and that, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided. I started a petition in my community to bring back manufacturing to this country. I think a petition to ensure that investment in our manufacturing industry continues is more important now than ever. We should certainly add 'bring back space manufacturing' because this is where the jobs of the future are for kids and communities like mine. There was an international airport being built down the road and all this investment already lined up for an industry that has just now been stripped away. So I think having a petition is important, getting people behind it in Western Sydney and continuing the fight because Australia deserves a strong manufacturing industry. I couldn't speak more strongly in opposing this bill. 18:15 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 which establishes the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation with approximately $15 billion to invest in so-called priority areas of the Australian economy. However, at this juncture we have no precise idea what those priority areas will be. The government has full discretion to define them by disallowable legislative instrument. We do have some idea about seven priority areas that have mentioned so far: renewables and low emission technologies; medical science; transport; value-adding agriculture, forestry and fisheries; value-adding resources; defence capabilities—and we've heard AUKUS thrown around us, as though Labor had come up with it; and enabling capabilities such as robotics, artificial intelligence and quantum. It's fair to say that in Labor's land anything could be a priority area really, and nothing is ruled out. It's one of those speciality policy areas where the Labor Party is so good, and where everyone thinks they're going to win a prize, until they realise it's just the usual suspects who are going to take home the loot. In terms of spend by priority area, we aren't much clearer there either. There's been some suggestion there will be $2 billion for renewables and low emission technologies, $1.5 billion for medical manufacturing, $1 billion for value adding and resources, $1 billion for critical technologies, $1 billion for advanced manufacturing and only $500 million for value-adding in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. It makes you wonder what they did wrong. Make no mistake, I do support these industries wholeheartedly that the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation will target, but I think we need to do that by creating the right circumstances in the Australian economy, by creating a context which supports investment, rewards effort and hard work, underpins commercialisation and invests in scientific endeavour. Governments should go down the path of picking winners only with caution, care and hesitation. As we have seen before, playing to and backing our natural advantages usually makes good sense in policy settings, as the former coalition government did from time to time—for example, when it established the senior investment specialists in the trade and investment portfolio back in 2013-14. Their responsibility was to focus on national investment areas of food and agribusiness, resources and energy, economic infrastructure, tourism and education, and advanced manufacturing, services and technology. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, these were also the industries in which we pursued enhanced market access through our free trade agreements at the time, many of which were completed by the former government. But the coalition's policies put business, not government, in the driving seat of Australia's economic and industrial success. Let me talk to you of just a few in my electorate of Flinders which have thrived under the coalition's policy settings over the last few years. In Flinders alone, on the Mornington Peninsula—a place that people often think of as hills, beaches, golf and great wine—we also have global leading manufacturers such as BlueScope Steel, which provides COLOURBOND to the world; farm and agricultural businesses like Gazzola Farms, whose broccoli and cos lettuce you'll find in all good supermarkets throughout the country, and Peninsula Fresh organics for the best organic veggies; and resource companies like Esso, from whose endeavours your summer barbecue bottle will be filled. Let me talk to you about just one local manufacturer in some detail, Sealite, which the Leader of the Opposition recently visited with me when he came down to Flinders in late January. Sealite is a specialist in maritime transportation, headquartered in Somerville. That's in the northern part of my electorate. It was founded back in 1982 by, among a few others, the remarkable Chris Proctor, a local inventor and industrialist, in his garage no less. Today, Sealite is a technology leader on a global scale in both the design and manufacture of marine aids to navigation equipment, including marine lighting, navigation buoys, marine floats, port entry lighting systems, lighthouse lighting equipment, and monitoring and control system software. Sealite designs and manufactures marine aids and navigation equipment with manufacturing and office locations not just in Australia now but also in Singapore, the United Kingdom, Columbia and the United States. Sealite and its distributors service over 100 countries across the globe. When I visited their manufacturing base in Somerville in mid-2022 I could see they were about to send products and goods all over the world—to the Gulf state, all through the Indo-Pacific and, of course, to my personal favourite, the Maldives. The amazing, dedicated Sealite team services the global marine industry through the efficient design of solutions that withstand the toughest ocean environments. The company employs many locals in the Somerville and Hastings area in my electorate, some of whom have been with the company for decades. You'll be lucky to see their navigation buoys all over the world. When you look out port side or starboard in any kind of vessel, you'll often see a large, round buoy with a big light on top, guiding you safely to shore. There's a good chance it's from Sealite and from my local town of Somerville. Avlite Systems is a subsidiary of Sealite, an award-winning manufacturer of aids to aviation navigation. You will see their white triangle markers along most runways and runway lights sparkle all around aviation and airports all across the world. In fact, I saw some last week at the Tyabb airfield with the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, who kindly agreed to come to Flinders from Avalon, where he was meeting with defence industry representatives at the International Airshow. He came across last week to visit HMVS Cerberus but also the home of the other biannual airshow, the famous Tyabb airshow, the next one of which will be held in March 2024. It has one of the most important collections of historical aircraft and is home to about a hundred peninsular aero club enthusiasts in all things aviation, but, importantly, it has Avlite's triangle markers down the side of the runway and also its lights guiding everyone safely home. Avlite operates purpose-built facilities and employs a highly trained team of engineers and production specialists in its operations. Through organic growth and strategic acquisitions, Sealite and Avlite have broad capabilities to meet the demands of new product design, manufacture and program delivery for aviation clients globally. When you go to visit them, as the Leader of the Opposition and I did back in January, you will see their amazing purpose-built manufacturing plant in Somerville, which is now bursting at the seams, having acquired buildings down the street and across the road. You will see the amazing world-leading research and development they undertake. They are an amazing group of inventors. Indeed, they had to become amazing inventors when their supply chains collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. They are experts in in-house surface-mount technology electronics and robotic assembly lines. They have an in-house rotational moulding and injection moulding capability, which is a marvel to be seen. And they have in-house high precision injection mould toolmaking as well. Sealite has recently become part of the global SPX Corporation, a manufacturer of products that guide vessels safely into ports and harbours all around the globe. That parent company, SPX, is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and had approximately $1.5 billion in annual revenue in 2019 and over 4½ thousand employees in 17 countries. I'm so very grateful to Managing Director Michael Walker and his team for taking Peter Dutton and I on this amazing tour of their Somerville plant. I also recognise and shout out to Chris Procter and his fellow founders for creating such a magnificent local business, taking its wares to the world. Mike and Chris are indicative of the good folk of Flinders, who cry out for one thing, who tell us what they need but are told by this government that they really need something different. In this case, they need the National Reconstruction Fund, which seems to deliver on what the Labor Party wants and potentially what the union movement wants, not what our struggling and striving Australian manufacturers need. The model that Labor wishes to implement in a no doubt well-intentioned policy is not what is currently needed. This bill, much like everything else the Albanese government has presented to the constituents of my electorate, completely misses the mark. They pick winners from Labor-friendly National Reconstruction Fund recipients, but at the same time my constituents lose some of the things that they had been planning for and looking forward to for years. I cite the National Centre for Coasts and Climate, which was going to put a globally recognised research institute in climate change and the study of the flora and fauna of our waters and seas in the Point Nepean National Park. I cite the loss of the electrification of the Stony Point rail line to Baxter. We have the only metropolitan Melbourne train line that's still run on diesel. I cite the other thing they've lost, which is funding for the Jetty Road overpass, which has recently been deferred till 2026-27, even though the good folk of Rosebud have been expecting that since at least 2019, if not earlier. They are losing funding for mobile black spots, they are getting no help with the cost of living, and all they are seeing is skyrocketing energy prices and land tax from the Andrews Labor government. The people of Flinders and its manufacturers and its agricultural businesses are not being given the support they need by this government, and nothing in this bill proves that statement wrong. 18:25 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I do want to thank members for their contribution on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022. I am grateful to the member for Flinders for giving a considered contribution to this debate. I know there are a number of people on that side of the House who think deeply about what we need to do with respect to manufacturing, and some of them I see in this chamber right now. It's unfortunate that we haven't had the ability to engage in a meaningful way through the course of this debate, but I remain optimistic that at some point we may productively re-engage, because this bill is about ensuring that we have the growth capital available for manufacturers in those key areas in which we need to see longer term economic growth propelled. It is a $15 billion financing vehicle, and it will be one of the largest investments in manufacturing capability in living memory. It is important for the country long term. It will make investments in projects that will support, diversify and transform Australian manufacturing. It will also support economic reform by boosting participation and productivity. Now, it's very important to emphasise the $15 billion in growth capital that will be available for manufacturers across the seven priority areas. These investment decisions will be determined by an independent board made up of people with a variety of skills. First, they will be guided by an investment mandate. Second, they will not have, despite the suggestions of those opposite, ministerial intervention in any shape or form. They will be making decisions in the national economic interest and not in partisan political interest. That is important to point out as well. So there will be clear direction through that mandate in respect of risk, return, investment, governance and core government policy priorities. We aim to crowd in investment. We have one of the largest investment savings pools on the planet with our superannuation system. We have challenges at this point in time with venture capital, but they will not last forever, and we imagine we'll work with them as well. We will also work with private equity. We want to make sure that the capital is there at a time when the cost of capital has increased, both locally and globally. We need to ensure that, for firms that have an idea about how they want to grow, that money will be there to allow them to grow. Now, I've listened to some of the comments, particularly those of the shadow minister for industry and the deputy leader of the coalition a few weeks back, and I've listened to some of the contributions here. They've clearly got the rote responses, and a lot of them are just plain wrong, frankly. They demonstrate that there has not been a willingness to actually look at what the bill does, nor a willingness to take the time to read the explanatory memorandum and all the material that we've had out there. Those facts are an inconvenient hurdle in the way of making a point. Quite frankly, I think what we can sum this up as, in terms of coalition opposition, is that they're saying no to this bill for one of two reasons: that they didn't introduce it, or that they don't like any program where they don't get to decide where the money is going. I suspect it's a bit of both. I want to pick up on the points made by the member for Flinders. You indicated through your contribution, Member for Flinders, that we weren't delivering what manufacturers want. In actual fact, the big focus of the incoming government has been to address long-running issues that we have inherited. Manufacturers want access to skilled labour. They have not been able to get it. We have had massive skills shortages, and some of that stems back to decisions made by the coalition government. We are investing in TAFE fee-free places. We are investing in universities. We are reforming the visa system, particularly in relation to skilled visas, so that we can get the skills that are needed. Manufacturers want skills and we are delivering after years of neglect. Manufacturers also wanted lower energy bills and lower energy prices. We had to make some pretty big calls in relation to, for example, gas, where industrial users make up half of the domestic gas demand. We needed to step in and do that. We also need to ensure that there is access to lower cost capital, and that is what the NRF does for a lot of manufacturers who struggle to get the support that they need to grow at that point in time, and who will often tell us how difficult it is to get a bank or other lender to support their ambitions. We do not want firms to feel like the only way they will get access to capital is to leave Australian shores. So we need to make sure that we have all those things in place. The NRF is not the be-all and end-all of what is required to grow manufacturing in this country, but it is a massive platform to ensure that that occurs. Again, it will be decisions that are made independent of government and, if I may say, guided by a model that has existed and has operated under previous coalition governments and us, based on the Clean Energy Financing Corporation, which, again, existed under the coalition and, in some cases, in spite of the coalition. It has demonstrated through lived experience what can be done. We built the NRF concept from the ground up based on some expert advice and informed by, for example, the CSIRO's Recovery and resilience report of 2020, which highlighted the areas we needed to invest in longer term to be able to see longer-term economic growth. We were informed largely by that but we were also informed by some other things—for example, priority areas in the realm of transport, where we believe that there is a need to be able to provide investment in, for example, building public transport infrastructure or what we do with electric vehicles be they light commercial or heavy. Being able to ensure that that capital is there for that growth is really important. Let me run through other points made during the debate. There have been a lot of worthy contributions. I'm grateful for the contributions from members of the government and from the crossbench. I stress my gratitude to the crossbench, who I have engaged with over a period time. A number of them have made terrific contributions that I am grateful for. We can't agree on everything, but that's not the nature of Australian democracy. Where we can work together, we should—and I have been grateful for their constructive engagement. I would also make the point that questions around processes, thresholds and the like can be easily answered in the legislation. Despite some coalition claims—chiefly directed through the shadow minister for industry—we haven't abandoned the food and beverage manufacturing industry. In fact, that claim will be a surprise to the industry, which is mentioned by name in our $500 million investment target in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre. The coalition also claimed that the NRF will be ineffective because of rising energy prices, despite the fact that they voted against our moves to bring those prices down. The coalition also suggested that we weren't doing anything about supply chains. This bill is trying to deal with that issue. The challenges in relation to concentrated or broken supply chains had been ignored by those opposite. Supply side issues had driven inflation and had set us on a trajectory of higher interest rates while the coalition was in government. We are trying to ensure that we correct that, that we can moderate inflation—take that fight to inflation—and also ensure that we put downward pressure on interest rates. The NRF has a crucial role to play, and those opposite are voting against it. Many of those opposite speaking against the bill have, time and again, shown a complete misunderstanding of the way in which the bill would work, claiming it would stifle innovation. Hardly—given that this is actually extending capital, particularly in terms of enabling capabilities and critical technologies, where the support is required here on Australian shores, instead of forcing innovators offshore because we don't have the capital available for people right here. We have designed it, as I've said, to crowd in investment and help local firms attract support, showing other investors that the government supports their work. Of course, the NRF will make decisions that appreciate risk and reward. They will take bigger risks on some projects than others, but it won't be a government minister making a decision on the basis of political interest; it will be on economic and national interests that those decision will be made—again, at arm's length from government and supported by advice from experts to support innovation, investment and opportunity in key growth sectors for the country. This is our first step in revitalising Australia's industrial capabilities, so that we can be a country that makes things again. The NRF is designed to help secure our future prosperity, drive sustainable economic growth and leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths by providing finance to projects in priority areas. A strong, diverse economy underpins our government's commitment to creating a more sustainable, high-value job proposition for the rest of the country. I thank the House for their consideration of this absolutely vital bill, and make the point that, when the vote eventually comes on this bill, people will be asked to make a choice. They will be asked whether or not they support Australian manufacturing and they support good blue-collar jobs. Manufacturing generates, on the whole, full-time, secure work. There are 90,000 manufacturing firms in this country; a third of them exist outside the capital cities. We can do better. We can certainly—and we certainly want to—ensure regional manufacturing grows. And it's not just in the regions but in remote Australia as well. I note the presence of the member for Kennedy, and I note his interest in ensuring that manufacturing occurs in all parts of the country, not just in some. We want to make sure that that is there. I understand that some Liberals may not necessarily get the value of manufacturing and capability to modern economies and how important this is for economies to grow. The National Party certainly does. The National Party understand this in their part of the world—not just in terms of agriculture but also in terms of the manufacturing activity that occurs across other sectors in their communities. It staggers me that the National Party, knowing how hard it is to get access to capital for some of their businesses, would not back in the NRF. It is simply astounding that they will go back to their communities and say that they will not back in growth capital for manufacturers who have struggled with banks, who occasionally will not provide that support. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile that in their communities. You never know, they could have a change of heart. We'll see. Mr Robert HWT Wrap it up! Mr HUSIC 91219 I commend the bill to the House. I note the lack of interest of the shadow minister at the table, who is keen to move onto something else, but we will definitely make sure that we do what we can to see Australia become a country that makes things, because a country that makes things generates good, long-term, full-time, secure work. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day. Debate adjourned. Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 95

Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 95 18:39 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 forms part of the Albanese government's signature climate change policy reforms to the safeguard mechanism. The coalition is considering this specific bill within that broader context. While there is bipartisanship in this parliament with respect to joining global efforts to reduce emissions to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century, there is anything but a bipartisan agreement on how we go about reaching that goal. The 'how' matters, because how you seek to decarbonise the Australian economy and how you map a path to decarbonisation will determine the future in which our children and their children will live. If Australia ventures down the wrong path, as we are under this Labor government, our children and grandchildren will live in an Australia that is weaker and not stronger; poorer and not more prosperous; and an Australia that is more likely to be captured by the interests of foreign powers rather than being fiercely independent as a sovereign nation. What's more, Labor's plans to reduce emissions will fail, and will not make as a substantial contribution as we could be making as a nation to tackling global emissions. Once a successful, fit-for-purpose coalition framework, Labor is turning the safeguard mechanism on its head—reversing its intent and operation, and changing it from one that incentivises businesses to one that punishes businesses; from one that's voluntary to one that's mandatory; and from a scheme driven by technology to one that's driven by tax. Labor's safeguard mechanism is a Trojan horse for the carbon tax that Labor has longed for for many, many years. I was referring before to the question of how we decarbonise the Australian economy. This carbon tax proposed by the Labor government and hidden within the safeguard mechanism accentuates a fundamental divide between the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor-Greens coalition. For the Liberal-National coalition, our approach has always been to strike a balance. We have always sought a balance. I underscore that word 'balance', because we have balanced both the reduction of emissions and the growth of the Australian economy. We met and exceeded our Kyoto targets and we reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on the 2005 levels. We put Australia well on track to beat our Paris treaty commitments, and we did so while, at the same time, improving the Australian economy. Our economy grew by up to 23 per cent over a nine-year period under the coalition government. There was record GDP, record jobs and record investment—investment, I might add, which included clean energy technologies. It was more investment than ever before. We struck a balance. And how did we strike that balance? We did it by packing enterprise, by backing engineering and by working with industry, not against industry. We backed technology and we backed the search for solutions that were practical and which could be executed and implemented. On the other hand, Labor has failed to strike a balance because, instead, Labor backs big government, Labor backs big unions and Labor backs big taxes. Indeed, Labor's safeguard mechanism is illustrative of this, especially when it comes to Labor's backing of big taxes. It is the most punitive policy of its kind in the world. Starting 1 July of this year 215 Australian businesses will have to reduce their emissions by 4.9 per cent each year to 2030. This is the fastest rate of decline imposed by any government. It's even higher than the European Union, which is renowned for having set such a high bar in this regard. Under its emissions trading scheme their rate is 4.4 per cent. So, Labor is setting a decline rate that is even higher than the EU. As a reference point, I think it is worth noting that the EU's emissions trading scheme includes the electricity sector—outside of which emissions of large industrial businesses fell by one per cent between 2012 and 2018. Labor's scheme excludes the electricity sector, and it is putting the responsibility on large industrial businesses in Australia to reduce their emissions by 4.9 per cent—that's nearly 5 per cent—every single year through to 2030. This is unachievable. It won't happen. Why? The technology to do so simply does not exist and Labor knows this. And I know Labor knows this, because the same companies that've been coming through my office have been going through the minister's office, and they've been saying the exact same thing: the technology to reach these targets does not exist. Scores of businesses caught under this new carbon tax, this new safeguard mechanism regime, will not be able to set the reduction anywhere near the rate set by the Labor Party. I genuinely believe that Labor is happy about this. Labor doesn't want business to meet this bar. Why? Because that allows its carbon tax to come into play. If businesses could meet the targets there wouldn't be a need for Labor's carbon tax. Once a business cannot reduce its emissions in line with that near five per cent target set by the government it will have to buy Australian carbon credit units—otherwise known as ACCUs. The government is pricing ACCUs, it is pricing carbon, at $75 a tonne. And for those who are wondering if $75 a tonne is a fair price or not, I remind them that it is over three times larger than the previous Labor government's attempt to introduce a carbon tax. They priced carbon at $23. The Albanese government now wishes to price carbon at $75. It's also a price that is higher than eight of Australia's top 10 two-way trading partners. The exceptions being the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Eighty per cent of Australia's two-way trade is with nations that are not covered by a national carbon price, or if they are their prices are substantially lower than the price Labor wishes to introduce. Australia's international competitors in alumina, cement, copper, coal, gas, iron ore do not pay a carbon price, including those from the United States, Malaysia, Thailand, Qatar, Russia, India. So as much as Labor is clearly following the path of the EU, it's notable that the EU businesses receive billions of euros in support for the scheme annually in the form of free credits. Some have estimated that around 50 billion euros have been handed out since the ETS started. Labor's $600 million support package doesn't even compare, but we know that Labor doesn't do detail very well. It never has. Labor is very happy to sell the dream. Labor will sell the dream, even if that dream turns into a nightmare. You might recall the soaring rhetoric of the Prime Minister when he spoke about leading Australia into a new era of climate change. The Treasurer boasts that he is redefining capitalism. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy believes he is enabling the biggest economic transformation Australia has seen, as big as the industrial revolution. This government are a humble lot, ushering in new eras, redefining capitalism and facilitating the next industrial revolution. Economics has been replaced by 'egonomics' with this lot, and it is reflected in the safeguard mechanism—the policy that they wish to impose on the Australian economy. With all Labor's chest-beating on this policy and with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and, in particular, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy screaming as loudly as they can and signalling their virtues, this safeguard mechanism is apparently their signature policy to enable all of this. This is their centrepiece policy. You would think that the government might have had Treasury, or at least the department, do some economic modelling on what its impact might be, but they didn't do that. Think about that. The government is talking about a new era, redefining capitalism and this being as big as the industrial revolution. It's introducing its centrepiece policy that will enable all of this and facilitate it, and they don't even get it modelled by Treasury or the department. They don't know the impact. That impact, of course, is on the economy. It's on individual companies—Aussie companies—and it's on jobs. It's on everyday Australians and their livelihoods, and it's on regional communities. They didn't model the impact. But what we did learn, through the Senate inquiry into this bill, is that apparently a little bit of modelling was done. It wasn't disclosed by whom, but some modelling was done. So we, together with the Greens, asked the minister to produce that modelling. The government is refusing to disclose what little modelling was done—the only modelling that was done. Treasury didn't do it. The department didn't do it. I don't know who did it. The Australian people don't know. As for what it said, this government will not tell the Australian people, despite looking them in the eye and saying: 'This is going to be as big as the industrial revolution. We've done a bit of modelling but we—the government—will not show you.' That's the message from the Labor Party. Let me assure members of this House that there is nothing safe about Labor's safeguard mechanism. It's bad for the economy and it's bad for the environment. If Labor introduces one of the world's most punitive carbon taxes, one of two things will happen. Either businesses will pass on the additional cost impost to their customers—consumers—or they'll close their doors. For those businesses that pass on the cost, it will become a hidden tax paid by everyday Australians. So let me put this in really clear terms. Due to Labor's policy, anyone running a car will pay more as the price of oil goes up. Due to this policy, anyone buying a new apartment, building a home or, even, refencing a property will pay more as the price of steel goes up. Anyone replacing the window frames at home or fixing the roof of their garden shed will pay more as the price of aluminium goes up. Anyone laying a concrete slab at home so they can park their car on it or laying bricks to create a garden bed will pay more because the price of cement will go up. Anyone buying a loaf of bread or maybe a packet of rice will pay more as the price of gas and, therefore, fertiliser goes up. And it goes on and on and on. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, the Albanese Labor government is introducing the world's most punitive carbon tax that will be passed on and paid for by everyday Australians at a time when they can afford it the least. It should be noted that the Australians who will hurt the most due to this are the ones who can least afford it. At a time when some families are struggling like never before, the Labor Party, who will spruik values of social justice, are more than happy to pass legislation enabling a policy which is a hidden tax and which will drive up the prices of everyday goods for everyday Australians. It is a disgrace. There will be those businesses, however, who just can't survive and can't pass on the cost to their consumers. They will shut their doors. I know that some businesses are genuinely looking at the possibility of shutting their doors. I know that because they've told me. They've told the minister too, by the way. I think we all know the human impact when a business closes. We're not just talking about profits for the business owner. We're talking about jobs. We're talking about livelihoods. We're talking about Australian families that can't put what they need on the table. Businesses are at risk of closing over this tax. The government knows about it; they've been told about it. If they can produce a skerrick of modelling that would provide any guarantee at all that that won't happen, please do. But they won't. They've been asked to. They know that businesses may close, that they're likely to close, that jobs will be lost and that lives will be hurt. I've probably said enough about the economic consequences of Labor's reformed safeguard mechanism, but what probably hasn't received sufficient attention in this debate is the environmental consequences. When Australian businesses close their doors, especially manufacturers, it's operations in higher emitting nations that will typically fill the void. I had steelmakers and smelters telling me months ago that, due to the increase in energy prices under the Labor government, they might need to close and that their operations would likely move to India and China. Let's see what happens when you throw a carbon tax into the mix. I have also subsequently spoken to companies and industry associations specifically about the safeguard mechanism that Labor is seeking to reform and the introduction of a carbon tax, and I can tell you that businesses are at risk of closing. When they do, it will be operations in high-emitting nations like China and India that will fill the void. According to a 2020 Climate Leadership Council analysis, Australian manufacturers are three to four times more emissions efficient than those in China and India. Let's think about that. Let's put that in the context of an example here. Labor introduces its safeguard mechanism and introduces its carbon tax. If an average manufacturer caught under the scheme emits one million tonnes of CO2 each year and has to close its doors, and if that gap in the market is filled by an operation in, let's say, India, then you are looking at four times those emissions. Instead of one million tonnes of emissions affecting the challenge of climate change, you now have four million. That's four times as bad. And yet, this government claims that this policy is in fact a policy that will help tackle the challenge of climate change. This this is greenwashing—Labor style: push it offshore, pretend it doesn't happen. It's someone else's problem, even though the net impact on the environment is worse. They know for a fact that is going to happen. Again, I've spoken to companies that have walked me through the same presentations the government has seen. That is what's going to happen. Let me close where I started. There is no question about the need for action to tackle the challenge of climate change in Australia. There is no question about that whatsoever. There's also no question about the need for Australian industry to continue reducing its emissions. There's no debate about that whatsoever. But, on the question of how we should go about it as a nation, there is absolutely a debate. The climate change and energy debate in Australia has moved into a new phase, but that phase is all about how. Labor is answering the question of how in the wrong way, and it's setting Australia up to be weaker, to be poorer and to be more captive to interests of foreign powers and not our own. Carbon trading and ACCUs will continue to play an important role, but they should not be used by the Labor Party to facilitate a punitive taxation regime. That is not what it's all about. Government policy that decapitates the economy instead of decarbonising it should be rejected and so, too, should the outsourcing of emissions that leaves the world worse off, not better. With that, the coalition opposes this policy and therefore opposes this bill. 19:03 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The member opposite just spoke about how we decarbonise. That's a rich statement coming from the Liberal Party that had no plans to reduce emissions, no plans for the transition to renewable energy and absolutely no plans for energy sovereignty. It's quite spectacular. All they really have is a series of empty words and poor slogans that aren't really catching on. The nonsense is so good coming from the opposition because the common sense is so limited. I was here in this chamber when the Climate Change Act 2022 passed through the parliament. It was a wonderful moment. It was a wonderful moment for the Central Coast. It was a wonderful moment for Australia, and it signalled to the world that Australia was back in the fight for climate change. It was a moment where we as a government finally took climate change seriously, which had not happened from those opposite for the past decade. This is an opposition who continually turned their backs on the Australian people. Let's take manufacturing, Australian know-how and the NRF, and housing for the most vulnerable: Indigenous people, veterans, women and children fleeing domestic violence. And now? They're turning their back on climate reform that will benefit our people, climate reform that will benefit our economy and, more importantly, climate reform that will benefit our environment and our planet. The reforms before us here today are the first chance in over a decade—over 10 long years—to implement transformative climate change action that gets us to net zero. It has broad support—not just across the economy, not just across business groups, not just across industry groups—across the community. We have constituents calling, emailing, contacting us on social media, who are in support of this, who are in support of climate action, who are in support of the safeguard mechanism. The Liberal Party today, just now, have made themselves quite spectacularly irrelevant, despite calls from across industry for bipartisan support for this reform. This Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is ambitious, it's sensible and it's what's required. It's what's required for climate reform. It's what's required to protect our environment. It's what's required to sustain our environment and our climate for future generations. That's what we're talking about. Yes, we're talking about policy. We're the intricacies of climate change policy, but we're really looking at sustainability for future generations, and that's what the safeguard mechanism at it's core is all about. Australia has committed to reduce national emissions to 43 per cent by 2030 and to net zero by 2050—committed. Again, it's ambitious, but definitely required for sustainability. These targets are realistic. These targets are achievable. But it will take a deliberate and a sustained effort to meet them. All sectors have to play their part—not just industry, not just government but every person, every time. Our government's Powering Australia plan commits to build on the existing safeguard mechanism to reduce industrial sector emissions. It provides a well-established legislated framework that places emission limits, called baselines, on large industrial facilities. Safeguard facilities are the country's largest emitters outside the electricity sector, contributing to around 28 per cent of the total emissions. These reforms back in the climate commitments that companies have already made and help meet our legislated national targets. As I said before, it's good for our people, good for the climate, good for the environment and, because they provide certainty, good for the economy, good for industry. The bill will enable tradeable credits to be issued to facilities below their baselines, and this provides an incentive for all covered facilities to reduce their emissions and access the lowest cost abatement. A broad group of business leaders and groups support reforming the safeguard mechanisms to provide policy certainty for large industrial emitters. That's why it's absolutely baffling to me as to why the member just previously got up and in quite a spectacular fashion, as I said before, made the entire Liberal Party, the entire National Party—the coalition there—completely irrelevant. This is backed by industry, it's backed by people, t's backed by the community. It's baffling. This bill will support and drive emissions reductions from facilities covered by the safeguard mechanism. These reforms will help Australian businesses to remain competitive as the world decarbonises and moves towards zero. The bill updates the objectives of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to ensure that net aggregate safeguard baselines decline, increasing industry and investor confidence to take action. The bill allows for the creation of a new type of unit called Safeguard Mechanism Credits, and the bill deals with matters like the issue, transfer and ownership of these credits from facilities which beat their baselines. These credits will provide an incentive for all facilities to reduce their emissions if they have cost-effective opportunities, helping to deliver Australia's climate targets at the lowest cost. The bill also allows rules to be made about the interactions between the safeguard mechanism and the Emissions Reduction Fund, which will support the integrity of both the safeguard mechanism and those carbon credit units. I think we need to focus on how the integrity of this scheme will be assured. The Australian government commissioned an independent review of the ACCUs—the carbon credit units—to ensure that those units and the carbon crediting framework have integrity and maintain a strong and credible reputation. That expert panel concluded that the credit scheme arrangements are sound. The panel found that there are appropriate checks and balances at the scheme, method and project levels to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits created under it. Industrial emitters will also have a strong incentive to reduce their emissions, but many in hard-to-abate sectors will also need options to use credits from those facilities beating their baselines or high-integrity carbon offsets. The panel made sensible recommendations to ensure that the scheme aligns with modern expectations of best practice. These include separating functions of integrity assurance, regulation and administration of those credit units; maximising transparency of scheme information; encouraging innovation in method development and project implementation; and supporting greater participation, including by First Nations communities—our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters. The government has agreed, in principle, to the 16 recommendations of the review, and is working with stakeholders on that implementation. Let's look at the key reasons for these reforms. Australia has now legislated its emissions reductions targets and the safeguard mechanism is about delivering on those targets. It was announced in December 2021 as part of our Powering Australia plan, and it was endorsed at the election by the Australian people. I think that's an important thing to note: the policies that we put forward at the election in May 2022 were endorsed by the Australian public, by the people of Robertson, by the members on this side of the House and across the country. These reforms are expected to save 205 million tonnes of emissions in the period to 2030. That's equivalent to taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the road over the same period. Reforms to the safeguard mechanism have been recommended consistently and supported by business—groups like the BCA, AiG and ACCI. Again, those opposite had grand plans for safeguard crediting when they announced their response to the King review in May 2020; in the May budget of 2021, in the accrediting consultation paper of August 2021 and in their long-term plan in October 2021. These are reforms they never delivered and reforms that they now oppose. After a decade of delay, a decade of denial and a decade of dysfunction, particularly in the climate space and in the environment space, all they have to offer are half-baked scare campaigns like we heard before—the fast and loose slogans that don't stick and which are all made up from the same talking points they seem to recycle for every election. Eighty per cent of facilities, representing around 86 per cent of covered emissions, are already covered by corporate net zero commitments, because business knows that reducing emissions is essential for their long-term competitiveness in a global net zero economy. The safeguard mechanism covers around 215 large industrial facilities, accounting for around 28 per cent of Australia's emissions. Emissions from covered sectors are among the fastest growing across the economy and are projected to overtake emissions from the electricity sector without policy action. Reducing emissions from safeguard facilities is therefore a crucial part of meeting our climate goals and maintaining Australia's industry competitiveness in a decarbonising global economy. In conclusion, I do think it is important that I reiterate the importance of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. It is the first chance in over 10 long years to finally get started on climate action that gets us toward net zero. It has broad support from multiple sectors across our population, multiple sectors across the community and multiple sectors across the economy, and that is why it is so important. Like I said before, the industry is calling for bipartisan support. So what I would say to the opposition is: get on board. We have a job to do to fix the climate, and this is the way we get there. 19:16 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan A couple of Fridays ago the Labor government approved 116 coal seam gas wells in Queensland, Santos gas wells. The approval is active until 2077. Santos is a major long-term donor to the Labor Party—but I will come back to that. The Labor government say that they are taking action on climate change, but they have just approved a significant gas expansion until 2077. The Labor government say that they are putting forward legislation that will end a decade of inaction on addressing emissions; yet they have approved a significant gas expansion on prime agricultural land to run for 2077. The Labor government say that they are going to end the climate wars. But what does that even mean if you are going ahead and approving 116 new gas projects to 2077—an expansion of a project that already has over 10,000 wells? The Labor government know that we need rapid emissions reductions, and that means at least no new coal and gas mines. They have been briefed by the best of the best on the science on all this repeatedly. They know and yet they have just approved 116 new coal seam gas wells for another 50 years. The government have seen the increase in bushfires and floods devastating our country, and they just approved 116 new gas wells for another 50 years. Forgive me for labouring that point, but this is absolutely crucial. A recent study by the International Energy Agency has shown that the methane emissions from coal and gas projects have been underestimated. They are in fact 60 per cent higher than Australia has reported. Methane is far more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. This means there is a high chance that the domestic emissions of even existing projects could wreck our chances of achieving even Labor's weak emissions reductions target, and yet the government have just gone ahead and approved more and have said that they intend to keep doing so. There are 117 new projects in the approvals pipeline. Let's look at those donations from Santos to the Labor Party that I mentioned. Over the last 10 years, Labor has taken over $700,000 in donations from Santos. In return, it seems Labor approves their gas projects. And what were Santos's profits last year? They have doubled—$3.7 billion last year alone. In fact, Labor has taken over $6 million in donations from coal, oil and gas companies over the last decade. And it is not just donations; these corporations by access to senior Labor staffers. These cash-for-access meetings and business forums mean that often senior Labor people are hearing more about the interests of coal and gas corporations than they are hearing about the interests of everyday people. Then there is the personnel swapping between coal and gas corporations and the Labor Party—the revolving door, as it is often called. Labor 's Queensland senator Anthony Chisholm worked for Santos between working as a strategist for the Labor Party and when he was elected to the Senate in 2016. Do you know what his role was? His role was providing advice on maintaining mainstream political support amid an ongoing campaign against the coal seam gas industry by environmental and landholder groups. That was his job description. And there are other examples from my home state in Queensland. Cameron Milner, a senior Labor strategist for a few years, was, while in his role in Labor, a lobbyist for coal and gas companies, including Adani. He is now a columnist for The Australian but that is a different story. So with the donations, the cash-for-access meetings and the personnel swapping, perhaps none us should be surprised when we get presented with a bill by the government that will be more in the interests of the coal and gas corporations than in the interests of the rest of us, more beneficial for the ongoing profits of coal and gas corporations than in line with what we know, and what they know from the science, we need to do to tackle the growing climate crisis. Those who have approved of this bill include Origin, Rio Tinto, Shell, Woodside. The Prime Minister boasted about this. If it seriously affected the operations of these fossil fuel corporations, which is what any climate legislation worth the paper it is written on would have to do, would these corporations be lining up behind it? No. Who has not approved of this bill? A report by research firm Climate Analytics concluded that, instead of reducing emissions as is urgently needed, this proposal would provide an avenue for fossil fuel companies to continue polluting at the expense of Australians and indeed the world facing worsening climate change impacts. The Climate Council are concerned that even existing coal and gas projects risk blowing the budget under these reforms. Greenpeace has also said that these reforms are way too weak and will not be effective in reducing emissions from our biggest climate polluters like Woodside, Chevron and Ampol. From the Australia Institute, '…there is a huge risk that by designing the Safeguard Mechanism to skyrocket demand for junk carbon credits, total emissions will actually increase.' So the coal and gas corporations support Labor's legislation, but all credible policy institutes and green organisations say it is no good. It is no good because, in its current form, this bill will see emissions go up. Why? There are a lot of reasons but the main one is it will allow Labor to continue to open up coal and gas mines. It is not just me saying this. This was conceded by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in a recent Senate estimates hearing. There are 117 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline with their recent approval of 116 coal seam gas wells, their support for fracking in the Beetaloo Basin, their support for Scarborough PIP 11. With all of these, it is clear that Labor will continue to give practically unconditional support to future coal and gas projects. They have said it themselves. They plan to approve more and more coal and gas projects. The domestic emissions from these alone will wreck our chances of reducing Australia's emissions, not to mention that they will lead to a massive increase in the emissions overseas and hold back other countries from making the transition to renewable energy by shifting potential investment away from renewables. We also, let me be clear, do not need new coal and gas in this country. If we regulated the industry and did not just allow corporations to export for maximum profits whatever they wanted to, we would have enough coal and gas supply to power us while we rapidly transition to new energy. We also don't need those exports for national wealth. The overwhelming majority of the wealth generated by these coal and gas mines goes offshore to wealthy overseas investors. A small fraction comes back to us, the Australian people. Most of these corporations pay little to no tax and they actually employ only a tiny number of individuals. Instead, with real investment in industries like green hydrogen, green steel, solar, wind and batteries, we could have a booming export industry that provides jobs, wealth and sustainable development in this country. We could be the clean energy superpower of the world, so come on, people. The safeguard mechanism is a Tony Abbott scheme, and Tony Abbott wanted nothing more than to safeguard coal and gas profits. Labor has made a few tweaks to a Tony Abbott scheme, changed its hat and shoes, and said, 'We have a solution to the climate crisis.' It is not. It is Tony Abbott's policy with a new hat and shoes. Labor is doing the same thing that Tony Abbott did—protecting the profits of coal and gas corporations. This safeguard bill from the government as it stands will lead to more coal and gas opening up and Australia's emissions going up. It's riddled with more holes. I just wanted to highlight two of them, because a full list would bore and depress the listeners to this speech outside this chamber. The first big issue is this: it relies heavily on carbon offsetting instead of direct emissions reduction. Carbon offsets mean that corporations pay others to not produce emissions. There are a number of major issues with this, obviously. Firstly, a coal and gas corporation can increase their carbon emissions while paying a company to not produce emissions that may never have been produced anyway. This will result in a net increase in emissions. Moreover, there are growing concerns that claims of offsetting just don't stand up to scrutiny. Recently, 90 per cent of carbon credits issued by Verra, which is a major carbon offset company used by Shell, were found to not represent real emissions reductions. Secondly, the cost of paying for these offsets is so low that many corporations will simply factor it into their projections, pay the cost and expand their emissions. Parliamentary Library analysis last year showed that the cost to big mining and gas companies to offset their emissions each year to be in line with the safeguard mechanism would amount to only 0.1 per cent of their annual profits. The second huge issue that's not spoken about enough is this: it still uses carbon intensity, not absolute carbon output, to set the threshold before the company has to start buying carbon credits. That just means that, instead of getting an overall cap on emissions a project can produce, the government will set a cap per unit. If a company expands production while changing operations to produce less carbon per unit of production, its overall emissions can go up while still receiving carbon credits from the government that it can sell on. After all of that and the many more holes that have been found, it's clear that Labor's tweaks to the safeguard mechanism will make the problem worse. Labor says we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. The hollowness of this phrase increases in direct proportion to its mechanical repetition, because this is not good legislation, and the Greens are not demanding the perfect. In fact, the Greens are demanding the good in the face of genuinely bad legislation that will actually take us backwards. All we're saying is, for now, let's just not make the problem worse. Let's ensure we don't open any new coal and gas mines. 19:27 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'll make a start on my contribution to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022, which I support. It makes an important change to a mechanism that we need if we're to tackle climate change and if we're to reduce carbon emissions in Australia and if we're to be part of global efforts to reduce carbon emissions across the board so that we don't get dangerous global warming and all of the extreme climate impacts that follow, which we've seen here in Australia. This measure picks up a significant shortcoming in the safeguard mechanism that the former government put in place but in a completely ineffective form. It was completely ineffective in a couple of different ways. Fundamentally, it didn't actually set an effective decarbonisation path, but it had another shortcoming, which was the inability for those who overachieve on their baseline emission reduction targets to be able to share the benefits of that overall performance with others covered by the mechanism who haven't met their baseline. That's a perfectly sensible and effective market mechanism in the task that we have before us. It goes precisely to what the shadow minister before asked over and over again in his 30-minute contribution: how? It's about the how. It's funny to have that question put by those opposite. To the extent that there was a question of how, from their point of view, it was: 'How do we do nothing?' or 'How have we done nothing?' or 'How do we pretend to so something while essentially doing nothing?' Those were the only forms of the question 'how' that they had any interest in. We're serious about achieving emissions reduction of 43 per cent by 2030, which will require 82 per cent renewable energy in the system by that stage. We're going to do it through our Powering Australia policy, and all of its elements set out the how. In about nine months worth of government, we've already begun to implement the measures that will get us there. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 101 ADJOURNMENT Renewable Energy 101 19:30 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon We all want our children to live in a cleaner world. We also want them to live in an Australia that is successful, independent and safe. In order to do this, our pathway to decarbonising the Australian economy must be ambitious, optimistic and aspirational, but it also needs to be practical and achievable. Last year the Albanese government took charge of our renewable energy transition and enshrined into law the emissions-reduction target of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. A key assumption in achieving this target is that Australia will generate 82 per cent of electricity from renewable sources, and Tasmania is playing a big part in that. We're a world leader, down in Tassie, in renewable energy generation, and we've been 100 per cent self-sufficient and renewable since 2020, largely thanks to hydro-electric schemes. We have 54 dams and 30 power stations which hold 26 per cent of Australia's fresh water in storage, and they're generating clean, green hydro-electricity. Now we're moving towards doubling that renewable energy target of generating 200 per cent of our current electricity needs by 2040. But the rest of mainland Australia is not so fortunate, and there's a lot of work to be done. In order to meet that 43 per cent reduction target, the speed and scale of that transition needs to be unprecedented. It has been estimated that in order to meet Labor's 2030 target over the next seven years we will need to install 22,000 solar panels every single day, build 40 wind turbines every single month and lay more than 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. These estimate assume that there will be no increase in demand for energy, and that seems highly unlikely. One also needs to factor in Labor's election promise to put 3.8 million new electric vehicles on the road by 2030. Where will the components of these EVs come from? Where will the materials for the wind turbines come from? The solar panels and transmission lines—where will all this raw material come from? It may seem counterintuitive, but the answer is: from our world-leading mineral sector—our mining industry. This emerging clean-energy sector is set to become a major force in mineral markets. Until the mid-2010s, for most minerals, the energy sector represented only a very small part of the total demand. However, global energy transition has gathered pace, and clean-energy technologies are becoming one of the fastest-growing segments of demand in the world. For example, a typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. The average conventional car comprises 22.3 kilograms of copper and 11.2 kilograms of manganese. The average EV, on the other hand, contains 53.2 kilograms of copper, 8.9 kilograms of lithium, 39.9 kilograms of nickel, 24½ kilograms of manganese, 13.3 kilograms of cobalt and 63.3 kilograms of graphite per vehicle. Whether in Tasmania or any other state, we cannot afford to demonise the mining sector, because they're the ones that are producing this stuff and they're going to be a working force in our renewable energy future. The fact is that mining is absolutely crucial and underpins our prosperity when it comes to renewables. We must be open-minded and steadfast in our advocacy for world-leading mining practices and the role they play in making our children's future better. The state of Tasmania has been a significant producer of minerals, particularly polymetallics, for more than 100 years. Mineral extraction and processing in Tasmania's largest export industry accounts for 50 per cent of our exports and 52 per cent of our state's GDP. That's where the west coast of Tasmania, in my electorate of Braddon, does all the heavy lifting. The ongoing viability of mining on the west coast is being threatened by red and green tape, by overregulation and by unjustified environmental activism. Our successful transition into a renewable energy future will require not only a change in mindset for many but also an acceptance that we need to actively promote and to increase— (Time expired) International Women's Day 102 19:35 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari This International Women's Day I want to pay tribute to the incredible women who are in my life. I come from a family of incredible women. My mother, Clare Mollomini, was a Tiwi woman. She stood strong in her community and always taught me to respect my culture. She called Wurrimiyanga, on Tiwi, her home, but her real country is over on Melville Island. The reason my mother called Bathurst Island her home has a long history not allowed by the time allocated in this adjournment debate. I come from a strong matrilineal line: my mother's line and her country. My mother raised eight daughters, each of whom has gone out to shape and advocate on a range of different issues for their communities. Raising young girls in addition to three sons was no easy task, but she set about it with kindness, love and strength. She kept us grounded and humble. She also kept us in line; when the streetlights went out, everyone knew that would be the time we sprinted home. We were never allowed to be out on the street. My mother taught us the Tiwi way: to be respectful and to help lift others up. She also taught us to be strong, to stand firm in our beliefs and never to fear or run away from those beliefs. My sisters are incredible women who have faced their own discrimination: my little sister Frankie, as a police officer in the Northern Territory; my sister Helen, who is a lawyer representing the Catholic Church; Lorraine, a policy coordinator for the South Australian government; Valerie and Marie, my older sisters running health and local government councils; my younger sister Wendy, who is working with Aboriginal men in behavioural change in the correctional system in the Northern Territory; and Jackie, my younger sister who is working hands on with women escaping domestic and family violence. My mother had limited or no education, but she and my father did not compromise on any of their children. My mother didn't give in and said to my father that she needed to strengthen our culture, language and identity as Tiwi. My father was the taskmaster, making sure that his children got what he didn't, and that was to go to school and get an education. There are many incredible women in our communities, particularly in Lingiari. I know their strengths and what those women bring to the table, but we must never forget that we stand here on the shoulders of those women. I know that I stand on the shoulders of my mother, her sister and all of those Tiwi women and the fights and the battles that they have had. I have seen many who have faced the challenges and the discrimination of being Black women—in particular from the patriarchal system in our communities. I have faced my share of sexist taunts, slurs and the belief that I can't face up to or match the men. When my mum was alive, I used to express my anger and frustration, and she always used to pat the seat next to her and say that I must deal with this with respect. Respect our men, respect our culture and do not undermine what that law was. That is something that has driven me for a long time. I want to give a big shout-out to a number of young women who have done a lot. They are my daughter Cherise, who is the senior psychologist for Top End Mental Health Services in Darwin and does a fantastic job; Helen, my youngest daughter, who is the governance and policy officer with the Tiwi Land Council; and my granddaughter Kiara, who is doing a double degree in psychology and law. These are young women who are the future, who are my future and who I know will go on to do bigger and better things. I have expressed how great it is to be part of a number of women in this chamber from a diverse range of cultural backgrounds. I am so proud to be part of this government, to be part of a number of really strong women who have done the hard yards in this place. I hope that I can walk in those shoes and match what they have done in this place for such a long time. To all of those women and particularly those Aboriginal women throughout the Lingiari electorate: I hope you have had some celebrations on this great International Women's Day. Northern Territory: Floods 103 19:40 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to update the House on the devastating floods that hit the Kimberley region my electorate of Durack. I was recently briefed by the department of fire and emergency services about the ongoing recovery efforts. It is clear that this is a continuing crisis that will require a significant amount of resources to manage. Roads, bridges and other key infrastructure have been destroyed. Many of the residents living in Fitzroy Crossing and the surrounding Indigenous communities were displaced. Small business owners have watched on as a lifetime of hard work literally washed down the drain. The flood is one of the worst catastrophes the Kimberley has faced in recent times. If it were not for the hard work of DFES; the main roads department; the ADF, whose personnel travelled from all parts of our nation to lend a hand; together with the hard-working local community organisations the result could have been far worse. The fact that not one life was lost during the flood is a testament to the hard work of the boots on the ground in the Kimberley. Seeing our troops in the many different uniforms working across those affected areas certainly boosted community morale. During my travels to Fitzroy I met with local leaders and received updates on how the recovery efforts were progressing. We all acknowledge that although great work is being done there is still such a long way to go. It is still raining in the Kimberley. DFES have continually advised that the Fitzroy River is dangerous because the water is moving fast and can rise quickly. It also has rubble and dangerous objects in it that may not be visible. The Department of Communities are still working to get people back to their homes and communities. It is important to recognise that up to 80 per cent of the homes in Fitzroy Crossing are owned by the WA state government. Mining dongas will be used as the first step in providing temporary accommodation. Recently, additional temporary accommodation has been announced in the form of humanihuts. These repurposed, climate controlled shipping containing like structures, with folding insulated walls, will be placed into Fitzroy Valley communities for people to live in whilst their homes are being repaired or rebuilt. Rebuilding may take some time, but my hope is that we can rebuild Fitzroy Crossing and the surrounding areas to suit the community needs and to avoid future flood damage. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable Australians here, people who need our ongoing support to help rebuild their lives after suffering from this natural disaster. I must stress that the economic recovery from this devastating flood event will be prolonged and challenging. An example of the flow-on effects from these floods is the very valid concerns regarding current workforce shortages. We are seeing this all around Australia. This is not a new topic of conversation. Local industry stakeholders are concerned existing shortages will be exacerbated by the floods, and rightly so. The East Kimberley Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted a request for a deed of variation to the designated area migration agreement, know as the DAMA, to extend this service across the whole of the Kimberley. I fully support this request, knowing that even prior to the floods we desperately required more workers in the Kimberley. I have spoken directly to the immigration minister on this issue in support of this extension. I want to acknowledge the current logistical nightmare that's being caused by the recent flooding in the Northern Territory. This is not the flooding of Fitzroy Crossing, but this is the recent flooding in the Northern Territory which has impacted people on both sides of the NT and WA border. The wet season in the Kimberley is always a time of both heat and heavy rainfall. As we expected, river levels have risen once again. Intense rainfall and bad weather have disrupted the supply of goods into the region since the start of the year, with many Kimberley businesses impacted. Kununurra is experiencing a severe food shortage, after being cut off by this recent flooding. The East Kimberley's sole freight route has now been locked, leaving the town's supermarkets battling with shortages and panic buying. I am pleased to hear that the ADF is going to provide aerial support and that DFES will provide food via Wyndham. Coles has a supermarket in Kununurra. Being one of our largest national supermarket chains, it has a continuing responsibility to ensure food supplies to the vulnerable residents of Kununurra and surrounding areas. So I say to Coles: please, please treat the East Kimberley with respect and do everything you can to ensure a consistent supply of food into Kununurra. That will help curb the panic buying and go some way to normalising the town and this wonderful community. Coles, please do better. International Women's Day 104 19:45 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid There is a card that I have in my office in Parliament House that is significant to me. It is a card Senator Penny Wong sent me after I delivered my first speech in this place. It is significant because of what Senator Wong means to me. She showed me that there was a place for someone like me in politics. I remember when I was working in this building 15 years ago when Senator Wong was sworn in as the first Asian born cabinet minister. It was a significant moment because it crystallised to me the idea that perhaps this country was ready for greater diversity in our parliament. I am floored by the idea that, 15 years later, I now get to step into this place to be part of a majority female government—the first time we have had a majority female federal government in our country's history. So, on this International Women's Day, that is what I would like to celebrate, as well as the record number of women in our cabinet. It is also significant that it comes some years after the Labor Party delivered our first female Prime Minister. Those achievements were not by accident; they were deliberate. A contentious debate was had in the party in the 1990s. It was one that we resolved in 1994, and that was to introduce quotas in our party. It was a hard decision but I think it was the right decision. That has been borne out in the make-up of our parliament today. It is important from a symbolic point of view, absolutely. But, more than that, it is important because of all the things that we have been able to achieve by having more women our parliament. It is no accident that it was during the Rudd and Gillard years that Jenny Macklin, the then minister for community services, introduced our country's first statutory paid parental leave. It was a policy that I directly benefited from a few years later when I had my own son, and it made the world of difference. Any parent will tell you that those first couple of years are the most rewarding but also the hardest. The ability to combine paid parental leave from my workplace as well as that provided by the government meant that I could take a full year off and spend time with my son. We now have a majority female federal government. In the first nine months of this Albanese-Labor government, what we have been able to achieve for women across the country includes expanded paid parental leave, improved affordability for child care, making gender equity an object of the Fair Work Act and introducing paid family and domestic violence leave. It gives me incredible pleasure and it is a great honour to be able to serve alongside people like Senator Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women. It is the first time that we have had a minister who has held both of those portfolios. It is a deliberate decision to put women's economic equality at the heart of decision-making in this government. I get to serve alongside people like the member for Newcastle, who has guided the federal parliament through the implementation of Jenkins review, to clean up the work culture in this building, and I think we all benefit from that. I get to serve alongside the member for Lingiari, who spoke so beautifully just then about the experiences she has had. And there is the member for Swan, the member for Higgins and Senator Payman. They are all incredible, extraordinary women from diverse backgrounds. I'm really excited to call these women my colleagues and my friends. But what excites me most is the knowledge that Labor women will come after me, and that they will build on the incredible legacy that the first majority female federal government has been able to lay. So that card that Senator Wong sent me is significant to me, but what is more significant was an interaction that I had in my electorate when a mum came up to me and said that she was proud of me, because I gave her daughter someone to look up to. Thank you. South Australia: Floods 104 19:50 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to update the House on what has been a once-in-a-generation high-water event in the river communities of South Australia. In fact, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority says the volume of water that has flown through the Murray between November and December of last year was the greatest recorded in 127 years. Whilst this additional flow has had huge environmental benefits for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong ecosystems, the high water levels have had some quite devastating impacts on property and community infrastructure. The South Australian State Emergency Service estimates 1,200 kilometres of roads have been impacted as well as almost 3,300 properties along the river corridor. That includes 360 principal homes. Some river towns are almost unrecognisable. Once small but thriving communities now resemble ghost towns, with residents unable to return to or stay in their properties. As the member for Barker, I have been keeping a close eye on emergency management of the flood. I took the approach that I would that ensure no-one was left behind in the lead up to it. I met with many people in smaller communities who felt that the state government agencies weren't providing them with the necessary information or support to prepare sufficiently. My office and I acted to support those who were feeling left behind, to ensure they had what they needed to be as prepared as possible. From a broader community point of view, and in my capacity as the assistant shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, impacted roads continue to be my focus. While I was keeping the Leader of the Opposition updated here in Canberra on the situation in the lead-up to peak flows, I was keen to show him firsthand the impact on the region's infrastructure once the peak had passed. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for accepting my invitation and spending two days with me along the river corridor in January. Approximately 1,200 kilometres of roads have been damaged by the floodwaters, as I said earlier. As the mayor of the Mid Murray Council recently put it, when you are on some of these roads it feels like you are 'playing leapfrog'. You are leaping from one section of bitumen to another section of bitumen as you drive down the road. My focus is to see flood mitigation on major roads that connect communities, and that is why I was pleased to be able to explain this position to the opposition leader when he visited. I'm talking about roads like Bookpurnong Road, which is a major Riverland thoroughfare, connecting the townships of Berri and Loxton. This road was cut off because of floodwaters for weeks. Approximately 5,000 vehicles a day usually travel along the road, and its closure meant that these vehicles had to take inconvenient detours, increasing travel times by approximately an hour, or 50 kilometres. So, while the flood peak has passed and communities are getting on with the clean-up, I am advocating for significant infrastructure upgrades to the roads that connect these communities. I want to see Bookpurnong Road raised, to floodproof it for the future. The Kingston Road through Moorook is in the same situation. This request is for a long-term, strategic plan, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears in the offices occupied by the South Australian Department for Infrastructure and Transport. While our Premier is focused on cost blowouts on the North-South Corridor, I am asking that the state government puts the same effort into the long-term infrastructure needs of our regional communities. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for spending two days out of his busy schedule to focus on South Australia's river communities in their time of need. I thank him for listening, both to the community and to my long-term vision to address the infrastructure needs in this region, including, importantly, the duplication of the Sturt Highway. The Sturt Highway is a major freight route connecting Adelaide to Sydney. The highway is of national economic importance, and ensuring efficient, productive and, above all, safe transport of goods is a priority. It may have been a once-in-a-generation flood, but let's not just get on with business as usual. Let's learn the lessons of this event. Let's ensure that we're better prepared next time, and there will be a next time. Let's ensure that government agencies are better coordinated and that residents are better supported with more accurate and timely information. Let's ensure that our road network is in the best possible condition it can be in to support communities to keep them connected. I don't think it's that much to ask. Maitra, Mr Ranesh 105 19:55 Dr I8M Parramatta CHARLTON () (): I rise to pay tribute to Mr Ranesh Maitra, who recently passed away at the age of 89. Ranesh is remembered as a lifelong warrior for social justice, a veteran of the Bangladesh language movement and a father who instilled in his children a sense of purpose in their political activism. Driven by his belief in a social justice, self-determination and civil rights, Ranesh was an unstoppable force right from his youth. As a student, Ranesh helped found the East Pakistan Students Union, a leading, progressive student organisation with over 10,000 members united in the fight for student and youth rights. Ranesh quickly rose through its ranks, becoming the vice-president of its first committee and laying the groundwork for the organisation's modern-day success. Thus began a long career as a political activist. In the decades that followed, Ranesh held several senior political offices as part of his mission to bring justice for people in the face of oppression and persecution. For his work, Ranesh would often be the target of oppression himself. He spent much of his life in Pakistan as a political prisoner. In fact, he spent a staggering 14 years in total as a prisoner for his activism. But, even while in prison, Ranesh refused to be silenced. From his cell, he continued to advocate for the freedom of others. He studied law and learned to write powerful messages to help realise his dream of a Bangladesh where all people, irrespective of their creed and caste, would be treated equally. His dedication to this cause even impressed his cellmates, one of whom was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father of Bangladesh. In his memoirs, Rahman wrote of Ranesh's passion and idealism, recognising Ranesh's place in the founding story of the Bangladeshi nation. His idealism, his drive and his talent were a potent combination that served him well as an activist and as a journalist. Throughout his life, Ranesh combined his political goals with his interest in journalism, becoming a prolific writer by the early 1950s, even serving as the former Pabna district correspondent of the Daily Star newspaper. By the end of his life, Ranesh had authored over a dozen books and was recognised in 2018 with the second highest civilian award in Bangladesh, the Ekushey Padak. Today, his writings are recognised as valuable contributions to the history of Bangladesh's politics and are an essential guide to any curious reader interested in the fight for civil rights in Bangladesh. Ranesh's love for the written word translated to his activism in the field. A proud Bengali, Ranesh was captured by the ideals of the Bengali language movement, sparked by a desire for the then nation of East Pakistan to have Bengali as its official language. He was so inspired that he established the local Pabna district language movement in 1952, an achievement which earned him recognition as one of the heroes of the Bengali language movement. Ranesh is survived by his wife, Gita Talukdar, and his four children. I'm incredibly fortunate to have his eldest son, Prabir, live in my electorate of Parramatta. Like his father, Prabir is also a pioneer in political activism. Elected in 2008, he broke barriers by being the first subcontinent-born councillor on Parramatta City Council. Prabir is also a passionate champion for social justice. A secretary of the Westmead Labor branch, Prabir is known for his ability to give a voice to those less fortunate and bring people together. He holds an annual Christmas party at his home, where he and his wife, Apana, welcome people of all backgrounds, irrespective of their creed or caste, to celebrate and connect with one another. The strength of this community speaks volumes about his dedication to serving others. It's my honour to pay tribute to a lifelong warrior for social justice, a veteran of the Bangladeshi language movement, a father who instilled in his children a sense of purpose in their political activism. Ranesh Maitra showed us that true leadership is defined by dedication to your community. Thank you for all that you've taught us. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 106 NOTICES Presentation 106

Wednesday, 8 March 2023

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 107 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Corryong College, Regional Education Support Network 107 09:30 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I've spoken many times in this place about the educational challenges that young people face in rural, remote and regional Australia. Today I'll speak on how some of our students overcome the odds. Located in the Upper Murray, along the New South Wales-Victorian border, is Corryong College, where about 260 students attend. Today I want to speak about the 2022 cohort of Corryong year 12 students who recently graduated. These graduates started their VCE journey amidst the Black Summer bushfires, during which some lost their homes and their school became an evacuation centre. In the wake of those devastating bushfires, before anyone had a chance to process and recover from had happened, their community was dramatically affected by the COVID lockdowns. This saw their many friends and support networks isolated for months on the other side of the closed New South Wales-Victorian border. Remote learning was truly remote for these students, their teachers and families and they had the additional burden of very poor internet. The students rose above these challenges, and Corryong College was ranked in the top 10 best government schools for VCE results in 2022—an extraordinary result. These young people endured and overcame much trauma and still came out on top. Corryong is famous for its legends of the high country and these young people, their teachers and families are no exception. They are absolute legends. In recognition of unique difficulties that rural students face, I draw the House's attention to a fabulous program called the Regional Education Support Network, RESN. A few weeks ago here at Parliament House I attended a presentation from this group. RESN is a not-for-profit student network that offers rural and regional students free educational supports, such as tutoring, mentoring and access to study resources. It currently provides assistance to 1,400 students across regional Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. With me on the day of that presentation was a young volunteer from Indi, Anika Goebel, who was working in my office prior to starting university here in Canberra. She was so impressed with RESN that she immediately signed up as a volunteer tutor. In my electorate of Indi, 450 young people have made use of this invaluable service over a four-year period, and that figure continues to grow. Amelie Walker of Mansfield successfully used the tutoring services. She is now enrolled at the University of Melbourne to complete a Bachelor of Arts. She travelled from Mansfield and is now living in Melbourne. Indi students are reaping the rewards of RESN to overcome the disadvantage they regularly face when compared to their inner-city peers. I'm so proud of the young people of Indi. I encourage students all over regional Australia to engage with the RESN program. Volunteering 107 09:33 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Volunteers are an integral part of our society. They are the glue which binds communities together. In my electorate of Scullin countless volunteers dedicate so much of their time, energy and skills towards improving our community. This is why last Friday I held a Scullin community volunteer awards ceremony to recognise many deserving people in the community. I was particularly pleased to be able to do this after the disruptions of the last several years—a period in which the work of volunteers had been particularly important in holding people together through the challenges of the pandemic and lockdowns. It is so important that we come together as a community to recognise and thank volunteers. I give a shout-out to a particular young woman—Audrey, a 10-year-old from Thomastown. Out of her own concern, she spends her Sundays going to the local park to pick up rubbish. Out of her concern for the amenity of the place in which she lives, this 10-year-old girl is making a real difference and inspiring others. She has been doing this every Sunday since last October and has inspired others to do the same. Audrey, your work is amazing and an inspiration. I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank—although time doesn't permit me to detail the contributions—all those who were recognised at the award ceremony. I'd like to make this point as well: all of these people were recognised by their peers. All of these people were identified by others in the community who saw the difference they make. I want to also thank those nominators, those people who look around them to those who inspire them to make a difference. As well as Audrey, I want to acknowledge in this place Krysti Severi; Hansikaa Sharma; Frank Torcasio; Regina Leung-Huning—and it was so wonderful to see there Regina's daughter, Emily, who's been going through some hard times; Emily, you're in my thoughts now, too—Cherian Peter; Kerryn Holland; Celia Mungcal; Anastasia Xenophontos; Maria Lentile; Carl Reid; Sandra Arceri; Angela Petrucci; Mary Binisoska; Parvinder Singh; Andy Whincup, who makes amazing coffee; Abdullah and Muzna Siddiqui; Connie Testagrossa; Jai Schilling; Noreen Elliot; and Tanya Sharma. I'm so proud that I was able to meet with these volunteers, personally thank them and acknowledge the enormous contribution they make. They have made an enormous difference to the community and through their example will no doubt inspire others to do so. It is important that we acknowledge these selfless contributions in this place, Australia's parliament, because it is indeed volunteers who make community and volunteers who make a difference. Broome Air Raids: 81st Anniversary 108 09:36 Ms 249308 Durack PRICE (—) (): On Friday of last week I was honoured to speak at and to be a part of the commemorations for the 81st anniversary of the Broome air raids, held at Bedford Park in Broome. On 3 March 1942, Broome was forever changed. The town was rocked by the second-worst air raid in Australia's history, with Japanese bombers destroying much of the town and leaving a trail of destruction and devastation in their wake. The loss of life was substantial, with reports of up to 88 lives lost—unimaginable for such a small town. One witness from that fateful day was quoted as saying: They left a trail of smoke behind them and set fire to everything they hit. In a few minutes the whole harbour was covered by a pall of thick, black smoke, through which it was impossible to observe what was going on. During the service—which was made even more poignant because we were unable to gather last year for the 80th anniversary, due to Tropical Cyclone Anika and COVID restrictions—I was reminded of the bravery and the sacrifices that were made during those dark days in World War II. I was certainly reminded of the hardships faced back then, and our history shows that the people of Broome were and always have been tough, resilient and determined. For those lucky enough to have visited our magical town of Broome, you may already know that it is much more than just those beautiful pearls and the beautiful beach, with Cable Beach having been crowned the third-best beach in the world. And of course there are those famous sunsets and also those camels. I know that Madam Deputy Speaker is very familiar with those! Broome is a place that is rich in history and culture, a place where the community is made up of people from all walks of life, people who have always been strong and resourceful and who are proud to call Broome home. It is a town which proudly displays and celebrates its cultural background and diversity, and rightly so. On that hot Broome morning last Friday, it felt like we stood together not just as a community but as a family. We mourn together, but we also move forward together. We must also forgive and learn from the lessons of the past. These lessons have never been more important to heed, given the current uncertain geopolitical environment that we live in. I commend all those who were involved, including the Shire of Broome, Broome RSL sub-branch, the St Mary's College drama and dance students, the Broome Primary School choir, Vanessa Mills from ABC Kimberley and our fabulous ADF representatives, for what was a very moving and thought-provoking service. It was wonderful to be joined by so many community members and by our friends and partners from Japan, the UK and the Netherlands. May we never forget the sacrifices made by our servicemen and our citizens, men, women and children alike, on that day in Broome on 3 March 1942. Lest we forget. International Women's Day 108 09:39 Mr GE DZY Adelaide ORGANAS () (): Today is International Women's Day, and I'd like to wish everyone a happy International Women's Day. I want to mark this occasion by acknowledging all the women in my electorate and around the world. Today is not about recognising those women who, despite the inequality that still exists, have managed to become leaders in their fields, as commendable as these achievements are. Today is about recognising all women and girls and reflecting on what we need to do to create real gender equality. This government is the first majority-women federal government in Australia. The fact that this is seen as a great achievement in itself tells us there is still a long way to go. But progress is not inevitable; it takes work and commitment. This government has made it a priority to tackle gender inequality. We've recently introduced a bill which will publish gender pay gaps of employees of companies with 100 or more workers, to drive transparency and action towards closing the gender pay gap. We've increased paid parental leave, made childcare cheaper and increased paid leave for people facing domestic violence. But we know there is still significant inequality facing women. One in two women have experienced harassment in their lifetime, compared to one in four men. Women over 55 are the fastest-growing group of people experiencing homelessness. Women do more unpaid work than men, even when they're the primary breadwinners. Thirty per cent of Australian men don't believe that gender inequality exists—and that's sad, because that's more than the global average of 21 per cent. Clearly, there's much more to be done. To achieve real change, we must listen to women, and this is why we released the survey so that women can share their experiences, their thoughts and their feedback and inform the National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality. This is why, today, we are releasing the Status of women report card, which will highlight the reality of life for women in Australia and remind us of the progress that we still need to achieve in this country. The report card will come out annually, to show what progress is being made and what challenges women and girls in Australia are still facing. This is an area where we can only really achieve change if we all work together. That starts by recognising that there is a problem and listening to women. So, today, I want to use International Women's Day to acknowledge all the women and girls. I pledge to do all I can to listen and act. Banking and Financial Services: Bank Closures in Regional Australia 109 09:42 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'd like to thank Senator Matt Canavan very much for his perseverance in getting the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee to do a year-long study into the closure of regional and rural banks. We've been particularly hard hit in South Australia and in the electorate of Grey. In fact, in South Australia, at the peak, we had 228 rural and regional banks, and we're now down to 67—a fall of 71 per cent. In the last five or six years alone, I think I've lost 25 banks out of the electorate of Grey, and, of course, these closures cause a lot of difficulty in individual communities when they occur. Largely, they learn to adapt, and I understand that now so much of the world of banking is done on these things that sit in our pockets. But, having said that, there is always a percentage of the population that won't easily adapt and a number of businesses that are highly inconvenienced. Now, often it depends on how far away you are from the next community. At the moment, we're dealing with two bank closures in Grey. One is in Coober Pedy. You could not get much more isolated than Coober Pedy, let me tell you. It's around 800 kilometres from Adelaide, 500 kilometres from Port Augusta and a similar distance from Alice Springs. The Westpac bank in Coober Pedy announced it would close, and it closed about two weeks ago. Given that the major banks, CBA and Westpac, have announced the decision to halt major regional bank closures, for the extent of this inquiry, I have written to Westpac and asked them to reopen that branch—it's only been shut about two weeks—and supported the Coober Pedy council in that endeavour. Coober Pedy has a large immigrant and elderly population—people who are not well adapted to the cashless economy, if you like. For banks that are making profits of around $5 billion-plus per year, I think they can keep a branch like Coober Pedy open. I've been recently informed that NAB are closing their Roxby Downs branch. Roxby Downs is a young and vibrant community of about 4½ thousand people or thereabouts. It's the only bank in town—and, sure, the population there is more adapted to electronic banking, but this closure still will create enormous difficulties there. When I spoke to NAB, they told me they were closing the bank. They are pausing closures around Australia—but not Roxby Downs. They informed me that the reason they're closing Roxby Downs is that they can't staff it. A lot of businesses can't staff their business at the moment, and we've managed to keep the doors open one way or another. So I'm calling on both those major banks to dig into those major profits and find a way to keep those branches open at least until this inquiry is concluded. Chisholm Electorate: Community Events 109 09:45 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Deputy Speaker Claydon, happy International Women's Day. There is always so much wonderful community activity in Chisholm, and it is a terrific honour to be able to inform the parliament and the nation of some of the many events and developments that have been taking place. Our community has always had a strong connection to visual arts in Australia, with the Box Hill artists' camp being a significant place for the Australian Impressionists. That is a connection that continues to this day. So it was my absolute pleasure and privilege to open smART 2023, the fifth annual small works art exhibition at the Track Gallery in Mount Waverley. This exhibition is a real highlight on the calendar and is a platform for all artists in the community, regardless of their experience, to showcase their art. We even had Aileen, at 103 years old, who started painting in her 90s, exhibit her beautiful paintings. I'd like to thank the organisers for inviting me and congratulate them on their magnificent efforts in curating such a wonderful show, and of course all to artists who contributed their works. I also recently attended the On the Street exhibition at Artspace in Box Hill. It was wonderful to see the creative lens taken to familiar streetscapes, which were rendered new and fresh and spectacular by the artists. Well done to all who contributed to that. I spoke at the opening of smART 2023 about Creative Australia and our cultural policy,Revive, and that was so warmly received by the creative community we have in Chisholm. I've also had the opportunity to engage in a lot of activities with our schools recently. At Kingswood College, it was wonderful to welcome new principal Chrissy Gamble. I felt extremely honoured to be invited to the inauguration service for her arrival. I was really touched by the beautiful ceremony and the thoughtful reflections from parents, students and teachers, and I thoroughly enjoyed the beautiful music performed by the choir. I also attended the grand opening of the Nido Early School, an early education centre in Chadstone. It was just so special to be welcomed by Peta and the team. There was a gorgeous smoking ceremony and a generous welcome to country by Wurundjeri elder Uncle Colin Hunter. It was fabulous to see the rooms children will be learning in, and I wish the team every success. Our government really values the early years. We have around 7,200 families that will benefit from our early childhood education policies that make child care cheaper. I'm really proud to be part of a government that values everyone from the very youngest to the very oldest in our community. Health Care 110 09:48 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden The Labor government's decision to cut additional Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions is callous and insensible to the pain Australians are currently experiencing. Mental health support could not be more critical during a cost-of-living crisis, with energy bills skyrocketing and many families struggling with basic necessities. This decision by those opposite is a blatant cut to Medicare—let's be very clear about it—showing a complete disregard for the importance of accessible mental health support for Australians, particularly as communities continue to face difficult times. Instead of proactively working to continue to improve mental health support, particularly for Australians with complex needs, the Labor government has completely cut support for everyone. The government are ignoring the needs of the community, the expert advice from healthcare professionals and of course the independent evaluation they commissioned. The independent evaluation of the Better Access initiative has recommended that the additional 10 sessions should continue to made available and should be targeted towards those with complex mental health needs—statement of the bleeding obvious. The Labor government has got to stop the irresponsible attack on the mental health services that Australians rely on, and has to explain why it has gone against recommendation 12 of the review and the needs of vulnerable Australians by cutting this support. Unfortunately, for students of history and for those who have been in this place longer than five minutes, this is a tragic repeat of history, as the current health minister cut the same program in 2011; you wouldn't read about it! It is another example of this Labor government making it up as they go along, and, when that fails, reverting back to failed notebooks from decades ago. As mental health minister in the Gillard government in 2011, Minister Butler cut the same program from 18 annual sessions to 10—extraordinary! Labor's history in the health portfolio is not pretty. When last in government, they couldn't list all the medicines recommended for the PBS, let alone make them cheaper. Labor stopped listing medicines on the PBS in 2011. They cut funding for mental health services and for the private health insurance rebate, all because they couldn't manage the economy back then. The Prime Minister and the health minister have demonstrated that the Labor government is once again prioritising pet projects against the mental health of Australians. They are cherrypicking from the report they commissioned and pointing to accessibility issues. You would think the solution to access would be to invest in the program and to increase the workforce. Instead, those opposite have decided to slash accessibility, tighten the entitlement and force those suffering from mental health to rush in their treatments—postponing lifesaving therapy because the Albanese government can't manage the economy. It's not new but it's still appalling. Cystic Fibrosis 110 09:51 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I want to make the parliament aware of a particular issue that I think is very unfair. As you know, the government, under health minister Mark Butler, introduced funding for continuous blood glucose monitoring technology for people over the age of 21 with diabetes. This is a very important way of making sure people keep their blood sugars under control. It reduces the side effects from diabetes and reduces hospitalisation, and saves the health system a lot of money. It has been great for adults as well as children to use this technology. However, there is a small group of people with diabetes for whom that funding has been denied once they turn 21—that is, people with cystic fibrosis related diabetes. Cystic fibrosis causes a number of problems, but in particular it causes pancreatic damage from the build-up of very sticky secretions. This destroys the islet cells, where insulin is produced. It's exactly the same defect in cystic fibrosis related diabetes as in type 1 diabetes—that is, lack of insulin. It's not type 2 diabetes, where there is insulin resistance; this is damage to the pancreas so you cannot produce insulin. It is exactly the same defect. But the department of health classifies this not as type 1 diabetes but as diabetes related to cystic fibrosis. Therefore, even though they have the same defect as others with type 1 diabetes, these people are being denied funding for continuous blood glucose monitoring. It really is a bureaucratic, ridiculous defect in our system, and it should be changed. It's a very small number of people. It includes people who, because of their cystic fibrosis, often have chronic lung disease and may have even, as adults, had a lung or heart-lung transplant. They have huge costs for medicines and things, but, because of this one definitional, bureaucratic, ridiculous defect, they are being denied funding. I call on the parliament in a bipartisan way—because the same issue was there in the last parliament, under the Liberal-National government, where these people were denied this funding. I think it is a minor issue, and it is something that could be changed with the stroke of a pen. It would enable people with cystic fibrosis and diabetes to get on with their lives and have much better blood glucose control, less hospitalisation and better health overall. Armoun, Mr Milad 111 09:54 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to highlight the plight of Mr Milad Armoun, who has been arrested by the Iranian regime, with very spurious due process and, regrettably, like countless people in Iran at the moment, faces a frightening prospect, potentially of execution, without any of the fundamental human rights that he, like any citizen of our planet, deserves. I have taken the opportunity to write to the Iranian ambassador, to put a face to the plight of so many people in Iran who are facing persecution, particularly those who have been incarcerated on very curious—in many cases, no doubt, spurious—charges, and who face the ultimate potential outcome, of execution, in appalling circumstances. There is strong evidence that he has been subjected to torture as part of the incarceration that he is enduring. I don't single him out because he is any different to the countless other people who are facing persecution from that regime, but I want to put an identity to someone as part of an effort that many politicians across the globe are doing to make it very clear to the Iranian regime that we are following very closely the way in which they are treating their own citizens. We will do all we can to make sure they know that what we are observing in the way in which they are treating these people is something that we will fight, and we will absolutely remember, particularly, the specific members of the regime who are perpetrating these injustices upon their own citizens. I commend to the parliament the work of the Senate committee that has recently issued its report regarding the situation in Iran. I want to work in a bipartisan way as a parliament and I strongly encourage Minister Wong to look at those recommendations and, in particular, the opportunity to declare the Iranian republican guard a terrorist organisation, to put in place some Magnitsky sanctions against members of the Iranian regime and to downgrade the status of the Iranian diplomatic mission here in this country. I think we need to come together as parliamentarians to send a very clear and strong message, particularly in international fora, about how we regard that regime and look at the opportunity to oppose them participating in any UN related organisations and others where we have the ability to exercise a vote. We need to come together and condemn the atrocities that are occurring in Iran. Women's Health 111 09:57 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Greetings to everyone on International Women's Day. Today it is essential that we acknowledge the crucial role that women play in our society. However, despite our significant contributions, women's health and wellbeing have been neglected for far too long. Women face a unique set of health challenges in this world. From delayed diagnosis to overprescribing and dismissal of pain or other symptoms, there are unique challenges that women and girls face that lead to poorer health outcomes. On International Women's Day, we must take a moment to recognise the importance of improving this situation. Today I want to focus mainly on the issue of low screening rates in my electorate of Holt when it comes to two diseases that predominantly affect women: breast cancer and cervical cancer. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. Approximately 57 Australians are diagnosed each and every day. That equates to over 20,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year. One woman under the age of 40 is expected to die each week from breast cancer. The statistics are a little better for cervical cancer, but that does not remove the fact that women bear the brunt of it. Early detection is among the best ways to avoid breast cancer or cervical cancer, and it is only possible with regular screening. Unfortunately, research by the South Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network found that, in my electorate of Holt, only 42 per cent of women participate in regular screening for breast cancer and only 49.9 per cent undergo screening for cervical cancer. Establishing the National Women's Health Advisory Council will go a long way in addressing the stark differences in the health outcomes for women and girls. In Australia, women fall through the cracks due to 'medical misogyny', and I'm confident that the council, chaired by the able and experienced Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, will find effective ways to address this problem. Women and girls require tailored and targeted health care that recognises and reflects their experiences and outcomes. On International Women's Day, I am proud to say that the Albanese Labor government is leading the way in making this a reality. Happy International Women's Day! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 112 BILLS Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023 112

Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023

Second Reading 112 10:00 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders In continuation from yesterday on the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023, it is proposed that the functions be absorbed by the Australia Council, now to be known as Creative Australia. It is worth noting briefly here that the Australia Council has tried its hand at philanthropic activity in the past without, one might say, resounding success. In my time on the board, a co-investment subcommittee eventually dissipated in terms of both activity and focus but for the Venice Biennale, which has engaged broadly and successfully across Australia's philanthropic community to mount extremely successful exhibitions at the Australian Pavilion since the 1980s. However, this has usually been done by setting up a committee external to the Australia Council to undertake the huge two-year fundraising task as well as the design of bespoke programs offered to recognise donors and supporters alike. These are not the usual—nor, may it be said, necessarily comfortable—tasks for public servants engaged by the Australia Council, who discharge their functions with accountability to the sector but also to the taxpayer. The bill suggests that all employees of Creative Partnerships Australia but for the CEO will be transferred to Creative Australia, but it is not yet clear whether the state capital city based offices of Creative Partnerships currently located in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane will be retained. Those offices provide a low-cost local link to Creative Partnerships Australia for arts organisations and artists nationwide—something from which the Australia Council for the Arts could benefit, given that it is solely headquartered in inner Sydney. It is important to recognise those who have contributed to the success of Creative Partnerships Australia. The board has included Catherine Walter, Dan Rosen, Natasha Bowness, Rosheen Garnon, Leonard Varey, Carol Schwartz, Samantha Meers and the great Rupert Myer. I also thank all of those who have donated through CPA and made a real difference to arts and culture in this country. The amendments will require Creative Australia to deliver the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia including the attraction and recognition of public- and private-sector support for, and philanthropic and private investment in, the arts and the undertaking of research on public- and private-sector investment. There is indeed some crossover with a new approach, recently established by the Myer Foundation, in partnership with the Sidney Myer Fund, the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation and the Ian Potter Foundation, among others. A new approach led by my former colleague on the Australia Council board, Kate Fielding, undertakes magnificent research in and around Australian culture. I highly recommend it. In essence, the great loss from this change will be the disappearance of a dedicated entity focused on the delicate and—for many in the public sector—the sometimes daunting task of philanthropy. The transfer will bring together private arts philanthropy and public arts funding within the one entity, the cultures of which are quite distinct and not always compatible. It will be interesting to see how the new philanthropic arm of Creative Australia is established and operated so as to not lose the remarkable energy and activity around private support for the arts and culture which has been an element of cultural endeavour since the beginning of time. Till then, I wish those involved patience and courage with the transition. 10:04 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Before I begin this discussion of the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023, I'd like to wish happy International Women's Day to all—particularly to my wife Lea who is 1,300 kilometres away, having just taken one son to school and another one to uni and, no doubt, cooking, cleaning and doing everything else that she does, as well as holding down a job. So happy International Women's Day, Lea! Now to the matter at hand. A new chapter in the Australia's cultural story began recently when Prime Minister Albanese and Minister Burke launched the nation's new cultural policy, Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place. Revive is the comprehensive road map that the arts and cultural communities have been asking for, after close to a decade of wandering around the LNP's featureless desert. Culturally, the nation has just experienced a lost decade under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Compared to the coalition's efforts over the last decade, I saw more culture in my son Leo's lunchbox that he left in his school bag over the Christmas holidays. There was plenty of action under Ministers Brandis, Fifield and Fletcher, but the deeds were either cruel cuts or deliberate neglect. I will never forget, nor will I forgive, the Morrison government for almost completely cutting out the arts during the pandemic, when every theatre was closed down. They had to be embarrassed, eventually, into doing something. At the time, everyone understood the need for the cancellation was for health reasons, leading to the closure of almost an entire industry reliant on bums on seats through indoor music halls and galleries to large music and cultural festivals and all those artistic endeavours. But for the Morrison government to simply abandon an entire industry in possibly its greatest hour of need was shameful. Perhaps, it was all because the Prime Minister of the day didn't want to be seen hanging around with the sort of people that he used tread the boards with back when he was an eager child actor. His deliberate, cruel and shameful act ignored the fact that our artists are both creators and workers. Our storytellers do a job. The arts sector is an essential part of our both culture and economy and Labor understands this. Art and culture touches and impacts all areas of government, from cultural diplomacy and foreign affairs, right through to health and education. The arts are so important to our nation, and Revive will set the arts sector on a new trajectory with fresh momentum. This bill is an important component that will be a part of forging that vision and facilitating an upward trajectory. It will give effect to elements of Revive that are required to be in place by July 2023, one of which includes Creative Australia becoming the new business name for the Australia Council. Since 1975, the Australia Council has been the principal Commonwealth arts investment and advisory body with a strong, proud history and profile in the arts sector. It supports and promotes creative arts practice that is recognised nationally and, more importantly, I would suggest, internationally. It provides research and advocacy on issues affecting the sector. Its funding and independence was severely compromised under Ministers Brandis, Fifield and Fletcher. The days of such myopic, petty interference are behind us, thankfully. A restored and modernised Australia Council, known as Creative Australia, will have that strength and capacity. It will provide for greater strategic oversight and engagement right across the sector and ensure that funding decisions continue to be made on the basis of artistic merit, and not at the whim of the government of the day. Who wants colour coded spreadsheets completed by ministers—against advice—when it comes to important arts funding decisions? Maybe there's a Victorian senator with a clay target shooting club that might be in need of a bit of arts funding, but that won't be the way of the future. The implementation of the Australia Council reforms under the national cultural policy will be staged to allow for necessary consultation right across the sector, and, as mentioned earlier, some of these are required to be implemented by 1 July. Additional functions in this bill will enable the Australia Council to commence work on the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces and Music Australia. This centre will work with artists, industry workers and employers to raise and maintain safety standards for all art forms and ensure that matters are referred to relevant authorities when appropriate. The centre will also provide advice on issues of pay, welfare and the development of codes of conduct and resources for the sector. It's no secret that the arts sector has a poor track record when it comes to working conditions. A report from 2021 noted that 45 per cent of Australia's arts and cultural workers were in casual or insecure roles, with all the housing and family problems that come with that. The gender pay gap in the arts is nine per cent wider than in other sectors of the economy. Sadly, the music industry continues to make headlines for widespread bullying and sexual harassment. Meanwhile, the sector is struggling to attract and retain workforce talent. It's clear that things need to change, and the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will be at the heart of that much-needed change. The second aspect of the policy will see Music Australia support the Australian music industry to grow, including through strategic initiatives, industry partnerships, research, training and skills development, and export promotion, which is something I think we need to do more and more of in our part of the world. Australia has such a rich history of producing some of the best music in the world. I can think of The Easybeats, The Saints, AC/DC, INXS, Paul Kelly, Powderfinger, Divinyls, Silverchair, Hilltop Hoods, The Go-Betweens, Nick Cave, Midnight Oil and—my special favourite—The Triffids, and that's just to name a few. On reflection, this list of bands and musicians might reflect my age and maybe the parliamentary band's song list! Also, what about Gang of Youths, Baker Boy and Thelma Plum, for people born this century? The Albanese government wants to foster new, up-and-coming artists to make their mark not just here on our shores but right across the world. What a message it would be to take to Asia to have someone like Thelma Plum, a First Nations artist, engaging with the Pacific and Asia. A follow-up bill will be introduced later this year to establish these critical bodies, and ongoing consultation with the sector will inform the subsequent legislation. The bill will provide authority for the Australia Council to deliver the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia. This will include the attraction and recognition of public and private sector support for the arts, and the undertaking of research on public and private investment in the arts. This increased access to private-sector funding will maximise the impact of public investment and support a sustainable arts sector. The transfer of Creative Partnerships Australia's functions will leverage the Australia Council's ongoing expertise and bring together arts philanthropy and arts funding within the one entity. It will create synergies between public and private partnerships, as well as between government and philanthropic investment. The bill allows the Australia Council to assume responsibility for the Australian Cultural Fund from 1 July this year, including all donations made into the fund prior to the transfer. The Australian Cultural Fund is an important mechanism utilised by Creative Partnerships Australia to deliver on its objectives to grow the Australian culture of giving to arts by bringing together donors, businesses, artists and arts organisations. Through this legislation, the Australia Council will assume responsibility for assisting Australian artists and arts organisations to attract and maintain support from donors and businesses; diversifying their sources of revenue; and encouraging and celebrating innovation and excellence in giving to, and partnerships with, the arts and cultural sector—great goals. Under the bill, Creative Partnerships Australia Ltd will cease to exist and will be taken to be deregistered under the Corporations Act at the transition time. The bill also includes transitional elements to support a smooth transfer of functions, and the bill seeks to modernise provisions of the act relating to constitutional limitations. The Albanese government is committed to improving the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector and to strengthening and streamlining access to support, including for artists and arts organisations. A properly resourced Australia Council is key to delivering on this commitment. The transfer of the functions of and funding for Creative Partnerships Australia to the Australia Council will align with this objective. Timely passage of this bill will allow these initiatives to commence from 1 July, for the broader benefit of the artists and arts organisations. It will ensure continuity of business between Creative Partnerships Australia and the Australia Council. These transitional elements cover the transfer of assets, liabilities, records and staff entitlements—all crucial. It will ensure that, at the time of transfer, employees of Creative Partnerships Australia will be taken to be Australia Council employees and receive equivalent accrued entitlements and benefits. Lastly, we'll also establish independent bodies and funds for First Nations arts and culture, for contemporary music and for writers. We have over 65,000 years of stories and 65,000 years of culture to promote, support and fund. This nation is home to the world's oldest living continuous culture, some of the world's oldest artworks, the world's oldest songs and stories. There is nowhere else in the world where you can tap into this knowledge, experience and culture to produce traditional art and music, and what a message it is to take to the rest of the world. We also have the opportunity to create some of the best contemporary art and music from First Nations people that needs to be not only celebrated but, importantly, supported. This nation definitely believes in a place for every story and a story for every place. 10:15 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I am honoured to speak on this bill, the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill. Most of us in this building have some connection to the arts within our community. We certainly have consumers of the arts; that's something that's important to all of us. For those of you who have been to the Speaker's office, there are two Sydney Nolan paintings there, the Ned Kelly paintings. They were painted at the Heide Museum of Modern Art, in my electorate. I've told the Speaker that he should be very careful; that shows a bias to Menzies! He assured me that he will never show a bias for the member for Menzies! I trust him on that. We've heard that this is the first of a series of bills that will support the implementation of the government's national cultural policy. The coalition does acknowledge this is a continuation of coalition policy. In fact it is a rebranding exercise. At its foundation, it comes from the national cultural policy, Revive, which was announced on 30 January of this year, that being a five-year plan for the arts. We're often told in the chamber about all of the bad things that happened under the previous government. I understand that. Maybe there's a statute of limitations on when that will stop, but it still happens. So let me indulge in some achievements in this area from the previous coalition government. There was a $50 million Temporary Interruption Fund provided directly to screen producers. In 2020 and 2021, there was more than $370 million invested in Australian local content through the Australian Children's Television Foundation, Screen Australia, the production offset and the post-digital visual effects offset. That producer offset for television content was raised by the coalition government from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, meaning Australian producers receive a greater rebate, making producing film and television content in Australia more attractive and more affordable. The coalition invested more than $47 million to digitise and preserve collection material held by the National Film and Sound Archive, the NFSA, and seven other national collecting institutions. The coalition also provided funding to maintain the National Library of Australia's Trove website. The Creative Economy COVID-19 support package was made up of nine measures across 2020 and 2021, and now stands at over $500 million. That was desperately needed. No-one claims that COVID hit each sector of the economy or society equally. It hit some much harder than others. The creative sector was hit particularly hard during COVID, for obvious reasons. The coalition also invested $220 million for Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand Fund, the RISE Fund. That funded more than 541 projects occurring in more than 4,000 locations. There was a $53½ million Arts Sustainability Fund through COVID, which was designed to systematically support important arts organisations through the pandemic downturn. So far, it has supported 16 leading arts organisations across Australia for $51½ million. There was $40 million to the charity Support Act for immediate crisis relief to artists, crew, music and live performance workers across the country. There was $20 million allocated to supporting cinemas in their retention and survivability. There was a fund to provide business continuity and support to independent cinemas in particular. A lot of those independent cinemas are family run, and they have enough pressures as it is from most families who have Netflix, Amazon Prime or Disney+ accounts and probably go to the cinema less. But when you do go, to an independent cinema in particular, you're reminded what a nice experience it is, particularly for children to go with their parents. There was also $21½ million for regional arts, including $11.4 million to support arts and cultural development tourism experiences. There was $12 million to support Indigenous art centres and Indigenous art fairs in regional and remote Australia, and that was delivered in full. There was $540 million over the seven years to 2026-27 through the location incentive to attract domestic and international film and television productions to Australia. All of this was on top of recurrent funding provided to the Australia Council which stands at around $220 million a year, $260 million for the national collecting institutions and over $80 million for Screen Australia. So the coalition is proud of its commitment and support to the arts sector, and that should be acknowledged. Even though the members here on this side weren't actually part of that government, we are proud of the achievements. There is a risk at the moment that we're really adding more bureaucracy rather than more support. Some of the bureaucracies that are being created are the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces, Music Australia, Writers Australia and the First Nations body. These bodies will be critical in building partnerships, and their expertise will be important, but we do have to question whether this is more funding for middle management and not really more funding for the frontline arts sector, which needs it most. I would like to speak about the cultural policy which was released this year. What the minister announced, we submit, fell a long way short of expectations. Much of what is adopted in this policy merely continues the arts policy direction pursued by the previous government. For example, the coalition worked to break down the division between the subsidised and commercial parts of the sector and to get more money to contemporary music, so it is good to see that similar proposals have been put into the policy. The coalition backed contemporary music strongly with over $68 million, which went to 170 projects involving contemporary music, from individual tours by artists like British India and Peking Duk to festivals like Bluesfest, Meadow music festival, and the Lost City under-18s music festival. I don't know who they are at all, but I'm sure they're very good bands that are very popular among people in Australia. Maybe I know the songs but I don't know who did them. I need Shazam to actually hear it. The minister informed us that the policy includes a 30 per cent tax offset for digital games production in Australia, and I'd like to come to the importance of gaming as a cultural policy shortly. The COVID pandemic, as I said at the start, hit the sector particularly hard. It reminds us of the economic multiplier effect of the arts. If you go and see a show, you probably go to a bar, a cafe or a restaurant. You might stay overnight at a hotel. You might get a cab or an Uber or even take a flight to get to the show. That argument was key in seeing $220 million for RISE and hundreds of millions of dollars in other arts programs. I'd like to briefly speak about video games. My 10-year-old son would be very proud of me for talking about video games, and not in the context that he should play less of them and Australians should play less of them! It's one of those things where there should be a healthy balance, of course, but we should acknowledge the importance of video games to our economy and to culture. It is important. Video games are talked about as having a cultural value in Australia, and we do measure that value in economic terms. In 2021 and 2022, it was $284.4 million, which was a 26 per cent increase on the previous year. Numerous jobs were created from that sector. Just like musicians, painters, writers and all other artists, videogame developers develop a practice through constant experimentation. Often, that work doesn't lead to an economic outcome, but, with so many practising the craft, some really hit the jackpot and capture the imagination of people throughout the world. The sector took a particular hit in the 2008 global financial crisis, and it took many years to recover. In the early 2010s the Australian video game industry arguably hit rock bottom. Many businesses went under, many people lost their jobs and a lot of creative talent fled our shores. Despite all of this, since then, game developers in Australia have rebuilt the industry, and they deserve to be congratulated for what they have done. Australian games now regularly receive critical acclaim around the world, including Untitled Goose Game, Paperbark, Unpacking, Frog Detective and Cult of the Lamb. Slowly, Australia has caught up, and so both state and federal governments have introduced more funding and tax offsets for cultural institutions like the National Film and Sound Archive and Sydney's Powerhouse. And it's important that games did appear in the national cultural policy. Their ability to make money is obvious to all. They are inherently youthful and, for some people who like them, quite cool. And games can have a complex role to play in development. It can be negative. We've heard about the concerns that many parents have about games like Fortnite, and they want to make sure that younger children in particular are in a safe environment, are not there for too long and are not being bullied online. That's very important. But there are roles for games that are creative and encourage learning. They are becoming more sophisticated. They're engaging with other professions, like psychologists and teachers, and that should be encouraged and supported—because there's no linear path to success in the arts or indeed in video games. So we do support the video games sector and we congratulate the government on including that in the national cultural policy. I conclude with one final observation, about the idea of a poet laureate. Henry VII appointed the first United Kingdom poet laureate—I think it was John Dryden—and it was an honorary 10-year appointment, and that has continued. The United States has had a poet laureate appointed since 1937. They're appointed by the Librarian of Congress. Australia actually has had one poet laureate. Lachlan Macquarie appointed Michael Massey Robinson, our first and only poet laureate, in the early 19th century. His task was to write odes for royal birthdays, and he was paid in cows. With the establishment of an official poet laureate, I think we will be asking that person to do more than write odes for royal birthdays, and I hope that we pay them in more than just cows—although, with the price of cattle, that might be a pretty good deal if I was poet laureate! Poetry is a very important part of culture and probably one of the oldest forms of culture, from humans sitting around fireplaces, telling stories and using words in a way that is creative and beautiful, and stirs the soul and our emotions. So I congratulate the government on establishing a poet laureate. 10:28 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong For the last decade there has been a hole in the national cultural policy of this country. Artists, musicians, storytellers and creatives have been left behind in the face of ad hoc, piecemeal and uncertain policy. Creatives have contributed significantly to our community through their artistic contributions and their passion for their community. They bring a richness to people's daily lives, and that deserves celebrating. When we look at the essential and basic elements of a robust and functioning society and community, there is no doubt that arts and culture play a vital role. The arts bring us together. They help us reflect our differences and celebrate the stories that we share. It is through art and culture that we build our identity as a nation and a people. Under the previous government, Australia's cultural policy was gutted and left to the side. In 2015 those on the other side made $114 million worth of cuts to the Australia Council. They withdrew large amounts of literature funding, quarantined funding to major performing arts companies, and decimated funding for small and medium arts organisations and to independent artists. The reduction in funding for Australian arts and culture by the previous government forced the Australia Council to cancel project funding rounds for small groups and individuals and to cut funding to over 60 arts organisations around the country. Many small arts organisations were forced to contract, merge or drastically change their programs in the face of a 70 per cent reduction in grants to individual artists and their projects. Screen Australia had its funding cut by $51.5 million over four years at the hand of the previous government. The former National Gallery of Australia director, Dr Gerard Vaughan, said that ongoing funding cuts were having a profoundly negative impact on the ability of the gallery to run. The former government even got rid of the federal arts department and merged it with the transport department. I know some road and rail infrastructure put a little bit of art into their new infrastructure from time to time, but I think merging the federal arts department and the transport department was a bridge too far—no pun intended, of course! If they hadn't already made it clear enough that they had no care for the importance for the arts, they surely did when they made sure it didn't even have a department that bore its name. Then, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the former government again took the opportunity to show their indifference to the arts community, leaving freelancers out of the JobKeeper package, forcing the Australia Council to create a resilience fund for artists and arts organisations so that their livelihoods, practice and operations could continue to be supported through the pandemic. I saw a lot of these impacts on artists firsthand. I was mayor of the city of Ryde during the pandemic, and I saw the deep impact it had on our arts community and how deeply affected they were. The arts industry, as well as the artistic experience, had been devastated by COVID-19, as events, venues, markets and access to art were shut down in order to protect us all from the virus. It cannot be said better than it was by the Museum of Contemporary Art: 'In times of crisis, bushfires and pandemics, the arts have a capacity to give people ways of coping, imagining a future beyond the crisis.' In the city of Ryde we understood the importance artists would have in supporting our community to get through those really difficult times. We implemented dozens of innovative and digital creative and professional development workshops to ensure people in our area could continue to develop their craft. We hosted art programs digitally and encouraged artists in residence to engage in our digital entertainment opportunities. We worked with community radio stations 2SER and 2RRR to develop a radio series targeting emerging musicians. We launched the Get Gig Ready podcast alongside a group of local organisations to support and strengthen the music scene in our local area when times were tough. Local artists were hired to paint murals to brighten up facilities while they were shut down—such as the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre, which now hosts a beautiful mural painted by City of Ryde staff and their artists. We implemented hardship programs and waived fees for outdoor dining when restrictions were slightly lifted and we could go back out, to encourage venues to host local artists so they could continue to survive. We ensured our initiatives were inclusive of the creative community, who had been left behind by the government. And we did all that because those opposite did not support the arts or artists. Some of the great events early on were when we hired local artists to do online music concerts. It was the first time the organisation had done that. The feedback we received at the time was extraordinary. People just loved sitting at home and being able to distract themselves from the difficulties of the pandemic at the time. Had the federal government done more for artists, I'm sure the industry wouldn't have been as decimated as it was. I'm thankful that the Labor Party, now in government, can support this industry once more. Witnessing the key role the arts played in my community throughout COVID-19, it inspired our office, once I became the member for Bennelong, to create the Bennelong Award for the Arts. It's an annual prize presented to students from schools throughout Bennelong who have shown excellence in painting, sculpture, literature, language, music and theatre. In 2022 I was privileged to present this award to 15 students throughout our community who have shown dedication and merit in the arts. These students show outstanding skill and creativity far beyond what is expected of them. I was proud to show support to these emerging artists and to encourage them to continue their pursuit of excellence. It's for people like the recipients of this award that this legislation we're debating today is so important. This bill is one of many that will support the implementation of the government's national cultural policy, Revive. As a government, we have a responsibility to foster the creative forces that live in our community. This government will provide artists with strong infrastructure, training, development opportunities and space to share their works. It will deliver a framework that empowers our arts, entertainment and cultural sectors. It's a proud history of Labor governments to provide much-needed support to the arts. This government will continue to carry the torch of the hard work done by the Hawke, Keating and Whitlam governments before us. It was under the Whitlam government that the Australia Council was formed into seven autonomous boards for different areas of the arts. Under the recommendation of the council, they were established as a statutory body, giving the Australia Council the autonomy to make decisions outside of political interference or influence. Under Whitlam's leadership, the council took in the Commonwealth Literary Fund and the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board. In 1984 the Hawke government consolidated the scattered and divergent cultural interests into the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, ensuring that the past, present and future of our cultural movements were dealt with all together. The Australian people have not seen a comprehensive and ambitious cultural policy initiative such as this government's current policy since Keating's Creative Nation in 1994. Creative Nation was the first time an Australian government formally developed a cultural policy. As this government's legislation does now, the Creative Nation policy emphasised the importance of culture to our national identity and widened our understanding of culture and the arts. Further to this, it highlighted the important economic potential of cultural activity and performances. The policy placed new models of cultural engagement alongside traditional forms of artistic expression, highlighting their equal legitimacy and value as art in Australia. The Creative Nation initiative changed the way Australians saw themselves and how we saw our place in the world. It highlighted the importance of Indigenous and migrant cultures in creating a national cultural identity. It funded and established the Australian national institute for Indigenous performing arts and created a database for multicultural texts in Australia. As Australians, we view ourselves as a proud, multicultural and vibrant community. The legacy of strong cultural policy cannot be undervalued in the role it plays in this identity. It holds up a mirror to our nation and reflects to us who we truly are. This legislation is long overdue and it is the first step in a legislative agenda that highlights and advances the value of arts and culture to this country. Through this legislation, we will amend the Australia Council Act 2013 to support the implementation of a new national cultural policy. The Australia Council will now be able to operate under the name Creative Australia until Creative Australia can be created as a new cultural body in its own right. The establishment of Creative Australia is the centrepiece of this government's national cultural policy. The Australia Council's capacity to provide strategic oversight and engagement across the arts sector will be strengthened and, once again, funding for projects will be made away from government and on merit and value to the sector—no colour-coded spreadsheet in sight. Under Creative Australia and the Revive initiative, we will establish independent bodies and funding for Indigenous arts and culture, contemporary music and writers and a centre for arts and entertainment workers. The Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will provide long-needed support to workers throughout the entertainment industry. In collaboration with artists, industry workers and employers, it will ensure that those within the creative field are protected from exploitation. It will raise and enforce standards in the industry, including in remuneration and safety. Further to this, any company found not adhering to these standards will be prevented from receiving government funding. This bill also reaffirms the commitment of this government to improve and support the arts. It's part of a five-year plan to renew and revive the industry after it faced one of the most difficult periods it had known for generations, at the deliberate design of the former government. The Albanese Labor government will improve the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector and will ensure that artists and organisations have strong and accessible support. The funding of Creative Australia is key to delivering these commitments. With a properly resourced Creative Australia we can ensure that the goals of this important initiative are met. Cultural policy touches the lives of all Australians, not just those who actively engage in the sector. Robust cultural policy is good for our economy. It's good for our health and education. It's even good for our work around the world. The arts provide a space for every story to be told and for every story to be heard, whether that's through music, literature, visual arts, gaming—as we heard from a previous speaker—or film. This legislation and the accompanying Revive initiative will deliver new momentum and ensure that Australian artists, art workers, organisations and audiences thrive and grow. It will ensure that art, culture and heritage are central to the future of our country. I commend the government for their commitment to the arts and the cultural industry. In particular I commend the Minister for the Arts, who has done an extraordinary job in bringing this important piece of legislation to parliament. Early on in my time in this place I was walking around with my family and kids. We obviously got lost. We were walking through the ministerial section and the Minister for the Arts came out and said: 'What are you guys doing? You should pop into my office.' I had my young kids with me. I walked in—and I'm sure that he won't mind me saying this—and saw that he had musical instruments everywhere. He had a piano, little guitars and banjos. I have this wonderful picture of my partner, me and our kids—five of us together—with musical instruments. We had a big jam session in his office. It's so refreshing to have a Minister for the Arts, who is not so good at playing music—he confessed that; those are his words, not mine—but who really appreciates the arts and culture. I know that he has been fighting for these reforms for a very long time. He led this party to promote the arts and to promote the injustices to the arts under the former government. Now that we have been able to form government, I'm sure it is a great pleasure for him and the entire Labor Party to have been able to bring this important transforming legislation to the parliament. I encourage all in this place to support it. 10:42 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My electorate of Brisbane is the arts and cultural epicentre of Queensland. It is home to institutions, artists and creative businesses alike. The Fortitude Valley precinct is an entertainment hub unlike anywhere else in Australia. The Tivoli, the Zoo, the Triffid and Fortitude Music Hall are an important nest for local talent and a platform for showcasing national and international acts. We're lucky to be able to experience the incredible artistry of the Aboriginal Centre for the Performing Arts, BlakDance and the Institute of Modern Art. In New Farm the Brisbane Powerhouse is famous for hosting the Brisbane Comedy Festival and is celebrated for showcasing cutting-edge theatre, music and visual arts. We are lucky to host Australia's longest continuously running theatre company, La Boite, and the internationally renowned Circa Contemporary Circus. These institutions and many more are home to artists that form the beating heart of our city. The people of Brisbane know the social, cultural and economic values that the arts contribute to our communities, with the creative industries employing many of those who call Brisbane home. Australian artists have faced a decade of government neglect and historic funding cuts, compounded by the devastation of COVID-19, when we saw many artists and crews lose their entire income virtually overnight. The damage this caused to artists' livelihoods, creative processes and artistic delivery was immense, especially in the context of the housing and cost-of-living crises. Unlike other industries, many artists received no government support during the pandemic and were unable to access the JobKeeper program. The road to recovery is long, and yet artists continue for the betterment of our communities to find a way to create, interpret and challenge culture and the status quo. I'm glad to see some recognition of the crucial role the arts play in our economy and to the health and wellbeing of our society—to the tune of $286 million in funding. However, this pales in comparison to the $11 billion a year we spend to subsidise the profits of the fossil fuel industry, especially when you consider the massive $15 billion the arts and entertainment industry contributes to the Australian economy every year and the almost 200,000 Australians it employs. The Greens went to the federal election with a multitude of policies to support and properly fund the arts. We would establish a $1 billion live performance fund to inject money into Australia's music festival scene and live performance sector, as well as a $1 billion Australian stories fund to develop and grow the local screen industry. We would support artists by providing additional COVID recovery funding through the RISE Fund, creating an artists wage pilot program, and place an artist in residence in every school and library. Content quotas are one of the first pieces of legislation that will come out of the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023. The Greens will continue to call on the government to ensure that these quotas are fixed at a rate of no less than 20 per cent. We'll also continue to push to legislate a minimum performance fee, to provide stability for live performers who are still struggling through the cost-of-living crisis as the live music industry continues to recover from the challenges of the pandemic. Artists in Brisbane have also directly raised with me the importance of supporting creatives at a grassroots level. Traditionally, we've seen skewed delivery of government funding models for this industry, where independent creators have lacked the same access to funding as larger organisations. It's critical that there are pathways for funding that are directly accessible for independent artists and not just major institutions. I look forward to creatives being able to speak from experience on these issues during the Senate inquiry into this bill. We must also deliver a sustainable funding plan for the National Library's online archive, Trove, which will run out on 30 July unless the government decides to act. At a time when big tech companies have let fake news and misinformation run rife on their platforms, it's more critical than ever that Australians have access to quality resources and information. The government must commit to funding this national cultural institution, as well as the National Archives, the National Gallery and the National Film and Sound Archive. We are lucky to have such incredible collections of artistic and cultural history and we must ensure that governments prioritise their ongoing preservation. 10:47 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Labor governments have a proud history of supporting and nurturing the arts, because we know it's good for our economy, jobs, our international reputation, and, importantly, the creative arts nourish our souls and give us pride in who we are, where we live and our amazing cultural achievements. But there is much more we need to do to ensure that Australia's arts sector continues to thrive in an increasingly global marketplace. That is why this bill, the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023, is so important. It delivers on the promise that we took to the last election to invest in the arts and create an environment where the arts, and, importantly, all those who work in the sector can again prosper. Great Labor icon and visionary, former prime minister Gough Whitlam, recognised the power of the arts to cultivate culture and economic opportunity when he said the arts is: Fundamental to … a vigorous Australian national spirit … …   …   … To help cultivate a rich and enduring national pride, and to enlarge the people's opportunities for cultural fulfilment … I've witnessed the importance of this firsthand in my own region. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting the set of Netflix's Surviving Summer season 2, a production featuring Australian stories, cast and crew and filmed on our very own Surf Coast in Victoria. As I walked the set, there was a real creative energy, a buzz of excitement and, importantly, a large cast and crew working creatively on a production showcasing our landscapes, culture and people. From the young and upcoming actors to the seasoned veterans, the team were working together, driven by a common purpose to tell a compelling Australian story. The production is filmed in locations including Twisters Torquay, the Jan Juc Surf Life Saving Club, Point Danger, Strapper Surfboards and a number of private properties. The production is testament to the resilience and creativity of our arts sector, which has faced enormous challenges in recent years, including through the pandemic and a lack of federal support under the former Liberal government. So it is time, in the words of Gough Whitlam. It's time to once again invigorate the creative arts, and this is the purpose of this bill. It harks back to 1975, when Gough Whitlam launched the Australia Council for the Arts as the principal Commonwealth arts investment and advisory body. Whitlam said at that time: I believe that the formation of an independent Australia Council will inaugurate a new era of vitality and progress in the arts, that creative artists of all kinds will enjoy a new measure of security and status in the community and that the Australian people as a whole will have new and wider opportunities to participate in the arts and enjoy the emotional, spiritual and intellectual rewards which the arts alone can provide. The bill before you today carries on this proud and worthy ambition, cementing the government's national cultural policy—hopefully—in legislation and the establishment of Creative Australia. Creative Australia will strengthen the capacity of the Australia Council, providing greater oversight, with engagement across the sector. It will ensure independence for the sector—'independence' in the sense that funding decisions will be made on a merits basis, and, as the Minister for the Arts put it, 'at arm's length from government'. The bill empowers the Australia Council to operate under the Creative Australia name for the interim. A follow-up bill will be introduced later this year to establish Creative Australia as a new organisation, and it will also establish Music Australia and the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces within that organisation. The establishment of these bodies is proof of this government's support for the sector. These bodies will be essential to building critical partnerships and expertise that will support artists and benefit Australian audiences. Consultation on this matter will continue and will inform that legislation, and I will be asking people in my arts communities to make sure they take part. This bill will provide authority for Creative Australia to deliver functions currently held by Creative Partnerships Australia. The transfer will ensure that Creative Australia's expertise is leveraged to bring together arts philanthropy and arts funding under the same umbrella. It is so important that we work together to ensure, across our government and the opposition, that we get this bill through parliament. It is going to make a huge difference. Importantly, we will fund this initiative with $15 million over three years, from 2023-24, including $5 million ongoing and indexed from 2026-27. This funding will enable increased access to private sector funding and will maximise support for the sector. We will be able to promote and support creative arts practices and make sure that they are recognised not just nationally but internationally. We'll ensure that the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will work with industry stakeholders to raise and maintain employment standards. The centre will ensure standards are set for pay and safety for all art forms and arts organisations, and it will ensure issues are referred to relevant authorities where appropriate and make sure that those companies that do not adhere to these standards are prevented from receiving government funding. Moreover, the bill will empower Music Australia to support the Australian music industry to grow through strategic initiatives, industry partnerships, research, training and skills development. With this bill and the relevant funding proposed, I'm very hopeful that my electorate of Corangamite—which has a rich history in the arts sector, with several iconic Australian films and television shows having been shot in the electorate, including Mad Max—will continue to be a location of choice for film and television productions. Summer Love, by the ABC, was also filmed in this location. Mad Max has been instrumental in shaping the identity of the region and has brought much joy and pride to the people who call Corangamite home. Mad Max was filmed in Victoria in the 1970s, and its iconic scenes were captured just a stone's throw from where I live. The film became a cult classic, and its influence can still be seen in popular culture today. But it wasn't just the action and suspense that made Mad Max a beloved film. It explored themes of survival, justice and human spirit in the face of adversity. It was a game changer for the Australian film industry. It was one of the first films to use Australian locations, crew and talent in such a significant way. Mad Max paved the way for many other great productions on the Surf Coast and the Bellarine. These have included the Tomorrow, When the War Began series, which saw the production blow up a car on a bridge at Barwon Heads, and the iconic ABC program SeaChange, which we may all remember. That's why I'm so thrilled to see Netflix's Summer Love continue this proud tradition. Surviving Summer returns to our region as well, and the government's steps to improve funding will ensure, hopefully, that films like this will continue to be made in my region. Not only do they support actors but they support our economy and, as I've said earlier, they showcase our region, our country, to the world. As a consequence of this bill, my home region is also thriving. It has a live music scene. We've got the Queenscliff Music Festival and the Meredith Music Festival, through to the likes of Midnight Oil and the soon-to-arrive Rod Stewart at the Mt Duneed Estate and, of course, the infamous Torquay Hotel, which is an icon on the Surf Coast. This venue will soon feature the likes of Peking Duk and the Grogans and has previously hosted famous Australian band Skegss. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the importance of this funding in ensuring that First Nations stories are supported and told through our creative arts sector. The stories of First Nations people go back tens of thousands of years. Their stories have been told in painting, in dance, in music and in ceremonies. They have been told on country, in caves, on beaches and under stars. Stories of country have survived and defied colonialism. We find ourselves at an astonishing moment in the Australian arts, culture, heritage and nationhood. First Nations writers, filmmakers and artists are producing energising works, producing some of our best novels, paintings, poems, films and theatre. It's these new and unique stories from First Nations people and the creative arts sector as a whole that bring us together. Our artists help us celebrate what makes us different and rejoice in what we share. It is through these many and varied forms of art that we build our national identity and that our regions are promoted to the world. This bill represents an exciting chapter for the future of the creative workforce and how we share our unique stories across diverse mediums. It builds on a proud legacy of prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating. These strong advocates of Australian arts understood the vital role of the sector in developing national identity, social unity and economic success. Julia Gillard and former minister for the arts Simon Crean established Creative Australia in 2013. It is this government's proud privilege to continue the tradition of these Labor leaders. I'm confident that this bill would provide the support artists need to thrive and grow, and I'm excited to see our extraordinary and diverse Australian stories continue to be told with originality and creativity. To return to the words of our great former prime minister Gough Whitlam: … we are creating the conditions for a renascence of Australian creativity. I hope that everyone endorses this bill. It will make a huge difference to our creative arts sector and all those who work in it. 10:58 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Before I begin, I'd like to wish a happy International Women's Day not only to the women members in this House but also to the wonderful team in my office, who are all women. I wish them a very wonderful International Women's Day. There are Paramount+ billboards out at the moment about the new series called Last King of the Cross. I can proudly say it features one of our own local creatives, Australian Asian female martial artist Maria Tran, who grew up in Cabramatta, in Fowler. Maria is passionate about stories and creatives in south-west and western Sydney. I have witnessed her career trajectory and passion for filmmaking over the years. She has worked on projects both in Australia and Asia and has helped many of our local aspiring filmmakers produce their own stories and showcase them locally and, at times, internationally. She has lamented to me over the years that those from south-west Sydney—our voice—and particularly those from non-English-speaking backgrounds barely get major investment or a look-in from cultural funding bodies. It is often people from outside who are funded to write our stories. Khaled Sabsabi, an internationally renowned artist in Fowler and an Australian of Lebanese heritage, shared with me that he's more successful overseas than in Australia. Why is it that the Australian creative industry still struggles to fully reflect the rich cultural diversity of modern Australia? Artists such as Maria Tran, Khaled Sabsabi, Annette Shun-Wah or Diane Nguyen are some of our culturally diverse artists at the forefront of a wave of new artists from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds creating works which resonate not only with our communities but with people worldwide. For example, Dorr-e Dari from the Powerhouse Theatre in Fairfield is a Persian play, produced by Afghan refugees in my community. Hasiba, the leading female performer, fled Afghanistan during the fall of Kabul in 2021, not knowing if she could pursue her dream of being an actor ever again. It was heartwarming to hear, though, that she and the Dorr-e Dari ensemble performed at the prestigious Sydney Opera House and Melbourne Arts Centre last year. One in 10 Australians live in Western Sydney. In my electorate of Fowler, almost 70 per cent of our population is born overseas or has a parent born overseas. Yet our region receives only one per cent of Commonwealth arts and culture funding, according to a study by Deloitte. There needs to be more representation on screen, behind the camera, in production and in artworks as well as appropriate funding for artists and creatives in Sydney's south-west. Last week I held an arts and culture forum in my office to discuss these very issues. It was incredibly insightful to hear from creatives from all backgrounds and practices share their experiences. I thank representatives from Curious Works, Co-Curious, Kimlligraphy, PYT Fairfield, Fairfield Museum and Gallery and artists Sheila Ngoc Pham, Khaled Sabsabi and Linda Brescia for their contributions. While they commended the government's plans to prioritise First Nations stories in the new policy, many of them also want further recognition for Australians with culturally and linguistically diverse stories which they believe are still not appropriately represented in the sector. This has been my driving force: our culturally and diverse communities, migrants and refugees are still not represented widely in the creative sector, nor at leadership levels of mainstream institutions. Is it unconscious bias, lack of talent or lack of a talent pool? When I left my local journalism role at the Liverpool and Fairfield Champion newspapers decades ago, I took a leap of faith and began my journey in the ABC. I started out as a researcher for a current affairs program and was placed in a room with one other person who was of Indian heritage. I remember she turned to me and said, 'You know why you've been put in here, right?' And I looked at her and said, 'No.' She said, 'It's called the "dark room".' She wasn't referring to the lack of natural light. While I ended up having a very long and fulfilling career at the ABC surrounded by incredibly supportive peers, this initial interaction has stayed with me over the years. There may not be as direct discrimination present in these sectors today, but there are still many barriers of entry for those from Western Sydney, south-west Sydney and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The conversations with some of the local artists highlighted to me that the very opposite is now happening. Instead of being shunned like I was, creative organisations and funding bodies are now using us as a measure that they have ticked the box for fulfilling a diversity requirement. One creative at my office forum told us that major organisations would reach out to her to help find workers from low socioeconomic and migrant backgrounds. She said it was actually more detrimental to recommend any POC, or people of colour, artists to certain organisations as it was very obvious they were not wanted for their ideas but for the colour of their skin and for the purpose of ticking off their CALD box. Often artists feel exploited after they have finished their contract. A local filmmaker and producer told us this is a very common occurrence. She said: 'They pair you up with some inner-city producer and give the lowest possible ranking on a film, just so you have zero control over your idea. But it works for them because they get credit for your work, while fulfilling their diversity quota.' It may be completely unintentional but unconscious bias is very insidious in many industries, and the arts is no different. However, it's not just racial issues but issues of class and the tyranny of distance. In my consultation with my local artists, I was told there is a very distinct disadvantage to growing up and living in the west and south-west of Sydney. The stigma of being in the west is still pervasive into these creative spaces, where artists feel they're judged because of their postcode. PYT Fairfield Theatre Company, in my neighbouring electorate, is the only place in my community where aspiring CALD creatives get the opportunity to practise their craft and have some paid creative work. But PYT representatives have said their students are also working long hours as security guards, as hairdressers or stacking shelves at Woolies to make ends meet while they pursue their dreams. It is not a sustainable lifestyle if you have to pay for petrol, pay for long travels, pay for rent and pay to put food on the table for your family. They don't have the advantage of having wealthy parents who can bankroll their education and financially support them through unpaid internships, many of which are full-time and span across many months. Furthermore, a career in art is built not only on the internships you do but also on the connections you make or already have. I was told that artists from more affluent suburbs would have gone to school or uni with people whose parents are connected to the influential producers, filmmakers or musicians, who can get them a foot in the door. My creatives lamented that the industry workers from Western Sydney, who often have migrant or refugee parents, have to work harder for recognition and rely on each other to get work. As a result, this negative experience leads to young emerging artists feeling demoralised and ultimately turns them off from pursuing a career in the long term. But we need artists and creatives from our community because their stories and their interpretations will help shape Australia's identity for the future. Therefore, I support the government's programs that will be implemented under the rebranding of the Australia Council to diversify an arts and culture scene that neglects to recognise and support our community. Recognising the need for more CALD arts is a start but we also need to tackle the systematic issues. I call on the government not to forget south-west Sydney when it comes to allocating funding for arts and creatives. Do not follow the previous government's behaviour of investing just in marginal seats. In recent days I've heard the government attacking the opposition on this issue, so I challenge the government to fund a south-west Sydney arts precinct not just in Parramatta but in Fowler, so that creatives can thrive. They would no longer need to travel the long distance for work or internships while also doing what they're passionate about. This will hopefully see less exploitation of CALD workers, as they will have their own community support and have agency over their own stories and ideas. I acknowledge the government's work in implementing recommendations of the Jenkins review within the arts sector, and that the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will be established to provide a platform for creatives to learn more about pay, welfare and safety. Representatives from CuriousWorks based in Liverpool have told me their social enterprise program helps emerging artists avoid exploitation by bigger organisations. They assist them in negotiating rates of pay, and educate emerging artists and industry workers on how to properly value their worth. It's fantastic to see creatives supporting each other. However, this needs to come from the top down, not the other way around. The government must ensure these reforms genuinely support grassroots art and culture, not just help fund the administrations. Our local artists say that perhaps the money spent on the rebranding could be used to tackle systematic issues first. Artists must feel supported in their projects at this very base level. The money could also be spent to support artists to grow themselves internationally. After all, they are understandably wary about whether these new changes will really improve the Australian arts and culture scene, and believe that success comes from going abroad. It just shows that, in order to retain our talent, we need to make them feel valued and supported in their careers here in Australia, otherwise we risk losing them to other countries. The government has promised a multicultural review into ensuring our arts institutions are reflective of modern Australia. Annabel Davis, CEO of Co-Curious, in Liverpool, told us that it's exciting there is more appetite to create a more diverse art sector overall. However, she says, some expertise is required around how to properly implement these changes and to ensure those who aren't always able to enjoy a platform are given an opportunity to speak up and give a voice to the experience of multicultural Australia. There must also be tangible real support for creatives from multicultural and marginalised communities, given the myriad issues our artists also face in the sector. If we want our arts and culture sector to be truly reflective of modern Australia, then we need to make sure that everyone from the top down also reflects that. And when I say 'top down', I mean not just the boards and committees that dole out the grants funding but also the major employers of the arts and culture sector. I must say that the mere debate about whether SBS should move to Western Sydney is incredibly disappointing. This should not even be a question. SBS services many of my constituents who rely on non-English-speaking programs for news and community updates, and it's where many Western Sydney creators cut their teeth in the industry. However, during peak-hour traffic, it could take up to an hour and a half one way for us 'westies' to get there. How can our multicultural broadcaster reside so far away from our country's multicultural heartland? SBS's move to the west will incentivise many young local aspiring journalists, producers and creatives to stay in the sector while also boosting the local economy. We have a wealth of creative and cultural knowledge right here in south-west Sydney and, in particular, in Fowler. Engaging marginalised communities will help revive our arts and culture sector by inviting new ideas, eye-opening stories and brave projects that will inspire the next generation of our artists. Our creatives will feel supported in their endeavours and not just used as another diversity token. They will feel empowered to share their stories on the screen, in art and in music. Then our children—the children of refugees and migrants—can confidently contribute to creating an arts culture that truly reflects our country's diverse heritage. Those who are simply consumers of the arts deserve to be seen and represented in the films they watch, the gigs they go to and the art galleries they visit. Let's shine a light on the arts and the creatives in Fowler and greater south-west Sydney. 11:11 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak in support of the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023 and of the arts in Australia. It has been a very tough few years for the arts in Australia, with the pandemic and before that the Black Summer bushfires and a decade of coalition cuts, so I'm very pleased to be standing here today with good news for the vibrant and innovative arts sector. Art is a crucial expression of our humanity. It is a central part of how we express and define ourselves as a community, and how we tell our stories. It's where we turn for inspiration, comfort and entertainment. It was a lifeline for so many during the pandemic when lockdowns meant so many of us had to turn to the arts for support and distraction. I thank the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke, for his hard work and leadership in this area through that difficult time in the previous parliament and for now bringing forward this work and getting the national cultural policy off the ground. I acknowledge his genuine passion and commitment to the arts in Australia, which is very obvious for all to see. It is a very refreshing change. The minister has, of course, consulted far and wide to get the national cultural policy right, including last year holding a town hall in my electorate here in Canberra. I know representatives of the local arts sector were relieved and excited to finally have a minister willing to meet with them and discuss the challenges they face and the policy settings required to help them to thrive again. I've been very proud to advocate for Canberra's arts community through what has been an incredibly challenging few years for the sector. I'm very, very proud to represent an electorate so rich in artistic talent and creativity and also blessed with amazing access to experiencing the arts at our galleries, theatres, museums, festivals, markets and so on. A wonderful example of this creativity can be seen around the national capital at the moment with the delightful Enlighten festival, which includes this building being lit up at night with the work of local artists. I encourage members and senators to get out and have a look at that if they get the chance this week. Special events aside, Canberrans and visitors need attend only one of our many national institutions to be immersed and inspired by some of our nations and the world's great artists. One of the great highlights of the Canberra calendar is the opening of the National Gallery's blockbuster art exhibitions. Over the years I've attended many of these exhibitions and seen some of the world's greatest works of art. I know that many visitors come to Canberra to see these, but, as Canberrans, we are so lucky to have this on our doorstep all the time. One such exhibition is the Cressida Campbell exhibition, the most recent exhibition at the gallery. I was really pleased, when I had my parents-in-law visiting, to go and visit it one afternoon with my mother and my mother-in-law. And we were just blown away by that exhibition. It's just another example of the fantastic art they have there at the gallery. Last year, I was thrilled to join in a very special celebration, as well, at the National Museum of Australia, to open two new galleries: the Great Southern Land gallery, and the Tim and Gina Fairfax Discovery Centre, which is a very special section for children, and I can report that my two children absolutely love it. The free public event included a performance by iconic Australian band Icehouse, a wonderful example of the artistic talent that our nation has to offer. It was especially memorable because it was wonderful to see so many people—over a thousand, from memory—come together after the incredibly challenging few years that our community and our national institutions had been through. It was a valuable reminder of the central place that our national institutions have in Australian life and of how we, as the Canberra community, are so privileged to live here where they are and to be able to visit them anytime. But just a reminder: these institutions actually belong to all Australians. They are critically important to Australian life, to telling our stories, to maintaining our history and to inspiring and delighting visitors from around our nation and the world. It's incredibly important that they are supported and resourced in the way that they need to be, not just to maintain that work but to build on it and to deliver on the great visions of the people running these organisations, to continue to deliver for all Australians. They have really been neglected over the last decade, and I am very hopeful that our government is going to address these issues. These institutions bring us together to learn, to relax, to be inspired and to have our thinking challenged. As I say, over the last decade we have seen them become the subject of devastating neglect, dealing with issues such as leaking roofs, and looking at needing to lay off staff or even close on certain days of the week in order to keep running. There are urgent repairs needed in the National Gallery, for example; it alone says that it needs more than $67 million to repair the 40-year-old building. Those repairs will help protect its art collection, which is worth an estimated $6.1 billion, and it urgently needs to come up with those extra millions to cover repairs to the building. So I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister, earlier this year, confirm the importance of our institutions and commit to address this problem through the budget. Further evidence of the Australian Labor government's commitment to properly funding the arts can be seen in my electorate, through the $5 million in funding announced in the October budget to revitalise Canberra's beloved Gorman House arts centre, in preparation for the house's centenary in 2024, and to support our vibrant arts community. Of course, the arts community in Canberra is not just about our national institutions, either. We have a thriving and vibrant local arts community, which, despite the challenges of the past few years, continues to produce some of the most incredible art in this country. Just to name a few spaces—and I apologise; I will probably leave some off the list—our arts community here in Canberra thrives in spaces such as: the Ainslie Arts Centre, the Canberra Contemporary Art Space in Manuka, Canberra Glassworks, Gorman Arts Centre, Manuka Arts Centre, the Street Theatre, the Canberra Theatre Centre, the Watson Arts Centre and the Megalo Print Studio and gallery. I'd also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the leadership and advocacy of the ACT government and the arts minister, Tara Cheyne, which includes a $28 million commitment to revitalise Civic Square and expand the Canberra Theatre Centre, which is a very exciting project for Canberra; I'm hoping to see that develop into somewhat of a national theatre centre. It has been a stark turnaround since the Albanese Labor government won government last year, because, for 10 years, Australia was without a national cultural policy. For 10 years, the arts in Australia were neglected by the coalition, as part of, essentially, a culture war. I'm happy to say that Labor will end that lost decade and end the policy drift with our national cultural policy, Revive. This builds on Labor's already-proud history of delivering for the arts in Australia. Revive will be the third cultural policy of its kind, following Paul Keating's Creative Nation and Julia Gillard's Creative Australia. Revive will give direction to the $17 billion industry that employs an estimated 400,000 Australians. At the centre of this policy is the establishment of Creative Australia, which will be governed by the Australia Council. Since 1975, the Australia Council has had a strong profile in the arts sector as the principal Commonwealth arts investment and advisory body. The Australia Council supports and promotes creative arts practice, which is recognised both nationally and internationally, and provides research and advocacy on issues affecting the sector. A restored and modernised Australia Council, through Creative Australia, will strengthen the capacity of the Australia Council, provide for greater strategic oversight and engagement across the sector and ensure that funding decisions continue to be made on the basis of artistic merit and at arm's length from government, which is critically important. It will also include the establishment of independent bodies and funds for First Nations arts and culture, for contemporary music and for writers, as well as a Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces. The implementation of the Australia Council reforms under the national cultural policy will be staged to allow for necessary consultation across the sector. However, there are a number of elements that require implementation from 1 July. This bill amends the Australia Council Act 2013 to give effect to elements of Revive that need to be in place by 1 July. The bill provides for the Australia Council to operate under the name Creative Australia and provides new functions to allow the commencement of work related to Music Australia and the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces. The Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will work with artists, industry workers and employers to raise and maintain safety standards for all art forms and ensure matters are referred to relevant authorities as appropriate. Music Australia will support the Australian music industry to grow, including through strategic initiatives and industry partnerships, research, training, skills development and export promotion. A follow-up bill will be introduced later this year to establish these critical bodies. Ongoing consultation with the sector will inform this legislation. This bill will provide authority for the Australia Council to deliver the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia, including to attract and recognise private-sector support for the arts and undertake research on public and private investment in the arts. This increased access to private-sector funding for the arts will maximise the impact of public investment and support a sustainable arts sector. The transfer of Creative Partnerships Australia will leverage the Australia Council's expertise, bring together arts philanthropy and arts funding within one entity, and create synergies between public and private partnerships as well as between government and philanthropic investment. The bill allows the Australia Council to assume responsibility for the Australian Cultural Fund from 1 July, including for all donations made into the fund prior to the transfer. The Australian Cultural Fund is an important mechanism utilised by Creative Partnerships Australia to deliver its objectives to grow the culture of giving to arts and culture and bring donors, businesses, artists and art organisations together. Through this legislation, the Australia Council will assume responsibility to assist Australian artists and arts organisations to attract and maintain support from donors and businesses, diversifying their sources of revenue and encouraging and celebrating innovation and excellence in giving to and partnerships with the arts and cultural sector. The bill includes transitional elements to support a smooth transfer of functions and ensure continuity of business between Creative Partnerships Australia and the Australia Council. These transitional elements cover the transfer of assets, liabilities, records and staff entitlements and will ensure that at the time of transfer employees of Creative Partnerships Australia will be taken to be Australia Council employees and receive equivalent accrued entitlements to benefits. This government is truly committed to improving the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector and to strengthening and streamlining access to support, including for artists and arts organisations. A properly resourced Australia Council is key to delivering on this commitment, and the transfer of the functions of and funding for Creative Partnerships Australia to the Australia Council will align with this objective. Most importantly, we have a government that recognises the importance of the arts and that they are essential to all facets of Australian life. It supports our artists not only as creatives but also as workers. That was a really important point that came through in the pandemic when artists were left out, in many ways, from the JobKeeper scheme and were essentially not seen as workers. Aside from the real cultural importance of the arts, the arts have a huge economic significance for Australia. This should not be ignored either. Here in Canberra I will continue to stand with our arts community. I am so proud to advocate on your behalf in this place as we continue to consult and implement our national cultural policy. 11:25 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023. I support and welcome the amendments that the government has proposed in this bill, which are long overdue. The arts are integral for our wellbeing and critical for a flourishing society. They tell our stories, propagate our culture and inspire us to be the best that we can be. The arts and creative industry in Australia is worth some $17 billion. Launched on 30 January 2023 the national cultural policy Revive is a comprehensive policy to revive the arts, entertainment and cultural sector after COVID caused its most difficult period in decades for so many in that sector and I know many in my community in Warringah. Between 2013 and 2022 we saw the federal arts portfolio contract and funding stagnate. Then we saw the COVID-19 pandemic further devastate so many in the arts. The previous government offered temporary crisis support but it was distributed in an inequitable manner. Ultimately, the arts did not get the same support that other sectors did. But let's get real. It was the artists and their content and the culture that sustained us through the COVID pandemic. It was the Australian TV shows, comedies, arts, music, films and documentaries that entertained us and kept us sane during those long days in lockdown. When creatives couldn't work and had no source of income during the pandemic it really highlighted how tough it is to work in the arts in Australia. The pandemic saw the live entertainment industry decline by 69 per cent in 2020, losing some $1.4 billion in revenue. This bill proposes changes and provides much-needed funding to boost and revive Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sector. It's the first in a series of bills supporting the implementation of the national cultural policy. This bill will allow the Australia Council for the Arts to operate under the name Creative Australia. Four new entities will be rolled out over the next four years from 1 July 2023: the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces, Music Australia, Writers Australia and the First Nations body. Music Australia will grow our music industry and help secure global audiences. We have such a rich tradition. Think of some of our iconic rock bands that really led the way overseas—from Midnight Oil to INXS. I remember growing up with such Australian artists. It was so exciting. Writers Australia will provide funding, research and advocacy for writers, because we need to tell our stories. We need to ensure that future generations have the benefit of those hard-learned experiences and also the inspiration that can really help them set their sights on what they can achieve. Appropriately, one of the first changes is the establishment of a First Nations led board to make decisions about investment in First Nations art and culture. This is an area that has just grown in recognition. It is so incredibly symbolic of Australia. It will recognise the crucial place of First Nations stories and the importance of self-determination. Legislation will protect the copyright of Indigenous artists, including blocking the sale of fake Indigenous art. It's quite eye opening when you start to appreciate the statistics of what goes on there. I have previously supported this issue in this place, by seconding a bill introduced by the member for Kennedy in relation to the sale of fake Indigenous art and how abusive that is. There'll be a First Nations languages policy partnership, supporting 60 primary schools to teach local First Nations language. That's exciting. It's something that I've seen develop recently in acknowledgements of country, where we're starting to hear more First Nations language spoken. I hope that one day we will have a verse of the Australian anthem in Indigenous language, like New Zealand has. I think it really would be exciting, from the point of view of reconciliation, to acknowledge that, in Australia, we have the longest living culture in the world. We should be proud of that and celebrate it. There will also be an undertaking to pursue the repatriation to Australia of First Nations ancestors and artefacts from overseas, as well as the formation of a national resting place, which, I think, is incredibly important and overdue. The Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will stimulate new employment and training opportunities and ensure access to fair remuneration and safe work environments. This is a big step forward; it's acknowledging arts workers as legitimate workers. The centre will address complaints about fair pay, sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination in the industry. Government funding will be withdrawn from organisations if they fail to adhere to new workplace safety standards. These are good things. We have to remember that the Me Too movement started in the arts sector and industry, because of the acknowledgement of the harassment, bullying and assaults that were occurring in that industry. Under the bill, the intellectual property rights of our creators will be protected. The bill will ensure that funding decisions will continue to be made on the basis of artistic merit and at arm's length from government. I know this bill is very much welcomed by the production industry, as is the introduction—and I note the minister is here, and I thank him—of local content quotas for streaming services, which I've previously spoken about in this place. However, the exact percentage has not been announced, and I will be following up with the minister about those issues. I've received many emails from Warringah constituents calling for streaming services such as Netflix, Disney+, and Prime Video to have a fixed percentage of local content. Quotas are vital, and industry would like to see the government make a firm commitment to a quota of 20 per cent or 30 per cent local content. In Warringah, we have a number of great local content producers, including Cheeky Little Media, Kapow Pictures and Sticks among others, and they're under threat and constantly challenged by international streaming services that are crowding them out. It's important to remember that companies like these employ the creatives and the programmers, and give birth to so much in that industry, so we need to ensure that streaming services do respect local content and that the quotas are in place. I'm pleased to see other key measures within Revive, including, from July, a digital lending rights scheme, through which authors, illustrators and editors will be able to earn money when their ebooks and audiobooks are borrowed from a library. This could add thousands of dollars to their income. I've spoken with Pantera Press in my electorate about the issue, and they very much welcome this. The creation of a works of scale fund to commission new Australian works is of course very welcome. There's $11.8 million of extra funding for the National Gallery of Australia for a pilot program to tour its collection to galleries around Australia, which is incredibly exciting. In February I had the chance to tour the National Gallery of Australia and see, and be inspired by, the works of Cressida Campbell, as part of the program of the Know My Name campaign, which is designed to elevate the knowledge, recognition and understanding of female artists in Australia. So many of Cressida's works take into account beautiful Sydney foreshores—there were some sites, in fact, from Warringah—and it was just incredibly serene and inspiring to go and see that exhibit. It's incredibly wonderful to know that it will have the opportunity to tour. I do look forward to future events, and I hope that there will be a continuation of the Know My Name campaign. For too long, women's contribution to our cultural and social fabric has not been properly recognised. In particular today, on International Women's Day, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that. An arts and disability plan will be developed under Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-31 to enable people with disability to access and participate fully in the cultural and creative life of Australia. The Australian Interactive Games Fund, which was abolished by the coalition government, will be restored under Screen Australia to support local video game development. The package will also include an increase in funding to the Regional Arts Fund and pilot funding for an art and music therapy program. There is a lot to celebrate in this package. I think that many around Australia will take heart in knowing that creative industries in Australia, both in our urban centres and in our regions, will be supported. There are always a few things that can be done better. Some criticisms in the media have been that there wasn't sufficient consultation with the GLAM sector—that is, galleries, libraries, archives and museums. I received correspondence from concerned professors that the minister's panel did not include any historians and that funding is desperately needed for the National Gallery of Australia and some of our other institutions, like the National Library of Australia, for infrastructure repairs and collections maintenance, including for the free online research portal Trove. I've received dozens of emails from Warringah constituents requesting further funding to save Trove. Trove, for those who don't know, has more than six billion digital items. With the Australian public at a cultural crossroad, it's more important than ever to secure Trove's place in Australian storytelling. On 20 February 2023, I wrote to the minister, requesting funding. I acknowledge that he has indicated that it is front of mind and being considered by the government. There is still work to be done in the sector around wages. I know this is a sector with very strong casual employment; there is a lot of insecure work. There tend to be rolling contracts. I've strongly advocated for the literary and visual arts communities, which need more recognition as well. It's easy to grasp onto the high-profile industries while some of the others struggle a little. The literary and visual arts communities have proposed a universal basic income program for artists, in line with international models, as well as tax-free prizes. The bill makes a limited commitment to include consideration of minimum wages for the sector as part of the broader review of modern awards, and I think that is something that really should be considered. The National Association for the Visual Arts has concerns about support for individual artists and arts workers in the proposal and wants to see payment standards that are enforceable. In Warringah, our community is highly engaged in the arts, with almost one in 10 of Warringah's workforce employed in cultural or creative occupations. There are over 450 businesses in Warringah in the arts and recreation sector. Across the Northern Beaches, the number of people working the arts sector is expected to double by 2025. Live music in Warringah is seeing a revitalisation, particularly in Brookvale, through the creation and integration and with the emergence of many microbreweries in the area. It's just nearly cool to be in Brookvale! As council completes its consultation on the Brookvale structure plan, I urge them to ensure that the arts are front and centre of the design and that live music can be blended within the new environment. The Brookvale Arts District is a consortium of local individuals, companies and institutions who have come together to maintain and enhance the existing creative and industrial fabric of Brookvale. They've done this so successfully to integrate it with future development in the area, creating a valuable and flourishing Brookvale as much as possible. There's so much potential and creativity already brimming out of Brookvale, so I really look forward to seeing what this group can achieve and develop further. Last year, I had the opportunity to attend the highly successful activation of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust lands at North Head Sanctuary. This was a Live at the Barracks night—and it will be coming again this year, so I'll invite the minister to come and attend. We will have great Australian acts. It's a concert series bringing national musical talent to North Head at Manly. So you're standing in these iconic locations listening to great Australian music—the live music, the unique natural environment of the trust lands and the surrounding national park. In the wake of years of funding cuts to the arts and creative industries, this bill is incredibly welcome. It's been welcomed by the industry. It's a major step forward. I congratulate the government for acknowledging the importance of the arts in Australian life by introducing the Creative Australia bill, and I commend the bill to the House. 11:40 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank everybody who's contributed to the discussion on the Australia Council Amendment (Creative Australia) Bill 2023. Everyone's been supportive of the bill, and people have used the bill to talk more broadly about the cultural policy in Revive, and I want to thank members for that. There are a couple of issues that I should raise in response to different contributions that have been made. The concerns that have raised about the collecting institutions have been heard loudly and clearly, and I respect the many members who have put those views forward. Decisions of government, hopefully, are not too far off in terms of being able to respond to that. It is true that both the money available for wages to pay staff and the money available to physically keep together the structures of our collective institutions—they have been underfunded for a long time, and a whole lot of decisions now are more difficult as a result of that. But those decisions of government, I think, are coming soon and certainly have to be made in time for the budget. On the issue of historians with respect to the galleries, libraries and museums sector that was raised specifically by the member for Warringah, I put down that that particular objection was after we'd formed the first five panels—a panel for each pillar. It was at least in part addressed, when we put together the panel of seven that would look overarchingly at the policy, by making sure that Clare Wright, an extraordinary Australian historian, was a member of that and then co-wrote, with Christos Tsiolkas, the vision statement at the front of Revive. I always take the view that, if you want a document to be good, you'll always find that the best bit of writing is written by professional writers, and one of those was the esteemed Australian historian Clare Wright. I should also refer to comments that were made right at the start by the shadow minister, where he put out a genuine concern, and, I think, a concern that we all have to watch closely, which is that, in moving Creative Partnerships across to the new Creative Australia, that does carry an expectation that Creative Australia will operate differently to how the Australia Council operated. I'm glad the shadow minister brought forward that expectation. It is important for the new body to hear that. Up until now, the Australia Council very much has been a funding body, and that's been its role. We are asking Creative Australia to be a body that will deal with the funded sector, with the philanthropic sector and with the commercial sector. While I describe them as three different sectors, members who have a large number of artists in their electorates, such as the member for Warringah, know well there's crossover between those workforces all the time. That's why we want there to be a single organisation, in Creative Australia, to be able to deal with them. I want to say I'm glad the shadow minister has raised those concerns, and the message about those concerns will be sent clearly to the new body. That shift is the primary shift that is in the bill before us right now. I will return with new legislation in the coming months that will establish Creative Australia as an entirely new body. Obviously, staff and everyone will transfer across, but it will be established as a new organisation—not just a change of label. That is in part to make clear the expectations that the parliament have of the new organisation that it be able to deal with all those different sections of Australia's creative sector and creative economy. That bill will also established Music Australia and the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces. We will have later legislation that will establish the First Nations body, and legislation after that will establish Writers Australia. The reason for the delay on the First Nations body is that we really want to make sure we get the consultation right and to work out exactly what forms of governance will be the right forms of governance. So that will be in separate legislation. With Writers Australia, given that the funding for that starts a bit later, I want to have the benefit of seeing how Music Australia goes to then use the knowledge we have from that in exactly how we design Writers Australia. All that legislation is to come, but the first step is the legislation before us now. I thank everybody for their contributions and commend the bill to parliament. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023 128

Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023

Second Reading 128 11:46 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which was supported by this government, handed down its interim report in August of last year. In September of last year I presented government's formal response to that interim report, and we got on with the job of implementing those recommendations as quickly as possible. We responded to those 13 recommendations then and have taken steps in respect of all 13 recommendations since. Last month we announced the next steps in advancing our work on recommendation 1: to harmonise and simplify veterans' entitlements legislation. As the royal commission pointed out, the complexity of the legislation veterans have to deal with, and the delays veterans have had to deal with because of the complexity of that legislation, have been a contributor to the suicidality of our veterans. This is a national tragedy that we have had to confront. That's why last month I announced our pathway for consultation: the Veterans' Legislation Reform Consultation Pathway. It sets out a way forward for us to improve the circumstances for our veterans by closing out the two older schemes that have been in existence for well over a century and moves forward with a single-act scheme where new claims would be dealt with under the remaining 21st century scheme. Consultation is now well underway. I've been travelling around the country meeting with veterans, ex-service organisations and others who have had to deal with this overly complex system. We're working towards a system that is simpler and easier to use for the whole veteran community. In relation to the other recommendations of the interim report, we've made inroads. We've agreed to increase the staffing levels at the Department of Veterans' Affairs by 500, to address the claims backlog. Those 500 new staff are in the process of being recruited, with the claims backlog figure now starting to turn a corner and head in the right direction—that is, down. In the October budget we addressed the recommendation about improving the internal systems of DVA, allocating funding to modernise the computer and IT systems to support claim processing. We had already removed the artificial staffing cap the previous government had imposed on the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and, indeed, across the Public Service. We've also been working with the royal commission in respect of a better understanding around parliamentary privilege protections. In terms of access to information, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence have been working together and with the veterans and family community on a co-design model. We've been doing a range of consultations over the last few months with veterans, families and widows to make sure that we have a properly designed system, which is easily understood, about how to access information about their loved ones who have taken their own life and how that can be obtained through the Department of Defence or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We've also entered into an arrangement, a memorandum of understanding, between Defence, DVA and the royal commission to support people coming forward with information that they may be concerned is protected by certain classifications on information. We have been progressing all the recommendations as quickly as we can because they are so important. Today I am glad we are taking the next step to support the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to ensure a better future for serving ADF personnel, veterans and families. The Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023 before us today provides extended confidentiality protections for certain information given outside of a private session to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This bill will ensure that people can engage with the royal commission without fear of disclosure of their sensitive information. The bill, therefore, implements recommendation 6(1) of the royal commission's interim report, which was provided on 11 August 2022. I thank the Attorney-General for his swift action in responding to this recommendation and his commitment to supporting this long-needed royal commission. He knows that there is no time to waste when it comes to addressing the national tragedy that is defence and veteran suicide. Under the changes before us today, information given by or on behalf of a person to the royal commission that contains an account of a person's experience of, or systemic issues in relation to, the suicide or poor mental health of an identified person would be protected. Any individual who gives this information to the royal commission would be eligible to have their information protected under the amendments. Importantly, that includes current serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force, their family members and any other person who gives information to the royal commission on their behalf. I appreciate that there has been a feeling, particularly among some serving members of our ADF, that they should not give evidence to the royal commission out of concern for the consequences of doing so. The royal commission itself has noted that serving members of the ADF are under-represented in the submissions that the royal commission has received to date. While I know senior members of the Australian Defence Force continue to support serving members to give evidence to the royal commission, I hope that these legislative changes will encourage even more people to come forward and be comfortable in sharing their stories or the stories of their mates and loved ones. I again thank the Attorney-General for the careful consideration he has given to recommendation 6(1) of the royal commission. This recommendation from the royal commission referred specifically to serving ADF members, but this bill takes things a step further. After thoughtful consideration with key stakeholders, including the royal commission, it was determined that amendments should be extended to not only those in service but their family members and veterans. These arrangements have been expanded in order to encourage more people to come forward and engage with this vital royal commission, with the assurance that information of a sensitive, personal or confidential nature is protected during and after the life of the royal commission. After all, the more information provided to the royal commission the more information will be available for its consideration and, subsequently, the more impactful and helpful its recommendations can be. The amendments in this bill describe the type of information able to be protected with greater reference to the royal commission's terms of reference, such that the protections would be able to apply to information relating to most, if not all, of the terms of reference. This bill is fit for purpose, as referred by the royal commission. The amendments will apply to information given to the royal commission from its commencement in July 2021. The information will remain confidential for 99 years after the conclusion of the royal commission's inquiry. Its final report is due in the middle of 2024. That means that people who have already given evidence can be assured that they and their information will be protected. This information would only be able to be used in reports or recommendations of a royal commission if it has been de-identified or if it was given as evidence to the royal commission or produced under summons or notice. It would be an offence for any person to record, use or disclose the information except in limited circumstances. Information would not be admissible in evidence against a person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth or a state or territory. We want people to come forward and share their experiences with the royal commission. We know that, in order for that to happen, people need to feel confident that any sensitive information that they share will be kept confidential as needed. The royal commission recommended introducing similar protections to those legislated for the disability royal commission in 2021. We've worked quickly to bring this bill to the parliament because there is no time to waste. It is incumbent on each of us in this place to pass this bill as soon as possible. That will allow time for the royal commission to then receive and adequately consider submissions of those who are waiting to provide evidence once these additional protections are implemented. I encourage anyone who has information to give to, please, come forward to give evidence publicly or in a private session. The royal commission wants to hear from you, and the nation needs it to hear from you. Submissions to the royal commission will remain open until 13 October 2023. I commend the bill. 11:55 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I start, first of all, by acknowledging that it's International Women's Day today. It was a great pleasure to be there this morning for the unveiling of the commemorative statues of Dame Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons, who were our first women elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively. I wish a happy International Women's Day to all the wonderful women in my life. I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023. I support this bill, which amends the Royal Commissions Act to ensure the confidentiality of certain information given by or on behalf of individuals to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This bill partially implements recommendation 6 of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which was tabled in parliament on 11 August last year. The recommendation was to introduce a new provision modelled on a section of the Royal Commissions Act which applied to the disability royal commission. In effect, this bill means the same confidentiality protections over information given to the disability royal commission in private sessions can also apply to certain information given to it outside of a private session. Broadly, the bill applies to provide protections of information given to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide in private session so that information given outside a private session is also protected. It particularly relates to testimony given by ADF members or veterans of their own or another's experiences of suicide, attempted suicide or poor mental health related to any period of ADF pre-service, service, transition, separation and post-service. I consider this bill to be a sensible measure that aligns with the policy adopted by the coalition in relation to previous royal commissions. By way of background, private or confidential sessions were first established for the child abuse royal commission to enable individuals to tell their story about highly sensitive and personal matters into which the commission was inquiring in a trauma informed and less formal setting than a hearing. Royal commissions prescribed by the royal commissions regulation, including the defence and veteran suicide royal commission, can utilise private sessions. When giving information in a private session, participants do not give evidence and information is not given under oath or affirmation. There are strict limitations on the use and disclosure of that information which apply both during and after royal commission inquiries. The defence and veterans suicide royal commission generally proceeds as a public hearing. However, it receives sensitive information in ways other than in a private session, including through written submissions, phone interviews and other records of interview of an individual's experience. That is completely appropriate, to enable the commission to hear from as many as possible about their experiences. The royal commission expressed concerns in its interim report that the existing confidentiality provisions in the act were not adequate to encourage ADF members to tell their stories. In particular, the royal commission indicated that serving members who intended to remain in the ADF were particularly concerned about the impact their disclosure of sensitive information would have on their career or subsequent experiences in service. To address these concerns, information of this kind provided and recorded outside of a private or confidential session should properly be eligible to receive protections equivalent to those provided for information provided in a private session. Information provided to the defence and veteran suicide royal commission, which includes members of staff supporting the commission, outside private sessions will therefore be accorded the same confidentiality as material obtained for the purposes of private sessions both during the course of the defence and veteran suicide royal commission's inquiry and after it concludes. The bill also contains amendments providing that documents containing the information cannot be accessed under the Freedom of Information Act. These limits on the use and disclosure of information are necessary and reasonable to protect the privacy of the individual giving their account, as well as to respect the privacy and reputation of others who may or may not be named in the account. They therefore provide people with confidence that private information they give to the defence and veteran suicide royal commission will not be further disclosed during or after the royal commission, and that they will not be identified in the defence and veteran suicide royal commission's reports unless their information is also given as evidence. A royal commission is not a court or tribunal and cannot determine criminal charges or civil liability. It can, however, refer information or evidence relating to a contravention of a law to law enforcement authorities or prosecutors. The bill properly, in my view, provides that a commissioner will retain a power to refer any confidential information voluntarily provided to the defence and veteran suicide royal commission alleging another person has committed an offence to a law enforcement authority, and this is an appropriate insertion. Therefore, this bill safeguards, both during and after the defence and veteran suicide royal commission, certain sensitive information that individuals provide to that commission, while still retaining the commissioner's existing powers with respect to referring matters of alleged criminal activity to the appropriate law enforcement authority. To conclude, this bill sets out safeguards that are necessary, reasonable and proportionate and are sufficiently narrow so as to remain consistent with the right to freedom of expression. For all of the reasons set out, I commend this bill to the House, to enable the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to continue its very important work. 12:02 Dr 295588 Chisholm GARLAND () (): This bill, the Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023, is an important one, to ensure that those brave participants in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide are able to enjoy confidentiality and protections regarding information and privacy. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was established on 8 July 2021, providing an interim report on 11 August last year. That contained 13 recommendations that the royal commission considered required urgent or immediate action. So our government is implementing its response to those recommendations as a matter of priority, in order to support the commission's inquiry. We are doing what we can to ensure a better future for serving ADF personnel and veterans and for their families. The royal commission is required to provide a final report by 17 June next year. This bill provides extended confidentiality protections for certain information given to the royal commission outside of a private session. This bill will ensure that people can engage with the royal commission without fear of disclosure of their sensitive information. These amendments are consistent with amendments previously made to the act to protect information provided to the child sexual abuse royal commission and the disability royal commission. These amendments ensure that certain information provided by individuals to the royal commission can't be disclosed, except in very limited circumstances, for a period of 99 years after the conclusion of the royal commission. This Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, to quote the commissioners: … is anchored by the personal stories, experiences and perspectives that people—including serving and ex-serving ADF members and their families, friends and support networks—have described— to the royal commission. These are brave and generous acts: people coming forward so that something changes—so that we do what we must to stem the tragic loss of life to suicide by serving and ex-serving ADF members. It is reasonable and it is right that they are protected so that they can speak freely and so that the confidentiality of their courageous contributions to the royal commission can be assured. This bill implements recommendation 6(1) of the royal commission's interim report, provided on 11 August last year. We agreed to implement this recommendation in our response to the interim report of the royal commission, and this was tabled in parliament on 26 September last year. These amendments reflect our government's commitment to supporting the royal commission's inquiry and to taking action in response to its recommendations. Under the proposed changes, the information that will be protected is information that was given by or on behalf of a person to the royal commission other than for the purposes of a private session; information that contains an account of a person's experience or systemic issues in relation to the suicide of another, suicidality or poor mental health as an ADF member or veteran; information that identifies the person who gave the information or on whose behalf the information was given; and information that was treated as confidential by the commission at all times after being given to the commission. The information protected by these amendments would not be admissible in evidence against a person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory, and it will be an offence for any person to record, use or disclose the information except in limited circumstances, such as for the purpose of referrals for law enforcement investigations or with the consent of the person who gave the information. The information would only be able to be used in reports or recommendations of the royal commission if it's been de-identified or if the information was also given as evidence to the royal commission or produced under a summons or notice. In terms of eligibility, any individual who gives information to the royal commission will be eligible to have their information protected under the amendments, and that includes both currently serving and ex-serving members of the ADF, their family members and any person who gives information to the royal commission on their behalf. This information will remain confidential for 99 years after the conclusion of the royal commission's inquiry. Allowing these protections is really important. We know how brave it is, how courageous it is and how difficult it is for people to share experiences that are very emotional, and that it can mean they are even more vulnerable than when they entered the royal commission process. I'm really pleased that we are getting on with the work of implementing the recommendations from that interim report and that we see this as a matter of urgency. I'm really pleased to support this bill today. 12:08 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023. The government supports the crucial, ongoing work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and has welcomed the findings and recommendations made in the commission's interim report. To enable the royal commission's findings and recommendations to be as robust as possible, it needs to receive information relevant to its terms of reference from a wide range of stakeholders. This includes, crucially, encouraging as many people as possible who have personal stories or experiences to have the confidence to share these with the royal commission. The government particularly recognises the royal commission's observation in its interim report that serving Australian Defence Force members may have been hesitant to engage with the royal commission due to concerns around the adequacy of the confidentiality provisions in the Royal Commissions Act 1902. It is essential that the royal commission hears from as many Australian Defence Force members as possible, so it is vital that these men and women feel they can safely share their stories and experiences with the royal commission. While existing confidentiality protections in the Royal Commissions Act 1902 are strong, we recognise the royal commission's recommendation that extending these protections would give people greater confidence in sharing information with the royal commission. The new confidentiality protections being introduced by this bill will ensure there is greater ability for sensitive personal information to be protected both during the royal commission's inquiries and after it has concluded. Under new section 6OQ, which this bill will create, certain information provided to the royal commission outside of a private session will be able to be protected in the same way as if it were given in a private session, if the royal commission treats that information as confidential at all times. This means that information to which the protections apply will not be admissible in evidence against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in a Commonwealth, state or territory court. It will be a criminal offence to use or disclose the information in an unauthorised manner. The information will only be able to be included in a report of the royal commission if it is de-identified or if it is separately received by the royal commission as evidence. The information will be excluded from the open access period under the Archives Act 1983 for 99 years and the information will be exempt from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. These protections will be available to information provided by any person. This includes serving and ex-serving ADF members and their families. In consultation the government undertook prior to introducing this bill, the royal commission, the Defence and Veterans Legal Service and defence and veteran stakeholder groups expressed strong support for the new protections, along with hope and expectation that they will encourage more people to come forward and share their stories. I thank the honourable member for Berowra for his acknowledgement, during debate on this bill, of the importance of ensuring the royal commission receives as much information as possible to inform its inquiries and his appreciation of the measures this bill implements to achieve that objective. I also thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his ongoing efforts to improve services and outcomes for the veterans community. Among many other important initiatives, this includes his recent announcement of significant public consultation on a pathway to reform more than a century of veterans' entitlement legislation, which will provide veterans the support they need and deserve. The government also committed substantial funding to progressing responses to other recommendations of the royal commission's interim report. This is vitally important work. This government is committed to undertaking a thorough and considered process on legislation and arrangements for veterans' entitlements and providing funding and support in order to deliver a better future for veterans and their families. It is the government's sincere hope that the increased confidentiality protections in this bill will encourage more people to come forward to engage with the royal commission and that the inquiry's findings lead to better outcomes for defence members and veterans. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 133

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Second Reading 133 12:14 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank Minister Giles for introducing these bills: the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. These bills support the introduction of a new Pacific engagement visa, allowing up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. The new Pacific engagement visa is a groundbreaking signature initiative of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family. It is designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora here in Australia. It reflects Australia's special relationship with the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and reflects the importance that Australia places on this relationship and our commitment to strengthening ties with the Pacific family. Importantly, the visa program will address the under-representation of some of Australia's closest neighbours in our permanent Migration Program. In 2021-22, less than 1,000 permanent migrants came from Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. That's a mere 0.7 per cent of the total migration program of 143,556 from that year. As Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I'm especially proud of this new visa program and the potential it offers to both the Pacific family and Australia. The Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora already make an incredible contribution to Australian communities and have done so for many years. I acknowledge the contribution of the Papua New Guinean, Fijian, Samoan, Tongan and the other Pasifika migrant communities in my own electorate of Shortland, and I know members value the contributions of Pacific migrants in their communities, particularly in electorates like Chifley, Werriwa, Rankin, Macarthur, Oxley and Greenway, amongst others, which have vibrant Pacific diasporas. Our government wants to grow and support Pacific diaspora communities in Australia as part of our wider agenda for strengthening Australia's relationships with countries of the Pacific and Timor-Leste. The new visa will create new opportunities for people of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to live, work and be educated in Australia. This will deepen our bonds as people and enrich our communities and countries. Since coming into office last year, the government has been consulting with Pacific partners and Timor-Leste. These discussions have been invaluable, and we have adjusted the design of the program in response to their feedback. Let me repeat that: we have designed this program based on feedback from these countries. These bills are the first steps in enabling implementation of the visa. The Pacific engagement visa will establish a permanent resident visa program, commencing in July 2023, for participating countries across the Pacific and Timor-Leste. Up to 3,000 visas, inclusive of partners and dependent children, will be allocated annually through a ballot process. The ballot system will ensure equal and transparent access to the visa pathway. The ballot will be open to eligible nationals of participating Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. This will include Pacific nationals who are already in Australia on a valid temporary visa, such as those working here under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. Eligible participants aged 18 to 45 will register in a ballot. Participants randomly selected through the ballot can then apply for the visa and include their partner and dependent children in their application. To be granted a visa, they'll need to have a formal full-time job offer in Australia and meet basic English language, health and character requirements. To maximise the prospects of successful ballot entrants finding work and taking up visas, we will be providing additional support to secure employment. An offshore service provider will work directly with successful ballot entrants to connect them with employers in Australia, providing access to a variety of roles at a range of skills levels. The service provider will also guide successful entrants through the visa application process, deliver culturally and linguistically relevant program outreach, and help prepare visa holders for life in Australia. As permanent residents, Pacific engagement visa holders will have the choice to live and work where they prefer, and they can change employers like any Australian citizen or other permanent resident. While finding employment in Australia will be an important first step, we know the success of this initiative will ultimately depend on the growth of a healthy and engaged Pacific diaspora and a positive settlement experience for each individual or family. That's why we are extending supports and services to Pacific engagement visa holders beyond the usual supports provided to permanent residents upon arrival in Australia. In addition to access to Australia's universal healthcare and public schooling systems, participants will be eligible for post-arrival settlement support through the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support program. They will also have access to the Adult Migrant English Program. We are committed to growing a vibrant and engaged diaspora through the visa. As such, it's important that participants are assured basic levels of economic security. Subject to the introduction and passage of further legislation, we will be providing early access to a range of benefits to support the cost of raising a family and ease the financial burden of education and training. This will include access to family tax benefit A and eligibility for healthcare card and rent assistance. To promote opportunities for education, career development and economic mobility, participants will have immediate access to the Higher Education Loan Program, VET student loans and Austudy and youth allowance payments. Access to education and training will broaden the scope of participation across a range of skill levels and experiences, addressing concerns in our region around brain drain. My friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs has outlined the bills in his second reading speech, but I want to add to his remarks by explaining how the bills will support the Pacific engagement visa. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 will create a legislative framework for the ballot process which is used to randomly select entrants to apply for the new visa. The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to allow the minister to implement a visa pre-application process. This visa pre-application process, a ballot, will involve the random selection of eligible persons. Selection via ballot process will be a legal requirement to apply for a visa where this is specified as a requirement in the Migration Regulations. Specifically, the bill inserts a new section 46C in the Migration Act providing legislative authority for the minister to arrange a visa pre-application process to be conducted in relation to one or more visas. It allows the minister to make a determination setting out details of eligibility to participate in a visa pre-application process and arrangements for the conduct of the process. It amends section 46 of the Migration Act to clarify that regulations specifying the criteria for making a valid visa application can include a requirement that the visa applicant have been selected in a visa pre-application process. The Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 applies a charge on persons who register as participants in a visa pre-application process. The charge bill provides that the amount of the charge cannot be more than $100, indexed in line with the consumer price index. The government, importantly, intends to apply a fee of $25 for registering to enter the Pacific engagement visa. The Pacific engagement visa is part of a wider package of policies to deepen Australia's ties with the Pacific and build a stronger and more united Pacific family. In the 2022-23 budget, the government announced several new measures to strengthen the Pacific family and meet our election commitments. These measures build on and expand the former government's Pacific Step-up policies. They include an additional $900 million in official development assistance over four years to increase support to the Pacific family's development and resilience, including in education and health; new investments to advance Pacific security and engagement priorities; strengthening the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, including through the establishment of the Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership; and a new Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy to provide better tailored broadcasting services and support for a diverse, independent and professional regional media sector. We've already delivered on our commitment to expand the Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme, and we'll continue to work to improve the program in consultation with participants and partner governments. More than 35,000 Pacific and Timor-Leste workers are already making an incredible contribution to Australia's regional communities in critical fields like agriculture and aged care under this temporary migration program. The new Pacific engagement visa will help improve the balance between permanent and temporary migrants from the Pacific and Timor-Leste. As a proud member of the Pacific family, Australia is committed to working with all countries in the Pacific to achieve our shared aspirations and address our shared challenges. Pacific and Timor-Leste views of been central to the design of this visa. The government has consulted extensively to ensure that the Pacific engagement visa meets the shared needs and priorities of our Pacific and Timor-Leste partners. We have consulted and listened to the governments of all 13 countries in scope for the program since August 2022. We've consulted with Pacific employer, business and training organisations. We've also had close engagement with stakeholders in Australia, including non-government organisations, expert researchers, diaspora communities, churches, PALM scheme employers and workers, and Australian employers. The foreign minister and I have also had extensive engagements across the region with leaders and counterparts. Between the two of us, we have visited each Pacific island country and Timor-Leste since June last year. This includes the resumption of the important bipartisan visit to the Pacific. The introduction of this bill does not mark an end to consultations. We will continue to listen to and incorporate Pacific and Timor-Leste views through the visa's implementation and operation. We will continue to monitor, evaluate, adjust and refine the program to ensure that this groundbreaking initiative is delivering for all engaged. Participating countries will decide on the extent and nature of their participation in the program. In establishing this visa, we want to make a uniquely Australian contribution to the Pacific family by being reliable, turning up, showing respect, listening and being transparent and open. Pacific people are rightly proud of their culture and traditions, and will want to maintain close links through family, church, support and businesses. So the Pacific engagement visa will encourage free-flowing movement of participants between their home countries and Australia. The program will contribute to the economic development of Pacific countries through remittances, opportunities for skills exchange, and investment. We are particularly conscious of the need to ensure that, in establishing this visa, we do not deprive Pacific countries of skills and talent. That's why we're putting in place measures to help successful ballot entrants find employment in Australia that matches their experience and capabilities, ensuring that this program is accessible to participants from a range of backgrounds, trades and professions. That's why the ballot part of this visa is critical, and that's why I was so distressed when I saw the statement by the shadow immigration minister yesterday, saying that the opposition will oppose this bill based on the ballot. They fundamentally misunderstand the nature and operation of this visa and are undermining this complete operation. If you do not have a ballot, you do not ensure that you address the brain drain concerns of the Pacific. That is the fundamental point of this, and that is why it's been based on a highly successful New Zealand visa model. This initiative has been welcomed by Pacific governments and leaders, stakeholders, policy experts and respected development agencies. For example, in the fourth PNG-Australia Annual Leaders' Dialogue joint statement, PNG's Prime Minister, Prime Minister Marape, 'welcomed Australia's commitment to provide in-country support for Pacific engagement visa applicants to connect with employers in Australia'. Importantly, the program responds to expert recommendations that Australia learn from the New Zealand experience of Pacific migration, by introducing a dedicated permanent pathway to complement our existing temporary labour schemes. This was a recommendation by a parliamentary committee chaired by the opposition when they were in government that they are now walking away from. A 2017 World Bank report highlighted the effectiveness of New Zealand's Pacific access category and Samoan quota visa programs, and recommended that Australia consider a similar program. These views have also been supported by eminent Australian experts such as Professor Stephen Howes from the Australian National University and the Lowy Institute. In summary, the Pacific engagement visa is a revolutionary change to our permanent migration system. Over time, it will strengthen our links with the Pacific family and deepen our ties to the region that's our home and critical to our future. Boosting Pacific permanent migration to Australia is an essential part of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family. This is necessary, and those who stand in opposition to this stand in opposition to Australia's engagement in the Pacific. They are undermining our position and continuing the incompetence that they showed when they were in government. That's why they need to change their position, and that's why I commend these bills to the chamber. 12:30 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I acknowledge the vital importance of Australia's role in the Pacific and our relationship with our great family of nations. When I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the previous parliament, I was part of a group that received a delegation of the missions of all of the Pacific island nations. They came into the parliament, and we engaged with them in a meaningful way. One thing that they told us loud and clear is that they are very thankful for the work that we do with the Pacific island nation countries—our friends and our family. That is the nature of the relationship that we have; it is one of friendship and it is one of family. It is not one of dominance. We engage with our friends in the Pacific. We don't tell them what we want them to do or how to do things. That's what any good, responsible government should try and do—it should engage with its neighbours as peers, not as some party or country that sees itself as dominant in a particular region. This government needs to tread a very, very careful line when it comes to this migration program, and I'll unpack that over the next 13 minutes or so. Locally, the Sunshine Coast has a long and enduring connection to the Pacific islands, spanning some 150 years. Today, through the University of the Sunshine Coast's Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research, we're working with and learning from Pacific islanders about marine protection, coastal adaptation and sustainable fisheries. In twinning with the Western Pacific University, UniSC is offering a collaborative, academic and cultural exchange for academic leaders. Through the Centre for International Development, Social Entrepreneurship and Leadership, the Sunshine Coast plays host to Indo-Pacific leaders for training and postgraduate research. These people-to-people links are about empowering Pacific island partners to build their communities, to grow their economies and to strengthen their national institutions for the long term. These ideals should be at the centre of Australia's national approach to engaging with our Pacific partners. It was Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies who said, just before World War II: … in the Pacific, Australia must regard herself as a principal … Our relationship has moved beyond that of a principal. We see ourselves as a partner with our Pacific colleagues. In World War II, Australian men and women held back the tide of aggression which reached not only our shores but also those of our Pacific island neighbours. When the war was won, we didn't abandon the Pacific; we stayed to rebuild. Again, in the throes of the Vietnam War, Liberal Prime Minister William McMahon said: We share a common purpose for peace, security and progress in the South Pacific Region and our destinies are permanently linked in many ways. In the 50-odd years since he made that declaration, the bond between Australia and the Pacific islands has deepened beyond neighbouring nations into a family of nations. By and large, this has been on the coalition's watch: through multilateral bodies like the Commonwealth of Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum; through overseas development assistance, with 43 percent of our 2021-22 aid budget directly targeting PNG and the Pacific; through trade and exchange programs, like the New Colombo Plan, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership; and through the defence and security ties like AUSMIN, the Quad and now AUKUS. It's those defence and security ties which are of the greatest importance to us in performing our primary role as parliamentarians—that is, to protect Australians and their interests. China, under its communist regime, is set on dominating our Pacific region. Make no mistake: they want to seek a permanent military presence in the Pacific. They want access to the Pacific's natural resources. They want to control critical trade routes. In the Chinese Communist Party's quest to become a global superpower and to quash Western democratic order, communist China will stop at nothing. They make bold promises. They seek to corrupt national governments. They build shiny new infrastructure, and, in the end, they entrap whole nations in economic, defence and diplomatic bonds. We've seen this even on our local shores, where they have sought to entrap Victoria through the Belt and Road Initiative. But it's not just the Belt and Road Initiative and debt-trap diplomacy. The Chinese Communist Party poses a threat to every element of Australia's security and the security of the Pacific region. As to the Chinese Communist Party—or the PLA, the People's Liberation Army—their land, air, sea, cyber and space defence postures are formidable. Their naval power and maritime militia have grown exponentially. That's why, in government, the coalition's Pacific Maritime Security Program supported 12 Pacific island nations with patrol boats. The Chinese Communist Party's cyber capabilities, and the PLA's cyber capabilities—in particular, their ability to procure data through seemingly innocent means—are, thankfully, but concerningly, becoming clearer by the day. It was only last year that Chinese attackers bombarded government agency employees with phishing emails containing a link to a fake news site, to steal information relating to the South China Sea. TikTok is the perfect example of how they gather intelligence en masse and from unknowing victims. With an international submarine cable, connecting Australia with Guam, just outside of my electorate, running along Australia's Pacific coast, the protection of our critical infrastructure—and, particularly, digital infrastructure—has never been more imperative. Ensuring that Australia nourishes our great family of nations is vital. It was the previous coalition government which led the Pacific step-up, to take an even more active role in protecting and shaping the future of this region. As part of this, we took steps to encourage more permanent migration from Pacific island nations. We launched the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, program, by streamlining the Pacific Labour Scheme, the PLS, and Seasonal Worker Program, the SWP, to ensure a more efficient and safer scheme. Thanks to our decision in government, the program has grown from 12,500 people to 35,000 workers. We encourage this federal Labor government to maintain the program and to set their eyes on even more ambitious targets. In doing so, they would have our support. Labor claims that the Pacific engagement visa will grow Australia's Pacific and Timor-Leste resident populations, enhance soft-power links and boost economic relations. Now, these are admirable goals. Under the previous coalition government they were real outcomes. Under this government, they are nothing but a pipe dream. These bills provide for a visa pre-application process which does not currently exist in the Migration Act. For the first time, this Labor government wants to create a ballot process that will be able to be used not just for the Pacific engagement visa, but for any future visa that the government of the day may decide to introduce. Permanent residency that ultimately leads to citizenship in Australia is far too important to be decided by having your name pulled out of a hat. This has the potential to turn Australia's immigration system on its head. Our migration system, as it stands, is built on an ambition to attract skilled migrants who contribute to our economy and our community. Instead, this Labor government want to sign applicants up to some ludicrous visa style lottery. They want to take their chances instead of thinking, consulting and legislating commonsense immigration policies. That is what Labor have done time and again for the last 12 months. They make bold promises and realise they can't deliver on those promises, so they come up with a half-baked idea, throw it to the parliament and hope to flesh it out with some oratorical flourishes. It is policy on the run once again from an incompetent Labor government. One has to ask why our Pacific island partners would want to sign up for the program. Under these bills, they would risk haemorrhaging skilled workers as 3,000 working-age citizens—indeed, whole families—leave the region each year. They would lose the direct financial contributions through remittances, as Labor's plan will see families pack up shop and move to Australia, removing the incentive for remittance or reinvestment in their countries of origin. As it turns out, we don't have to ask why Pacific island partners would sign up for the program; they don't want to. Just a couple of months ago, Samoa's Acting Prime Minister told their parliament the Australian government made the announcement on new visas without consulting the Samoan government. He said this would hurt the Samoan labour workforce and lead to the loss of more skilled workers and their families to Australia permanently and would further drain Samoa's already strained workforce. When we were in government—and I took a very active role in this part, particularly when I was Speaker—I invited heads of mission from across the Pacific into the parliament, and I did my absolute level best to engage with the heads of those missions as partners—not as master and servant, with us telling them what they want. It's incredibly important that we engage with them as partners to talk with them, not to create some sort of a brain drain from the Pacific. That is what these bills will do. It is fundamentally immoral for us as a wealthy country to effectively draw upon what may be some of the best and brightest of our Pacific island countries—their own people, of working age, and their families. Just think about what sort of an impact that could have on small communities. Whilst we support sensible measures in the Pacific, we don't believe that these bills, holistically, will provide the sensible outcomes we saw when we were in government. The relationship between Australia and the Pacific is an enduring one. It is so incredibly important, not just because these are our Pacific friends and family but because we have an enduring tie, as I hope I've outlined over the last little while, from a defence perspective. Our defence, the defence of Australia, is tied to the defence of the Pacific and every country within it. If we start adopting approaches which undermine the relationships we built up over the last nine years when we were in government, if we start telling Pacific island nations what's best for them, that undermines critical relationships and undermines both our national security and the national security of our Pacific family. So, if I, as a member of the opposition, may be so bold as to say it: these bills need to be rethought. The government needs to go back and consult more broadly with those who would be impacted the most heavily by these bills. This is not a time for policy on the run. This is a time for working with our Pacific partners, who are friends and family. 12:45 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I will just start by commending the member for Fisher for his contribution and, somewhat lazily, attach myself to all of the excellent points that he made, just so that I can use my time to expand on some other points. But I do commend the tenor of exactly what he has said, and I think he's captured very appropriately the concerns that we in the coalition have around this policy approach. Frankly, it is something very important to push back against at the first opportunity. Not only do the principles of this policy approach, specifically, worry me, but, potentially, if this approach to pathways through our migration program started to become more common from this government, then we would have some very concerning issues to confront as to the principles around migration policy. I worked for a number of years in the textile industry with some excellent companies in Fiji. Fiji has a number of economic industries to be proud of, some of which, such as tourism, are more well-known. But the textile industry and the apparel and garment industry are very significant ones in Fiji. They have done an excellent job of working with Australian businesses and the market in Australia to create a really impressive supply chain capability in Fiji, competing against bigger nations, bigger economies, in that sector in Asia. Their niche, of course, is that they have better and closer links to Australian businesses and, equally, have the ability to have a much more rapid supply chain response capability, and to be able to do smaller quantities, which is a relative term in textiles—rather than quantities of millions, they do quantities in the tens of thousands, which most of us would consider to be significant, but which, in apparel, is a small production run. So I learnt a lot and had some great experiences. I have some excellent ongoing connections with people in that industry in Fiji. I say that because it's an excellent example of the economic opportunity that we should be supporting throughout the Pacific, as a nation that has the largest economy in the Oceanic region, and has a significant history—and both positive and negative things in our relationship—with the various nations in the Pacific sphere. Important points have been made by other speakers, not just about our past but about our future in the area and the important national security elements and developmental opportunities that we have to support all of our very good friends in the Pacific family, for them to achieve the destiny that they want. I don't believe that it's the ambition of the communities of the Pacific to leave the Pacific and to come to countries like Australia. I'm very confident—having had my direct personal connections with people throughout the Pacific—that they want their future to be in the Pacific. Their governments also want their future to be in the Pacific. They want to grow their economies. They want to establish existing and new industries that give the people who live in the Pacific a hope and confidence and an ambition for their future to be exactly where they are, which is their home. This policy is, effectively, encouraging the absolute opposite of that. It's saying that we want to offer people some kind of lottery opportunity to leave their community, to leave their economy, and to make their future in Australia. We very proudly welcome people who want to make their future in this country. We have two elements to our migration program: the economic skill side and the humanitarian refugee side. I want to see us enhance that program to have that program doing exactly what it is meant to. The principles in this bill should be an anathema to what we're seeking to do when it comes to both elements of our migration program. We do not want to be flippantly conducting lotteries for people to come to our country and we don't want to encourage people who have the ability to be the future of their own country to leave that country, unless they're in situations—and this is not the case amongst our Pacific nation friends—where they need a humanitarian pathway away from where they currently are to our nation. Essentially what we're saying here is that we want to go to our Pacific neighbours and say to their population, 'Enter a lottery to leave your country and come and make your future in our country.' It would surprise me if the governments, leaders, communities and societies amongst the Pacific nations view that as being something that a good neighbour like Australia should be doing to their communities. We have a very good, strong tradition of great economic partnerships with Pacific nations. There are economic opportunities. The PALM scheme is one that everyone would be aware of. It provides employment opportunities on a seasonal basis in our nation. In agricultural communities this is absolutely vital. The PALM scheme provides seasonal labour in places in this country with great shortages in and great demand for seasonal labour. Obviously the PALM scheme provides a pathway for people from Pacific nations to come to Australia on a seasonal basis to earn a significant income here in this country—compared to the income that they might earn on an ongoing basis in their own nation—and to remit their earnings, net of the costs that they have living here whilst they are on that visa. That provides an enormous economic injection into the economies from where they come and also provides them with the capacity to use that as a way of building their economic future in their own country. A lot of anecdotal stories have been shared by colleagues who represent electorates where this scheme provides a lot of labour and where people have come. Through the PALM scheme people might come to the Leichardt electorate for a couple of seasons and earn an income that supports their family and that they invest in their country of origin to build their economic future there. This policy effectively says that, instead of that being the focus of opportunities for people in the Pacific in this country, which works very well for both economies, we want people in Pacific nations to participate in a lottery indiscriminately to leave those nations permanently and come to Australia. We have a skilled migration program, which is important, and we do have significant skilled labour shortages in this country. The way in which we undertake that can always be improved. I have looked very closely at, and am very interested in, migration reform opportunities that are demand driven and led by businesses, where employer sponsorship is at the heart of filling shortages in labour, both at the skilled level and at the geographic level. We in this country are not as good as we need to be at ensuring that people who come through the skilled migration channels are in fact honouring the principle of why we want them through the skilled stream to come here. That's really a geographic issue. There are a lot of people who come into the country through the scheme that is trying to address labour shortages in regional Australia, and even in my home city of Adelaide, which some might not consider regional. At times we have been designated as regional under the migration system, because, regrettably for someone who is not from Melbourne, Sydney or South-East Queensland, we find that those regions are a magnet for people coming into the country, and, while people might be coming under the pretence of helping to address a skill shortage in somewhere like my home state of South Australia, they are free to ultimately end up in the suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne. So looking at and considering regional rules and geographic rules around skilled migration is something that I would commend to all of us as policymakers. Of course, having that employer sponsorship as a focus means that people are coming here to fill major shortages in jobs that exist that can't be filled by Australians, after we've demonstrated that that business has exhausted all avenues to try and fill that job with an Australian first. Certainly, when I work with employers on these challenges, I've never come across a business whose preference isn't to employ an Australian first and foremost. It is an enormous cost and an enormous risk to sponsor someone to come into this country on a visa and employ them rather than employing an Australian. There is no benefit or the like from not having an Australian first and foremost, but there are significant issues around skills shortages et cetera that can be addressed through that channel. Equally we've got our humanitarian responsibilities, which we take very seriously, and we participate through the international frameworks that are in place for us to have our fair share of humanitarian intake. That's what the focus of our migration policies and the migration schemes that we operate needs to be. This is none of that. This doesn't do any of that. What this is doing, as I say, is seeking to cannibalise, potentially, some of the people who could make an enormous contribution in the countries that they currently live in and entice them away from contributing to their nation and their economy by giving them this lottery system to come to Australia. We are now deciding that we will have some randomised lottery process doling out Australian residency and Australian citizenship. We have a government that has such a low regard for the standards that we should have and the control that we should have around people coming into this country that we're now going to have some kind of randomised ballot system to select people to come into our country. I think it is paternalistic and, frankly, morally bankrupt. It is essentially saying that we don't believe that there is any way of determining what the priority is for who we select to have the great honour and opportunity of a pathway to residency in this country in their future. We're almost encouraging people not on the basis of the economic need in this country or their humanitarian circumstance, where they might need to have a future in a nation like Australia over where they are, and instead we're saying, 'Enter this random lottery system to come to Australia and leave behind the life that you've got in the nation that you're in.' I and all of us in the coalition very much reject that approach to our migration system. We reject the paternalism of that. This is the sort of thing I thought was left in the 19th century, frankly. Whilst I am not reflecting on all the good things that were done by the British Empire, these sorts of paternalistic policies remind us of an era that we thought we would not see in the year 2023. Nonetheless, the Albanese government are proposing it here before us today, and that is why I urge the House not to support the passage of this bill. Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 1 5 : 59 15:59 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to continue my speech in support of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the related bill. The bill implements an important commitment of the government and does some important work in relation to a group of nations that are among our most important friends. Indeed, we consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family, which is a perfect way of encapsulating the kind of relationship we have and which we hope to continue to have and strengthen with those island nations. I include in that Timor-Leste, which is covered by this bill. Australia has a strong and deep connection to the Pacific and to Pacific island nations. It's a precious part of our identity to be able to consider ourselves a member of the Pacific family. We don't—and we shouldn't—take for granted the connections, the affinity, the shared wellbeing and shared challenges that bind Pacific nations, including Australia, and of course, as I said before, that same affinity and some of those same challenges exist between Australia and Timor-Leste. That position of respect, affection and, to some considerable degree, shared identity is fundamentally multipartisan. I know that, notwithstanding the views that various people have about these particular bills, that commitment is something that everyone in this parliament takes very seriously. These bills are about strengthening the people-to-people links between Australia, Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste, and they're consistent with the approach that the Albanese Labor government has taken over the first short nine months of its administration to date. This is a government that delivers on its election commitments. This is something we took to the election last May. It indicates again how ministers across the full range of government responsibility—in this case the Minister for International Development and the Pacific—are wasting no time in making positive change and delivering on things that we said we would do to improve the circumstances that Australia finds itself in and to pursue Australia's national interest. It's a perfect example of the way in which we understand our engagement with the world needs to occur—that is, in a thoughtful, concerted, coordinated fashion through all the avenues of external affairs: diplomacy, development assistance, defence, trade and our migration arrangements. When it comes to permanent migration, which has been such a key feature of our multicultural diversity and strength here in Australia, it's true that the Pacific has been significantly under-represented. To some degree, through the creation of the Pacific engagement visa, these bills respond to something that hasn't been in its right proportion for a considerable period of time. The statistic from 2021-22 tells you everything you need to know. In that year, when 143,500-odd people became permanent migrants to this country, only 999—fewer than a thousand—were from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. That's 0.7 per cent. That's just not right when you consider the proximity of those countries and when you consider the significance of our relationship with them and the things that we share as regional neighbours and members of the Pacific family. These bills are partly aimed at addressing that shortcoming, and I'll come back to this again later, but it should be noted at the very outset that what we are proposing to do with these bills is exactly what was recommended by a committee during the 46th Parliament which had a majority of coalition members and which was chaired by a coalition member of the former government. So the idea that Australia should put something new in place that facilitates greater permanent migration from Pacific island nations is, I think, a matter of common sense and it clearly was a parliamentary recommendation in the previous parliament, made by a committee chaired by a coalition member and with a majority of coalition members. I'll start by saying that, under this government, without question, there has been a surge in activity in practical and person-to-person engagement and funding support and in all of the ways in which we seek to partner with Pacific island nations to a new and reinvigorated degree. The fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific have visited Pacific island nations in what seems like literally every week of the last nine months is one indication of that. I'm someone who comes from the far other side of this island continent, and I can't say that I have had a really extensive experience of the Pacific. I was fortunate enough to be in Fiji late last year with you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, as part of a parliamentary delegation that went as election observers to help with the good conduct and integrity of that election. I was briefly the chair of the delegation, a role that you ably undertook when circumstances meant that I had to come back here. Australia has, over a number of elections, served as effectively one of three co-chairs of the Multinational Observer Group, a 90-member group that helps with the conduct of elections. Deputy Speaker, you filled that position very ably, through what was a significant election because it was a change of government through proper democratic process in Fiji. Prior to that, I was in Dili, in Timor-Leste, in 2015 as part of the second Asian Electoral Stakeholder Forum, and I was very privileged to be in Honiara in 2013 for the 10th anniversary of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. So, while I haven't been into the Pacific or to Timor-Leste very often, I've really enjoyed the times that I've been able to visit, and I hope I can do that more in the time ahead. What these bills do is lay the groundwork for the creation of a Pacific engagement visa. At the same time we are expanding the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme visa program. They are both very important, and they both do different things. But this visa program, the Pacific engagement visa, will facilitate up to 3,000 permanent migrants from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste each year. It will occur through a ballot process that is modelled on the Pacific access category resident visa that New Zealand operates on. It's become apparent in recent days that the coalition doesn't support these bills. There was a period of time in which that wasn't clear. You would have thought, as I said earlier, that, when a parliamentary committee in the 46th Parliament, which they chaired and had the majority of, made this recommendation, they would have every reason for seeing the merit in this proposal. I think there are all of the other reasons for it, like the fact that people from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste make up such a disproportionately low number of permanent migrants within our program. But I will look very briefly at a couple of the other issues that the shadow minister has advanced as reasons why the coalition won't support it. One of them is that that there's a potential through this program for there to be some kind of brain drain. That is a legitimate concern. That phenomenon would be a legitimate concern. We don't want to have programs that, effectively, focus on people who have particular expertise and skills in Pacific island nations and result in them coming to Australia in a way that means they don't get to apply those skills and that expertise in their own countries. That's why this program doesn't have that kind of points system or skills basis. It's not targeted at some sort of talent scouting outcome. It's done by a ballot, and it's non-discriminatory in that sense. There will be people who might be old or young and there will be people who might have skills or might be relatively unskilled who will be able to apply under this program. To the extent that that's one of the reasons the shadow minister for immigration has identified as to why these bills are insupportable, that just doesn't hold any water. Another reason that has been advanced has been that people who come here from Pacific island nations or from Timor-Leste and are therefore permanent in Australia might not make remittances to their home countries and to their families. Those remittances are a significant form of income support that occurs when people from the Pacific are in Australia. There's just no evidence from all of the organisations—NGOs and other monitoring bodies that look at this kind of program where it happens elsewhere; New Zealand has one, and the United States has a similar program. There is no evidence whatsoever that it leads to a decrease in remittances to the extent that that is something the coalition would be concerned about. So it's very hard to actually put your finger on the reason why the coalition doesn't support these measures. It doesn't conflict with the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility visa program. That's an important program; we're expanding it. It doesn't and can't create a brain drain in the way that the shadow minister has advanced. It won't affect remittances in the way the shadow minister has advanced. There's no evidence to support that. It would be hard for anyone hearing those arguments and knowing the facts not to conclude that these are just things being plucked out of the air. I don't think that that's a responsible way to conduct consideration and form a position on a policy like this that, as I've said before, was taken to the election and is a commitment by the government that was made clear in advance of the election. It's hard not to see the position that the shadow minister has announced in relation to these bills as anything other than, essentially, being consistent with a broad based policy of just saying no—of negativity for negativity's sake. We have seen 'no' to responsible climate action. We have seen 'no' to energy price relief. We've seen 'no' to secure jobs and better pay. And now we see 'no' to a program that simply tries to ensure that people from Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste are able to become permanent migrants in Australia—in the same way that people from lots of other countries do—and, in fact, to that program existing in what would be a fair, proper and appropriate proportion, considering the significance of the region and its proximity to this country. It's hard to accept that there can be a good argument for not supporting the bills and not going forward with the program. Today has been a day when the shadow minister—though it's not directly related to this topic—expressed some concern about the flag that flies from the building, and that's fair enough; that flag should be good condition. We've heard explanations as to why it hasn't been changed—because of danger and high wind conditions. But it again begs the question about the basis and foundation of the positions that the shadow minister and other members of the coalition frontbench are reaching. I'd be surprised, knowing people in this room and their interest in the Pacific, if the view that the shadow minister has put is really a widely held one, because it really doesn't make any sense. I think that what this will inevitably deliver is stronger person-to-person ties between Australia and Pacific island nations, and between Australia and Timor-Leste. We absolutely need that. It's right because of our membership of the Pacific family. It's right as a matter of our identity and values. It's right as a feature of our concern for the broader wellbeing of all the communities in the Pacific, and it goes hand in hand with the additional $900 million of development assistance that this government will provide over the next four years. After you are motivated by all of those things, which, frankly, should be at the top of your motivational list, it is also significant in advancing our national interest in building ties to a stable, prosperous and peaceful Pacific region. When you neglect diplomacy, development assistance and people-to-people links through a program like this, you weaken Australia's position to be the kind of supportive, consultative partner of Pacific island nations that we should be. Our capacity to do that did fall away in the last several years. In the last year or so of the previous government, we saw some of the geostrategic consequences of that, and I think those opposite should reflect on those outcomes when they jump out of the box and say no to something like this, which is a policy that they themselves were in favour of only 10 months ago. I'm very supportive of this. I thank the minister for all his work, and I look forward to welcoming more permanent migrants from the Pacific to Australia. 16:14 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I, and the coalition, support efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours. You only have to visit the Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill regions, along the northern border of my electorate of Mallee, to see how migrants from the Pacific islands contribute to our industries and communities by working on farming properties and in other labourer roles. Mallee is home to approximately 74 per cent of Australia's almond production, 70 per cent of table grape production, 57 per cent of nectarine production and 19 per cent of orange production, with most grown in the north of the electorate. For years, growers from these areas have been dealing with workforce shortages which continue to create anxiety and uncertainty for farmers at harvest time. If workers cannot be found, harvest is at risk of falling to the ground, resulting in losses into the billions of dollars. REMPLAN now estimates Mallee's gross regional product at $9.92 billion, with an annual economic output of more than $14 billion—a large part of that is built on the horticultural industry. The Pacific islander workforce contributes heavily to that industry in particular, not just in Mallee but around Australia. Currently, under the coalition-introduced Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme, employers in the horticultural sector have access to a reliable workforce when there is not enough local Australian labour to meet the seasonal demand. It's also an opportunity for workers from partnering countries to earn good wages and learn new skills. The money they earn is often spent on their children's education and family medical bills, or it's even used to build a house or start a small business in their home country. This is sound policy that supports our growers and the workers and their families back home. Now the Labor government is seeking to make their own mark on our immigration system, by introducing two pieces of legislation that will see a new Pacific engagement visa developed. To be fair, aspects of this concept have merit. Our Pacific neighbours are welcome in Australia. We can agree on that. However, Labor's new PEV will allow, per year, up to 3,000 nationals from Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to be drawn from a ballot and migrate to Australia, effectively as permanent residents. This is significantly new territory, moving away from Australia's current immigration policy. There is no precedent for this process in Australia or under the Migration Act 1958—just because a process is new doesn't mean it's right. Labor wants to turn our immigration system on its head, which may lead to perverse outcomes. Instead of creating policy based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, this government wants to pull names out of a hat for a chance to become a permanent resident in Australia. What's more, their families will be brought in without satisfying any eligibility requirements, and they'll be well on the road to Australian citizenship. Once they have permanent residency, they will be eligible for Medicare and other social security benefits, unlike many other visa holders who have worked and contributed to this country before they had a pathway to permanency. The information on DFAT's website is that the expected cost to enter a ballot will be about $25 for each time a person puts an entry in. It is permanent residency awarded at random. I, and my colleagues in the coalition, support well-structured and well-planned immigration policy. We have a proud history in this country of depending on migration to build our workforce and enrich our nation. But a ballot system brings risk that is unacceptable. It sees employers take chances on workers who have limited exposure to Australian culture and conditions. There is no regional policy in this legislation. There is no guarantee of adding to our workforce, particularly in the regions. Indeed, from day two, people could begin to rely on welfare rather than work, thereby increasing the burden on Australian taxpayers. Labor's policy turns immigration into a game, and Australia is the prize. This legislation does raise significant questions regarding how it will be implemented, and the government needs to provide detail before we can call it good legislation. From information provided to the opposition by this government, to be successful in gaining a PEV the applicant must simply have an offer of employment in Australia. There's no room for exploitation here, then, is there! We know Australia has a workforce shortage across many sectors. I've already mentioned growers having trouble finding fruit pickers, something the PALM scheme helps to alleviate. But there are many, many sectors desperate for workers. Earlier today I met with representatives from Clubs Australia. They stressed to me the importance of overseas workers to the club industry's workforce by filling labour and skills shortages. Overseas workers fill skilled occupations such as chefs and cooks, as well as other occupations like food and beverage attendants. In fact, they told of one club that hadn't had an Australian apply for a chef role in years. They simply can't get an Australian person to apply, but overseas workers do. Hospitality and horticulture are just two examples. But, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, how easy do you think it would be for someone applying for this visa to obtain a job offer for a whole host of industries in this current workforce climate? If they tried hard enough, there would be employers willing or perhaps even desperate enough to take the chance, particularly under the systems this visa would put in place. From the perspective of the employer, this PEV could mean less work to get workers. The worker, as a result, would have a job offer that meant they came to Australia as a permanent resident. Both parties win when you cut out the red tape associated with current visa processes. At face value, this almost reads like a great plan; it truly does—a nice carrot to get jobs filled and an easy way through the immigration process for willing participants. But once again the devil is in the detail, and this isn't the first time that phrase has been applied to Labor policy. Another springs to mind: the expansion of the distribution priority areas, which has resulted in regional areas bleeding health professionals to major centres. The words 'unintended consequences' describe a lot of Labor policies—the health workforce and now the immigration system. It appears that, once in Australia, these applicants could quit their job, or be sacked, after a day and be eligible to access the full range of welfare entitlements for them and for their family. One can only imagine there would be unscrupulous individuals out there happy to exploit this loophole. Australia's migration system is well structured and rigorous for a reason. But this legislation is not. The government have stated they envisage the eligibility criteria for the visa will include being between 18 and 45 years old, having a formal offer of employment in Australia, English language ability, and meeting health and character requirements, although it will not have a skill level or occupational requirement, or a regional requirement. This rings alarm bells as to its capacity to fill any workforce shortages we have. How would an employer know that the person they were getting would be suited to the role they are applying for? The short answer is they wouldn't truly know until this person showed up to work. This new visa would move away from the skilled stream of Australia's migration program. This program targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country, and temporary migrants who can make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. These are key cornerstones for any migration program in Australia. We need to ensure we have the right people coming in to fill jobs and contribute to Australia's economy. It is also a concern that this visa has no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, increasing the risk of visa recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in Australia, and that is a risk that puts a lot more pressure on diasporas to support new immigrants. Going into the last federal election, this government had a policy of a strong Pacific family. After all, the Pacific islands are our closest neighbours and it's important that we in this part of the world remain united. But how is this unstructured ballot that offers a new country to families from their home nation and brings them to Australia going to make the Pacific family stronger? It seems it would do the opposite; it would weaken the rest of the Pacific, all to address the issues we have here in Australia. These views are shared by others, not just those on this side of the chamber. In January this year Samoa's Acting Prime Minister told their parliament that the Australian government made the announcement on new visas without consulting the then Samoan government. His worry was that this would hurt the Samoan labour workforce, as it is already strained. Does Australia really want to rob Peter to pay Paul? Is this what entails being part of a strong Pacific family? Under the current PALM scheme, the worker in Australia sends remittance back to their families in the Pacific islands. This in turn plays a part in stimulating their economic prosperity. Under this Labor policy, our Pacific neighbours are potentially worse off—another unintended consequence. If this visa is a test of Labor's foreign relation and economic policy to make a stronger Pacific family, then the signs are not looking good. The coalition is strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of the Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. We extend our hand to our neighbours and are glad to work with them, not to take from them but to offer opportunities for their people that would in turn help their countries. This was the aim of the PALM scheme, which I know growers around the northern part of Mallee have been thankful for. I'm sure there are many other communities relying on Pacific island labour around Australia in the ag industry, in abattoirs and in numerous other sectors. We will remain strongly in support of mechanisms that provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste, along with pathways to permanent residency in a sustainable manner. But this legislation is not going to do that. As I said at the start of this speech, the PEV has some merit and I would be willing to work with the government and the Pacific nations for the development of a sustainable PEV, knowing what it means to Mallee in terms of our workforce issues. A pathway for permanent residency is valid, particularly for those who have shown the capacity to work in Australia. That is something I support and will continue to support. What I can't support is the legislation in its current form. The PALM scheme itself could be a suitable vehicle to develop a PEV if, under the current system, PALM scheme participants are able to enter a ballot. PALM scheme participants have proven their suitability to work in Australia because they are already here working under a temporary visa. They would be ideal for a more concrete PEV. We know that, under the PALM scheme, there have been mutual benefits for all parties, including Australia, Pacific island nations and individual workers, employers and even families and communities of workers back in the Pacific islands. This Labor government should look at the PALM scheme and its participants more closely and, in effect, make the PALM scheme a step on the way to a PEV. This would ensure any PEV recipient is better placed to successfully take up Australian permanent residency rather than creating a whole new game. Wouldn't this be a solution in line with the country's current migration program that would avoid the need for a lottery and the risks it poses? I would think so. Australia as a nation has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue. Let's find solutions we can agree on. 16:28 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak on these bills, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, that purport to introduce a permanent Pacific engagement visa through changes to the Migration Act that will allow the minister to issue visas through changes to the migration regulation. I oppose these bills, which propose changes to introduce a ballot system to conduct what is being called a visa pre-application process. It is in fact nothing more than a ballot through which certain registered people may be randomly selected to then apply for a visa. This marks a dramatic overhaul of the process of visa applications in Australia. This new framework is against the Labor government's own policy platform on engaging with the Pacific because at the same time it's setting up a lottery system for around 3,000 of our Pacific island neighbours. It is also grossly insulting to Pacific island people. It says nothing more than: 'You can enter a lottery to leave your own country.' And an unintended consequence of these bills will be, potentially, a draining of our Pacific island nations' skilled workers. The idea of a visa ballot system is used in some other countries. The proposal has been compared to the United States's green card lottery which allows certain nationalities to enter a ballot for a diversity immigrant program, then leading to permanent residency. However, the model proposed by the Labor government is more closely modelled on New Zealand's Pacific access category visa ballot. Having looked at the explanatory memorandum for these bills, I see that it states that a ballot system will be a fair method of selecting eligible applicants for visas where demand exceeds available places. It is therefore well intended to manage efficiency in visa processing and avoid long processing wait times for applicants. While the stated primary policy objective of the Pacific engagement visa is to support Australia's engagement with Pacific island countries, this is not the way to do it. It is stated that the visa would build the number of Pacific islanders resident in Australia, which is intended to strengthen people-to-people and country-to-country links; provide more options for mobility in the region, including, potentially, to respond to climate change pressures; and boost economic, cultural and social exchange. However, it is not primarily intended, therefore, to respond to skills gaps in the Australian labour market or as a driver of economic benefit. This has always been the underlying intent of the granting of visa applications in Australia. The Pacific engagement visa initiative is in addition to existing, dedicated temporary visa programs for Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. The current visa program is known as the Pacific Island Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme. The procedure that is now proposed by Labor is that, in addition to the visa ballot, there are other features that would be new to the Australian system. I mention these merely for context, because, as noted above, the visa would be introduced into the migration regulations rather than the Migration Act and is therefore separate from the provisions of these bills. Few visas, particularly permanent visas, are targeted at specific nationalities—the New Zealand and Hong Kong streams of the skilled independent visa being obvious exceptions. The Pacific engagement visa will be open to only certain Pacific island countries and to Timor-Leste. It's stated that there will be 3,000 places set annually for the visa. And, while the migration program sets annual planning levels for permanent visas, the minister's second reading speech states that these places will be in addition to the places allocated already under the Migration Program. It is therefore, from the minister's explanatory memorandum, intended that a certain number of places each year will be allocated to each country and a ballot run for each. Currently, only certain countries in the working holiday-maker program, a temporary visa program, have specific country caps. When the cap is reached for a given year, no further applications are accepted. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has actually been quoted as stating that the government would prioritise countries with limited permanent migration opportunities for Australia, and that the number of visas available for each Pacific island was still being determined. So, while the government has stated that it is envisaged that the eligibility criteria for the visa will include age, English language, health and character requirements—and, for the primary applicant, a job offer—it appears that the visa will not in fact have skill-level or occupational requirements. This is a glaring error and the visa would therefore not help to address the current skills shortage we have within our country, because it is not aligned with the skilled stream of the Migration Program. Initial details of the Pacific engagement visa initiatives were outlined in the Labor Party's election policy on PALM. The policy was confirmed by the new government following the election, including by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. However, further details were then provided in last year's budget, and there was a notable difference from the initial commitment, in that the 3,000 places would now be in addition to the permanent migration program, not from within it. The budget, therefore, has had to allocate extra costs, $175 million over four years, to support this proposed policy. It needs to be emphasised as well that, after the required passage of the bills, subsequent amendment to the Migration Regulations to introduce the visa itself can be made by disallowable legislative instrument. In other words, the minister will be able to, at any stage, simply change the requirements for the visa. We do not know at this stage, therefore, what exactly the eligibility criteria will be for people to enter the ballot system. The government has indicated that participants will need to be aged somewhere between 18 and 45, have a formal offer for a full-time job in Australia and meet basic English, health and other character requirements. However, once the primary applicant is successful in gaining a Pacific engagement visa, the recipient and their family will enter Australia as permanent residents and be eligible for Medicare, all the various social security benefits and, ultimately, citizenship. While these bills purport to be addressing Pacific island engagement, which is something that those on our side obviously support, the bills have unintended consequences, and that is the reason that my side cannot support these bills. One of the unintended consequences could be to drain the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste of some of their skilled workers, which is not the intention of good engagement with our Pacific neighbours. For all of the reasons mentioned, I oppose these bills. 16:37 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The coalition will not be supporting the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I concur with the amendment that the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Wannon, has put forward and totally support his views on this important matter. He is quite correct when he points out that this is basically pulling a name out of a hat, a visa lottery for Pacific workers. That sort of system has not been in operation in Australia before. Once a lottery is established, it may well be expanded. This is not the sort of situation that we've had previously. We've had a bipartisan, non-discriminatory immigration program in place for decades. That is why I support the amendment but do not, cannot and will not support the bill as put forward. In question time today, unfortunately, the gloves come off a bit, with the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the member for Shortland, making comments about the coalition's record in the Pacific. So much is made of what the coalition did and didn't do during our three terms in government. It is a shame that those opposite never, ever acknowledge or recognise that there was a worldwide pandemic, that it is ongoing, that it cost a lot of money to ensure that people remained in jobs and, moreover, that people were able to stay alive. In February 2020—even before James Kwan in Perth became the first fatality in Australia from COVID-19 on 1 March 2020—we as a government were already acting to make sure that we kept people alive and that we kept people in work. Migration has always been an important economic policy. It is not just a policy to ensure that people can come to this country, settle here, work here and enjoy the lifestyle we have here. We also make sure that we do it in a humanitarian and compassionate way. We also are cognisant of the fact that the people we were taking are doing it because they want or need to be here and also of not taking away the vital workers and citizens of other countries and leaving them poorer because people decide to resettle in Australia. I'm glad that the member for Wannon has joined me in the Federation Chamber because he, quite correctly, made these comments to James Massola of the Sydney Morning Herald just yesterday: Australian citizenship is too important to be decided by pulling a name out of a hat. Migrants to this nation should be incentivised to come for work, not to access the full range of social security benefits and Medicare. He also said: Australia's immigration policy should target young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country and temporary migrants who make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. He and I share pretty similar electorates inasmuch as agriculture is large, manufacturing is prominent and vacancies are one of the biggest things communities are facing at the moment. There are any number of workforce shortages throughout regional Australia. You only have to go down the main street of any country town or regional centre to see the notices and posters in the windows of shopfronts imploring people to come inside and apply for the vacancies to fill those workforce shortages. Even when I was driving home the other day there was an 'electricians wanted' sign on the highway as I entered Wagga Wagga. I've rarely seen those sorts of things previously. As the Regional Australia Institute identifies, there are 80,000 jobs needed to be filled in regional Australia at the moment. Interestingly, in the second paragraph of Mr Massola's article he said that the plan was unveiled in February. I heard—if I am correct in hearing—a member opposite mention that this was somehow part of the agenda going forward prior to the last election. No, it was not. This is the first time this lottery-style system has come up. Yes, getting more migrants into Australia was something that those opposite pushed as part of their election platform, but so did we. The member for Wannon and I know just how important it is to fill those vacancies. As others, including the member for Mallee, have quite correctly pointed out, many of those who come to this country are quite happy to do the jobs that we cannot do and that no government of any political persuasion has been able to get Australian homegrown workers to do, and more is the pity. But, irrespective of what it says on my Wikipedia page, these are not just jobs picking fruit. That's a complete misnomer. It was in answer to a question about energy, climate change and a lot more. One of the big things that are important for the Pacific island workers—they come here and pick our fruit, yes, but they also work in our universities, our aged-care sector and many other areas of endeavour, skilled and unskilled—is that the remittance, the money that's sent home, forms a large part of their own island nation's gross domestic product. It enables their families, their loved ones, to advance themselves, to better themselves, in their own societies and their own communities, to the point where, as the member for Mallee pointed out, it even helps them to buy a block of land and sometimes, the following year, buy the house to put on it. It's something that they otherwise would not be able to do. It's not paternalistic to say that they come here and pick our fruit; it's just the fact of the matter. But they do so many other things as well, and we thank them for it. We could not do without the energy, the work, the endeavour, the commitment and the spirit with which Pacific islanders come to our shores and help out. It is a two-way street. We get benefit from it because many of the jobs they do would not otherwise be done, and they get benefit from it because of the money they earn that they usually send back home. But what we don't want to do, as the member for Hughes quite correctly pointed out, is cause a brain drain. What she meant by that, and it's the coalition's position, is that as good friends and neighbours we need to remember—as I said before, it's a two-way street. Those countries want their best and, in some cases, their brightest and their hardest working people to gain experience, to earn money and to upgrade their skills. But also, in many cases, they want them to stay in their own countries and benefit their own communities, not remove themselves from their own countries and settle here in Australia. We can't be seen as the paternalistic nation that takes the best and brightest and hardest working from our Pacific island friends and doesn't give them back, so to speak. I mean that in the nicest and most respectful way possible. I've been to Vanuatu twice in recent times. I've been to Papua New Guinea. I've been to the Federated States of Micronesia. When I spoke to civic leaders in those communities, they expressed the concern that, while they thought it was a good thing that their people came over here to gain experience, to gain money and to improve their skills, they didn't want to lose them as citizens of their own nations. That is why this lottery type of system for applications for permanent residency here in Australia does disturb me. It does worry me. That is the reason why the member for Wannon has put forward his very sensible, practical, measured and responsible amendment to this bill before the House. The government's two bills seek to establish a ballot system for the introduction of the proposed Pacific engagement visa. The government has stated that the visa would provide permanent residency for up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste each year—each year. That is a big drain on those Pacific nation islands and Timor-Leste. We as a coalition are strongly committed to providing employment opportunities. That's why we initiated the Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme. It's been tremendously successful. Yes, it did expand on and enhance those schemes put forward under the Gillard government and under the Turnbull government as well, and I acknowledge that. We also wish to see more pathways to permanent residency and we support the intent of this visa arrangement, but, having carefully considered the government's bills, the way they are currently drafted does not sit well with us, the opposition. Our decision in no way diminishes our strong and continued support for nations in our region, despite what the minister, the member for Shortland, said in question time today. We remain strongly in support of mechanisms which do provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific and Timor-Leste, as well as pathways to permanent residency—of course we do. But a particular concern of ours is the idea of a ballot for places. It would be the first time such a mechanism was used, and I know it has been put forward that it would cost around $25. We don't want it to be seen to be like Willy Wonka's golden ticket. I mean, Roald Dahl has been very much in the news, with cancel culture rife at the moment, but we don't want to see it become something like that. We're concerned that the absence of any requirements for prior work experience in Australia will, potentially, increase the risks of these recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in our country. We do, however, remain supportive of the principle of the visa, and we're willing to work with the government and the key stakeholders. I do hope that the government genuinely—and I note the immigration minister in the chamber—consider our sensible amendments. We're mindful, in developing proposals which build on the government's proposal, that we don't want to be creating new problems by, as the member for Mallee said, creating any unintended consequences. We consider that the PALM scheme could be a suitable vehicle in which to develop a visa arrangement similar to what the government's intent is, without a lottery system as such. Whilst not without its challenges—and any labour scheme is always going to have its challenges—PALM is genuinely well regarded. It is genuinely well regarded by Pacific nation leaders and by Pacific nation workers. Certainly, by the horticultural and agricultural farming endeavours and industries here, it's very well considered, because it fills roles and jobs that would otherwise not be done by locals, and, no matter how hard farmers try, they just can't fill those jobs. Unfortunately, without those Pacific islanders, fruit would be left to rot on the ground; fruit in vineyards would wither, literally, on the vine. Now, PALM is already a strong support system in place to assist new workers to settle into life and work in Australia, and that's the mechanism by which I believe this visa arrangement could be reconsidered. 16:52 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. Across the country, businesses are struggling to recruit enough employees to keep their operations alive. With rising costs in all sectors, the need for reliable, loyal employees willing to engage in work is vital. In my electorate of Mayo, I've been contacted by so many businesses on so many occasions who are deeply concerned about this issue. These employers are at their wits' end, and they have pursued all recruiting avenues to secure Australian workers to fill these positions with little or no success. They range from highly-skilled roles through to fruit-picking. Mayo is very much the fruit bowl of South Australia. We have the cherries; we have the strawberries. We have brussels sprouts. You name it, we grow it in my electorate. The challenge is that a lot of that work requires manual labour. We really are struggling, and we are, unfortunately, in many instances, leaving fruit to rot. Of course, we've six wine regions as well, and all those vines need to be pruned. When I look at skilled operators, the Laucke Flour Mill which operates in my electorate is a prime example of where they can't get that skilled labour. This business has been trying for months to find a flour miller to join their team, and, despite months of advertising targeting local candidates, the business failed to find anyone in Australia willing to apply. Nobody was willing to apply. It's down in Strathalbyn, and it's a beautiful part of my electorate. Just before giving up entirely, the team encountered two qualified workers excited for the role and eager to start straightaway. One was from South Africa and one was from Sri Lanka. This same issue was relayed to me by a motor restoration business in Mayo, who advertised for five years to find a specialist coach builder for their Adelaide Hills business. The skill set required for the role is rare. There are not a lot of people possessing those skills, and very few in Australia have the skill set. For this business, the only viable option was to initiate a lengthy sponsorship process to bring an employee in from Florida. These two experiences provided insight into the desperate need for skilled workers to perform a range of roles in our regional areas. It's not for want of trying. Employers right across my electorate, and in Australia more broadly, are seeking to hire and retain staff with the capacity to meet these demands. Sadly, too often this solution is complicated by an inability to access suitable visas or lengthy processing times which place these willing workers out of reach. The skills possessed by these individuals have the capacity to extend and expand our Australian workforce and assist with upskilling local employees, which is really critical. When we know there is a skills shortage, we then need to move heaven and earth to make sure that we can skill up locals to be able to fill those roles. Across Mayo, many job vacancies occur in regional areas, and it is within our regions that record levels of agricultural production are anticipated between 2022 and 2023. In the recent Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 'Agricultural overview', it's estimated that production will reach $90 billion within this time frame, but, sadly, regional job vacancy rates do not reflect such positive movements. In April last year, data from the Regional Australia Institute painted, I think, a very confronting picture. Regional job vacancies were up nearly a quarter compared to the same time in 2021. This bill and the subsequent creation of the Pacific engagement visa—the PEV class—provides a mechanism to address these obstacles which threaten the ongoing and successful operation of Australian businesses. For many applicants, the PEV creates a viable pathway to permanent migration for a cohort who have encountered frequent rejection from other visa streams which are regularly oversubscribed. This targeted approach to migration, facilitated by the introduction of a ballot system, will improve efficiency for visa processing times and attract applicants with the skills our regional industries are crying out for. This collective workforce, enriched by a diverse range of skills and lived experience, would not only address immediate challenges for employers in our region but also leave them stronger and better equipped. During a time of increasing global uncertainty, it is pathways to permanency such as the PEV that support the development of robust ties with the Pacific region. It is this close relationship supporting economic, cultural and educational exchange between countries which drive mobility in the region. I am supportive of these bills, but I feel it's also necessary, as permitted by democratic process, to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the opposition and to consider some other proposals. I agree with the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, who identified the potential for these changes to undermine the importance and value of Australian citizenship by resigning the status to, effectively, a lottery. Having attended citizenship ceremonies during my time as the member for Mayo, I can honestly say I continue to be amazed by the dedication, loyalty and the pure excitement, and the years that it took, to become an Australian citizen and how much that citizenship is valued. It's a celebration for the whole family. As I said, that pathway to citizenship is often a very long pathway. To condense that process down to a simple ballot determined predominantly by chance does feel a little inadequate. However, on the other hand, I also recognise that, when I think about my citizenship ceremonies, I don't have anyone from the Pacific coming and taking citizenship because the bar to get there is just so high. It's impossible for them to do. Whether it is Timor-Leste, Fiji or Vanuatu, I can't think of anyone in my community—we have people working in my community who are on the PALM scheme—but they're not at our citizenship ceremonies. I would love to see, at my citizenship ceremonies, people from Fiji, people from other Pacific islands and people from Timor-Leste. Many members of the opposition have talked about how the PALM scheme can perhaps provide greater opportunities for permanent migration avenues, because people do become settled here, and we want them to be invested in our community. The opposition did raise a valid concern about associated immediate rights with respect to welfare and Medicare, which could potentially place an increased demand on a system that is already incredibly strained. In that regard, I'd suggest to the minister: could we look at having a review of this in two years? My experience of people from the Pacific is that they are some of the hardest working people. Whether I've been over in the Pacific or I've met people from the Pacific who are in my electorate, I think they are the hardest working people that I have ever met. In Mayo right now, down the road at Beerenberg, there is a group of people from Vanuatu who are picking strawberries. They've been picking strawberries all summer. ALDI is at the back of my electorate office, and they come into ALDI at about four o'clock every day. They all come in together and they are so happy. You wouldn't have thought that they've just done the best part of—I'm sure—a very long day picking strawberries. They are delighted to be here and they add such joy and excitement to our community. So perhaps we could introduce some safeguards around our welfare system and have some kind of review so that we can provide confidence to the Australian people that these people are coming here with the best intentions and they are here to really make a go of it. The decision to permanently relocate and commit yourself to a new life is a very brave one, and, therefore, to ensure this new visa class maximises the benefit not only to regional employers but to those people arriving in Australia, I'd ask the government to make sure that there are support frameworks to ensure a smooth transition, because many of these people—I'm hoping—will go to regional Australia to live, and we need to make sure that those frameworks are there. That also leads to another issue, another vulnerability, and that's around housing. Our country is facing a housing crisis. I can't remember a time when it was so difficult to rent a home and so difficult to purchase a home. I don't want to see people come here under this scheme and be at risk of homelessness or be treated in a such a way that they're charged well over market rent. They will be a vulnerable cohort, and I think we need to recognise that. As I said, we need to make sure that there are supports in place. We need to make sure that we recognise their vulnerability. For every person who comes to Australia with only the bags they arrive with at the airport, there is a sense of vulnerability. It's the unknown; you just don't know. We experienced that when we came to Australia back in 1973. Mum and Dad were going from one culture to another that was quite similar, yet for them it still felt so incredibly foreign. So I do urge the government to make sure that this transition is as smooth as possible. I look forward to, hopefully, attending a citizenship ceremony in my electorate one day where I say 'bula', where I say 'vinaka' and where I say 'welcome'. 17:04 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank those members who have contributed to this debate, and I acknowledge, in particular, Minister Conroy's contribution. I was very pleased to be in the chamber for the contribution of the member for Mayo, and I acknowledge the thoughtful contribution that she has made and look forward to discussing those issues with her and with other members. Together, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 will provide the government with the necessary legislative framework to operate a visa pre-application ballot process and to levy a charge in respect of this ballot to support the creation of a new permanent Pacific engagement visa. This is an important commitment. It will boost permanent migration from the Pacific and Timor-Leste, creating new opportunities for people to live, work and pursue their studies in Australia. It will deepen bonds between Australia and the region and enrich our communities. The Pacific engagement visa is being designed in close consultation with Pacific partners in support of a more peaceful, prosperous and resilient Pacific. Indeed, it has been warmly welcomed by many Pacific governments and we will ensure it meets our shared needs. We want to strengthen our Pacific diaspora. Providing the Pacific family greater access to our labour markets, communities and economy is a natural advantage for Australia. The Pacific engagement visa will address the under-representation of some of our closest neighbours in Australia's permanent migration program. The visa will allocate up to 3,000 visas inclusive of partners and dependant children each year. These permanent visas are additional to existing, skilled and family visas. It's disappointing those opposite are not supporting these bills, more so because their rationale is incoherent. Those opposite say they support a permanent visa but not for Pacific citizens to come permanently. Similarly, they say to select application based on skills but don't want Pacific countries to experience brain drain. It was not always like this. As recently as March 2022, a Liberal chaired parliamentary committee recommended Australia introduce a Pacific visa using a ballot. The facts are as follows: a ballot provides fair and equitable access where the number of people applying far exceeds the number of places available. We know ballots have been successful elsewhere—particularly in New Zealand, on whom this approach has been modelled. We also know that, by deliberately not selecting on skills, the Pacific engagement visa in fact mitigates against brain drain, proven by New Zealand's successful scheme. We are confident that remittances will be further supported by the Pacific engagement visa. Evidence suggests long-term migrants continue to remit income, and permanent residency enables this to occur over a long period of time. Those opposite instinctively reach to reject reform—in this case, to reject a closer bond for our Pacific family, saying no reflexively instead of thinking about the incredibly important consequences of their actions. This story is all too familiar, including on climate. Instead of joking about people's livelihoods, we are getting on with the job. Instead of putting forward incoherent objections, we are introducing a visa which has been welcomed by our Pacific family and which reflects considered policy development. I urge those opposite to get serious about our relationship in the Pacific and support these bills and the national interest they serve. I welcome any constructive engagement with any member or senator. The government remains willing to work through, in good faith, any issues related to the implementation of these bills. The bills support Australia's long-held values of fairness and equal opportunity, and support the creation of a new migration path to grow and support Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora communities in Australia. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. These bills deserve support, and I commend them to the Chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 149

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Second Reading 149 Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 149

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

Second Reading 149 17:09 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I stand to express my support for the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. This bill is a crucial piece of legislation that will help ensure that our economy remains strong and resilient in the face of economic challenges that we may face in the future. This bill will create several changes to the Australian taxation system to improve its integrity, sustainability and fairness. I am one of those MPs who just love it when the Assistant Treasurer brings these TLABs to parliament. I look forward to them every sitting session and I'm happy that this is the first time I've had the opportunity to speak on one. I like TLABs. I've said it. There you go! These bills, by and large, contain sensible measures to help our economy and ensure the very best practice of our complex taxation system and are sometimes even vehicles for great reform. Last year we saw a TLAB bring forward changes to the tax system which will help small businesses right across the country and, of course, in Bennelong. The Small Business Technology Investment Boost was in a bill just like this one. That program is a great incentive for small businesses to invest in technology capability and allows businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million to deduct an additional 20 per cent of the expenditure incurred for the purposes of business digital operations or digitising their operations on business expenses and depreciating assets such as portable payment devices, cybersecurity systems or subscriptions to cloud based services. As we move out of COVID and as we are seeing further digitisation of our economy, this boost, embedded in a past TLAB, will help small businesses. The same TLAB also brought forward the Small Business Skills and Training Boost. The former government left us in a skills crisis. TAFE was underfunded and undervalued, and our skilled migration program was in tatters. This government recognised those failures of the former government, and the Small Business Skills and Training Boost helps address those failures. Businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million will be able to deduct an additional 20 per cent of expenditure that is incurred for the provision of eligible external training courses to their employees by registered training providers. Now to this TLAB, which is another incredibly important one to support, this time for some very important environmental reasons. Schedule 2 of this bill will improve the sustainability of investments in Australia and, importantly, will provide standards on how investors will now need to consider the long-term impact of their investments on the environment. Importantly, it will create standards which will shine a light on greenwashing within our economy. Greenwashing is bad for our planet, bad for our society and bad for our economy. Greenwashing is a term used to describe the practice of making false or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a product, service or policy. As we know, right now Australian companies are greenwashing. A sweep of 247 businesses and brands across various sectors recently by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, released only a few days ago, shows that 57 per cent of companies have promoted concerning claims about their environmental credentials. The ACCC's analysis focused on identifying the industries or sectors that are most commonly using environmental and sustainability claims and assessing whether these claims were misleading to consumers. It looked at these environmental claims through the eyes of ordinary consumers and whether they would understand and accept what the claim means. Most commonly the analysis found that companies right now are using vague and unclear environmental claims. We've all experienced standing in the aisle of our local supermarket or shopping online and seeing terms like 'green', 'kind to the planet', 'eco-friendly', 'responsible' or 'sustainable' jumping out at us. But how do we know what these claims actually mean or whether they're backed up with genuine environmental action or qualifications? Then we have all the certification claims. We've all looked at the little logos on products that give us a claim that this product or that company are certified. It gives you a sense of trust in a product, when you see a little logo claiming something environmental—that somebody has looked at this product and decided it meets the environmental and sustainability requirements to be provided with certification. But we know that's not always the case. The ACCC sweep found several instances where the use of certification trademarks, also known as CTMs, could, potentially, mislead consumers. Several companies did not clearly describe the nature of the certification scheme or whether it applied to the entire business, the product range or only certain products. There are even companies creating certification schemes for their own products. How open to misuse is that? They get to put their own tick or logo on their own product without meeting any higher regulatory requirements. In that case, certification just becomes meaningless. Those companies undermine the companies that are making the right decisions and doing the right things and correctly certifying their products, particularly on environmental grounds. These claims and qualifications are very important to consumers, and there is rarely information provided to back up these claims. Where a company is using vague environmental claims, not providing important information about their claims or, at worst, making misleading or false comparisons between products or exaggerating environmental benefits, it's known as greenwashing. In a time when there is community and consumer support for a transition to a net zero economy and for solving problems relating to climate change, emission reductions and product durability and recyclability, all these themes are at an all-time high for consumers. We need to make sure that, when a company makes claims, those claims are robust and that they stack up. We need to make sure that the bad eggs are not using positive consumer sentiment to make false claims and taking advantage of what is now an open and relatively unregulated system. More and more consumers are becoming increasingly interested in purchasing sustainable and environmentally friendly products, and more customers than ever are using sustainability claims to make their decisions. Greenwashing is a major problem because it undermines the efforts of genuine environmentalists and companies that are truly committed to reducing their emissions and protecting our planet. It creates confusion and makes it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions about the products and services they purchase. When businesses make misleading, meaningless or unclear claims of sustainability and environmentalism, it ruins the trust that our communities have. Not only can this lead to a false sense of security and prevent consumers from making sustainable choices; it could ultimately cause consumers to lose trust in both the claims of the product and sustainability claims in general. Greenwashing also undermines the efforts of companies who are genuinely committed to protecting the environment. We know that there are a lot of companies out there doing the right thing. They are genuinely pursuing more sustainable practices, products and services, and, for some, that incurs a higher cost. When businesses publish false or misleading information, it disadvantages those who are doing the real work and doing the right thing. Greenwashing can also be detrimental to our economy. Companies that engage in greenwashing are not investing in genuine environmental initiatives and are harming the growth of industries that are truly committed to protecting our environment. One way to increase transparency in this sector is to require companies to disclose detailed information about their environmental practices. This will enable consumers to make an informed choice and hold companies accountable for their environmental claims. This TLAB will form an important part of implementing these changes. Schedule 2 of this bill will improve the sustainability of investments in Australia by introducing much-needed sustainability standards for certain types of investments. The proposed changes would require certain institutional investors, including superannuation funds, to consider the long-term impact of their investments on the environment, social issues and corporate governance. It will introduce sustainability standards to make the regulation of environmental claims easier. It will ensure that there is standardised, internationally aligned reporting by large businesses of climate related plans, risks and opportunities. The proposed sustainability standards will require institutional investors to consider environmental, social and governance factors when making those decisions. It will ensure that investments are made in a way that promotes sustainable growth and contributes to the long-term welfare of Australians. The proposed changes will also require investors to disclose how they have considered these sustainability factors when making decisions. This would also improve transparency and enable investors to make more informed decisions about where to invest their money. We also need to strengthen regulations to prevent companies from making false or misleading claims about their environmental practices. This can be done by imposing penalties for greenwashing and requiring companies to provide evidence of those claims. We know that imposing penalties and legislating a requirement for companies to substantiate their environmental claims is what consumers need right now. There are some extraordinary examples around the world of greenwashing that we simply don't want to happen here in Australia. One example is in the Netherlands, where gas giant Shell has been reprimanded twice for greenwashing. In 2021, a group of young Dutch law students made a complaint that Shell advertisements claiming to be 'CO2 neutral' were misleading. The students argued that Shell's claim did not account for the full scope of the company's emissions and that it relied heavily on carbon offsets, which do not address the underlying emissions. The Dutch regulator agreed with the students and ruled that the advertising campaign was deceptive. They found that Shell's advertising campaign was misleading because it suggested that Shell was reducing its CO2 emissions to zero while in reality the company continued to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. There are also some great examples happening overseas where other countries are leading the way. We can look at France's innovative legislation that requires companies to provide more transparency about their carbon offsetting activities. Under their law, companies must now disclose how they plan to reduce their own emissions before resorting to offsetting. Companies must also report their offsetting activities in a clear and detailed manner. French carmaker Renault has recently announced that they are going to spend one billion euros over the next five years to reduce their own emissions before relying upon offsets. That's best practice, and the laws being proposed in this TLAB are an important first step to provide improved conditions for investors and consumers here in Australia but also to provide certainty to businesses. They will create much-needed and long-overdue standards to ensure that the regulation of environmental claims is easier and more transparent. These laws, put short, will help stop greenwashing. I would like to acknowledge the recent work of our regulators and in particular of the ACCC and ASIC. They are now stepping up to hold greenwashers to account. In response to their own survey, referenced earlier in this speech, the ACCC will soon produce updated economy-wide guidance material and target guidance for specific sectors, such as cosmetics, personal care, and food and beverages, where greenwashing is most pervasive. They will also look at concerns that have been identified with specific businesses and begin a more targeted assessment of their conduct to determine the appropriate compliance or enforcement approach. This will result in companies being required to amend their claims to ensure that they are not misleading, to pay infringement notices or to face legal proceedings. We know that only a few weeks ago ASIC launched their first-ever legal proceedings alleging greenwashing. This is a good thing, and it must be encouraged. Greenwashing needs to stop, and this bill is a significant step towards that. The proposed changes in the bill will improve transparency, sustainability and fairness of the Australian taxation system and enhance outcomes for taxpayers and consumers. I commend the minister for his hard work in ensuring our system is equitable and the government for its commitment to this matter. 17:23 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I will just make sure I am speaking on the right bill here, because I thought the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 was the one that was introducing changes to the franking tax credit system, part of the roller-coaster ride of broken promises we have seen from the government since the solemn vow they made, after the results of the 2019 election loss, that they would not be making changes to our superannuation system. The previous speaker just made me double-take on whether that was in this bill, because he didn't mention it at all. Mind you, it doesn't surprise me that the government don't want to talk about schedule 4 or schedule 5 of this bill, which are, as I say, the beginning of a really frightening raid on the retirement savings of the people of this country. The member for Maribyrnong will be kicking himself. He's probably looking at what the Albanese government are doing and saying: 'Why didn't I do it that way? Why was I honest? Why did I come out and say before an election that I was going to make all these significant changes to the tax treatment of the hard-earned retirement savings of the Australian people and face the quite reasonable wrath of those that would have been significantly affected, who had planned for their retirement and made decisions based on what they believed to be a reliable taxation structure and treatment of those retirement savings? Why did I come clean and say I had these plans to do it when I could have been like the Albanese government and said nothing whatsoever in an election campaign and waited until after the election to start rolling out all of these raids—these smash and grabs—on the hard-earned retirement savings of the people of this country?' I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, because we members of the coalition always expect the Labor Party want to get their grubby hands on the savings of retired and soon-to-be retired Australians. Regrettably, probably a lot of Australians thought that they could take Prime Minister Albanese and the government at their word. During the election campaign, when journalists quite reasonably kept putting questions to senior members of the then opposition about what they might do if they became the government in terms of superannuation policy, the solemn vow was given time after time, 'If the Labor Party become the government, we will not make changes—none whatsoever.' It was not, 'We won't make any significant changes,' or, 'We'll do some things, but don't worry about it.' They said that, if they formed government, they would not be making changes to the way in which superannuation is treated. I suspect a lot of people believed that, because I suspect a lot of people would think that no-one could commit such a colossal outrage as to give a firm, solemn vow on something as significant as the retirement future of the people of this nation and then go back on that word after the election. I think most Australians thought, 'We haven't seen anything like this in Australian politics for many decades and maybe we can trust the Labor Party, given that they were honest in the 2019 election about what they were going to do and outlined all of the outrageous policy positions around undermining the retirement, sustainability and security of Australians.' No doubt people thought, 'Because they said in 2019 that they were going to do all those things and they were rightly defeated because of those dangerous policies maybe (a) they learnt a lesson about that and (b) they have given this very clear commitment.' The people of this country are reasonable and expect that people in high office, or aspiring to be in high office, can be, generally speaking, relied upon if they give such an explicit commitment—and there were so many times and they were so very clear in their answer—and they would have assumed that they could take that party, the now government, at face value. How broken-hearted the people who fell for that conjuring trick feel now, as we have now seen week after week more and more—it's death by a thousand cuts—people's retirement security being undermined before their eyes. The two measures in schedules 4 and 5 of this bill—the first TLAB of 2023—are the first two broken promises when it comes to superannuation and franking credits. Let's remember and understand what franking credits are and what the principle is. A franking credit is where a company has paid tax on a profit that they then distribute as a dividend. Tax was paid at the corporate tax rate of 30 per cent. If you own shares through your superannuation fund, the tax rate inside your superannuation fund is at a concessional rate lower than that corporate tax rate, so obviously there is a credit for people where the tax rate that they should be paying is less than the tax that has already been paid on that money—that 30 per cent tax rate. This was looked upon with a great deal of greed by the Labor Party in the 2019 campaign. They thought, 'Let's take that away from the superannuation savings of the people of this country, because that is money that we can use for all the things we want to do and all the extra spending that we want that's outside the ability of a government that lives within its means. So we'll just raise taxes on people that we think probably don't really vote for us, and we think we can probably get away with this.' They didn't in 2019, but they're seeking to do it right now. As I say, this is the commencement of what is clearly an agenda to pursue the policy positions of 2019 slice by slice. We have these two measures in this bill. We now have the government saying they want to lift the concessional tax rate from 15 per cent to 30 per cent on superannuation balances that are of a value over $3 million. We were told that that was 0.5 per cent of accounts. Now we find that, if you're my age or a bit younger, you've got a one in 10 chance of being slugged by that double taxation of your superannuation once you get to retirement age. One wonders what those projections are based on when it comes to the inflation outlook, because, regrettably, many of the inflators that have been applied through a lot of the models used, including by Treasury, have not been able to predict the significant and aggressive inflation rate that we've got going on in our economy right now. We hope that that has peaked, but we will only find that out in the weeks and months ahead. It could be well more than one in 10 people my age or younger that are affected by that double taxation. Where will this end? As I say, I predict it will end once the government have got their greedy little hands on as much of the retirement savings of the people of Australia as they possibly can by fully implementing the Shorten agenda from 2019, just surreptitiously, by stealth, slice by slice—and the first two slices are in schedule 4 and schedule 5 of this bill. I've got more than 10,000 self-funded retirees in my electorate, and there are just as many who are approaching retirement in the decade or so to come. It is a very big decision to make, to retire. Once you've left the workforce, it is not so easy to re-enter the workforce. If you make decisions to provision for your retirement, and you assume you can rely on a certain set of rules and tax treatments being in place, and then those goalposts are moved on you, for many people it is far too late for them to re-enter the workforce or change the way in which they've structured their finances in order to provision for their retirement when the rules keep changing. If the changes to those rules are continuously ramping up taxes on superannuation, then all that means is that the sort of retirement that people thought they were going to have is going to be greatly diminished. That's really nasty, really unfair. When these changes are built off the breaking of a fundamental election commitment to explicitly not do any of these things, which is what schedules 4 and 5 do, then we've really got to ask ourselves some questions regarding the moral compass of a government that wants to go to an election, give those solemn vows and then break them at the first opportunity. What will be next? We don't know, but no doubt we'll find out as more of these ideas are ventilated through the press and/or other essays that are written by treasurers and others. All we know is that we're now seeing the slow and steady march of continuous attempts to increase taxation on people who have made decisions to provision for their retirement on the basis they thought they could take the Prime Minister at his word when he said he wouldn't change the taxation treatment on them. It is quite heartbreaking for people who are approaching retirement and starting to get nervous about whether or not they have provisioned the right amount of money in their superannuation, because they don't know how the rules are going to change on them and they don't know whether or not the amount of money that they have calculated they needed to have provisioned before making the decision to retire will be enough if at any point in time suddenly all sorts of new tax treatments might come into play. We saw this, of course, just last week, with the announcement on the $3 million balances. That was accompanied by a whole range of other confusing thought bubbles and doublespeak and contradictions from the senior members of the government's economic team around the tax treatment of the family home—whether or not unrealised capital gains may attract taxation treatment. In question time today, we even saw the Assistant Treasurer effectively confirm that that's what they're about. That's what's next. It seems that, with each week that goes by, there's another little slice taken from the hardworking Australians who have done the right thing and saved to provision for their own retirement in order to be as limited a burden on the taxpayer as they can. The punishment for them doing so is to have that money constantly eroded away by decision after decision that this government is taking week after week to figure out how it can get its hands on more of these people's hard-earned savings. This is money that people have worked hard to earn to provision for their retirement. We heard some of the examples that came up in question time today. We're talking about primary production businesses. We're talking about a circumstance where, by the mere change in the valuation of your property—not through selling it but just through its valuation—you might be liable for a very significant capital gains tax bill. Then we got a lecture on the need for people who have structured themselves that way to have the liquidity to pay that tax bill. Apparently they're meant to be clairvoyant and assume and know that it will be the intention of a Labor government to always look for more ways to tax superannuation and that they should make sure they're provisioning for that. They got a warning letter saying: 'Make sure you've got enough liquidity in your superannuation because we're coming after you. We're on the way.' Each week we're going to see more examples, like schedules 4 and 5 in this bill, of the government looking for ways—as a death by a thousand cuts—to implement the Shorten agenda that was taken to the 2019 election. For constituents of mine who are self-funded retirees or who are planning to retire soon, this is a very frightening revelation, especially in an environment where interest rates are going up, electricity prices are going up, the cost of living is growing exponentially and inflation is at its highest rate in my adult lifetime. There are self-funded retirees who were hoping to maybe help their kids get into a housing market that is ever more difficult because the policies of this government are driving interest rates up and making it more difficult than ever to buy a home. There are self-funded retirees, or soon-to-be self-funded retirees, who were looking forward to enjoying their retirement because it would be, in many cases, the first time in their lives that they'd be able to have certain experiences. They've been working hard to save their own money so that they can use their own money to enjoy their own retirement, only to find that maybe that's not going to be possible to the extent that they had planned, because these changes have happened. We will fight all and any attempts of this government to raid what they derogatorily describe as a 'honey pot'. This is like some kind of a socialist exercise of redistributing the wealth of self-funded retirees and the superannuation balances of hardworking Australians for the purposes of government policies that the government aren't prepared to properly cost and they can't afford. As we say: when this government run out of their own money, they come after yours. We in the coalition will stand up for people and protect their money. We will fight against broken promises—solemn commitments that this government took to an election that they're already breaking. The self-funded retirees of this country know that they can always count on the coalition to stand up for them against this sort of recklessness. 17:38 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to rise and follow my good friend the member for Sturt and his sterling contribution to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. It is disappointing that, once again, we are standing in this chamber debating a bill that is going to make the circumstances of everyday Australian people worse. This is just the latest in a long line of government promises that have been broken. It is making life for the Australian people worse, when Labor promised at the last election that they would make it better. As I often say: don't listen to what Labor say; look at what they do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Order! A quorum has been called for in the House of Representatives. Because the member has left, we no longer have a quorum. We will suspend until a quorum is present. Sitting suspended from 17 : 40 to 17 : 44 (Quorum formed) Mr VAN MANEN 188315 As I was saying before I was interrupted, whether it's to do with franking credits or superannuation, you can't trust the Labor Party on tax. Before the election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer ruled out changes to franking credits, yet we have a piece of legislation before us that actually does exactly the opposite of what they ruled out. Before the election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer ruled out changes to superannuation. But what have we seen in the last week? We've seen changes to superannuation, and we've seen, this afternoon, the hapless Assistant Treasurer not even able to confirm what their policy is. I doubt he actually even understood the question that was asked by my colleague on our side of the House. Less than a year in, this government is just adding to the list of broken promises. In speaking about this piece of legislation, I particularly want to focus on the part about franking credits. Franking credits, I think, are one of the great creations of the Australian taxation system. We hear frequently from the Treasurer that he wants to emulate Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. Well, this was one of Paul Keating's great creations: a system in which our companies pay tax, and, out of their after-tax profits, they pay a dividend to the shareholders, but that comes with a tax credit attached so that the shareholders aren't taxed twice. That system has been of enormous value and benefit to the Australian economy over the last, nearly, 30 years. It has created the environment in which people wish to invest in our listed companies, knowing that, by investing in those companies and assisting them to grow, they are going to get a return on that, which is from after-tax revenue. In particular, if their situation is such that they're a retiree or a super fund, they are going to get a tax refund. Even somebody on the highest marginal tax rate is still going to pay an effective rate of 15 per cent over and above the 30c credit. I think it's been a tremendous system. Given that we have a government that purports, in another piece of legislation elsewhere in this building for the National Reconstruction Fund, to want to see the development of manufacturing and a whole bunch of other industries across this country—and I don't disagree with the notion of that, but I think the model proposed by the government has more holes in it than Swiss cheese—why on earth would that government then want to tie businesses' hands behind their back? The cheapest way for business to accumulate or to access capital to grow their business is through retained profits. If you have $1 of after-tax profit and you distribute 70c of that to your shareholders, you then retain 30c of that for reinvesting and growing your business. The franking credit that goes with that 30c sits on your balance sheet in a franking account for distribution at some later point. How that's distributed is up to the board of the company, as it rightly should be. Companies should be free to make the capital allocation and distribution decisions that they believe are in the best interests of the company and the shareholders, whether in the short, medium or long term. The government's proposed changes fly directly in the face of that, because they say to companies, 'If we think you've done a capital raising and you're going to distribute some of your raised funds as a dividend to your shareholders, we don't like that idea.' That's none of the government's business. Business should be free to distribute those franking credits as they see fit. That's the way the system was designed. So these changes will do two things: they'll make it more expensive and difficult for a business to raise capital, and, if a business doesn't raise capital and wants to grow, there's a strong likelihood that the business is going to have to use debt to fund that capital expansion. We all know that interest rates are going up under this government's watch, so debt is becoming more expensive. So each and every way you look at this, this is a bad outcome for listed businesses. As I said on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill earlier today, this is, in my view, just the thin end of the wedge. This is looking only at listed companies. What are they going to do with the myriad of unlisted companies that operate in all of our electorates? They're small family companies that probably don't even distribute 70 per cent of their after-tax profit as a dividend to their owners. They probably reinvest all of that money back into their business, to grow it. In each and every way this is put together, it is a bad piece of legislation for the Australian economy—at the very time when we want to be encouraging businesses to invest and grow. The best way they can invest and grow is through the retention of capital earned on their activities today. But this is just an addition to a range of other things we are now seeing. We saw today in question time the Assistant Treasurer asked a very straightforward question. Any of us here who have had anything to do with business understood the question very well. Say you own a piece of property in a self-managed super fund—and many small to medium businesses do; they own their business premises in their self-managed super fund, they run their business out of it and they pay a lease payment to their self-managed super fund. Now this is what the government is proposing to do: if that building is valued at $100,000 at the start of the financial year and at the end of the financial year it's valued at $120,000, you will be taxed on that $20,000 as an unrealised capital gain. Well, I can tell you: there is nowhere else in the world that is proposing to have that sort of system and apply that sort of taxation arrangement. It is a complete and utter disgrace. It is a betrayal of the Australian people by this government, for the government to propose to do that with those changes. And these proposed changes to franking credits will achieve exactly the same thing. As I said earlier, look at what this government does, not at what they say, because nine times out of 10 they are two very different things. The government, on the one hand, is wanting businesses to grow, develop and invest, and yet, on the other hand, is doing everything it can to make that increasingly difficult for Australian businesses to do. That is in addition to the IR changes last year and a range of other things that they are doing, including doubling taxes on superannuation. They argue that that's going to affect 0.5 of a per cent. Well, I read today that actuaries have come out and said, 'What are you going to do with defined benefit funds?' Again, it's a thought bubble. They are raising a whole range of legal and other issues with regard to defined benefit funds. Again, it has not been thought through, as this has not been thought through. It's just a tax grab. In the National Reconstruction Fund, we see the government wanting to have equity in your business. Rest assured that, when I was in business, I didn't want the government having any equity in it, and I'm sure my colleagues here don't want the government having equity in their businesses either. The government want to have equity in your home. They want to have equity in your super fund, because, as the member for Sturt said, the Assistant Treasurer just uses it as a honeypot to reallocate it to whatever their pet project is at the time. What else do they want to have their hand in? Now we're seeing they want to get their hand into your super fund or your franking credits and your entitlement to a tax refund from the tax that the company you've invested in has already paid. It is a complete and utter disgrace and a betrayal of the Australian people. I am quite proud to stand here, on this side of the House, along with my colleagues, and oppose this bill tooth and nail, because it will have a negative impact on the ability of companies to raise, manage and access capital, to do the very things the government says it wants them to do. This bill should die an honourable death. I oppose this bill, as do my colleagues. 17:54 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I acknowledge the excellent contribution from the member for Forde, my electorate neighbour. I think some insights there are certainly things the government should be listening to, particularly given the member's extensive experience in the financial and banking sector. I think he is hitting the nail on the head on a number of fronts, and I'm going to cover off on many of the same themes in my remarks over the next little while. This omnibus Treasury bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, combines reasonable measures that the coalition supports with quite controversial measures which the coalition absolutely do not support. Unfortunately, the Labor government is sacrificing good policy in favour of ideological recklessness. We support schedules 1 through 3. They progress reasonable things and we cannot object to those, despite several flaws. It is important to note that the Australian accounting academics, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors and the Institute of Public Accountants, took issue with a number of provisions within schedule 2. The coalition are willing to work with the government to advance useful policy in these areas, and to outline some of these areas of concern and to work through them. But, unfortunately, the bill does not end there. It goes to include schedules 4 and 5, which we cannot support. These schedules attack franking credits—a policy that no stakeholder that I could find seems to support. It's a policy that was largely taken to the 2019 election by the now government, the then opposition, and was roundly rejected by the voters. Unfortunately, the government wasn't honest enough at the last election to say that they were going to be taking a similar approach when in government, and, unfortunately, we're now seeing this brought in quite stealthily through the first Treasury amendment bill of this year. The Australian Shareholders Association asserts that the amendments will have a negative impact on retirees. I certainly agree with that assessment. The association also notes that the changes are retrospective in nature and likely to create uncertainty amongst investors. If there's one thing we don't need in this country at this point in time, it's uncertainty for investors. We saw the latest national accounts come out last week— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Order! Quorum is not present. The Federation Chamber stands suspended until quorum is returned. Sitting suspended from 17:57 to 18:02 ( Quorum formed) Mr PIKE 300120 I was outlining the current economic conditions in Australia that make it particularly perilous for the government to be taking actions at the moment that will impact on investors. We've got much higher interest rates than when the government first came in; we have inflation continuing to go up and we have employment going down. These are the classic stagflation circumstances. Certainly, this is a point when we should be encouraging business to make big investments, to be moving the economy forward and creating jobs. Unfortunately, as the Australian Shareholders' Association have asserted in their comments around this bill, this will certainly have a negative impact on retirees and increase the level of uncertainty for investors. The ASA takes issue with schedule 5, legislating the removal of franking credits, as a policy that's too restrictive, with a capacity to operate retrospectively, as far back as December 2016. It also notes that the test is too subjective in nature and would struggle in its application to companies that did not pay regular dividends. Finally, the ASA warned of unintended consequences, particularly concerning companies with large cash reserves that could become takeover targets. Moreover, the 2006 coalition-led Board of Taxation found off-market share buybacks should be retained as they: 'provide a mechanism for companies to generate positive returns through distributing excess cash where investment opportunities are declining'. Unlike this government, the coalition respects stakeholder opinion; therefore, we cannot support these schedules within the bill. The coalition would support this bill if these offending schedules were discarded from the legislation. We will put forward amendments in relation to this. If the Albanese Labor government do withdraw them, I'm sure they'll find open support from the coalition for this bill. These schedules are not just substantively objectionable but stand for something far worse: a government that doesn't care about keeping its word. It's not even a year into this term, and the broken promises are piling up. Before the election, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer made a whole series of promises. None of them, unfortunately, have been kept. How many times did the Prime Minister promise to cut electricity bills by $275 during the election? Mr Violi 300147 Ninety-seven? Mr PIKE 300120 It was 97 times. The member for Casey is quite correct in that interjection. How many times has that promise been uttered by a Prime Minister since the election? Mr Violi 300147 Zero. Mr PIKE 300120 That's right. It's a nice round number of zero, as the member for Casey points out—not once. Of course, he's had many opportunities, through the questioning of the opposition throughout all of the question times we've had over—what has it been now?—10 months of this term of government. Did the Prime Minister promise cheaper mortgages? Yes, of course he did. Did the Prime Minister deliver cheaper mortgages? No, he hasn't to date. Did the Prime Minister promise lower inflation? In fact he did. Has he delivered lower inflation? No, of course; inflation has only gone up. Did the Prime Minister promise to lower the cost of living? Yes, he did, and, unfortunately, the cost of living is going higher every day and is a major concern of my constituents when I go door-to-door in my electorate of Bowman. The Prime Minister promised to increase real wages, but unfortunately the statistics show that real wages have been going down. And super? They promised they wouldn't touch it. The PM of course said that he wouldn't touch it, and here we are this week and last week with announcements being made about changing the super. This is where this bill comes in. Interestingly, the Prime Minister promised that he wouldn't be touching franking credits, but here we are with this bill, only a few short years since the then Labor opposition spectacularly lost an election over this and many other issues. Keeping promises is not something that this Prime Minister cares much about. After all, the Labor Party believes that we're all worker bees in a hive and our money is just one big honey pot to be dipped into whenever they feel like it simply to further the ambitions and objectives of this Labor government. This is a government whose principal currency is false platitudes. We see it every day. For reasons of time, I won't even come close to naming all the instances where this government has failed to walk the walk despite how often they talk the talk. For a government elected on a mantra of improving the lives of everyday working Australians and on integrity, they are consistently failing to live up to their word. It is worthwhile to go through the commitments the government made before the election regarding this bill. On 1 January 2021, the now Prime Minister stated, 'We will not be taking any changes to franking credits to the next election.' On 30 March 2021, the now Prime Minister stated, 'We won't have any changes to franking credits and negative gearing. We won't be taking those policies to the next election.' Well, they certainly didn't take it to the next election, but now they're elected it's suddenly right back on the agenda. On 4 March 2022, also on franking credits, the now Prime Minister stated, 'We're not touching them.' The Prime Minister was absolutely consistent before the election. It's only since the election and since he became Prime Minister that he has changed his tune. On 15 December 2021, the now Prime Minister stated, 'We've made it clear that, on areas like franking credits and negative gearing, we won't be taking these policies to the next election.' If the Prime Minister wasn't clear enough, then what about the Treasurer? What did the Treasurer say before the election, before he was Treasurer? On 17 January 2022, as Shadow Treasurer, he stated, 'We won't be doing franking credits. I couldn't be clearer.' It seems that even this wasn't clear enough for the Treasurer, for the Prime Minister or for this Labor government because, less than 10 months on, this is precisely what this bill is aiming to do. My question is: what else are they aiming to do? This is, of course, the thin edge of the wedge. I think we're going to see even lower thresholds for their extra taxes on superannuation. I think we're going to see CGT changes; of course, the Treasurer— Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Yes, please. Bring it on! Mr PIKE 300120 I note the member for Griffith's strong support for that, and I'm sure the Treasurer will listen to the member for Griffith's calls and to the public for that. I'm sure we will see CGT changes, and I'm certainly sure we're going to see negative gearing changes as well, something that they took to the 2019 election and were defeated on. Of course, my question is—and the member for Griffith will be happy about this—what is the future for stage 3 tax cuts? Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 Get rid of them. Mr PIKE 300120 We're having a bit of fun this evening, but I certainly think that's going to be next on the chopping block as we approach the May budget. In a worsening cost-of-living crisis, all this Labor government seems to care about is making everything more expensive and then coming after your money. We know older Australians, not-for-profits and the Australian super funds will be hit hardest by these changes. The Treasurer and the Treasury have both said this. But don't misunderstand this bill. The removal of franking credits is a tax. Labor's budget is clear on this. This is only one in a long line of policies that will increase taxes on Australians and make this cost-of-living crisis even more painful and more of a crisis than it would otherwise have been. Despite promising no changes to superannuation before the election, this Prime Minister is now proposing doubling super taxes on 10 per cent of Australians by the time they retire. Despite promising no changes to franking credits before the election, this Prime Minister is now proposing to prevent companies from offering franking credits to investors, super funds and charities. Despite promising no changes to capital gains tax before the election, this Prime Minister is now promising taxing unrealised capital gains on super, meaning Australian retirees will pay tax on money that they haven't yet realised. That was an important point made by the member for Forde just before I spoke here tonight, and it was also a point that the Assistant Treasurer unsuccessfully attempted to tackle today in question time. Beyond being blind to their own promises, as if it wasn't bad enough, this Labor government is also blind to cold hard facts and the opinion of experts. Despite Labor's claim that fewer than 80,000 Australians would be affected by their super tax, independent research now reveals that by retirement age more than half a million Australians will be hit—not that this government cares too much, because, for some perverse reason, this government argues that a broken promise doesn't count if it only affects rich people. That's not too different from the view that theft isn't really theft if you only steal from rich people—because, after all, they have plenty. This perfectly sums up the twisted logic of this Labor government, which is deeply rooted in the false narrative and flawed economics of class warfare. The broader flow-on economic impacts of taxes like this are never considered by the Labor Party, because, when it comes to issues like superannuation, as far as Labor's concerned, it's not Australians' money; it's theirs. The Prime Minister says it will impact one in 200 people. Then the finance minister says it's one in 10. That is not a small discrepancy. How can the Australian people trust a Labor government that doesn't know the details of its own policy? I think the Assistant Treasurer made a very good point of underscoring that in question time this afternoon. Even ignoring slip-ups on the specifics, this government makes errors. In fact, they sometimes forget their policies exist at all. During Senate estimates on 8 November 2022, the finance minister denied 10 times that this franking credit policy was even in the budget that she helped create. How does a minister, particularly a minister in a closely linked portfolio, fail to remember her own policies? This is symbolic of a failing Labor government that's incapable of controlling its own caucus. As Margaret Thatcher famously quipped, 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' This observation is more or less true of every Labor government, and this bill is clear evidence that it is certainly true of this government. The coalition is opposed to the schedules in this bill related to franking credits. We think the government is taking yet another step away from the promises it made ahead of the election, and I think the Australian people are awake to the fact now that this is a government that says one thing before the election and a very different thing after the election. 18:13 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith The Greens will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 in the House, and, contrary to the member for Bowman, we would certainly welcome phasing out the stage 3 tax cuts and capital gains tax concessions, which, it's worth noting on International Women's Day, overwhelmingly go to wealthy men. However, we reserve, on this bill, the right to seek to take a different position in the other place, pending a Senate inquiry into this bill. In particular, we are keen to understand how schedule 5 would work. Unlike schedule 4, schedule 5 wasn't included in the government's October budget. In fact, schedule 5 picks up a proposal first made by the former prime minister when he was Treasurer. The proposal to curb the distribution of franking credits funded by particular capital-raising activities was included in the 2016-17 MYEFO but obviously not proceeded with by the previous government. We want to understand whether businesses with a greater capacity to take on more debt—that is, big established businesses—might be able to circumvent the intent of schedule 5 and gain a competitive advantage as a result. We also want to understand whether the ATO can actually make a reasonable conclusion that a company's capital raising is linked to a company's distribution. We look forward to raising these issues and seeing them get an airing in the Senate inquiry. 18:14 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey I rise to discuss the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. While this bill sounds quite innocent and mundane, the reality is that it is not. True to form with this government, this bill contains yet another broken promise. Before the election, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer made many promises. We remember the promise to cut electricity bills by $275—broken. We remember the promise of cheaper mortgages—broken. How about the promise to lower inflation? Also broken. And there was the promise of no changes to super—broken. This bill contains yet another broken promise, this time on franking credits. Let's be clear. The bill introduces two changes to the franking credits regime, through schedule 4 and 5, that the government estimate will raise more than half a billion dollars. It's a change to franking credits. But what did the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say about franking credits during the campaign? Before the election, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers said that Labor wouldn't touch franking credits. On 30 March 2021 the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, said on ABC radio, 'We won't have any changes to the franking credits regime which is there.' On 17 January 2022, the then shadow Treasurer, now Treasurer, said, 'We won't be doing franking credits,' and also, 'I couldn't be clearer than that'—once again, further proof that this Prime Minister and Treasurer will say one thing to get elected and do another thing when in government. That's the reality. The Australian people cannot trust this government to honour its word. It leads to the question of what will be next. The Treasurer has spoken often about the challenges the budget faces. We know the budget faces structural deficits of around $50 billion a year. This is before we include the $45 billion in off-budget spending that this government has already committed to. So, when this Treasurer talks about improving the budget bottom line, Australians know what that means: higher taxes. This is not the end but the very start of the Treasurer's tax grab. Now, I'm not a big believer in coincidences, particularly in politics. In the same week that we have had the Treasurer and the Prime Minister breaking their promise on superannuation and franking credits, the Treasurer has also released the Tax expenditures and insights statement, a fascinating document. The statement showed modelling on revenue forgone from tax deductions. Let's have a quick look at some of the top items on that list: capital gains tax on your main residence, $48 billion; capital gains tax for individuals and trusts, $24.4 billion; and super concessions, the honeypot, $44 billion. That's $116.4 billion in tax deductions and concessions. This is the question for the Australian people. Given the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are willing to break their promise to the Australian people for a $2 billion increase in revenue on super and to make this move on franking credits for $500 million, be in no doubt: more changes are coming, and they are going to cost all Australians. We are seeing this play out already. This is the standard playbook. The Treasurer refused to rule out changing concessions on capital gains tax for the family home when he was asked a simple yes-or-no question on national television. We saw him dance around it three or four times and refuse to answer it. Hours later, the Prime Minister had to come and rule it out, and the Treasurer was then wheeled out a few hours later to change his tune, but we know that this is the start of another broken promise by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. As I said, given they were willing to break their promise for $500 million to increase franking credit taxes, we know they won't hesitate when they're looking at the $48 billion in revenue forgone on capital gains tax on the family home. So what are Labor doing to franking credits? Currently, companies that undertake off-market share buybacks and capital raisings can offer franking credits to investors. Under Labor's law, they won't be able to. Labor's budget is clear that this is a tax that will raise half a billion dollars. We know from Treasury's tax expenditure and income statement that this disproportionally hits Australians over 75, not-for-profits and Australian super funds, who will no longer be able to access these credits. King & Wood Mallesons, in describing these measures, said: The Federal Government is seeking to prevent entities from providing franking credits to shareholders in what it considers are inappropriate circumstances. As I already outlined through quotes, before the election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer ruled out changes to franking credits. It's clearly and unequivocally another broken promise by this government, and, nine months in, the broken promises are piling up. It makes me more concerned about Labor's broken promise on superannuation taxes. It means that, with soaring cost-of-living pressures, Australians will be even worse off—because this is not just a broken promise; it undermines confidence in our superannuation system. Superannuation is Australians' money, not the government's. It is Australians' money to deliver quality of life in retirement—not a honey pot for governments to tax and spend. Australians need confidence in the system, because we have a social contract in which we agree to lock away our own money for 40-plus years. In question time this week, we saw that this government just doesn't get that. When it was mentioned that some of these changes wouldn't impact people for 30 years, the Treasurer laughed and said, 'It's 30 years away.' They don't understand that that's the point. Superannuation isn't about today; it's about the 20-year-olds, the 30-year-olds and the 40-year-olds who, during a cost-of-living crisis, are locking away their money for their future retirement, not as a honey pot for the government to spend as they will. Despite promising no changes to superannuation before the election, Anthony Albanese and this government are now proposing to double super taxes on one in 10 Australians by the time they retire, and they're stopping companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities. They're taxing unrealised capital gains in super, meaning that Australian retirees will pay tax on money they haven't even earned yet. We've seen both the Deputy Prime Minister and, just today, the Assistant Treasurer unable to explain on TV and in question time how this is fair or even workable. Labor has been dishonest about changing super and dishonest about how many Australians will be affected. Despite claiming that fewer than 80,000 Australians will be affected, independent research has shown that, by retirement age, more than 500,000 Australians will be hit by this tax, and it's potentially more, depending on inflation and where that goes into the future. The government can't explain how these changes will work. They can't explain how many people will be affected. The Prime Minister says that it will impact one in 200 people. The finance minister says it will impact one in 10 people. If the government can't explain it, how can Australians understand it? Now, it's really important for the Australian people to understand this: you've always got to listen to what the Assistant Treasurer says. He's not quite as disciplined as the Treasurer. I'll give the Treasurer that; he's very disciplined. The PM? He can go off on a frolic. The Assistant Treasurer? He generally has—well, what we'd consider an in-your-head voice. Last month, the Assistant Treasurer compared superannuation to honey, saying it should be managed 'in the best interests of the hive'. Then he went on to say, 'In the self-managed sector, there are over 600,000 funds holding around $870 billion in retirement savings—that's a lot of honey.' There we go, people! 'That's a lot of honey' for the 'hive', which, as we know, is government spending. It is clear the government is coming for Australians' super. Already, in my electorate of Casey, I have constituents contacting me to discuss their fears and outrage about these changes to franking credits and to super. They are not just afraid but angry. They feel betrayed. Treasury has warned that there were significant concerns raised by the public. Over 2,000 submissions were received during consultation. Treasury says: 'Concerns were raised over retrospectivity, policy objective and potential for the legislation as drafted to capture legitimate commercial practices.' Even the October budget acknowledged that a substantial portion of the revenue from this measure will fall on Australians' superannuation. This franking credits measure reduces the ability for companies to offer franking credits on new capital raising activities. There is genuine concern that the measure will have unforeseen impacts and wider application than Treasury claims. Before the election, this Prime Minister and the Treasurer made many promises. They broke their promise to cut electricity bills by $275. They broke their promise of cheaper mortgages. They broke their promise of lower inflation. They broke their promise of 'no changes to super'. They broke their promise, with this bill, of not touching franking credits. The Australian people know that this is not the end of this government's new taxes and broken promises. It's just the beginning. When Labor runs out of money, they come after yours. 18:27 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner It is quite extraordinary that the coalition has decided that they are going to go to the wall for the 0.5 per cent of Australian superannuants who have more than $3 million in their accounts. We know that the measure that was announced last week was a carefully calibrated one which ensures that those who have more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts still get to enjoy a concessional rate of tax, but just not as concessional a rate as they would have enjoyed previously. Indeed, the shadow Treasurer has previously said that he believes that it's appropriate to consider the tax arrangements for those with multimillion-dollar superannuation accounts. Yet we have a situation in which we have 17 Australians with more than $100 million in their superannuation accounts. These are the 'forgotten people' that the Liberal Party of Australia has decided to go into bat for. In the context of the current measure, it is more extraordinary still to discover the coalition now arguing against a measure that was originally announced by then treasurer Scott Morrison in the 2016-17 MYEFO but never legislated by the coalition. That measure will prevent companies from making franked dividends funded by capital raising for no commercial purpose at a cost to the budget. It will help improve the integrity of the tax system, and it will save around $10 million per year. The activity covered by the proposal largely stopped when the previous government announced it, and so legislating it now would have a minimal impact on the market. We have also announced, as part of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, a measure which aligns the tax treatment of off-market share buybacks with the tax treatment for on-market share buybacks for listed public companies. It makes tax sense that we should align those two arrangements, that off-market and on-market share buybacks should receive the same tax treatment. But, currently, listed public companies offering an off-market share buyback can use tax rules to buy back their shares at below market prices by attaching franking credits to those trades. That is impossible with regular on-market trades. The benefits go predominantly to large businesses, who can use them and save money on their share buybacks. This will not affect the overwhelming majority of shareholders, who will continue to receive franked dividends. Off-market share buybacks represent less than two per cent of total franked distributions. The measure will save some $550 million. Let's look at some of the firms that have undertaken notable off-market share buybacks. Westpac last year did an off-market share buyback of $3.5 billion, garnering $1.6 billion in franking credits. JB Hi-Fi did a $250 million off-market share buyback, garnering $94 million of franking credits. Commonwealth Bank in 2021 did a $6 billion off-market share buyback, garnering nearly $2 billion of franking credits. So, again, the coalition are choosing to go to the wall for the few, not for the many, choosing to fight for the rights of some of Australia's largest firms to continue to conduct off-market share buybacks and receive concessional tax treatment that would not be available if they were to do an on-market share buyback. We on this side of the House are concerned with ensuring that Australia has a more dynamic economy. We are committed to action on climate change, as embodied in schedule 2 to the bill, which enacts sustainability standards, implementing the Australian government's election commitment to ensure a standardised, internationally aligned reporting of climate related plans, risks and opportunities by large businesses. We're committed to ensuring that Australia has a more dynamic economy. Over recent decades, we've seen an increase in market concentration and an increase in mark-ups, the gap between costs and prices. We've seen a fall in the startup rate and a decline in the share of Australians starting a new job. It's very clear that the Australian economy is becoming less dynamic. After the lousiest decade of productivity growth in Australia's postwar history, it is vital that we look at the benefits that could be garnered from competition reform. In the 1990s Australia saw a productivity surge, and a good part of that had to do with the reforms to competition initiated by Fred Hilmer and Paul Keating at the beginning of that decade. Those Hilmer-Keating competition reforms garnered some $5,000 a year in benefits for the typical Australian household. We need to consider today whether competition reform can help deliver a more dynamic economy. Since coming to government, the Albanese government has increased the penalties for anticompetitive conduct. We have banned unfair contract terms. We've received an important report from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission into digital platform services. And we are currently consulting on platform-specific regulation and a ban on unfair trading practices. Around the world, we can see the thinking on competition shifting. The Biden White House has quite a different approach to competition issues than the Obama White House did. There is a greater awareness that big is not necessarily beautiful and that large firms can affect the entire ecosystem. The impact of monopsony power, the way in which large firms can squeeze their suppliers, is coming into sharp focus. Take Apple, for example. Apple is able to occupy a dominant position in the smartphone market, charging more to consumers than it would be able to do if it had a smaller market share. But Apple can also squeeze its suppliers. There's only one way of getting an app onto the Apple app store, and that is by going through Apple. That's why the typical cost of an in-app purchase is 30 per cent. So monopsony power can hurt suppliers, just as monopoly power hurts consumers. One of the groups that potentially stand to lose from monopsony power is workers. If workers have fewer choices as to where to work then their wages will tend to be lower than the productivity gains they're delivering for the firm. You can see this most starkly in the examples of company towns where there's just a single employer and workers are unable to bargain effectively. In Australia, work by Jonathan Hambur has shown that monopsony power is growing in the Australian labour market, at the very time when union membership is shrinking—it's now at 12 per cent, at the lowest level it has been since 1901. We used to talk about workers united will never be defeated, but increasingly now it's employer power that is growing and worker power that's shrinking. This may be a key factor in explaining why wage growth has been so lousy in recent decades. We on this side of the House believe in the benefits of competition and are concerned at the way in which large platforms are occupying increasingly powerful roles in the economy. Cory Doctorow and Rebecca Giblin's book Chokepoint Capitalism highlights some of the ways this can operate in the digital space. It has examples from Spotify to Amazon to Live Nation and looks at large entities that occupy chokepoints and potentially use technology not to drive down prices and to democratise capitalism but to concentrate power in too few hands. We on this side of the House are watching closely developments in the United States and moves by Lina Khan, who heads up the Federal Trade Commission, to ban non-compete clauses across the US economy. Non-compete clauses now exist in one-fifth of American employment agreements. That proposed ban would have significant impacts on the ability of American workers to shift firms and—I should say on International Women's Day—on reducing the gender pay gap. The FTC's estimate is that banning non-compete clauses could narrow the gender pay gap by up to nine per cent and deliver some US$300 billion into the pockets of American workers. We're alive in Australia to the dangers that can arise in having too few startups in the economy. That's why we're moving towards encouraging a startup culture across Australian universities. Our move towards a startup year—and here I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for Education—will create more opportunities for young Australians to be part of a startup and, hopefully, will turn around the drop in the startup rate that we've seen over recent years. But that only works if those businesses are being started in an environment in which new firms have ready access to capital and young entrepreneurs have access to mentors. I've been too concerned in recent years about trends that have seen young firms starved of the capital they need to grow. The collapse of a number of neobanks is potentially a move that could ripple across other sectors of the economy. We need to ensure that, if you want to start a business that takes on an established firm, you have the competitive ecosystem that you need to survive and thrive. We want the ambition of young entrepreneurs not to be to make a firm that's big enough to be bought up by a behemoth but to actually challenge the establishment insiders themselves. If you look at the top five firms in the Australian share market now, four of those five were in the top five in the mid-1980s. If you look at the top 10 firms in the Australian stock market in 1917, five of those firms are still in the top 10 today. That's not true in the United States, which has turned over its largest firms to a much greater degree and which on some dimensions enjoys a healthier competitive ecosystem than does Australia. Competition reform is fundamental to engendering the productivity surge which will ultimately drive living standards. In the long run, productivity is the key to ensuring that Australians enjoy better living standards at home and are able to be more generous to the vulnerable here and overseas. Productivity growth ensures that we can build the physical infrastructure and invest in the human capital we need, and the drop in productivity which occurred under the former coalition government may be tightly related to the drop in competitive dynamics that we saw in the Australian economy during the period of the former coalition government. I want to acknowledge the important work that's being done in Treasury and the Reserve Bank on these issues. This is an issue which needs to be heavily scrutinised. At a time when economists overseas are taking a fresh look at the so-called Chicago school approach to competition and acknowledging that greater competitive dynamics may be an important part of building growth in the future, Australia needs more research and more policy heft focused on that area of competition. We want to build a more dynamic economy. We want an economy that allows businesses to survive and thrive. We recognise that that productivity growth will drive the profits that will ultimately allow long-term wage growth in Australia. That's the vision of this government and that's the vision that is very much embodied by the bill, which I commend to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Consideration in Detail 162 18:41 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item. (2) Schedules 4 and 5, page 34 (line 1) to page 44 (line 12), omit the Schedules. The coalition is moving these amendments to remove schedule 4 and schedule 5. The coalition support the measures in schedules 1 to 3. We think they are sensible paths forward. But we cannot support the broken promise contained in other parts of the bill. Schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to limit the ability of listed companies to offer franking credits on off-market share buybacks, raising $200 million a year in tax clawbacks, particularly from older Australians. Schedule 5 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to limit the ability of listed companies to offer franking credits on capital, raising $50 million over five years. These two measures will limit the ability of companies to offer franking credits to shareholders. Before the election, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer ruled out changes to franking credits. They said on multiple occasions, 'They will not be happening.' It was absolutely unambiguous. But, worse, the taxes in schedules 4 and 5 will fall overwhelmingly on older Australians and particularly the money in their superannuation funds—money which belongs to Australians. There are so many in the Labor Party now that see superannuation money as money belonging to them, to the government, not to Australians. But the truth of the matter is that we should always see superannuation money as money put away over long periods of time, when those investors have to trust government, they have to trust the system, often over many decades—five decades for someone in a very young age bracket, but still very significant periods of time for older Australians as well. I heard from the member opposite a claim that franking credits go to the companies. This is deeply, deeply misleading because the truth of the matter is that franking credits are only useful to investors. There is no point to them other than for an investor to avoid double taxation. This was, of course, an initiative of Paul Keating and a very good initiative indeed, because Paul Keating understood, as it seems those opposite don't anymore, that double taxation was a bad idea. He understood that double taxation was a bad thing, and the whole point of franking credits was to prevent double taxation. It seems the Labor Party is particularly predisposed to double taxation of Australians over the age of 75, because, as we have recently seen in the Tax expenditure and insights statement—which I'm sure the member opposite reads because he does do the detail; I understand that—it's the over-75-year-old group who will be most punished in Australia by being taxed twice by a double taxation regime, as Labor is moving away from some of the very good reforms of the Hawke-Keating era. We heard about the competition reforms a moment ago. These were good reforms in many ways. My former colleague Fred Hilmer was one of those who were behind them. So these were good reforms of that era, but Labor seems to have decided to move away from them. This measure reduces the ability for companies to offer franking credits on new capital-raising activities, and we heard a long speech about the importance of dynamism and new entrants and being able to raise capital for new entrants. If you're going to have that dynamism, you must have the ability for those companies to be able to offer franking credits as part of their offer to raise capital. There is genuine concern that the measure will have unforeseen impacts and wider application than Treasury claims, and that is why I strongly commend these amendments to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 290544 As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:47