﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-05-10</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 10 May 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gyngell, Mr Allan, AO</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>3</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to the death of Allan Gyngell AO be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Olsen, Mr John Henry, AO, OBE</title>
          <page.no>3</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to the death of John Olsen AO be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Humphries, Mr John Barry, AO, CBE</title>
          <page.no>4</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to the death of Barry Humphries AO CBE be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Maguire, Father Robert John (Bob), AM, RFD</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further statements in relation to the death of Robert Maguire AM be permitted in the Federation Chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 12 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 22 May 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 9 May 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 9 May 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 22 May 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR LEESER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Act 1995</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 22 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not </inline> <inline font-style="italic">exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Act 2001</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Amendment (B</inline><inline font-style="italic">an on Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 27 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS DANIEL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Broadcasting Services Act 1992</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Broadcasting Services Amendment (Prohibition of Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 28 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading fo</inline> <inline font-style="italic">r a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS BYRNES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Sunday, 21 May 2023 marks 12 months since the election of the current Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that after a decade of mismanagement, chaos and neglect by the former Government, this Government is delivering on its election promises and continues to deliver and build on our plan for a better future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges that this Government's second budget handed down during the last sitting week:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provides responsible cost of living relief;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) creates more opportunities for Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) builds a more secure economy into the future; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further notes that this Government is delivering on our plan for a better future in the face of relentless negative opposition from the Liberal-National coalition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Byrnes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> m</inline><inline font-style="italic">inutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR BATES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that in the Budget the Government chose to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) spend half a trillion dollars on Stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy, handouts for wealthy property investors, handouts for fossil fuel corporations and nuclear submarines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) not adequately address the cost-of-living pressures people are facing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to lift people out of poverty by raising JobSeeker above the poverty line, wiping student debt, and taking urgent action to address the housing and rental crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">15 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Bates</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the budget handed down on 9 May 2023 must deliver:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) fiscal restraint to take pressure off families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) simpler and fairer taxes, not higher ones;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) real action on productivity to make small businesses and families' lives easier;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) measured relief for small businesses and families that does not add to inflation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) no more broken promises; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's second budget is an opportunity to correct the mistakes of its first; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in its first budget, the Government increased spending by $115 billion, made the structural deficit worse, and abandoned all goals of balancing the budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">T</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ime allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS BELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government's superannuation tax will unfairly impact younger Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a 20-year-old today earning an average salary will be caught in the net of the Government's doubling of superannuation taxes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an analysis of Australian Taxation Office and Australian Bureau of Census data reveals that this means more than two million Australians under the age of 25 today will be slugged with the Government's latest tax grab; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government has been misleading Australia and it is time for the Treasurer to come clean and confirm exactly how many people will lose out under these changes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that young Australians today will pay the price for the Government's reckless spending.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Bell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS THWAITES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Government's second Budget delivers a record 15 per cent pay increase for aged care workers across Australia, and that this represents the biggest ever pay rise for aged care workers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the work of the Government supporting the aged care sector to improve facilities and lift the quality of care for residents, including through increasing average care minutes and greater transparency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) commends the Government for having directly addressed 37 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety since coming into office, and its commitment to continue delivering reform for the aged care sector.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Thwaites</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS DANIEL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the consequences of harm from gambling are poorer health and wellbeing for individuals who gamble, their family members, friends and community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) family and relationship problems, emotional and psychological issues, including distress, depression, suicide and violence and financial harms are all costs of gambling;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the potential for harm has increased with the proliferation of online gambling, and the proliferation of sports bettors gambling online which significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a three-year study by La Trobe University with 50 thousand respondents revealed that more than three quarters felt they should be able to watch sport on television free from gambling ads and that young people are exposed to too much gambling advertising; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on gambling advertising in Australia has increased by 320 per cent in the past 11 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) exposure to gambling advertising normalises betting and increases the risk of harm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) current restrictions have failed to reduce children and young people's exposure to gambling, especially sports betting; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the prolific promotion of sports betting does not align with community values.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 21 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Daniel</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS SITOU: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that Australia's millions of small businesses are the engine room of our nation's economy, at the heart of local communities across the country and employ millions of Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that deadly flooding, bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic have hit our small businesses hard which is why the Government is delivering for small business, helping them to bounce back from these challenges and improve their long-term resilience by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) providing $15.1 million for small business owners across Australia to access free mental health and financial counselling support through the New Access for Small Business Owners and Small Business Debt Helpline programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) updating Commonwealth Procurement Rules so small businesses get a bigger slice of the $70 billion in contracts that the Commonwealth Government spends every year, with a 20 per cent target;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) reviewing the <inline font-style="italic">Payment Times Reporting Act 2020</inline> to consider what other policy measures are necessary to achieve better payment terms and practices for small businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) opening the first round of $62.6 million in energy efficiency grants to eligible small and medium businesses to help address rising costs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) passing legislation to make unfair contract terms illegal so small businesses can negotiate fairer agreements with large partners; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that the Government's wider agenda will benefit small businesses by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) delivering an increase in skilled migration;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) accelerate the delivery of 465,000 additional fee-free TAFE places, with 180,000 to be delivered in 2023, helping get more skilled workers into the job market quicker; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) delivering cheaper childcare to make life easier and increase workforce participation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Sitou</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR WALLACE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Government:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) has not consulted with or listened to the genuine concerns of community pharmacists in regard to its proposed pharmaceutical 60-day dispensing changes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must provide a strong guarantee that this change will not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) harm the viability of community pharmacies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) affect medicine supplies especially in regional and rural communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) increase the stockpiling and wastage of medicines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) the increased cost of living has placed enormous pressure on Australians, but questions remain on whether this policy will have perverse and unintended consequences; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) community pharmacists play an integral role in the provision of primary healthcare in Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia, as they stepped up when the nation needed them most through the COVID-19 pandemic and they deserve the support of the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Wallace</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minut</inline><inline font-style="italic">es each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MS SCRYMGOUR: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the Government will invest an extra $262.3 million in the 2023-24 budget to address the chronic underfunding of Australia's iconic national parks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that after a decade of mismanagement and neglect by the former Government, our national parks have been left with broken infrastructure, out-of-date equipment, and inadequate facilities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the Government's investment will address critical infrastructure needs, including updating unsafe equipment, fixing inadequate signage, providing essential ranger housing, and refurbishing rundown facilities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Scrymgour</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> m</inline><inline font-style="italic">inutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MS LANDRY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australian manufacturers continue to be significantly impacted by the cost-of-living crisis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government still has no plan to tackle inflationary pressures contributing to the rising input costs of manufacturers, with no plans to address:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) rising power prices;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) rising interest rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) damaging labour shortages; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) disrupted supply chains; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the National Reconstruction Fund has not issued a single dollar to our manufacturers and will have a contributory impact on inflation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to reveal when the National Reconstruction Fund will make its first investment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Landry</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) celebrates:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the close trans-Tasman relationship between Australia and New Zealand; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the contribution New Zealanders living in Australia have made to our country;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that changes under the former Howard Liberal Government made it more difficult for New Zealanders living, working, and paying taxes in Australia to become citizens;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes the announcement made on 22 April 2023 that will mean all Special Category Visa holders will be able to apply directly for citizenship without becoming permanent residents first, as long as they meet a four-year residence and other eligibility requirements; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government's commitment to build a fairer, better managed, and more inclusive migration system for New Zealanders living in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 mi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">nutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">BUDGET: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr van Manen—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that the budget handed down on 9 May 2023 must deliver:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) fiscal restraint to take pressure off families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) simpler and fairer taxes, not higher ones;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) real action on productivity to make small businesses and families' lives easier;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) measured relief for small businesses and families that does not add to inflation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) no more broken promises; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's second budget is an opportunity to correct the mistakes of its first; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in its first budget, the Government increased spending by $115 billion, made the structural deficit worse, and abandoned all goals of balancing the budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice g</inline> <inline font-style="italic">iven 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — conti nued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MS MILLER-FROST: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in 2022, Australians lost an estimated $3.1 billion to scams; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the last 12 months to April 2023, almost half of all Australians have been scammed, deceived, or exposed to a fake text message; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Government's commitment to crack down on fake text message scams by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establishing a SMS sender ID registry in the 2023-24 Budget; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) committing to tackling illegal scams and keeping Australians safe; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the Government's commitment compliments:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the rules registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority that saw telecommunications companies block more than 90 million scam texts between July and December 2022; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government's investment to establish a National Anti Scam Centre within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as an innovative, world-leading public-private sector partnership to disrupt and stop scammers in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May </inline> <inline font-style="italic">2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Miller-Frost</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future </inline> <inline font-style="italic">day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 MR VASTA: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) financial literacy rates in Australia are in decline;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) enrolments in economic based subjects, which incorporate financial literacy in the national curriculum, has declined by 70 per cent over the past three decades;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) enrolments in maths-based subjects has decreased from 76 per cent to 66 per cent in 2020, and boys outnumber girls 2 to 1 in these subjects;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) only around 50 per cent of Australians are considered financially literate, with women having significantly worse outcomes compared to their male counterparts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) on average, 50 per cent of Australians live pay-check to pay-check;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) financial hardship is one of the most commonly cited contributors to poor mental health;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) Australian students are falling behind other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations in financial literacy performance, based on the Program for International Student Assessment Survey data;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) 20 per cent of Australian students do not meet baseline levels of financial literacy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the 2021 Australian Government Australian Financial Capability Survey indicates that 94 per cent of young Australians aged 14 to 17 either agreed or strongly agreed that is important to learn how to manage their money; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government to make financial literacy a compulsory part of the national curriculum and extend this into the senior years of schooling; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all Members of Parliament to support measured and considered action to improve financial literacy outcomes in this country across all demographics.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">25 m</inline> <inline font-style="italic">inutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Vasta</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">5 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 DR REID: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government is easing cost-of-living pressures and making hundreds of common medicines cheaper by allowing millions of Australians to buy two months' worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that for at least 6 million Australians, this will:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) halve their medicine costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) require fewer visits to the general practitioner and pharmacist;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) save Australians more than $1.6 billion over four years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that this policy comes after the Government's policy to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment from $42.50 to $30, which has saved Australians more than $58 million on 5.1 million prescriptions in the first 3 months of the laws coming into effect; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the Government for its commitment to make responsible and targeted cost-of-living relief.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">re</inline> <inline font-style="italic">maining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Reid</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should conti</inline> <inline font-style="italic">nue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 May 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7021" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I am pleased to present the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>This bill is the first legislative step in support of Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>As our <inline font-style="italic">National </inline><inline font-style="italic">defence statement</inline> published late last month recognises, Australia's region, the Indo-Pacific, faces increasing competition that operates on multiple levels—economic, military, strategic and diplomatic—all interwoven and all framed by an intense contest of values and narratives.</para>
<para>A large-scale conventional and non-conventional military build-up without strategic reassurance is contributing to the most challenging circumstances in our region for decades.</para>
<para>Combined with rising tensions and reduced warning time for conflict, the risks of military escalation or miscalculation are rising.</para>
<para>These interests demand we deploy all elements of our national power in statecraft seeking to shape a region that is open, stable and prosperous: a predictable region, operating by agreed rules, standards and laws, where sovereignty is respected.</para>
<para>Acquiring conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines will unquestionably strengthen our defence capabilities. Indeed, this capability transition represents the single biggest leap in Australian military capability since the Second World War.</para>
<para>It will see Australia become one of only seven nations to operate nuclear powered submarines.</para>
<para>It will strengthen our capacity to defend Australia and its national interests.</para>
<para>And it will significantly enhance our contribution to the security and stability of the region.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I assured the parliament this government is adopting a methodical, phased approach that will build our capacity as a nation to safely and securely build, maintain and operate conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>This includes developing the full suite of skills, facilities and institutions along with an appropriate regulatory and legislative architecture to be nuclear stewards.</para>
<para>This bill is the first legislative step to this aim.</para>
<para>This bill amends provisions of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.</para>
<para>The amendments clarify that the moratorium on civil nuclear power, as evident in these acts, does not limit the performance of regulatory functions that might be necessary in respect of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and their supporting infrastructure and facilities.</para>
<para>This means the relevant regulators—the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Minister for the Environment and Water—are in no way inhibited from performing their functions in respect of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and their supporting infrastructure and facilities.</para>
<para>These amendments will ensure the relevant regulators can perform their functions, if and when required, in the system of regulation that will apply to conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and their supporting infrastructure and facilities.</para>
<para>Let me be clear about what this bill does not do.</para>
<para>It does not abolish the moratorium on civil nuclear power in Australia, a feature of Australian law since the Howard government enacted the ARPANS Act and EPBC Act in the late 1990s.</para>
<para>It is not necessary to modify the moratorium on civil nuclear power, other than to clarify that it does not prevent the performance of regulatory functions that might be necessary in respect of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and their supporting infrastructure and facilities.</para>
<para>This is a Defence legislative amendment, focused on the reform to Australian law required to strengthen our defence capability by acquiring conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, this bill is only the first step in support of Australia's acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>Building the legal architecture to support this endeavour will involve multiple tranches of legislation.</para>
<para>This work will extend beyond the life of this parliament and likely beyond the tenure of this government.</para>
<para>Last weekend I announced our intention to establish a new independent statutory regulator: the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator.</para>
<para>This new regulator will have the functions and powers necessary to regulate the unique circumstances associated with nuclear safety and radiological protection across the lifecycle of Australia's nuclear powered submarine enterprise. This includes associated infrastructure and facilities.</para>
<para>I anticipate legislation to establish the Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator and its functions and powers will brought before this parliament later this year.</para>
<para>This bill is a modest and necessary first legislative step towards Australia acquiring conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7023" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time</para></quote>
<para>Schedules 1, 3 and 4 of this bill will amend our tax laws to provide targeted support to low-income households, primary producers, and small- and medium-sized businesses.</para>
<para>In line with our commitment to provide targeted cost-of-living relief in this year's budget, the bill increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners by 3.9 per cent.</para>
<para>This means that singles with a taxable income of up to $24,276 will not be liable for the Medicare levy. This is an increase of almost $1,000. Similarly, seniors and pensioners will now be able to earn up to $38,365 a year and families can earn up to $40,939 a year without being liable.</para>
<para>The change to thresholds reflects CPI increases, is consistent with increases introduced by previous governments and will support approximately 1.1 million Australians.</para>
<para>The bill also assists our primary producers to reduce their carbon emissions. It does this by providing concessional tax treatment for Australian Carbon Credit Unit income.</para>
<para>These changes will allow more primary producers to access income-averaging schemes that help to distribute uneven income across multiple financial years, and reduce their tax liabilities. Doing so will support primary producers to diversify their businesses into carbon abatement activities.</para>
<para>The bill will also change the taxing point for eligible primary producers holding ACCUs. Instead of being taxed as the value changes each year, they will be taxed in the year of sale—that is, when the capital gain is realised. Doing so will support primary producer's cash flow by ensuring they are only taxed in years where they have received income, further incentivising the use of Australian Carbon Credit Units.</para>
<para>The final tax measure presented in this bill reduces the GDP adjustment factor used to work out the amount of pay-as-you-go and GST instalments payable for the financial 2023-24 income year from 12 per centto six per cent.</para>
<para>Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy. They're at the heart of local communities, employ millions of Australians and contribute more than $430 billion to our nation's economy every year. But the Albanese government knows that deadly flooding, bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic have hit our small businesses hard. That's why our budget delivers for small business.</para>
<para>There will be more small business measures passed in this place in the months to come—but these amendments will provide much needed cash flow relief for small- and medium-sized businesses from as early as 1 July this year.</para>
<para>The reduced GDP adjustment factor of six per cent strikes a balance: it will minimise cash flow impacts, while helping businesses avoid tax debts through the contribution of reasonable tax instalments through the year.</para>
<para>Schedules 2 and 5 of the bill amend access to government guarantees.</para>
<para>As part of the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, the Australian government provided a guarantee to ensure that pre-privatisation members would not risk losing their superannuation following a privatisation.</para>
<para>The bill ensures that these members will continue to benefit from the existing guarantees following a planned merger involving CBA super group. This will enable the merger to go ahead, as a superannuation fund trustee can only transfer its members to another fund without their consent if it is satisfied that those members will enjoy 'equivalent rights' in the new fund. This bill is essential to enable those equivalent rates guarantees to be given.</para>
<para>The government supports consolidation in the superannuation industry, where appropriate, as a driver for better member outcomes.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill enables the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, soon to be renamed Housing Australia, to provide assistance to more Australians in need.</para>
<para>The previous government's failure to act seriously on housing has led to significant challenges across the economy. Homeownership is out of reach for many ordinary Australians.</para>
<para>The bill will expand assistance to those who have not held a property interest in Australia in the preceding 10 years.</para>
<para>The important thing about this is it will allow those who have fallen out of homeownership, often due to financial hardship or a relationship breakdown, to re-enter the property market with government assistance.</para>
<para>It also expands eligibility for single parents to include single legal guardians of children, such as aunts, uncles and grandparents.</para>
<para>This change recognises the important role guardians play, and the importance that access to housing has for this group. It will help ensure families of different sanctuaries will have a safe and secure place to call home.</para>
<para>The expansion in eligibility recognises the importance of stable and secure housing in providing a foundation for social and economic wellbeing.</para>
<para>Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>18</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Mr Burke, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services be amended as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) replace 'final report no later than 29 September 2023' in paragraph 2 with 'final report no later than 30 November 2023'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) replace 'until presentation of the committee's final report' in paragraph 6 with 'until 31 December 2023'.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>18</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7008" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Introduced in 1988, the child support scheme is a proud legacy from the Hawke Labor government. Australia's child support system needs to be effective in assessing and collecting child support, with many custodial parents relying on regular payments for their financial stability. Today, the Albanese Labor government will continue that legacy with the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023. This bill will help broaden the powers to recover child support debts, prevent large debts from being amassed and improve income accuracy to ensure low-income parents are not put into financial hardship.</para>
<para>The median income of parents who receive child support is around $33,000 a year. That is less than half the annual average weekly total earnings of all employed Australians. Custodial parents need the financial stability this bill will bring for the welfare of the kids they look after. It must be said that most non-custodial parents do the right thing when paying child support, but when payments are delayed, or ignored altogether, the knock-on effect to the custodial parent and their children is immediate and damaging.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is deeply concerned about the $1.69 billion in child support debt that has accrued over the past 35 year, and, after nine years of Liberal neglect, we are taking action. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023 will make it easier for Services Australia to collect child support debts and will help prevent future debts for low-income parents from amassing. From 1 July 2023 the bill will deliver three key changes to strengthen Services Australia's powers to collect debts from parents who have not paid their child support and to improve accuracy when Services Australia makes income assessments for low-income parents. The government's bill puts money in the pockets of the people who need it most, and that's parents who look after children.</para>
<para>In the first change in the bill, Services Australia will be given more circumstances where it can deduct child support debts directly from a parent's wages. The bill will allow Services Australia to initiate employer withholding to collect child support debts when a case has ended. For example, the child has turned 18 and therefore the case has ended, but there's still an outstanding debt. It is expected that $164 million in unpaid child support from around 18,000 parents will be collected through this change alone. This is money for looking after the kids that parents have either had to find from elsewhere or miss out on altogether. Particularly for parents of teenagers at university or at school with the higher costs involved, it is not easy to find this money, so this change will help make their lives easier.</para>
<para>The second change will stop parents who owe child support and who have been issued with a departure prohibition order from being able to bypass the order by offering financial security. Currently, Services Australia can issue a departure prohibition order to prevent a parent from travelling overseas if they have a child support debt. However, an exemption is issued if the owing parent provides a bond for their return to Australia by a specified date. That bond must be returned to the owing parent if they return by the specified date, regardless of whether or not they've paid their child support debt. You can pay the bond, not pay the debt, then get the bond back and still have the debt. Some parents have exploited this loophole, and the change to this order will allow Services Australia to refuse an exemption when the parent offers financial security but has a history of not paying child support debt. This change only impacts 110 families, but on average they are owed more than $40,000 each—so a few people but big debts. We owe it to these families and these kids to close loopholes where a parent takes advantage and continues not to pay their child support when they return to the country. It's not fair, it's not right, and we owe it to these kids to fix this problem.</para>
<para>The bill's third change will improve income accuracy for low-income parents who are not required to lodge a tax return. Child support customers who earn less than their self-supporting amount, which is currently $27,507, are not required to lodge a tax return. Currently, if low-income parents do not provide income information, Services Australia applies a default provisional income of $55,016. That's double the self-support amount. It significantly overestimates the parent's income. An inaccurate estimate can put low-income parents into financial hardship, whether they are the payee or the payer. It can result in a parent receiving less child support than they should or it can result in a parent being liable to pay more child support than they are able to afford. We can fix this problem by deeming a parent's income to be equal to the self-support amount, and this will ensure that the child support assessment takes into account a more accurate estimate of the parent's income. This change is expected to benefit up to 150,000 low-income child support parents each year, with receiving parents making up about 70 per cent of this group.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill will make a difference to the lives of custodial parents and their children in my electorate. It will offer better financial security and it will make paying parents accountable for their responsibilities. However, the government also knows there is more work to do to improve the child support scheme to ensure that it's always fit for purpose. In the government's response to the report by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, tabled in January 2023, we have committed to implement a range of recommendations to improve the scheme over the longer term. This bill is a first step to make the scheme better for parents and children.</para>
<para>Australians can rest assured that the kids' best interests are the government's top priority when making changes to the child support scheme. As we say, we know that most non-custodial parents do the right thing; they pay their child support on time and they do what's best for their kids. What this is about is making sure that we get as many parents as possible—noncustodial and custodial—doing the right thing. At the heart of this bill is the welfare of children and making sure they get the support they need.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023. The modern child support scheme is a proud Labor legacy, first introduced by the Hawke government way back when Brisbane was hosting Expo 88. Thirty-five years later, the Albanese government is happy to continue to support this legacy of reform.</para>
<para>We know it's always tough on children when their parents separate. My father left home when my mother was pregnant with her 10th child, so they were very tough times for my family. Good, responsible governments know how important a robust child support system is. Such social support ensures adequate and fair financial support for all the children of separated parents. To do so it's essential that Australia's child support system be effective in accurately assessing and then collecting child support.</para>
<para>So many single parents rely on child support for economic security and stability; for dignity; and for the roof over their head. We know that the median annual income for parents who receive child support is around $33,000. This is less than half of the annual average weekly total earnings of all employees. In 2021-22 the child support scheme contributed to the economic security of 1.1 million children. This entailed $3.71 billion in child support payments transferred between 1.3 million parents—those are big numbers. And, obviously, most parents do the right thing by their children, irrespective of the circumstances of their relationship breakdown.</para>
<para>I have to be clear here and say that most parents are doing the right thing. Good parents provide assistance on time, they help to cover the cost of things such as food, medicine, education, clothing et cetera—like 'normal' parents under the one roof. However, sadly, when parents don't pay their child support on time there are real and immediate impacts on single parents and the children they care for. Concerningly, there is about $1.69 billion in child support debt that has been accrued over the last 35 years. That's $1.69 billion that hasn't gone to the needs of children. It's parents neglecting their own flesh and blood—parents neglecting their own children, an absence of money and support that hurts and harms. Try to imagine how much $1.69 billion could have helped with expenses: with bills, with that new pair of school shoes, that trip to the movies or all those little pleasures that are so often denied a single parent.</para>
<para>The intent of this bill is to make it easier for Services Australia to collect child support debts, and I'm proud to be part of the government that is helping it to do so because I believe the needs of children should be paramount: it's a great investment. Moreover, our proposed changes will help prevent future debts being accrued by low-income parents. Nobody wins from those sorts of debt traps. The Albanese government will do this from 1 July via three changes that strengthen Services Australia's powers. The first applies to expanding employer withholding. This is where Services Australia can directly debit child support debts from a parent's wage. Unfortunately, this is the default and probably most well-known method for paying child support for those who can't sort it out themselves. At present, Services Australia can only initiate an employer withholding arrangement in active child support cases. For example: right now when a child turns 18 the active child support case ends and therefore Services Australia cannot initiate employer withholdings. This bill will mean that from 1 July this year Services Australia will be able to initiate employer withholdings where there is still an outstanding debt. A parenting debt should not be wiped just because the child has turned 18. As anyone with an 18-year-old knows—and I recently acquired one of them—parenting doesn't magically stop when they become old enough to vote. Therefore, incurred expenses regarding one's offspring when they were officially a child, under 18, still have to be paid. This change will end rogue parents deliberately delaying and not paying what they owe, knowing that when the child turns 18 the debt would disappear. Trickery and delay and bad parenting should not be financially rewarded. This change alone is expected to recover up to $164 million in unpaid child support from around 18,000 parents. This laggardly cohort has an average debt of nearly $11,000 owing to the receiving parent.</para>
<para>A second change will stop parents who owe child support and have been issued a departure prohibition order from being able to bypass their order by offering financial security. At present, Services Australia can issue a departure prohibition order—something to stop you at the gate, basically—to prevent a parent from travelling overseas if they have a child support debt. However, there are exemptions issued if the owing parent can provide a financial security such as a bond for their return to Australia by a specific date. Upon their return this is then returned to them. This bill will give Services Australia more powers to deny an exemption when there is a history of not paying child support debt. Sadly, many parents are using this as a loophole not to pay off their debt. They can find money for an overseas trip but can't seem to find money to pay for their children's school shoes. They can flee overseas but can't feed their own children. This is not acceptable. The number of people this affects will be low, somewhere between only 100 and 200, but this group generally are those with large debts. On average, this cohort has debts of $43,000. This is money that is meant to assist with the costs associated with raising their children—money that should be paid before they swan off on an overseas trip. That's sensible government.</para>
<para>Another change will see improvements made to income accuracy for low-income parents. This bill will improve income accuracy for low-income parents who are not required to lodge a tax return. Child support customers who earn less than the self-support amount, which is currently $27,507, are not required to lodge a tax return annually. At the moment, if low-income parents do not provide income information, Services Australia applies a default provisional income, which is two-thirds of the annual male total average weekly earnings, which is currently $55,016. However, this is double the self-support amount, so it can significantly actually overestimate a parent's income, an inaccurate estimate that can put low-income parents into financial hardship in two ways. It can result in a parent receiving less child support than they should or it can result in a parent being liable to pay more child support than they actually are capable of doing. The bill fixes this problem by deeming a parent's income to be equal to the self-support amount, and this will ensure that the child support assessment takes into account a more accurate estimate of the parent's income. As any MP would know, often why we have our constituents in front of us complaining is because of the inaccurate assessment. This change is expected to benefit up to 150,000 low-income child support parents each year, with receiving parents making up about 70 per cent of this group.</para>
<para>The changes contained in this bill will make a real difference to the lives of single parents and their children. It will remove some irritants from what can already be an incredibly traumatic or fraught situation. However, the Albanese government also knows that there is more work to do to improve the child support scheme to ensure that it is fit for purpose. This bill is the first step in making the scheme better for parents and children. In the government's response to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, tabled in January 2023, we've committed to implementing a range of recommendations to improve the scheme over the longer term so Australians can be assured that the best interests of children will always be paramount in any changes we make to this nation's child support scheme. I commend the legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ELLIOT</name>
    <name.id>DZW</name.id>
    <electorate>Richmond</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today also to speak in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023. As we've heard many speakers say, this bill will make the child support scheme better and fairer for Australian families and these improvements are very much needed to make this scheme much more effective and essentially fairer. The child support scheme was introduced by the Hawke government in 1988, and today the Albanese Labor government is continuing that very important legacy. The child support scheme ensures that children receive regular financial support from both parents after a separation. It also assists parents to share the responsibility of both raising their children and providing for their economic security and upbringing. Since the scheme's introduction, more than $33 billion in child support payments have been delivered.</para>
<para>All of us are acutely aware that most parents do absolutely the right thing in providing all of those necessary provisions for their children. We are very much aware of that and want to make that clear. The changes brought forth in this bill, however, ensure that our government can appropriately act in those cases where parents are not acting fairly in terms of making sure there are provisions for their children. That's why the changes in this bill are necessary. In fact, that's why this bill introduces three important key changes. These changes are expected to recover up to $164 million in debt which is rightfully owed to parents and their children. It's absolutely vital that those parents are able to access that in terms of the upbringing of their children. Of course, there are many pressures and lots of financial necessities in raising children, and, when you have cases where they have not been receiving that child support, it makes it much more incredibly difficult.</para>
<para>Firstly, the bill expands the circumstances where Services Australia can deduct child support debts directly from a parent's wages. An employer withholding is an effective and efficient way—probably the most effective way—for the government to collect child support and administer it to parents. The process also ensures that child support is paid on time, allowing parents to meet the everyday financial needs of their children. Making sure it's paid on time at regular intervals will ensure that they have that money to be able to effectively raise their children and provide for their economic security. Currently, Services Australia can only initiate an employer withholding arrangement in active child support cases. That is currently the situation. This bill, put forward today, will allow Services Australia to initiate employer withholding to collect child support debts in any case, including when a case has ended. For example, the child may have turned 18, and therefore the case has ended yet there's still an outstanding debt that is owed; it is still outstanding. This change alone is expected to recover up to $164 million in unpaid child support from around about 18,000 parents, with an average debt of a staggering $11,000 owing to the receiving parent. A change like this will vitally help those single parents around the country. Indeed, $11,000 is such a significant amount to those particular single parents, who indeed have been doing it really tough. This reform will also make the payment process easier and a lot more hassle-free for both parents by preventing debts from building up and causing more problems.</para>
<para>Secondly, this bill will highlight the rules around departure prohibition orders. This will allow the government to stop parents who owe child support from leaving Australia until they actually pay what they owe or agree to a payment plan. Essentially, this measure will stop people from running away overseas, not fulfilling these obligations and not paying their share for their children's financial security and wellbeing. It will also protect the rights of parents who owe child support and are indeed struggling from having those added pressures on them. This reform will stop parents from exploiting a loophole in the current system, and it will allow Services Australia to refuse an exemption when the parent has a history of not paying their child support debt. Whilst this measure is expected to only impact a very small number of parents—around 110—this group is responsible for a very significant debt pool. It is, in fact, a debt pool that sits at an average of $43,500 per parent. This is not fair at all and not okay. It is very unfair to those children and the single parents who are raising their child here. The bill will give the government the power to stop parents from leaving Australia unless they actually pay what they owe or agree to the payment plan. We must all ensure people do not get away with exploiting a system which is designed to support and help their children. Indeed, these changes are in line with what other countries, such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, do.</para>
<para>Thirdly, this bill will improve the income accuracy for low-income parents who are not required to lodge a tax return. Child support customers who earn less than the self-support amount of $27,508 and receive an income support payment on each day of the financial year are not required to lodge a tax return. Currently, if low-income parents do not provide income information, Services Australia may apply a default provisional income, which sits at two-thirds of the annual total average weekly earnings for a male, which is currently just over $55,000. However, this is double the self-support amount, so it can significantly overestimate a parent's income. Indeed, an inaccurate estimate can put low-income parents into financial hardship in two ways: it can result in a parent receiving less child support than they should or it can result in a parent being liable to pay more child support than they are able to. Today's bill fixes this problem by deeming a parent's income to be equal to the self-support amount. This will ensure the child support assessment takes into account a much more accurate estimate of the parent's income—a much fairer system. It will also stop parents from hiding or reducing their income on purpose and make sure that child support payments are fair and reasonable. This change alone is expected to benefit up to 150,000 low-income child support parents each year, with receiving parents making up around 70 per cent of this particular group.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill will make a real difference to the lives of single parents and their children. We all know there is more work to do to improve the child support scheme in order to better support families, and this bill is the first step to making the scheme better for parents and children. Indeed, in the government response to the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, which was in fact tabled in January 2023, we have committed to implementing a range of recommendations to improve the scheme over the longer term. These include reviewing compliance, with a particular focus on improved collection and enforcement.</para>
<para>We know the majority of people do the right thing, yet the fact is some people deliberately avoid paying child support to inflict financial control and abuse on their former partners. Our government will not stand for that. We also know that, in some circumstances, the child support system has been used as a means of continued financial control and abuse after people have left abusive partners, which results in sustained trauma for victims-survivors—and we know that occurs. Speaking as the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, I am very proud to be working alongside my colleagues sitting here today, and the entire government, with the firm commitment of ending violence in all its forms. We are absolutely committed to that.</para>
<para>In conclusion, in terms of this bill, the Albanese Labor government will ensure that single parents and their children receive the financial support they are entitled to. We as a government will keep working hard to better the lives of Australian families and ensure that the best interests of children are paramount in all that we do. It is for those reasons that we have this bill and these particular changes that are recommended. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all those who have contributed in this place to this important debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023. The majority of parents who receive child support are on low incomes. Most of them are single mothers. It matters that they receive the right amount of child support, paid on time, because the consequences are real if they don't.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to improving the child support system over the long term, and this bill is an important first step. Firstly, it will strengthen debt collection powers to make sure parents and children get the support they need. Secondly, it will improve the quality of assessments under the scheme, making arrangements fairer and more accurate. From 1 July 2023, this bill will improve debt collection by allowing child support debts to be deducted from parents' wages, even when the child support case has ended. This is a sensible and important step towards reducing the $1.69 billion of outstanding child support debt that has built up over the last 35 years. In 2021-22, $743 million in child support payments were collected from the wages of 91,000 parents. Over the next two years, we estimate that expanding employer withholding will recover up to $164 million in unpaid child support from around 18,000 parents. That is money owed to single parents and their children.</para>
<para>Because of this bill, parents who have been issued with a departure prohibition order will need to make suitable arrangements to repay their outstanding child support if they want to travel overseas. No longer will they be able to exploit a loophole that allows them to provide a refundable security to travel instead of paying their child support debt. While only a small number of parents are responsible for this, it does contribute to a large portion of the debt pool, owing on average $43,500 each. These parents are deliberately and repeatedly avoiding their child support obligations, and that is unacceptable.</para>
<para>This bill will also make the income assessment processes fairer and more accurate, protecting our lowest income parents who are not required to lodge a tax return by introducing a new provisional income equal to the self-support amount: $27,508 in 2023. Under current rules, if parents who are not required to lodge a tax return do not advise Services Australia of their income, a higher provisional income can be applied. Using an income that is too high means receiving parents miss out on child support and paying parents are assessed to pay an amount they simply can't afford. This bill means assessments will be more accurate, and we know that parents are more likely to pay when their child support assessment is fair. This will significantly increase the accuracy of child support assessments, prevent debts and reduce income reporting requirements for about 150,000 low-income parents each year. The changes in this bill will make a real difference to the lives of single parents and their children. I thank the government and non-government members for their positive engagement with me and my office on this bill.</para>
<para>We also know that there's more work to be done to improve the child support scheme to better support parents. In our response to the family law inquiry, tabled in January this year, we agreed to a range of accommodations to improve the scheme over the longer term. We are committed to ensuring that single parents and their children receive the financial support they are entitled to, and that government systems don't exacerbate any abuse, including financial abuse. I look forward to continuing to work with members from all sides on this issue, so that the importance of economic security and the wellbeing of many parents and their children is furthered. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>23</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Ms Doyle to be a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs in place of Ms Vamvakinou.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms B</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>URNEY (—) (): by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Ms Vamvakinou be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and that, in her place, Ms Doyle be appointed a member of the committee.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>24</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6999" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ensuring Australians are skilled for work is vital to our nation's ongoing prosperity. Skilling Australians will be crucial as we look for improved productivity gains in the economy to help navigate the significant economic challenges we face as a nation, and it is vital we get this legislation and this statutory body right. I see firsthand the frustrations of worker shortages every time I'm out across my electorate. From cafes to supermarkets, from the construction sector to agriculture, worker shortages are impacting businesses right across Casey.</para>
<para>The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 is the second form of legislation relating to Jobs and Skills Australia. It seeks to finalise governance arrangements for the agency. The bill states the minister must commence a review into the operation of the act within two years and must prepare a report to be tabled in parliament annually that examines Australia's current, emerging and future skills and training priorities. The bill establishes a ministerial advisory board for Jobs and Skills Australia, composed of a chair, two members representing the interests of the states and territories, three members representing employer organisations and three members representing employee organisations—also known as union officials.</para>
<para>This is important because this setup means that 25 per cent of this board's representation—with the scope to increase it to 50 per cent—can be union officials. This is despite union members making up 12.5 per cent of employees. Since 1992, the proportion of employees who are trade union members has fallen from 41 per cent to that 12.5 per cent. So there's a clear mismatch in the overrepresentation of union officials on this vital board that's making these decisions.</para>
<para>While they don't like to admit it, the reality is that the Albanese Labor government inherited a booming skills and training sector from the former coalition government. We prioritised the skills and training needs of Australians. Through investing in young people, we are investing in our future. We must ensure we have skilled workers in the industries that help our nation thrive. But this, particularly when upskilling our young workers, is not just about that economic benefit. It is really about the dignity of work and giving them a great purpose to get up and have something to wake up to and do during the day. They can benefit not only today but also into the future.</para>
<para>I'm really fortunate to have spent time at an organisation called Ranges TEC. When I was there recently, I ran into a person that I've known for many years, a young man called James. James and I used to play soccer together. He was about 15 or 16 when we played together three or four years ago, so he couldn't drive. I had the opportunity to drive him from our town of Lilydale—we were playing for Lilydale Montrose United—into the city, to Albert Park, so we had over an hour to talk together. It was wonderful to talk to him about his life. This is well before my time here in this House. He was sharing about the new training that he'd undertaken at Ranges TEC, and you could see the passion and the excitement in his eyes. The school system hadn't worked for him, and this had given him real purpose and a real passion he'd been lacking, particularly during those challenging years of lockdowns—it was between lockdowns at this time. That gave him hope.</para>
<para>Recently when I was at Ranges TEC with the opposition leader and Senator Cash I ran into James. It was great to see him doing cooking. That was what he was focusing on as part of that unit. In talking to him I saw how much Ranges TEC and the training and skills he had learnt had impacted not just his job opportunities but also his confidence and his will to get out and make something of his life. That is just one example of the importance of getting these training and skills opportunities right, because they not only support personal development but also support the wider community and the economy and put our nation in a strong position for the future.</para>
<para>That's why the coalition has been constructive when it comes to Jobs and Skills Australia. We supported its establishment when we debated the bill in September 2022—and I will always support legislation that supports people into meaningful work—but we're not prepared to give the government a blank cheque to create taxpayer funded board roles to fill the pockets of union representatives.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia is an important agency that will be charged with identifying skills needs across our economy and developing policies that reflect those needs. It's about building Australia's workforce for today and for the future. It will also play a vital role in advising our national migration program and providing advice on reform to current skills and education systems. This is important and meaningful work that will shape the future of our nation. It cannot be overshadowed by Labor's instincts to help out their union mates.</para>
<para>The former coalition government had stronger momentum when it came to skills and training. We established the National Skills Commission to provide evidence leadership on the skills we need for our workforce today and tomorrow. Labor have effectively rebranded that commission and now they want to make room for their union mates to have their say over the future of Australian jobs and skills.</para>
<para>The amendments we've introduced will remove the mandate of three members of employee organisations on the ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia. We are requesting the inclusion of a small-business representative and two rural, regional and remote representatives. A broader skill set on the board will create equitable outcomes for all Australians in the field of jobs and skills.</para>
<para>I spoke before about how union members make up 12.5 per cent of employees yet have up to 50 per cent representation on this board. Small businesses make up 97 per cent of all businesses and don't have a voice on this board. They suffer greatly from skill shortages because they don't have the HR departments of big business, the recruiting firms and the ability to recruit like big business does. They don't have the ability to train internally, like many large organisations do. It's so important that this board represents small businesses to make sure they can get the skilled workers they need to ensure they can grow, flourish and become even bigger businesses. Small businesses are the heartbeat of the economy not just in my community of Casey but also across the nation. They employ 4.7 million people nationally and they have the opportunity to employ even more if they can get the skilled people to go into those positions.</para>
<para>We need a voice for rural, regional and remote areas because they have different challenges to many other areas. I will use the Yarra Valley in my electorate of Casey as an example. One of the challenges for regional and remote communities is that they generally have really concentrated industry bound by geography. In the Yarra Valley we have a wonderful wine industry, but they have challenges getting skilled workers because they need workers who are trained in viticulture and also in hospitality. You need to get the match right between the organisations in the regions, the opportunities that businesses are looking for, and the workers who can neatly meet those needs. There's no point training people in the Yarra Valley in an area that doesn't have any job opportunities. We need to make sure that people, in particular young people, see the opportunities and are being trained in viticulture, in this example, so they can stay local and stay within their communities, have well-paid jobs, and contribute to a growing industry. That's something that's unique to remote and regional areas, and it's why we need those representatives on this board—to make sure that those geographical challenges and those unique opportunities are also maximised.</para>
<para>We strongly believe that each state and territory should be represented on the ministerial advisory board. Two representatives across all the states and territories cannot represent all their needs, because, again, each state has unique challenges. The state of Victoria, which I'm proud to live in, has significantly different challenges from WA or Queensland, for example, so it's important that each state has their own voice on this committee. We also know that many states, if not all states, have their own jobs and skills agencies. How are we going to make sure that they're coordinated at a federal level, at a state level and down to the local community level? Having a representative from each state will help to ensure that that representation is there, that the board is more balanced and that more local voices will be heard. The question for Labor really is what do they value more: a representative board with balanced voices from across the country or jobs earmarked for union officials?</para>
<para>Our amendment will also mandate the review to occur no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section. This is really important. There's a great rule called the one-in-100 rule. That rule says that, if an aeroplane is flying with one degree of error, for every 100 kilometres flown, it can miss its target by a kilometre. That just shows that, if you're off a little bit and you don't adjust course early, you can end up a long way away from where you need to be. So it's so important that we review this earlier because we know that there is a skills crisis and businesses are struggling today. They need solutions. They can't afford to wait longer than necessary if we're not delivering what we need to. If things aren't working, we need to know so we can make sure that we're addressing that and that we're helping business and we're helping those people looking for work. It's more important that we get the review done earlier if there are issues.</para>
<para>As I have said, the coalition had a strong record in skills and training. We invested over $13 billion into the skills sector following the beginning of the pandemic, including a record $7.8 billion in our final year in office. I'm reminded of the importance of these investments every time I'm out in my community. Casey has the highest number of people in the building and construction trade per capita. We trumped Flinders 15.7 per cent to 15.4 per cent, as announced by the Master Builders Association back in February. We will always have strong numbers in trades, and this is partly due to the amazing work of Ranges TEC.</para>
<para>I recently visited Ranges TEC and had conversations with the students there who were learning hands-on skills in trades. They are setting themselves up for a successful career on the tools, with the amazing staff at Ranges TEC right behind them. That's why I'm so proud of the previous coalition government's record when it comes to skills and training. We ensured that apprentices were protected, with our wage subsidy measures, and supported jobseekers and young people to get the skills they need for the future, with our low or fee-free training through our $2.1 billion JobTrainer Fund. We delivered a record 240,000 trade apprentices, the highest number since 1963. We also helped small businesses invest in the skills of their employees through our Skills and Training Boost. The list goes on.</para>
<para>We established 10 industry training hubs, which we promised at the 2019 election, to create more jobs for young people. Since then, hundreds of local stakeholders have connected, developing projects to meet local needs and create jobs. It's all about getting local kids into high-demand, high-quality local jobs. We ensured young people in the industry training hubs regions could access Commonwealth scholarships, which included up to $13,000 for eligible VET qualifications and target occupations, because family income should not stop anyone working towards the career they want to be in. Ultimately, all this was shown at the macro level by the unemployment level of 3.5 per cent when we left government and the new government came in. We showed we were getting more people than ever back into work.</para>
<para>Like I said, we've been cooperative in the space of jobs and skills, but we won't give Labor a blank cheque to create jobs for their union mates. Jobs and Skills Australia does important work that cannot be overshadowed by Labor's inclination to help out their union mates. I'm supporting the coalition amendments on this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. This is further proof of the Albanese government getting on with the job of governing, doing what's best for our country and delivering on what we committed to do before the election. Jobs and Skills Australia's establishment was, after all, one of the earlier commitments of an incoming Albanese Labor government. We're talking all the way back in October 2019. As for a time line, this was within six months of the 2019 federal election, less than six months after the Prime Minister became the leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party. He was already leading a team committed to fixing the big problems and making inroads on big-ticket reforms. When people use criticisms of small target in the lead up to the last election, this, frankly, provides myself and many others on this side of the chamber ample ammunition to launch a riposte against such claims with a tidy rebuttal.</para>
<para>After the Australian people entrusted the Albanese government to enact our policy agenda, this government has relentlessly gone about fulfilling its election commitments on the floor of this place. This is, after all, a bit different to the previous government, where they would say one thing and do another, often having exposure drafts of bills stagnating in the ether after a strongly worded media release and interviews saying the policy at the time truly reflected their core beliefs or it was something they promised at an election. Near the end, those opposite, in government, may have been a bitterly divided bunch on so many issues, but, for all the divisions they possess, they really did make kicking the can up the hill a team sport. Whether the divisions were about personalities, whether they were about introducing the anticorruption commission or whether they were disagreeing over whether a beloved ice cream had gone woke, the fault lines were obvious to see even from the perspective of a lay observer.</para>
<para>This couldn't be more clearly contrasted by the approach taken by the Albanese Labor government. In fact, the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia was the very first bill introduced into this place by the Minister of Skills and Training, and I believe it was even possibly the first bill introduced to this place by the Albanese Labor government in the infancy of the 47th Parliament. This provided a complimentary stage for one of the hallmarks of our new government after last year's election: the Jobs and Skills Summit, bringing together key stakeholders, bringing together state and territory governments, bringing together education and training providers, bringing together employers and employer groups from a vast array of sectors throughout our diverse labour market, big business and small business and employee groups too—although I should really call a spade a spade, rather than skirting around the risk of treating those on the other side of the chamber that possess slightly more delicate sensibilities and constitutions, so what I mean to say is: unions. There, I said it: unions. Perhaps I should provide a bit of a warning next time in case someone on the other side of the chamber just so happens to be taking a sip of water and starts to feel a bit faint.</para>
<para>Unions, despite the chagrin of one side of this chamber, play an invaluable role in this dynamic, given their representation of the labour proportion of the labour market. As soon as we all start to accept the off-chance that all of those groups just might be able to work in collaboration with one another to act in the national interest, we can make great inroads to enacting enduring reforms. The name 'Jobs and Skills Australia' gives the game away for what we're looking to reform, and I hope to touch a bit on each of those two aspects in the context of what the agency now hopes to deliver in a more permanent capacity. But first we must face the facts and look at the reason why it is important for our government—or, indeed, the federal government—to be doing this in the first place.</para>
<para>As far as the OECD countries are concerned, Australia has the second-highest labour shortage, and closing the borders during the pandemic certainly highlighted these shortfalls in our labour market. This outlook is coupled with the fact that replenishing the labour supply shortfall is impacted by our difficulties in filling vacancies in a number of domestic industries, an aim that we would like to achieve first and foremost. This need was identified by Labor well before the pandemic had begun. But by the time it touched down on Australian soil and began to alter our definition of things such as what a new normal was, the need for addressing the skills shortages became extremely apparent to us all. Though fixing skills shortages in the wake of short- and medium-term disruptions is one thing, it is vitally important to ensure that longer-term thinking is in place, which is why you need a structure for doing so that can withstand the test of time. Without such an outlook, we'd just stumble between labour market review after review, and any corrective action would appear simply reactive with the chance of achieving real outcomes at the point of exercising a strategy looking less methodological and more speculative in nature.</para>
<para>In order to achieve the overarching aims of this bill and the remit of Jobs and Skills Australia, we must first address some inconvenient truths. It is estimated that currently there are three million Australians lacking the fundamental skills that are required to participate in training and secure work. In fact, out of our top 20 most in-demand industries, many of which we would consider critical, seven have supply-side shortages mainly caused by skills shortages. This is coupled with relatively stable and low levels of unemployment and an increasing number of job advertisements being posted, yet at the same time we have what would initially appear to be paradoxically increasing levels of underemployment. We need to make sure we take a holistic approach in order to ensure we have people seeking the skills and qualifications that seek out jobs that are in demand and those that are going to remain in high demand for years to come.</para>
<para>These are immediate-term problems, but we cannot ignore looking at the longer-term outlook either, an outlook where it is estimated that nine out of 10 new jobs will require further education or training beyond secondary school, four of which require VET qualifications. In fact, in the latest labour market update, 60 per cent of employment growth occurred in jobs requiring a vocational qualification—60 per cent. If that isn't enough proof of the importance of the work that the Albanese Labor government intends for Jobs and Skills Australia, I don't know what is. Having state governments as an intrinsic part of this process aids this even further. State governments from time to time have lost sight of the role that they play, but we need to include them in the process where those on all sides of the table are crying out for investment in vocational education and a focus on a number of occupations requiring these qualifications. You would hope an evidence based approach would help them correct their course, although, failing that, sometimes it takes a state or territory election for this to take place.</para>
<para>A good example of this is at the front of my mind from my home state of South Australia, where we had the previous Liberal state government gutting TAFE at a time the country was desperate for workers to fill shortfalls in many industries where the qualifications for those jobs were obtainable through TAFE. Luckily, in March last year a change of government occurred in South Australia—a change of principles, a change of priorities—and this preceded a change of government in Canberra a few months afterwards. This change was such a tectonic shift that we saw the Peter Malinauskas led South Australian state government be the first to sign up to and partner with the Albanese government to deliver thousands of fee-free TAFE placements. This further helped to reduce our skills shortages in South Australia by reducing barriers to entry for many people who would have had second and third thoughts about undertaking vocational education due to the cost.</para>
<para>In fact, only a few weeks ago I delighted to have both the Minister for Skills and Training and South Australia's Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Blair Boyer, in my electorate of Spence to visit TAFE in Elizabeth and see some of the good work by both the students and staff. Visiting TAFE at this location was that bit more special, knowing that we were seeing people studying to enter the workforce in many in-demand jobs and these skills were being imparted effectively in the heart of Spence. Though the member for Sturt worked in the engine room of the former Liberal state government, I do note some pertinent points from his contribution to this debat I completely agree with the point made by the member where he notes that South Australia is a major beneficiary of the AUKUS submarine build, along with a vast number of defence industry manufacturing projects. South Australia must be keenly aware of the need to ensure we have a workforce in training to play an active part in building up Australia's sovereign capabilities.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia would go a long way to ensuring this. Jobs and Skills Australia looks at the current needs of our labour market whilst, on the other hand, forecasting—with guidance from industry, key stakeholders, education and training providers and state governments—the medium and long-term requirements for our labour force moving forward.</para>
<para>Whilst listening to members opposite, I also noted that, for the most part, the opposition has been significantly more agreeable to providing the government with their support on this bill, and I note some of the contributions made by those opposite in the course of this debate as evidence of that, to a point. This extends from the Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry on the provisions of this bill conducted by the other place. While the coalition submitted a dissenting report to that inquiry, it ultimately led to a general tenor of support for the bill—after they'd bemoaned unions being an interested party to the strengthening of our labour force. Those opposite had a full nine years to destroy the union movement. And boy, did they try! But they didn't finish the job, so they really have to grin and bear it—the reality that unions play an intrinsic role in our labour force and have been a part of many great advances and reforms in that space over many decades.</para>
<para>I do note, from that report, the very broad level of support for this bill across interested stakeholders, a group as diverse as it is large. I'm glad that those opposite saw some writing on the wall, in the face of the supportive consensus across education and training peak bodies, unions and employer groups and business groups both large and small. I note, though, a very similar wide net of support for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill too, and, sadly, as we all know, those opposite fought tooth and nail to shut it down. I'm sure a balance was struck between joining in on furthering our national interest and ensuring they weren't caught being the sole detractor, slowly slipping into irrelevance in this policy area. I'm certainly glad that this is not yet another episode of <inline font-style="italic">Groundhog Day</inline> for those opposite.</para>
<para>It stands to reason that a body such as Jobs and Skills Australia is one that should stand the test of time, subject to the review provisions placed in this bill. Without touching too much on the original legislation, I feel it is important to do so, to an extent, to provide the House with some much-needed additional context to the measures that are being put forward by this Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill. The initial legislation, from its beginnings in this parliament, was intended as the first tranche, not only establishing the statutory body Jobs and Skills Australia but doing so in a manner that would see it grow in a way that was seen as fit for purpose by the main stakeholder groups that would have cause to have regular dealings with Jobs and Skills Australia. This speaks to the government's tripartite approach to Jobs and Skills Australia.</para>
<para>This leads us to the next phase in the process: the legislation currently before the parliament—the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill. In broad strokes, this bill will establish the ongoing model of governance and the various structures of this statutory body, as well as mapping out its key functions as a body that can stand on its own two feet and provide advice to government and to stakeholders consistent with its functions.</para>
<para>In its interim form, Jobs and Skills Australia is headed by a director, though the role of the director of this authority is intended to be replaced with that of a commissioner and up to two additional deputy commissioners. The appointment of Peter Dawkins, AO, an emeritus professor of economics at Victoria University, as the authority's seemingly first and only director, is a very eminent appointment indeed. This is, I hope, where the bar is set for the calibre of persons that are to oversee this authority moving forward.</para>
<para>As part of this bill, it's intended that Jobs and Skills Australia will have established within it a ministerial advisory board. The ministerial advisory board is where the spirit of Jobs and Skills Australia can really take shape. It will consist of, amongst several additional options in the criteria prescribed by this bill, state and territory representatives; various industry stakeholders; education and training providers; and—trigger warning for those on the other side of the chamber again—unions.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia is much like the union movement—here to stay and to provide a positive influence within Australia's labour market. Jobs and Skills Australia will lead to many benefits to workers and to businesses small and large. With this bill, through monitoring and forecasting the labour market, we can address the critical shortages of tomorrow today. I commend the bill to the House and encourage all members to support Jobs and Skills Australia, so that our country can reap the many benefits that cooperative, evidence based, public-policy decision-making can accomplish—a hallmark of this government. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Typical Labor speech: laced with sarcasm, dripping in sanctimony. The member for Spence can do so much better than that. This morning he and I were at the CropLife agriculture industry business breakfast after the budget, and he introduced me to Angelo Demasi, from his electorate. Angelo is the chief executive officer of the South Australian Produce Market and somebody who is committed to making sure that there are jobs and skills in the electorate of Spence. I commend Angelo for his efforts and what he's doing for the horticulture industry.</para>
<para>I would urge and encourage the member for Spence to be a little bit more positive. He'll clip and paste that onto his social media platforms, and the unions will just love it. That's what the Labor members do: they come in here and they talk up the unions because those are their big donors. This comes from somebody who was a member of a union for 21 years, so I understand, recognise and appreciate the roles that unions do play, but it's all about balance.</para>
<para>This bill, the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, is about Labor yet again appeasing their union mates. In this, we're going to have three members representing employee organisations—that is union officials; that is union mates. That's what Labor is all about. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the unions are calling the tune. We know that. Everything about Labor is about appeasing their union mates, and so much the pity, I say as the member for Spence leaves the chamber.</para>
<para>Jobs and skills are important. The member for New England sits beside me. He and I were very disappointed at the budget announcement last night about the withdrawal of funds for dams, for water infrastructure. If there's one thing that can improve jobs and skills in this nation, boost agriculture and floodproof the nation, particularly inland Australia, it is water infrastructure. Funding for dams at Dungowan, Peel River and Tamworth was withdrawn—totally taken away. Why? Because Labor doesn't believe in building dams.</para>
<para>At Wyangala Dam, we're trying to raise that wall by 10 metres to provide an additional 650 gigalitres of capacity. What will 650 gigalitres do? It will floodproof Forbes. It will floodproof the Newell Highway, which was cut off, in the last major flood before this one, for weeks and weeks and weeks. It's one of the most important, busiest and most productive arterial highways in inland Australia, yet these days every time the Lachlan floods, it seems, the Newell Highway is cut off.</para>
<para>The state of that road is abysmal. I appreciate that the minister for infrastructure, Catherine King, went out with the then New South Wales minister for regional roads, Sam Farraway, and provided some funding for Newell upgrades. That's good—not nearly enough, but it was welcomed. But Rose Jackson, the then shadow, now Minister for Water in New South Wales—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Jones</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Excellent minister!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not an excellent minister—says: 'We're not going to build water infrastructure at Wyangala. What we're going to do is build better roads to provide escape routes for the people of Forbes.' Go figure. Better escape routes—really? Why wouldn't you build a better piece of water infrastructure, to grow agriculture and to floodproof Forbes, rather than build better escape routes for the people of Forbes who have been flooded six times in 12 years? It just doesn't make sense. When you build water infrastructure, you improve jobs and skills. It's like Snowy Hydro. It's like the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It's nation building.</para>
<para>Labor talks about lowering emissions by investing funds in regional Australia. Regional Australia is already doing its part to lower emissions—much more so than urban Australia. But Labor doesn't recognise that fact. It thinks regional funding and jobs and skills funding is all about lowering emissions and doing those sorts of things. It's about building capacity, building community capacity, improving jobs and skills. At the moment you can't find workers in regional Australia, more's the pity. What is the government doing about it? It beggars belief.</para>
<para>I was talking to Neville Jolliffe, who has just bought into the independent grocery store at Coolamon. He already owns the one at Forest Hill, near the Royal Australian Air Force space—you might be interested to know that, shadow minister for veterans' affairs. Neville and his wife, Jodi, can't find workers. This is the situation not just for grocers, hairdressers or coffee shops; it is right across regional Australia. In every area of endeavour, you can't find workers—and it can't just be because of COVID. But what's the government doing about it? 'We're putting in place Jobs and Skills Australia and we're appeasing our union mates.' We're not getting the advice we should from captains of industry, from those people out in real Australia—and by 'real Australia' I mean regional Australia—to see what we can do to lower inflation, to see what we can do about improving the job lots and livelihoods of those captains of industry in regional Australia who want to employ people, who need to employ people, who want to make sure their business doors stay open.</para>
<para>I often hear about the trillion dollars of Liberal debt. It's nowhere near a trillion dollars—nowhere near it. The Labor talking points don't acknowledge the fact that, by investing the money that we did during COVID, we saved at least 60,000 lives. We saved at least 700,000 jobs through JobKeeper. We saved millions of small businesses, which were able to keep their doors open because of the investments we made and the funding we made available during that time. Of course, we're still not out of the woods when it comes to COVID-19—and you would agree with that, Acting Speaker, the member for Macarthur—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>because you know how many people are, unfortunately, still in ICU and still dying because of COVID-19. It seems a long way from when James Kwan was the first person to die, on 1 March 2020, from that insidious disease which has, unfortunately, swept throughout the whole world and taken so many lives.</para>
<para>Jobs and skills are important. As an aside, I am pleased that the member for Albury has been appointed the shadow minister for skills, TAFE and tertiary education in the state parliament. He'll do a good job. He'll keep the Minns Labor government honest and accountable. I commend him on his promotion and look forward to working with him, as a near neighbour, in our electorates in southern New South Wales to do what we can for jobs and skills. You ask any abattoir owner anywhere in regional Australia, and they will tell you that jobs and skills are so very important. They'll also tell you about the shortage of workers they have in filling those many positions. We all like protein—well, not all; perhaps the Greens don't, but most of us do! The member for Moreton likes his steak; his father was a butcher, and is a good man!</para>
<para>You talk to any abattoir proprietor—Chris Cummins, of Breakout Meats, in Cowra, is expanding his operations so he can potentially move into the US market. Heath Newton, of Junee abattoir, is a prime lamb specialist. Will Barton, in Gundagai, is so short of workers that he sends me pictures of himself on the kill room floor—and he doesn't want to be on the kill room floor; he wants to be out marketing his meat, which is some of the finest meat in all of Australia, but he can't do it because he's got to don the white coat and work on the slaughter room floor. Just before I came in here I spoke to Charlie Sheahan, the Mayor of the Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council. He tells me the Australian Meat Group, which operates out of Frankston, in Melbourne, are the new owners—they've taken over from Manildra—of Cootamundra abattoir, which actually closed in February 2017 but AMG invested $170 million into that abattoir. It was slaughtering sheep when it closed. It's going to be multispecies, primarily cattle, when it reopens—sometime later this year, hopefully. With $170 million of investment, they're going to need workers, jobs and skills.</para>
<para>I look forward to potentially working with Senator Murray Watt, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, or whoever it needs to be, to make sure that they have got the jobs, skills and workers in that abattoir. To that end, I'm pleased that Minister Watt is meeting with EC Throsby—Brett Peterkin is the director and Nick Doherty is the CEO of that Young abattoir; they also operate out of Singleton—to do what they can about the Indonesian certificates. It's so important. We need these abattoirs to be their best selves, not just for our domestic supply but for those export markets, which, I might add, are growing agriculture to $100 billion by 2030. That was something that we did in government. It was something that we did as Nationals. It was something that the member beside me, the member for New England, did when he was the agriculture minister. It was something that the current Nationals leader certainly pursued in his time as minister for agriculture, and it is something he now pursues as the shadow minister. This is so important.</para>
<para>When it comes to jobs and skills, what we don't want to see, and what I find a bit insulting, is the provision by which the Pacific engagement visa has become a lottery. Australia shouldn't be a lottery. Coming to Australia and becoming an Australian citizen and getting on all the benefits that Australia has via welfare et cetera should not become a lottery for Pacific workers. When you talk to these Pacific leaders and go visit these Pacific countries, you learn that, in the past, when Pacific workers have come to Australia, they've learnt skills and trades and that sort of thing and returned to their countries much better for the opportunity and the experience. They've earned money here in both very skilled trades and some not so skilled trades and sent that money back home. In some of those countries, it's a large proportion of their GDP.</para>
<para>What this lottery system, I fear, is going to do is take the best and brightest. They can come to Australia with no guarantee that they'll work here for any longer than a day, and they'll be eligible for all the benefits that Australians have. It's a pathway to permanent residency, and some might argue that's a good thing, but we don't want a brain drain out of the Pacific either. We need to be good neighbours. We need to be a country which provides that opportunity for our Pacific friends without draining them of their best and brightest and hardest working, and we need to be able to—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Whitlam. Thank you for saying that you agree. It is important. As the shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, I urge the government to look at that very seriously because, when it comes to the Pacific, we have to be good neighbours. I commend the government for what they've done, building on the framework and the architecture that we put in place with the step-up in Pacific relations and negotiations, and I want to see that continued.</para>
<para>I must say that money in the budget last night for foreign aid and the Pacific, in particular, was a little bit further in the forward estimates than some might like to see, but it's important that Labor build on the good record that we had as a coalition government in this space and particularly in the Pacific. Many Pacific workers work in our meat-processing plants and in highly skilled areas as well. I'm not saying that meat-processing plants don't have highly skilled workers; they absolutely do. You look at Teys in Wagga Wagga and the investment that they've made in their chill-room. It's probably second to none in the Southern Hemisphere. They're exporting to the world. The meat that we provide out of the Riverina and elsewhere in country Australia is the best in the world. Our farmers should be very proud of that fact.</para>
<para>That's why, in relation to the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill, we urge and encourage the government to adopt the very sensible, practical and pragmatic amendments that we've foreshadowed. They will certainly make sure that this legislation works effectively without it being just one more union slush fund and without it being one more appeasement to the unions. As I said before: everything in balance. Unions are important. They play an important part. I understand that; I get that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear 'hear hear' from the member for Moreton, and I acknowledge that, but we can't have unions running the show—we cannot. We can't have Labor coming in here and the only business they talk about are those businesses which they run picket lines out the front of. Jobs and skills are important. They are certainly most important in regional Australia, which carried this nation through COVID.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 and agree with some of the comments from the member for Riverina in that he pointed out that every industry, or nearly every industry, in every state, every city and every town is struggling for workers—in the city, in the bush and everywhere in between. The Albanese Labor government acted quickly, introducing a first tranche of legislation last year to start a process to meet these employment needs. This tranche established an interim Jobs and Skills Australia body in November, and Jobs and Skills Australia, or JSA, hit the ground running by providing independent advice on a range of current, emerging and future workforce skills and training issues. JSA also started work on a foundation skills study and worked in partnership with key stakeholders to begin its first capacity study on the clean-energy industry—a sector that has crucial national significance. That's why we got up and running early, and now this bill will finalise its establishment as a full statutory body.</para>
<para>Why was it done in two phases? To ensure that the stakeholder views were considered in the design of the permanent JSA and to support the government's commitment to tripartism. That is what we're debating with this bill—to establish the ongoing governance, structure and functions of JSA—so it is crucial that all members and senators have input. This has been informed by significant stakeholder engagement through the Jobs and Skills Summit, the Senate committee inquiry into the first bill, a discussion paper seeking public comment and bilateral and other targeted engagement. The new statutory body will continue to provide the strong, targeted and independent advice that it has since November.</para>
<para>As mentioned earlier, the new body will work hand in glove with state and territory governments, with business, with industry leaders, with unions and with education and training providers. These key partnerships will enable them to provide comprehensive advice to address the skills crisis in the country mentioned by earlier speakers and to build the skilled workforce that Australia needs for the future. Why is this important? Well, Australia currently has the second-highest labour-supply shortages across all of the OECD nations. A staggering three million Australians lack the fundamental skills required to participate in training and secure work. An estimated nine out of 10 new jobs will require post secondary-school education, with four of those requiring VET qualifications. Australia is currently experiencing skills shortages across many critical industries. I've had employers in my electorate office and, when I've visited them, in their factories explaining that to me. Of the top 20 occupations in demand, seven have a shortage that is primarily driven by a lack of people with the required skills. This reinforces the importance of our skills system in addressing these shortages.</para>
<para>The labour market also remains tight, with unemployment expected to remain below four per cent for the short term. That is obviously a good thing, but job advertisements over the last 12 months to January 2023 have increased by 4.5 per cent. So this tightness is causing challenges for the entire labour market and almost every employer. In December the recruitment difficulty rate for occupations was sitting at 65 per cent. This means that 65 per cent of recruiting employers reported having trouble hiring staff in their most recent recruitment round, so only seven in 20 haven't had troubles. The construction industry reported the highest recruitment difficulty, sitting at a staggering 80 per cent for the December quarter.</para>
<para>This is the same challenge facing many of our vital industries that rely on VET graduates. They're facing workforce shortages, a situation made worse by the pandemic and through the related reduction in migration. Urgent action is needed to address these skills shortages because it's basically a stick in the wheel when it comes to the productivity bicycle. We need to match training participation with the types of skills in demand now and with those that will be in demand in the future.</para>
<para>Underemployment is also a big issue facing our nation, our workers and businesses. Underemployment in February saw a slight decrease, but it is still sitting at 5.9 per cent. Underemployment can be characterised by circumstances where skills demands are mismatched to the types of skills held by workers and jobseekers; business affordability or requirements affect the availability of work for Australians; or employees are unable to take on additional work due to caring responsibilities. There are some opportunities in the current workforce to meet some of these demands, and it's important to remove these barriers so that those who want to access more hours of work can do so. That's actually a little bit of low-hanging fruit when it comes to boosting productivity.</para>
<para>Some of the barriers are a lack of skills and knowledge and, for many women, their caring responsibilities. The Labor government has acted on these issues. Cheaper child care will help women—particularly women, but men as well—re-enter or extend their availability for work. Fee-free TAFE will provide opportunities for people to improve their skills without the financial burden this would have visited on them in the past. JSA's advice to government will inform the other policies and programs to ensure that Australia's training and broader education systems deliver the skilled workers that industry needs.</para>
<para>The proposed permanent arrangements outlined in this bill mean that JSA will be able to take on a broader range of functions that include identifying labour market imbalances and analysing the role played by the demand and supply of skills; building an evidence base of the impact of various workplace arrangements, including insecure work, on economic and social outcomes; analysing workforce needs and skills needs to support decision-making in relation to Australia's migration program and in regional, rural and remote Australia, three slightly different markets; and undertaking studies, including on opportunities to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for cohorts of individuals that have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion. This includes women, over-55s, people with disability, youth, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians. Lastly, it would also contribute to industry consultation forums.</para>
<para>We will also require a statutory review of JSA, to commence within 24 months after commencement of the amendment bill, to ensure that it is operating as intended. This fits in perfectly with how the body was formed in the first place, through consultation and stakeholder engagement. It makes sense to seek feedback through the review from those same people to make sure that JSA is working and engaging as it should. Opportunities to date for stakeholder engagement have included the Jobs and Skills Summit, the Senate committee inquiry, a discussion paper seeking public comment, and bilateral and other targeted engagement.</para>
<para>The public submission process for the discussion paper closed in February and had over 130 submissions, received from across government, business, industry, unions, employer groups, the higher education and vocational education sectors, and researchers. This high level of interest and engagement confirms the importance of JSA to this nation. This continued engagement and interest will make sure it's operating in a way that serves the purposes and needs of all of the different partners.</para>
<para>A recurring and important theme of the feedback was the significance of a focus on rural, regional and remote areas and other priority cohorts. As a Queenslander, I particularly appreciate that, because we are the most decentralised state. Another item raised was to ensure data and analysis produced by JSA is accessible and can then be used for a range of purposes. It's important that any enduring partnership entails information sharing. This will be important in the success of JSA. To support this, each state and territory will have a role in JSA's governance to ensure it's working to provide analysis and advice on areas that are crucial to them—that's how this federation works, with that tension between the different states and territories—and also to make sure it's delivering the skills and training needed in their respective jurisdictions.</para>
<para>The government will equally seek to ensure that industry, education providers and union voices are a feature of JSA's governance. The deep insights and observations they will bring will ensure that JSA's outputs are fit for purpose and have an economy-wide focus. This engagement and collaboration with its partners is at the core of JSA's functions. It is important now, obviously, but this is also preparing the nation for the future. We need to make sure that JSA is an agile body that can advise and move with the times. If you go back to the nineties, how many would have predicted where the jobs of today would be and what skills would be needed—desperately needed, in some cases, as earlier speakers have referred to? Who would have predicted coding, artificial intelligence, new materials, engineering constructs, microchips and the rapid expansion of so many other technologies? So to have a body, linked in with the leaders and groups who are on the ground, following trends, keeping an eye on advancements and at the forefront of innovation will be crucial. Our nation can't afford to be in this same position in 10 or 20 years time. We want to make sure that we're training and upskilling Australians to meet the job opportunities of today and well into the future.</para>
<para>This bill will establish the JSA Commissioner at the head of that process, appointed in a long-term, permanent capacity through a merit based selection process in line with the APS merit and transparency guidelines. To support the commissioner, the bill will allow for up to two long-term deputy commissioners to be appointed for up to five years for JSA's functions and business-as-usual requirements. Further to this, the bill embeds flexibility to ensure it can best respond to emerging needs and priorities in response to changing economic conditions. Experts will be engaged under a written agreement on a time limited or study-by-study basis, ensuring that sector-specific experience, influence and networks are brought to each of their workforce and cohort studies or detailed regional assessments.</para>
<para>Another part of the bill will be the requirement for JSA to consult with the ministerial advisory board. This board will provide the minister and JSA Commissioner with expert advice on the work plan for JSA and Skills Australia and other products. The board will consist of state and territory representatives, industry stakeholders, education providers, unions and other members.</para>
<para>An added benefit of this bill is that it expands the workforce planning function for JSA, which will assess how skills and workforce issues can be addressed across the whole economy. A good example is that skilled STEM graduates from both the higher education system and the VET system are likely to have skills and training which are adaptable for several different emerging and critical industries, such as technology and clean energy. This will complement the sector-specific workforce planning undertaken by the Jobs and Skills Councils. Again, this was heavily consulted on with stakeholders to make sure we meet an ideal range of ongoing functions and products that JSA will deliver.</para>
<para>This feedback has informed the breadth of further functions for JSA, including: improved identification of skills and labour imbalances and issues across the economy; an analysis of the supply of and demand for skills; providing national consistency to industry level workforce planning and support for the work of the Jobs and Skills Councils; and a more explicit analysis of both VET and higher education in an economy-wide approach, as we know that both the VET and higher ed systems are required to skill Australians for jobs, now and in the future.</para>
<para>JSA will work towards an improved system in which tertiary qualifications—both vocational education through the VET system and higher education through our tertiary institutions—can better integrate and connect to ensure there are flexible pathways to develop skills and knowledge for employment. JSA will analyse skills and workforce needs—including in regional, rural and remote Australia—and how they relate to migration. This will provide a greater understanding of regional markets, skilled migration needs and workforce requirements. Regional specific analysis will also recognise jurisdictional differences, such as changing economic conditions and emerging or growing industries and periods of economic transition in particular regions. Studies will aim to improve and enhance analysis as to those who have historically experienced disadvantage in and exclusion from the labour market, including, to list just a few: women, people over 55, people living with disability, youth and our First Nations Australians. Some of these are marginalised by way of age, due to their health, due to their gender or due to their background. We will also build an evidence base on the impact of various workplace arrangements, including insecure work, on economic and social outcomes. This will contribute to the industry consultation forums and help strengthen the national evidence base. This would include collaborating with Jobs and Skills Councils to facilitate their role in determining sectoral workforce needs, defining job roles, mapping pathways and developing fit-for-purpose qualifications and microcredentials.</para>
<para>Lastly, this Albanese Labor government will work with all states and territories to deliver a new five-year national skills agreement. This is in accordance with the vision and guiding principles agreed to by the skills ministers and endorsed by the National Cabinet back in August last year, because states, territories, business, industry leaders, education and training providers and unions must all work together if we're to meet the jobs and skills needs now and into the future. I commend this legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I often preface my speeches by reminding the people of Fisher that the coalition want to be a constructive opposition. We'll support good policy, we'll try to make mediocre policy more effective and we'll oppose policies that mean that Australians are forced to pay more for poorer outcomes. We've been able to support good policies, and that's largely because those policies were actually coalition policies. Of late we've had to oppose quite a few policies. Australians are tired of toiling to make ends meet in this cost-of-living crisis. They are beginning to feel the effects of a lazy, sneaky and out-of-touch Labor government that's too busy with vanity projects to address the things that really matter to everyday Australians. Those everyday Australians rely on the coalition to fight for them.</para>
<para>On healthcare access, housing and cybersecurity Labor have dropped the ball time and again. With the budget they had another opportunity to make some promises, and what they delivered is puffery. It was another opportunity for smoke and mirrors. But families and businesses see right through it. They know that Australians always pay more under Labor. During the election we said to the Australian people that life won't be easy under Prime Minister Albanese, and that is proving to be very much—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I think you need to treat the job with respect rather than call him by his surname. We will not support the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 without our amendments. We are not blinded by the fresh lick of paint and the hype around the government's Jobs and Skills Australia legislation. We want this body to work because Australians will pay the price if it doesn't, and it will not work without the amendments that we're proposing.</para>
<para>From the outset I remind those opposite that the coalition are steadfast on this issue. If we don't gain the support we need for these amendments, we'll simply be opposing the bill, because, if you don't have the right people at the table speaking up and calling the shots, you don't get ahead. Without good representation, government stifles initiative and shatters confidence because it becomes indifferent, incompetent and out of touch.</para>
<para>Our amendments are not just about assembling a nice committee; they are about ensuring that the ministerial advisory board of the Jobs and Skills Australia agency is truly reflective of modern Australia and truly effective in driving a growth agenda. That's why we're calling for legislated representation for states and territories. An agency as big as the Jobs and Skills Australia body can easily be swept up in high-level conversations which bear totally differently at the local level. Decentralisation of decision-making and representation is crucial if we want to make sure that the agency can actually deliver for all Australians.</para>
<para>The fact is that the needs of Queensland's skilled workforce and employers differ enormously from those in New South Wales and the ACT. In Queensland, training in maritime operations will largely focus on tourism, commercial fishing and local manufacture. In South Australia or WA you might see a different bent, looking at shipbuilding, defence industry or submarine capabilities. In Queensland you might need greater investment in building and construction trades—thanks to the Palaszczuk state government's sustained and brutal attack on the sector we are in desperate need of trades—whereas in the Northern Territory or the ACT you might want to focus investment on health care, allied health and Indigenous primary health. Local context matters and you can't possibly understand the local impact of a policy without engaging those on the ground. That's why state and territory representation matters.</para>
<para>You also need representation from the private sector. Small and family businesses are the backbone of our economy. They employ more people than big corporations and government. Bernard Salt, who is a famous demographer, visited the Sunshine Coast not that long ago and he called the Sunshine Coast the small business capital of the world. We've been called many things in our neck of the woods—we're the most welcoming place on earth and we're the craft beer capital of the country—but it is patently clear that small and family businesses are the heart and soul of our local economy and our way of life, and when we're making decisions around jobs and skills we need small businesses and the private sector at the table.</para>
<para>The owners of a boutique cafe in Currimundi or a restaurant in Mooloolaba will know far better than a public servant or a union hack whether a hospitality graduate will have the skills required to do their job and do it well. A local tax agent in Alexandra Headland or a bookkeeper in Baringa will know best whether a bookkeeping graduate will have what it takes to support their firm. We need to get rid of this idea that government always knows best. I can tell you who knows best, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough: it is the out-of-school-hours provider in Kawana, who needs school based care graduates. It's the barber in Beerwah, it's the childcare operator in Palmview and it's the butcher, the builder, the baker and the boilermaker. It's those sorts of businesses whose guts and determination drive our economy.</para>
<para>Real Australian families and their businesses know best. We don't need any more union hacks pulling strings on the taxpayers' purse. We don't need any more politicians and politics graduates telling the government to do this or to do that. What we need are aspirational Australians at the helm and at the heart of government. Small business drives our economy in this country and it belies belief that we would not have small business at the table. One of the most common complaints I hear from small-business people, apart from the fact that they can't get staff, is that when they do get staff from TAFE or from private vocational education training centres—and this is across the board, even whether it be from university—the skills that many young people are coming out of education facilities with are not keeping pace with the needs of industry. I have seen that myself over many years and over many forms of government. Let's face it, industry is changing incredibly rapidly, and if the skills that our educational institutions are teaching people don't keep pace with the needs of employers, then, really, what hope is there for employers? What guarantees are there for employers that when they put young people on—or old people, it doesn't matter—that they will have at least the grounding, the basis, in the skills necessary to be able to do their job?</para>
<para>It's not just about states, territories and employers: geography matters. If you were born in Australia you have really been given the best lot in life. It has been said that the two greatest lotteries in life are the family into which you are born and the country into which you are born. Many of us in this place have those. I know I am one; I won both lotteries—a great family and an incredible country. We are the lucky country; we are the beacon of democracy. We are a strong, advanced economy in a region of small island developing states and developing industrial economies. We are the nation of access to world-class health care, quality education, digital innovation and community safety. But the extent of that access, safety and opportunity is often constrained by where in Australia you call home. That is especially the case under a Labor government. If you live in Brisbane or on the Gold Coast in Queensland you will have little issue in recruiting a skilled workforce, finding a hospital bed or making a standard telephone call. But if you live in Montville you won't get a doctor, because state and federal Labor have made it impossible to start, maintain and grow a GP clinic in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. If you live in the Glass House Mountains you will not be able to phone your loved ones because Labor would rather spend 70 per cent of mobile black spot funds on Labor-held seats. If you live in Aura or Caloundra you won't sleep soundly because right across the state criminals are stealing cars, breaking into homes and assaulting our most vulnerable. If you live in the hinterland you won't be able to access the opportunities available to those on the coastline because, after 30 years of bipartisan support and $1.6 billion from the coalition, this federal and the Labor state government are too busy playing politics to build Sunshine Coast rail.</para>
<para>There's been no action on skilled migrants, no action on the veteran and pension worker earning thresholds and no action on public transport, housing supply or the cost-of-living crisis. Dithering and delays are the privilege of the elite. While Labor plays politics and poses for photos, the fact is regional Australians suffer. That's why we need representatives from regional, rural and remote communities on this committee. These are representatives who know exactly what our regional employers need. They know what regional workforces need to look like, they know how regional education and training differs and they know what kind of infrastructure and services each level of government ought to provide. They need to be at the table, making decisions and amplifying regional voices.</para>
<para>A couple of weeks ago, I hosted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for training, small business and women, in my electorate of Fisher. We spoke with gin distillers, fish and chip shop owners, employment services and tourism operators. We met with emerging women leaders. We heard from the Caloundra business community about the highs and lows of business under a Labor federal and a Labor state government. But the highlight for me was a visit to the Sunshine Coast Technical Trade Training Centre. I spoke about the centre, in this place, before the autumn recess. Here is an industry led training school equipping young people in fields like construction, beauty therapy, drone aviation and electrotechnology. Their results speak for themselves, with incredible graduate employment outcomes, tens of thousands of hours of workplace learning and lives transformed by the power of vocational training and the dignity of a meaningful job. This is what effective industry led training can do.</para>
<para>I've had the privilege of having a vocational education. I did a carpentry apprenticeship. I did my training at Holmesglen college of TAFE in Victoria. But I've also had the privilege of going to university and studying as a lawyer. I tell anybody who will listen that, whilst it's great to have a university degree, you should never underestimate the benefits that can flow from vocational education and you should never underestimate the benefits that can flow from getting a trade. And I want to take the opportunity to thank my dear old dad, who convinced me to stick at my apprenticeship. I think I was in about the third year when I was thinking about pulling the pin, and he said: 'Hang in there, son. Another 18 months to go and you'll be right.' And he was right.</para>
<para>Young people who get a trade in Australia can get a job virtually anywhere in the world. Vocational education in this country is, by and large, excellent. There's always room for improvement, but if you get a trade you can go anywhere. Your skills and your qualifications will be recognised just about anywhere in the world.</para>
<para>In closing, it's vital that voices in regional communities, like mine in Fisher, are heard. It's vital that industry providers like the Sunshine Coast Technical Trade Training Centre are given a fair go when it comes to vocational education training, funding and representation. They are leading the way when it comes to innovation and outcomes, and if the government wants to see real outcomes then they need to turn down the voices of the unions and tune into what Australians really need and want. Australians want outcomes. They don't want reviews. They want progress, not platitudes. They want good government, not an opposition in exile—and that means fair representation. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Review of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary </inline><inline font-style="italic">Exclusion Orders) Act 2019</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On behalf of the PJCIS, it gives me great pleasure to present the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Review of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019</inline>. The TEO act establishes the TEO regime, with temporary exclusion orders to prevent the return of individuals to Australia without a return permit and return permits to enable pre-entry and post-entry conditions to be imposed on returning individuals. The committee finds that the TEO regime is operating as expected and is operationally effective, but the committee makes six recommendations to ensure that the TEO regime will continue to work as needed to protect Australia's national security.</para>
<para>The committee does note and did note that the High Court of Australia is the final arbiter of constitutional validity in Australia, and, as far as the committee is aware, there are no current matters relating to TEOs before the High Court. However, there are current proceedings before the High Court regarding the wider counterterrorism legal framework and the right to return to Australia. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Australian government consider the decisions of the High Court in current relevant cases related to the counterterrorism legislative framework and any associated impacts on the temporary exclusion order regime. In particular, the committee was aware of the question of whether the issuing authority be retained as a power of the minister or the regime be amended so that the TEO may only be issued by a court on an application by the minister. The committee recommends that, if there was a High Court decision that impacted the regime that would require additional legislative changes, such legislation be referred to the committee for inquiry.</para>
<para>Supporting a suggestion by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the committee recommends that the act be amended so that an assessment made by ASIO under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the act, or the grounds upon which such an assessment was made, must be provided to the minister. In making this recommendation, the committee notes the evidence from the Department of Home Affairs and ASIO that, as a matter of course, 10(2)(b) assessments are already provided to the minister—that is, the committee is recommending that existing best practice be made clear in law.</para>
<para>The committee notes a suggestion by the AFP that return permits could be served via alternative means, including text message or email, and that an additional provision could also be sought, allowing service of a return permit on the individual in person upon their arrival into Australia, where all other means, including email and text, have been exhausted. The committee recommends, therefore, that, in the event that personal service is not possible because it is not safe or practicable, the act be amended so that return permits can be served via alternative means, including email or text. Further, the committee recommends the service of a return permit on the individual may be made in person upon their arrival into Australia, where all other means, including email and text, have been exhausted.</para>
<para>Lastly, the committee makes recommendations that paragraph 10(2)(b) of the act remain as currently in force, that the act be amended so that it's clear that procedural fairness is not intended to apply to ASIO's assessments under 10(2)(b) of the act, and that section 29(1)(cc) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended so that, if the committee resolves to do so, it may commence, three years following the tabling of this report, a review of the Counterterrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019.</para>
<para>On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the deputy chair and all of the members of the committee for their very hard work on what are very technical but important matters for Australia's national security. Both the deputy chair—he's here in the chamber—and I understand the importance of these matters for Australia's national security, so I thank him for his good work, and I thank all of those who participated in the inquiry, made submissions and appeared in public hearings. I commend this report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Regional Ministerial Budget Statement</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On behalf of the government, I am very pleased to deliver our second regional budget statement.</para>
<para>I start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet, the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri peoples.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge the traditional owners of the many and varied lands, regions and places right across our great country.</para>
<para>I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging.</para>
<para>For time immemorial, Australia has been defined and cared for by First Nations communities.</para>
<para>Australia, as a nation, has existed for 120 years.</para>
<para>Not much more than a lifetime.</para>
<para>A blink in the eye in the history of this incredibly ancient land.</para>
<para>This year we have the opportunity to write a historic wrong.</para>
<para>We can recognise that history—that deep, deep connection with our land—and provide a voice to those who have been ignored for too long.</para>
<para>The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an incredibly generous offer, and I encourage all Australians to accept it with the same spirit in which it has been offered</para>
<para>Let that be the legacy for this year.</para>
<para>Regional</para>
<para>Just as this is the year for constitutional recognition, this budget focuses on embedding the hopes and aspirations of regional Australia into our decision-making.</para>
<para>From the Top End to Tasmania, from the Pilbara to Capricornia—this is a budget that does recognise that local communities matter.</para>
<para>It is a budget that responds to the diversity of our regions.</para>
<para>It is a budget that understand the vital role our regions and our people play in positioning Australia to take advantage of a transitioning world.</para>
<para>It is a budget that demonstrates that this government is serious about a transparent and evidence based approach to supporting strong, secure and sustainable regions right across the country, from wherever you are.</para>
<para>The budget builds on the work we began last October.</para>
<para>It delivers on our commitment to build a better future for all Australians, leaving nobody behind.</para>
<para>This budget recognises that now is the time to take advantage of the energy transition that is occurring and the unique position our regions are in to grow jobs and to grow economic security.</para>
<para>Delivered at a time when cost-of-living pressures are hurting Australian households, this budget also recognises the challenges that we face and delivers responsible, targeted support for those who need it most, particularly in our regions.</para>
<para>It recognises the times we are in right now and sets the framework for sustainable investment in our regions.</para>
<para>A new approach to regional investment is needed.</para>
<para>Our first budget began the hard work of cleaning up some of the mess we inherited.</para>
<para>We established solid foundations delivering on our commitment to more transparency and integrity in regional investment through programs like the $600 million Growing Regions Program.</para>
<para>It laid the groundwork for a new merit based approach centred on evidence and more sustainable investments in our regions.</para>
<para>It was a demonstration of our commitment to do things differently.</para>
<para>This budget builds on these early efforts by, for the first time, setting clear principles and priorities for how regional investment should be done across all government portfolios. Just because I have regional development in my title, it doesn't mean that this portfolio is the only portfolio that has the regions at its heart. The budget was a demonstration, as I said, of doing things differently and making sure that we are looking across government portfolios.</para>
<para>We will do this through collaboration, working closely across all levels of government in using the latest evidence and data to understand where our investment can make the biggest difference in the lives of regional Australians.</para>
<para>Regional Investment Framework</para>
<para>We are introducing a new regional investment framework—changing the way we think about supporting our regions—which I am proud to release as part of the budget.</para>
<para>It explains what our priorities as a government are—investing in our people in regions, investing in our places, investing in our services, investing in our industries and investing in our local economies—and how we're going to improve those in partnership with regions and our communities.</para>
<para>It offers broad principles and priority focus areas that will provide a consistent approach—across all portfolios and types of investment—to targeting and coordinating that investment across regional Australia.</para>
<para>And in recognition that all regions are different and have different starting places, the framework is flexible—adapting to the unique strengths and challenges across our regions.</para>
<para>From those regions forging net zero futures to those recovering from natural disasters, our investments will be responsible and responsive to a region and its circumstances.</para>
<para>Of course, all of that means incorporating lived experience from the local level, including through local government and the network of Regional Development Australia committees.</para>
<para>Because we know to get the right outcomes in the right places we need to listen to those regional communities.</para>
<para>The framework—and the commitment of this government to back it in with real action—is a landmark step in putting our regions on a path to long-term economic and social prosperity.</para>
<para>Importantly, this approach is embedded across all portfolios.</para>
<para>While I am honoured to be the minister chiefly responsible for regional development, every minister and portfolio shares responsibility for supporting and strengthening our regions. Be it for communications, for education, Indigenous Australians, health and aged care, Northern Australia, social services, industry or employment and workplace relations, all of my colleagues know that how we invest in our regions is crucial to achieving the outcomes we want as a nation.</para>
<para>Through this budget—guided by the Regional Investment Framework—we have collectively made decisions that consider and respond to the needs and opportunities of our regions. These substantial investments in regional Australia are an investment in the better future for all Australians.</para>
<para>Our first budget, in October, included over 220 new packages and individual measures across government targeted to strengthen regional economies and communities. This budget solidifies that effort with another 129 investments and initiatives cementing our commitment to, and ambitions for, regional Australia.</para>
<para>Budget measures</para>
<para>Our new Regional Investment Framework identifies four priority areas: investing in our services, our people, our places and in our industries local economies. It lays down a path to targeting investments in those areas and, through it, building better, more liveable and more prosperous communities.</para>
<para>I want to start particularly with services, and how important they are in regional Australia. Quality accessible services underpin the sustainability and the success of communities and regions across this country.</para>
<para>This budget delivers additional investments under the National Water Grid Fund, with $197.1 million over six years from 2023-24 allocated towards the construction of three important projects to provide safe and reliable water for regional and remote communities. A further $150 million has been allocated towards First Nations water infrastructure projects. It is an indictment on all of us that we have communities in this country, in regional and rural Australia, that do not have safe drinking water.</para>
<para>Our support also continues to deliver essential services for communities in Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, the Cocos Keeling Islands and the Jervis Bay community.</para>
<para>We are investing in digital connectivity, building on the previous budget's commitment of $2.2 billion under the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia.</para>
<para>The government also continues to support connectivity through transport, including the continuation of regional aviation programs like the Remote Air Services Subsidy Scheme and a further round of the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program.</para>
<para>When it comes to health services we are building on our work from October, including an historic $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive in an immediate injection to support and strengthen the heart of Medicare. This will have particular benefits for communities in regional, rural and remote Australia, where bulk-billing incentives will go up the most.</para>
<para>The government is also providing further support for regional Australians in easing cost-of-living pressures by allowing millions of Australians with stable and chronic disease to buy two months worth of medicines for the price of a single prescription. This will particularly support those in regional and remote areas by reducing the number of copayments they face. Rural and regional pharmacies will be supported through doubling the funding for the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance Program.</para>
<para>We are investing $142.2 million over five years from 2023-24 to support continued delivery of the National Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, as well as providing survivors with access to emotional and practical support in applying to and interacting with the scheme, with services provided throughout regional Australia. Many of us know, from communities such as in Newcastle and to my own in Ballarat, that this awful, awful scourge affected our regions very substantially.</para>
<para>As part of the government's commitment of $589.3 million over five years from 2022-23 to implement measures under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, regional Australians will benefit from $33.1 million over four years to expand the Family Law Priority Property Pool program to regional areas, and $13.4 million over two years also to extend the lawyer assisted Family Law Property Mediation program.</para>
<para>Next, of course, we have investing in our people. This budget invests in people to build their capabilities, to develop regional leadership and to develop and provide opportunities for skills, education and learning.</para>
<para>We are targeting investments to ensure that people are safe and supported, and backed in to take up opportunities and participate to their full potential.</para>
<para>We're committed to enshrining a voice for Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and advancing the Closing the Gap agenda.</para>
<para>To support our kids, we have committed $72.4 million over five years from 2022-23 to help address early childhood education and care workforce shortages, including across regional and very remote Australia, and an additional $40.4 million over two years in funding to schools in Central Australia to enable locally driven responses that support educational engagement, attendance and learning outcomes.</para>
<para>The budget tackles the teacher shortage in our regions with a further $9.3 million over four years and builds on the 20,000 additional university places the government is providing to students underrepresented in our universities, including those from rural and remote Australia.</para>
<para>For those pursuing further education outside the university system, the government is investing $4.1 billion over five years in a new national skills agreement being negotiated with the states and territories, including over $400 million to support 300,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places from the October budget.</para>
<para>Thirdly, we have the places we all call home.</para>
<para>The budget is investing to make the most of regional Australia's unique and diverse places.</para>
<para>From the bush to the beaches, the Top End to Tasmania, investments need to make the most of Australia's unique and diverse places across the map.</para>
<para>The government is continuing to support communities to respond and adapt to challenges in the places they know best. This includes building on the $48.8 million investment in community safety announced by the Prime Minister in January 2023 and $250 million under a landmark plan for A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia, announced in February 2023. The plan reflected the voices of local communities and will be delivered in partnership with them in multiple phases. And I note we have the mayor of Alice Springs in town, and I'll be meeting him in the next day or so, but I know he's around the corridors of this place.</para>
<para>Recognising the difficulties many Australians face in accessing secure housing, this budget builds on our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund by expanding eligibility for the first home buyer guarantee and regional first home guarantee and increasing the government's guarantee of liabilities to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—soon to be renamed Housing Australia—by $2 billion.</para>
<para>I was surprised to learn myself that there are over 400 people in my own electorate who have been, because of this scheme, able to buy their very first home in regional communities across the country.</para>
<para>To ensure regions stay connected throughout the country, the government is maintaining its strong commitment to a 10-year $120 billion infrastructure pipeline while undertaking the necessary reforms to enable for more credible projects selected on the basis of a range of economic and social objectives, including regional connectivity, liveability and safety.</para>
<para>The government will keep regions connected and safe through ongoing funding for key transport programs including the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which includes $250.0 million in phase 4 targeted to non-urban roads; the Bridges Renewal Program—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, that was us, actually, because that $250 million was an election commitment—and the Roads to Recovery Program.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCormack</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Originally, I think.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, let's clarify that. In addition, 33 remote road upgrade pilot projects will be delivered throughout 2023-24.</para>
<para>We remain committed to Vision Zero—zero deaths and serious injuries due to road crashes by 2050. This budget commits over $976 million for new road safety improvements with a focus on regional and remote areas, and pedestrians and cyclists through the Road Safety Program. There is a further $43.6 million that has been committed to the new national road safety action grants program over four years from 2022-23.</para>
<para>Importantly, our plan includes measures to progress the development of a nationally consistent, shared set of road safety data. This includes a commitment by the Australian government to develop a national road safety data collection and reporting framework and minimum national data set.</para>
<para>The government is also investing to strengthen and protect the unique environmental assets across regions. The October budget included bringing up to $1.2 billion by 2030 investment for the Great Barrier Reef and further support for Kakadu and other national parks.</para>
<para>As the next phase of the Natural Heritage Trust provided in the October budget, this budget allocates $439.2 million of Trust funding to deliver benefits to Australia's threatened species and protect internationally listed world heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands.</para>
<para>And recognising that regional Australia is disproportionally affected by natural disasters, it will be supported through disaster risk-reduction projects funded under the Disaster Ready Fund, with an investment of up to $200 million per year available, and $27.4 million to deliver Australia's first national climate risk assessment and start developing a national adaptation plan.</para>
<para>Australia's flood forecasting and warnings will be improved, with an investment of over $236 million over 10 years to remediate flood warning infrastructure. It has been sadly neglected across our country. More reliable and accurate forecasts will support preparedness in regional areas and enable better informed regional responses, helping to ease destruction and damage caused by severe flooding.</para>
<para>To ensure that support is available when disasters do hit, an additional $231.8 million in 2023-24 is also being invested for Services Australia to establish a cost-effective emergency response capacity. This will support the delivery of high-quality government services and payments when customers need them the most.</para>
<para>And to support the arts and culture and to create healthy, engaged and vibrant lives, our people, families, and communities will benefit from the government's new National Cultural Policy, which commits an additional $286 million over five years to deliver increased investments in arts and culture right around Australia, including additional support for the Regional Arts Fund.</para>
<para>Finally, is the priority of investing in our industries and our local economies. The budget makes strategic, future-focused investments that recognise the significant contribution Australia's regions will make to securing a productive and sustainable future for our nation.</para>
<para>We're committed to supporting the transition to net zero for our national and our regional economies. Under our $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund, we will provide targeted support for our regions, sectors, workforces and technologies to drive the transformation to net zero, ensuring that regional Australians participate in the secure and sustainable jobs and industries of the future and to build strong regional economies.</para>
<para>We have allocated $2 billion to establish a production contract program for green hydrogen and its derivatives.</para>
<para>And our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, announced in the October budget and built on in this one, will diversify and transform Australian industry through targeted investments in priority areas.</para>
<para>The government will establish a net zero authority to help drive the transformation to clean energy economies and ensure Australian regions and workers benefit from the transition.</para>
<para>The authority will work with a range of stakeholders to help key regions, industries and employers to proactively manage that transition.</para>
<para>The government's Net Zero Economy Taskforce has been working to put regional Australia on the front foot for that transition to net zero, working with local communities, state and territory governments, industries and unions to get this historic change, challenge and opportunity right.</para>
<para>In resources, the budget includes an investment of a further $23.4 million over four years to support the continued operation of the Critical Minerals Office and $57.1 million over four years to establish the critical mineral international partnership program.</para>
<para>And recognising the importance of the agriculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors to our regions and to Australia's economy, the budget invests $1 billion over four years and $286.1 million ongoing towards a strong and sustainably funded biosecurity system, putting that onto a secure footing.</para>
<para>We will invest $40.6 million to continue the Indigenous Rangers Biosecurity Program, supporting a strengthened biosecurity system in northern Australia as part of an overall $1 billion package over four years to strengthen the national biosecurity system.</para>
<para>To strengthen sustainable farming and natural resources management practices, the investment of $302.1 million from 2023-24 through the National Heritage Trust will reduce the agricultural sector's emissions, build climate resilience, enhance market access and improve environmental outcomes.</para>
<para>We are also investing $38.3 million over four years, with an additional $7.6 million per year ongoing to bolster the capability of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, supporting a stronger and more sustainable agricultural sector.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>This budget does enshrine our government's commitment to ensuring that no Australian is held back or left behind. The budget takes a well-planned, well-targeted and well-executed approach to listening to our regions and investing in their unique needs.</para>
<para>It's a budget that meets the needs of regions and meets the moment that we are in.</para>
<para>It takes decisions now that will support and position our regions throughout this defining decade.</para>
<para>We're backing our regions because our regions are the backbone of Australia's future.</para>
<para>Through this and subsequent budgets—and guided by the regional investment framework—our government will continue the journey, hand-in-hand with communities, towards vibrant and sustainable futures for our regions and for our nation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to start by acknowledging the Australians who created the budget surplus, the Australians that the Treasurer didn't have the courage to acknowledge last night, the one in three Australians who live and work in regional Australia in sectors from agriculture to energy, from manufacturing to resources, from tourism to infrastructure. It's because of their efforts that regional Australia generated 40 per cent of our nation's economic output. Ultimately, the Australians who live in this part of the country need and deserve a federal government that has their back. That's why during our term in government the federal coalition put our regions front and centre of our plan to secure Australia's future, underpinned by our record 10-year $120 billion pipeline of infrastructure spend, which included nation-building project such as the Inland Rail and the Outback Way. We're immensely proud of our track record, which leaves a strong legacy across our regions.</para>
<para>However, after two failed budgets, the millions of men and women who live outside our capital cities now feel like the forgotten Australians. In contrast to the Prime Minister's empty election night pledge that no-one would be held back or left behind, under Labor people in regional Australia have been held back and they have been left behind. When it comes to supporting the regions Labor emptied the kitchen cupboards in that first budget, and last night the government took off the doors and hinges. Right now households are struggling under a cost-of-living crisis that Labor helped create and that continues to spiral out of control. Under the government's watch, persistent inflation, massive increases in energy bills, and 10 consecutive interest rate rises are pushing family budgets to the brink.</para>
<para>Rural and remote Australians are also hurting because they struggle to access a GP, yet the government has blown up the distribution priority areas for overseas trained doctors, which has ripped out GPs from small rural towns in favour of outer-city suburbs. This has put the lives of rural and regional patients at risk. Families are hurting because they can't find a childcare place. In its last budget, this government pulled together a package worth billions, but didn't spend a single dollar to create an extra childcare place in regional, rural or remote Australia. Farmers and regional businesses are hurting due to workforce shortages, faced with such a critical situation they can't understand why Labor has torn up the dedicated agricultural visa. We know that in their first budget back in October, Labor cut billions of dollars from regional infrastructure programs. They ripped out some $7 billion worth of water projects. With last night's budget we see the trend of Labor's cuts and delays and its neglect of regional Australia continue. The second Labor budget promises to decimate regional infrastructure yet again.</para>
<para>A snapshot of the programs that have been cut by this horror budget includes: the Stronger Communities Program; the resilient regional leaders program; the enhanced regional security screening program for regional airports, which was a $94.5 million program under the former coalition government; supporting national freight and supply chain priorities; Inland Rail; and interface improvement programs, while the Regional Airports Program has been discontinued. Many of these programs were all about empowering local communities. By scrapping these initiatives this government is saying that it does not trust local leaders and local councils to make decisions which are in the best interests of their own communities. Instead, this government believes that the extra 10,000 public servants it's employed in Canberra will know better. While we were in government the coalition was delivering a $3 billion road safety program to keep people safe on our roads. In last night's budget the government scrapped a large number of road safety programs, including the keys2drive road safety program, the Road Safety Awareness and Enablers Fund, the supporting young and vulnerable road users program, the Amy Gillett Foundation funding and the Road Safety Innovation Fund. They've all been cut and the money has been reprioritised.</para>
<para>During the Treasurer's speech there was not a single mention of infrastructure, and we can see why. Labor has stuck a razor gang into the former coalition government's $120 billion infrastructure pipeline. This was a smokescreen created by Labor weeks before the election just so the Treasurer didn't have to give the bad news on his one night of the year. Labor has also confirmed the government is now forcing local communities to wait two years to access regional grant programs. This means local councils and community organisations won't be able to access grants for infrastructure until 2024. While pushing back critical funding needed for regional communities, Labor grants programs target projects worth more than $1 million. It means that, for most regions, smaller projects like sports ovals, playgrounds and libraries will be ineligible for funding—local sports and community groups all abandoned and forgotten because of the government's deliberate neglect.</para>
<para>On top of this, the government is slashing roads funding, which includes a $1.7 billion cut to the road transport expense over the forward estimates compared to the October budget and a further cut of $356 million in the 2023-24 to the road investment component of the Infrastructure Investment Program compared to the previous budget. This budget also includes a 19 per cent increase in road user charges on heavy vehicles, trucks and buses over three years. According to the National Transport Commission, this is a $1.6 billion tax hike on every product made and on every product purchased.</para>
<para>But the ruthless measures in this budget keep coming. In a massive blow to regional Australia, the government has also abandoned vital water projects worth more than $872 million. Impacted projects include the Dungowan Dam and Emu Swamp Dam, while the Wyangala Dam wall raising and the Hughenden Irrigation Project have, once again, had their funding delayed. Decisions and cuts like this have consequences. When you take away water infrastructure, you take away the future of our regional communities which produce our nation's food and fibre. The government should know that tearing up or delaying investments in road, rail, bridges, dams and community facilities, while increasing costs on heavy vehicles, is not how we build a more productive and sustainable Australia.</para>
<para>A strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial for protecting our nation against the threat of pests and diseases. In government, the federal coalition always supported a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, taxing farmers was never considered or part of the mix. The coalition's approach to the biosecurity sustainable funding model was targeted at the risk creators, the importers. We believe this was the responsible and fair way forward, which is why one of the most shocking take-outs from last night's budget was Labor's announcement that, from July next year, Australian farmers will be hit with a bill equivalent to 10 per cent of their existing industry led agricultural levies. Why would any Australian government tax their own farmers to pay for their international competitors to bring their products into this country? To slug our farmers with a new $153 million tax and force them to pay for the risks of international importers is just unjust. Instead of taking direct action to address severe workforce shortages by reinstating the ag visa, the government has decided to tax them. What a perverse outcome. Labor's new tax on farmers will also hit Australian families hard by pushing up the cost of food right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>This is a deeply concerning and disappointing budget for Australian agriculture, with $5.6 million committed over two years from 2022-23 for the government's independent panel to undertake an assessment and consultation process to phase out live sheep exports. For this government to commit millions of dollars in this budget to push ahead with the destruction of the live sheep export industry is a kick in the guts for our sheep producers, the 3,000 Western Australians employed through the supply chain and our entire agricultural sector. Shutting down a lawful and sustainable industry, which has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, is incomprehensible. Decisions on agriculture should be predicated on science and evidence, not based extreme activists' agendas which hurt innocent people.</para>
<para>Despite underpinning the strength of Australia's economy, the resource sector has again suffered Labor's budget cuts, with the Beetaloo basin drilling program receiving a cut of about $8½ million, while for the strategic basin plan it's more than $12.6 million. This builds on cuts which were imposed on the resource sector in the October budget. In government, the coalition invested in the $200 million Critical Minerals Accelerator Initiative to develop new sources of critical minerals by supporting early- and mid-stage projects that contribute to robust global supply chains, build sovereign capability in Australia and create high-paying regional jobs. This funding has now been slashed by over $100 million, despite Labor's claim of support for the critical minerals sector. As a coalition, we'll always back the resource sector, the jobs they create and the wealth they generate.</para>
<para>All across rural and remote Australia, our network of community pharmacists do an incredible job. It takes enormous dedication to provide such a vital service for the local community. Pharmacy is one of the most respected, trusted and important professions in our nation. These men and women need our support. So why, without any consultation with this sector, has this government decided to double prescriptions from 30 to 60 days? The government doesn't understand that these changes could leave regional patients without access to life-saving drugs and threaten the financial viability of many rural pharmacies. The concerns of a potential human toll of these changes are real, and regional Australia will be hit especially hard.</para>
<para>For 18 years, Joanne Loftus has owned and run the local pharmacy in Northampton in Western Australia, a small rural community that's located nearly 500 kilometres from Perth. The Northampton Pharmacy supports about 400 locals, including many seniors with serious illnesses. Joanne loves her profession and loves her community, but right now she's heartbroken and she's worried about the future of her pharmacy. She's just one of many. The government must urgently re-evaluate and reconsider the consequences of this policy because, if these changes to medicine dispensing become reality, the survival of Joanne's business and the thousands of others in the regions will be uncertain, and they will be thrown into turmoil.</para>
<para>We know that accessing a GP in regional, rural and remote Australia has always been tough, but under this Labor government it's getting worse. In this budget there is nothing to address the government's devastating changes to the distribution priority areas, which have seen small rural communities like Cunnamulla in western Queensland forced to compete with suburbs like Brookfield in Brisbane for a GP. This policy has resulted in perverse health outcomes that have left people in rural and remote Australia worse off. In terms of improving access to doctors in the regions, in this budget there's just $4½ million over five years to train rural GPs through single-employer model trials. This simply won't cut it. Labor is throwing crumbs at a serious problem in rural Australia.</para>
<para>Australian children deserve the best possible start in life. Having access to quality early childhood education is so important for our families. Living in the regions should not be a barrier to having access to child care, but the evidence is shocking. According to a comprehensive study from Victoria University, around 75 per cent of families in rural and remote Australia live in a childcare desert, with three children competing over just one spot. Labor's first budget had a $4.7 billion package for cheaper child care, but not one dollar of this was committed to creating new and desperately needed childcare places in the regions. What this government still doesn't understand is that for families living outside the major capitals it's not just about affordability; it's about accessibility.</para>
<para>The cost-of-living crisis in regional Australia is just as severe as it is in the cities, and regional families with children can't afford to get through this crisis. They can't get back to work, because they can't find their kids a childcare place. People want to move to the regions for jobs, but they can't get childcare places. This is a major problem for our regional workforce, and it needs to be addressed. However, in the second Labor budget that we've had in six months, there are no new real commitments to extra childcare places in the regions. It's a poor reflection on a government that continues to turn a blind eye to the issue.</para>
<para>Regional Australia received a very clear message from last night's budget: this government doesn't understand the needs of rural, regional and remote communities, and this government doesn't respect the contribution that people in our regions make to this nation. The millions of men, women and children in regional, rural and remote Australia deserve better. They deserve better than a government that is incapable of dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. They deserve better than a government that thinks it's fair to hand down a budget that cuts billions out of infrastructure and water. They deserve better than a government that swings the axe over the essential services that they rely on. They deserve better than a government that imposes new taxes on your farmers and truckies. They deserve better than a government that rips doctors out of small country towns in favour of city suburbs. They deserve better than a government that prioritises lowering the childcare costs of millions of city families over the need to secure basic access to child care for parents who live in the regions. They deserve better than a government that threatens the viability of our rural pharmacists.</para>
<para>Although this federal budget will inflict another hit on our regional communities, Australians who live in this part of our nation can be assured the federal coalition will hold this Labor government fully accountable for its decisions to leave them behind.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6999" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. In late 2022 the Albanese government established Jobs and Skills Australia, a statutory body with the task of advising government on matters relating to employment, training, workforce pressures and the jobs of the future. For too long, we've had a skills crisis in this country. We've got the second-highest labour supply shortage across all OECD countries, and that's simply not good enough. Across the 20 most in-demand occupations, seven are facing workforce shortages, primarily driven by a lack of people holding the necessary skills to perform the role. More and more we're relying on vocational training for the jobs of the future, while fewer students are opting to pursue those pathways. Employers are struggling to fill positions, with 65 per cent of employers looking for staff and reporting recruitment difficulty in December 2022. This is worse in the construction sector, which reported a shocking 80 per cent recruitment difficulty. Rates of job advertisements are increasing, and yet it's more challenging than ever to find the right person for the right job.</para>
<para>This skills crisis was born out of the inaction and incompetence of those opposite. For 10 long years, they failed to act when the problem was right under their noses all along. They didn't do anything to alleviate the skills crisis in this country. They were too busy with the internal machinations of their own party room. They were too preoccupied with keeping their own jobs to stop and pay attention to what was happening to Australians' jobs. This mess was created by them, and, as is always the case, it takes a good Labor government to clean it up.</para>
<para>Despite all of this we're already starting to make inroads, with the Recruitment Experiences and Outlook Survey published earlier this year showing that the rate of reported recruiting difficulty is already 11 per cent lower than the record high of 75 per cent in July 2022. Sector-specific workforce planning will be the bread and butter of Jobs and Skills Australia, helping us to dig our way out of this Liberal skills crisis. We wasted no time in holding the Jobs and Skills Summit last year, bringing together unions, business, academia and the broader community to put forward initiatives to help build a bigger, better trained and more productive workforce. The summit looked at mechanisms to boost wages, drive productivity, grow our economy and deliver more opportunities for those who have been traditionally disadvantaged in our workplaces. Types of disadvantage can take many forms, but it is indisputable that women, people aged over 55, people living with a disability, young people, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians are among the most unfairly impacted when it comes to the jobs market. We're changing that.</para>
<para>In bringing together some of the brightest minds in the country for this summit, we were saying to the Australian people that we hear you and we're working nonstop to deliver for you. Last year, the member for Lalor and I hosted the Outer Western Melbourne Jobs and Skills Summit to hear directly from locals across our region about the shared vision for a more prosperous future for local families. We discussed the need for more access to vocational and tertiary pathways for local kids, bringing more local jobs to our communities and so much more. The valuable insights gathered at the Outer Western Melbourne Jobs and Skills Summit were fed straight back to the government here in Canberra, and to the Jobs and Skills Summit. In Hawke, we're home to a thriving, diverse and rapidly growing electorate. The centre of the electorate is an area covered by Melton City Council and is expanding exponentially. Each week we welcome over 57 families, and there are over 60 babies born. Melton is on track to have a larger population than Canberra by 2050. Our people hail from all over the world, and we all chose to call our towns and suburbs home because of the wonderful opportunities that we have access to. It's a great place to raise a family.</para>
<para>But too many are doing it tough. We have a local workforce that is willing to fill the gaps and ready to grow our local economy through commercial investment in warehousing, construction, transport, health care and so much more—the opportunities are endless. We're soon going to welcome some large projects on our doorstep, and my community stands at the ready to play their role in making sure that that work gets done. But our community, particularly the more regional western fringes, as well as the peri-urban centres of Melton and Sunbury, are facing extreme skills shortages across key workforce areas, most notably in our health workforce. GP clinics are struggling for lack of staff. We need to find collaborative ways to deal with this issue. I'm hearing this from locals constantly. It's an issue I have a laser-like focus on, and I will continue to raise it in every possible forum. Last night's announcement by the Treasurer of the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive is a huge step towards better health care for our community.</para>
<para>Like the people in my electorate, I've held a range of jobs that have all shaped me in different ways. When I first left school, I was a labourer in a factory. I've worked in child care, I've washed dishes and I've answered the phone at a call centre. These formative experiences showed me the value of a hard day's work. This is what has driven me to come to this place to stand up for Australian jobs and Australian workers. Indeed, families in my electorate hold the shared ambition of making the lives of their kids and grandkids better, giving them a good education and providing them with more opportunities than ever before. This government shares their motivation to reach for a better future. That's what this bill is all about.</para>
<para>We're getting on with the job of making Jobs and Skills Australia a match-fit organisation ready to face the challenges Australians encounter every day. This bill will ensure that Jobs and Skills Australia has an economy-wide perspective, focusing on the core themes that will define the coming decades in terms of our future workforce—vocational training, in-demand jobs of the future, making sure migration is meeting our skills needs and boosting our higher education sector. Through this bill we're delivering on a key election commitment—to establish Jobs and Skills Australia to provide impartial advice on workforce trends as well as to work hand-in-hand with business, the states and territories, unions, education providers and regional stakeholders to better understand and coordinate a national approach to these issues.</para>
<para>To start to deal with the issues we're facing, this bill proposes some key functions for Jobs and Skills Australia to take on, including: identification of labour market imbalances; an analysis of the role played by the demand and supply of skills; building an evidence base of the impact of various workplace arrangements, including insecure work, on economic and social outcomes; analysing workforce and skills needs to support decision-making in relation to Australia's migration program and regional, rural and remote Australia; undertaking studies, including opportunities to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for cohorts of individuals that have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion, such as women, people over 55, people with disability, youth, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians; and to contribute to industry consultation forums, moving forward. These functions, when implemented, will enable Jobs and Skills Australia to undertake its full range of its core business and governance arrangements that it is designed to fulfil.</para>
<para>Enshrined in this bill is a requirement for a statutory review of the functioning of Jobs and Skills Australia within 24 months. It's important we undertake this review to ensure it is operating in the way it is set out to. We are embedding a commitment to tripartite governance, with a new commissioner supported by deputy commissioners and a tripartite ministerial advisory board. The government, alongside Jobs and Skills Australia, will hear directly from the tripartite partners about the issues facing specific industries, to inform the best possible decision-making. These insights will be invaluable as we work to fix skill shortages across our country.</para>
<para>The commissioner will be appointed in a long-term, permanent capacity through a merit based selection process, to make sure we find the best person to lead this organisation. Further to this, the ministerial advisory board will consist of independent experts with lived experience and the skills required to get this important job done. They will hail from backgrounds in tertiary education, industrial relations and union experience, including people with a regional and rural focus and individuals representing those in the priority focus groups, to make sure we have the full picture, with honest and frank advice being delivered to a government who will be listening.</para>
<para>When Jobs and Skills Australia was formed under interim arrangements late last year, it didn't wait to start the hard work it had been tasked with. It has already commenced a clean energy capacity study as well as a national audit on adult foundational skills. These pieces of work will be essential in enhancing the government's understanding of the critical capacity shortfalls in these areas, providing data driven outcomes that can be acted upon. The enhanced functions introduced in this bill mean that they'll be able to analyse workforce needs, building an evidence base to measure the impact of workplace agreements and the trends that need to be planned for now to ensure we make the most of emerging fields into the future. This bill fits into a broader narrative—a broader piece of work—that this government is undertaking to promote jobs and skills in our country.</para>
<para>In the October budget we committed $6.3 billion for VET in the 2022-23 financial year. Through this we funded 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational places in 2023, setting us up for generations to come. Over the next five years we'll grow this to 480,000 fee-free TAFE spots. We're establishing a TAFE Technology Fund to modernise our institutions and facilities. Not only that, we're providing $2.3 billion to the states and territories to help them run their skills and training system in the 2022-23 financial year. This government is working towards a new five-year national skills agreement with the states and territories, aligning with the vision and guiding principles set by the skills ministers and agreed to at National Cabinet.</para>
<para>Without wasting a moment since coming to government, we also passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 late last year. After a decade of deliberate wage suppression as a design feature imposed by an out-of-touch government, we're finally seeing pay rises for Australian workers—long overdue pay rises that are sorely needed in today's economic climate. We proudly backed in a 5.2 per cent wage rise for minimum wage workers—something that the Fair Work Commission delivered last year and a measure that those opposite fought tooth and nail against. It doesn't stop there. We're achieving fairer wages by modernising our workplace relations system and improving the bargaining system, delivering better productivity and flexibility for employers, as well as improving pay and conditions for Australian workers.</para>
<para>To counter these achievements, in the dying days of the Morrison government, they were too busy appointing their Liberal mates to lush government paid positions. While those opposite are more concerned with jobs for their mates, we're embracing jobs for Australian workers. We're saying that, if you're an employer in Australia, we want to make it easier for you to find the right people. We want to make it easier for working families across our communities to make a living, to live comfortably and to create a better life for their kids and grandkids.</para>
<para>I commend Minister O'Connor for his dedicated work in bringing this bill to this place. I look forward to working closely with him well into the future as we address the skills and training needs of my electorate and my community in Hawke. We've got a great opportunity to enhance the offering for locals across our shared geography, and I'm excited to see what the future holds. The measures being implemented by this government have already started to make it easier for employers. We saw that in March when around 27 per cent of surveyed employers expected to increase their staffing levels within the coming three months. There's been a strong increase in full-time employment and strong improvements to unemployment rates. The skills gap in this country remains a pressing issue—one that we're well on the way to addressing and one that we have an indomitable focus on. While the work being done is conducted with a long-term vision in mind, we're seeing short-term benefits right now in our jobs market—a credit to those who are leading the way.</para>
<para>This bill will legislate significant changes to Jobs and Skills Australia that will improve the lives of working Australians and better enable the Albanese Labor government to continue to deliver for the men and women that rely on Labor governments across our country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, the second tranche of legislation related to Jobs and Skills Australia. As a coalition we've been constructive when it comes to Jobs and Skills Australia and supported its establishing legislation. But ongoing support is not guaranteed and, as an opposition, we will not write a blank cheque when it comes to creating taxpayer funded board roles that are set aside for union representatives.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to finalise governance arrangements for the agency, which sits within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Jobs and Skills Australia will be charged with identifying skill needs across the economy and developing policy responses to build Australia's workforce. It will play a key role in advising Australia's migration program, as well as providing advice about how to reform our skills and education systems. This is really important work.</para>
<para>Workforce shortages and skill gaps are critical issues in my electorate. Hospitals are struggling for doctors, nurses and allied health staff; aged-care homes are unable to recruit the workers they need; industry is desperate for workers; agriculture is having trouble recruiting; and schools are struggling to put teachers in front of every class. The list goes on, and we need solutions. For many sectors, sourcing workers from overseas is the short-term solution but it remains problematic. My predecessor, the former member for Nicholls Damian Drum, fought very hard to establish a Goulburn Valley Designated Area Migration Agreement—a DAMA. A DAMA is an agreement between the Australian government and a designated area that enables businesses to address specific labour shortages within that area. DAMAs ensure that employers recruit Australian citizens and permanent residents as a first priority, but then recruit overseas workers to fill gaps where needed.</para>
<para>The GV DAMA, one of only 12 in Australia, includes the local government areas of Greater Shepparton, Moira Shire and Campaspe Shire. It commenced with a moderate 56 eligible occupations to address acute labour shortages, and it can endorse up to 200 additional occupations per year over the five-year term of the agreement. It has been requested that an additional 115 occupations be included in the Goulburn Valley DAMA table of approved occupations following a review at the end of year 1. These were submitted last October but are still pending approval, and this has left many businesses in limbo. What should be a streamlined process to meet urgent need has proved to be anything but and, of the 50 occupations endorsed, only six visa applications have been approved since April 2022. DAMA applications applied for by employers were being approved in three weeks but are now taking three months, and the visas are taking another four months. It's frustrating that a scheme designed to address critical workforce shortages in my electorate has become bogged down in bureaucracy.</para>
<para>Our migration system does need reform, and the Minister for Home Affairs has detailed in recent weeks the challenges of reforming our migration system to make it fit for purpose. I appreciate that it's complex and cumbersome, and I acknowledge that there seems to be some genuine intent to reform the system. One of the first actions of the government in response to the independent review of the migration system led by Dr Martin Parkinson, is to increase the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000 annually from 1 July. Of the 50 occupations endorsed under the GV DAMA only six had remuneration of over $70,000, so we will end up with workers recruited from overseas being paid more than their Australian colleagues. The unions would argue that what we need to do is increase everyone's pay, but they're not the ones who have to run businesses or be concerned with profitability. They will, however have a big say in the running of Jobs and Skills Australia.</para>
<para>This bill establishes the ministerial advisory board of the Jobs and Skills Australia agency, mandating the following: a chair; two members representing the interests of states and territories; three members representing the employee organisations, which you can bet your bottom dollar will be union officials; and three members representing employer organisations—and there can be up to four additional members. The bill also widens the remit of Jobs and Skills Australia to include the impact of workplace arrangements. It's another board stacked with the government's union mates.</para>
<para>The opposition wants to remove the mandating of three members of employee organisations, or unions, on the ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia and instead mandate the inclusion of a small business representative and two rural, regional and remote representatives. The ministerial advisory board should also have representation from each state territory. This is a much more balanced and sensible approach and, under these arrangements, the government would still be able to appoint officials from unions as general members of the board but they would not have positions earmarked for them. Labor have said that they would end the jobs-for-mates culture, yet here they are trying to legislate jobs for their mates and their paymasters. This is important work and it shouldn't be clouded by the government attempting to do favours for their mates in the union movement.</para>
<para>One business that has achieved some outcomes under the GV DAMA is PJ's Concrete Pumping in Shepparton. I see the trucks, with very happy workers on board, rolling past my electorate office all the time. Peter Don, the director of PJ's, is also happy. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">GV DAMA has provided us with a new pathway to appease labour shortages and meet the demands of our industry. Not only does it provide benefits for our business, but it allows our regional community to realise its true economic potential.</para></quote>
<para>As we know, you can't realise your true economic potential without staff.</para>
<para>It's not only migration; it's long-term solutions. It is my experience that long-term solutions are best when they are developed in the regions by the regions and government works with them to make them happen. One example—and this is yet to be funded, unfortunately—is the Goulburn Valley clinical health school. This is a partnership between Goulburn Valley Health, the hospital that is predominantly in the Greater Shepparton area in my electorate, and La Trobe University. It deserves the support of this government.</para>
<para>We need so many more nurses, midwives and allied health staff than the region can attract or recruit from overseas. The clinical health school is designed to train our workforce in the region where they will stay and work. It follows on from a great initiative of the previous coalition government—the University of Melbourne's school of rural health cooperating with the La Trobe University to offer an undergraduate biomedicine degree. This means that a young person from the region—they might not want to go to Melbourne to study, they might not be able to go to Melbourne to study or they might not be able to afford to go to Melbourne to study—can do a Bachelor of Biomedical Science in the region at La Trobe University and then move to a postgraduate degree, which is called the Doctor of Medicine, offered at the school of rural health in Shepparton. This is an end-to-end medical degree. We're going to have the first of these young graduates coming out at the end of 2025. At this stage there will be 40 new doctors in regional areas. These regional kids going to regional universities are going to fill that critical gap or shortage of health professionals in the region.</para>
<para>It's a great initiative. It is a commonsense approach to the jobs and skills shortage. It came from people in the regions coming up with ideas and working together with government to deliver them. That's why it's so important that we have regional and rural representatives on this Jobs and Skills Australia board. We need more solutions like that that are going to deliver outcomes and not just do reviews and, frankly, become a bit of a talkfest. The regions should have an opportunity to solve their own problems and to implement their own solutions.</para>
<para>We don't have ag visas to provide workers for the agriculture sector. It was a coalition initiative that Labor opposed, so we're not going to get anything like an ag visa. The agriculture industry is very disappointed about that. I urge those opposite to come up with something. If you want to call it something different—not 'ag visa', because that was too aligned with us—go for your life, but come up with something that delivers workers for regions that are growing the food that all Australians eat.</para>
<para>I note that there's the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme—and it's important—and that there's some extra money in the budget for PALM, which is a good thing, but that doesn't suit every agricultural industry. An example is the dairy industry. I was in Picola recently. Picola is a beautiful little community near a place called Nathalia up towards the Murray River in my electorate. I was there to talk to the young Filipino people who are working on a pathway to permanent residency. I talked to them about the dairy industry. One guy told me it's his dream job. Not only is it his dream job but his family are living in Nathalia and are all employed and the kids are going to school. It's that great story of migration to regional areas that we all know so well.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia needs input from regional and rural areas to make these good decisions and to listen to people in the regions about what works in the regions and not have it dictated by union officials, quite frankly, or Canberra bureaucrats. Now that the PALM scheme exists but the ag visa has gone, the dairy industry must navigate the 482 temporary skills shortage visa and the DAMA for Nicholls. And both currently have shortcomings that need to be addressed.</para>
<para>So we need a longer-term plan. We have a huge shortage of skilled and semiskilled workers in the regions as well as the cities. It is important, for all those reasons I have outlined, that regional voices are part of the new ministerial advisory board of Jobs and Skills Australia. There are great ideas out there in the regions about how to solve regional issues. If we ensure that those regional voices are at the table, we will have a much better chance of getting the outcome that we all want, which is a thriving and profitable regional sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. Since we formed government, we've really hit the ground running because we're aware of the skills gaps facing us. Certainly during my last nine years as a federal MP, I've seen clearly huge gaps in the agricultural sector, in hospitality and in tourism across my area. All the data—and real-life, real-world experience—show that we're better able to match those areas of skills shortages with the people that need to hit those areas. But really we need some independent, merit based and evidence based information and data to actually find where the gaps are and match the people to those gaps, and that's what Jobs and Skills Australia is all about. We're working to ensure that industry has a stronger and more strategic voice and a broader role in how our VET system delivers better outcomes.</para>
<para>Previous coalition governments at a state level really just gutted and destroyed TAFE. The Campbell Newman government in Queensland, when it was in power for three tumultuous and tempestuous years, just gutted TAFE. They did everything they possibly could: they privatised and outsourced—they did everything they could. I met multiple people who were TAFE teachers who lost jobs during that period of time. And I saw the disinvestment in my area in terms of TAFE. We want to make sure that TAFE is back as a centrepiece of the training for skills and jobs in this country. It's so important.</para>
<para>This bill establishes permanent functions and governance arrangements for Jobs and Skills Australia, as the Albanese Labor government continues to tackle the national skills crisis and to deliver on the commitment to collaborate and seek wideranging advice from tripartite partners. The legislation establishes a tripartite ministerial advisory board.</para>
<para>Now, I listened to those opposite again and again just railing against trade unions as if people who work in and for trade unions—workers' representatives, who've often come from the shop floor but sometimes from universities, from different life experiences, to represent workers as delegates and shop stewards, union officials and organisers—ought to be demonised. The previous speaker was just attacking trade unions as if somehow they don't play an important role in society. Unions play a very important role in society. Those opposite are very happy to stack boards and tribunals or whatever they like with their mates. Yet, when it comes to trade unions actually representing workers on the ground, they rail against that, as if we are somehow doing the most horrendous and evil thing. The venom drips from their lips when they talk about it—it's just astonishing. They need to get over it and realise that these are good, hardworking Australians who represent their members' interests to the best of their ability in their workplaces, whether they're teachers or nurses or those working on construction sites or in the mining sector or the public service. It's just astonishing, the degree of venom that those opposite have for union representatives.</para>
<para>What is happening in this advisory board is that there are going to be up to four representatives from an employer background—including, of course, somebody from the small business sector. I come from that sort of sector; when I was a practising lawyer, it was a business that had dozens of employees. It was so important to maintain a viable and profitable business. There are 2.5 million small and medium-sized businesses—family businesses—and they cover about 97 per cent of the total number of businesses in the country. In my area, a regional and rural area, it's so important to get viable businesses in these country towns like Lowood, Esk, Rosewood, Toogoolawah, Kilcoy and places like that; it's really important.</para>
<para>There will be representatives on this advisory board, and those opposite should get over it. There will be four representatives from workers organisations. Those opposite should realise that it's important. Most people in the business community work constructively with their employees in the workplace, whether they're represented by a local organisation or indeed a trade union. They should realise that that's what employers do—they work together with employees to make sure the business is as profitable and productive as it possibly can be.</para>
<para>Getting advice from the board will be important to ensure that Jobs and Skills Australia's guidance to government on current and emerging workforce needs is informed by a wide range of views, insight and expertise. That's absolutely crucial. The bill legislates a requirement for the JSA to consult with the ministerial advisory board in the development of its work plan. Why shouldn't employer and employee representatives be a part of that process? This will ensure that JSA consults widely with stakeholders to address workforce shortages to help build long-term capacity in priority sectors.</para>
<para>That includes, by the way, representatives from regional and remote areas on the advisory board. It's really important. Australia is a very urbanised, concentrated country, but it's important not to forget people who live in the outback, in the bush and other places like that. People who live in regional areas often feel significantly disadvantaged, more so if they're living in remote communities, often First Nations communities.</para>
<para>It's important to look at priority sectors and the capacity in those sectors. The lack of skilled workers is one of the greatest economic challenges facing Australia, and JSA will play a critical role in addressing our current and emerging workforce, skills and training needs. A permanently established JSA will develop a work plan to help the government improve skill development, employment opportunities and economic growth. The Albanese government has consulted broadly on the permanent model of JSA and will conduct labour market analysis to ensure we respond to existing and emerging skill demand by investing in appropriate education and training. That's what we need. We need dollars and cents in training going to the areas where there are shortages to address those shortages, as I said at the beginning of this speech.</para>
<para>According to the OECD, Australia has the second-highest labour supply shortage. If we're going to be a productive nation, if we're going to thrive, we're not going to thrive by bringing down wages; we're going to thrive by upskilling our people. It's about the skills, talents, creativity and innovation of our people to develop products and services that the public overseas want. That's the way we're going to develop our country. That's the way we need to do it.</para>
<para>The JSA will take an economy-wide perspective in identifying where skill shortages exist and project where they're likely to be in the future. New proposed functions include providing advice on demand and availability of workers in particular industries and occupations; focusing to a greater extent on regional, remote and rural communities; and supporting decision-making in relation to our migration program. For a long time, about two-thirds of our migration program has been skilled migration, and we need that. You only have to go to an aged-care facility or a hospital or see who's working in the disability sector and in home care. You can see that we're getting so many people coming into our health, aged-care and primary care systems, particularly in GP practices. You can see that everywhere. So migration is absolutely crucial.</para>
<para>The JSA is going to conduct studies to look at how we improve employment, VET and other higher education outcomes and make sure that we don't exclude people and we address issues of labour market disadvantage and exclusion. It's important that we build on that evidence base to look at economic and social outcomes and work closely with industry in a consultative forum such as the Jobs and Skills Councils to strengthen the national evidence base. It's important that we do it empirically. Not only will JSA respond to the current skill crisis; it will lead to more strategic planning and investment in education and training. Jobs and Skills Australia has already begun to work on a foundation skills study and, working in partnership with key stakeholders, to assess capacity in terms of the clean energy industry. It's very, very important we do that in an open, transparent way.</para>
<para>Last August, we celebrated the skills sector with National Skills Week, an annual celebration to raise the profile and status of vocational learning. At the time, I took the opportunity to visit Bundamba campus at TAFE Queensland South West in Ipswich—we still call it Bundamba TAFE in my area—to speak to the people who work there. After a decade of inaction, Australia is still facing a skill shortage, and that was clearly evident when I went to Bundamba TAFE.</para>
<para>One of the biggest challenges facing employers in my electorate is finding workers with skills for the jobs available. This is particularly in the hospitality, service and care sectors, and also in the small, family-run businesses which are so common in Ipswich and the Brisbane valley. Anecdotally, some business are limiting their opening hours or service, while others have sadly had to close due to staff shortages. People working in hospitality say the Ipswich region is often stuck between the city and the regions. They're not close enough to the city to attract university students at times, or backpackers, but they're not regional enough to be eligible for some employment incentives for migrant workers and tourists, so they're falling between the cracks.</para>
<para>Businesses have reported that a recent change has meant that chefs can now work under regional employment incentives but not bar staff, waiters or baristas, and that's important for them. This reflects the fact that Ipswich is often classified as greater Brisbane and outer metropolitan, when the reality is we're really a regional centre like Somerset in the Lockyer Valley. We need to address some of these apparent anomalies and for these incentives to include Ipswich being treated as a regional area for funding purposes as well as in terms of the workforce shortage. It's all the more frustrating that these labour shortages are occurring at a time when Ipswich is experiencing higher than average youth unemployment. The latest census data shows that in 2021, more than 14 per cent of 15- to 24-year-olds in Ipswich were classified as disengaged with unemployment and education, compared to nine per cent overall in South-East Queensland. The upside of this means there are plenty of jobs out there, and the students and apprentices that I caught up with at Bundamba TAFE from the hospitality, automotive and hairdressing study areas will all have great job prospects when they graduate.</para>
<para>I also held a Blair jobs summit in August last year to gather ideas from local employers, unions and community groups on how to tackle skill shortages and deliver more jobs in Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs area. Some of the ideas coming out of the summit included suitability of employment training and education, regional classifications for funding, the increasing impact of inflation on businesses and households, and problems with access to housing in the Ipswich region. What's clear is that there are wide-ranging issues behind skills shortages in regions like mine from housing affordability, availability and liveability to a lack of training facilities and pathways, construction costs and access to materials, lower wages in the regions and competition for skilled workers across industries.</para>
<para>In the short term, strengthening the migration system will help regional areas that are struggling to attract and retain skilled workers. In the longer term, increasing participation of underemployed groups, increasing the pipeline of workers in areas of shortages and better pathways from training to work will address these concerns. Addressing the challenges requires many actors across the sectors—including trade unions, I say to those opposite—and they need to work together. The government is also developing an employment white paper that will plot a path for reducing unemployment and underemployment and to keep them low. It just goes to show these issues are challenging and complex, and anyone who was at the Blair jobs and skills summit will recognise the complexity that local employers are facing as well as the community sector.</para>
<para>Last night, the budget showed that we are on the right track with respect to an economic plan to tackle cost-of-living pressures and housing affordability and local manufacturing through the National Reconstruction Fund. In my local economy, we've had a fair share of challenges with floods and storms and bushfires, but there are enormous opportunities in areas like food and beverage manufacturing, meat processing, biotech, IT and the defence industry, of which I have been so supportive. I recently hosted the Prime Minister on a visit to Springfield in my electorate. It was a great opportunity to meet with local business leaders including Springfield City Group's Chairman, Maha Sinnathamby, and hear about the vision of that particular company to attract major employers and skilled workers to the region in areas like advanced medical manufacturing and quantum computing.</para>
<para>This is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, with an average age of 29 years, and the Prime Minister acknowledged that it has the potential to become Australia's answer to the Silicon Valley, saying, 'The advantage that Springfield has is it's not just a smart, local community driven by education; it also has a business community that wants to commercialise these opportunities.' I agree with the Prime Minister. The government wants to support this with initiatives like Jobs and Skills Australia and the National Reconstruction Fund. It's all about good jobs—secure jobs, high-skill and high-wage jobs—allowing locals to get the skills they need for the jobs of the future. That's why we need to drive jobs and growth in outer metropolitan and regional areas like Springfield, Ripley Valley, the Somerset region and Karana Downs in my electorate.</para>
<para>At the same time I want to see opportunities for disadvantaged groups in our community, including young- and mature-age workers; First Nations and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; people with disability; and veterans. In particular, we note that vocational education is so important going forward that nine out of every 10 new jobs in the next five years will require a post-school qualification. That's why it's imperative that we upskill our young people, particularly in my community, to make sure they get the kinds of jobs that I have referred to.</para>
<para>As the Treasurer put it, we need to give our young people the tools for success in life, and that's why I'm supportive of this particular piece of legislation and supportive of the fee-free places that we announced. And I'm looking forward to some of the extra 300,000 fee-free places provided in the budget last night going to my electorate. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, which establishes the permanent governance and functions of Jobs and Skills Australia, the JSA.</para>
<para>COVID-19 and the complete absence of structured workforce planning over decades has led to missed opportunities in our country. By establishing a permanent agency I'm hopeful we can start turning this around. This bill will rename the JSA director as the JSA commissioner and provide for deputy commissioners. It will provide for the minister to establish a ministerial advisory board to advise in relation to the performance and functions of JSA. It will also establish in full the functions of JSA, setting it up as a body that will provide independent advice on the labour market and the skills and training needs of workers and employers. I'm pleased to see that the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee has considered this bill and recommended that it be passed.</para>
<para>In supporting this bill, I will keep speaking out for the unique needs of the workforce in regional, rural and remote Australia. We want to attract the very best candidates, offer the best jobs and provide our people with the skills and training for the jobs of the future. The Labor Party has, historically, had a blind spot when it comes to regional Australia; now is the perfect time to correct this. In last night's budget, I was disappointed by the lack of new funding measures for regional development and by the minimal investment in regional roads. Roads are essential for our workforce, and they need significant investment—most particularly after the recent and devastating floods. There is some funding in the budget, but it's clear it won't be enough to repair the issues we are facing.</para>
<para>I am pleased the government has taken on board feedback that JSA needs to appreciate the unique differences between regional areas in its work, and to use granular data to inform workforce planning and policy and funding decisions at the regional level. No two regions are the same; we face different geographical and socioeconomic conditions, and have emerging or growing industries depending on where we are. To be blind to the differences will result in poorly tailored policy and missed opportunities which set us even further back.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Indi we have an older-than-average demographic, which will need more health care and aged-care services as they age. And COVID, while it brought a welcome influx of tree changers and young families alike to our towns, has placed greater pressure on our schools and our early childhood educators. We have a rapidly growing and maturing tourism and accommodation market with the High Country, cycle tourism, the country's best snowfields, the beautiful River Murray and the Hume Dam and Eildon Weir as major watersport attractions.</para>
<para>We also have a strong industrial backbone operating from Wangaratta, Wodonga and Benalla. And we have an enormous trades and construction sector. Our agricultural workforce is diverse, from seasonal cropping and commercial-scale viticulture through to boutique horticultural produce. And we are uniquely located between Melbourne and Sydney on the major transportation routes of the Hume Highway and the Inland Rail, with exceptional freight and logistics capacity.</para>
<para>We have a large Defence Force community and a cohort of defence spouses who could be contributing so much more to our regional economy if they were supported to do so.</para>
<para>Ovens Murray is a Victorian renewable energy zone, opening up enormous workforce opportunities for the renewable energy sector from tradies and techies, right through to the most highly qualified engineers.</para>
<para>My electorate is facing strong demand for employees, yet there are major skills shortages. Job vacancies skyrocketed a whopping 327 per cent between May 2020 and March 2023, yet our labour market is tight, with unemployment at 3.2 per cent in December 2022. We have real challenges in the agricultural workforce and the rural health workforce and in hospitality, teaching, childcare, aged care. And overarching all of this is our housing shortfall. Even if we could employ enough people to fill all of these vacancies, there's barely anywhere affordable or available for them to live or to buy.</para>
<para>The budget measures to tackle the regional housing crisis were disappointing, with no funding for the enabling infrastructure needed to open up housing development in the regions. We need this enabling infrastructure—such as sewerage, power, pavements—to unlock the land. It is a structural impediment to getting new houses, particularly medium-density social and affordable housing, on the ground. The number one issue people talk to me about in Indi, along with the job vacancies, is housing. There's so much more this government could do to kickstart housing development in regional Australia to ensure we all have a safe, affordable roof over our heads and those people seeking employment can take up those jobs, because there is somewhere to live.</para>
<para>Indi is facing a major skills shortage in our and social assistance industries. According to the Victorian Skills Authority, the Hume region, which covers virtually all the footprint of Indi, needs another 1,300 full-time equivalents in the coming years to meet demand. Job vacancies for medical practitioners and nurses have skyrocketed, with a 376 per cent increase in job vacancy ads between June 2020 and March 2023, and it's the same for carers and aids, increasing 412 per cent over the same time period. I've spoken many times in this place about the desperate need to support and to grow our health and aged-care workforce, and this must be a central focus for this government.</para>
<para>We have a critical workforce shortage of veterinarians. This is especially acute in regional communities. This is causing treatment delays, and we've been hearing heartbreaking stories of horses and dogs facing agonising pain, waiting to be seen by an overstretched regional vet. Not only is this stressful for the owners and the vets; it's stressful for the entire family. And it is really, really dreadful for the animals.</para>
<para>I recently met Dr Andrew Jacotine, Dr Callie Burnett and their staff at ACE Vet Hospital in Euroa, and I received a tour of their incredibly impressive facilities. They are working so hard and under intense pressure to provide high-quality animal care, but they're facing many challenges. They told me that in the current job market regional employers are competing with urban counterparts and losing to much higher salaries found in large metro centres. Trying to get the kind of vets we need out into the regions to do larger animal work is incredibly challenging. And the restrictions on the number of paraveterinary staff make it harder to set up a viable business structure. Andrew told me he's trying to achieve a sustainable industry which serves the needs of the public. I've written to the Treasurer and the minister of agriculture asking for their advice. I want to work with government on this. I was glad also to raise this issue with the state member for Euroa, Annabelle Cleeland, who shares my concerns. We have to work together on this big challenge.</para>
<para>Construction is a major employer in my electorate. According to the statistics provided by the Master Builders Association of Australia, in Indi we have 7,319 people employed in building and construction. That's 10.4 per cent of my constituents. And according to the Victorian Skills Authority, construction is our third highest area for additional workforce, requiring an extra 1,100 full-time equivalent people over the coming years. But the question is: how will we get there? I want to see more work done to plan and grow our local construction workforce.</para>
<para>I'm very proud to have made a substantial contribution to this bill, the previous one and, in fact, to the government's formation of policy surrounding the JSA to make sure that the interests of rural, regional and remote Australians are not sidelined. I travelled to Canberra to attend the Jobs and Skills Summit in September and represent rural and regional voices, to ensure we are considered in workplace workforce development strategies. I was pleased to get this government to agree to add an additional function to Jobs and Skills Australia, to provide advice to the minister and secretary in relation to skills, training and workforce needs in regional, rural and remote Australia. I'd like to acknowledge the member for Kennedy for his support in that work.</para>
<para>I'm also pleased to have secured the government's commitment that JSA must, in performing its functions, consult with other persons and bodies, which may include persons from regional, rural or remote Australia in its work. This is so important, and I thank the minister for his work with me on this. I advised the minister's office to consult with certain regional organisations on the permanent model for the JSA, and I note that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations undertook six months of consultation with more than 200 individual stakeholders. Many of these include those who are nominated, such as the Regional Universities Network and the Grain Growers Association. This agency will be stronger for consulting with these regional peak body representatives and listening carefully to the needs of rural, regional and remote Australia.</para>
<para>I note that this bill modifies my previous amendment so that now JSA have a function to analyse skills and workforce needs—including in regional, rural and remote Australia—and I've received assurances from the minister's office that this alteration ensures regional and rural consideration across all of JSA's functions. It also means that JSA's analysis will now be publicly available—very important. I'm pleased to have secured further amendments to this bill and to the permanent operations of JSA, which will enshrine consideration of rural, regional and remote Australia in its remit. These amendments will be moved by the minister. This bill ensures that a person is not eligible for appointment to the ministerial advisory board unless the minister is satisfied that the person has substantial knowledge of an identified field, and these amendments will now include regional, rural and remote Australia as an identified field. This ensures that people with lived experience are front of mind when the minister is considering potential appointees.</para>
<para>These amendments are preferable to the amendments moved by the member for Farrer, which I will not be supporting, though we share the common goal of making the board as representative of the interests of stakeholders as possible, including rural, regional and remote Australia. That's why I have worked closely with the minister to deliver the amendment just outlined, to ensure and to bring regional, rural and remote and small-business representation expertise to the board.</para>
<para>I want to thank the minister and his office for engaging with me to improve this bill. I look forward to continuing working together to address the particular workforce needs in regional, rural and remote Australia in health, in construction, in renewable energy, in hospitality and in so many more areas. It's in working together that we can get things done, and I will always work together with any government for the benefit of rural, regional and remote Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the few minutes left before we adjourn for 90-second statements, I'd just like to thank the member for Indi for her contribution to this Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, in both her speech and substance with the minister's office. Like me, as a regional MP, she's worked hard to ensure that the voice of regional, rural and remote Australians is taken into account. I can assure her personally that this government takes regional Australia very seriously. We heard from the minister for regions and infrastructure just today in her statement outlining this government's agenda when it comes to regional Australia. It is comprehensive and it is core to our thinking.</para>
<para>I am very pleased to stand in support of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill. Last night the Treasurer outlined the government's plan for jobs and skills and to rebuild and modernise our skills sector, to ensure a stronger and more resilient economy and give more Australians the opportunity to access well-paid and secure jobs. I do look forward to speaking in more detail about that and, indeed, to elements of the bill itself, which is before the House. It's comprehensive. There's a lot to get through. I think time's going to get me here, but that's just the nature of this place, isn't it?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Lyons. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and, given that you were abruptly interrupted, you will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>53</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wright Electorate: Bank Branch Closures</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I informed the House that Westpac had reached out to my office and informed us that the last Westpac branch in my electorate—Gatton, in the Lockyer Valley—was going to be closing. It's a bizarre decision given the bullish economic outlook in the region, given we've just seen a new Bunnings put up, a new Aldi put up, a second McDonald's constructed and the construction of a new Catholic high school. We asked them to reconsider. On Tuesday Westpac confirmed with my office that it would be keeping the branch open indefinitely. An extract from the correspondence from Westpac to our office said: 'This decision follows discussions with our customers and our community leaders, such as yourself, and we hope that the decision gives your community certainty.' It certainly does.</para>
<para>On behalf of my mayor, Tanya Milligan, and the state member, Jimmy McDonald, I'd like to acknowledge and thank, collectively, the CEO of Westpac, Peter King, for reconsidering what is a very comprehensive argument for the branch remaining open, and Richard Shields, the government relations officer, who stayed close to us. Good news on that hand, but, on the other hand, the National Australia Bank has flagged closures of branches. In my electorate, the community of Boonah will be affected. The same economic bullish outlook presides for them. We would ask National Australia Bank to reconsider their bizarre position as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Calwell Electorate: Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since July 2022 workers at Visy Packaging in Shepparton have been negotiating for a better deal amidst the cost-of-living crisis. With workers now entering their 18th week of industrial action, Visy has tried to break the workers' will in the Fair Work Commission, has made personalised attacks against workers and is now bringing in new workers to break the strike.</para>
<para>Such cruel strategies don't belong in a modern industrial relations system. Where there are families to feed and mortgages to pay, Visy's harsh tactics punish workers for standing up for their rights. During the pandemic these essential workers kept our groceries on shelves. When CPI was low they understood the need to accept minor pay increases. Now, with CPI stubbornly high, workers are simply asking for their sacrifices to be respected. Workers are seeking, among other entitlements, a 12 per cent pay rise over three years, barely keeping up with the rising cost of living, driven, in part, by company profits. After refusing to bargain for months, Visy, a $7-billion-a-year company, has offered a meagre 8.75 per cent wage increase over three years, leaving workers worse off amidst rising inflation.</para>
<para>We call on Visy to return to the bargaining table, to respect the right to strike and to give their workers a decent wage increase.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leichhardt Electorate: Mossman Elders Group</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I rise today to share with you my recent visit to the Mossman Elders Group in my electorate of Leichardt, in Mossman. It's an inspiring community organisation led by Patricia Clacherty. The Mossman Elders Group is made up of a small staff of three and four active elders ranging from 60 to 82 years of age. This dedicated team is well-known in the town, with the principal of the local school and the cafe owners all recognising their invaluable contribution to the community.</para>
<para>The group plays a crucial role in significantly minimising youth crime in Mossman thanks, in large part, to their hands-on approach and strong connection to the community. They attend court sessions, donate prizes for events and fund art supplies out of their own pocket. Every Tuesday morning the elders host one of their art sessions, which is attended by many locals. They provide breakfast, a comfortable place to relax and a chance for everybody to catch up. The group's programs have even been identified through the comments of magistrates, demonstrating the impact they have on the community. I was delighted to learn the group is working on getting an 85-inch TV for movie nights to further engage local youth and to help them achieve their goal of youth engagement. I'm working with the group to raise $80,000 for a 21-seat coaster bus. The bus will enable these wonderful elders to bring these kids in need of support back onto country, reconnecting them with their culture and providing invaluable mentorship and a bit of fun on the way.</para>
<para>The Mossman Elders Group is an outstanding—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Member for Bean.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm currently hosting Rory, a work experience student from Melrose High. I asked Rory, 'What should we keep front of mind in this House?' Her thoughts were:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Imagine, you, your family, your friends are forced to live out of your car or not know where your next meal will come from.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Well, this is the … reality for many of the Australians who live below the poverty line. As the cost of living rises dramatically, more people are falling under the poverty line.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It might seem like it doesn't affect anyone you know, but it's more likely than it seems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">According to a 2020 ACOSS report it's 1 in 8 adults and 1 in 6 children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Those are the horrifying figures that really put it into perspective. That it could be you. It could be your family. It could be your friends.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This issue runs deeper than individuals, it affects the people around them and the communities that they're a part of.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And I'm sure that we can all agree … that no person should have to live a life in which they wonder if they'll be able to pay rent or have to make a choice between food and medicine.</para></quote>
<para>Thank you, Rory.</para>
<para>That's why last night's budget includes measures that will help vulnerable Australians: an increase to JobSeeker, an increase in rent assistance, greater support for single parents, energy bill relief and a tripling of the bulk-billing subsidy—a Labor budget that both delivers targeted cost-of-living relief and broadens opportunity. The parliament has the opportunity to pass legislation that would drive the single-biggest improvement in social and affordable housing in more than a decade.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night's budget was an environmental disappointment. The Treasurer's speech focused little on the environment because, frankly, there is little for the government to boast about in this budget. Even the implementation of the promised Environment Protection Australia body lacks fanfare, as did the boost to funding for our iconic national parks. Great hopes were held for a government committed to achieving a long list of nature and environmental promises: protecting 30 per cent of land and sea, achieving a nature-positive Australia and preventing any new extinctions by 2030, to name just a few. However, the money to support the achievement of these goals was glaringly absent.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the environment</inline> report was a dire warning. Half of our economic output is moderately or highly dependent on nature. Budget allocations for the environment can no longer be considered a nice thing to do but are a critical sector of the economy to invest in, with returns and savings that will be realised right across society and industry. However, Australia's legacy of structural underfunding of on-ground nature conservation has largely continued. We can't rely on the private sector. It's very hard to see how the Nature Repair Market will succeed without substantial underpinning investment. I call on the government and the minister to ensure that this is rectified. I appreciate that there are a number of priorities, but the environment is omnipresent—it is always going to be there—and it has been underfunded for so long. I call on the government to rectify this as soon as possible.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia Post</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to express my deep concern about the pending closure of three local Australia Post offices in my community. The impact of the closures of the Box Hill, Brandon Park and Burwood Village post offices will be felt particularly hard by vulnerable members of my community, including older Australians, who rely on these services for their daily needs. We know that Australia Post is a vital public service that plays a crucial role in our communities. It provides essential services, such as mail delivery, passport applications, and banking and bill payment services—all of which are essential to the functioning of our communities. The closure of these post offices will mean that members of my community will have to travel further to access these services, which will be particularly difficult for older Australians, those who do not have access to reliable transport and those who have mobility challenges.</para>
<para>My office has been inundated with calls and emails about these announced closures, which is why earlier this month I wrote to the group CEO and managing director of Australia Post informing him of the significant and unacceptable impact that these closures will have in my community. I urge Australia Post to reconsider these decisions and to provide alternative solutions that will ensure that the vital services they provide continue to be accessible to my community. The closure of these offices is unacceptable. We must do all we can to ensure that my community is not left without the essential services that they rely on.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mayo Electorate: AFL Gather Round</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to reflect on the success of the inaugural AFL Gather Round in South Australia. My electorate of Mayo was fortunate to host a game at the new Summit Sport and Recreation Park in Mount Barker in the heart of the Adelaide Hills. The game was between North Melbourne and the Brisbane Lions. It attracted a crowd of over 7,300, of whom many were local. I had the pleasure of sitting next to two ladies who are best friends from Queensland and sitting in the stand with my eldest son, Edward, who's loved the Lions since he was a toddler.</para>
<para>I've written to Premier Malinauskas advocating for games in future Gather Rounds to be held in Mayo. We're fortunate to hold many loved and well cared for sporting facilities across Mayo such as the Johnston Memorial Park in Balhannah, Mount Lofty oval, Strathalbyn Oval, the Willunga Recreation Park and ovals at Encounter Bay, Victor Harbor, Goolwa and, of course, the Summit Sport precinct—and that's not an all-inclusive list.</para>
<para>I sincerely hope my community's passionate response to the success of the Gather Round facilitates strong considerations for future matches because we need to make sure that this is experienced all across regions, not just in metropolitan South Australia. We'd love to welcome more visitors into Mayo. Again, I thank the premier of South Australia for his great work on this. The Gather Round was such a success in our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to commend the Albanese Labor government on delivering its second federal budget. In this budget, Australians will see a massive $14.6 billion cost-of-living relief package that has been carefully calibrated and targeted to help ease the cost of living while not significantly contributing to inflation.</para>
<para>A particularly important takeaway from the budget last night was the announcement of a record $3.5 billion into Medicare. The federal government will triple the bulk billing incentive to support general practices to bulk bill, which will ensure our most vulnerable people will be able to afford to see their local GP, helping to support 11.6 million Australians. As an emergency doctor I cannot overstate how important this investment is for our primary healthcare sector across the nation, especially on the Central Coast, as it will help ease the pressure on our emergency departments. This much needed investment in our primary health sector is the largest investment into Medicare ever, making it easier and cheaper for Australians to see a doctor.</para>
<para>Combined with the federal government's Medicare urgent care clinics and the announcement of an extra eight across the nation, the Albanese Labor government is addressing the decade of neglect and mismanagement left behind by the previous Liberal-National government. I'm pleased to update the House and say that progress on establishing two Medicare urgent care clinics on the Central Coast is tracking excellently. I thank the Treasurer on a true Labor budget and the health minister, Mark Butler, on ensuring that health care was a centrepiece to the federal budget. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyne Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to congratulate Forster entrepreneur and committed charity worker, Michelle Bamford, for being one of 24 recipients selected for the 2023 New South Wales Rural Women in Leadership scholarship program. Michelle is a committed volunteer and has coordinated for several community groups, schools, sporting and support groups. Congratulations again, Michelle.</para>
<para>I also want to give a shout-out to Matt Gorton of Stroud, who recently returned home with a gold medal from the World Transplant Games held in Perth. He underwent a kidney transplant in 2019, and recently won the triple darts and just missed out on a bronze medal in volleyball. Good on you, Matt. You're putting that donated kidney to good use!</para>
<para>I recently attended the official opening of the new Gresford Sporting Complex clubhouse facility. It was wonderful to see so many of the committed community players and community groups there. This was made possible by a combination of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure federal Commonwealth grant of $300,000, a similar grant from the New South Wales Stronger Country Communities and funds from the council. Unfortunately, this Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is being ended. It was a wonderful program that delivered so much for local councils and small regional communities.</para>
<para>I'd also like to mention David Crouch, who won special recognition and was presented with the Phyllis Avery Memorial Award for outstanding service to football. David and Jenny, his wife, are founders of the club and for the last ten years— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holt Electorate: Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was shocked to learn that my electorate of Holt is the unpaid-super capital of Victoria following the release of a report by Industry SuperFunds. The average resident in Holt has approximately $2,001 in super owed to them as we speak. This is commonly a result of employers believing that because the current payment is made quarterly they can get away with skimming on super in the intervening months and hoping their staff won't notice. They think that if you are a worker from a lower socio-economic background or have language barriers you won't notice missing super.</para>
<para>I am delighted that the Albanese government has acted swiftly on this matter. By 1 July 2026 employers will be required to pay super on every payday. This will greatly assist workers in keeping track of their super payments while also removing the burdens on employers to hold on to super payments until every quarter. Superannuation is not a privilege; it is a right, and all eligible workers deserve their money so they can have a secure future. Ensuring payday super is a fantastic step to address the scourge of unpaid super in my community of Holt and across Australia. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Edith Cowan University</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Funding research at Australian universities is a critical part of Australia's future in the 21st century. I am committed to advocating for increased federal funding for research on behalf of more than 400 academic research staff and 800 PhD and masters by research candidates at Edith Cowan University. These researchers conduct cutting-edge studies across a range of subjects that align with local, national and international community needs. The world-leading research is broad and includes neuroscience, sustainable energy, environmental science, nutrition health, exercise medicine, cybersecurity and performing arts.</para>
<para>Last year Edith Cowan University was awarded $29.1 million in competitive research grants, and the university is continuing to invest in growing its research performance by supporting initiatives, including strategic research institutes and centres. As well as developing an early- and mid-career researcher grants scheme, I'm proud to say Edith Cowan University is now a world-class tertiary institution based in my electorate. I recently visited Professor Daryoush Habibi, Pro Vice-Chancellor from the School of Engineering, and Associate Professor Joshua Aston, from the School of Business and Law, to see firsthand the world-class modern facilities on the campus.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget: Health Care, Budget: Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently conducted a community survey in Jagajaga to find out what people in my community were concerned about. Two of the biggest areas of concern people came back to me about where health care and aged care, and I am so pleased that these are areas our government has directly addressed in this budget. People told me it's too hard to see a GP and finding one that bulk-bills is nearly impossible. Now our government is investing $3.5 billion in bulk-billing incentives, the largest increase in the 40 year history of Medicare. This will be welcome news across Jagajaga, supporting our local GPs to bulk-bill 63,000 people in our community, including those on a Commonwealth seniors health card, pensioners and children. And our government is making medicines cheaper. More than 38,000 people in Jagajaga will be able to buy two months worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription for more than 300 common PBS medicines, halving their visits to their GP and pharmacist and saving up to $180 a year off every eligible medicine people buy.</para>
<para>We're also fixing aged care by implementing the recommendations of the royal commission and investing $11.3 billion to lift the pay of aged-care workers. This will have a real impact not just on those essential workers but also on the people they care for. I'm so pleased that our government has listened to the concerns of my community and we're investing in these essential services. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMILTON</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Restraint is a big word. Until yesterday I didn't know how big, but after the budget we can put an exact figure on restraint. Apparently you can increase spending by $185 billion in less than 12 months and still call it restraint. Laughable as that sounds, it's exactly what the Treasurer did when he delivered a typical Labor big-spending, big-taxing budget. In the face of some of the greatest inflationary challenges we've seen in our lifetimes, this budget is pouring fuel onto the fire. While it's laudable for any nation to protect its most vulnerable, by taking responsible fiscal policy off the table and leaving Groom's mortgage holders sweating under the sledgehammer of further interest rate hikes, this budget condemns middle Australia to more pain for longer.</para>
<para>There can be no dispute now as to who's responsible for any additional mortgage pain Australians are feeling. With this budget, Labor has taken full ownership of this economy. My concern is for those aspirational Australians living in Toowoomba, Oakey and Pittsworth who are already feeling mortgage stress, people who have seen the low- and middle-income tax offset taken away, people who have seen grocery prices and energy prices absolutely skyrocket, and people whose hard-earned taxes have been frittered away in this big-spending budget. To them, I say: if you think your housing costs are high now, wait until another 1.5 million new Australians flood the market in the middle of a housing crisis. It is sad but it is true: you will always pay more under Labor.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, the Albanese Labor government and Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down a budget that is good for families, good for businesses across my community and good for people who are struggling to make ends meet. It's a really strong budget for the country and also for Dunkley. In addition to our existing initiatives on cheaper child care, where 5,800 local families will benefit come 1 July, and cheaper medicines and fee-free TAFE, we have announced a new energy price relief plan. It will provide relief for more than five million households across the country. It will provide local residents and businesses with a rebate of up to $250 per household, and $325 for small businesses. It is really going to help families in my community get ahead.</para>
<para>The centrepiece of the budget, that is so exciting, is the investment in Medicare—our historic investment to strengthen Medicare. Tripling the bulk-billing incentive, no less, is immediately going to benefit about 70,000 people in my community alone. Around 40,000 Dunkley locals will be able to save money on prescriptions by accessing two months worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription. Aged-care wages are going to go up. About 6,850 people will see more money in their rent assistance, and 6½ thousand people will see an increase in their social security payments. If you want people to be looked after, vote for a Labor government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Peel Health Campus</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to put Mark McGowan on notice. Tomorrow the WA Premier will deliver his state budget, and it's time he did what the people of the Peel region trusted him to do: to invest in and fix our local hospital—the Peel Health Campus, for those on the other side. Since 2018 I have been campaigning with the local community for WA Labor to upgrade the Peel Health Campus—and, in that time, Labor has done nothing. Despite WA boasting the only state government surplus in Australia, our hospital system is beset with issues. At Peel Health Campus, chronic staff and bed shortages and dated facilities have led to poor service delivery. Let me be clear: these are not issues caused by the hardworking hospital staff, who do an incredible job, often in challenging circumstances. Instead, these issues have been caused by Labor's mismanagement and neglect.</para>
<para>We now have a health system struggling to provide the high-quality care our local community needs. Last week, in a pre-budget announcement, the Premier announced an investment of $1.2 billion in health infrastructure. But only $6.5 million has been earmarked for the Peel Health Campus for a transformation program which is scant on details. We've been let down again. Throwing a few coins at our hospital won't solve our local health crisis. The Premier needs to get on with the job along with his team in Mandurah and deliver an upgrade to the Peel Health Campus.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers handed down a budget built to help the people of Hawke. It will deliver cheaper child care and real relief on energy bills, and it makes it easier to see a bulk-billed doctor. It is a responsible and practical budget that delivers the first surplus in 15 years. Hockey, Morrison and Frydenberg couldn't do it, but Albanese, Chalmers and Gallagher could!</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition says our surplus is only thanks to the previous government, and the member for Hume says a drover's dog could have done it. So I'm left asking myself: why didn't they? How did those opposite pull off the spectacular feat of leaving the country in a trillion dollars of Liberal debt while failing to deliver a single budget surplus and having nothing good to show for it? We know the answer. It's because those opposite, with their born-to-rule mentality, saw the Treasury benches as their right, not a privilege. So they filled successive budgets with rorts, waste and unproductive spending to give jobs to their mates and to sandbag their seats while they neglected communities like mine. But last year the people in our electorates voted for a better future. I'm so proud that this budget, and the Albanese Labor government, is delivering on that better future every single day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Skate Queensland</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many of us in this place get to attend a range of community events right across our electorates. Recently, I had the privilege of attending the 2023 Skate Queensland Artistic Championships and opening those championships.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to tell my colleagues across the chamber who are interjecting that I didn't hop on rollerskates; it was much safer for the community not to do so!</para>
<para>I want to take this opportunity to thank the Logan City Council for their work in ensuring that Skate Queensland were able to utilise the fabulous space at the Mount Warren Park sports centre, one of the best venues in the country for rollerskating. I would also like to acknowledge Oscar White and Harper Connors, who led a tremendous skate routine to open the championships and showcase their wonderful skating skills. It was a great way to open what was a terrific weekend of rollerskating for people not just across Queensland but also from interstate. There was a team from Bunbury—the member for Forrest is here in the chamber; a couple of skaters came all the way from Bunbury. I'd like to thank the Skate Queensland executive team, headed by President Mark O'Brien, and the artistic president, Helen Lloyd-Jones. As we know, sport like this keeps our kids engaged— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Affordable, accessible health care has been an important part of quality of life for Australians since it was introduced by Gough Whitlam and then reformed into Medicare by Bob Hawke—two iconic Labor leaders. The Strengthening Medicare measures announced in last night's budget start the reform to make Medicare fit for purpose for today's Australia. We are investing a record $3.5 billion over five years to address the sharp decline we've seen in recent times in bulk-billing. We're tripling the bulk-billing incentive for children, pensioners and Commonwealth concession cardholders, including senior cardholders, and benefiting 74,000 people in my home electorate of Boothby. This includes telehealth and videoconference appointments. We're also delivering cheaper medicines for more than six million Australians who need ongoing regular medicine. Our changes to allow for 60-day dispensing will mean cheaper, more accessible medicines for more than 44,000 people in Boothby. This has already been introduced in countries such as the UK, Canada, France, Germany and more, where it led to around a 20 per cent increase in medication compliance because people could afford to buy all of their medicines. I'd like to congratulate the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and the health minister, Mark Butler, on delivering a budget that will strengthen the great Australian and great Labor institution that is Medicare.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There was a bit for people on welfare in last night's budget, but there was nothing for working families in last night's budget. Those families struggling with the costs of living, those families struggling with higher power prices, those families struggling with higher mortgage costs—there was nothing in the budget for them. The only thing that was in the budget for them was higher inflation and higher costs of living for longer under this Labor government. The other thing that was also in there, just to ensure that the cost-of-living crisis would continue, was a truckie tax. What arrives at someone's house without going on a truck first? That tax is going to stay. That cost is going to remain high. There go higher food costs as well!</para>
<para>The other thing that was very disappointing in last night's budget was the lack of infrastructure spending. One of the greatest disappointments, though obviously not important for any Labor MPs, was with the Stronger Communities Program. What a great program that is—$10,000 or $15,000 grants for sporting clubs, community organisations and groups in the community. We'll be telling everyone that the Labor MPs over there voted to get rid of that really important local community program. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is very important to local councils. Again, we'll be telling everyone that Labor abolished the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program too.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Until the last 10 seconds, those opposite did nothing to lift the wages of working people. In this budget, we spend $11 billion to say thank you to the hardworking people who work in our aged care with the pay rise that they deserve.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Yunupingu, AM</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of Yunupingu is referred to the Federation Chamber.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTRY</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>MINISTRY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. The Minister for Communications will answer questions on his behalf.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>van Schalkwyk, His Excellency Mr Marthinus, Cheunboran, His Excellency Dr Chanborey, Richardson, The Hon. Graham, AO</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is His Excellency Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the High Commissioner of South Africa, and His Excellency Dr Chanborey Cheunboran, the Ambassador for the Kingdom of Cambodia. I'm very pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Hon. Graham Richardson, AO, former senator for New South Wales and cabinet minister in the Hawke and Keating governments.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, we all support planned migration, but your budget announcement to bring in 1.5 million people over this five-year period—more than the entire population of Adelaide—has no plan. Every city is already congested. Infrastructure is cut in this budget, and there is no plan for where these people will live during a housing and rental crisis. Economists have also pointed out that this unplanned migration is inflationary—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I cannot hear what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Home Affairs, if she continues to interject, will be warned. I want to hear this question in silence, the first question of the day. The Leader of the Opposition deserves to be shown some respect. So all members—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lyons will cease interjecting as well. There will be complete silence so I can hear the question, or people will be removed from the chamber immediately.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Prime Minister, we all support planned migration, but your budget announcement was to bring in 1.5 million people over this five-year period—that's more than the entire population of Adelaide—and you have no plan. Every city is already congested. Infrastructure is cut in this budget. There's no plan for where these people will live during a housing and rental crisis. Economists point out that this is, as an unplanned migration program, inflationary. It's going to keep interest rates higher, for longer. And why didn't the Treasurer make any mention of this in his speech last night?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Home Affairs, if she interjects one more time, will be warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The hypocrisy knows no bounds. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said about migration on 2 September 2022:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's too little, too late. This is a decision that should have been made 100 days ago when the government was elected, but of course they didn't do that.</para></quote>
<para>That's what he said in September. Just in case you think that was a slip of the tongue and wasn't thought through, this is what he said a month later in a speech to the Tourism and Transport Forum leadership summit on 21 October 2022:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we need migration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government's announcement to increase the permanent migration intake has been delayed because of union pressure.</para></quote>
<para>That's what he had to say. What he actually knows—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise. The Prime Minister will pause, and the Leader of the Opposition will be heard in silence for his point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The figure of $1.5 million was in the budget papers last night. Could you explain the $1.5 million figure?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minster will continue, and I will be listening to his answer carefully to make sure he is relevant to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked a question about migration, and I'm spot on. He mightn't want to hear what he was saying about migration. He mightn't want to hear the facts, either.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When they were in government—at least he's not one of the ones hunting you. Worry a bit closer.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SP</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that migration would have been higher under their figures. The Minister for Home Affairs gave a terrific speech at the National Press Club where she outlined all of this. As part of that, the draft new strategy that was released on 27 April fed into the budget that was released last night. This is what they had to say. It was chaired by Dr Martin Parkinson, the former head of Prime Minister and Cabinet under those opposite. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australia's migration program is not fit for purpose …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia now has a migration program that fails to attract the most highly skilled migrants and fails to enable business to efficiently access workers … there is clear evidence of systemic exploitation and the risk of an emerging permanently temporary underclass.</para></quote>
<para>That's what they had to say.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Nats, in case you think they missed out, said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We'll be constructive with this government in saying that we welcome the changes that they're bringing forward, we believe permanent migration is important.</para></quote>
<para>Good on you, Dave.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. What does the Albanese Labor government's budget do to address immediate challenges and to set Australia up for the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Dunkley for her input into the budget that we were proud to hand down last night here in the House of Representatives. The budget we handed down last night was handed down in the service of our immediate priorities and also our generational responsibilities. It was a responsible budget which was all about helping people now get through a tough period at the same time as we invest in opportunities for the future. It had five parts. The budget that we handed down last night had five important parts.</para>
<para>The first one was to provide responsible cost-of-living relief, targeted towards the most vulnerable, in a way that didn't add to inflationary pressures in the economy. It was carefully designed so that it would take some of the sting out of these cost-of-living pressures without making inflation worse in our economy.</para>
<para>The second part of the budget that we handed down last night was historic game-changing investments to strengthen Medicare, including the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. All of us are aware of how hard it is to find a bulk-billing doctor in our own communities. The steps we took last night as a government invest substantially in addressing that problem.</para>
<para>The third part of the budget was our plans to invest in growth and to lay the foundations for the future economy, with a particular focus on the vast and immense industrial and economic opportunities of the clean energy transformation, as well as how that opportunity interacts with what we need to do when it comes to technology and industry and small business.</para>
<para>The fourth part of the budget was all about extending and broadening opportunity to more people in more parts of our country, particularly when it comes to disadvantaged communities and also to the economic participation of women. I shout out my colleague the Minister for Finance for her work on that.</para>
<para>And then the fifth part of the budget was about responsible economic management. For the first time in 15 years we're forecasting a surplus for 2022-23, a demonstration of the fiscal responsibility that we imposed on the budget, which is entirely foreign to those opposite who used to spend the proceeds of upward revisions to revenue. We've let them flow through to the bottom line so that we can save hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and save $83 billion in interest payments on that debt that we inherited from those opposite—a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt.</para>
<para>The point that we are making is: as we invested the cost-of-living pressures, as we strengthen Medicare, as we strengthen our economy, as we invest in making our economy more equal, the most important thing that we can build all of that on is the foundations of a more responsible budget—not as an end in itself, but by getting the budget in a much better condition than what we inherited from those opposite, we can afford to look after people and invest in their future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Economist Chris Richardson said of the budget:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I had thought the Reserve Bank was done and dusted, but this has notably raised the chance that they will do another swing of the baseball bat.</para></quote>
<para>Why has the Treasurer brought down a budget which makes inflation worse?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can understand why the shadow Treasurer is so confused—because the fiscal discipline that we showed last night is completely unfamiliar, completely foreign to those opposite. Those opposite, when they were in office, left behind this bin fire of rorts and waste and economic mismanagement, which was the hallmark of their almost decade in office. Those opposite promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter. They printed the back in black mugs. They did everything except actually deliver a surplus. Now, in their humiliation, they get up here and they ask these questions about the inflationary impact of the budget.</para>
<para>I'll explain it one more time for the shadow Treasurer, who has trouble getting his head around some pretty basic concepts in our economy. What we've done, particularly with the cost-of-living package, but more broadly with the budget we handed down last night, was to make sure that it was carefully calibrated and carefully designed to take the edge off cost-of-living pressures, rather than add to inflation in our economy. And that's what guided the decisions in the cost-of-living package, guided our decisions in the growth package and guided our decisions when it came to the fiscal responsibility that we showed in the budget.</para>
<para>If those opposite want to quote economists, Bill Evans from Westpac, a very respected economist, said, 'I don't expect them to put upward pressure on interest rates.' Alan Oster said he thinks the budget is 'broadly neutral' over the coming years. The economists at Citibank: 'broadly neutral' as well. Stephen Halmarick from the Commonwealth Bank said, 'The move to surplus in 2022-23 represents a fiscal contraction that is helpful in moderating the inflation pulse'.</para>
<para>When it comes to the spending in the year after, a big chunk of the spending that we had to do in 2023-24 was because those opposite announced ongoing programs but only funded them in a temporary way, so we had to clean up the mess. We had to clean up the mess. Those opposite left a steaming pile of fiscal irresponsibility, and we had to clean it up. We take responsibility for doing that.</para>
<para>We made progress in a budget last night which will take the pressure off inflation, rather than add to it. That is the considered view of the Treasury. That is the considered view of a number of economists, including those that I just quoted. Those opposite are going to have to do much better than that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page will cease interjecting. He's been interjecting constantly during question time. If he continues to do it, he'll be warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is also to the Treasurer. How does the Albanese Labor government's second budget address cost-of-living pressures facing Australian households?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much to the member for Hawke for his question. We're very proud on this side of the House that a central part of the budget that we handed down last night had cost-of-living relief at its very, very core. We understand, on this side of the House, that people are under the pump right now, particularly when it comes to rent, particularly when it comes to out-of-pocket health costs and particularly when it comes to electricity. So our cost-of-living package, as I said a moment ago, was carefully calibrated to take some of the edge off these cost-of-living pressures without adding to the inflation challenge in our economy.</para>
<para>Our cost-of-living package—$14.6 billion over the rest of the budget's forward estimates—has a number of parts. There is energy bill relief, with $1½ billion, matched by the states and territories, to take some of the edge off the winter bills that people will be receiving. There is the household energy upgrades fund to make people's homes more energy efficient so that they can get not just their emissions down but also their bills down, compared to what they would otherwise be. Obviously, tripling bulk-billing and making it easier to find a bulk-billing doctor is a substantial opportunity for us to address the out-of-pocket costs that people are facing in the health system. The changes to maximum dispensing quantities for lots of people will halve the cost of their prescription medicine, something that we are very, very proud to do.</para>
<para>There are changes to parenting payment single. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services for being able to fix the issues in parenting payment single. There is also an increase to the base rate of JobSeeker, and I acknowledge a number of members of this House, from over there and from over here. A lot of us wanted to see an increase in the base rate of JobSeeker, and we were able to do it as well as for the other working age payments and for students as well. At a time when we've got incredibly low vacancies and higher rents than we would like, we are proud to have handed down and announced last night the biggest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in something like 30 years.</para>
<para>All of these components of the cost-of-living package that we announced last night are carefully calibrated and carefully targeted. Making sure they go to people who are doing it the toughest is an important part of getting people through a difficult period at the same time as we invest substantially in the future. In so many of these areas, what we're actually doing is taking the pressure off inflation. If you take the energy payments, paired with the gas and coal caps that we passed through this parliament in December of last year—without the support of those opposite—that's making something like three-quarters of a percentage point difference to the inflation forecast.</para>
<para>The cost-of-living package is substantial. It won't add to inflationary pressures in the economy, but it will make life a little bit easier for more people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Your budget raises more from Labor's increase in student debt than from the weak tax changes for the big gas corporations. You're leaving jobseekers in poverty while giving billionaires a $9,000-a-year tax cut, and 5½ million renters get absolutely nothing. Why is Labor leaving millions of people behind and spending a quarter of a trillion dollars on stage 3 tax cuts while betraying renters, students, jobseekers and people doing it tough?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. It would have been a very different budget if it had been cast and put together by those opposite, in terms of the Greens political party. There is no question about that, because what we understood, as a responsible government, was that we needed to take pressure off families whilst not putting pressure on inflation. That is the task that we set ourselves. To do it within the context of not leaving people behind, we found space in the budget to provide for a $40-a-fortnight increase in JobSeeker; to provide the largest ever increase in rental assistance that has been done since rental assistance was introduced—of course by a Labor government, like all those reforms; and to change the single parenting payment so that it will apply not when the youngest child turns eight but when the youngest child turns 14.</para>
<para>We did all of that whilst making sure that we also built a stronger economy, that we built a foundation for a better future. So the commitments that we took to the election were commitments such as the National Reconstruction Fund to help build manufacturing in this country, on climate, not just consolidating the measures that we had introduced and called for before the election and legislated and put in our October budget but last night's announcement of $2 billion for hydrogen to create a green hydrogen industry in this country—one that can see Australia producing green aluminium, green steel, creating jobs in places like Wollongong and Whyalla and Central Queensland, making sure that we can produce batteries here. We have everything that goes into a solar panel, everything that goes into a battery for an electric vehicle, but what we don't have is manufacturing on any scale here.</para>
<para>If we have cheaper, cleaner energy driving advanced manufacturing, lowering emissions at the same time as creating jobs, making sure that we skill up Australians for those jobs—which is why we created the 300,000 now fee-free TAFE places—that's our vision for the country, responsibly moving it forward whilst understanding that inflation has a much higher impact the poorer you are, which is why we have to be responsible.</para>
<para>We make no apologies for targeting inflation as a major economic priority that we had to deal with in the budget. That's before we go to the considerable support that we have for Medicare and health in the budget as well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget: Medicare</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the budget making it easier for Australians to see a bulk-billing doctor, and why is it needed?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the terrific member for Tangney who worked so hard in the last election, campaigning on our promise to strengthen Medicare and to make it easier and cheaper to see a doctor.</para>
<para>Last night's budget delivers more than $6 billion in new investments to strengthen Medicare as well as an indexation boost to Medicare rebates of $1½ billion, which will deliver the biggest across-the-board increase to Medicare rebates since Paul Keating was Prime Minister 30 years ago. But for Labor members the beating heart of Medicare is bulk-billing. I say Labor members because all of those opposite saw fit to elect as their leader a man who, in his first budget as health minister, tried to end bulk-billing for every single Australian forever and a day. When that failed, the six-year-long freeze to Medicare—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. This minister, unfortunately, is a serial offender. He needs to stick to the terms of the question and avoid gratuitous personal attacks.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about government making it easier for Australians to see a bulk-billing doctor. I'm going to ask the minister to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked why it was needed, and the six-year-long Medicare rebate squeezed general practice finances and has seen bulk-billing rates drop sharply. That's why the centrepiece of last night's Strengthening Medicare package was a $3.5 billion initiative to triple the bulk-billing incentive for GP visits, reviving that beating heart of Medicare. In the cities, this increases the total rebate for a standard GP consult by more than a third, and the increases are even higher in rural and regional Australia.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you can find a doctor! You have to travel to see a doctor because of you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In Bega, in the member for Eden-Monaro's electorate, for example, that bulk-billed rebate will increase by half, from $50 to $75. In Longreach, in the electorate of the Leader of the Nationals, the rebate rises from $52 to more than $80, an increase of 55 per cent. This is why the college of GPs have described this package as a game changer for general practice; a game changer for millions of mums and dads who want the confidence of knowing that, when their kids get sick, they can go to a bulk-billing doctor—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If the Leader of the Nationals continues to interject, he will be warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>a game changer for millions of pensioners and seniors health card and other concession card holders, who depend upon bulk-billing; and, importantly, a game changer for tens of thousands of general practitioners, who know now they have a government in Canberra who trusts them, values them and respects the work they do as the backbone of our broader healthcare system. Tripling the bulk-billing incentive, delivering the biggest across-the-board increase to Medicare rebates in 30 years, delivering 58 bulk-billed urgent care services over the course of this year—that is Labor's commitment to strengthening Medicare.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Charlie's Fine Food</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Charlie's Fine Food is a much-loved bakery bordering the Goldstein electorate. This morning, co-owner Ken Mahlab said, 'Sadly, there wasn't much in the budget for us. I think the government missed an opportunity to help us. There is virtually nothing that stimulates better productivity. There's not a piece of machinery in here for the instant asset write-off. I certainly don't think it's good for my business.' Why does this budget leave so many Australians behind?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker and the member for Deakin will cease interjecting, as will the Treasurer and the minister for infrastructure.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for that question.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you really, though?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, because I must give credit where credit is due. To be able to say there's too much and too little in the budget at the same time in one question is quite extraordinary. The truth is there are measures, including support for small business, encouragement for them to spend money on their business and tax incentives, in the budget last night. But we know that, whatever was in there, those opposite would say no, because that is the approach they take to politics across the board, which is one of the reasons why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition got to ask a question about the Goldstein electorate. The member for Goldstein is sitting up there because they have rejected the negative politics of those opposite. After nine years of not being able to advance Australia's national interests, Australians turned to a government that was prepared to make investments in a better future. That's precisely what we did last night, whether it be the Medicare changes, including the bulk-billing the minister for health was just talking about; whether it be the support for small business that is there in the budget last night—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>whether it be the support for energy price relief that those opposite opposed—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">M</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance. The Prime Minister hasn't mentioned small business at all in his answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The end part of the question was: why does the budget leave so many Australians behind? The question is broad by that last part of the question. The Prime Minister has, from my count, mentioned small business at least twice. I ask him to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, voted against energy bill relief.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Remember that, last December? This morning on ABC <inline font-style="italic">News </inline><inline font-style="italic">Breakfast</inline> the Leader of the Opposition said this, when asked if he supported energy relief payments:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We support those payments to families in the way in which the government has proposed them.</para></quote>
<para>Well, why did you vote against them? Why? Could you do a reprise of yesterday for the Treasurer's benefit? The shadow Treasurer went further last night. He got asked by David Speers:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What about the energy bill relief?</para></quote>
<para>The shadow Treasurer said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Well, we've been supportive of that all the way along.</para></quote>
<para>You couldn't make it up! And then he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As you know, we've always supported that …</para></quote>
<para>Really— <inline font-style="italic">(Time </inline><inline font-style="italic">expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting so I can hear from the member for Calwell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget strengthen Australia's social security safety net?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the member for Calwell for her question. Of course, like the member for Calwell, our government understands that many Australians are doing it tough right now. That's why we have set out through this budget a path to address some of the pressures that families are feeling right now. I would like to really congratulate the Treasurer for all the work he did in delivering what is a very responsible and targeted but important cost-of-living relief plan. Our $14.6 billion cost-of-living plan includes help with power bills, record investment in Medicare bulk billing and cheaper medicines, and, in addition, we are strengthening the safety net that so many Australians rely on.</para>
<para>The safety net is there for when Australians need it. Through this budget we are strengthening that by increasing the eligible working age and student payment rates. We're also strengthening the Commonwealth Rent Assistance payments and expanding the eligibility for parenting payment single. Our changes will see the rates of JobSeeker, youth allowance and other eligible working-age payments rise by $40 a fortnight. This provides additional support to 1.1 million people.</para>
<para>We are expanding the eligibility for existing higher rates of JobSeeker to single recipients aged 55 and over who have been on income support for nine months or more. The higher rate is an existing feature of our social security system that currently applies to those aged over 60. But we know older Australians face a number of additional barriers when looking for work, including age discrimination and poor health. Our changes will support 52,000 Australians aged 55 to 59, who will receive an additional $92.10 a fortnight.</para>
<para>Similarly, we know that single parents can find it tough to balance caring responsibilities with full-time work, and so we are expanding the eligibility for parenting payment, because we know the balancing act doesn't end when a child turns eight. And, as the Prime Minister outlined, we are increasing the support for Commonwealth Rent Assistance, the largest increase to the CRA in more than 30 years.</para>
<para>Combined, these changes will provide additional support to around two million people. The Albanese government believes in a strong social safety net. We believe in supporting those doing it tough. Through our budget and our changes, we will be supporting more Australians with the cost of living.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Zokoko, a local chocolate manufacturer in my Western Sydney electorate of Lindsay, has seen their energy bill rise by $4,000 per quarter. The owner, Dean, says that this budget won't make much of a difference because he's still going to see his energy costs continue to rise. Why does this budget leave so many Australians behind?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Plibersek</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why did you vote against relief?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. The minister for the environment will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lindsay for her question, which goes to a small business in her fine electorate in Western Sydney. And she might like to know, and I will assist her, what the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, a fellow called Bruce Billson, had to say about last night's budget. This is what he had to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is support for small and family businesses to tackle immediate pressures, particularly with high energy input costs, an asset write-off boost to help re-equip and invest in productivity, tax administration changes that will help with vital cash flow challenges and much needed advice to deal with cyber security fears …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Energising enterprise can deliver a stronger economy and these measures are a step towards delivering that.</para></quote>
<para>That's what Bruce Billson, appointed by those opposite as the small-business ombudsman, said that our budget would do for small businesses, including those in the Lindsay electorate. Similarly, Andrew Mackellar, the Chief Executive of ACCI, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This budget has provided welcome breathing space for households and small businesses in the form of energy relief.</para></quote>
<para>Those opposite would have us believe, to quote the shadow Treasurer, that we've been supportive of energy bill relief all the way along. As you know, we've always supported that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where's the $275?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure the member for Lindsay feels the same thing, but I'm sure she needs to explain to the small businesses in her electorate that she voted against it, along with all of them over there. Here are some of the things those over there called the Energy Price Relief Plan: reckless, destructive, socialism, a Soviet-style policy, catastrophic, one step short of nationalisation, gas market Armageddon and a declaration of war that will be the death knell of Australia's prosperity. That's what they had to say. How's that for support!</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my right will cease interjecting. There is far too much noise in the chamber. I'm issuing a general warning. The next person that wants to try their luck will be removed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPP</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>IA () (): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How does the budget deliver on the key priorities of the Defence Strategic Review?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his commitment to the defence industry of South Australia. Last night's budget had a central pillar, which was our nation's security, investing in the key military capabilities to keep Australians safe. There was a $9 billion commitment over the next four years to establish the pathway by which Australia will acquire nuclear powered submarine capability, making us just the seventh country to be able to operate these platforms, and giving rise to the single biggest leap in our military capability since the end of the Second World War. What that will do is give pause for thought for any adversary seeking to project power against Australia or our interests. There's a $4.1 billion commitment to increasing our strike capability, which will see, for example, an increase in Army's strike range from 40 kilometres to more than 300 kilometres in the next couple of years, while at the same time establishing an industrial base in this country which will manufacture missiles. There's an investment of $400 million in the retention and the growth of our Defence Force personnel because we understand that at the heart of our defence is our people, and we simply have to make the ADF a better place to work.</para>
<para>What all of this will do is implement the AUKUS agreement and the Defence Strategic Review. It will see, over the next four years, defence spending growth in accordance with the trajectory that we inherited from those opposite. But over the next 10 years, it will see defence spending grow by an additional 0.2 per cent of GDP above the trajectory that we inherited from those opposite. That means that we plan to spend, over the next 10 years, 0.2 per cent more of GDP on defence than those opposite provided. This is not spending for spending's sake, because right now we are seeing in the world the biggest conventional military build-up since the end of the Second World War right here in our region, and that, combined with a much greater economic connection to the world, has greatly complicated our strategic circumstances. In a rational world defence spending is a function of strategic threat and strategic complexity, and we have both in full measure. We are rational people running a rational government which is making a historic commitment to the defence of our country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. UBS has labelled the federal budget as stimulatory and has pushed back the timing for when it expects the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates to 2024. Why has the government brought down a budget which makes inflation worse?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What is extraordinary when it comes to the issue of inflation is that the shadow Treasurer had this to say in February 2023 with the catastrophising that they go on with over there: 'There are ominous signs Australia is hurtling towards another era of stagflation.' That follows the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in June 2022. Think about the timing of that; it's after the election but before any of our first budgets. He said this: 'Australia is set to lose its AAA credit rating because of spiralling debt and deficits.' That's what he had to say. But that's a deficit in your forward estimates. It was in June 2022.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Relevance, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said he was going to take responsibility.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEA</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, referring to your earlier rulings on points of order, if they're nothing to do with the standing orders, they shouldn't be made, or they can just stand up and say, 'I nominate myself as trivia.' It's ridiculous.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House is correct. That wasn't a correct point of order. The member for Hume knows that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Chalmers</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're doing well, Angus!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting. If that happens again you won't be warned; you will be asked to leave. The Prime Minister will continue and will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those opposite—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Answer the question!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin will excuse himself from the House under standing order 94(a) without commentary.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Deakin then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition correctly identified the spiralling debt and deficit that were in the budget that they left. That's why he said that in June 2022, because they expected a deficit this year of some $78 billion—$78 billion. But instead what you have is a massive turnaround and a forecast surplus of $4.2 billion. And yet they stand up here and ask a question and interject with those absurd comments after the biggest fiscal turnaround in history that has ever occurred.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Page is on a warning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Having stood at this dispatch box, the Liberal Treasurer announced the biggest deficit in history and the second biggest deficit in history, having sat here for nine years. Having promised a surplus in the first year and a surplus every year after that, they didn't deliver any. They produced the mugs, but they were treating Australians like mugs. All they had to show for it was some empty mugs in surplus. The only surplus they had was in Josh Frydenberg's office, the mugs that they had to stop selling. The fact is that we have been responsible, and that's on top of the fact that we had to find, in addition to that, $7.5 billion in essential programs that they stopped funding in June this year or in December this year. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What has the Albanese Labor government done to get wages moving? What impact has this had on the budget? And what needed to change to achieve better wage outcomes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Newcastle—someone who's always been fighting to get wages moving in her part of Australia. In the first six months of this government, we have had stronger wage growth than in any other period for the last 10 years. Now, why would it be over the last 10 years? What possibly needed to change, in order to get wages moving? It was the government that needed to change to get wages moving.</para>
<para>Getting wages moving is good for the cost of living and it's good for working families. And it's been good for the budget. Forty per cent of the turnaround in finances, as has been explained by the Treasurer, is caused by employment and wages outcomes—40 per cent of the improvements in revenue.</para>
<para>Now, those opposite wanted to use terms like 'drover's dog' in terms of turnaround in revenue. As to what's happened with wages, in their approach to wages they were more like my rescue greyhound: they'd run around for five minutes in the morning and then sleep the rest of the day! And they'd do nothing on wages, because keeping wages low was a deliberate design feature.</para>
<para>To get wages moving requires action from a government, which is exactly what the Albanese Labor government has done. Wages are moving because we took the position we did at the annual wage review.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, member for Fisher.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wages are moving for people in aged care—for a quarter of a million workers in aged care—because of the action this government took and the 15 per cent pay rise funded in the budget last night. Wages are moving with a government that was willing to strike down zombie agreements, when those opposite were quite happy for people to still be on the terms and conditions of 20 years ago under old Work Choices agreements. Wages are moving because we've now banned job ads which used to be legal, even though—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fisher, if he continues to interject, will leave the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>they were advertising rates which were illegal. Wages are moving because we changed the law for pay equity. Wages are moving because we changed the law for gender equality. Wages are moving because rogue employers know that it's going to be a criminal offence to steal from your workers. Wages are moving because the platforms know that there'll be minimum standards for gig workers. Wages are moving because getting wages moving is a deliberate design feature of this government.</para>
<para>And for 10 years, in their words and their actions, they made sure they did everything they could to keep wages low. When you look at the budget papers last night, what people are experiencing now, in what's going into their bank accounts, is because there was a change of government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The government's budget commitment of $2 billion for renewable hydrogen production is very welcome. However, can the minister confirm that this funding will only be used for hydrogen produced using renewable energy and not for hydrogen produced using fossil fuels?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question and her interest in the Hydrogen Headstart program, which is vital to Australia's future as a renewable energy powerhouse, which this government fundamentally believes in. We also know our green hydrogen future is fundamental to that clean energy future as a powerhouse. I'm happy to confirm for the honourable member that the funding under the Hydrogen Headstart program is limited to hydrogen generated by renewable energy—green hydrogen.</para>
<para>This is vital for Australia's future, and I welcome the response from the hydrogen industry. The chief executive—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Keep going! And I welcome the interjections from those opposite as well, because every time they do it they say they've learnt nothing—nothing, after the last 10 years; nothing since the last election. They just still don't get it. The chief executive of the Australian Hydrogen Council has said this is a very welcome injection. And, as it happens, the World Hydrogen Summit is occurring at the moment in Holland, just as we make this announcement. I'm advised it has been very warmly welcomed at the World Hydrogen Summit.</para>
<para>This is so important that a few weeks ago I released the <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of hydro</inline><inline font-style="italic">gen</inline> report. It showed that Australia had the biggest potential pipeline of hydrogen investments—$300 billion—but this was at risk, to be frank, because of policies internationally like the US Inflation Reduction Act. We had to respond. We know that the IEA has said Australia could potentially host up to a quarter of the world's hydrogen projects. Australia could host that, but, again, that was at risk, so the government needed to act.</para>
<para>This is before we even get to the potential for green iron and green steel, which could unleash $65 billion by 2050, a matter that the industry minister has focused on very, very clearly. But we need the green hydrogen industry going to get the green metals industries going as well. I'm happy to confirm to the honourable member that we are focused on and limited to green hydrogen for that.</para>
<para>I also should report to the House about the Guarantee of Origin scheme that we funded last night in the budget with $38 million, so that consumers around the world can see the carbon content of Australian hydrogen. Regardless of the colour, they can see the origin, the carbon content and the antecedents—the energy—which went into that hydrogen, because that is also vital for our ambitions as a hydrogen superpower.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The House will come to order so I can hear from the member for Jagajaga.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. How does this year's budget deliver for Australian women and put equality at the heart of the Australian government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Jagajaga very much for the question. I know the member has been fighting for all her political life and working life for equality for women. She knows, as this side of the House knows, that equality for women has to be at the heart of everything we do. Since coming to office we have made significant headway, and last night's budget takes another step forward in delivering significant investment in Australia's women and investing in programs and policies that will echo long beyond this term of parliament and permanently shift the dial on women's equality. Not since the introduction of the Women's Budget Statement back in 1984 has there been such a deliberate focus on how budget decisions affect women, which we are backing up with funding and with structural reforms.</para>
<para>Our substantial investments include addressing violence against women; a pay rise for aged-care workers, nine out of 10 of whom are women; modernising paid parental leave and making child care cheaper; improving gender pay gap transparency; preventing sexual harassment at work; transforming our workplace relations frameworks to centre gender equality; and reintroducing gender-responsive budgeting. We're investing $1.9 billion to extend the eligibility of the parenting payment to single parents—the majority of whom are women—with a youngest dependent child aged under 14 years. I want to acknowledge particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services for championing that particular measure.</para>
<para>We are investing $2.7 billion to increase the maximum payment rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent for all recipients, with single women making up the majority of the recipients of rental assistance. We're abolishing the punishing ParentsNext program from 1 July 2024 and replacing it with a new voluntary program that better meets and understands the needs of parents and actually sets them up for success, to commence at the earliest opportunity.</para>
<para>We're providing over half a billion dollars in funding to support the National Plan to End Violence against Women and their Children, building on the record investment in the October budget and bringing the total investment to almost $2.3 billion to end this scourge. As I said, we're funding a 15 per cent increase to the minimum wages for aged-care workers. That is a huge change for thousands and thousands of workers across this country. We're investing $26.4 million to support health and medical research focusing on women's health.</para>
<para>This doesn't happen by accident. It happens with purposeful decision-making, making sure that we're putting women at the heart of our budget decision-making processes. These are efforts that are led by all of us, particularly the Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Finance. This is a good budget for Australia's women.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister advise why the government will introduce a biosecurity tax on Australian farmers to pay for their international competitors to bring their products into Australia? Why wouldn't the government make foreign importers pay?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked why the government is introducing the measure that's in the budget. I will tell you why: it's because of a decade of failure of the National Party to put biosecurity funding on a secure footing. The failed National Party literally did not fund biosecurity properly.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littlepro</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's called a tax.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting immediately.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In this budget we are investing more than $1 billion in new funding for biosecurity over four years from 1 July 2023. We know how important that is for our farmers. We also know that biosecurity is a shared responsibility. That $1 billion of new funding over four years will help with our biosecurity operations, our digital systems and Indigenous rangers. From 1 July that system is shared: it is shared by taxpayers, who are putting in the bulk of funding; it's shared by importers, who, in fact, are putting in 48 per cent of the $1 billion of funding; and—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, they're not. You let them off.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If the Leader of the Nationals interjects one more time, he will leave.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>also a small amount by producers, who we know are the major beneficiaries of making sure our biosecurity system is safe.</para>
<para>We have had to do this because those opposite failed to put our biosecurity system on a sustainable footing. When those opposite were last in government they failed to invest in permanent ongoing biosecurity funding for the long term. We have had to fix that and clean up your mess. You failed to implement the biosecurity imports levy—you claimed that it would raise $325 million, but it raised zero dollars. You failed to protect taxpayers by maintaining cost recovery with a system not touched since 2015 because you would not take the hard decisions to put this on a secure footing. You failed to manage the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, leaving that department with a $120 million black hole. That is what you did. You were so concerned about the farmers and the producers in this country that you didn't put biosecurity on a sustainable footing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You didn't make the investments you needed to to make sure that we had funding for the department of agriculture and fisheries. This government continues to protect and grow the agriculture sector. We continue to grow our trade sector for our agriculture and to build the economic resilience that we know our producers absolutely need.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The House will come to order so that I can hear from the member for Fremantle.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>WILSON () (): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the budget change previous policies in order to address immediate energy affordability pressures and to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for Australia's future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for his question and I thank him for his support of our energy relief package. He knows that the best way of expressing support for our energy relief package is to vote for it, which is apparently a novel concept for those opposite, who had a different way of showing their support—by voting against it. That was their preferred approach.</para>
<para>Of course the budget last night did two things. It provided immediate relief for Australian families and businesses and also set us up for our renewable energy future. We provided that relief in a couple of ways. There are the energy rebates that the Treasurer negotiated with his state and territory colleagues, which provide very important support for families and businesses. Five million households and one million businesses will receive that very vital support, which of course comes on top of the relief provided by our coal and gas caps, which we put on in December. These have led to either smaller increases or, in some cases, reductions in energy bills around the country in various states. This is because of this government's action, which was opposed by those opposite.</para>
<para>The other thing we did last night was introduce a new package—the household energy savings plan—because we on this side know that reducing emissions and reducing bills are the same thing. We understand that. They don't get it. Every time they interject they show they don't get it. The Australian people sent them a memo last May, but the memo was returned to sender. They still don't understand that actually helping Australian households become more energy efficient—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If the member for Fairfax interjects once more, he'll leave the chamber. The minister will continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be no loss, Mr Speaker! They show the Australian people that they don't understand that making households more energy efficient and improving energy performance is good for emissions and bills. Last night we allocated a billion dollars to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to assist households make the sorts of decisions they want to make to reduce their bills by investing in clean energy and efficiency.</para>
<para>What I'm particularly proud of also is this: I'm particularly proud of our investment last night in social housing and the energy efficiency of social housing. Much of our social housing stock is very old; public and community housing across Australia is very old and is very energy inefficient. It's very hard for those residents to keep their houses warm in winter and cooler in summer. We're going to help them—up to 60,000 social housing units and houses supported to make their houses more energy efficient and for them to invest in renewable energy, working in partnership with the states. We're very proud of that. Because just because you live in social housing, you shouldn't miss out on the opportunities of renewable energy. You shouldn't miss out on the opportunities of making your home more efficient, which is better for your health, better for the environment and better for your bills. Under this government, you won't miss out.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>JobSeeker Payment</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a question for the Prime Minister. JobSeeker is trapping people in poverty. The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found it inadequate on every measure and recommended returning JobSeeker to its previous level, at 90 per cent of the age pension. This has been backed by business, community, academics and politicians from across the floor. That would be a $19-a-day increase, but the budget only found funding for $3 a day. If we care about giving people a fair go in Australia, how can this be enough?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Curtin for her question. I'm proud of the budget that we brought down last night because it does provide that strong foundation that we need going forward, taking pressure off families, targeted at the most vulnerable, whilst not adding to inflationary pressure. That's the task that we set ourselves as an expenditure review committee. That was led by the Treasurer and the finance minister. One of the things that I said during the election campaign, when I was asked about JobSeeker, was that Labor is the party that will always look after the disadvantaged. We will do more when we can, and last night we did.</para>
<para>We didn't just do JobSeeker. We did rental assistance. We did single parenting payment. As a result of our energy price relief plan, some five million Australians will pay less on their power bills—up to $500 less on their power bills. As a result of our childcare plan, more than one million families will pay less for child care. As a result of our Medicare plan, 11 million Australians will pay less to see a doctor. We put $3½ billion dollars into making sure that Medicare is strengthened. If you are a recipient of any social security and your kid gets sick, we want to make sure that you can get access to see a doctor and that it will be bulk billed. That's why, in addition to that, we want to expand access by having an additional eight urgent care clinics on top of the 50 that we'd announced already.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite scoff. That's about making sure you can get access to a doctor where all you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. It's been well received by state and territory governments across the country. As a result of the measures that we put in place that came in on 1 January, already, in the first four months of the year, Australians paid $76 million less for their prescriptions—$76 million less. And because of this budget another six million Australians will pay less for their medicines. As a result of this budget, 480,000 Australians in total will get access to fee-free TAFE. That's about getting people into employment and offering them the skills so that they can get a job so they get off JobSeeker. That's our task going forward. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget build on the government's commitments to address housing challenges for those Australians most in need, and are there any barriers to the government's plan to build more housing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for McEwen for that question. He, like so many of us in this place, knows that many Australians are doing it tough when it comes to housing costs, trying to deal with increasing mortgages or increasing rentals. That's why we did even more in last night's budget when it comes to housing, whether it be through supporting people into their own home or through adding to supply.</para>
<para>We announced changes last night to the eligibility criteria for the Home Guarantee Scheme. From 1 July, siblings and friends will be able to join together to buy a home under the scheme. We're also allowing access to the scheme for people who have been out of the private housing market for more than a decade. People who have been impacted by financial or family breakdowns who have been out of the private housing market for more than a decade will now be able to access this scheme. These are sensible changes, and they reflect modern Australia. I have heard some commentary from the other side that they are supporting that. I hope that that is the case when it comes to this place.</para>
<para>We also moved to help Australians struggling to pay the rent with, as we've heard, the largest increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. Indeed, we're talking about a 15 per cent increase. Last night we also announced support for build-to-rent projects, to encourage more private-sector investment to increase the depreciation rate on new properties. Of course, we're trying to encourage more international capital into investing in rental homes here in Australia. We're also adding to the supply of social and affordable housing with an additional $2 billion in financing to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which we hope will soon become Housing Australia. We anticipate that that will provide up to another 7,000 social and affordable rental homes. That is building on the things that we have already announced: our initial $575 million and, in our Housing Accord from the last budget, another $350 million for 10,000 additional rental affordable homes, to be matched by the states—another 20,000 in total. And, of course, the centrepiece of our housing policy is our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>When you add up the Housing Australia Future Fund, the Housing Accord and the measures that we had last night, we're talking about 60,000 social and affordable rental homes from the federal government over five years. That is double the amount that the Commonwealth and all of the states together built over the last decade. It is incredibly ambitious, and it's ambitious because it needs to be, because too many Australians are doing it tough. I would say to members opposite and to the Greens: tell your senators to support the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, because too many vulnerable Australians are relying on that bill getting through and on the funding from it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. S&P Global Ratings has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we expect inflation to be stubbornly higher than the Reserve Bank of Australia's target until fiscal 2026.</para></quote>
<para>Why has the Prime Minister brought down a budget which makes inflation worse?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the Treasurer.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to do something unusual, Mr Speaker, and I'm going to give credit to the opposition tactics committee, who decided not to give that question to Angus—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their titles or be warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>to the shadow Treasurer. Having heard the earlier effort, I think it's a good idea that the shadow Treasurer doesn't get any more questions about inflation. When it comes to inflation—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. I will hear from—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right! The Minister for Skills and Training will cease interjecting. I want to hear from the member for Petrie on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's just on reflection on members. This man is supposed to be a leader—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No! The member for Petrie knows that's not a proper use of standing orders—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Twice today—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you want the call again?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm saying that twice today he reflected on the member for Hume—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). That is not an appropriate way to conduct a point of order.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Petrie then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The House will come to order. I want to hear from the Treasurer in silence. He has been asked a question and the person who has asked the question deserves an answer. I call the Treasurer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This shadow minister asks questions about why we spend too much. This shadow minister asks questions about why we didn't spend enough. And I don't know what the reason for this last question was, but, in all seriousness, inflation is obviously the defining challenge in our economy, and that's why it guided our considerations of the cost-of-living package, the growth plan in the budget and also the fiscal restraint, which would be foreign and unrecognisable to those opposite.</para>
<para>Inflation is moderating, but not as quick as we would like. It will be higher than we'd like for longer than we'd like, and that's why we've got a targeted cost-of-living package in the budget which is carefully designed to take some of the pressure off people dealing with these inflationary pressures in the economy, without adding to those inflationary pressures. I read through before, in the response to the shadow Treasurer's question, the economists, including from some of the big private-sector banks, who have said that, at worst, the budget is broadly neutral but that when it comes to our energy plan it's actually putting downward pressure on inflation. And it's also dealing with the areas where the inflationary challenge is the most acute: out-of-pocket health costs, energy costs and rent costs as well. These are the big pressures in the inflation forecast, and that's why we've gone out of our way—in a responsible, methodical and considered way—to try and address these inflationary pressures.</para>
<para>The reason why the budget is in much better nick than it was under those opposite is that we've taken a different approach to the budget. When we've got these upward revisions to revenue, we've banked as much as we could to try and put the budget on a more sustainable footing. That's why the budget in 2022-23, when inflation is most acute, is a contractionary budget, and it's responsible after that as well.</para>
<para>So I understand the embarrassment of those opposite: this side of the House is forecasting a surplus, the first one in 15 years, and they have to try and concoct this outrage. The reality is that the budget position that we inherited is a consequence of a decade of a bin fire of rorts, waste and mismanagement. We have taken responsibility for cleaning up the mess that they left. We made a heap of progress in the budget last night and there will be more to do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese government's second budget building on the work done by the government in its first year and laying stronger foundations for a better future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. Indeed, this is a budget that is providing for a stronger foundation for a better future, understanding, as the Treasurer just said, that we need to give support to take pressure off families while, at the same time, not adding to pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>This is a budget that provides the support where it's needed and when it's needed—right now—as well as building for the future. There's up to $500 of energy bill relief for more than five million households and boosting bulk billing, helping 11 million Australians see a doctor for free. We are halving medicine costs for more than six million Australians. There is $11.3 billion for a 15 per cent pay rise for people in the aged-care sector. There will be 250,000 workers getting a 15 per cent pay increase—no doubt opposed by those opposite. We are getting wages moving again. There are 300,000 fee-free TAFE places. We were told by the Reserve Bank that it is supply chain challenges we need to deal with. There is free TAFE, along with the National Reconstruction Fund, along with our plans for energy—all doing just that. There is the increase in JobSeeker of $40 a fortnight. We are expanding the single parenting payment; boosting rent assistance; investing in affordable and social housing; investing to prevent family and domestic violence; investing over $40 billion to make Australia a renewable energy superpower; and investing in advanced manufacturing, critical minerals and the digital economy. There will be a fund to help households and small businesses become more energy efficient, therefore reducing bills. We are supporting the instant asset write-off, to assist small business.</para>
<para>We're doing all that whilst we're finding examples of terminated funding, due to end on 30 June—child and youth mental health programs, family violence prevention and legal service providers, myGov, My Health Record, the National Library of Australia with its Trove program, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. They are dropping off a cliff on 30 June. The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency is due to end, apparently, in December 2023. We've done all this while forecasting a surplus. Their only surplus was those mugs left in Josh Frydenberg's office!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Address-in-Reply</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before members leave, I remind the House that the address-in-reply will be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House at 10 am tomorrow morning. I should be glad if the mover and seconder, together with honourable members, will accompany me to present the address.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report No. 21 of 2022-23</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 21 of 2022-23, entitled <inline font-style="italic">Department of Defence's procurement of Hunter class frigates: Department of Defence</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Greens proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the Government to lift people out of poverty in this year's budget.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">More</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This budget leaves millions of people behind while giving billionaires a tax cut. By spending a quarter of a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy, Labor is betraying students, jobseekers, renters and everyone who is doing it tough.</para>
<para>In Melbourne right now, people are sleeping in tents in the parks and sleeping in their cars. Queues at food banks are growing. Renters are skipping meals. Meanwhile, the government says they're acting on it. Well, jobseekers who are in poverty get at best an extra $2.85 a day—that doesn't even buy you a loaf of bread—and they remain in poverty after this budget. For the people lucky enough to get Commonwealth rent assistance they might get a dollar or so a day, but rents in capital cities have grown 10 times faster than that. And 5½ million renters who have seen their rents soar get absolutely nothing. This budget and this government just do not understand how serious the crisis is facing people right now.</para>
<para>But the government has managed to find money—over a quarter of a trillion dollars—for tax cuts for politicians, billionaires and the very wealthy. While people on JobSeeker get stuck below the poverty line, every politician in this place gets a $9,000-a-year tax cut, along with Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and all the billionaires in this country. But while 5½ million renters get absolutely nothing, the government continues to spend $7 billion a year of public money on wealthy property investors who've already got three or more properties to go and buy their sixth, seventh and eighth, which pushes up rents and pushes up housing prices.</para>
<para>While the government says that they're tackling the climate crisis, there's $44 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels in this budget at a time when they should be paying more tax, helping lift people out of poverty and helping finance the clean energy transition. The government says, 'Oh well, we couldn't do more because where could we possibly find the money to lift people out of poverty?' In this budget the government is raising more from lifting student debt that students and former students have to pay than they are from the changes to the rules for the big gas corporations. The big gas corporations, in the middle of rising energy bills and a war in Ukraine, are making windfall profits. The big gas corporations brought in $90 billion in revenue in one year and, instead of making them pay their fair share of tax, the government lets them off the hook. The gas corporations, who are gouging people in this country at the moment and who often don't even pay for their gas at all—they get it for free—send their profits offshore, together with the gas, tax free. If they were made to pay their fair share of tax there'd be an extra $9 billion in the kitty that could go to funding a rent freeze, that could go on getting dental into Medicare and that could go to wiping student debt. But, instead, the government asks them to find a bit of loose change down the back of the couch. It is no wonder the big gas corporations are lining up and asking this parliament to pass their gas tax, because the gas corporations know that the government has shifted the burden away from the gas corporations and onto everyday people.</para>
<para>The government is spending more on wealthy property investors than they are spending on building public housing in this country. The single business line item in this budget on housing is giving handouts to wealthy property investors who've already got three, four or five houses to go and buy their sixth, seventh and eighth.</para>
<para>But there is a better way. The Prime Minister said during question time that if the Greens had written the budget it would be a very different budget. You bet! We would make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax and we would not be giving a $9,000 a year tax handout to Clive Palmer. By making the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax and by not giving $7 billion a year to people who've already got multiple properties to go and buy more, we could lift everyone out of poverty in this country. By making the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share of tax, we could fund a rent freeze, we could get dental into Medicare, we could make child care free and we could wipe student debt. That is how you address the cost-of-living crisis in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It takes a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance to walk into this place and accuse the Labor government of not doing enough to help vulnerable Australians when the Greens party—and the Greens MPs in particular—spent their weekend dispatching their volunteers to try and block the affordable housing bill in Labor seats across the country. And while the member for Griffith himself, I'm sure, is about to talk about the need for alleviating poverty, he has been spending his time doorknocking electorates like mine to try and convince my constituents to encourage me to block an affordable housing bill that will make a very real difference and build 20,000 affordable homes across the country, including 4,000 homes for women fleeing DV and for older women at risk of homelessness—a fund that will fund 10,000 affordable rentals to alleviate crippling rental stress and $200 million to repair remote Indigenous housing. That is what they are spending their time encouraging their volunteers to try and persuade us not to do. It is a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance.</para>
<para>I will not be taking a lecture on housing affordability from the lord of the NIMBYs over there, who currently is opposing the construction of more than 470 new affordable homes and units in his electorate—I believe it's more than 1,300 all up—because it would create further congestion. I believe, as reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline>, that he is opposing more than 1,300 affordable homes in his own electorate because it would create further congestion and be a missed opportunity to extend parkland. That is a level of cognitive dissonance that it is difficult for us to process in the wake of the housing crisis in this country and given, supposedly, a sincere desire to alleviate poverty in this country—that you would oppose that, and spend your time to do that, instead of actually working to create more affordable housing in your own electorate.</para>
<para>I think the member for Griffith needs to atone to his own constituents. I'm sure that he promised in the election that he would spend his time campaigning for his people and working on issues that are important to the residents of Griffith. So why is he spending his time focused on the Canberra bubble, seeking to point-score against progressive women in a Labor government, instead of doing actual, tangible things to improve housing affordability in this country, like supporting Labor's affordable housing bill? He is all show, no pony; all sizzle, no steak. His focus seems entirely based upon point scoring in the Canberra bubble rather than genuinely trying to do anything to alleviate poverty either across the country or for the people that he sought to represent.</para>
<para>This budget provides real, tangible, responsible relief to people who need it—people like Maureen from Everton Park, who came to one of my mobile offices two weeks ago begging for help. Maureen is 54 years old. She juggles four or five part-time jobs to supplement her jobseeker allowance. She has no job security. She has shifts regularly cancelled at the last minute. Maureen is a domestic violence survivor, and she said to me that survivors 'have had the strength to leave and to try and raise children outside of violence, and our options are homelessness or suicide'. On top of that, Maureen has struggled to access any kind of bulk-billing health care for years. I said to Maureen: 'I have heard you and I see you, and we will not forsake you.'</para>
<para>The centrepiece of the Albanese government's second budget is a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package over four years that will ease pressure on people like Maureen while putting downward pressure on inflation. Almost 66,000 Lilley residents like Maureen will find it easier to find a bulk-billing GP, thanks to our record investment in Medicare. More than 7,600 people in Lilley will receive a $40 increase in their fortnightly Centrelink payment, with mature-age people like Maureen receiving an additional $92. More than 9,000 renters in Lilley like Maureen will benefit from a 15 per cent boost to the maximum rate of rental assistance. There are 500 single parents in Lilley with kids aged from 8 to 14 who will now receive an extra $176 a fortnight. Around 1.1 million households across Queensland will receive a $500 energy rebate, applied quarterly, from 1 July. And, for survivors of domestic violence like Maureen, we are extending the domestic violence payment, so that they are not forced to stay with their abusers because they cannot afford to leave.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's second budget sees people through difficult times and sets our country up for the future. It helps Australians doing it tough, and it makes significant inroads in cleaning up the mess that we inherited from the coalition. Our aim throughout, whether it's our cost-of-living package, our broader investments in energy or our other efforts to grow the economy, is to make sure that this budget is part of the solution to high inflation and cost-of-living pressures, not adding to the problem. We are delivering more support for the most vulnerable in our country and in our communities because we know that they are doing it tough, and that is possible thanks to the way that we have responsibly managed this budget. These increases are responsible and these increases are targeted to help vulnerable Australians under the pump.</para>
<para>In the grand tradition of Labor governments that help those in need, this budget delivers $11.3 billion to improve life for aged-care workers, who for too long have been overlooked and undervalued. That lack of value and that lack of care ends now. It ends with this budget. We are turning the corner on aged care. We went to the polls on a promise to restore dignity to aged care, and now we are delivering on that promise with a record $36 billion investment in aged care in this budget. That is what Labor does: it supports people who need supporting.</para>
<para>That starts with our $11.3 billion commitment to fund the 15 per cent pay rise. For too long, aged-care workers have been overworked and undervalued. I know that because, back in 2021, I spoke to one of the aged-care workers from Queensland, who told me that she thought she had had one pay rise in the seven years prior and that it was about 25c. She said that she loved her residents but she felt like her boss exploited that love, because love doesn't pay the rent. I wish I could go back and talk to that aged-care worker again because now, as of last night, she could be getting a pay rise of $10,000 a year under this budget.</para>
<para>We anticipate that this pay rise will attract 10,000 workers to the sector, improving life for the aged-care workers and for the residents that they love to care for. This funding package is 10 times more than the previous government's investment in the workforce pillar. It will significantly help providers and facilities meet the 24/7 nursing requirements, it will help our care minutes increase in our residential aged-care facilities and it will ultimately help all older Australians to be safer and receive a higher standard of care. This funding signifies real progress towards genuinely valuing our aged-care workers, some of the lowest-paid workers in this country and some of those people who have been living in poverty while doing the job that they love. We are putting $11.3 billion towards giving them a pay rise. We recognise their dedication. We're rewarding them for their skilled and complex work and the care that they provide to older Australians. Our funding will benefit over a quarter of a million low-paid workers, with nurses receiving up to $10,000 extra per year and personal care workers earning an extra $7,000 per year if they're paid on the award.</para>
<para>I have visited 30 aged-care homes in the 11 months since becoming the minister, and the most common issue raised by staff and residents to me is workforce shortages. We have heard residents and staff. We are putting our money where our mouth is. This record and historic investment is to pay for a 15 per cent pay rise to the award wage, the largest in the history of the Fair Work Act.</para>
<para>And this announcement will help close the gender pay gap. More than 85 per cent of the aged-care workforce is female, and, for decades, this care economy has been undervalued.</para>
<para>This is what alleviating poverty in this country looks like. It looks like valuing the people that work in the care economy. It looks like paying them properly. It looks like putting in place the supports that allow their working ecosystem to flourish. It looks like valuing their work and valuing the sector that they work in and preparing it for the future ahead.</para>
<para>It is the Albanese government that is improving the care economy. It is the Albanese government making record investments to improve the dignity of some of our most vulnerable Australians. We are ambitious for aged care. The Albanese government's historic billions of dollars' worth of funding, including the $36 billion that was in the budget on Tuesday night, will help improve safety and quality of life for older people, just as the royal commission asked us to. Our budget, as handed down last night, will help improve the lives of the most vulnerable Australians in this country—particularly those who do some of the most important work in this country, in our care economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What sort of government is it that can't guarantee a cent, a single cent, for public and affordable housing, but can guarantee $254 billion for everyone in this place to get $9,000 extra a year from tax? They can guarantee $41 billion for fossil fuel subsidies. They can guarantee $16 billion in tax concessions for property investors. But they can't guarantee a cent for public and affordable housing in the middle of the worst housing crisis we have seen in generations.</para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A Labor member over there, just before, told me to grow up. Do you think that your strategy is to tell everyone in this country it's immature to think that, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we can put a roof over everyone's head? Do you think it's a strategy to call people immature because we think it's wrong that you're raising more money from charging interest on student debt than you are from raising taxes on gas corporations? If you think it's a good strategy to tell everyone in this country that it's immature to expect that, while politicians in this place are about to get $9,000 extra per year taken off their tax, no-one in this country should be forced to live on poverty payments, how dare you? The strategy that you resort to is to lie to the Australian public.</para>
<para>Now, if you're watching at home, here's the strategy that they're deploying: they are trying to crush your hope. They are trying to crush your hope. What they are trying to say to you right now is this: 'This is all you can hope for. And, if you hope for anything else, and if anyone comes out and says, "Do you know what? Since you can find $4.2 billion for a surplus, maybe we should be spending $5 billion a year on public and affordable housing," you will get attacked for it. They're trying to bash you down until there is nothing left for you to hope for. But, do you know what? The reality is that the reason they're doing this is not for technical or policy reasons. There's not actually any reason we couldn't tax big corporations and make sure that we build enough public and affordable housing in this country. The private construction industry is in decline. We could be using those skills and construction materials to build public and affordable housing. We could be freezing rent increases, the same as countries around the world have done and as Australia has done before. We could do that, but the reason they don't want to do it is because, really, they are on the side of the banks and property developers who make enormous profits in this country.</para>
<para>Here's the deal: in this budget they're guaranteeing money for property developers and tax concessions to build apartments, that when Mirvac built those apartments—by the way, the outgoing CEO of Mirvac, if you're wondering, is also the person they're appointing to head their National Supply and Affordability Council: what a sick joke—they charged 20 per cent above market rent. Above market rent! Well, guess what? No one in this country is going to take that for much longer. If you think your strategy is to yell and abuse and attack anyone who asks for more—if your strategy is that—you've got another think coming, because there are enough people in this country now who have been screwed over by a political system that snarls at and attacks anyone who asks for more while we have just seen the banks record tens of billions of dollars in profit.</para>
<para>If anyone thinks that's normal and is going to call the Greens radicals for suggesting that in a wealthy country like this the fact is the banks are making billions of dollars in profit and the government can't guarantee a cent for public and affordable housing isn't moderate, then they've absolutely got another think coming. The only radicals in this place are the ones who think doing that is sustainable. The only radicals this place are the ones who think it's okay to give yourselves $9,000 extra a year off on your tax while telling people they have to live on $52 a day. What a sick joke!</para>
<para>It's remarkable, and good to hear, that people are bringing up doorknocking. Maybe I will finish with this. We had someone come into our office, a woman who had just had her rent jacked up by $120 a week. And we were contacted by a man on Centrelink payments, unemployed long term because of a debilitating heart condition but unable to get on DSP. After rent, bills and food he literally did not have the money to pay the $70 train trip to get home to be with his mother. When my team told him we'd transfer $100 immediately so he could book the tickets straightaway and buy some food for the trip, he broke down weeping: he had spent two full days desperately pleading with Centrelink to give him an urgent payment. And you stand here and you think that it's good enough to give yourselves tax cuts while this is happening to people in this country. How dare you?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the late, great Gough Whitlam said, 'Only the impotent are pure.' I might remind my learned Greens scholars across the way of that. Nor have they ever governed, nor they ever will. Woe betide us all should they ever govern. One of the very learned political commentators pulled me aside after the budget lunch today and said: 'Meryl, you know you're doing pretty well when they're attacking you from both sides. It is the old pincer manoeuvre.' But I just have to say to those who have raised this matter of public importance today that they've sadly missed a great opportunity to really raise some of the matters that are of importance to the Australian people.</para>
<para>Yes, rightly, housing is probably among the top things at the moment. People don't want to be living in tents in parks, or in their cars with their children. This government is spending time and money, setting down good policy frameworks so that we will not only be helping those people as of the next financial year but into the next four years. We are saying that we will set a foundation, and not only for affordable housing—whatever that gobbledegook was then about not a dollar for public housing: it's just wrong. We are spending money on these things; we are assigning good trajectories for housing in Australia. That is one of the key fundamentals to anyone who is in poverty.</para>
<para>There's another thing that people in my electorate say to me. I do have areas of very, very high poverty within my electorate and also areas where people are not at such a disadvantage, but the people from the suburbs where they often struggle to make ends meet say to me is, 'You know, Meryl, some of these people in parliament have got so much money that they put up these ideas that none of us could ever afford.' So they actually get fiscal restraint. They get that we not only had to put forward a budget last night that deals with the here and now, with crippling inflation and the fact that the cost of living is very high for people, but had to be a responsible government.</para>
<para>I am exceptionally proud of the fact that Jim Chalmers delivered a surplus, the first surplus in 14 years. People on the opposite benches have been saying, 'A drover's dog could have delivered a surplus,' but, quite frankly, I think that if we listened to some of the policies and the suggestions that we're hearing in these speeches today, it would just be a dog's breakfast; the country couldn't run. They would run us into the ground so quickly that there would be trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt. How would we ever pay it back? Yes, it would be fabulous to spray money around willy-nilly and give everyone all the support under the sun, but we simply can't afford it. That is the reality, and that's the very sad thing. I feel that our friends in the Greens party seem to live in some sort of fiscal fantasy where we should be able to spray money around and give everyone everything. Well, we just can't. The poorest of the poor in Australia understand that, and they don't want us to do that, either.</para>
<para>They want us to be responsible. They want us to put in motion the manufacturing, the jobs and the technology of the future, so that their children might not have to do it as hard as they're doing it. That is one of the key principles of any intergenerational change. Every parent will say to anyone in a position of power, 'I just want my kids to be a bit better off than I was.'</para>
<para>That's what last night's budget was really about. It was about looking back over the last 10 years and asking: really, what has been achieved for our nation in terms of anything remotely financial or anything remotely environmental? I know that is a key tenet of what the Greens want. What has been achieved? Very little, sadly. So we have to go back to zero and say, 'Okay, firstly, what can we afford; secondly, how do we look to the medium and long term?' That's what we did last night. It was responsible and calibrated, and we are giving as much as we can to those who definitely need it. I'm particularly proud of how responsible we've been. 'Responsible'—that's the word that I'd ask you to take away from this budget and that I'd ask the Greens to think long and hard about.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What was it Amanda Vanstone said the day after the 2003 budget, 20 years ago exactly, talking about Peter Costello's tax cuts?</para>
<quote><para class="block">Five dollars? Hell, what will it buy? It might buy you a sandwich and a milkshake if you're lucky. Not much.</para></quote>
<para>When it comes to this budget, if you're on JobSeeker, take out the milkshake. The increase in JobSeeker that was confirmed last night amounts to less than $3 a day—not even enough to buy a train ticket to go to a job interview.</para>
<para>That's the problem in this budget. Reasonable? Yes. Reforming? No. There's something somewhat uncommitted about it. Perhaps this reflects a desire to keep everyone slightly happy, leaving everyone slightly unhappy. I do not envy the challenge before the Treasurer—the need to balance cost-of-living relief against inflation risk—but the outcome is nothing more than tinkering at the edges. Programs are continued, but not many are born, and I see no real commitment to a new agenda. It's feeding the chooks for survival, not growth.</para>
<para>The Albanese government had the opportunity to demonstrate a little courage in the budget and a bit more fairness. Restoring the single parenting payment to single parents, more than 90 per cent women, until their youngest child turns 14 is a win for women, their children, their job prospects and our future prosperity. It's great news. But, even here, the single parenting payment has been left out of the list of working-age payment recipients who'll get the $20-a-week increase. So there's not even half a sandwich for those who were already on the payment, before the age range was expanded. It's a neat reflection of the budget overall, which tries admirably to partly do a lot of things. On election night, the Prime Minister pledged that his government would leave no-one behind. This budget does not fulfil that promise. There's still time.</para>
<para>The 15 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance is welcome, but, with one per cent vacancies and inflation so high, the net result of this change is unlikely to be life changing. The government has ignored the recommendation of its own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to return JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the pension, where it once was, at around $70 a day.</para>
<para>This would be more defendable had the government taken the opportunity to make other budget decisions with foresight—decisions that could move us closer to leaving no-one behind. This is what we need to talk about. For example, with inflation now too high for comfort, there could be a review of the stage 3 tax cuts—the timing and the numbers. There are a range of options beyond dumping them altogether. Or, more pointedly, there could be a root-and-branch review of the tax system to find more effective and fairer ways of raising revenue than our current overreliance on income tax, both personal and company. Stage 3 is now forecast to cost $69 billion over the forward estimates. That's inflationary. We do need to deal with bracket creep—we do—but, as Ken Henry notes, with proper tax reform and if we reduce our overdependence on income tax we might be able to afford stage 3 cuts and fund prosperous communities.</para>
<para>The government has also low-balled the opportunity to get a real return to the Australian people from the mega profits our gas producers receive. The value of LNG exports rose by more than 60 per cent in the past year to $90 billion, but the revamped PRRT is forecast to bring in less than one per cent of that. Something is not adding up. Broad based tax reform and appropriate taxation of what lies beneath our feet would assist budget repair.</para>
<para>This budget is an opportunity missed, and what about other matters like housing and student debt? Experts I've consulted are unanimous that the government's housing package won't do the job. Neither will capping rent—it will simply limit supply—and nor will raiding super. There may be small steps we can take. Rebooting and expanding the National Rental Affordability Scheme would be a start. As for FEE-HELP, and the impact of the recent and unprecedented indexation and graduate debt—which, among other things, impacts their ability to get a mortgage—a bandaid would be to be alter the indexation formula to CPI, the Wage Price Index or the RBA's cash rate, whichever is lower, while working towards an urgent review.</para>
<para>The small-target approach the government showed in its cautious lead-up to the election is still evident in this budget. There is still time to be courageous.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Supporting our most vulnerable and delivering a slim, responsible budget surplus are not mutually exclusive. Just because the Greens can't fathom that doesn't mean Labor can't do it. The best way that we can respond to a cost-of-living crisis is to halt the scourge of inflation, and for the government to pay its dues. Much in the same way that households feel the cost-of-living pressures, so do government. It's easy to posture and post moronic graphics on social media, all the while moving the goalposts on acceptable fiscal policy, but it is a whole other matter to deliver a budget that supports single parents, invests in women and restores funding to our national institutions.</para>
<para>We've had to clean up and consolidate projects that the other lot left behind, because it has become increasingly obvious that the opposition can't finish anything. But the Greens can't fathom balancing a budget or understand the real, grown-up challenges that come with a budget. I suggest that maybe it's time they grow up. Maybe it is time they gave up word art and got into the modern day when they're posting their memes. What we saw last night was just an example of the student-politics-based Greens party in this place. They've gone from a green environmental movement and a social justice movement to nothing but a bunch of obstructionists, who actually sit there and pontificate about all these wonderful things that they could do, but they will never be in a position to do them, and they never do. The hypocrisy over there is writ large. You hear them talking about how we should have rent freezes and we should do this and we should do that. The Greens own 15 investment properties. That includes members who have three.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know any of them; maybe you'd be able to help. But, of course, all we hear from them is constant carping, whinging and complaining but never real solutions. You would think, if public housing and affordable housing were issues as big as the Greens like to pontificate they are, they would do something about them. At the first opportunity that came forward, Greens MPs, Greens counsellors blocked public housing. Because, when they talk about public housing and affordable housing, they don't want it in their inner-city electorates—'Oh, no, we can't have those people living in our areas.' They blocked every one. Go and talk to the member for Melbourne and ask him about the blocking by the Yarra council on Fitzroy. If you want affordable housing and if you want social housing, you need to put them where jobs are. You need to put them where services are, and you need to put them where transport is. But every single time there is a proposal to build affordable and public housing in the city where these things are, they say no.</para>
<para>The reality is the elitists that sit over there want to have public housing areas but not in their areas—'Oh, no, let's put those people out in the suburbs,' then complained there are no services. It is absolutely ironic that you sit there and say, 'I'm going to bring a matter of public importance to the parliament. This is the most important thing we need to deal with on a day-to-day basis, but they couldn't even last five minutes on their speech. All they were doing was ranting and raving about nothing. They had no positive plans, no solutions, no support. You would think, if you wanted public housing to be there, you would be supporting homes for people fleeing family violence. But, no, they don't; they blocked the bill. You've got the senators over there in the sleepy Senate. Go in there and tell them to support the bill and get things happening. All we see is a continuation by the Greens to constantly block, obstruct and carry on like pork chops—as we saw last night with that meme by the Greens that went out on the budget. It was the most childish thing I've seen in this place, and, believe me, I've seen a lot of things. That was ridiculous.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Fernando</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Using clip art!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Using clip art! It's not even a program from this decade. That's how far behind they are. It was absolutely silly and childish.</para>
<para>What we've done is sit down and look at the mess that we were left by those opposite, and we've actually formulated a budget that helps people. People will be able to see a doctor. People fleeing family violence can get a house. People on low incomes can get a house—all these opportunities to go forward. Yet we keep hearing the wailing and the screaming and the carry on about billionaires getting tax cuts. What the Greens have proposed is people earning $45,000 a year do not deserve a tax cut. That is exactly what they've said, and they've tried to claim that's the billionaires. Well, I can tell you that people earning 45 grand a year do not own three investment properties.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge that the government made some attempts to alleviate poverty in the budget released last night, and these are important, but the biggest impact government could have on alleviating poverty would be increasing JobSeeker to above the poverty line. So what is the right amount of support? In a country like Australia, we should be able to set our safety net at a level that means people can still access the basics of life and live with dignity but that we're not destroying incentives to work. We should be able to avoid people living below the poverty line, which is about $68 a day for a single adult. This assumes the basics and no complexities in your life. As anyone trapped in poverty knows, there are complexities that add to costs—health issues, family complexities, mundane challenges like not having a big enough fridge or transport so you can't buy in bulk. Below this level, this poverty line, we're trapping people in poverty. They can't focus on getting a job because they're worrying about how to feed their kids or keep their housing.</para>
<para>In my work at Anglicare WA, I heard heartbreaking stories about choosing between food and medication or how one bill can spin you out of control. Our system is punitive: people feel shame and isolation, they lose connection with their communities and they find themselves in entrenched disadvantage. So what are we doing now? People on JobSeeker are living on $49 a day, now increased to $52 a day, which is well below the poverty line of $68 a day. This increase is better than nothing, but it won't make a significant difference.</para>
<para>What does the government actually think about this? The government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found that every available indicator showed that the current rates of JobSeeker and related payments were seriously inadequate when they're measured against payments overseas, against the minimum wage, against pensions or against poverty lines. It recommended restoring the relativities of the mid-1990s, when unemployment benefits were about 90 per cent of the age pension. This would be an increase from $49 a day to $68 a day. The change made in the budget is $3 a day, instead of the $19 a day recommended by the panel.</para>
<para>What do communities think? There is broad community support for a substantial increase. ACOSS has issued an open letter calling for this $19 a day increase. This has been signed by a huge range of MPs, community leaders, economists, prominent leaders and academics. The BCA and the Committee for Economic Development of Australia backed this change too.</para>
<para>My community of Curtin is relatively wealthy. One of the things that constantly impress me is that my community is not entirely self-interested. I meet people every day who are worried about others, people who want to live in a country where we treat people fairly. The data bears this out. Surveys consistently show that a majority of people think that JobSeeker should be higher than it is.</para>
<para>What would it cost to put unemployed people out of poverty? ANU analysis shows that lifting JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the pension rate would cost about $5.7 billion a year, which is a four per cent increase in total welfare payments and less than one per cent of total government spending. So we could increase government spending by one per cent and lift nearly one million people out of poverty.</para>
<para>How could we pay for this? I acknowledge that we need to address the structural deficit in the budget—inflation affects everyone—but in a budget of $680 billion surely we can find $6 billion so that all Australians can be fed and housed and live with dignity. There are numerous ways to do this. There's broad appetite for a Ken Henry-style review of our tax system. We could consider taxing passive income. We could increase the GST. We could make serious reforms to the PRRT. Or, in the absence of broader tax reforms, we could reshape the stage 3 tax cuts.</para>
<para>After COVID we have a greater understanding of how easily hardworking people can slip into crisis. In every budget we as a country are making decisions about what we value. Of the $680 billion we spend, we can find $6 billion to significantly change the lives of one million people. I urge the government to listen to the voices of the community, business and its committee and make a commitment that no Australian will live in poverty. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night I watched the Treasurer deliver a responsible commonsense budget, and I am proud because this government is delivering on its promises. We are addressing the immediate challenges facing people right now and delivering much-needed cost-of-living relief. But don't take my word for it.</para>
<para>Less than 24 hours on from the budget I am being told how much this will help my constituents, particularly those on low incomes. In fact, this morning I received an email from a constituent, Tom. Tom is a GP at Kiama Downs. Tom told me that he's so happy after seeing the budget news last night. Do you know why? I'll tell you. Tom told me, and these are his words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">People in our community on low incomes, and those with chronic severe diseases will now have a fighting fair chance at affordable health care again.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say that the patients who attend his practice will be happy for years to come. That is a fantastic outcome.</para>
<para>I have GPs calling and emailing me to tell me that they're now going to be able to bulk-bill everyone who needs it. That is an incredible achievement, and one that I'm proud of. Eighty-nine thousand people in Gilmore will benefit from the strengthening of Medicare. That is an absolute win because being able to avoid and/or manage chronic conditions and being able to see a doctor when you need to are the best ways to lift people out of poverty. Our cheaper medicines policy will halve the amount of money that 50,000 people in Gilmore will pay for their scripts—50,000 people will have their medication costs halved.</para>
<para>And what about electricity prices? In Gilmore, we have a lot of veterans, a lot of pensioners and seniors and a lot of people who hold concessions cards. I'll tell you what, $500 off their next electricity bill will mean a lot. It'll mean a whole lot. Helping people pay their electricity bills is a good way to alleviate the rising cost of living and help keep people out of poverty.</para>
<para>You know what isn't a good way to lift people out of poverty? It's to oppose the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is what the coalition and Greens are doing. They are fighting against the millions of people the Housing Australia Future Fund will help. People like a young mum in Worrigee who I've spoken about in this chamber before and the dozens of other people contacting my office every single week looking for help finding a home or the 50 people in Moruya living in a campground with nowhere else to go. I encourage the coalition and Greens to have a think about that and to support the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>But what about renters? In the budget, we've increased the Commonwealth rental assistance by 15 per cent. This is the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. Around 1.1 million households will benefit from this increase.</para>
<para>We wanted to ensure that this budget would help people through difficult times, which is why we've increased the parent payment for single parents. As a result of our changes, 57,000 single parents will see an increase to their income support payment, and payments for single parents are one of the higher payments in the income support system, recognising the difficulty of balancing care and work as a single parent with young children. That's something I'm proud to support.</para>
<para>We're delivering more support for the most vulnerable in our community, because we know they're doing it tough. Not only that, we've also responsibly manage the budget. We are providing real assistance to people who need it. We're delivering real cost-of-living relief. Last night we delivered the biggest ever investment in bulk billing, lowered the cost of medicines, funded the biggest-ever pay rise for aged-care workers, offered real relief on electricity bills, and that's not even all of it. The Albanese Labor government is creating opportunities that all Australians can share in and making the services we rely on stronger. Our plan will grow the economy, create new jobs, boost renewable energy and invest in skills and training. It is a responsible budget, a practical budget.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm currently running a survey on housing in my electorate. The responses have been astonishing and heartbreaking. I've heard from renters struggling with exorbitant rent increases and mortgage holders being pushed to their absolute limit by interest rates hikes: cutting back on groceries to only bare essentials, no longer able to pay for preventative health care or exercise. Only recently one person shared with me that, even with a full-time job, they've had to rely on family support and food banks just to get by. There are families living in cars and tents in Ryan—in Australia. Shame!</para>
<para>Is this the Australia we want? It's not the Australia that I or the overwhelming majority of Australians want, but it's the Australia that the Treasurer seems to be more than happy with. Budgets, more than words, reveal who's side a government is on. With this budget, Labor have shown clear as day that they are on the side of billionaires, of big coal and gas corporations and of property moguls. They are not on the side of everyday Australians struggling with the cost of living. The Treasurer talks of $14.6 billion in cost-of-living relief. Sounds big, right? But that's actually over the next four years, so, in fact, it's only about $3½ billion dollars. Sounds a bit less now, doesn't it? If you divided that evenly across the population, that's $137 each a year. Sounds quite small now, right? Well, it gets worse. That $3.5 billion is one-eighth of what the government is spending each year on tax cuts for the very wealthy. It is one-quarter of what the government is shelling out each year on those nuclear subs that we don't need. It's one-fifth of the government subsidies to property investors every year, and it's far less than this government pays to fossil fuel corporations. The federal government is also spending twice that amount, about $7 billion, on the Brisbane Olympics. Make absolutely no mistake: cost-of-living relief is not a priority in this budget.</para>
<para>So spare us the 'difficult decisions' rhetoric, Treasurer. You didn't make difficult decisions in this budget. Difficult decisions are the ones millions of Australians are making every day, and your budget will not make any difference for those having to make those decisions. Your budget will change nothing for families having to choose between paying for groceries or filling up their car. None of the, frankly tokenistic, cost-of-living relief is going to help my constituent who told me they are under such severe mortgage stress that they can no longer afford meat for their family. An extra $1.15 in rent assistance a day is not going to help renters facing eviction after a $150-a-week increase.</para>
<para>But, wow, congratulations on the surplus, Treasurer! Gold star! I'm sure that a surplus is really comforting to people out there on the brink of homelessness, people who are unable to afford anything more than the barest essentials at the supermarket or people struggling to pay to heat their homes this winter.</para>
<para>There's an alternative. If we got rid of the stage 3 tax cuts and the nuclear subs, and if we made multinational companies pay their fair share, we would have well over half a trillion dollars to provide real cost-of-living relief. And here's what we could do with that. We could invest $5 billion in public and affordable housing each year and build enough homes to ensure everyone has a secure place to live. Surely that's what we want, isn't it? We could wipe out all student debt. We could freeze power bills at their pre-crisis levels and substantially invest in cheap and reliable renewable energy to bring down power prices long-term. We could raise the aged pension and JobSeeker, as my colleague mentioned, over the poverty line. We could make public transport free for everyone. This is the money we could have. We could fully fund our healthcare system by putting dental and mental health into Medicare. We could fully fund our public schools and eliminate out-of-pocket costs for parents.</para>
<para>The government wants you to believe that genuine help for struggling Australians is impossible, but ask yourself this: why can they find the $368 billion for subs and $254 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, but only $3.5 billion for cost-of-living relief? Why? Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I look at this MPI, I shake my head in disbelief. It reminds me—and has a similar hypocrisy to it—of when, in 2009, the Greens blocked the CPRS scheme, and then each day since have called for more urgent and greater action on emission reductions and climate change. I don't know what cloud the Greens have got their head in, but let me just quote some of the headlines from the front pages of today's papers. From the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> in Melbourne: 'Jim's battler bulk-up'; the Hobart <inline font-style="italic">Mercury</inline>: 'Boost to battlers'; the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline>: 'Jim's war on bills'; the <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline> in Brisbane: 'One for the true battlers'; the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline>: 'Pain relief'; and the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> in Sydney: 'Jimmy brings', and it goes on to say, 'Budget works a Chalm for mum', with the first line being: 'Treasurer Jim Chalmers knocked on the door of low-income Australians with a delivery of goodies in last night's federal budget.' Here we have the Greens saying that we are not doing enough for those in real need in this country, and yet the front page of just about every major publication in Australia today says the exact opposite. Someone is clearly out of step with reality, and I suspect it's the people in the Greens who have moved this motion.</para>
<para>Other speakers in this debate have talked about what was in the budget last night that goes directly towards helping the most needy in this country. I'll touch on some of that because, quite frankly, in the time I have, I don't have time to go through all of the assistance measures that were proposed in last night's budget. The bulk billing initiative of $3.5 billion—which will help concession cardholders and children under 16—is direct assistance to everyone in Australia who needs that assistance, including the very people that the Greens and the Independents would say that they are speaking up for. It's projected that the pharmacy dispensing changes will help some six million Australians by reducing their medicine expenses by up to a half. Again, who needs that most? The very people that are in the greatest need.</para>
<para>The $3 billion energy price relief plan in conjunction with the state governments will help households and small businesses. The $4.9 billion JobSeeker payment increase also goes to youth allowance and student income payments and the like. I heard those speakers that support their motion saying that it doesn't go far enough. They forget to say that those same jobseekers also benefit from the bulk-billing changes and benefit from the cheaper medicines. They also benefit from the rent relief that is being provided, and they benefit from the 300,000 fee-free TAFE skills training places announced in last night's budget as well. We then go to the Commonwealth rent assistance, which I just mentioned has been allocated $2.7 billion, and the $1.9 billion for the single parent payment, which has now been expanded until the youngest child is 14 years of age.</para>
<para>Of course, there is the $11.3 billion for the aged-care fund, which the aged-care minister spoke about earlier. That fund will not only support the 250,000 workers in the sector but, just as importantly, will provide some real benefits to the very people in aged-care homes for whom we on this side have been calling for more funding for years. These are some of the most vulnerable people in society, many of them locked away in aged-care homes without any support whatsoever and without the proper care. That's what I call vulnerability, and that is why this government is putting $11.3 billion into supporting those very people. I turn to the stage 3 tax cuts which members opposite continuously refer to. They don't come into effect until 2024-25. They are not in this budget, and why they keep referring to them I don't know. But quite frankly it diminishes their arguments when they are dishonest about the stage 3 tax cuts.</para>
<para>This is indeed a responsible budget that was handed down last night by the Treasurer. It build the foundations for the future. It tries to control inflation, interest rates and unemployment, all of which directly hurt the very people they claim they are standing up for in this place. That's why the Treasurer brought down the budget he brought down. It sets the foundation for the future to help those very people in most need.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by acknowledging that I have no doubt that every single person that has spoken to this motion this afternoon has come from a place where we want to see the best outcomes for Australians, so we meet united on that front. I also have no doubt that if there is ever going to be a time or place when we should discuss how decisions are made around where money is spent, it is the day after a budget is brought down. I 100 per cent applaud those sitting on the side of the chamber representing the government in their unwavering support of the budget that was delivered last night, but I would ask them at the same time to be open to constructive discussions around where we may have been able to make different choices and where we may be able to do better in future years in the area of budgeting.</para>
<para>According to the Cambridge English dictionary, a band-aid solution is 'a temporary solution that does not go to the cause of the problem'. And, since examining the budget papers last night, I'm sorry to say I actually fear that what was delivered when it comes to lifting people out of poverty and addressing intergenerational inequity was actually typified by a number of band-aids put over areas that actually need fundamental and true reform. The truth is Australia's social security system, unemployment and underemployment, the cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis are pushing more and more Australians in to poverty. A 2022 snapshot of poverty found there were 3.3 million people living below the poverty line in Australia, including 760,000 children. The impact on young Australians and single parents, the majority of whom are women, is particularly notable. Women experiencing domestic violence are frequently forced to make one of two decisions: stay in a violent relationship, or leave and live in poverty. The most recent data shows that of the 220,000 single mothers in Australia currently accessing single parent payments, three out of five had experienced violence. The additional funding in last night's budget for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is welcomed, and, yes, it is overdue through no fault of the current government. But the truth is, while domestic violence breaks families, it is arguably government policy which is leaving them in poverty.</para>
<para>Prior to 2006, a single parent could be eligible for the parenting payment plan up until their youngest child turned 16. Last night, we saw a change in strategy from this government that means single parents can now access that payment up until their child is 14. On behalf of the people of North Sydney, advocates and frontline workers, I was relieved to see this in the budget, and I want to thank the government for progressing it. But the reality is it is arguably a bandaid solution because single parents don't stop caring for their children when they turn 14; the caring cost burden continues through their teenage years. For those of us with teenage children, I hate to tell you: they get more expensive, not less.</para>
<para>In truth, there was very little in last night's budget when it comes to young Australians. There was no relief for rising university debts, little support for those struggling with their mental health and underwhelming action to meet the challenge on climate change. This is creating increasing intergenerational inequity. Hear me out: young people want to own their own home, but, increasingly, it's becoming unlikely. In 1981, 67 per cent of 30-year-olds owned their own home. In 2016, the equivalent figure was 45 per cent. As the Grattan Institute notes, however, this hides an even more disturbing and concerning disparity because there's a huge fall among the poorest young people. In 1981, 60 per cent of the poorest 25- to 34-year-olds owned their own home. Today, that figure is 20 per cent.</para>
<para>We must stop and listen to young people as they tell us what they need and how they want us to respond. Serious steps must be taken to advance housing affordability and availability, which is why I back the housing affordability fund. But we need to look at how we are boosting housing supply, and we need to look at whether that means we should be reducing tax breaks for investment properties which sit empty. We need to see improved outcomes for people who don't own their own homes by changing rental laws to give renters more rights, increasing the supply of social housing and giving an even greater boost to rent assistance.</para>
<para>Ultimately, the government must revisit the long list of productivity enhancing reforms that have been advanced by federal and state productivity commissions to boost long-term living standards. We must get our macroeconomic policy settings right.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6992" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6999" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>BRIAN MITCHELL () (): I'm proud to speak today on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. Australia is facing a skills shortage across many of our critical industries. These shortages have been neglected for nine long years of failed Liberal government. For nearly a decade the Liberal National government cut TAFE and slashed apprenticeships. Today we have 85,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships compared to 2013 when the Liberal National government came to power. So despite nine years of largely economic growth and population growth—apart from that small blip of recession during the pandemic—we've got fewer people in apprenticeships and traineeships than nine years ago, a scandalous arrangement that this government is committed to addressing.</para>
<para>That neglect has come to an end with this government. Employers, frankly, have been finding it very difficult to find qualified staff in key areas, including health care, child care and aged care. Nursing and personal care professionals are amongst the hardest working people to find in this nationwide skills shortage. These are critical industries and yet we can't find the workers. Hopefully we'll address some of that with the aged-care worker wage rise that we've just passed through the budget, but time will tell.</para>
<para>A core business of this government is to create more opportunities for all Australians to prosper. This government will ensure more skilled and secure job opportunities for all Australians regardless of where they live. At the 2022 federal election the Prime Minister and Labor told the people of Australia that we would tackle the skills crisis in Australia head-on. We promised we would get straight to work on fixing the issue with no broken promises, no spin and no deflection from the issues at hand. Today we continue to make good on that promise to the people of Australia and we take important steps into ending the skills crisis across the country.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia is an independent advisory body that will provide advice on the labour market to government, ensuring the skill shortage mess we were left by the previous government does not happen again. This bill before the House gives effect to the Australian government's commitment to finalise the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body to be established and funded as announced in the 2022-23 October budget, and the amendment ensures that representation across the board is underpinned by expertise. We are serious about fixing the skills crisis, and this bill helps us achieve it. Jobs and Skills Australia will operate as a truly tripartite organisation with unions, employers and state and territory governments brought in as partners, informing and resolving the skills and labour market crisis that we are facing and the need to build the workforce we need for Australia's future.</para>
<para>Jobs and Skills Australia will also conduct a national study on adult literacy, numeracy and digital literacy skills to provide an up-to-date evidence base on levels of these foundation skills among Australian adults. This will be the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia. The results will help us successfully design future programs and policies, ensuring we have a skilled Australian workforce. We know that recent employment growth has been in areas that require a post-school higher education qualification. It's never been more critical to have post-school qualifications. It should be a right for everyone, from every background, to have the opportunity to study at a higher level, whether they're rich or poor, in the city or in the regions.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has taken action on these issues in the October 2022-23 budget. We budgeted $6.3 billion for vocational education training in the 2022-23 financial year. Last night we continued and added even more. We are delivering on our promise to upskill Australia and tackle the skills shortages, and we are committed to doing this right across Australia for all Australians. It's good for young people who want to get into a trade and it's good for the economy. Fee-free TAFE is focused on addressing the skills shortages that we face today. These courses are leading to jobs that are needed most by employers in Australia right now. To provide greater opportunity for Australians to have secure and rewarding employment, we must be able to skill and reskill our workforce effectively. For many people, course fees are a barrier to getting into training and work. Fee-free TAFE removes that barrier. Of the 3,800 additional fee-free TAFE places for Tasmania for 2023, we've seen now 2,200 enrolments in a very short space of time. It's a policy that's working. It's providing the skills that are needed in Tasmania for Tasmanians, providing the businesses and sectors of our economy the skills that they are crying out for. That's good for our economy, good for students and good for businesses. Reducing cost-of-living pressures and ensuring no-one is left behind is a key element of the Albanese government's plan and central to our fee-free TAFE and VET initiative.</para>
<para>The Australian government understands that people living in regional, rural and remote areas face unique challenges. This bill will ensure Jobs and Skills Australia produces enhanced regional-level data and analysis of skills and workforce needs, to provide a greater understanding of jurisdictional differences, such as changing economic conditions or emerging industries.</para>
<para>Australia has the second highest labour supply shortages across all OECD countries, with three million Australians currently lacking the fundamental skills required to participate in training and secure work. It's a shameful legacy of the former government, which we must contend with. I know this is the case in Tasmania and in my own electorate. We don't have enough skilled workers. It's affecting our productivity and the ability of our people to find secure and meaningful employment.</para>
<para>Tasmania's skill shortage was ignored by the previous government. Remote and rural workers nationally wanting to upskill or re-skill were ignored by them. Our youth were left high and dry with fewer prospects while the Liberals and Nationals were in government. Under the Albanese government this is about to change. Jobs and Skills Australia will help our regions to thrive and will give our workforce a much needed and long overdue skills boost. Under our government, future skill shortages will be addressed as they arise and with time to spare. This government won't be caught chasing its tail, and it will ensure that skills shortages are identified and dealt with.</para>
<para>I'm genuinely excited for the future of jobs and skills in Tasmania and for the people of Tasmania. As part of the October budget, Sorell, in my electorate, will receive $1.5 million to fund an upgraded jobs hub. I recently welcomed the minister for skills to my electorate to visit the site, which will soon be underway, and to speak to the team of Business and Employment Southeast Tasmania to discuss the amazing benefits this jobs hub will bring to the people of Sorell and the wider region. This jobs hub will combat the severe skills shortage we are facing in the south-east of Tasmania, a fast-growing area, and will ensure good training and secure employment for the people of Sorell and surrounds. The Sorell BEST Jobs Hub will offer practical trade skills to high school students and school leavers as well as adults, ensuring that those who are ending their school journey won't be left high and dry without the necessary skills to gain secure employment. This new jobs hub will ensure demand is met and all young people in the area get the opportunity to upskill and prepare for their future.</para>
<para>Young people living in rural and regional areas in Tasmania and, indeed, across Australia deserve the same opportunities as those living in our cities. They deserve access to services which will benefit their future without having to travel great distances for it. That's what the jobs hub will achieve, and that's what this government is delivering for the people of Lyons and the people of Australia. Kids in the regions need to have the opportunity to access these services in places like Sorell. The Albanese government is making that happen. With the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia, we will see patterns in skill shortages evolving, enabling us to take action and not be left in the sorry mess that we inherited.</para>
<para>While with the Minister for Skills and Training, I had the great pleasure of visiting the Clarence TAFE campus—which is just across the border from my electorate in the electorate of Franklin, represented by my good friend the Minister for Housing and Minister for Small Business—where we met some students studying aged care. They were in the last four weeks of their, I think, six-month course. There were about 20 of them, and nearly every one of them has got a job to go to. We've got some critical shortages in the aged-care industry, and nearly every one of them has got a job to go to. The TAFE is doing a really terrific job of skilling them up for that job, and we saw them being put through their paces. We were talking to some of those students. Most of them are doing that course because it's fee free. Of course, aged care is an area of critical skills shortage. Most of them were women, but there were a couple of fellas. There was one older woman who said that she'd never dreamed that she'd be back in the workforce and that fee-free TAFE had allowed her the opportunity to get back and get that qualification. She's really looking forward to becoming an aged-care worker and filling a very critical role. That is the difference that we can make.</para>
<para>In conclusion, Jobs and Skills Australia will support a strong, skilled Australian workforce and will provide the necessary prompts when existing and emerging skills are more in demand. It will provide the foundations necessary to enable federal, state and territory governments, unions and employers to make decisions to invest in education and training appropriate to our needs and to improve skill development and employment opportunities for our workforce that will, in hand, aid our economic growth. It puts a figure, a percentage or a statistic on basic as well as advanced skills traits, looking not only at how we can advance our future workforce but at how we can upskill our current one.</para>
<para>A higher skilled workforce is a productive one; they're better paid and they have better job security. It's part of the foundations that the Labor Party was built on, and Jobs and Skills Australia is one of the building blocks necessary to ensure that our workers have the tools they need for the future. The Albanese Labor government is striving to ensure a future Australia has a skilled, secure, well-paid and happy workforce. That's a better future for this country indeed. I commented the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I held a forum recently with various stakeholders in my Fowler electorate, from childcare providers and workers to vocational education and training providers, teachers and social workers—just to name a few—to gauge and to understand what challenges they were facing. One of the key issues they raised was skills and workforce shortages and the fact that our system actually impedes rather than assists them in unblocking the skills and workforce pipeline. I want to provide some insights from my community of Fowler so that we can hear how the Jobs and Skills Australia board, a system that the government is setting up, need to make sure they're not another layer of bureaucracy that would really create another blockage in this pipeline.</para>
<para>One of our local school principals, Lachlan Erskine from Cabramatta High School, shared with me some of the demand for VET courses, vocational education and training courses, at the school. Unlike many other high schools in Fowler, Cabramatta High offers six VET courses. This VET opportunity is a fantastic pathway for many of our students, the majority from refugee and migrant backgrounds. Yet teachers in schools are constantly asked to upskill and attend training for up to five to 15 days, which is a very long time for a teacher to be away from school. Teachers who, for example, are teaching hospitality and have taught hospitality for over 20 years still need to attend yearly training. What has really changed in hospitality so much that there is a constant need to send VET teachers to training annually? There is a need to streamline compliance for VET teachers, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed straightaway by the JSA board in setting up their scope on how they can be a vehicle to unblock this skills shortage and workforce shortage pipeline.</para>
<para>We have seen governing bodies like ASQA, who assess regulations for RTO and VET courses, and SkillsIQ, for child care, constantly changing the course and skill set requirements in these sectors. I have no doubt there are good intentions of ensuring we have exceptional quality and performance when delivering in these sectors, but surely there are opportunities to refine the system so that it doesn't put immense pressure on trainers and assessors and people working in the sector to be constantly retrained, causing the sector so much administrative burden, cost and loss of time.</para>
<para>Recognition of prior learning is also important. Some VET teachers are asked to undergo training on things which, as teachers, they are already required to know—for example, administration skills and digital literacy skills. This puts a huge administrative burden on VET teachers in schools, who have to upload evidence for each student so they can be assessed. They are already teachers, and they have the skills to do this. Surely this must be eliminated so that teachers can teach VET courses in the school environment to enable and nurture those students to get the skills required so that they can enter the workforce to help plug the skills gap.</para>
<para>I have no doubt that what I have just painted is just a small picture of how our system and bureaucracy can cause such a bottleneck in our ability to release the skills and workforce shortages in our economy. My community of Fowler—and, I have no doubt, communities across the country—are currently facing and feeling the pain of the cost of living, from the skill shortages, rising rents, rising interest rates, costs of food and fuel and costs of forcing businesses and community to transition to zero emissions to the impact of migration on housing, the environment, jobs and small business. I can't help but feel somewhat cynical when organisations rebrand, as that would only add to the cost of delivering outcomes. That said, I would urge the newly rebranded Jobs and Skills Australia board to really ensure that they will not be another governing body that will add layers of bureaucracy stifling the ability to kickstart our economic engine.</para>
<para>In Fowler, manufacturing is our largest employer. Almost 40 per cent of our population is employed in the manufacturing sector, compared to 5.9 per cent of Australia's workforce. I would like to remind the House that we have seen the grit and resilience of my community in Fowler and their potential and capabilities in powering this state and this country through the COVID lockdown. They were the construction workers, they were the factory workers packaging goods and foods, they were the truck drivers and deliverers, and they were the nurses, the childcare workers and the aged-care workers, just to name a few. Our community is unlike any other that you'll find in Australia, with more than 170,000 people from over 70 different ethnicities. We most certainly have the human capacity here in Fowler. We in Fowler and south-west Sydney are the economic engine of Australia.</para>
<para>If we want to grow manufacturing in this country, for instance, we need to invest in local manufacturing and encourage our local manufacturers to take risks, to build their businesses here, especially in areas like Fowler, where there's a large manufacturing region. To ensure we have a thriving and productive manufacturing sector to support workers, we must have the manufacturing skills required to do this. That means investing in young people, those who don't see a future in tertiary education but need a pathway to tap into their skills to contribute back to building our society. It is therefore critical that Jobs and Skills Australia's board work with TAFE and other local educational institutions to empower young people to learn the skills to produce and make products.</para>
<para>I have spoken with local representatives from TAFE in my area as well, and they have told me that they are plagued constantly with enrolment issues—processes and procedures at the administrative level that are failing and causing problems for students, especially in areas with high migrant and English-as-a-second-language populations. There's no point in creating boards if we aren't addressing the problems at a grassroots level. Our kids need a pathway to be able to enrol into TAFE courses.</para>
<para>And it's not just for our youth but also for those adults who want to upskill or those migrants whose overseas qualifications do not get the recognition they deserve in Australia. These highly skilled individuals can surely be tapped into, enabling their skills to be transferred, so that they can have dignity in building their lives here in this new country. If these people can't enrol in TAFE and we are providing hundreds and hundreds of free TAFE courses, then how are they going to access these courses? How will the Jobs and Skills Australia board help them? We have to also consider the vocational training sector, which has been outsourced to RTOs and which are needed to lodge an apprenticeship. Nothing happens from there. If RTOs are needed to lodge and organise an apprenticeship or placement, this service should see the process from start to finish, not part of the way. What are we paying an RTO for if they cannot even enrol the student in TAFE to complete the process of becoming an apprentice? It seems that the system lacks the staff motivation to get things going. I don't see this behaviour in the private sector, and, frankly, it should not be tolerated.</para>
<para>As we talk about the increasing number of free TAFE courses, which both the state government and the federal government have announced in the budget—which is great—I really urge our government to look at how these free courses can be accessed so that people in an electorate like Fowler, where English is a second language, can actually access them, not to just promote free courses that we can't access. We need to make training resources easier for students and employers and those needing them and not introduce complex processes that are just time wasting. Jobs and Skills Australia must respond to the current jobs and skills crisis. It must have a plan to get Australians working, to get them skilled, trained and empowered to build a society that is connected, knowledgeable and ready to seize opportunities and face challenges. The plan must have measures and take the community along. While we are below average in adult literacy in my electorate of Fowler, I'm encouraged that many of our young students, with the dedication and commitment from our local teachers, are building on their digital literacy skills as well as their knowledge of STEM. It goes without saying, for a diverse community like Fowler, that we need the right support and advice that speak to people from multicultural, diverse and migrant communities.</para>
<para>I imagine a future Australia where my community in Fowler is the global leader in many areas—manufacturing, digital literacy, technology—a proud producer of Australian-made goods and a changemaker in the digital and STEM space. So I think it's important that the Jobs and Skills Australia board represents the diversity of my community while representing the challenges and opportunities we face every single day. I would ask the Jobs and Skills Australia board, once it has been formed and established, to visit me in Fowler and see how unique our community is, see that there are skills there, and, with a high unemployment rate of 10 per cent, which is three times the national average, see if there is something that we can do to address the unemployment rate and bring it down. I will welcome the opportunity to have the Jobs and Skills Australia board members and, of course, the minister come out and look at our area so that we can actually get solutions from the community. From my experience, speaking to our local community at the grassroots level is a key important thing that we need to do to get the solutions to address the jobs and skills shortages here in our country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. AEMO predicts that Australia will need an additional 12,000 workers in the energy sector by 2025 if we are to realise our ambition to become a renewable energy superpower. We clearly have a task ahead of us, but we are up for it. The race to net zero carries a moral as well as an economic imperative. But it won't be delivered with slogans. It demands a pool of human capital that is as vast as it is deep. Previous Liberal governments made that pool as shallow as a car park puddle. A lack of investment and a failure to plan have meant that Australia has the second-highest labour supply shortages in the OECD, according to their 2022 update, only ahead of Canada, which is in worse shape. The most recent labour market update from the quarter ending in December of last year shows that skill shortages persist in critical areas like nursing, aged care, early childhood education, IT and construction. The most in-demand occupations are registered nurses, software programmers, age-care and disabled carers, mechanics, GPs, engineers and early childhood educators. These are not skills that we can afford to have in short supply, and the numbers are staggering. For the three-month period to December there were over 8,300 vacancies for nurses; 6,300 for IT professionals; nearly 5,000 for aged-care and disability workers; 4,300 for educators; and 4,200 for construction managers.</para>
<para>The report showed that over the past year around a third of new jobs needed a university pathway and that nearly two-thirds of jobs required VET qualifications. It's the reason we are so heavily backing our TAFE sector, with 180,000 fee-free TAFE spots already announced and with an additional 300,000 places available to the states, subject to an agreement. This is not a crisis which simply emerged out of the blue and it's not merely a consequence of international conflict or economic turmoil. No, this crisis is the product of a decade without a national coordinated skills plan.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is wholeheartedly committed to tackling this crisis. Last year we delivered our promise to make Jobs and Skills Australia an independent statutory body. Now we have introduced legislation to make it permanent. The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 is a product of extensive stakeholder consultation with industry, employer bodies, unions, education and training providers and state and territory governments. It's the work of a government that is truly committed to listening, understanding and taking action. It is no accident that our first major stakeholder event was the Jobs and Skills Summit in September of last year. It signified our determination for a tripartite engagement with unions, business and the states to turn this crisis around. A permanent Jobs and Skills Australia will develop a work plan to support the government in tackling skills development. The bill establishes a commissioner and deputy commissioners, with merit based appointments, and a tripartite ministerial advisory board that is representative of their respective sectors, industries and stakeholders, including universities, the states and employer groups. Key functions will include research intelligence, developing partnerships with stakeholders and providing advice to government.</para>
<para>Under this bill, Jobs and Skills Australia will inform government decision-making about migration. Evidence based skills advice should guide our migration policy, which for too long has been skewed towards low-skills insecure low-paid workers. We need to turn this around. The bill will ensure that all government policies are informed by evidence. Research will be conducted around workforce participation, with a particular focus on improving outcomes for women, First Nations Australians, older workers—over 55 years—and workers with disabilities, as well as those from culturally diverse communities. The sense of inclusion and workforce participation that many of us take for granted is denied to too many Australians. It needs to be seeded with good policies and grounded in data and the lived experience of the people who have faced these barriers. JSA will probe the experiences of insecure workers and the impact of those on social and economic outcomes.</para>
<para>This work is complimentary to the 'secure work, better pay' bill we passed in December last year. The bill will allow for strategic planning and investment in education and training. This is critical to delivering the Albanese government's key priority areas, including energy transformation, rebuilding Australia manufacturing, keeping up with digital technologies, supporting the health and care economy and upskilling our defence industry. We aren't going to get to net zero without the right training pathways, like $100 million for New Energy Apprenticeships.</para>
<para>Many of our skills shortages are driven by a lack of skilled workers, and the solution lies in education. The Albanese government has already begun to address this by expanding the Australian Apprenticeships Priority List and by providing more university and fee-free TAFE and vocational education places. When our workers have the right skills they will have more choice and more security. When our workforce has the right skills our economy will thrive. This bill will create a bigger and better trained Australian workforce. Every Australian deserves secure and meaningful work, and under this bill we are closer to making that a reality. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, surprise! There you go. These things happen. There's no doubt about it. There's no point beating around the bush. Our country has a major skills crisis. The context for that—uncomfortable truths for those opposite—is that it comes after a decade of Liberal decay, division and dysfunction. Three billion dollars of cuts to TAFE on their watch. Who knew? When you cut TAFE for years—and they cut courses and closed campuses—then you don't train students and you don't have skilled workers. Trashing the apprenticeship system—who knew? When you do that for years and then in your last year of government you try throwing some money in when the damage is done, then you don't have skilled apprentices, tradies, in the economy.</para>
<para>The skills crisis, of course, is a supply-side constraint to the economy. It's driving inflation. It's driving businesses mad because they can't find suitable trained workers. It's driving unemployed people to despair as they're forced to apply for jobs week after week, month after month and year after year which they're simply not trained to do. The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 sets up Jobs and Skills Australia, which is critical to resolving the skills and labour market crisis across the country.</para>
<para>What's the opposition position? We heard it today with a little amendment. After making the mess in their decade in government, they're refusing to work with the government to clean it up. They're moving a silly little amendment so they can vote against the bill. We're not allowed to call them the 'no-alition'. We've been over that, so we won't—but we make the point.</para>
<para>The fact is Australia has the second-highest labour supply shortage across all OECD countries. It's also a fact that three million Australians lack the fundamental skills required to participate in secure training and work. It's also a fact that as of December last year, just a few months ago, the recruitment difficulty rate for occupations was 65 per cent, which meant 65 per cent of recruiting employers had difficulty recruiting staff. It was even worse in the construction industry where 80 per cent of employers had difficulty recruiting staff. Of the top 20 occupations in demand in Australia, seven have a shortage, primarily driven by a lack of people with the required skills. Yet unemployment is at 3.5 per cent, and job advertisements over the 12 months prior to January 2023 increased by 4.5 per cent. We've got a red-hot labour market across most of the country, and yet we have a fundamental and giant mismatch with the skills that the unemployed population, the underemployed population and those looking for a leg-up for a more secure job, for a better paid job, actually have.</para>
<para>It is because, as I said, of a decade of dysfunctional Liberal government that there is this giant mismatch between what skills workers have or don't have and what business needs. An estimated nine out of 10 new jobs will require post-secondary school education, with four of those requiring VET qualifications. Many of the vital industries that rely on VET graduates are facing workforce shortages. But this giant skills mismatch is the key point. It underpins why we need to make this reform for the medium and long term in the context of the former government's failure because the giant skills mismatch is no accident. It doesn't just happen overnight. You don't just wake up and say, 'Oh look, there are millions of people with no skills.' It takes years to degrade our skills training base because of this decade of neglect. As I said, we had $3 billion of cuts to TAFE, courses being slashed and a total lack of care and planning for the TAFE sector and all the talk we had to put up with: the talking points, the press conferences from the former government, the funny little program names. We had JobKeeper, JobSeeker, JobTrainer, JobMaker—JobFaker as it turned out to be—but not actually putting anything in place underneath those announcements so people got the skills that they need.</para>
<para>While they were announcing more programs, they were cutting TAFE and cutting apprenticeships. But it was hardly a surprise. It was the now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the genius over there—who referred to fee-free TAFE as, 'wasteful spending'. I hope she's learning something on her national listening tour. She popped up last week in my electorate. I think about 25 people from the Afghan community turned up. She didn't like the questions she got. She was asked whether she'd apologise for refusing to give permanent residence. She was asked if she would apologise, and they complained about the questions because they weren't 'nice'. But thankfully the federal Liberals' colleagues in Tasmania are far more sensible. The state Minister for Skills, Training and Workforce Growth there expressed his excitement to work with the Commonwealth, 'to continue building Tasmania's skilled workforce'. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition over there says that fee-free TAFE is 'wasteful spending', yet the one Liberal government left in the country says: 'Actually, this is a pretty good idea. Imagine working with the Commonwealth to skill our citizens!' Then there were their years of trashing apprenticeships and years of cuts, and then, in their last year, they threw a bit of money at apprenticeships and made some announcements, but it was too little, too late. The damage had been done after the decade of neglect.</para>
<para>Now, the government is actually taking urgent action to address the skills shortages and to try and match the training participation with the types of skills in demand. We don't need, with respect to the many high school students we ask what they would like to do—'I'd like to be a YouTube blogger.' That's not the kind of training we need to be subsidising. We need to be subsidising the training that local and regional labour markets need.</para>
<para>Skilled migration certainly has a role to play in boosting our national wealth in certain areas, but our priority has to always be on skilling Australians for the jobs that are available now and the jobs in the future. We can't continue to force employers to look overseas for workers because of the Liberal's failure to invest in skills. That's why, as of yesterday with the budget, the Labor government is creating 300,000 fee-free TAFE places to train Australians in critical and emerging sectors, like clean energy and care, sectors that need workers now with those skills. Who knew? You can train people by incentivising them to go into that training!</para>
<para>We're introducing a redesigned Commonwealth foundation skills program for Australians seeking to develop their language, literacy, numeracy and digital skills, and we're providing more than $54 million in targeted support to apprentice support services to increase apprenticeship completion rates and the diversity of the apprenticeship workforce, to further support particularly women in what are historically male dominated fields.</para>
<para>That's the context of the bill—their failure and the impacts on the real economy and the degradation of the human capital of our country because of the failure for a decade to invest in skills, to prepare people for the labour market that we have right now, which is red-hot and crying out for workers. Jobs and Skills Australia is critical to actually revolving that skills and labour market crisis and building the future workforce that we need. It will operate, as the bill says, as a genuinely tripartite organisation. Now, here's a trigger warning for those opposite: I'm going to say the word 'unions'. They get a bit upset. That's their little amendment. The only thing they want to do to this bill is get rid of the unions. 'We don't like the unions; we don't like the workers.' That's their amendment; that's the change they want to make to the bill. We say tripartite: unions, employers and state and territory governments that run the vocational training system. How's that for an idea? Bringing together people so that they can work together as partners!</para>
<para>The advice provided by JSA, the independent authoritative source of advice, will be independent. Whilst the minister may request advice from JSA, she or he will not give direction about the content of any advice. The government is determined to turn around the trend towards insecure, low-paid and unskilled work in Australia. The proportion of households where the main breadwinner is on casual, gig-economy, insecure work has continued to rise over the last decade. So JSA will provide the government with data and analysis to build an evidence base by analysing the experiences of affected Australians—old-fashioned, I know! Public policy should be based on evidence and facts. JSA will improve identification of labour imbalances across the economy and analyse the supply and demand of skills. The advice will consider tertiary qualifications to ensure there are flexible pathways in place to develop the skills and knowledge needed to resolve those labour imbalances.</para>
<para>The bill also expands JSA's function. We set it up on a very interim basis to get it up and running late last year after the election. This is the bill to put the flesh on the bones, if you like. It will expand the functions to undertake studies to improve the analysis and understanding of Australians experiencing disadvantage and exclusion in the labour market. People aged over 55, people living with disabilities, migrants, young people, First Nations people are the cohorts that show up in the data. The Labor government's core focus is to create more opportunities for Australians and to build our human capital, to build the skills in the workforce now and in the future. In order to do this—I'll say it again—you need data and evidence regarding our human capital, and that's exactly what the JSA will provide.</para>
<para>The final point I make is that this advice will go to government and to the training sector right across the country. They'll be able to produce regionalised data because the labour markets are entirely different in different parts of the country. I'm currently chairing a House select committee inquiring into Workforce Australia employment services; it's a first principles inquiry. There are a lot of curious and very peculiar aspects to Australia's employment services system. It's based on a flawed theory, I might observe, that we've had for a couple of decades—that unemployment is always an individual choice, an individual failing, and if we push the individual somehow they'll magically get a job. In some cases that's true but in many cases it's not, because of the structural factors, because of the labour market you live in, because of your physical disabilities, because of your health, mental health, family circumstances or caring circumstances, or because of the fact you've never been able to invest in skills or had society invest in you.</para>
<para>We've designed a system around the very worst people in society, the ones who cheat the system, and the very worst providers, the ones who try and rip off the government. That's how we've designed the system, and everyone else is put in that paradigm. I think we can do better. We've designed the system around an incredibly narrow set of objectives. When you look globally at all the things a publicly funded employment service system could do—labour market exchange, human capital development, addressing skills shortages, helping business and industry—we've designed it around a work test and put all our eggs in that basket. The system is strangely divorced from demand and skills.</para>
<para>I close on this point: Jobs and Skills Australia can become a key coordinator and collaborator, and have authoritative input into the employment services system. The authoritative input will be developed in collaboration with unions—I said it again!—state and territory governments and employers, with advice on labour markets needs and skills needs to inform the skills training system, the higher education system and our employment services system. I commend the bill to the House, and I suggest the opposition withdraw their silly amendment. We can all go out, say it together, hold hands and say, 'Unions represent workers,' and then they can vote for the bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bruce for his very insightful contribution.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. This bill follows through on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the Australian people to build a national partnership to drive VET education and strengthen workforce planning by working together, as the previous speaker said, with employers, with unions and with the training and education sector. This bill amends the Jobs and Skill Australia Act 2022, providing for its permanent functions and governance arrangements. The second tranche of amendments has been informed by significant stakeholder engagement through the Jobs and Skill Summit, the Senate committee inquiry into the first bill, a discussion paper seeking public comment and bilateral and other targeted engagement. The major difference to the governance of the proposed permanent model is embedding the commitment to its tripartite governance, with the Jobs and Skills Australia commissioner supported by deputy commissioners and a tripartite ministerial advisory board.</para>
<para>Under proposed permanent arrangements outlined in this bill, Jobs and Skills Australia will take on a broader range of functions, including: identifying labour market imbalances and analysis of the role played by the demand and supply of skills; building an evidence base of the impact of various workplace arrangements, including insecure work on economic and social outcomes; analysing workforce needs and skills needs to support decision-making in relation to Australia's migration program and in regional, rural and remote Australia; undertaking studies, including opportunities to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for cohorts of individuals that have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion, such as women, people over 55, people with disability, youth, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians; and contributing to industry consultation forums. The bill will include a statutory review of Jobs and Skills Australia, to commence within 24 months of the commencement of the amendment bill, to ensure it is operating as intended.</para>
<para>This is a breath of fresh air for the VET and skills sector, particularly in my community, who have suffered under the mess and mismanagement of those opposite. Let it never be forgotten—the Liberals legacy of $3 billion cut from the skills portfolio, including $1 billion from apprentices, resulting in a serious skills-gap crisis, and overseeing a decline which peaked at 150,000 fewer apprentices.</para>
<para>How can one forget when the then Minister Pyne was running around trying to get up his plan for $100,000 university degrees and university deregulation. Those opposite took their eye off the ball and let the shonks and sharks have free reign in our VET and skills sector. It was those opposite that let the most vulnerable in our community get preyed upon by shonks and sharks signing them up to courses that were unsuitable and landing them with debts that they were never going to be able to repay. What was the result? A $3 billion blowout of the VET FEE-HELP program. So much for fiscal responsibility and restraint!</para>
<para>A structured, well-considered jobs and skills body with a proper governance structure may come as a bit of a surprise to those opposite. What also might be a surprise to those opposite is the collaborative tripartite approach that this bill brings to workforce planning. This bill legislates the requirement for Jobs and Skills Australia to consult with the Ministerial Advisory Board, which that will consist of state and territory representatives, industry stakeholders and unions, also education providers and other members in the development of its work plan. This approach was strongly supported by stakeholders throughout the consultation process and will ensure that the workplan directly aligns to addressing workforce shortages and building long-term capacity in priority sectors.</para>
<para>I note that the process of consultation has resulted in the amendment that we now see before the chamber, an amendment which seeks to expand representation of this tripartite expertise, including expertise which can be found in the small-business community and rural, regional and remote Australia. The increase of members representing employers from three to four now guarantees representation for small business. Consequently, to ensure that balance on the board continues, the number of members representing unions also increases from three to four.</para>
<para>But this tripartite approach is not new or radical. For Labor, this is how we have governed, in the best interests of Australians, for decades. The bill also embeds flexibility to ensure Jobs and Skills Australia can best respond to emerging needs and priorities in response to changing economic conditions. Experts will be engaged under a written agreement on a time limited, or study-by-study basis, ensuring sector-specific experience, influence and networks are brought to each of Jobs and Skills Australia's workforce and cohort studies, or detailed regional assessments.</para>
<para>Both the tripartite representatives and independent experts with skills and experience could include experts from tertiary education, employment and industrial relations, with experience in data and analysis, workforce planning, regional organisations and those representing priority cohorts and those most disadvantaged in the labour market.</para>
<para>As I have stated, the board will include participation from employer organisations and unions. This will be fair and equitable. This balanced, fair, considered, knowledge based approach is exactly what we need to tackle the skills and labour market challenges that Australia faces. The challenge that Jobs and Skills Australia is facing is by no means minor. Australia has the second-highest labour supply shortages across all OECD countries. Currently, three million Australians lack the fundamental skills required to participate in training and secure work. An estimated nine out of 10 new jobs will require post secondary school education, with four of these requiring VET qualifications.</para>
<para>Australia is currently experiencing skills shortages across many critical industries. Of the top 20 occupations in demand, seven have a shortage that is primarily driven by a lack of people with the required skills, reinforcing the importance of our skills system in addressing these shortages. This Labor government and the minister have not wasted any time in tackling these challenges, as last night's budget demonstrates. We are already delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places in 2023, along with investing in support for apprentices, particularly for those choosing to take on new energy apprenticeships.</para>
<para>Our 2023-24 budget builds on over $400 million provided in our October 2022 budget for a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places in high-skill needs areas from 2024 to 2026, subject to agreement with states and territories. In addition, last night's budget delivered an additional $3.7 billion upon striking a five-year national skills agreement with the states and territories to ensure more access to vocational education and training, with TAFE at the centre. We also have $436 million over four years to fundamentally reform the way the Commonwealth delivers foundation skills programs and an additional $54.3 million in critical Australian apprenticeship supports to improve completion rates, improving the quality of services and better targeted support, which will be particularly crucial to supporting women, First Nations people, CALD apprentices and people with disability to complete their apprenticeship. There is also $8.6 million to deliver the Australian Skills Guarantee and introduce national targets for apprentices, trainees and paid cadets working on Australian government funded major infrastructure and ICT projects. This includes responsible subtargets to boost women's participation in apprenticeships. There is also $42.2 million to develop a modern, fit-for-purpose IT system for the VET student loan program, a long overdue upgrade.</para>
<para>Locally in the Illawarra, Labor's investment will see $2.5 million for a renewable energy training facility at Wollongong TAFE, which will include upgrades to equipment and teaching aids. We're also investing $10 million to establish an energy future skills centre located at the wonderful University of Wollongong, so we have the skilled workforce to build the grid of the future. Labor is also investing more than $1 million in a University of Wollongong study finding ways to keep Australia's grid secure through the renewable energy transformation. These commitments in my community will also be supported by the new energy apprenticeships program, which will back young Australians to train in jobs of the future and help power Australia's path to net zero emissions. Apprentices training in eligible occupations in the clean energy sector can now attract up to $10,000 in direct support, helping them to manage the cost of living while they train in the sectors essential to Australia's transition to a clean energy economy. Unlike the mess and mismanagement of the former government, this side of the chamber is getting on with the job of fixing the problems, investing in skills needed for our future prosperity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in favour of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. Our government took office at a time of rising inflation and interest rates, falling real wages and nearly $1 trillion of coalition earned debt, which is now more expensive to service. Ten years of Liberal inaction have left our economy rudderless. There was no certainty on the future of the low-carbon economy and no signals for businesses on carbon accounting, and there were cuts to and neglect of our higher education and training sectors. The truth of the matter is that they just weren't up to the job. I would like to quote the former member for Chisholm, Julia Banks:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When I had a seat in the Liberal party room, I'd regularly feign tolerance over the ignorance of some of the so-called political leaders of Dutton and Morrison's ilk. Whether the debate was about climate change, marriage equality or business and the economy, I would often reflect that many of them wouldn't survive two weeks in a good corporation.</para></quote>
<para>I have spent the majority of my working life in the private sector. I have worked with some of Western Australia's biggest companies on the ASX 200. Businesses want certainty from government to help with investment decisions. Businesses respond to the cues of government and they seek a vision that they can play a part in. This is what the Albanese Labor government has done. In our first four months in office we hosted our Jobs and Skills Consultative Forum and the Jobs and Skills Summit. Our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, wants to lead a country that brings people together and does not divide the country, like the coalition did. The Albanese Labor government brought together Australians, including unions, employers, businesses, civil society and governments, to discuss our shared economic future and talk about how we can build a better future and address the challenges. When you have diverse characters, such as Andrew Forrest and Sally McManus, in the room talking about the future of the economy, it sends a clear signal that business, governments and unions are seriously talking about moving in the same direction. We hosted the forum to listen genuinely and to act.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Swan I hosted a jobs and skills forum in November. My forum brought together 60 attendees from businesses, community groups and local government. One attendee, John Kennedy from JFK Custom Homes in Belmont Avenue in Rivervale, spoke about the need for a solid pipeline of trainees and apprentices. He said that he'd like to see better coordination between TAFE, government and industry to ensure that we're planning for our workforce needs. Our goal was, and still remains, to build a bigger and better trained, more productive workforce; to boost incomes and living standards; and to create more opportunities for Australians to get ahead and reach their aspirations. That kind of vision for our economy offers the stability necessary for businesses to succeed and for Australian workers to benefit.</para>
<para>The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill creates an economy-wide perspective on labour market matters. It considers the contribution of vocational education and training, higher education and migration to meet Australia's skills and workforce challenges. It's the kind of planning and coordination that business people like John from Belmont Avenue are asking for. It should come as no surprise that business is calling out for better coordination of labour market matters. Australia has the second-highest labour market supply shortages across all OECD countries, and this is why we've brought this matter before the parliament. I know this is something that's welcomed by the people in my electorate.</para>
<para>This stage is the second stage of a two-stage process, which was made clear with the introduction and the passage of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 in November 2022, which established Jobs and Skills Australia as an independent agency and gave it interim functions. To ensure that stakeholders' views were considered in the design of the permanent Jobs and Skills Australia agency, and to support government's commitment to tripartisanship, the legislation has been introduced in two phases. We're now introducing the amendment bill to establish the ongoing governance structure and functions of Jobs and Skills Australia. We're working with all parts of the economy because we want to get this right. This is an ongoing process too, and I want to acknowledge the importance of our proposed amendments to bring in a small business representative to Jobs and Skills Australia. In my electorate 96 per cent of businesses are small businesses, so it's crucial for my community that small business is a significant player at the table in Jobs and Skills Australia.</para>
<para>In December last year the recruitment difficulty rate was sitting at 65 per cent. This means that 65 per cent of recruiting employers reported experiencing difficulty hiring staff. In the most recent recruitment round the construction industry reported the highest recruitment difficulty, sitting at 80 per cent for the December 2022 quarter. I don't want to see businesses, especially small businesses, having to turn work away because finding appropriate staff is too difficult. I find it shocking that businesses are going through this level of hardship right now and that the opposition, who sat on their hands for the last 10 years, had no plan for better coordination of our labour markets and are going to vote this bill down if the government doesn't support their amendment. This amendment that the opposition is talking about is about union representation being on the board of Jobs and Skills Australia—or, as they would prefer, not to have that representation. What I'd say is that all systems need balance, and knowing what workers think up-front is critical.</para>
<para>I've worked in the private sector and I am proud of what the WA resources sector has contributed to the national economy. I've been a boss in a medium-size business; I'm also a unionist. One of the things that I learned when I was at Curtin University and was elected to be the Curtin Student Guild president, was the power that came when the bosses—which was Curtin University at the time—and the guild worked together to create a better future. I was very fortunate to have Lance Twomey, who was the vice-chancellor, agree on what our shared vision was and we worked together. It's amazing the synergies that can be achieved when you actually work together.</para>
<para>The truth is that not voting for this bill is a slap in the face for small businesses. Indeed, the next time I speak to business owners who are struggling to find suitable staff, like John from Belmont Avenue, I will say that those opposite were not prepared to support this bill. It's also a slap in the face of workers. This bill empowers Jobs and Skills Australia to undertake studies, including opportunities to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for cohorts of individuals that have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion, such as women, people over the age of 55, people with a disability, youth, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>When we had the Jobs and Skills Summit in September one of the immediate actions of this government was to create flexible parental arrangements so that parents and carers can split leave between them. We've increased the childcare subsidy to reduce the cost for families seeking to return to work. In my electorate of Swan 6,900 families are set to benefit from this policy, meaning less pressure on the hip pocket and more people back in the workforce.</para>
<para>I'd also like to mention that it's typically mothers who make the decision to leave their job—forgoing income, superannuation and career experience. It is a factor that is at the core of the persistent gender pay gap in this country. By creating an agency that looks into ways to improve groups who are typically disadvantaged or excluded we are setting in motion the first steps of building practical measures to empower people, whether that is the gender pay gap, retaining over-55s in the workforce, providing meaningful and dignified work for people who experience disability, or bridging the employment and income gap between First Nations Australians and other Australians.</para>
<para>I was so proud last year when Dylan Alcott was named Australian of the Year. He is a fierce advocate for those with a disability and wants to see them empowered and in employment. In my home in Swan there is a business owner called Sarah Yates. She owns a cafe called Our Ruby Girl in South Perth. One thing she does is engage and retain people with a disability in the workforce. I met her at the jobs and skills forum that I had in my community and she spoke to me about how they bring in two high-school-age work experience students each semester. They tailor the working conditions to suit the needs of the person, such as shorter hours or finding tasks that best match their skills. She's actually a trained psychologist. She saw a gap in this area, so she ended up starting a cafe and making sure that these people have access to work. The thing that's fascinating about Our Ruby Girl is that 50 per cent of their employees experience disability. By having an agency that can investigate best practice and share knowledge Australia wide it is my hope that we can lift the workforce participation rate of people who experience disability. I cannot understand why the Liberals would want to stand in the way of this.</para>
<para>This bill also assigns to Jobs and Skills Australia the function of identifying labour market imbalances and analysis of the role played by the demand and supply of skills. In my electorate of Swan the resource sector is a massive employer. I, like many Western Australians, pursued a career in that sector. I studied at university for a minimum of five years to get my two degrees and then was lucky to find a job. Unfortunately, that's not the story for many graduates who are studying in a field relevant to the resources sector. When the times are good and the sector is booming, the resources sector looks like a very attractive place to work and there's great demand for skills. What often happens is that high school students and mature age students looking for a career change go and seek qualifications and sometimes, depending on commodity prices, there are no jobs available. The boom-bust cycle can be brutal.</para>
<para>When the times are good, mining companies spend lots of money on exploration, but when the commodity prices tank the geologists are often the first to lose their jobs. One of my classmates—a female chemical engineer—experienced three redundancies. After her third redundancy she said: 'Zaneta, I'm sick of working in this sector. I'm going to go work in aged care because I know that that has consistent demand.'</para>
<para>So the thing that I'd say is: I do want people to look at different parts of the economy and recognise that they can have careers in those, but we need to be smarter about the way that we match skills with the actual jobs. Getting the balance right and having forward planning for the skills we need will mean that workers will be better informed when they head into their studies as to what jobs lie ahead and will move quickly into the workforce after training. It's a win for workers and it's a win for business.</para>
<para>Yesterday's budget saw an additional $400 million allocated to deliver an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places, and that's building on the 180,000 places that we already have committed to creating, by increasing funding by an additional $54 million to critical Australian apprenticeship supports to improve completion rates, including 4,630 apprentices currently training in Swan. We've put in $8.6 million to deliver the Australian Skills Guarantee and introduced national targets for apprentices, trainees and paid cadets working on Australian-government-funded major infrastructure projects, making sure that we're building a pipeline of skilled tradespeople and ensuring that we maximise that. In our last budget, we announced 10,000 new energy apprenticeships to train Australians in the new energy jobs of the future and provide additional supports so they complete training that they need. This will be facilitated by programs like new energy skills programs, developing fit-for-purpose training for new energy industry jobs, in partnership with states and territories, industry and unions.</para>
<para>I think that one of the things that they have in scientific principles are synergies, where they talk about waves and the superpositioning of waves and you can either have constructive or destructive interference. The thing that I see with Jobs and Skills Australia is that this is an opportunity to harmonise the different parts of our economy, hear the views of unions, workers, businesses and education providers, and build on a better future for Australia. We've had 10 years of Liberal inaction, and they have left our economy rudderless. The thing that I'm looking forward to is a better future within Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased today to speak in support of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. This bill will allow the Australian government to establish Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body.</para>
<para>I am so lucky to live where I live, on the South Coast of New South Wales. It is an absolute joy, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else—fresh air, bushland, beaches and wonderful communities.</para>
<para>But there are challenges that come with living regionally. One is skill shortages. I spend a lot of time visiting businesses in Gilmore, and one of the main things that I frequently talk with business owners about is how difficult it is to find workers and appropriate skills. Whether it's a bulk-billing medical practice looking to recruit another GP, or a window manufacturer or a hair salon looking to add another apprentice to their team, people can't get the staff they need. And there isn't a simple fix. A myriad of factors influence skill shortages and the inability for businesses to find staff.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is not wasting any time addressing skill shortages; after a wasted decade, we're not going to waste a second. We take this very seriously. That is why I'm so excited to speak on this bill, because this bill illustrates the Australian government's dedication to addressing the skills crisis and building a skilled workforce for the future. And how is it going to do this? Well, as I have said, we will finalise Jobs and Skills Australia as a statutory body—a body that will provide independent advice, in partnership with various stakeholders.</para>
<para>Last year in July, the government took swift action by introducing the first tranche of legislation to establish the interim Jobs and Skills Australia, and it has been very successful. The interim body began crucial work by providing independent advice on workforce, skills and training issues—advice that could then be swiftly acted on. During this interim phase, Jobs and Skills Australia initiated a foundation skills study. Furthermore, JSA conducted its first capacity study on the clean energy industry. These studies were commissioned to ensure the permanent establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia would align with what people and businesses need.</para>
<para>The legislation to establish Jobs and Skills Australia has been introduced in two phases. This bill will establish the ongoing governance structure and functions of Jobs and Skills Australia. This bill will support the expanded and clarified functions as well as the governance model of the organisation. The design of Jobs and Skills Australia has been shaped through extensive stakeholder engagement, including but not limited to the Jobs and Skills Summit, the Senate committee inquiry, public comment on the discussion paper and targeted engagement sessions. With the implementation of this bill, Jobs and Skills Australia will work hand-in-hand with state and territory governments, business and industry leaders, unions and education and training providers. Together, they will provide advice to effectively address the skills crisis in our country and develop the skilled workforce that Australia needs for a prosperous future.</para>
<para>The current state of Australia's labour market highlights the urgency of addressing the skills crisis. Among all OECD countries, Australia ranks second highest in labour supply shortages. Shockingly, three million Australians lack the essential skills necessary to participate in training and secure employment. I hear this when I visit businesses on the south coast. There are businesses that want to employ people but cannot find workers and/or people with the right skill sets. It is a terrible situation for them to be in. As we look to the future, it is projected that nine out of 10 new jobs will require post-secondary education, with four requiring vocational education and training, or VET, qualifications.</para>
<para>Numerous critical industries in Australia are currently grappling with skill shortages. Out of the top 20 occupations in demand, seven are facing shortages, primarily due to a lack of skilled individuals. This emphasises the crucial role of our skill system in addressing these shortages. However, this tightness in the labour market poses challenges for employers, which is something that we are going to work on.</para>
<para>Moreover, the impact of natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with a reduction in migration, has worsened workforce shortages in many industries that rely on VET graduates. It is imperative that we take urgent action to address these skills gaps and align training participation with the current and future demands of the labour market. I'm excited to work on these challenges.</para>
<para>We have already started addressing the skills shortages in my electorate on the south coast. I visited the TAFE Nowra campus a couple of weeks ago to see and hear firsthand how our fee-free TAFE was working in Gilmore. The staff were beaming. Fee-free TAFE is making a real difference right now. First I went to a hospitality class, where I spoke with a Bawley Point local named Zoe. Zoe told me she wanted to retrain and work in kitchens, because she had seen that hospitality venues were hiring in her area and she wanted to work close to home. Zoe has taken up a fee-free TAFE spot. Luckily it was available, because she told me point-blank, 'I would not be doing this if it weren't for fee-free TAFE.' That's amazing. The south coast of New South Wales will soon have another person who is fully trained to work in commercial cookery and wanting to work where businesses are hiring. She wouldn't have done it without fee-free TAFE. These are the things that our measured approach to jobs and skills can achieve.</para>
<para>Similarly, I met with a carpentry class. There were similar stories to Zoe's. Many people said that they wouldn't be retraining if there wasn't a free option. Which is crazy, considering the shortage of carpenters right across Australia. Many people I spoke to told me point-blank that they would not be studying if there were not a fee-free option.</para>
<para>These fee-free TAFE courses help to alleviate our skills shortages, but they also provide vital cost-of-living relief for those who want to retrain. These are the types of things that a body like Jobs and Skills Australia can and will address: where people should train, fees and what should be supported. As a former TAFE teacher, I know the importance of vocational education. As someone who is married to a carpenter, I understand the value of vocational education. Jobs and Skills Australia will help us get vocational education right, because right now there are challenges we need to overcome.</para>
<para>Underemployment is another issue of concern, with a rate of 6.1 per cent in January 2023. Underemployment occurs when skills held by workers and jobseekers do not match the skills demanded by businesses; when business affordability or requirements limit job availability; or when caring responsibilities prevent employees from taking on additional work. In light of these challenges, Jobs and Skills Australia's advice to the government will play a vital role in informing policies and programs that ensure our training and education systems deliver the skilled workers that industries require. By addressing the skills crisis and building a robust workforce, we can pave the way for a prosperous and resilient future for Australia.</para>
<para>The development of this Jobs and Skills Australia model has been guided by extensive stakeholder consultation with state and territory governments, business and industry leaders, unions and education providers. It will include a Jobs and Skills Australia Commissioner supported by deputy commissioners and a ministerial advisory board. Under the proposed permanent arrangements outlined in this bill, Jobs and Skills Australia will undertake an expanded set of functions. These include identifying labour market imbalances and analysing the impact of skills supply and demand; building an evidence base on the economic and social consequences of various workplace arrangements, such as insecure work; and analysing workforce and skills needs for informed decision-making on Australia's migration program and in regional, rural and remote areas. All are very dear to employers in my area.</para>
<para>Identifying and addressing skills shortages is something that I've worked hard on in Gilmore. Just last week I visited the Vincentia Medical Centre to meet with GPs, nurses and health workers. The visit was actually to thank me and the government for listening to their concerns about getting more doctors into the practice. In fact, just this morning I received another call from the practice. But the visit I attended last week was to acknowledge how beneficial the government's policies have been. They have made a huge difference and they're making a huge difference on the South Coast. In the past few years some simple changes have allowed and encouraged 13 new doctors to be added to the staff across the four Shoalhaven Family Medical Centres. At one point the owner of the practice, Annette, told me that patients were having to wait six weeks to see a doctor, while some had closed their books. This wait has now dropped to a week. Annette also said that there were more overseas trained doctors and even specialists who were employed at their practice and this was thanks to the streamlining of the hiring process.</para>
<para>Make no mistake: there is still work to be done. But this shows how important it is to have dedicated professionals who can help communicate with the government what is going on in their sector. This is why it is so important to have a statutory body like Jobs and Skills Australia to help relay information back to government so that we are able to quickly and effectively address areas where there are skills shortages or issues arising in the labour market. Jobs and Skills Australia will conduct studies to improve employment outcomes, vocational education and training outcomes and higher education outcomes for marginalised groups, such as women, individuals over the age of 55, people with disabilities, youth, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians. This will be a practical, well-run body that will effectively address our skills shortages and address imbalances in the labour market.</para>
<para>To ensure the effectiveness of Jobs and Skills Australia, the bill includes a provision for a statutory review of the program that will commence two years after it's brought in. This will be a vital check and balance. This review will assess whether the organisation is operating as intended, making any necessary adjustments or improvements. By establishing a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia with an expanded scope of functions, we can effectively address the skills crisis, promote tripartite collaboration and empower individuals from diverse backgrounds to thrive in the labour market. Jobs and Skills Australia will continue to provide valuable skills and workforce data, contributing to a more detailed national evidence base. It will focus on providing critical insights into disadvantaged cohorts, conducting regional analysis and supporting workforce planning.</para>
<para>Workforce planning plays a crucial role in addressing the needs of industries facing skills shortages. This bill expands the workforce planning function of Jobs and Skills Australia, enabling an assessment of how skills and workforce issues can be addressed across the entire economy. For example, skilled STEM graduates from both higher education and the VET system possess adaptable skills that can be applied to emerging and critical industries like technology and clean energy. It is so important that we streamline people into the industries of the future. Being able to adapt to people's skills is so important for regional areas like the South Coast. There are many talented people who work in certain industries who would only need small changes to make them completely able to work effectively in another sector. This expanded function will complement the sector-specific workforce planning carried out by jobs and skills councils.</para>
<para>To ensure that the comprehensive range of ongoing functions and products delivered by Jobs and Skills Australia aligns with stakeholder input, the government has conducted those consultations. Feedback received has informed the inclusion of additional functions for Jobs and Skills Australia. These include: improved identification of skills and labour imbalances across the economy; explicit analysis of both VET and higher education with an economy-wide approach; analysis of skills and workforce needs in regional and remote Australia; studies to enhance the analysis of marginalised groups; building an evidence base on the impact of various workplace arrangements; and contributing to industry consultation forums. This collaborative approach will strengthen the national evidence base and foster effective workforce planning.</para>
<para>The government's commitment to investing in VET and addressing skills shortages is evident in the budget allocations. A significant investment of $6.3 billion has been allocated to VET in the 2022-23 financial year, including funding transfers to state and territory governments. Additionally, $921.7 million over five years has been allocated to strengthen the VET system, provide fee-free TAFE and vocational education places and establish a TAFE technology fund for infrastructure modernisation. Immediate actions include the delivery of fee-free TAFE places in 2023, particularly in areas of high-skills needs, as part of the $1 billion 12-month skills agreement. As I said earlier, fee-free TAFE is such an important and effective way to address skills shortages and at the same time address cost-of-living pressures. The government is committed to investing in VET and addressing skills shortages, and I am excited to see what Jobs and Skills Australia will bring to the South Coast into the future. Let me just say that, if Jobs and Skills Australia makes decisions like fee-free TAFE, well, we're onto a winner. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 represents an important step towards ensuring that the Australian workforce remains competitive, adaptable and resilient in a rapidly changing economy. Aussie workers are the backbone of our economy and prosperity. Without the hard work and dedication of our labour force, we would not have the thriving economy and fair social security system we have, nor would we have the vibrant communities that we all enjoy today. Just a few years ago, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was our frontline workers, including healthcare workers, essential service providers and emergency responders, who kept our country running. They did not have the opportunity or benefits of working from home and put themselves at risk to keep us safe, healthy and resilient. We should always support those who support us. Of course, our modern, vibrant and diverse economy has also been built on the back of new migrants—those like my parents and my grandparents—who chose Australia as a place to live and raise their family, a place where their aspirations could be fulfilled. The Australian economic miracle, our modern country as we know it, was built on the hard work of new migrant workers, just like my parents. They worked so hard and strived to create a better life for themselves, their families and their communities.</para>
<para>My dad worked two jobs to provide for his family. He had his day job as a butcher and a salesperson, and then at night he'd go clean banks—he was cleaning local banks—all to save up money to pay his mortgage and then to start his own small business. So I'm proud to be part of a government that not only recognises the importance of workers but cares deeply about them, a government that works tirelessly to deliver robust policy for them. This government places workers at the heart of our policies. It's why we are committed to ensuring that every Australian has access to the opportunities they need to fulfil their ambition.</para>
<para>Post pandemic, it's well known that we're in the midst of a once-in-a-generation skills crisis. This bill is about taking urgent action to address that and to put in place long-term solutions to build the skilled workforce that Australia needs to continue to grow and to continue to be prosperous. We have the second-highest labour supply shortages across all OECD countries. This is a staggering statistic that demands our attention. In fact, a shocking three million Australians lack the fundamental skills required to participate in training and secure work. Across critical industries, our country is experiencing crippling skill shortages, driven by lack of skills training for workers. And, as we move into the future, it's estimated that nine out of every 10 new jobs will require some form of tertiary education.</para>
<para>As of December last year, employers reported that, on average, around 65 per cent of recruiting employers were experiencing difficulty in hiring staff. In my electorate of Bennelong I have met with many, many business owners, especially small business owners, who are being deeply affected by the difficulty they're experiencing in recruiting skilled staff. Locally, our skills shortage is not just restricted to one industry; be they hospitality workers, tradies, builders, data analysts, lab technicians, researchers, lecturers or coders, and of course teachers and nurses, all are in short supply. Small businesses in my electorate have had to close temporarily due to a lack of staff, and we know that many businesses who want to grow simply cannot attract enough staff to address that aspiration. During the pandemic a large proportion of temporary migrant workers returned to their countries of origin, leaving huge gaps in skilled workers in their industries. And the skills that our workers and jobseekers currently hold do not line up with the skills we need to fill this gap in our workforce.</para>
<para>While this skills crisis has been exacerbated by the pandemic and the resulting reduction in migration of workers into Australia, it's a crisis that has been made considerably worse due to the 10 years of negligence and noninterest of the previous government. This is why we need a government now that will take decisive action to address the skills crisis in Australia, and it's why this government acted quickly to introduce and implement Jobs and Skills Australia. Last year, of course, Jobs and Skills Australia was established as an interim body with a statutory office holder and core functions that enabled them to begin their essential work immediately. Since November they've been providing independent advice on a range of current, emerging and future workforce skills and training issues. Through its partnership with key stakeholders, Jobs and Skills Australia has initiated a foundation skills study and embarked on its first capacity study, focused on the clean energy industry—one that we know is ripe with jobs.</para>
<para>While the interim body got on with their work, this government got to work engaging with organisations, such as state and territory governments; of course, business and industry leaders; unions; and education and training providers to develop the next step for this bill. Through the Jobs and Skills Summit, the Senate committee inquiry and discussion papers seeking public comment and bilateral targeted engagement, the government has developed the amendment bill which we're debating today to establish the ongoing governance, structure and critical functions of Jobs and Skills Australia and to ensure that it will truly meet the needs of Australia's workforce in the future. These actions underscore our dedication to tackling the skills crisis in this country and to cultivating a proficient workforce for the future. That's why we're now taking steps to secure and embed the future of Jobs and Skills Australia as an organisation that will provide security and opportunity to our workforce.</para>
<para>This amendment bill will establish Jobs and Skills Australia, not as an interim body but as a permanent body, and ensure its full range of functions and governance arrangements are in place. This bill will make a real difference in the lives of many Australians. And it's not just about creating jobs: it's also about identifying labour market imbalances, creating a base of evidence and analysing the needs and abilities of our workforce. It's about supporting decision-making regarding our regional areas and our migration program. And it's about ensuring that everyone has access to opportunities for employment and higher education.</para>
<para>This amendment will provide support not only to the whole workforce but especially to those that have faced continued disadvantage within the labour market: women, people aged over 55, those with a disability, the young, unpaid carers and First Nations Australians will all benefit directly from a permanent and established Jobs and Skills Australia. They will receive the support they need to improve their employment prospects and pursue higher education, helping to level the playing field and ensure that everyone has a fair go.</para>
<para>In establishing Jobs and Skills Australia we are committed to providing a national study on adult literacy, numeracy and digital skills in order to shape this future education program. The study will provide up-to-date evidence of the skills and will be the most comprehensive study undertaken by the government. We've already committed to providing 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023 for the areas with the highest skills need. These costs will be shared amongst all states and territories. We're also actively working to create a new five-year National Skills Agreement with the states and territories as well, one that will align with the ideals of skills ministers and those endorsed by National Cabinet in 2022. Lastly, we'll be undertaking a clean energy capacity study to gather information to benefit the clean energy sector and to develop the government's Powering Australia plan.</para>
<para>This amendment bill is important and it's robust because we have consulted broadly in creating the amendments in this bill. We've collaborated with other state and territory governments, business, unions and education providers to get this right. We know their knowledge of the labour market and their skills shortages, and we've ensured the bill will be able to address many of these issues after 10 years of neglect.</para>
<para>Last year, I held a local jobs and skills round table in Bennelong, gathering local business leaders together to discuss their concerns, hopes and goals for what a new government could achieve. The feedback received through that, broadly at our national Jobs and Skills Summit but also at local events like ours, has been invaluable. It not only has informed the development of this legislation but also has informed and will continue to inform the engagement and operational elements of Jobs and Skills Australia.</para>
<para>After discussing all this, all the benefits of this important plan to address our skills shortage, I just find it extraordinary that those opposite—I've been listening to it throughout the day in dribs and drabs—continue to oppose this government's efforts to solve our skills shortage crisis. Jobs and Skills Australia will be good for workers, it'll be good for manufacturers and it'll be good for our service economy. It'll be good for the high streets, the town centres and the economic powerhouses, like Macquarie Park in my electorate of Bennelong. It will help businesses big and small, new and old, and it'll provide leadership and solutions that businesses have been crying out for. Yet those opposite, the so-called party of business, the corporate charlatans over there, are—yet again—opposing another bill to address a skills crisis. They're opposing the Voice when more and more businesses are supporting it. They're opposing action on climate change when more and more businesses are supporting it. They're waging culture wars when businesses are working with their employees to be more inclusive and caring, and now they're again opposing this. At least they're consistent! But please never say again that they're the party for business.</para>
<para>The bill requires Jobs and Skills Australia to consult with the ministerial advisory board in order to ensure the bill addresses workforce shortages and builds long-term capacity in priority sectors. Moreover, we will equally seek to ensure that industry and education providers and union voices are a feature of Jobs and Skills Australia's governance. They'll bring deep insights and observations which will ensure Jobs and Skills Australia's work is fit for purpose, is relevant and has an economy-wide focus.</para>
<para>With 63 per cent of all people in Bennelong in the workforce, 58 per cent of those working full time, I know that this bill, if passed, will be greatly beneficial to workers in Bennelong. It will provide much-needed support to those working or looking for work by allowing better access to education and upskilling and will contribute to a stronger evidence base and more effective decision-making on workforce issues. This bill is about building a better future for all of us. It's about creating opportunities and ensuring that everyone has a fair go. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in support of this bill, the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. This bill, of course, relates to the labour market—to one of the most important areas of social and economic policy. In fact, there's no area of social and economic policy more important than ensuring that our labour market functions well and that it gives opportunities in our society to all.</para>
<para>Where we work is so critical. It's where we earn a living. But also, for so many, where we work gives us dignity in life. It gives us purpose. It's where we contribute to society. It's where we have a social outlet. So a well-functioning labour market means so much for the economic productivity of our society, but also for the quality of our social interactions.</para>
<para>I want to provide just a couple of observations about our labour market before I talk about this bill, because this bill reflects, I believe, not only the current state of our labour market but also how our understanding of our labour market has evolved over recent decades. Back when I was studying economics, many, many moons ago, when we spoke about our labour market, we used to talk about unemployment. That was basically the single characteristic of the labour market that was of interest: what proportion of the people in the labour market didn't have a job at any particular point in time? That was at a point in time when almost everybody had a full-time job, and so it was a very binary measure: were you are in a job or were you not in a job?</para>
<para>Now, of course, the labour market is so much more complicated. We have unemployment, which is still probably the single most reported measure of the labour market, but we also, of course, have underemployment. We have measures of job insecurity: the number of jobs where people may not have regular hours or may not have secure conditions. And now, of course, we have many people who come in and out of the labour market, people who may have gaps in their employment. That, of course, has consequences in terms of their economic stability but also in the longer term—for example, for their superannuation balances. So it's critical to think of the labour market in a far more nuanced way.</para>
<para>Going back to when I studied unemployment, we used to think about unemployment as having three types: frictional unemployment, cyclical unemployment and structural unemployment. I think that, while the real world is never so neat as that, those types still characterise, in broad terms, some of the main types of dislocation that people have from the labour market. 'Frictional unemployment' generally means people who have a short-term break from employment and maybe are just unemployed for a period while they do up their CV. They're just looking for a job and will find something very quickly. 'Cyclical unemployment' reflects the ebbs and flows in total unemployment numbers as a result of the business cycle. And 'structural unemployment' is where there are deeper, tectonic, changes in the nature of the economy, where some industries are on the rise and some industries are on the decline and where it can take a while for workforces to shift between those industries. As I said, things aren't that neat, but that's a useful frame for thinking about it.</para>
<para>The reason I raise that is: that last type of unemployment—structural unemployment—has always been more of a policy challenge. It can reflect where there is a mismatch between the skills of people who are looking for work and the jobs that either exist or are emerging—a mismatch between the experience and the qualifications of those people who are looking for work and the jobs that are currently open or are emerging. These mismatches can be difficult to identify and can take quite a while to fix.</para>
<para>The reason I raise that is that we now, I believe, have a much better understanding: that understanding that kind of mismatch requires much more granular data than we used to apply some decades ago. In order to truly understand how we can help people who are mismatched to emerging jobs, we need to deeply understand—and at a very granular level—what qualifications and skills those people have. If they don't match with jobs, we need to understand what it is that we can do to help those people update their skills or qualifications to match with the jobs that either are currently on offer or might be emerging in the economy. It's that really granular data and granular analysis which are so key.</para>
<para>I raise that because that's exactly the kind of data that Jobs and Skills Australia is going to be able to provide to government. It will form the basis, the underpinning, of the advice that JSA provides to the minister, to the government of the day and to the bureaucracy. Of course, it's important to be able to cut and splice that data to reflect the particular challenges that young people might have, that people in certain regions might have, that older people undertaking mid-career transitions might have, that people from particular backgrounds might have or that women might have in particular contexts. That kind of analysis requires very detailed data, which, again, is exactly what this organisation is going to produce and analyse and provide to government.</para>
<para>Another piece of context which I think is critical when it comes to Jobs and Skills Australia is that we are facing a massive skills shortage at the moment, which previous speakers have identified. To some degree that reflects the fact that our economy is in a state of significant flux. There are some industries that are declining in terms of their demand for employment and some that are rapidly increasing. But, at the same time, we've just come out of quite an unprecedented period where our borders were shut or near shut for a couple of years, and we went from a period of very high levels of migration to essentially zero levels of migration. This has created very sharp shortages in many areas. So, coupled with the fact that it's an inherently difficult kind of area of policy to deal with when there are mismatches between people looking for jobs and jobs that are either open or emerging, it's particularly difficult at this time, given that we have so many areas of skills shortage and such sharp skills shortages because of the period we've just experienced with COVID. That makes the work that Jobs and Skills Australia will undertake so timely and so critical. In fact, Australia has the second-highest labour shortages at the moment across all OECD countries. Those skills shortages are partly a reflection of mismatches—partly a reflection of the fact that there are people out there looking for work who don't have the skills and experience to precisely match up with emerging jobs—and it's partly a reflection of those broader macroeconomic issues that Australia has experienced over the last few years with the borders shutting.</para>
<para>There are 286 occupations experiencing skills shortages, double the number that were experiencing skill shortages just 12 months ago. There are particular areas which warrant mention. Construction, for example—the industry recorded difficulty at 80 per cent levels in December 2022. This is critical, of course, because it relates to so many areas, like housing and those critical to supply chains, that are important for dealing with pressures on rent, pressures on homelessness and all sorts of other areas of social policy. Construction shortages are absolutely critical to dealing with a whole raft of other policy areas. Health care and social assistance is an area where massive employment growth is expected, and there are some particular occupations within that broader sector that are currently experiencing significant skill shortages. So, again, it's critical that an organisation like Jobs and Skills Australia provide the government with the most up-to-date and granular information so that we can understand our best to deal with those areas.</para>
<para>Another issue in the labour market that is absolutely critical is the underutilisation of skills. This relates to matching, but it's a different dimension to matching. It's where the skills of a whole raft of people in the community are not being currently recognised in a way where they are able to fully utilise those skills. A good example of that is a raft of people in the CALD community. This is a group of people that I talk to regularly. These are people who might come to Australia with qualifications in other countries or experience in other countries but those qualifications or that experience are not able to be utilised where that person would desire them be used and where they would benefit the community for a considerable amount of time. Again, fully understanding that challenge of the underutilisation of skills requires very granular data and very expert analysis of that data.</para>
<para>As I've indicated, Jobs and Skills Australia will put the government in a much better position, firstly, to understand these challenges and, secondly, to develop the appropriate responses. Jobs and Skills Australia, I think, was the first bill that passed through both houses of this parliament after this government took office—if not, it was one of the first. It reflected, right from the start, that getting better labour market outcomes is right at the top of this government's priority list.</para>
<para>As previous speakers have indicated, Jobs and Skills Australia has been operating on an interim basis. This bill will provide a permanent governance arrangement for this extremely important organisation. It will establish a ministerial advisory board, which will be a key part of the governance structure of this body. It will also require the minister to commence a review of the JSA within two years and it will establish the key functions of Jobs and Skills Australia, including a range of functions in terms of advising the minister. Jobs and Skills Australia will identify labour market imbalances and analyse the demand and supply for particular skills. Again, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, it's extremely critical that government has that very granular level of analysis. It will analyse workforce needs in relation to migration, an area that touches on the matching of skills and labour force shortages, as indicated. That will also help us to get over the challenge of workforce shortages which were exacerbated by those two years of very low migration. This lies at the heart of the government's response to a more functional and better suited, better designed migration system, which the Minister for Home Affairs has talked about so much over the last few weeks. So it's important that we pass this bill to put Jobs and Skills Australia, an absolutely critical organisation, on a more permanent footing.</para>
<para>The kinds of analysis and the kind of advice that will come out of this body to the minister, the government and the bureaucracy are going to be absolutely critical for the government. That's not just in resolving shortages within the labour market but in dealing with a raft of much broader policy issues. We're not going to be able to deal with housing shortages unless we deal with workforce shortages in the construction sector. We're not going to be able to deal with shortages in the care economy, or be able to provide the quality service in care that people deserve, unless we deal with skills shortages in that area. This organisation is going to put the government in a much stronger position to deal with those issues.</para>
<para>This government has a very broad agenda when it comes to providing people with the opportunity to reskill or for people leaving school to gain additional skills. There will be 180,000 free TAFE places and 10,000 New Energy Apprenticeships—those are just two examples. But in order for school leavers to make the right choices about what degrees or courses to take and what areas to focus on, and in order for those offering courses to know what the right courses are, given the emerging industries in the economy, everybody in the ecosystem that is the labour market needs to be better informed. All of these different areas of government policy priority are going to require better information and better quality advice. As Minister O'Connor said in his second reading speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I firmly believe that JSA is, and will be understood widely as, one of Australia's essential social and economic agencies.</para></quote>
<para>I think that when you consider the importance of a well-functioning labour market in giving people opportunities and also in underpinning long-term productivity growth, then that it is going to underpin better policy in exactly the way that the minister indicated.</para>
<para>I can think back to the jobs and skills round table that I held in my electorate—fittingly, at Victoria University, one of Australia's dual-sector universities. I heard there from employers at the coalface right across my electorate about the skills shortages they were facing, and also from people helping young people to make decisions about what courses to undertake after they finished school. Information coming out of Jobs and Skills Australia is going to help all of them. It's going to help government, it's going to help young people choosing courses, it's going to help employers and it's going to help those offering courses to do so in a way that better suits the emerging economy, which will be a higher productivity economy and also an economy with opportunities provided for all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia has had a skills crisis for the last decade. The policies of the previous Liberal government led to a reduction in the number of Australians in training for apprenticeships and traineeships. They led to a reduction in the amount of funding that was going to, in particular, public education around vocational education and training in this country. The result of those cuts to funding for public education in vocational training and the lack of support for apprenticeships and traineeships was the skills shortage—not enough Australians with the skills that employers needed to ensure that they could do the work that they were contracted to do through their businesses. As a result we suffered a productivity slump.</para>
<para>The previous government's solution to this problem was simply to import labour, to bring in foreign workers to fill the gaps that had been left by the lack of investment and the lack of commitment of the previous government to invest in training and skills for the next generation of Australians. It's known that our nation has one of the worst shortages of labour supply amongst the OECD. Thirty-eight per cent of jobs are experiencing skill shortages that require a vocational pathway.</para>
<para>For too long the lack of investment in appropriate education and training put a brake on our economy. We could have been growing our economy at a higher rate. We could have been a much more productive workforce. Instead, we had a handbrake on our economic development because of a lack of commitment from the previous government to invest in vocational education and training.</para>
<para>The system only got worse during the pandemic. When the government was required to close the borders because of the pandemic that migration of foreign labour into the country stopped. As I said earlier, the government's solution was to import labour from other nations to plug the skill shortages. When COVID hit, migration stopped and we faced even greater shortages of skills and supply chain disruptions. Employers were simply not able to get workers for particular jobs. That accumulated, and it has only got worse and worse. We are still facing the hangover from that, despite the fact that skilled migration has recommenced. For too long there has been a lack of appropriate investment in education and training and that has put a brake on our economy.</para>
<para>In 2012, more than 57,000 Australians had completed a trade apprenticeship. By 2021 that number had dropped to 20,000. It was less than half the number it was a decade ago. That's a sad indictment on our nation and on the development of skills in Australia. We weren't interested in investing in developing the skills of the Australian people. We rely on those apprenticeships and traineeships for economic growth, and it's going to be particularly important as we enter into what will be the equivalent of the second industrial revolution for our nation.</para>
<para>The changes that are coming in clean energy development are going to require massive upskilling of our nation and refocusing of certain trades, particularly electrical trades, for the jobs of the future. The investments that the government is making through AUKUS and the development of a nuclear-propelled submarine industry—a huge undertaking for a nation to be involved in—will create 20,000 jobs. They're not going to be unskilled, low-paid jobs. They're going to be high-skilled, high-tech jobs that will require a decent vocational education and training system. We are going to rely on that training to meet those AUKUS commitments, to transition to renewable energy and to restore manufacturing in this country.</para>
<para>While apprenticeship completion rates have declined across all groups, they are particularly low for women, First Nations people, people with disabilities and people living in remote Australia. If we get support for apprentices right, we're going to be rewarded in the next generation with a highly skilled, highly technical, vocationally trained workforce.</para>
<para>It has taken the election of the new government to focus Australians' minds on change in this area, and I believe that this is one of the key areas where Australians voted for change. I certainly know that, in the area that I present, support for apprentices and investment in vocational education and training was a key issue for people who switched their support from Liberal to Labor.</para>
<para>We've been strengthening our targeted support for services available to lift apprenticeship completions, to address critical skills shortages and to ensure that all apprentices feel valued in the workplace and are encouraged to succeed—and we saw that in last night's budget with those additional investments in TAFE training for Australians. The changes will help them—particularly women—to complete apprenticeships and find rewarding jobs. The bill that we're discussing here today is an important part of that reinvestment in and reinvigoration of vocational training in Australia.</para>
<para>We made a commitment at the election to establish Jobs and Skills Australia. This bill delivers on that. We established JSA as an interim body in 2022, in November. JSA will play a critical role in addressing Australia's current and emerging skills and training needs. This amendment bill delivers again on that commitment to collaborate and seek wideranging advice from tripartite partners.</para>
<para>The bill will establish a tripartite ministerial advisory board that includes representatives from state and territory governments, unions, employers and experts. The ministerial advisory board will provide advice, ensuring that the JSA can effectively guide the government on workforce needs. The bill also legislates the requirement for JSA to consult with that ministerial advisory board in the development of its work plan, and that will ensure that the JSA's work is done in consultation with stakeholders and, importantly, that they are getting feedback about how to address those shortages of skills in particular areas where Australia is going to need skills into the future. It's about developing the long-term capacity of our nation.</para>
<para>The bill specifies that that work plan must invite public submissions, and the permanently established JSA will develop a work plan to help the Australian government improve skill development, employment opportunities and economic growth. We've already consulted broadly on the permanent model of JSA, which will conduct labour-market analysis in order to ensure that we're responding to existing and emerging skills demands.</para>
<para>The new proposed functions include providing advice on the demand for and availability of workers in particular industries and occupations; a greater focus on analysis of regional, rural and remote locations; and supporting decision-making in relation to Australia's migration program. JSA will also conduct studies focused on opportunities to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for those who've historically experienced labour-market disadvantage and exclusion, and on building an evidence base of the impact of various workplace arrangements on economic and social outcomes. Working closely with industry consultative forums, such as the Jobs and Skills Councils, will strengthen that national evidence base.</para>
<para>Additional changes to JSA's governance include replacing the JSA Director with the JSA Commissioner and introducing up to two JSA commissioners. They'll all be selected through transparent, merit based selection processes. There will also be a requirement for a statutory review of JSA's operations, to commence within two years of its permanent establishment, and the government's amendments to this bill will expand the representation of JSA governance arrangements.</para>
<para>This bill is pretty important. It cements this government's commitment to ensuring that we're investing in the skills of the future. The Albanese government is determined to ensure that there are genuine partnerships between JSA and the business community, particularly small businesses. Our small businesses are particularly susceptible to skills shortages and their effects on their businesses. You only need to walk down the main street of many towns and cities throughout the country and see the signs advertising for labour in shop windows or in business windows throughout the country. Over 2½ million small and family businesses operate in Australia, making up 97 per cent of businesses.</para>
<para>Not only will JSA respond to the current skills crisis that has been imposed on the county; it will lead to more strategic planning and investment in education. That will be crucial if we are going to see the energy transformation to clean, affordable and reliable power; if we're going to rebuild our manufacturing capacity through the National Reconstruction Fund and build the infrastructure needs for the future; if we are going to keep up with technological advancement, particularly in the digital economy; if we are going to strengthen and support the growing care economy and ensure a sustainable health and disability support sector, particularly as the Australian population ages; and if we're going to significantly upskill and uplift our capacity when it comes to the defence of Australia. Reforms such as this are vitally important and are part of the government's suite of policies to reboot and reinvigorate vocational training in Australia.</para>
<para>We know that the key to unlocking Australia's economic development into the future is ensuring that we have the skills amongst the Australian workforce to achieve that unlocking of that potential by providing employers with the skills that they need to grow their businesses and to grow our economy. That's why this bill is so important, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government agenda to tackle ongoing skills shortages and underemployment in Australia has been front and centre since the federal election last year. I am honoured to join several of my colleagues in advocating for the passage of the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. The bill will amend the Jobs and Skills Australia Act 2022 to outline Jobs and Skills Australia's permanent functions and the governance arrangements. It will ensure that the body is set up for success by enshrining an economy-wide perspective that encourages contributions from the union, industry, vocational education and training and higher education sectors.</para>
<para>The passage of this bill will complete the second stage of the two-stage process that was made clear in the introduction of The Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022. We are living in a time of rapid change, where technology advancements and global competition are transforming the way that we work and live. In this dynamic environment, it is more important than ever to have a skilled and adaptable workforce. Jobs and Skills Australia will be a crucial pillar in making sure we can meet the challenges of the present and the future.</para>
<para>The bill is a result of extensive consultation and deliberation, which began in the lead up to this government's landmark Jobs and Skills Summit in September last year. This was followed by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the first bill, a discussion paper seeking public comment and bilateral and other targeted engagement activities. Feedback received through the stakeholder engagement process did not just inform the development of the legislation. Rather, it informed, and will continue to inform, the engagement protocols and operational elements of Jobs and Skills Australia. Over 130 submissions from across government, unions, business, industry and employer groups and education sectors were received by the committee during the public submission process.</para>
<para>The high level of interest in and engagement with this process reiterated the importance of Jobs and Skills Australia. This process was crucial in ensuring the body operates in a way that serves the purpose and needs of different partners across states and territories, industry, business and the entire tertiary sector. As a result, the government has committed to state and territory colleagues that they will have a role in Jobs and Skills Australia governance to ensure that it is working to provide analysis and advice on areas that are crucial for them. In addition, the government will make sure that industry, education providers and union voices are a feature of Jobs and Skills Australia's governance. The deep insights and observations they will bring will ensure Jobs and Skills Australia's outputs are fit for purpose and have an economy-wide focus. The vision is necessary for Australia to resolve the labour market issues it currently faces. Currently, Australia has the second-highest labour supply shortage across the OECD. This means over three million Australians did not have the necessary skills to participate in training and secure work. Even industries crucial to Australia are not immune to skill shortage. Of the top 20 occupations in demand, seven have a shortage that is primarily driven by a lack of people with required skills, reinforcing the importance of having a renewed approach to our skills system for addressing these shortages.</para>
<para>The passage of this bill will introduce that renewed approach Australia desperately needs and deserves. It will establish Jobs and Skills Australia as a permanent body, including its full range of functions and governance arrangements. The major difference in the governance of the proposed permanent model is embedded in the commitment to its tripartite governance, with a Jobs and Skills Australia commissioner who will in turn be supported by deputy commissioners and a ministerial advisory board. The proposed permanent arrangements outlined in this bill will mean Jobs and Skills Australia adopts a broad based approach with a range of functions and responsibilities. These functions include: identifying labour market imbalances to analyse the role played by the demand and supply of skills; building an evidence base to assess the impact of various workplace arrangements, like insecure work and casualisation, on economic and social outcomes; analysing workforce needs and skills to align our migration program with what the Australian economy requires; undertaking studies to improve employment, VET and higher education outcomes for cohorts that have historically experienced disadvantage, thus ensuring a fairer and more credible system; and contributing to industry consultation forums.</para>
<para>The bill also includes a requirement for a statutory review of Jobs and Skills Australia to commence within 24 months of the commencement of the amended bill. The statutory review will guide the execution of the bill and rectify any issues that may arise in the future. The core of Jobs and Skills Australia remains unchanged from the objectives of this government's jobs and skills agenda, engagement and collaboration. The JSA will be one body that will bring together unions, employers and state and territory governments, which are largely responsible for our education system. It will be a mechanism for the tripartite partners to engage and collaborate to achieve goals which require efforts that are bigger than the respective sectors alone. All three sectors share the experience of the existing skills shortages and changing labour market needs. Through the JSA, these three sectors will work towards achieving their shared aspiration for Australia's workforce into the future. The government and the JSA will hear directly from these partners about industry-specific issues and requirements relating to skills and the labour market.</para>
<para>The provisions outlined in this bill specifically require JSA's advice to be informed by stakeholder expertise, insights and networks. These provisions ensure that JSA can inform the government to support our response to the evolving demands of the economy and Australia's workforce and learners, and better support the training system to deliver the skilled workers that Australians need. The bill will require JSA to consult with a broad-based ministerial advisory board in the development of its work plan. This approach was emphasised by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. It will ensure that the work plan directly aligns with addressing workforce shortages and building long-term capacity in priority sectors. The bill will establish the Jobs and Skills Australia commissioner as the head of Jobs and Skills Australia, who will be appointed in a long-term, permanent capacity through the merit based selection process, in line with the APS merit and transparency guidelines. To support the commissioner, the bill will allow for up to two long-term deputy commissioners to be appointed for up to a five-year period for Jobs and Skills Australia's functions and business as usual requirements.</para>
<para>Additionally, the bill amends flexibility in the agency's framework to ensure it can best respond to emerging needs and priorities in the response to changing economic conditions. Experts will be engaged under a written agreement on a time limited or study-by-study basis, ensuring that sector-specific experience, influence and networks are brought to each of the JSA's workforce and cohort studies or detailed regional assessments.</para>
<para>To further support the governance of Jobs and Skills Australia, the bill will establish a ministerial advisory board that consists of representatives and independent experts with skills and experience in areas relevant to Jobs and Skills Australia. Board members will include experts from tertiary education, employment and industrial relations with experience in unions, data analysis, workforce planning and regional organisations, and those representing priority cohorts and those most disadvantaged in the labour market. The board will be tripartite, and participation from employer organisations and unions will be fair and equitable. The ministerial advisory board will provide the minister and the JSA commissioner with expert advice on the work plan of Jobs and Skills Australia and other products. Board members will also be expected to consult with and represent the views of respective sectors and industry where relevant.</para>
<para>A large part of this bill builds on the work of the interim Jobs and Skills Australia, which has been underway since November 2022 and has continued the important work already begun by the National Skills Commission. It has also started new work such as commencing a clean energy capacity study and a national study on adult foundation skills to better understand the barriers to the workforce faced by so many Australians.</para>
<para>JSA will continue to produce skills and workforce data and analytics to contribute to a more granular national evidence base. It will continue to provide crucial insights into disadvantaged cohorts, provide regional analysis and support workforce planning. Workforce planning for industries is crucial. It will support education and training and migration systems to respond to current and future workforce needs. This bill expands the workforce planning function for Jobs and Skills Australia, which will assess how skills and workforce issues can be addressed across the whole economy. For example, skilled STEM graduates from both higher education and the VET system are likely to have the skills and training which are adaptable for several different emerging and crucial industries, like technology and clean energy. It will complement the sector-specific workforce planning undertaken by jobs and skills councils. The government has consulted broadly on the permanent model of Jobs and Skills Australia to ensure that this bill supports an ideal range of ongoing functions and products it will deliver. Equipping Australians with the skills and knowhow they require to remain at pace with the rapid growth of this age has been at the forefront of the government's priorities. Indeed, I believe the Jobs and Skills Summit will continue to be among the cornerstones of Australian political history.</para>
<para>This bill gives effect to the tripartite approach that became a signature of the summit—one that was reflected in the Holt jobs and skills summit ahead of the main Jobs and Skills Summit in Canberra. Establishing a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia will mean that this approach is permanently enshrined. It will mean that the people of Holt will be able to receive the skills they need to get the jobs they want. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023. This bill comes at a critical point in time. Here we are the day after budget day, and we've seen the first budget surplus in 15 years—the first budget surplus that has been delivered since the global financial crisis. One of the features of that budget surplus was the strength of the Australian labour market—the number of people employed and the growth in wages that has been experienced, both of which were critical to delivering the outstanding budget outcome the Treasurer was able to deliver today. This speaks to some of the real challenges and opportunities in our labour market.</para>
<para>This bill comes at a critical point in time. It comes at a time when businesses everywhere are talking about the challenge of skills and employment. Right now, Australia has the second-highest labour supply shortages of any OECD country around the world. Three million Australians lack the fundamental skills needed to participate in training and secure work. It's clear we need real solutions to address the jobs and skills shortage today so that we can build a stronger economy for tomorrow.</para>
<para>This bill proposes to establish a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia. This government acted quickly to establish an interim body last November, but a permanent body is needed to begin the work of building a strong, skilled and secure workforce for our future. Our proposed government amendment will be a statutory body that works with businesses and industry leaders as well as education providers and unions to give independent advice and address the skills crisis being faced by so many businesses across our communities.</para>
<para>One of those communities is the city I am proud to represent. Parramatta is a city of opportunity. Parramatta is a community of aspirational families and individuals all striving for success in the emerging heart of Greater Sydney. It's a city of small businesses, of people who have come from all over the world to build a better life for themselves and their families. Parramatta has a longstanding reputation as a launchpad for first-generation Australians, and that reputation has been founded on the ability of the city to give those who work hard the opportunity to build and find their own success. Parramatta supports this aspiration for its people. It supports it with good infrastructure rivalling that of many cities across the country—a world-class health district in Westmead, an emerging transport hub in Parramatta CBD and no fewer than nine university campuses offering high-quality education to local residents.</para>
<para>With a large and booming economy as diverse as our community, Parramatta today is a city of growth. With regional GDP of more than $30 billion, Parramatta holds the title of Sydney's second CBD. Its economy is even bigger than some of the capitals of other Australian states. But, right now, as strong as Parramatta's economy is, businesses face challenges every day. Cafes face challenges finding workers to keep the doors open. Technology firms are struggling to find the specific skills they need to grow. The four banks that have taken premises in Parramatta's new CBD are all struggling to fill roles in their Parramatta offices. We have a young, vibrant workforce, lots of universities and growth across the city, with companies extending their footprint to have a place inside the geographic centre of the city, and yet many of these businesses can't find the workers that they need. That's why jobs and skills are so important to our community and so important to many communities across the country.</para>
<para>I heard this loud and clear at the Jobs and Skills Summit that we held in Parramatta last year. Over 80 attendees came from across a range of industries, from manufacturers to local educators to unions and peak bodies, and for all of them the skills crisis was a major concern. Not only do businesses have trouble finding the workers they need, but we also have many young people across the electorate who are struggling to get the skills they need to connect into the jobs of the future. We found that local stakeholders were concerned that huge sections of the local community—particularly school leavers, migrants, women and First Nations people—were struggling to participate in mainstream education and employment opportunities. We heard of an enormous desire from participants who were willing and excited to work with the government to tackle these issues. They wanted a government to design a policy that unlocks local talent and lowers barriers to participating in the workforce, starting by addressing the skills shortage in our communities. One of the things that were at the top of the agenda was proper funding to TAFE. People wanted significant improvements to the visa system by improving access and reducing wait times. They wanted more affordable child care to help parents enter the workforce.</para>
<para>I'm proud to say that this government has delivered on many of these aspirations. In the aftermath of the National Jobs and Skills Summit, we announced an additional $1 billion in joint federal-state funding for fee-free TAFE starting in 2023 and accelerated delivery of 465,000 fee-free TAFE places. We increased the permanent Migration Program ceiling to 195,000 to help ease widespread critical shortages, and we halved the backlog of unprocessed visas in March 2023. From July 2023, 9,000 families across Parramatta will benefit from our cheaper childcare plan, helping parents and mums get back into the workforce. We listened and we acted when local businesses and communities spoke to us, and this bill is about going further. It's about addressing the skills and job shortages that we have right across the economy.</para>
<para>It's no surprise that those opposite are opposing elements of this bill, because, after a decade of coalition government, local stakeholders and businesses had deserted them. It wasn't just a decade of delay, decay and denial, but also a decade when the concerns of businesses fell on deaf ears. No wonder businesses and voters across the business community lost faith in those opposite! Nowhere is this more clear than in their proposed amendments to this very bill. Whereas the government's proposed amendments allow for the appointment of a fourth employer representative to specifically cover the interests and voices of small business, those opposite have proposed an amendment which would undermine workers' voices. That's just not the constructive approach that we want to see in this legislation, and it's clear that the coalition have not learned their lesson. Whereas stakeholders and the crossbench have worked with the government to craft an amendment that strengthens small-business representation, the opposition have made it clear that they will not support this bill unless their amendment is successful. The difference couldn't be clearer. While we're taking a constructive approach in tackling the jobs and skills crisis to build a better future, the coalition continue to ignore and exclude the voices of those around them.</para>
<para>We know that business is critical in helping to deliver the government vision for Australia. After a decade in opposition, this government has watched and learned and seen those opposite ignore businesses and pay the price for it. Business has moved forward in so many areas across our economy. They've moved forward towards net zero with concrete plans and targets while the previous government vacated their roles and responsibilities. On gender equity, many businesses have set goals and targets to achieve gender equity in their executive ranks and boards.</para>
<para>When businesses were looking for leadership on jobs and skills; again, we listened and we responded. Jobs and Skills Australia reflects this government's commitment to listening and working with businesses, unions and educators to address the skills crisis. The government's amendment will ensure consultation will be baked into its core functions, ensuring ongoing cooperation with businesses. Under this amendment, Jobs and Skills Australia will be empowered to take on a broader range of functions, helping the government address the skills shortage better. These functions include identifying labour market imbalances and analysis of the role played by demand and supply of skills; building an evidence base on the impact of various workforce arrangements, particularly when it comes to insecure work and how that impacts economic outcomes; and undertaking studies on opportunities to improve employment and education outcomes for groups that historically faced labour market barriers and exclusions, such as women, seniors, those with disabilities, young people and First Nations people.</para>
<para>Finally, a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia will contribute to industry consultation forums and strengthen our ability to listen to business when it comes to key skills and labour shortages in their sectors. Establishing a permanent Jobs and Skills Australia will finally provide the independent advice that we need to address skills shortages. We've shown this government is determined to work with businesses—not against them or in spite of them—to tackle key economic challenges. This bill lays the building blocks for that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank all of those who have contributed to this debate. Jobs and Skills Australia was established by this government late last year and has already begun important work needed to identify solutions to our skills and workforce challenges, and to build the workforce that Australia needs now and into the future.</para>
<para>Introducing the legislation in two stages, including this amendment bill, has allowed the government the time and opportunity to consult with key tripartite partners and stakeholders in state and territory governments, business and unions, and also training and education providers and civil society representatives. We've also had very constructive engagement with members of this place, in particular the crossbench, both the Greens here and in the Senate and indeed the member for Indi.</para>
<para>The Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill, introduced by the government in March, establishes the ongoing governance arrangements for Jobs and Skills Australia, and additional functions to ensure that it will play a critical role as the national body providing consistent data analysis and advice.</para>
<para>We know Australia is experiencing acute skills shortages. As Jobs and Skills Australia has informed us, the recruitment difficulty rate in December last year was 65 per cent—26 percentage points above the level recorded in January 2021. Recruitment difficulty across higher-skilled and lower-skilled, casual and non-casual vacancies has also been trending upwards. Meanwhile, the number of occupations in shortage doubled in 12 months from 153 occupations to 286, which really underlines the scale of the challenge. Yet many Australians continue to face significant disadvantage and exclusion in the labour market, finding it tough to find secure and meaningful employment. Some of these groups, like First Nations Australians; culturally and linguistically diverse Australians; those living in regional, rural and remote Australia; over-55s; women; people living with a disability; and youth face regular challenges to fully participate in the labour market because too often they are marginalised by way of age, health, gender or background.</para>
<para>Can I thank all of those who have contributed to this debate. There were a very significant number, which really speak to the importance of this statutory body and this legislation. I thank the members for Spence, Moreton, Blair, Hawke, Lyons, Higgins, Cunningham, Swan, Holt, Fraser, Kingsford Smith, Parramatta, Bennelong, Gilmore, Bruce, Werriwa and Chisholm, for the government; and, indeed, the opposition members for Farrer, Sturt, Hughes, Casey, Riverina, Nicholls and Fisher. In particular, can I thank the member for Indi for her contribution and engagement. I also want to note the contribution made by the member for Fowler.</para>
<para>This is an important debate. It is absolutely vital that we have comprehensive debates in this place over significant public policy to make sure we get it right. As a result of the engagement we've had and the contributions made in this place, we are better off. For that reason, I thank everyone who has been genuinely engaged. The majority of members in the House—those who support and will support this bill—agree that workers, employers, governments and the training and education sector must work together if we want to unlock the full potential of Australia's workforce and ensure Australians have the skills and training needed for jobs now and in the future, even when we come from different viewpoints. There is, however, not unanimity on this in this House. Later we will debate the amendments proposed by the opposition.</para>
<para>The opposition's amendments are designed, in the government's view, to undermine worker voices on Jobs and Skills Australia and thus undermine industry's voice on that body. Whereas stakeholders and the crossbench have worked with government to craft an amendment that strengthens small business and regional, rural and remote representation within JSA, the opposition have made it clear that, if their antiworker amendment is unsuccessful, they will vote against the bill. They're insisting on an amendment that would remove representatives of workers from this body, and, if that is not successful, they will vote against the bill in its entirety. I think it's very disappointing that the opposition is considering doing that. It would be fair to say that, when you're looking at training and education and when you're talking about skills and the labour market, it's only reasonable that we have employer bodies and unions that represent their constituencies. They most often come together with a common purpose to advise government and advise industry about what is needed. Unfortunately the opposition have chosen a very antiworker approach to this legislation with respect to their amendment.</para>
<para>I want to thank Senators Faruqi and Barbara Pocock from the Greens political party for their engagement on this bill and shared commitment to ensuring employment and training opportunities for those who have historically experienced labour market disadvantage and exclusion. This includes considering the role that lived experience will play in determining members of the ministerial advisory board. The effect of those consultations is reflected in the bill that was introduced to the parliament. I'd like also to thank Senator David Pocock for his engagement. Senator Pocock's interest in the role universities play in educating the skilled workforce we need is an interest shared with the Minister for Education and me, and it is also reflected in this bill.</para>
<para>Government amendments have been circulated, and I'll discuss those in more detail when the House considers them, but I also want to specifically thank the member for Indi in particular, as I said, for her constructive engagement, which is reflected in the government's amendments. In addressing the member for Indi, I also want to thank her staff for their engagement with my office and thank the department for the manner in which analysis related to regional, rural and remote Australia is strengthened by the amendments in this bill. I want to provide assurances that these amendments strengthen JSA's remit in this space, and I look forward to their analysis being made public and supporting policy development to support those areas. I want to again thank all members of the House who've contributed to this very important debate, and I hope we see its passage after the debate on the amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7010" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>112</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023. The coalition largely supports this bill and its intent of protecting workers' entitlements, although we will identify a number of areas of serious concern.</para>
<para>This bill deals with issues that both employer and employee groups have had with the operation of the Fair Work Act. It also includes the government's election commitment to introduce a right to superannuation in the NES. The bill is broadly supported by both employer and employee organisations, however employer groups do have specific concerns with certain drafting of the schedules. To address these concerns the coalition will move a number of detailed amendments to improve the operation of the bill, which I will canvass briefly during this part of the debate.</para>
<para>Schedules 1 and 4, dealing with migrant workers and workplace determinations, propose technical amendments, and the coalition does not raise any issue with them. Schedule 1 proposes to introduce a new provision into the Fair Work Act which clarifies that a migrant worker in Australia is entitled to the benefit of the Fair Work Act, regardless of his or her migration status. This means that migrant workers, including temporary migrant workers, would be entitled to wages and entitlements under the Fair Work Act, a modern award or an enterprise agreement for work performed as an employee. Importantly, the provision would only apply for 'the purposes of" the Fair Work Act. Workers who breach migration laws would continue to be held liable for that unlawful behaviour.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 proposes a minor technical amendment that would confirm the common understanding of how workplace determinations and enterprise agreements interact. The bill proposes to clarify that when a workplace determination comes into effect in relation to an employee, any enterprise agreement that covers that employee in relation to that employment will cease to apply and can never apply again. This proposed change is consistent with the Fair Work Commission's approach in relation to this matter, however it is not currently stated in the Fair Work Act.</para>
<para>Schedule 2, dealing with unpaid parental leave, makes changes to the provisions concerning the taking of flexible unpaid parental leave. The coalition supports parental leave, both paid and unpaid, as a means of ensuring that Australians are able to balance their work and family responsibilities, and we believe parental leave greatly assists women in particular to remain connected to the workforce. Businesses of all sizes work closely with their employees to plan for periods of paid and unpaid parental leave, which will often last for a significant period of time. Different businesses will have different needs when it comes to planning when an employee takes parental leave, and we believe that employers and employees working together to plan for these periods is best for both employers and employees. Currently, employees can take up to 30 days or six weeks of their unpaid parental leave flexibly at any time within 24 months of a child's birth or adoption. Flexible unpaid parental leave can be taken as a single continuous period of one day or longer, or for separate periods of one day or longer each. The bill proposes to increase the number of days that can be taken as flexible unpaid parental leave from 30 to 100 days. This equates to an increase from six weeks absence from work to 20 weeks, which can be taken as flexible unpaid parental leave from the employer's entitlement of 12 months or 52 weeks.</para>
<para>Employer groups, including COSBOA, the Ai Group and ACCI, have raised the issue that, as currently drafted, in relation to the notice period to be given the bill fails to recognise that the needs of employees must necessarily be balanced with the operational requirements of the business or organisation for which they work. Employer groups have not opposed the expansion of the number of days that can be accessed flexibly, because it now matches the Paid Parental Leave scheme. There is merit in employees being able to take parental leave more flexibly, but such increased flexibility will pose practical challenges for employers. Employers need enhanced mechanisms to assist them to manage the practical ramifications of the proposed change.</para>
<para>I turn, therefore, to describing the amendments that the coalition is proposing. We have drafted a detailed amendment which would insert a review of schedule 2 of the bill—a schedule relating to unpaid parental leave, which must start after a period of six months of operation of the schedule. The amendment would require the minister to provide a copy of the report of the review to both houses of parliament.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 concerns the superannuation part of the National Employment Standards. The bill and the schedule implement the government's election commitment to introduce the right to superannuation into the National Employment Standards. Currently, the only way for many employees to pursue unpaid superannuation is through the Australian Taxation Office. The effect of the amendments proposed in schedule 3 of this bill would mean that an employee with an entitlement to superannuation contributions, pursuant to a modern award or enterprise agreement, could pursue unpaid superannuation guarantee contributions through the Fair Work regime, and a failure to make adequate contributions would constitute a breach of the Fair Work Act. Including superannuation in the National Employment Standards would mean that employees covered by the Fair Work Act would have an enforceable right to superannuation in the Fair Work Commission, as well as through the tax office.</para>
<para>Some of the employer groups have identified concerns with the way in which this provision is drafted. Ai Group, for example, has identified a number of issues relating to the unfairness to employers of being subject to multiple and potentially inconsistent enforcement efforts in different jurisdictions in relation to the same obligation, and the likelihood that the proposed approach will undermine the efficacy and utility of the constructive role that the ATO currently plays in providing guidance to individual employers for industry related to complex superannuation obligations.</para>
<para>The coalition will therefore move amendments that will have the following results: firstly, that will ensure that employers are not exposed to competing enforcement activity from two different regulators over the same matter; secondly, that will protect employers which rely on guidance from the ATO; thirdly, that will limit the capacity of the ATO to pursue matters ventilated in the workplace system; and, fourthly, that will limit the capacity of the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes over the operation of superannuation legislation.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of the bill before the House deals with employee authorised deductions. This set of provisions is concerning, in that it would see an actual impact to workers' take-home pay through the employee authorised deductions schedule. This is an issue of significant concern to employer groups. The coalition believes that Australians should be able to keep more of the money that they earn and it is important that any deduction from their take-home pay should be closely scrutinised.</para>
<para>Currently, under section 324 of the Fair Work Act, there are various types of permitted deductions that may be made from an employee's pay by an employer where the deduction is authorised in writing by the employee, is principally for their benefit and is the same amount as specified in the authorisation. As currently drafted, the bill before the House would allow for amounts as 'varied from time to time' without additional approval for the increase. This could lead to deductions being made from an employee's salary that greatly exceed the expectations of that employee.</para>
<para>This proposal, put forward by the government and embodied in the bill before the House, does not outline a clear problem which it is seeking to address. Given the lack of a stated rationale for this change, employer groups and the coalition are concerned that this provision is simply an attempt to facilitate unions increasing their fees without obtaining explicit agreement from their members.</para>
<para>That concern, I submit, is well founded. We have already seen many examples of this Labor government rolling over to the demands of their union paymasters, and this looks very much like another case of exactly that. This government certainly loves paying back their paymasters with favourable legislation. We should never be in a situation where a worker's own money can be raided by a union without that worker even being told about that happening. A vastly preferable approach would be to require an employee to provide a new written authorisation when the amount of an authorised deduction from that employee's pay changes. This would provide certainty to the employee and to the employer. This is necessary for employees to understand and authorise the impact of the relevant deduction on their take-home pay and for employers to ensure that they do not breach the Fair Work Act and find themselves liable for the significant and increasing penalties that can be imposed for employee underpayments.</para>
<para>While an employee might agree in general terms to a percentage or a capped amount increase to their authorised deductions over time, this may not be indicative of their consent to any particular increase in a particular period. For example, an employee may authorise a 10 per cent increase to his or her union fees over a five-year period, anticipating that that would equate to around a two per cent increase per year. However, if the union were to choose to increase its fees by eight per cent in year 1 of that authorisation, that may not be something that is acceptable to the employee, notwithstanding that the amount fits within the pre-authorisation provided by the employee to his or her employer. In these circumstances, what safeguards will be in place for the service provider to evidence the employee's consent to the variation in the union fees being deducted from the employee's salary? Will the employer be liable for amounts deducted without the employee's specific consent, even though the employee may have pre-authorised a general increase in the permitted deduction?</para>
<para>Given the current climate of high inflation and elevated cost-of-living concerns, the coalition anticipates that employees would prefer to have a clear choice in deciding whether to agree to any increase to the cost of services deducted from the employee's pay, rather than having those waved through automatically. The coalition considers it is unreasonable to place the burden of communicating increases in fees or premium amounts on employers, rather than that burden being placed upon the service provider which will benefit from the deductions, such as a health insurer or, indeed, a trade union. The proposed amendments would not reduce purported difficulties for employers processing deductions. Rather we consider this bill will create new difficulties and at the same time could reduce the protections for employees that section 324(3) of the Fair Work Act is intended to provide without discernible benefit for either party. Making changes to deductions is a time-consuming and costly task for employers, and the coalition would want an assurance that any changes would impose no further cost on business.</para>
<para>The small business peak body, COSBOA, noted during the committee inquiry into the bill that this provision would create an additional administrative burden and potential costs, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This proposal will create additional administrative burden upon employers to take on the role of notifying employees of a change in the amount of a deduction due to actions of which the employee may not be aware. In order to minimise employee confusion, the employer will now have to instigate communication of changes whereas the current system of the employee requesting a change to their salary arrangements maintains a simple and understood process.</para></quote>
<para>When an electricity provider, a health insurer, a bank or a streaming service such as Netflix increases their prices, it is only appropriate for consumers to be notified of that increase and then have the opportunity to reconsider whether they are receiving value for money. Employees should have similar protections for their take-home pay deductions. Unfortunately, on the current drafting, this schedule does not provide that assurance. It appears, in this case, that the government is attempting to change this section of the Fair Work Act to benefit those who are in receipt of employee deductions, with a particular eye to what serves the interests of trade unions.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, as you would be aware, union membership has fallen to eight per cent of the private sector workforce. This appears to be a pretty transparent attempt by the current government to address a decline in union membership. Signing up to a union should not be like signing up to a timeshare agreement—employees should be notified when the cost of the service that is provided to them by a union increases, and they should be given an opportunity to assess whether they wish to continue their membership. It is for these reasons that the coalition is moving amendments which are designed to ensure that organisations which are in receipt of a deduction from an employee's take-home pay first get the agreement of that employee before the deduction is increased. This is important for a whole range of reasons but particularly during a time of cost-of-living pressure for many Australians. It will ensure that more of the money they earn is in their hands, as opposed to giving the unions the ability to increase the membership costs they charge without getting the express consent of members. The coalition therefore will move an amendment which will require employees to be notified by the service provider of price increases relating to employee authorised deductions, and, if the employee does not confirm that agreement, then the deduction cannot go ahead.</para>
<para>I turn next to schedule 6 of the bill before the House, which deals with proposed amendments to the coal mining industry long-service leave funding scheme. This schedule would implement recommendation 4 of the 2021 KPMG independent review of the coal mining industry long-service leave funding scheme report, which recommended legislation 'to ensure that casual employees are treated no less favourably than permanent employees in the scheme'. Currently, employers pay a levy, which is a percentage of an eligible employee's eligible wages to the scheme, to allow employees in the black coal mining industry to accrue and carry their long-service leave entitlements with them between employers.</para>
<para>Stakeholders have identified certain issues with the current drafting. The current drafting does not define what 'eligible wages' are. This has led to a confusion from both employers and employees about the meaning of 'eligible wages' within the scheme, specifically whether eligible wages include a casual loading. Employer groups submit that where a quantifiable casual loading is not discernible from an industrial instrument the reference to ordinary rate of pay if it is intended to encompass a casual loading should specifically exclude any separately identifiable amounts apart from incentivised based payment bonuses or the casual loading. Clarification is therefore required. To address the concerns that have been raised the coalition will move a simple amendment to clarify what eligible wages are. The amendment makes it clear that eligible wages include casual loading to address this confusion and ensure casuals are treated fairly under the scheme.</para>
<para>The coalition has a long history of protecting worker entitlements by balancing the need for businesses to work as efficiently as possible. The coalition is broadly supportive of the bill but believes certain amendments are required. I've set out, in this speech, what the improvements are that we believe are required and the amendments that we are proposing.</para>
<para>I conclude by, again, referring to schedule 5, which is highly problematic. It does not outline the clear problem that it is supposedly setting out to rectify, and I restate the principle that an employee should be required to provide authorisation before an authorised deduction from their pay changes so as to provide certainty for the employer and the employee. There should never be a system put in place that allows money to be taken from employees without their authorisation. I commend the opposition's amendments to the House.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's budget keeps people in poverty. It's a big win for the big corporations and the very wealthy, but it's a betrayal of renters, students, jobseekers, young people and everyone doing it tough. At the election, the Prime Minister said no-one would be left behind. Well, Labor's budget leaves millions behind, leaving people in poverty while billionaires get tax cuts.</para>
<para>Tonight, as the cold starts to bite, people are going to sleep freezing in their cars. Tomorrow there will be people who wake up hungry and wonder what they're going to eat. Right now, there are students wondering how they are going to cope with the next rent rise. But Labor's budget spends a quarter of a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy, with $9,000 a year for billionaires and politicians. It has $16.7 billion of handouts for wealthy property moguls and $368 billion for nuclear submarines.</para>
<para>Labor say they want to be the superior economic manager, but for who? It's not for young people, for students, for renters, for first-time homebuyers. It's not for those on income support or for disabled people; it's for their big corporate donors. 'No corporation left behind' is Labor's new motto. Labor is managing the economy for CEOs, for billionaires and for property moguls. If you own dozens of homes, this budget is for you. If you run a coal and gas cooperation, this budget is for you. If you own a private jet, this budget is for you. If you are rich, Labor's got your back.</para>
<para>But if you are on income support you get $2.85 extra a day. That's barely enough to buy a loaf of bread. If you receive rent assistance, you will get an extra $1.12 a day. That's not going to cover the rent increases that are rising ten times faster than that in capital cities. It's a $1.12 a day to cover skyrocketing rents, while billions go to wealthy property moguls. For 5½ million renters who don't get rent assistance, there is nothing at all in the budget.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the government is collecting more from Labor's increase in student debt than from the changes to the tax on big gas corporations. Labor boasts that they are in surplus, but you can't use a surplus to pay the rent or buy food. Every dollar of surplus is a dollar not spent lifting people out of poverty, including the single mothers and single parents that Labor excluded from undoing the damage of their attack on single parents over a decade ago. Disabled people are facing $74 billion in cuts to the NDIS. These aren't tough choices, as the Prime Minister likes to say; they are just bad choices. They're making everyone else make the tough choices.</para>
<para>Despite the Treasurer failing to mention climate change once in his speech, the Greens have secured more than a third of the new climate spending, with a $2 billion package to help households, businesses and public housing get off of gas. However, Labor's still spending $41.4 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, more than the $29½ billion dollar climate spend.</para>
<para>When the budget legislation hits parliament, the Greens will fight to make the big corporations and billionaires pay more tax and will fight for more support for people who need it now—right now. The Greens will be fighting for renters and against the billions in handouts to property moguls. We will be fighting for the climate and the environment and against handouts for coal and gas corporations. The government has the power to tackle inequality and the cost-of-living crisis, but instead they're making it worse. They say no-one left behind, then they betray young people and those in poverty. They say they're ending the climate wars and then hand out billions in fossil fuel subsidies. They say they want to tackle housing, but they give nothing to 5½ million renters and refuse to directly invest in building more public housing.</para>
<para>Labor could work with the Greens to tackle the crisis that we face. Instead, Labor is betraying people and leaving them behind. Voters elected this parliament to act on climate, the environment and the cost-of-living crises. If Labor work together with the Greens, we could immediately stop new coal and gas mines, lift people out of poverty, freeze rent increases and wipe student debt. That's what the Greens will fight for when this budget legislation hits the parliament.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am incredibly proud to stand in this House, as part of this government, speaking on the budget handed down just 24 hours ago. I'm proud of this budget because it is a budget in the best of Labor traditions: it tackles today's challenges while it builds for tomorrow. As the member for Lalor, representing communities in the outer west of Melbourne, I will outline what is in this budget for the people I represent in this place.</para>
<para>I'm most proud of this budget because it backs in, supports and helps our community and our people so much. The budget provides cost-of-living relief, gives more opportunities to more Australians and creates a secure economy into the future. We're building for the long term and we're helping Australians who need support now. Our plan will grow the economy, creating new jobs in our outer suburbs; boost renewable energy; and invest in TAFE and training so Australians can make the most of the opportunities that are in front of us.</para>
<para>We're making responsible and disciplined choices that put our economy and our society on a stronger footing. That means that this government will deliver the first budget surplus in 15 years, something the Liberals promised to deliver each and every year but never delivered. But that is not how we measure this achievement. It's not what we measure it against.</para>
<para>This budget predicts a surplus in 2022-23, against a backdrop that demanded careful, responsible decision-making. This hasn't been an easy budget. It hasn't been easy work. But I'm lucky that I have developed a close friendship with the Treasurer since we both arrived here for the first time after the 2013 election. While we share so much in common, in terms of our life stories and our values, the thing we've really bonded over is the fact that the communities of Logan and Wyndham—of Rankin and Lalor—are so similar. In fact, on his first visit to my community, some years ago now, the Treasurer got out of the car and said, 'Jeez, Jo, this is just like being at home'—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Except for the weather!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Except for the weather!—something I'm sure you too, Mr Speaker, could attest to. With that in mind, I knew that at the forefront of the Treasurer's mind would be the people like those we both represent.</para>
<para>In fact, the Treasurer today stated communities like his—and therefore ours—provided the inspiration for this budget. You only have to look at the response to this budget to see our growing suburbs are at the forefront of this government's thinking. Peri Urban Councils Victoria has said that they 'greatly appreciate the positive direction from the Albanese government to support our expanding community need for improved public infrastructure and services', as well as 'welcoming the relief for those in our communities struggling with cost-of-living pressures'. This budget is a win for our community and those like it around the nation.</para>
<para>Just over 12 months ago, I sat around a Wyndham Vale family's kitchen table. It was the start of the election campaign, and we were there to talk about community batteries. Families like the one I was speaking to that day are who the Labor Party presented this budget for. And I'm pleased with all we have delivered for them: 5,000 people into work since we took office; federal infrastructure investment in our community for the first time in a decade; school upgrades; delivering a greener, cleaner future; helping over 1,200 locals buy their first homes with the Home Guarantee Scheme; and 11,000 premises provided with access to higher internet speeds to work, learn and relax, with our investment in the NBN since coming to government.</para>
<para>But we're not done yet. Our budget will see so many households benefit from a $500 rebate, and 34,000 locals will save $180 a year on their medicines. We're boosting wages for our aged-care workers, there's a record investment in Medicare and we're boosting payments for over 15,000 of our most vulnerable locals. We're supporting 9,000 eligible renters with the largest ever increase to rental assistance. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dairy Industry</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do Australians want to keep drinking fresh Australian milk and having access to some of the finest and best quality dairy products in the world?</para>
<para>An honourable member: Yes.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad to hear it. As a dairy farmer, I'm here to talk about the Australian and WA dairy industries. Recently, as a co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Producers, we hosted the dairy industry here in parliament focusing on Dairy Australia, Australian Dairy Farmers and the Australian Dairy Products Federation—the manufacturers of dairy products. There was a cross-section of the industry in attendance, including Michael Partridge, a dairy farmer whose White Rocks dairy business is near Brunswick Junction in my electorate. It was an outstanding event, featuring some of the wonderful cheeses and dairy products produced right here in Australia. However, there are real concerns about the broader industry, and that was expressed by the manufacturers as well.</para>
<para>For those of us who are passionate about the industry, we are very worried about the future of the industry. Milk volumes are declining from the historical highs of around 11.2 billion litres per annum, nationally. Dairy Australia projections show a further four to six per cent decline in production, bringing total production to around eight billion to 8.2 billion litres. There's been a reduction in the national herd to 1.34 million dairy cows as well, and a corresponding reduction of manufactured products and throughput for those particular manufacturers.</para>
<para>In WA we're down to 116 dairy farmers, with five more due to exit the industry that I'm aware of. At the time the industry deregulated, there were around 300 dairy farmers in WA, geographically spread from just south of Perth, down to the south-west, through to almost Albany. I think we had 125 dairy farmers in my Harvey shire alone. There are not many of us left now. The dairy industry has, historically, underpinned many regional towns and community economies in the dairy production states, and there have been significantly increased costs to produce milk in feed, in fertilisers, in power and in labour—that's if you can find people prepared to work on a dairy farm currently. The reduction in volumes is, of course, an issue for the manufacturers, for both the domestic and export markets, given Australia is the fourth largest in the global dairy trade.</para>
<para>In the domestic market, there's absolutely no doubt that the market power of the major supermarkets comes at a cost to milk processes and, ultimately, dairy farmers who are the ultimate price takers with a perishable, vulnerable product. The vertical integration of the supermarkets through Coles' purchase of two processing plants in Victoria and New South Wales also concerns me, and I can see further vertical integration coming. Coles also owns Jewel Fine Foods ready-made meals facility, also in New South Wales. I want people to keep in mind it was the major supermarkets that cut the heart out of dairy farmers returns with its $1 milk that took significant market share from the historic branded products. This directly increased financial pressure on milk processors as well as farmers.</para>
<para>Here we have the market power and concentration of major supermarkets having a direct negative impact on both milk processors, manufacturers and dairy farmers. They're also contracting milk directly from farmers, so vertical integration and absolute control of the whole supply-and-value chain, from farm through to consumer, is complete. But we have a perishable product that is fresh milk. It needs to be refrigerated, collected and processed on a daily basis. It places us as dairy farmers in a very vulnerable situation.</para>
<para>In the longer term, we are definitely vulnerable compared to the market and bargaining power and control of the major supermarkets who sell the majority of the milk. There are major challenges for young farmers trying to get into the industry: the cost of a startup and the bank's willingness to lend, what it costs to the business, the pricing of the risk and the interest rates applied to potential new entrant. These people are few and far between. So a critical role is to keep consumers of dairy products, particularly those who live in cities and metropolitan areas, connected to those of us who are the producers and source of some of the best quality food in the world. Keeping in mind the drinking milk is a dietary staple in 98 per cent of Australian households, this really does matter, whether you're a young child or of mature age, so I encourage people to keep buying branded Australian milk and dairy products. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>World Press Freedom Day</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was World Press Freedom Day on 3 May, with a focus on press freedom and freedom of speech, as articulated in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This year's theme is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Shaping a Future of Rights: Freedom of expression as a driver for all other human rights</para></quote>
<para>Every day, journalists around the world risk their lives, and sometimes those of their families, to bring us news and to keep us informed. In war zones, places of dangerous natural disasters or where criminal activity is out of control, journalists are there—filming events, investigating and reporting their stories. They witness horrific scenes; they delve into human rights abuses and persecution by brutal regimes, and into wrongdoing and corruption by governments, powerful business interests and criminal networks.</para>
<para>Their work is often extremely dangerous. Since 1993, when the UN proclaimed World Press Freedom Day, 1,591 journalists are reported to have lost their lives because of their work. The number could well be much higher; each year hundreds are detained, often indefinitely, on spurious charges—or no charges—and with no rights and no fairness. Journalism can be especially risky when those who abuse their power, including legitimately elected governments, are threatened by the truth. For those with power, truth is often the enemy and what they fear most.</para>
<para>Truth is fundamental to all human rights. As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy and justice.</para></quote>
<para>We all expect to be told the truth. Regrettably, that is not always the case. Journalistic freedom is often constrained by powerful media owners who use their media control to advance their personal interests or to pursue their political ideology. Thankfully, independent journalism is now much more possible and prevalent because of the internet. But so are falsehoods and disinformation.</para>
<para>However it is of grave concern when journalists are being silenced by those who serve under the banner of freedom, justice and human rights. Events such as the killing of five Australian journalists in Indonesia almost half a century ago in 1975, the car-bombing murder of Daphne Galizia in Malta in 2017 or the torture and killing of Jamal Khashoggi after entering the Saudi embassy in Turkiye in 2018 understandably evoked widespread community outrage. Regrettably, public outrage over their deaths and that of other journalists have not prevented threats of violence against journalists, with 67 killed last year.</para>
<para>Right now the case of Cheng Lei, a Chinese-born Australian journalist who has been detained for over a thousand days in China without any details of the charges against her, is a glaring example of the risks and injustices faced by journalists. Julian Assange lost his freedom in 2010 for exposing US war crimes, whilst those who were responsible for the war crimes, to my knowledge, have never been pursued or held to account. Since 2019, Assange has been held in the high-security Belmarsh prison whilst fighting extradition to the USA, where, if he is found guilty, he faces lifelong imprisonment. He is being held under conditions much worse, and with fewer rights, than what a serial killer might expect. I note that only recently Assange wrote to King Charles about the conditions in Belmarsh prison.</para>
<para>It is widely believed that the real reason for the pursuit of Julian Assange is payback for him exposing the truth about US war crimes and to warn off others from doing the same. His pursuit and treatment by the US and England is completely at odds with their status as leaders of the free world and upholders of human rights. The campaign to free Julian Assange grows daily, with US presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr now on board and announcing that he would pardon Assange and investigate the crimes and corruption Assange exposed. The campaign to free Julian Assange will not end until he is released. My view is that the charges against Julian Assange are contrived.</para>
<para>I will continue to defend his rights and those of all journalists who expose the truth whenever the public have a right to know. I welcome the comments by the Prime Minister that enough is enough, and that the matter needs to be brought to a conclusion.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Shepparton Bypass</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about a critical infrastructure project. It is critical for the Goulburn Valley, critical for one of the great food bowls of our country and critical for the residents and people of the Greater Shepparton area. That project is the Shepparton bypass. That project has the sword of Damocles hanging over its head. I sincerely hope that that sword doesn't fall.</para>
<para>I will give a bit of background. The Goulburn Valley Highway was declared part of the national highway system in 1992. In 1995 VicRoads commenced a planning study that settled the alignment of the bypass. The full 36-kilometre four-lane Shepparton bypass was estimated to cost just over $1.3 billion. After years of inaction it was decided that, in order to make the investment affordable, a five-stage bypass proposal was approved, so it was broken up into smaller chunks.</para>
<para>Stage 1 will link Shepparton and Mooroopna and includes, most critically, a second crossing of the Goulburn River. That second crossing of the Goulburn River is absolutely critical to this region, as we found during October last year when my region was inundated by floods. The only river crossing, and the only way between the western and the eastern sides of the river, was cut by floodwaters. The new bypass second crossing would not have been cut and we would have still had access to both sides. Emergency service vehicles and critical agricultural produce would have been able to have access. I note the comments of the member for Forrest on the importance of the dairy industry. We couldn't get milk from one side of the river to the other. We couldn't get fruit from one side of the river to the other. All that perishable produce couldn't get where it needed to go.</para>
<para>The Shepparton bypass is critical in so many ways. When it is built it will also take traffic and heavy traffic out of the main streets of Shepparton. The traffic will circumnavigate the CBD. That will be so important for the development of new businesses and shops who want to set up in the middle of Shepparton but don't want to do it when a big noisy truck is going to come straight past either their shop or their hospitality premises.</para>
<para>The Shepparton bypass is part of the government's 90-day review. In 2019 the coalition committed $208 million to get the project moving and to encourage the Victorian government to present a business case and get the project ready to go. The Victorian government developed a business case. The next step was for them to prioritise the project and formally request funding, and that didn't happen before the federal election. Now the funding of the project is in jeopardy because of this 90-day review. This independent review is of $120 billion of infrastructure projects that the coalition earmarked.</para>
<para>I'm really worried—and I hope I'm wrong—that this review will lead to projects that are critical to regional areas and regional economies, such as the Shepparton bypass, being scrapped in favour of projects that are focused on metropolitan regions, such as the Suburban Rail Loop, which I might add at the moment has a price tag in excess of $30 billion, has no business case attached to it and will suck the life out of all of the infrastructure funding that Victoria needs over the next number of years.</para>
<para>The people of Shepparton, Greater Shepparton and Mooroopna have been waiting for this bypass and waiting for governments to get active about it. The previous coalition government did by making a significant commitment of over $200 million. I accept it's going to cost more than that, but that was the estimate on the best costings that were available at the time. The Victorian government needs to get on with prioritising this project and make a formal request, and the federal government needs to fund it appropriately. It cannot become part of this 90-day review that might see the funding scrapped entirely and us having to wait another 10 years to even propose the project. Let's build the Shepparton bypass.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A national budget is more than a large and complex accounting statement. It's more than a dry reckoning of what's coming in and going out of the national coffers. A budget is also a blueprint from which we seek to build a future, and in some ways, it's both a statement of intent and a statement of character. Today in his Press Club address, the Treasurer was spot on when he said that this budget was designed 'to serve our urgent priorities and our generational responsibilities at the same time and to make sure that the benefits and opportunities of this moment are shared across our continent and our communities'.</para>
<para>Our starting position was, unfortunately, the shambles we inherited, not just the waste and the structural potholes but also the ridiculous and cynical situation we discovered in which funding literally didn't exist beyond 30 June this year for fundamental ongoing things like MyGov, the eSafety Commissioner, various health programs and some of Australia's most important cultural institutions. We have had to fix things that, really, should never have been at risk and then begin the larger task of repair.</para>
<para>We came to government with a clear understanding of how working people and people on low and fixed incomes had been left to fall behind under the coalition, and we acted quickly to ensure there was a significant lift in the minimum wage. We also acted last year to address energy costs, and on 1 January we provided the largest decrease in the maximum price of medicines on the PBS in its history. This budget continues the work of reducing inflationary pressures and providing cost-of-living relief, especially for those who need it most. Families and households across the spectrum of life circumstances in Australia will benefit from our action to contain energy costs and inflation, to make medicines cheaper and to get wages moving again, noting that in this budget we are specifically delivering long overdue increase to wages for aged-care workers. Our reforms to aged care and early childhood education both proceed from a recognition that these are female dominated sectors, and it's absolutely welcome that in the first year of this Labor government we've made the largest investment in gender equality in the last 40 years.</para>
<para>For those on low and fixed incomes there is quite rightly a set of focused relief measures in the budget. I can't believe that anyone would argue against that manifestation of our values as Australians, and I particularly can't imagine that anyone from rural and regional Australia would make that argument, because that is where some of the most disadvantaged Australians are concentrated.</para>
<para>To that end, this budget delivers significant change to the support for single parents, expanding eligibility and making sure that people are covered until the youngest child is 14, rather than eight. It delivers support for renters, with the largest boost to Commonwealth rent assistance payments in 30 years. It provides a much-needed boost to JobSeeker, Austudy, youth allowance and other payments. It triples the GP bulk-billing incentive, providing the largest one-off increase in our history. And it supports targeted energy bill savings, which in Western Australia would be worth $350 for approximately 500,000 eligible households.</para>
<para>Each of these changes will make a difference, and in many cases there will be people and households that benefit from more than one of the changes. There will be Australians, for example, who are doing it very tough in reliance on JobKeeper support whose income will increase, but who will also have their economic and social circumstances improved by receiving more in rent assistance and through cost relief on energy, medicines and health care. I don't say to anyone who is living on the edge that their difficult circumstances are altogether alleviated by these measures. We know Australia's social safety net was pretty much run into the ground by those opposite over a decade. We've begun a concerted and upfront repair task while acknowledging that that work needs to continue.</para>
<para>In addition to fiscal and safety net repair and cost-of-living relief, the first full budget of the Albanese Labor government also looks to our future, a future that can and should be fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable. When it comes to environmental protection and restoration, there is $121 million to create an independent environmental protection agency that will make sure that decision-making is clear, timely and rigorous in turning around what has been a terrible trajectory of harm and loss. When it comes to renewable energy and energy efficiency, we have the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program and the $1.3 billion Household Energy Upgrades Fund to improve the uptake of storage and energy efficiency technology, with $300 million of that focused on energy upgrades for 60,000 social housing properties.</para>
<para>All these initiatives, all these decisions, are in keeping with the Prime Minister's commitment that this Labor government will take a responsible, hardworking, long-term approach to improving Australia's share of wellbeing.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 10 May 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ms Claydon</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:34.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>122</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There wouldn't be a person in Australia who is not either feeling or aware of the housing crisis we are currently facing. The lack of affordable housing for Australians, including in my own electorate of North Sydney, is an issue I've raised on several occasions now. The cost-of-living crunch and housing stress do not occur in a bubble. They find their way into every aspect of our lives. With International Nurses Day occurring this Friday, I wanted to take this opportunity to particularly shine a light on the impact of what I believe is a currently unsustainable housing sector for our essential workers. The truth is an already fatigued healthcare workforce is now facing the brunt of the rising cost of living, and, despite the verbal accolades from many, including our government, tangible and real assistance is coming far too slowly.</para>
<para>In a recent meeting with representatives from the sector, including the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives Association, I was confronted by just how much housing unaffordability is affecting essential workers in my community. Midwives from a particular hospital within my electorate shared their concerns about no longer being able to provide a safe standard of care to patients, because they are stretched beyond capacity. Worryingly, local nurses told me that they'd lost confidence in the standard of care being provided. At work, staff are often overextended with dangerous staff-to-patient ratios and continue to face the expectation that they will live within 30 minutes of their place of work. In an electorate like North Sydney, where the average weekly rent is more than the state average and more than half of mortgage holders are reporting that they are under mortgage stress, this is an increasingly untenable expectation. The expectation places even greater pressure on the household costs of our frontline workers. It's no wonder that after the trials of COVID many of the more experienced and knowledgeable nurses have elected to resign or seek opportunities where the policy settings, including pay, nurse-to-patient ratios and housing availability and affordability, are more favourable. I'm particularly concerned about the graduates coming through the system, who are being asked to bear a much larger share of the burden and are finding themselves in situations where they feel wholly unqualified to manage.</para>
<para>Challenges such as these require a concerted effort across all levels of government and society. Nurses are the heartbeat of our care sector. With national ambitions to significantly increase the size of this workforce, we must find ways to make the idea of a profession in this sphere something that people will pursue for a reason other than just their own good hearts. I, therefore, call on the government to seriously consider the impact of housing on our essential workers and to then work with me, the state government and local councils on initiatives to ensure that affordable housing in my electorate is not just the stuff of fairytales.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cancer Screening Programs</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The South Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network has started a campaign to decrease cancer in my community by increasing participation in screening programs. No doubt almost every one of us knows someone who has been impacted by cancer. In the south-east Melbourne region, which includes my community, approximately 43,000 residents are currently living with some form of cancer, and Frankston has amongst the highest rates with 3.2 per cent of people. Unfortunately, since the pandemic there has been a 10 per cent reduction in cancer screening, which ultimately leads to late diagnosis. Due to this, it is predicted that all cancer diagnoses will increase by 50 per cent within the next 15 years. First Nations people, who have a slightly higher rate of cancer diagnosis, are 40 per cent more likely to die from cancer than non-First Nations Australians. But there is some good news. Many cancers can be detected through screening. Screening allows for early detection, intervention and treatment. Cancer screening can and does save lives—take it from me.</para>
<para>Australia offers three funded national screening programs: the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, for people aged 50 to 74; BreastScreen Australia, for women aged 50 to 74; and the National Cervical Screening Program, for people aged 25 to 74—plus the Albanese government has just announced through the excellent health minister, Mark Butler, that more than $260 million will be invested in a new National Lung Cancer Screening Program that will prevent more than 4,000 deaths from lung cancer. At-risk Australians will be able to get a lung scan every two years, as recommended by the independent Medical Services Advisory Committee.</para>
<para>Despite breast, bowel and cervical cancer screening being funded and available Australia-wide, current data from south-east Melbourne shows that screening rates are low among certain populations and areas in the Dunkley electorate. We have low participation rates in breast cancer screening—41 per cent, compared to the Victorian average of 45 per cent, for example—and in bowel and cervical screening. Screening rates are low amongst First Nations people. We must do better. We must promote education about the importance of screening and raise awareness of available screening programs. We must enable pathways for screening to give people early access. Jodie from Sandhurst recently shared with me a message. She has stage 4 cancer, and she wants people to know:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is your reminder, check, and if something doesn't look right, feel right or you are just worried, seek your doctors advice or a second opinion.</para></quote>
<para>Everyone in this chamber: get checked, and encourage everyone to get screened.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's with an enormous sense of sadness and frustration that I stand here today to report back to rural and regional Australians that, if you live outside capital cities, we received a very clear message in last night's budget: Labor doesn't understand rural and regional Australia, Labor doesn't respect the contribution we make to the nation and Prime Minister Albanese doesn't trust us to make good decisions for our own communities.</para>
<para>There are three specific examples in last night's budget where localism is dead and Labor's passion for centralising power into Canberra is increasingly obvious. Labor ministers can't help themselves; they have to have control. The first example is the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which was a coalition initiative under the previous government. That program gave power to local councils. Thousands of community infrastructure projects were implemented by local councils, with them deciding what their local priorities would be for funding, rather than Canberra deciding what those priorities were. That program has now been stripped away. There is no new funding for local councils under the LRCIP program. That program will end. Urban councils—and most colleagues on the other side represent urban areas—will hardly notice it, because they have other sources of income. But this will be devastating for rural and regional areas, where they are more dependent on federal grants, as a proportion of their revenue, to build good community infrastructure. Many rural and regional councils receive more than 50 per cent of their funding from the federal government.</para>
<para>Another example of Labor completely failing to understand how rural and regional communities work is the Stronger Communities Program. This is a program where volunteers, using their own money through fundraising, sausage sizzles and selling tickets at the gate to different events, raise money and then leverage off that with small grants from the Commonwealth, with $150,000 for each electorate. It's fair. Every electorate gets $150,000 through the Stronger Communities Program. Last night that was abolished by the Labor Party. In the last round of that program there was a million dollars worth of applications in Gippsland for the $150,000. It's an incredibly successful program. Labor's answer? 'Locals can't possibly know what they want to do with that money. They can't possibly make local decisions. We will abolish the program and let Canberra centralised bureaucrats make all the decisions.' That's further proof that Labor just have to have control of people's lives in rural and regional Australia.</para>
<para>Contrast those decisions with the decision to have 10,000 more bureaucrats here in Canberra. Contrast those decisions with the decision by this government to move the disaster recovery offices from the regions back to city offices. It's a bizarre move to limit their freedom and control their activities. Last night's budget sends an appalling message to everyone who lives and works in regional Australia. Labor don't understand how small communities work and don't trust them to make good decisions, so they abolish the programs that give us the power to make our own decisions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mittic, Ms Lara Radmila</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Thursday the Cowan community said a sad goodbye to Marangaroo resident and local legend Lara Radmila Mittic, who, sadly, passed away suddenly on 2 April. I want to send my condolences to her son, Bobby; daughter, Sarah; granddaughter, Tiana; great-granddaughter, Zarneya; and her extended family in Australia and Serbia.</para>
<para>Lara was born in 1950 in Serbia and migrated to Australia as a young woman with her husband. At a very young age she packed her bags, her $33 in savings and her young son, Bobby, and left her dysfunctional marriage. Her daughter, Sarah, was born, and Lara became a single working mother of two, with Bobby having some fairly complex health needs. Despite all that, she managed to buy her own home and settle in Marangaroo.</para>
<para>By any means, Lara did not have an easy life. Unfortunately, some chronic health issues meant that she had to leave the job that she loved, in patient care. But, despite her own struggles, Lara always had a helping hand to lend to her community. She became widely known and admired for her acerbic wit, her fierce advocacy for her community and the fact that she was not afraid to speak her mind—and would give you a serve if you needed a serve, often using some pretty colourful language! She was also an avid gardener. She loved gardening. My own home is host to many of Lara's plants that she very graciously donated to us when we moved into our new home.</para>
<para>Last night, during the Treasurer's budget speech, I couldn't help but think of Lara. I couldn't help but think of the measures that were introduced in last night's budget and how they would help someone like Lara. The measures to help single mothers would have helped Lara, as a single mother. The measures around GP visits, cheaper medicines and strengthening Medicare would have helped Lara, as someone with chronic and ongoing health issues. And our fierce protection of the NDIS, embedded in the budget last night, would have helped Lara, as the mother of a child with complex needs.</para>
<para>Lara was an avid and a very loyal Labor supporter. Despite her own illnesses, she showed up at every election campaign for me and for the local member. She loved Labor, and we loved her back. Rest in peace, Lara. I know you are smiling down on us from heaven.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 22 April I attended the Buddha's Birthday Multicultural Festival down at Tumbalong Park in Darling Harbour, run so well, as it is every year, by BLIA, Buddha's Light International Association; and Nan Tien Temple. There was a hiatus of a few years during COVID, so it was great to have everyone back at Darling Harbour for Buddha's birthday, a massive event attended by thousands of people. It highlights the importance of Buddhism and its contribution to our community. There was a great concert, stalls, meditation, a vegetarian food fair and much more. Thank you to Daniel Wu, President of BLIA; the venerable Abbess Man Ko, from Nan Tien; and everyone who made the event such a great success.</para>
<para>On 17 April I attended the meeting of the East Hills VIEW Club down at Revesby Workers Club. The ladies at the East Hills VIEW Club do a wonderful job. The club is affiliated with the Smith Family, and every year it raises thousands of dollars to support the education of girls, particularly from disadvantaged communities. It was great to attend the lunch and to hear the stories of the club. I thank the president, Jan McKenzie, and everyone at East Hills VIEW Club for the fantastic work that they do.</para>
<para>Down at Olds Park in Penshurst, St George Little Athletics is going strong. On Friday 28 April I attended its annual awards presentation at Club Rivers. Hundreds of kids are involved in St George Little Athletics. Numbers are up, which is great to see. It was terrific to be there, present some awards and meet with the executive. It was great to see the president, Karen Tuqiri; Theo Latanis, and indeed the entire Latanis family, who have a very outsized role in the club and won many awards on the night; and Geoff Lindner, who, with his characteristic professionalism, helped bring the event together in a very successful fashion. Thank you to everyone at St George Little Athletics for the opportunities that you provide to so many kids in our community.</para>
<para>On 29 April I attended the presentation evening for St George Junior Baseball Club at Club Grandviews in Peakhurst. St George is a great club. It has a special place in my heart, as my son was part of the club for a couple of years. It's a great community club offering baseball and T-ball, which is a less complex form of the game for little kids. It was really good to be down there. The club's origins go back some 40 years. It was terrific to see the secretary, Melanie Williams, and all of the parents, who put in so much work to make it such a fantastic club in our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The budget, in the finest Labor tradition, was in equal parts heart and head. It was tailor-made for the times, with a suite of measures to provide immediate cost-of-living relief and with an eye on the future. The budget had three main goals: to provide responsible, targeted cost-of-living relief for people of all ages, to lay the foundations for a more future focused economy and to put the budget on a more sustainable footing so that we can support the services Australians rightfully expect.</para>
<para>This budget will take the pressure off Australian families without further adding to inflation; in fact, the measures, according to Treasury forecasts, will help reduce inflation over the medium term. The measures include energy bill relief to over five million households and one million small businesses. We are also helping 170,000 households save on their energy bills by financing home upgrades, like double glazing and the installation of more modern appliances.</para>
<para>One of the most stunning announcements was in the area of health. As a doctor, I was very emotional during this announcement. Tears welled up in my eyes when I heard that we were tripling the bulk-billing incentive for vulnerable Australians. This will include children under the age of 16, pensioners and concession cardholders. This is the largest one-off increase to the bulk-billing incentive ever. I note that in my electorate of Higgins we have the lowest bulk-billing rates in the whole of Victoria—only three bulk-billing clinics.</para>
<para>We are also enabling savings in medicines for up to 33,000 patients in Higgins. From 1 September they will be allowed to have 60 days worth of medicines dispensed, saving themselves up to $180 per script per year. We're also creating eight urgent care clinics in addition to the 50 that have already been announced, and these will bulk-bill. Importantly, we're also starting to repair the safety net, which has been blown to bits after nine years of warped ideology and messed-up priorities.</para>
<para>These modest changes are only one lever of many that we are pulling to address entrenched disadvantage. We will extend income support for single parents by making it available until children are 14, rather than eight. This will affect around 355 parents in Higgins, who are overwhelmingly women.</para>
<para>The better future we are shaping demands a skilled-up nation with its sleeves rolled up. An investment in this budget to boost TAFE spots by an additional 300,000 will help. Check them out!</para>
<para>Against this pro-inflationary backdrop, a steady tempo of reform by the Albanese government is positioning Australia to become more future focused and resilient in facing the challenges and economic shocks that are coming our way in the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leichhardt Electorate: Space Industry</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to share with you a recent remarkable event in my electorate of Leichhardt: the North Queensland space industry workshop presented by Space Centre Australia. This groundbreaking event was held in Cairns on 21 April. It brought together leaders and experts from around the world to discuss the construction of Australia's first large-scale, multiuse spaceport.</para>
<para>Space Centre Australia's facility represents a significant investment in the region. It is estimated that some $120 million will be injected into the Far North's economy during the construction phase and an estimated $100 million per annum thereafter. Once operational, the spaceport will create up to 300 permanent jobs and thousands of construction and support jobs throughout its development. It will be a real game changer for Far North Queensland and the broader Australian economy.</para>
<para>The workshop was critical in establishing a common understanding of the space industry sector regionally, nationally and internationally and how it impacts Far North Queensland. It focused on encouraging positive collaboration and cooperation between the community, academia, businesses and government. I'm particularly proud of the strong Indigenous focus and involvement, with leaders like Daniel Joinbee, managing director of Gunggandji Aerospace—a 100 per cent Indigenous owned business—and Sharon Bonython-Ericson, founder of Illuminate FNQ, driving opportunities for STEM in our youth.</para>
<para>Another shining example of our region's potential is Mareeba State High School student Toby Fealy, who was inspired by Space Centre Australia CEO James Palmer to apply for an AmCham Endeavour scholarship. Toby will now join three other Australian students to attend the US Space & Rocket Centre Space Camp in Huntsville, Alabama, later this year.</para>
<para>I want to also extend my heartfelt congratulations to James Palmer, the CEO of Space Centre Australia. His team has been instrumental in pioneering the Australian space industry in Far North Queensland. The facility will sport commercial operations, which will include not only launching but also retrieving satellites and also potential defence needs while providing a clear pathway for our next generation to learn on site and gain employment as part of the space industry. The event was a fantastic success, and I'm proud to have been part of this significant moment in our region and in our country.</para>
<para>Can I say that I'm very much looking forward to working alongside all involved in embracing these new technologies and this innovation. Through close collaboration, I'm sure Far North Queensland will have no problem in reaching for the stars.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hindu Community</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have three items to update the House on. Two of them are very good news and one of them is very bad news. Firstly, in relation to good news, I know many honourable members were recently able to participate in the celebration of the Gita, one of the holiest books of Hinduism. The Gita Mahotsav was an event which has previously been held in Canada, the United Kingdom and Mauritius. We were very pleased to be able to hold it in Australia this year. I want to thank the Speaker for receiving a delegation in Brisbane to receive the Gita on behalf of the parliament. I want to thank the member for Bean, who received the Gita here in Parliament House. Many honourable members were able to participate in it. I was able to participate with my friends, the state members for Parramatta, Donna Davis, and for Fairfield, David Saliba, in the Sadbhavna Yatra on the banks of Parramatta River, which was an event on a lovely evening with many thousands of participants. The Gita, as I said, is one of the most important Hindu scripts. The dialogue between Prince Arjuna and Krishna is one that has had impact on Hindus and non-Hindus alike. Mahatma Gandhi called it the 'spiritual dictionary'. Albert Einstein talked about its importance to his thinking and learnings. It is a timeless book with important teachings for Hindus and non-Hindus alike.</para>
<para>In less-good news, I was very concerned last Friday morning to receive text messages about an attack on the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in Rosehill. It was a graffiti attack, and an attack on that Mandir and on participants in that Mandir. This is unacceptable, it's un-Australian, it's not on and we're not going to cop it. Every place of worship should be a place of peace, tolerance and understanding. On Saturday, I was able to call in between other functions to express my support for the Mandir. I'm grateful to Kunal Patel, Yogi Savania, Maitrik Thakkar and Shyam Gohil for meeting with me to discuss the issue. Dr Charlton, the member for Parramatta, was able to go—he got there before me—and assist in the removal of the graffiti. This is a terrible thing. I know all honourable members express solidarity with that community.</para>
<para>Finally, in good news, the BAPS Hindu Mandir and Cultural Precinct at Kemps Creek is well underway. This will be the biggest Hindu temple in Australia and, I think, one of the best in the world. I know the member for Gellibrand is upset about that. I can tell you—the member for Gellibrand is not as upset as the member for Parramatta is about that fact! It will be the biggest Hindu Mandir in Australia. I'm very honoured to host it in the electorate of McMahon. It will be one of the best in the world. It's a huge site—an old farm in Kemps Creek which is being developed. I was able to visit there a couple of weeks ago and see the progress. It's great news. Congratulations to all involved.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of my constituents in Lyne that watched last night's budget very closely. Overall, it has some good things—I can't say that it's all bad—but, in the macro sense, it's a classic tax-and-spend budget. This government inherited a booming economy coming out of COVID, yet all this extra income ends up with $185 billion more spending. They inherited 3½ per cent unemployment, more people off welfare and in paid jobs, but we have inflation running at alarming rates and our global spending from the government is going up. The one-off sugar hit they received courtesy of the booming economy is being frittered away.</para>
<para>We can see that the gross debt figures projected in the budget are going from 21.6 per cent of GDP to 24.1 per cent. By 2026-27 they'll be spending over a trillion dollars. Gross debt is now $887 billion. If anyone's read ABC Fact Check, they'll realise that a third of the debt that was inherited when this government came into controlling the Treasury benches—it's a third of what we have. Every government has built up debt but the percentage of debt to GDP is what is going in the wrong direction.</para>
<para>As Chris Richardson said, this budget will fuel inflation. Hard decisions had to be made, and structural things that will improve the cost of living aren't there. It's great if you're getting a temporary wage subsidy on your electricity bill that's going through the roof, but none of what we are doing is lowering the cost of electricity. It's putting up electricity prices. This plan is transitioning to a more expensive, more fragile system. You've only got to see the peak pricing that's happened since Liddell closed, with spikes of up to $15,000 for a megawatt hour.</para>
<para>In the cost-of-living relief plan there are some misleading things too. It talks about a 25 per cent reduction in the increase of electricity prices. That's the take-home message. But when you read the details it's 25 basis points, a 0.25 per cent lower rate of increase. So it's saying things will go up but by a quarter of a per cent less, which is hardly an improvement.</para>
<para>There's no mention of roads, rail or bridges. In fact, coming up to the budget we heard that $150 billion worth of <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Velazquez, Mr Walter Mario</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WATTS</name>
    <name.id>193430</name.id>
    <electorate>Gellibrand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to recognise the life of a member of my staff, Walter Mario Velazquez, who tragically passed away last month. Like so many members of my community, Walter came to Australia seeking freedom from a repressive government—in his case, a past government, in Uruguay. He lived a life dedicated to family, especially to his mother, Gladys Novoa, and the love of his life, Emilia, as well as to solidarity and activism, particularly to the Australian Labor Party and the Latin American diaspora communities across Melbourne.</para>
<para>My staff, the Victorian Labor Party and the federal Labor government are in mourning, and we're already keenly feeling Walter's absence in our lives. I'd like to thank the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service for their support in this difficult time. We used to joke that Walter's job in my office was simply to help people, to help them when they were in scary and stressful situations and were seeking support from complex bureaucracies, like Centrelink, the immigration department, NDIS or public housing authorities.</para>
<para>In your time of need there's no-one you'd rather have at the other end of a phone than Walter. He was gentle. He was patient. He was dedicated. He listened to people. He was an advocate for them. Walter made a really big contribution to the federal Labor government, but it was in these little acts of service that Walter will be remembered. The community that I represent deeply appreciated his work, and the hundreds of people who attended his funeral service are a testament to the impact that he had on people's lives.</para>
<para>Working in politics isn't your average office job. Political officers are a little bit like a second family. You spend so much time together, working in close quarters doing difficult, sometimes stressful work, and you get to know who people really are. People don't just do the kind of work that Walter did for a pay cheque; they do it because they believe in something bigger than themselves. They do it because they want to serve a cause bigger than themselves. They come together with others who believe the same things and want to serve the same causes. When we lose someone who believes what we do, who was working shoulder to shoulder with us on a common cause, we feel their loss especially acutely. We're all heartbroken to have lost Walter Mario.</para>
<para>I'm thankful that one of the last times I saw Walter was a happy time. It was the opening of my new electorate office. We were celebrating together as a team what we've achieved together and what we were able to do for our community as part of the new government. At the end of the night I hugged Walter and said to him, 'Mi amigo, can you believe how far we've come?' I thought we had so much further to travel together. Que descanse en paz, mi compadre.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone in the chamber: heartfelt condolences to Walter's family and to you and your team. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>127</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6992" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>127</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to speak on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. The Albanese Labor government is committed to developing Northern Australia and to supporting the lives and lifestyles of people in our northern region. This bill amends the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016. It proposes to increase the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility's appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion; to add Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands—collectively, the Indian Ocean Territories—to the definition of Northern Australia in the act; and to clarify that the persons to which section 7(1A)(b) of the act refers are Indigenous persons, and that the objectives of the act include the provision of financial assistance for the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure for the benefit of Indigenous persons.</para>
<para>The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has had a pretty chequered history. I remember reading the white paper on developing northern Australia back in June 2015. It was a policy proposal that had some good initiatives. It was commissioned by the former Abbott government. It was talking about new dams in the north, new roads, airstrips, water infrastructure and the development of the north for the benefit of Australia's First Nations people. It noted the fact that the northern parts of Australia, where about a million Australians live, compared to about 25 million living in the southern bit below the Tropic of Capricorn, could be an economic powerhouse. It still does a lot, including the cattle industry, tourism, mining and a whole range of areas across my home state of Queensland as well as the Northern Territory and Western Australia.</para>
<para>As a Queenslander, I have travelled extensively to northern parts of my state, through the Northern Territory—particularly, on many occasions, with the former member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon—and also up in the Kimberley and the northern parts of Western Australia. I can tell you it's a great experience. For those Australians who might be listening, it's really important to look and see the potential that we have in the northern part of Australia and to look at the great work done by people like the Indigenous rangers in places like Maningrida in the northern parts of the country. It's fantastic.</para>
<para>But the infrastructure that we need there in the north is something that's taking a long time. I think it's quite clear that for a number of years the NAIF, which we called the 'No Actual Infrastructure Facility', was an abject failure under the previous government when it was first established. As the former shadow minister for northern Australia, I remember we'd see ministers go up there and say one thing in a speech and then report on the NAIF in the parliament and the House of Representatives, and I'd shake my head and think, 'That doesn't accord with what they actually said in the press release before.' Then they'd have another press release after. It just seemed like the figures would waft off the top. It really was quite extraordinary that at times they could lose jobs and then gain jobs, and the figures didn't match. It just seemed like the previous government had no real focus on what actually was happening.</para>
<para>I remember one particular occasion with one of the ministers. You could see his puzzlement on his face, because I was quoting his figures back at him, and it didn't accord with the speech he'd just given to the House of Representatives. There was no real focus in the previous government. It seemed also that you had to be a donor to the LNP to have any opportunity to get on the board at one stage, because half the people on the board were donors to the LNP in Queensland. The extent to which the NAIF seemed to lose focus was astonishing. It was taken as something that was going to achieve things but never actually achieved the national economic significance that it was meant to have.</para>
<para>Eventually, after reviews and a lot of criticism by their own side and by people outside—I've met with people, chambers of commerce, in the north of Queensland who were very, very critical of the NAIF. The NAIF's purpose in large part was to provide assistance. It was to provide bespoke and flexible loan facilities and concessional loans, including longer loan tenure than that offered by commercial financiers but not exceeding the longest term of Commonwealth borrowings. It was to make sure that lower interest rates were offered. It was to make sure that extended periods of capitalisation beyond construction could be completed. It was to make sure that there were lines-of-credit guarantees and that lending could be provided; to make sure there were small loans for small-scale projects; and to help finance partnerships; and there were a whole range of other clever, flexible and bespoke ways in which the NAIF was supposed to assist people in the northern part of the country.</para>
<para>Eventually, after a long period of time, towards the end of the previous government's tenure, they started to get it together. They did make the announcement that we're legislating here. The $5 billion was going to increase to $7 billion but, like a lot of what they said they were going to do, they never got around to doing it. The increase of $2 billion was confirmed in the October budget that we did and matches the previous government's spoken commitment to do it. The additional $2 billion will enhance the NAIF's capacity to provide financial assistance to businesses and communities, and it demonstrates the bipartisan approach we took to supporting the NAIF when it was created. Complaining about the government's failure to get it focused has been carried out by the Albanese Labor government, which is committed to making sure that the NAIF does its job.</para>
<para>The NAIF is financing infrastructure development with $3.9 billion in loans approved for projects to date, $2.6 billion of which is already contractually committed. These investments are forecast to generate $29 billion in economic benefits and to support more than 14,800 jobs, which is very good for northern Australia and good for the country. This will ensure that we grow the pipeline of investments into the northern economies of our country, which was talked about previously in the white paper and endlessly by the previous government without much success, and boost local employment opportunities. Continuing investment in the NAIF will make a significant contribution to whole-of-government objectives, including action on climate change, and if ever a part of the country was going to be affected by climate change, with cyclones, floods and fires, it is northern Australia. Also, it provides practical ways to the Closing the Gap goals and implement statements such as the Uluru Statement from the Heart.</para>
<para>By extending the definition of 'northern Australia' to include the Indian Ocean Territories, the NAIF will be empowered to provide financial assistance to the development of economic infrastructure as a basis for economic growth and the stimulation of populations in those territories. The inclusion of those territories was a public announcement of the previous government, but it is this government that is actually carrying that out. The government strongly supports this measure, because access to the facility to provide opportunities in these territories will enable businesses to diversify and create new jobs. These territories have immeasurable and immense potential. There is tourism, for a start. There is incredible biodiversity and natural beauty that will attract tourists, and there are real opportunities there. The NAIF will assist the Indian Ocean Territories in many ways to achieve that potential. Allowing the Indian Ocean Territories to benefit from financial assistance provided by the facility will enable local businesses to create jobs, and I think it really goes hand in glove with our core principle about no-one being left behind and no-one being held back.</para>
<para>The third change made by this section refers to that section I referred to earlier and makes reference to section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, with the purpose of enabling the NAIF to provide assistance for the development of northern Australia infrastructure for the benefit of a racial group, and that will be beneficial. This is a problematic subsection of the Constitution, I might add, because, as previous joint select committees of this parliament have found, there's an opportunity within that subsection for the country to see adverse impacts passed by legislation. Almost every time in the past that subsection in our Constitution has been invoked, there has been a negative outcome for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So that's one of those subsections of the Constitution that I have real concerns about, and I think that at some stage as a country we should be looking to make amendments to that, as has been found on previous occasions by a joint select committee chaired by former Indigenous affairs minister Ken Wyatt, which I was a part of some years ago and which looked at that particular subsection.</para>
<para>In any event, there's a general reference in this subsection of the Constitution, and it's ambiguous. There's an opportunity, I think, for an act which should refer directly to the people for whom the parliament is making the law. There's clarification here that the persons referred to in section 7(1A)(b) are Indigenous persons. It removes the potential ambiguity in the act. As I say, I think that subsection of the Constitution, like another section which contemplates the idea of states taking away First Nations people's voting rights and only being punished for doing so by not having those persons included in a census for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, really should be looked at in a referendum at some stage in the future. I know we've got the Voice to Parliament referendum later this year, but I think that as a country we should have a really good look at those other sections of the Constitution. This amendment, this legislative change that we're bringing today, is consistent with our commitment to the Voice to Parliament, and the government is strongly committed to improving outcomes for First Nations people.</para>
<para>More broadly, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility can play a significant role in supporting the government's regional and northern Australia agendas, including ambition on climate change and investing in manufacturing renewables for our First Nations people, particularly in the north. There are many projects that we've talked about, certainly in our first budget, which saw many new investments in northern Australia: for example, to name just a few, $70 million for the Pilbara Hydrogen Hub up in Western Australia and $565 million for common user port facilities in the Pilbara. In my home state of Queensland, there's $150 million for the Cairns Marine Precinct, $50 million for the Central Queensland University campus, $79.1 million for the Townsville Hydrogen Hub, and $188 million for the Great Barrier Reef, which is not just a World Heritage facility; I make the point that it's a great tourism and economic development region for Queensland. There's $400 million in the Queensland Beef Corridors, which includes road infrastructure for the Dawson, Burnett and Leichhardt highways.</para>
<para>In the Northern Territory, there's $80 million for the National Aboriginal Art Gallery in Alice Springs to establish a world-leading facility displaying Australia's most significant First Nations artists. I've seen some amazing art galleries and artistic talent in places like Maningrida, Halls Creek, the Kimberley, Alice Springs and Far North Queensland—the cape and Torres Strait. These are great economic opportunities, not just in the development of the talents and skills of our First Nations people but in selling Australia to the world. It's a great tourist opportunity and a great opportunity for people in northern Australia.</para>
<para>This is just a snapshot of some of the things that we're doing in the north of Australia. We are taking action on climate change, as we saw with the passage of the safeguard mechanism through the House. This is really important. In the northern part of Australia, taking action on climate change is really critical, and I think that will be very important.</para>
<para>There are so many critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, rare earth metals, platinum and silicon—the foundation for most of the clean energy technologies, such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels. This is where northern Australia can play a big role. The NAIF has a real opportunity for us to exercise those loan facilities and that support for taking action on climate change in northern Australia. There is a real opportunity for people in my home state of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia's northern part. I am very pleased to support this legislation. I have been a big supporter of the development of the north of my home state for a long time. I have family and friends living in places like Cairns and Townsville, and I've visited the cape and the Torres Strait many times. This is a great opportunity. I'm pleased to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. The aim of this bill is to increase the NAIF appropriation from some $5 billion to $7 billion. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF, was established in 2016. It's a government agency with $5 billion to invest to provide the basis for economic and population growth in northern Australia. The NAIF was established with the intent to fill financing gaps in northern Australia by being more risk tolerant to uniquely northern Australian characteristics like remoteness, distance and climate, because—let's be clear—northern Australia will be on the front line of global warming impacts.</para>
<para>This bill will increase the NAIF's appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion. It also amends the definition of northern Australia within the act to include Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, collectively known as the Indian Ocean Territories. The bill also clarifies that the objectives of the act include a provision of financial assistance for the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure for the benefit of Indigenous persons. I welcome this initiative increasing consideration of benefit to First Nations people, and I hope this will contribute towards a much-needed boost for their economic wellbeing and agency in that sense. Investment in resource extraction by government, particularly fossil fuel, remains a major concern for many Indigenous people and people across the country. In the last parliament, in fact, I met a number of community groups and First Nations representatives who came to discuss their concern about the impact on country of certain projects.</para>
<para>I will be proposing amendments, at the consideration-in-detail stage of this bill, to prevent this increase in public funds to $7 billion from being used to prop up and invest in further fossil fuel infrastructure. With this fund, we are not talking small amounts of taxpayer money; we're talking billions of dollars, a huge sum that will be spent, and we can't allow it to become a government controlled slush fund. We must act to ensure taxpayer money is not used to support mature technologies. Fossil fuel industries are mature technologies. They should be able to stand up on their own without subsidy. They need to be able to make their own investment. They ultimately make record profits and pay very little tax.</para>
<para>At present, Australia's emission reduction target and our obligations under the Paris Agreement are one factor that the board may consider when determining the execution of powers under this act and determining funding proposals under the NAIF. I strongly believe that these factors should be a 'must' consideration. They should be a threshold consideration to these projects, especially when we are talking about a region of Australia that will be on the front line of impacts. We are talking about a region that will have a terrible time when it comes to insurance, when it comes to an unprecedented scale of impacts on lifestyle, so it's really important to understand that should be a 'must' consideration, not just a 'may'.</para>
<para>One of the key projects that have had their hands out for funding from the NAIF has been in the Beetaloo basin. This should not be receiving government subsidy under this facility. The Beetaloo basin is a methane bomb, and it was incredibly disappointing in the last parliament that in fact, when the coalition government sought to fund the Beetaloo basin exploration through the NAIF, Labor sided with the coalition and voted for that to continue. We tried to stop it with a disallowance of an instrument, but, sadly, major parties continued this prop-up of mature technologies when it comes to fossil fuels.</para>
<para>Let's be clear about what a project like the Beetaloo basin means. It risks Australia failing to meet its Paris commitments. One conservative report projected that the basin will release some 117 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum, equivalent to one-fifth of Australia's total annual emissions. We must reject any move to allow further funding of fossil fuel projects, especially the Beetaloo basin, especially when there are so many other projects that genuinely will help communities in the Northern Territory. Despite all the hype and all the talk, gas is as polluting as coal. In fact, in some ways, it is worse, because methane is up to 80 times more potent at warming over the first 20 years than carbon dioxide. So if we're genuinely concerned about where we're heading and meeting the Paris Agreement of 1.5 degrees, the low-hanging fruit is addressing the early warming capacity of methane.</para>
<para>The other reality is that projects like the Beetaloo are actually really poor economics. Right now, we know gas companies are making record profits, and they ought to be able to invest in their own development. In fact, just with the budget release and the announcement of the petroleum resource rent tax by the government, we see that the government is giving multinational gas companies the opportunity to recoup their investment on exploration and developing projects for some seven years. From when production commences, for seven years there is no requirement to pay any kind of royalty on what is extracted. So that is the period assessed as being how to recoup for that investment. And then, when the PRRT kicks in, they get to double dip. They get to again count that initial investment into infrastructure and exploration and deduct that against their cap of profits, and then their PRRT is only payable on that little bit remaining.</para>
<para>For me, it just cannot be that, on top of all of that very beneficial treatment—and experts have said that this is one of the most generous processes and tax treatments of gas extraction in the world—we can't also be spending public money on actually developing the infrastructure that they are going to require. Over the longer term, we know the gas industry's revenues will be eroded, because we know renewable energy is the only form of energy that has a deflationary price. And so we know that major fossil fuel companies know there is shareholder wealth, and they're having to write down billions in assets. They want to have the record profits, but they don't want to be left with stranded assets, so they would really prefer the public purse to be paying for those assets in the first place. For example, since 2014 Santos has written down over $8 billion of its assets, so we know these key core infrastructure assets are going to be stranded assets. That's why, generally, they want the public purse to pay for them.</para>
<para>Many gas projects have been abandoned, and R&D spending has been downsizing. Oil and gas are in a precarious position, caught between a confluence of forces. It's in structural decline. The industry knows this, and the market knows this. That's why they've got their hands out for subsidies from sympathetic governments. The answer should be an unequivocal no.</para>
<para>A recent Grattan Institute report, <inline font-style="italic">Flame out: the future of natural gas</inline><inline font-style="italic">, </inline>said that the only rational approach for governments, the energy industry and its customers is to begin planning for a future without natural gas or, at least, with a substantially reduced role for natural gas. Instead of redirecting funding to fossil fuel projects, the NAIF should be promoting a clean technology vision for northern Australia. Northern Australia has enormous potential to supply the world with energy harnessed from remarkable wind and solar resources. The Sun Cable project and the Asian Renewable Energy Hub are just two examples of what is possible.</para>
<para>The amendments that I will propose will ensure that the NAIF funding is directed only towards worthy projects, not fossil fuel projects. The NAIF should remain independent. It should invest only in clean technologies that are actually for the future of northern Australia. Anything else would be irresponsible and would be public money wasted. At a time where there is so much need within communities, that kind of prioritising must occur. I commend the government for the bill, the support of the Northern Territory and the funding, but let's get real and make sure that that funding goes to where it should.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 seeks to amend the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 and extend eligibility for NAIF financing to Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, affectionately known across parliament as the Indian Ocean Territories. This is a fantastic outcome for those external territories and one that we have been advocating for. The NAIF provides a basis for economic growth in Northern Australia and helps to stimulate population growth.</para>
<para>The bill amends section 5 of the act to incorporate the territory of Christmas Island, the territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the territorial sea adjacent to these territories within the definition of the term 'northern Australia'. By extending the definition of northern Australia in this manner, the bill will enable NAIF to provide financial assistance for the development of economic infrastructure that provides a basis for growth or that stimulates population growth in the IOTs. Enabling the Indian Ocean Territories to access NAIF financial assistance will support opportunities for residents and for businesses to diversify, and it will create more economic development opportunities across the IOTs. The economies of the IOTs exist in very unique circumstances, and there are potential benefits for investment in sustainable diversification. The NAIF can assist proponents in the Indian Ocean Territories to realise this potential by providing concessional loans and other financing solutions to eligible projects.</para>
<para>As the minister for territories, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia, Madeleine King, on taking this important step to include the IOTs in the NAIF. Yesterday I heard the Leader of the Nationals speaking about how wonderful it was that the IOTs are now a part of the NAIF. It begs the question: why wasn't it done by those opposite when they were in government for over nine years?</para>
<para>The Indian Ocean Territories are unique and they deserve access to funding that will help them diversify their economies. We know that providing economic assistance and growth in our remote territories is incredibly important, and it's taken a Labor government to ensure that our external territories are starting to have access to important programs such as the NAIF. Under the previous government, we saw external territories excluded from grants programs and frameworks frequently, and it is a shame, because we know that so many people in our external territories could effect change by having access to grants available from the Australian government. Since becoming the minister, it has been one of my key priorities to ensure that our external territories are able to access Australian government grants. I am pleased to report the process is going well, and I am looking forward to updating the House in the future about this progress.</para>
<para>On my recent trip to the Indian Ocean Territories, to both the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, it was fantastic to see some of the bespoke grant opportunities that have been provided working out so well. Agricultural grants in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands show a new and different way of growing fresh food and making that fresh food easier to access and more available to locals. We're seeing renewable energy grants which can harness the availability of sun and wind power and reduce the reliance on imported diesel, which is hugely important across the Indian Ocean Territories. Innovation grants are helping small businesses get off the ground and helping communities who need support to make sure that they've got that lift behind them as they first get into a new business.</para>
<para>Since its inception, for every dollar invested by NAIF we've seen a return of $2.70 unlocked by the private sector. That's a fantastic return on investment that we want to see continue to grow. I think there will be some fantastic outcomes for the Indian Ocean Territories having access to NAIF. There are some fantastic ideas. My colleague the member for Lingiari is wandering in at the moment, and she is the local representative for the Indian Ocean Territories. She too knows how fantastic those communities are over there—their innovation, their desire to be more resilient and their desire to move away from having to wait for ships for fresh food, diesel and other supplies from the mainland. They want to do more for themselves, but they need a little bit of assistance every now and then to get some of these projects off the ground. So it was fantastic to see some of the agricultural trials being run on Cocos island. It is fantastic to see the innovation that is coming forward, such as fresh food being grown entirely in buckets of water without entering the soil at all. There are some really exciting things happening.</para>
<para>There is more to do in this space, which is why our government's committing to extending NAIF to include the Indian Ocean territories is such a win for two communities that are already doing so much. It is going to be a fantastic opportunity for the residents and businesses and community across the Indian Ocean territories to be able to apply to NAIF to see what else can be done across their communities. We know that they have ongoing challenges. We know that there have been significant issues with coastal erosion on Cocos island. We need to make sure that we are working with those communities on how best to protect them but also on how best to enhance the other opportunities they have on the island. Christmas Island is a beautiful place, one with enormous opportunity and potential. We've seen that already with a number of businesses there, but there is so much more to do. In my recent trip there, the desire to have bespoke tourism opportunities available on Christmas Island was something that the community was crying out for—what else can we do to attract people to the island to holiday?—but also to put in those businesses investments. Extending NAIF to include the Indian Ocean territories is going to give some certainty and confidence to those people on the islands who are keen to invest and grow businesses but also give some certainty and confidence to those people who aren't permanently on the island but who want to look at what they can do to increase the business and tourism opportunities across the island as well.</para>
<para>Again, I commend my colleague Minister King for the work she has done in extending the NAIF program to include the Indian Ocean territories. It will be a real win for those communities. I know my colleague the member for Lingiari is especially excited about this. There has been a tonne of work advocating to make sure that we include the Indian Ocean territories as part of NAIF. It is a job that should have been done by the previous government a lot earlier but is one that I know the residents of those islands will be very happy has been done. Their advocacy has not gone unnoticed, and we thank them for their continued support of the Australian government to make sure that they can look at the opportunities that exist for them to do more for their own communities, to grow their own foods and to look at the different ideas they have around energy rather than relying on imported diesel all the time. So congratulations to Minister King, thank you to the member for Lingiari and a big congratulations to the residents of the Indian Ocean territories for their continued advocacy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As our lead speaker has indicated, we in the coalition support this bill, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. We are very proud of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which we established in government as part of having as a priority the concept of nation-building and investing in projects of a significance that can really help us as a country take a quantum leap forward. When I was first elected to this parliament I served in the party room for one meeting with a very famous coalition senator, Ian Macdonald, who had been defeated at the 2019 election but served until 30 June in that Senate term. Senator Macdonald gave a contribution at that meeting, which colleagues who had served with him in the party room for a long time said was an almost identical contribution to the one he gave at every single party room meeting. It was about the significance of northern Australia—he hailed from Northern Queensland—and how underutilised was the full economic value that northern Australia could provide to our nation, notwithstanding the fact that there is an existing, very significant, spectacular contribution to our economy, particularly in the agricultural, resource and tourism sectors.</para>
<para>My grandfather was a general manager of Mount Isa Mines for the last 12 or 15 years of his career. At one point it was the second-largest company in the country and certainly one of the biggest copper producers in the world. It's way beyond just a copper mine; it's a very significant business in northern Australia. Northern Australia is doing amazing things economically, but it can do even more economically if we understand the value of investing in nation-building infrastructure. That was the concept behind the germination of the NAIF under the previous coalition government—to create a process for the Commonwealth to invest in those kinds of significant projects.</para>
<para>This underscores that we are not seeing the nation-building projects of decades gone by being brought forward by the states, who have almost a monopoly on approaching the Commonwealth with infrastructure concepts that they, of course, want us to help pay the bills for. In some cases, that might be because at a state level it's more difficult to identify projects that provide a benefit beyond the interests of just that state. That's reasonable and fair enough, but it obviously means that there are things that are not specifically prioritised by states but would still be very significant propositions for the national government. That's where the NAIF comes into its own, because it covers a number of states and territories.</para>
<para>Importantly, in this amendment bill we are seeing the inclusion of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, part of the Indian Ocean Territories, in the NAIF's remit. We certainly see that as a very sensible move and a really important opportunity for the Indian Ocean Territories. In the last parliament I served on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. We were due to hold a significant inquiry into communications infrastructure in the Indian Ocean Territories and on Norfolk Island. Regrettably, because of COVID, we had a few false starts in travelling there to undertake engagement, consultation and public hearings on the Indian Ocean Territories. So, regrettably, I've never visited the Indian Ocean Territories. I would love to one day, and I hope that opportunity comes my way again in either this career or another one in the future or, no doubt very happily, as a tourist when I have the opportunity in the future. The Indian Ocean Territories absolutely should be eligible for funding under the NAIF. Again, it complements the principle of us, as a Commonwealth government, identifying a role for the Commonwealth government in a direct line of infrastructure investment—in partnership with other levels of government, of course—so that we can have a focus on achieving the full potential of northern Australia.</para>
<para>The other major element in this bill, as has been touched on, is the increase in the quantum of funding. Again, we absolutely support that. In the last parliament we extended the time period of the NAIF, and I hope the NAIF is seen as a permanent agency, a permanent fixture. Whilst we'd love to get to the point where we believe northern Australia has had the underinvestment in its infrastructure rectified, I don't see that happening in the precious few years in which the NAIF will continue to exist. So I hope it will become an ongoing instrument through which the Commonwealth can invest in really important infrastructure projects in northern Australia.</para>
<para>There's a lot of opportunity in northern Australia beyond what is already occurring. Infrastructure unlocks unbelievable economic and social potential in any community, and that is particularly the case in northern Australia. I don't represent an electorate in northern Australia, obviously, but, as I've outlined, my family has a history in Northern Queensland, and I've got a great passion for the development of our country and opportunities for nation-building. I think northern Australia presents some of the greatest opportunities for nation building, and we as a parliament should be and are, through initiatives like the NAIF, understanding and identifying those opportunities. This is a good example of us working together, and I think it's commendable that we've got an opposition that is supporting the government that are equally following on from a legacy from the previous coalition government, some bipartisanship and important continuity to make sure we're achieving the full opportunity anywhere in our nation—in the case of this bill, investing in infrastructure in Northern Australia, and hence I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank Minister Madeleine King for introducing this legislation and for her work advocating for northern Australia. Northern Australia is a vibrant region full of potential. It is also in my unbiased opinion one of the most beautiful places in the country. With stunning landscapes, it is a special part of the world. North Australia is my home. I was born there, it is where my family live and it is the region I have the honour of representing in this parliament as not only the member for Lingiari but also the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia.</para>
<para>It is in both of these capacities that I speak in full support of these amendments—amendments which will enhance economic growth right across northern Australia and, importantly, the Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) islands. In the past, northern Australia has not had the focus and attention it deserves. For a region brimming with culture, hardworking people and a rich environment, we have not seen the levels of development in the north that we deserve. The north, as we all know, is a major gateway to the Indo-Pacific. It is critical to Australia's national security and strategic outlook but also our partnership with the region. The flow of people and goods through our north is vital to our national economy, which is why the Albanese Labor government has northern Australia right at the heart of its agenda. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to date has invested over $4 billion into northern Australia. It has spurred $29.6 billion in economic benefit, and a forecasted 15,160 jobs will be created through its operation.</para>
<para>Turning now to my electorate of Lingiari, the NAIF has been critical to the expansion of the Humpty Doo barramundi farm, with stage 1 seeing the NAIF invest $7.2 million for ponds and nurseries in what I can attest is a fantastic barramundi farm. Stage 2 will see a further expansion of the Humpty Doo farm. This means more jobs for our region. It means a good business gets to grow even more. Another great set of projects supported by the NAIF are the developments of the Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek airports. With a $150 million loan, the Alice Springs runway will be resurfaced and a new runway light installed, with better storage at Darwin International Airport and solar arrays for Tennant Creek, Darwin and Alice Springs. This project is huge for the Territory, increasing accessibility for our domestic and international visitors, enhancing our trade capacity and boosting our tourism industry.</para>
<para>Another critical project is the Hudson Creek Power Station and Batchelor Solar Farm. This $74 million project will reduce the reliance on expensive gas and diesel generators and make an important contribution to enhancing the Northern Territory's renewable energy capacity. For our Indigenous tourism sector, we've seen a mammoth investment of $27.5 million into Voyages Indigenous Tourism Australia. This investment is set to unlock over $370 million in public benefit and greatly enhance our Indigenous tourism sector in the Territory. All of these projects contribute to the economic and social development of the Territory and would not have been possible without the NAIF.</para>
<para>But the NAIF is not resting on its laurels, and this government is working to make the NAIF even better. The proposed amendments will increase the NAIF appropriation by a huge $2 billion, from $5 billion to $7 billion. Something for which I applaud the minister and which I am very supportive of is adding Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to the definition of northern Australia and clarifying that the NAIF may provide financial assistance for the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure for the benefit of Indigenous persons and that that is an additional objective of the act. I cannot tell you what the impact of these changes will be for northern Australia. Firstly, with more funding, we can help more businesses, who in turn employ more workers, feed more families and keep our economy going. We're expanding the NAIF to include more of our most in-need northern Australians.</para>
<para>The Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands are an important part of my electorate. I had the privilege of visiting the Indian Ocean Territories, and it was a fantastic visit. The sense of community and connection on the island is evident. People look out for one another but, more than that, people are always looking for new ways to better their island home. What I heard loud and clear was that Christmas Islanders felt overlooked by the previous coalition government. Well, the Albanese Labor government will not make that mistake. I was certainly happy that, when I visited the Indian Ocean Territories, we had the public infrastructure that the Public Works Committee have visited. The communities were absolutely rapt that we had the minister for territories, Kristy McBain, visit the island and meet with a number of stakeholders. I want to thank Minister McBain for her visit and for her commitment to the islands. Minister McBain gets the challenges facing the territories and, indeed, so does the Minister for Northern Australia. It's been fantastic to see that commitment from both of those ministers as they look at some of those challenges and how our government can work towards overcoming them.</para>
<para>We know that Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands face economic development challenges. Much of this is due to economies of scale, as well as the sheer logistical efforts in reaching the islands. Freight issues, I heard loud and clear from islanders, are particularly challenging for people on the islands, as is communication. So I'm looking forward to working with them on both the freight and the communication issues. Despite this, the island territories are both devoting considerable resources to reshaping and further developing their economies. The inclusion of the Indian Ocean Territories under the NAIF will greatly assist in this.</para>
<para>The inclusion of economic infrastructure that benefits Indigenous Australians as an additional objective of the act is also an important development. We know that the best way to build intergenerational and community owned wealth is through Aboriginal owned enterprise. I was very proud to attend the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation launch in Darwin and speak to the work that needs to be done to build Aboriginal businesses and expand the work of those that already exist. The changes to the NAIF Act are an important additional step which the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation needs to take up with the NAIF, and they will be of great benefit to all Indigenous people who live in northern Australia. When we lift up our most disadvantaged communities, we all get lifted up.</para>
<para>I conclude by saying to all those in northern Australia: the Albanese Labor government is hearing you. We are working hard to make sure that we maximise the potential of the region, particularly by further supporting our businesses and enterprises that support so many Territorians. You have a strong Labor team. Luke Gosling, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and I are all Territorians through and through. We will always stand up and advocate for the people of the Territory and make sure we get the attention that the Northern Territory deserves through all of the changes that have been made to the NAIF. I commend the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, as it makes amendments to the previous coalition government's announcement and clarifies definitions in existing powers relating to Indigenous persons. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was an initiative of the former government, introduced in 2016 with the objective of NAIF's investments supporting the transformation of northern Australia by financing projects that generated broad basic public benefits, helping to grow the economy and population of northern Australia and catalysing private sector investment—that piece is really important—and by being an innovative financing partner.</para>
<para>It was another clear and direct beneficial coalition commitment to rural, regional and remote Australia. It was a $5 billion commitment originally, which is being expanded to $7 billion in this bill, as announced by the coalition in December of 2021. Of the original $5 billion committed by the coalition, $4 billion has been committed to projects financing in general. There was $2.6 billion committed for closed deals. Over 15,000 jobs and $29.6 billion in economic benefit has been forecast from this investment.</para>
<para>And what a successful investment it has been! The facts and results speak for themselves. NAIF has already helped to fund many projects which otherwise may have struggled to secure finance or not have been delivered at all, but they have, in actual fact, delivered exactly what NAIF was intended and set up to do by the investment from NAIF: projects in northern Australia in agriculture, tourism, varied power generation projects, port infrastructure, a ship lift—the basics—beef processing, technology, infrastructure and many others.</para>
<para>With the support of the former coalition government, as the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories, I worked to have Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands included in the NAIF, which it is in this bill, and I'm very proud of that. I'll concentrate my remarks on item 4 of this legislation, which amends section 5. This amendment will enable NAIF to provide financial assistance for infrastructure that provides a basis for economic growth and/or stimulates population growth in the Indian Ocean Territories.</para>
<para>As the assistant minister, I was particularly focused on the need for economic diversification in the Indian Ocean Territories. There has been a historic fertiliser mining operation run by Phosphate Resources Ltd. It has underpinned the economy, local jobs and revenues for so many years. It has been the main economic activity and driver, and a very important one. As the mine comes towards the end of its productive life, it's important that both PRL and Christmas Island transition to alternative economic opportunities. I know that PRL has had a vision for its own transition post mining into alternative opportunities for the people that have worked with and for them for so long, and for the small businesses on Christmas Island. The company has a project team currently working on plans to develop and construct a resort and other facilities, which will facilitate broader regional tourism opportunities. There are also plans around a solar master plan to deliver potential food and agricultural opportunities and/or to power further accommodation and tourism options.</para>
<para>I know that these initiatives fit within the specific purposes of NAIF, and there may well be other potential investors with a range of projects that may seek NAIF funding also. While tourism numbers are currently limited in the Indian Ocean Territories, there are great opportunities. The island is wonderfully dominated by tropical rainforest and is 63 per cent national park. It's affectionately known as the Galapagos of the Southern Hemisphere. It is the home of unique flora and fauna, and is globally famous for its red crab migration. I am really proud that in March 2022 the coalition declared two new marine parks off the Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which, together, form one of the largest highly protected marine sanctuary areas in the world. It covers 744,000 square kilometres of remote tropical ocean, reef and lagoon habitat. These parks will help protect the unique marine environments of the Indian Ocean Territories and support social and economic outcomes for local communities and other marine users, as well as supporting really tailored tourism ventures in the years ahead.</para>
<para>The marine environment of the IOT is known for iconic species such as whale sharks, turtles, manta rays, spinner dolphins and a vast array of seabirds. There are also lesser known but equally fascinating species, including locally evolved hybrid fish, which result from the mixing of waters from the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. This unique environment is why I was exploring the opportunities around longer term research potential on Christmas Island as part of the economic diversification piece. I held a research roundtable, and there were ongoing negotiations in this space. I believe there are great opportunities there to connect local students with visiting or resident researchers, to engage them, and local residents in citizen science as well. I think it might also encourage local students to pursue higher education and possibly other university research projects themselves. We were also looking at other ways of managing some of the challenges, particularly in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, because often a lot of the plastic waste that comes through from Indonesia lands right on their doorstep.</para>
<para>On tourism offerings: currently locals and visitors can experience what is a magnificent marine world by either themselves or with a local tour operator—the small-business people that we're trying to encourage into diversification—whether that's scuba-diving, snorkelling, kitesurfing, kayaking, free diving or fishing. In fact, there's a wonderful social golf round that brings the community and visitors alike together, often with very entertaining results when there's special permission across the airstrip that goes with that. It's a very different offering. But it's on the back of the natural environment that there are significant opportunities for tourism development.</para>
<para>We know that currently the only flights to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands from Australia are the Virgin flights out of Perth that are subsidised by taxpayers. During COVID I had to make a specific arrangement with Western Australia to allow these flights to continue. There was a real need for tourism to continue to support the economic side of what was happening on the Christmas Cocos (Keeling) Islands and to not lose the tourism connection that existed there. We also provided significant funding to support locally needed projects to keep that economy ticking over and to keep locals and small businesses employed during the lockdowns and COVID management periods. In fact, between Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, we funded 23 community infrastructure and tourism promotion projects.</para>
<para>While I'm here, I would formally like to acknowledge the work of the emergency management teams and the AFP, who really assisted throughout COVID in the islands. They helped to keep active cases at a minimum, they managed quarantine requirements and they helped to keep local people and tourists safe. I also acknowledge the extraordinary work and commitment of the Australian Border Force, ADV <inline font-style="italic">Ocean Protector</inline> and ADV <inline font-style="italic">Ocean Shield</inline>, doing a power of work protecting our northern borders and assets as part of Operation Sovereign Borders. They are a key part of what happens in the islands. I do note that Border Force has had to deal with another asylum seeker vessel recently and the return of an increase in illegal maritime arrivals. 'There has been a sharp increase in operation tempo,' said the Operation Sovereign Borders commander at Senate estimates in February. This is, of course, as a result of Labor putting an end to temporary protection visas, which has given further encouragement to asylum seekers through this process. I want to thank Border Force for their work in that remote location.</para>
<para>In my visits to Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands I have met tourists from all over the world. It is quite an expensive place for them to get to. There are opportunities through NAIF for the development needed in the resorts to get more tourists—the type of accommodation and opportunities that they want and need. There are some really unique offerings. I've met people from Europe who said that for them this trip was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to the Galapagos of the Southern Hemisphere—the crab migration, the unique remote eco cabins that I saw and so many other unique and special experiences that people can have. All of these options call for further investment in either suitable resort or tourism development opportunities that really fit the NAIF criteria.</para>
<para>Make no mistake: there is absolutely a need for really enduring economic diversification in the Indian Ocean Territories. A key goal of NAIF's investment is to support the transformation of northern Australia by financing projects that do generate that public benefit, help to grow the economy and help to catalyse private sector investment. That's what's going to work on Christmas Island.</para>
<para>The population is around 1,700 people on Christmas Island and about 600 on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, with a median age of 38. What a great opportunity. One of the great challenges is that it's 1,550 kilometres from Australia, one of the most remote parts of Australia. It's why there is a real incentive here for NAIF to support tourism development and growth, particularly when there is at least one serious investor with an existing and enduring commitment to the island, its people and its businesses. In spite of the unique environment and the experiences available I have described, in many instances tourism is quite limited in its accommodation options, and particularly the options many tourists actually seeking. NAIF investment could assist in opening up current and future opportunities in the IOTs.</para>
<para>In the couple of minutes left, I'd just like to say that one of my favourites there is the extraordinarily large robber crab. It is a protected species. You can't in any way touch it, run over it or harvest it, for want of a better word. I had a really interesting experience in encouraging a group of about six or eight massive robber crabs to move out of the way on the road late at night when were coming back from a meeting. They understood that they had the right of way. As a dairy farmer used to herding cattle—let's put it this way—I was the one to actually encourage the big robber crabs to get off the road far enough for us to be able to travel.</para>
<para>I'd say to people: please take advantage of what is one of the most unique places that Australia has to offer. Through the NAIF, I am hoping, further investment and greater, more diversified economic opportunities will become available for this great community. It's such an important part of our northern security as well for our assets in the northern part of Australia. On those comments, thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, an important piece of legislation that will deliver more funding for infrastructure projects in northern Australia, a very good thing. Growing northern Australia's economy is a key national interest. We are a food bowl producing 94 per cent of Australia's bananas, 93 per cent of our delicious mangoes and 12.5 million cattle or up to 90 per cent of Australia's live cattle exports. The north carries Australia's mining and energy sectors with major opportunities in renewables, like solar, wind and hydrogen. The north secures our borders and serves to defend Australia and project power into the region during disasters and crises.</para>
<para>The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, NAIF, is just one way the federal government facilitates economic and population growth in northern Australia by financing infrastructure projects and helping to catalyse private sector investment, working with project partners in a range of sectors. NAIF is working with partners in the resources, energy, transport, agriculture and aquaculture, education, healthcare and tourism sectors. NAIF's role is to be an impact investor in northern Australia by facilitating its growth, accelerating projects, delivering public benefit, catalysing and crowding in private sector investment, and ensuring strong opportunities for First Nations people across the north.</para>
<para>Enabling legislation for NAIF passed, with Labor's support, in 2016, but honourable members may remember that we were critical in opposition of the very slow and, I would say, glacial progress that NAIF was initially making, in terms of disbursing that $5 billion to get some projects going in the north. Indeed, after four years, as of 2019, only $15 million had been spent by the NAIF on infrastructure projects in northern Australia. Millions more may have been committed but, though approved, these funds weren't being drawn fast enough.</para>
<para>Labor was committed to seeing NAIF delivering at pace for northern Australia in accordance with its mandate and the $5 billion appropriation. When we reached the NAIF statutory deadline in 2021 its mandate was extended to 2026 with Labor's support. In January 2022 the former government announced that NAIF's funding would be increased to keep up with the demand on the facility. I'm very pleased that we have seen a step-up in the NAIF's ability to disburse those funds. We sat at $3.5 billion last year. We've now got a decent, though not yet equal, geographical spread between the NAIF funded or co-funded projects. There was $1.1 billion invested in Western Australia, $1.2 billion in Queensland and $711 million in the Northern Territory, and in the Northern Territory we still have room to grow that.</para>
<para>In its latest annual report, NAIF listed a pipeline of 109 projects with a loan value of $9.3 billion. These projects were mostly in the resources and energy sector. One of them was the NT's Sun Cable project, which seeks to establish a large solar footprint in Central Australia and harvest that solar energy for use in the Territory and overseas. One of the users that's very interested is Singapore, but there's also significant interest from Indonesia. Another project was a $300-million investment in the Darwin ship lift as well as $150 million to upgrade the NT's airports in Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. There was also $151.5 million for Charles Darwin University and for the city campus. I look forward to taking part in what they call the 'topping out ceremony' for the eighth floor of that CBD campus of Charles Darwin University.</para>
<para>There's also been consistent funding—in smaller amounts but it's consistent and helpful—of $7.2 million and, again, $24.2 million to expand the Humpty Doo barramundi farm, which is doing a great job and growing sustainably. Altogether the NAIF is forecast to provide $2.4 billion in economic benefits. The benefits are spread far and wide with each project.</para>
<para>Let us consider three of these projects in more depth. I mentioned the Charles Darwin University project. This is creating an education and community precinct in the centre of our CBD. It's being conducted through the Darwin City Deal. As mentioned, $151.5 million has gone towards that overall project. The NAIF loan will support a project worth $250 million, with a total public benefit of just under $600 million over a 30-year period through increased economic activity in the CBD. Construction of that project commenced in October 2020, and it's expected to be complete in time for the 2024 academic year. The project is creating many onsite jobs and hundreds more across the supply chain through to 2024, then the jobs at the university campus itself. The precinct, once built, is expected to deliver state-of-the-art teaching and research facilities, an art gallery and a library. NAIF's loan is in addition to $97 million already committed by the Commonwealth government through the Darwin City Deal initiative.</para>
<para>This project provides ongoing engagement with Larrakia to collaborate on showcasing culture, adopting cultural protocols and exploring work programs. It also led to a review of the CDU reconciliation action plan and related policies and provision of appropriate cultural training for new employees. During construction, a supplier use target of three per cent for First Nations businesses was sought. CDU will also develop a First Nations procurement policy and set achievable targets within this, and it will seek to achieve a First Nations employment target of 8.8 per cent for the construction phase and promote employment and supply chain opportunities for First Nations businesses. As part of this project, CDU will seek to achieve First Nations employment of 80 full-time equivalent positions.</para>
<para>Another important project for my community of Solomon, the capital of the north, that is financed by NAIF is the Darwin ship lift—important for the nation, this infrastructure. The NAIF loan to the Northern Territory government is for the construction of a ship lift and associated marine infrastructure in Darwin Harbour. This project will consolidate Darwin's position as a hub for marine maintenance and servicing in northern Australia. A loan of $300 million from NAIF will go to the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation towards the overall $400 million project cost. The Northern Territory government is committed to contributing to the remaining $100 million towards the project. This ship lift will be situated on Northern Territory government land in the East Arm precinct of Darwin Harbour, and it will be operated by the Paspaley group, with a long and proud history in Darwin.</para>
<para>The ship lift will be 103 metres long and will be able to lift vessels up to 5,000 tonnes in weight, including our border protection vessels. The facility will include four wet berths and 20 hectares of hard stand area for repair and maintenance works. These additional facilities will reinforce our city's marine maintenance and servicing activities and create many spin-off benefits for local businesses, not to mention support to the ADF border command and our allies and regional security partners. A statutory open access and pricing arrangement will ensure common-user access to the facility for all other vessel owners and operators in the region. The ship lift will be capable of servicing large vessels from industries including coastal shipping, offshore petroleum, fishing and pearling and, as mentioned, Defence and Border Force. It will be used to lift vessels out of the water so they can be serviced, repaired or stored, including for the safety of the vessels during cyclone periods.</para>
<para>Darwin Harbour is the only functional deepwater harbour in northern Australia. It is our nation's fleet base north, guarding our northern approaches. Without this facility, large vessels would need to travel around 10 days or more to be serviced elsewhere, and that is a tremendous waste of time, money and fuel and underscores how important this facility is. NAIF's value-add is to provide longer term funding and flexibility around the drawdown and repayment structure of the project. This is a $300 million investment, which is forecast to deliver economic diversification, job creation, new roles for highly skilled workers and new opportunities for NT businesses.</para>
<para>Finally, there is the Northern Territory airports project, which takes in upgrades for the Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs airports. NAIF's loan will help expand facilities at the airports and support the development of the Territory's export potential, particularly for agricultural products. The project investments will increase the operational capacity of each of those airports, create jobs, drive new export opportunities in Asian markets, boost the Northern Territory's tourism potential and support energy security for businesses and residents in the north. The project will also improve freight, cold storage and an export/import hub at Darwin International Airport. Solar arrays will be installed at all three airports, ensuring that they have energy security, particularly when used with batteries. There is also a proposal for multi-user battery storage for Darwin. The Alice Springs airport runway, taxiways and apron will also be resurfaced, with the installation of new runway lighting.</para>
<para>As well as the infrastructure investments, these projects are local job creators in the construction phase and beyond. The NAIF is forecast to create over 10,000 jobs in northern Australia, with over 3,000 of those in the Northern Territory. Over 730 jobs will be created by the CDU project; over 270 with the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm; 196 jobs will be at the Hudson Creek Power Station and the Batchelor solar farm just outside of Darwin; and 80 jobs will be created in the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation. There will be many more jobs created besides those. These are transformational projects for Darwin and the Northern Territory. Education, aquaculture and defence infrastructure are really important areas of enabling infrastructure for our capital of the north. There are many more valuable projects being supported by the NAIF in Queensland and Western Australia.</para>
<para>The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has come a very long way in the years since its inception. Committing $3.5 billion at an average of $1.1 billion a year for 20 projects, contractually closed, is a strong track record. I'm proud of the NAIF's achievements and the role that I played in getting someone from the NAIF permanently based in Darwin. We still have a lot of work to do to deliver on contracts and to draw down on those available funds. This bill is very important in that it increases by $2 billion those available funds in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which are going to clear the way for NAIF to keep financing hospitals, universities, silicon fertiliser mining projects, salt processing plants, power stations, solar projects, airports and so much more across northern Australia.</para>
<para>The bill extends the NAIF's ability to provide financial assistance to the states and territories for the development of northern Australia's economic infrastructure. That is exactly what we need to be able to contribute more to our nation. With the NAIF working with proponents and the state and territory governments, there is more to come in terms of infrastructure that drives our economy and drives jobs for Territorians. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The purpose of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 is to increase the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility's appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion in order to improve its provision of financial assistance to the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure. The bill clarifies that the objectives of the act include the provision of financial assistance for the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure for the benefit of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons. And it further expands the definition of the term 'northern Australia' by including Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the territorial sea adjacent to them.</para>
<para>The NAIF was established in 2016 to promote the construction or material enhancement of northern Australian economic infrastructure. Funded projects have to meet certain mandatory criteria. They have to provide public benefit, must be unable to get sufficient funding from commercial sources and must be able to repay their loans and recover the cost to government. The NAIF is required to comply with best-practice policies for government and for commercial financial bodies on environmental, social and governance issues.</para>
<para>The NAIF was initially slow to hit its straps, but its commitment of funds to low-cost loans for infrastructure projects across northern Queensland, WA and the Northern Territory has increased in the last three years. I note that in 2019 the then Labor leader, Bill Shorten, called the NAIF an abject failure. By 2020, 19 projects had been approved, for a total of $2 billion in loans, but only $130 million had actually been spent. That disbursement has now accelerated, but by early 2022 only $428 million had actually been paid out. At that stage, Labor's then shadow minister for northern Australia, Murray Watt, claimed that the NAIF was known as the 'no actual infrastructure fund' in the north.</para>
<para>There are persistent concerns about the NAIF as an entity and about the quality of its financial reporting. This is in contrast to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which also acts as a specialist investment vehicle of the federal government. The CEFC's financing facilities are included as part of its income statements and balance sheet, enabling its financial performance to be assessed on a comprehensive basis. In contrast, the NAIF has not been fully corporatised. It does not have a special account to receive appropriations. Its formal reporting has been limited to its own operational outcomes, making it difficult to determine exactly how its portfolio is evolving and performing. In 2019 the Auditor-General identified a concerning lack of transparency around its decisions and stated that the NAIF's internal remuneration practices were inconsistent with those of the public sector. The NAIF also has recently come under fire about its governance arrangements, given that it has a ministerial veto on projects—and I note that in May 2021 the Morrison government used that veto to block public funding of a Queensland wind farm and battery project.</para>
<para>The NAIF has been used for some positive projects in recent years. As we heard from the members for Solomon and Lingiari this morning, the NAIF has already been used to fund Humpty Doo Barramundi projects; improvements to the Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs airports; the Batchelor solar farm; improvements to Indigenous tourism; and structural improvements to Charles Darwin University. However, under the Morrison government the NAIF also showed itself to be very supportive of fossil fuel industries. It allotted $300 million to the Darwin ship lift and $16.8 million to the Onslow Marine Support Base. Both support the oil and gas industries. It approved $37 million for the Hudson Creek power station, a 12-megawatt capacity gas-fired power plant in Darwin. Most recently, in 2020, the NAIF was used to fund Pembroke Resources' Olive Downs metallurgical coalmine, a bigger project than Adani, which also sought funding from this fund, in 2017.</para>
<para>I seek from this government an assurance that this fund will not be used to further the expansion of fossil fuel projects in the Top End. I refer to the statement of former Labor leader Bill Shorten in 2019, when he said that under a Labor government up to $1.5 billion could be set aside for proposed gas pipelines across Queensland's Galilee and Bowen basins and for a pipeline connecting the Beetaloo basin to Darwin and across to the east coast. He noted then that that area had enough gas to potentially supply our domestic market for up to 400 years.</para>
<para>As things are, the increase in funding for the NAIF provided under this bill could be used to support Beetaloo infrastructure projects. We're hearing that the fund could be used for upgrades to roads, rail, pipelines and waste facilities to support those developments. The obvious concern is that our public funds will be used to prop up fossil fuel developments owned by Tamboran, Santos and Empire Energy, developments likely doomed to become stranded assets with the decreasing cost of energy produced from renewables.</para>
<para>In 2021 the Morrison government allotted grants from the $50 million Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program to Imperial Oil and Gas to support new exploration wells to help accelerate the development of gas projects in the Northern Territory. When that decision was challenged by the Environmental Centre NT, which argued that the minister was required to make reasonable inquiries into a range of matters before giving Imperial that taxpayer money, the question was raised of whether or not the government had to consider the impact of climate change and Australia's ability to meet its Paris Agreement obligations in undertaking funding for such projects. The court found that, in that particular case, that the minister did not have to consider the risks of climate change because the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the seven wells for which the grant was awarded were not significant due to them being solely for exploration for fracking. But the findings did enforce that federal ministers do have a legal obligation to make reasonable inquiries about the proper use of public money when making funding decisions of this sort.</para>
<para>This bill has clarified that the objectives of the NAIF Act include the provision of financial assistance for the development of northern Australia economic infrastructure for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons have already expressed their concern about fossil fuel developments in the far north. These are people living in a part of Australia which is at the forefront of the impact of climate change. Recently we've seen the Tiwi Islanders successfully taking on Santos to stop gas drilling in their traditional waters. At the same time, we have seen traditional owners opposing developments in the Beetaloo basin. They have told us that that land is culturally sensitive and that it must be preserved. This flies in the face of the Albanese government's planned support for any fossil fuel companies which aim to exploit the gas basins in the Beetaloo.</para>
<para>In a briefing with the minister, Minister Madeleine King, on 22 March 2023, she assured me and other members of the crossbench that NAIF funding would not be used to support the Middle Arm project in Darwin harbour. I ask the government to put that assurance in writing. I ask it also to guarantee further that the NAIF will not be used to support the development of infrastructure projects in the Beetaloo basin. We will hold the Albanese government to account on these commitments.</para>
<para>There are incredible opportunities to fund sustainable, job-creating projects in northern Australia. Those opportunities should not be wasted on fossil fuel projects destined to become stranded assets. They should be used on renewables, on projects like the Sun Cable project—projects which really do benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. These individuals do not want thousands of fracking wells scattered across their country for gas which will be fracked and then exported for the benefit of multinationals rather than Australians. They want culturally sensitive and environmentally sound projects which will minimise rather than increasing our susceptibility to the effects of climate change. I ask the government to act with integrity and with transparency and to commit to culturally and environmentally responsible investment in this vital region.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad to see the minister, the member for Brand, in the chamber. I know that she is doing all she can to help northern Australia—I commend her for that—and certainly the resources sector. It is a difficult role being a Labor minister for those portfolios, particularly resources.</para>
<para>Only last night we saw the handing down of the budget—you'd almost argue the first budget for the member for Rankin. I appreciate he did one last October through the MYEFO process, but last night was his first real May budget. The budget last night was supposedly brought back into surplus. I say 'supposedly' because we'll believe it when we see it. If it is to be in surplus, it will have been on the back of resources. When I say it is difficult for a Labor person to be in that ministry, it is because all too often we see the resources sector, particularly gas and coal, being demonised by members opposite. More is the pity about that.</para>
<para>We just heard from the member for Kooyong in her own way rubbishing not just those sectors but, in doing so and through that, the people who work in those sectors, the people who put on their hard hats with the torch on the front, the people who put on the high-vis and go underground, who work hard and who, by their very zeal and their determination, efforts and hard work, getting their faces blackened with grit from the endeavour that they do, help pay for the hospitals and schools which are enjoyed by those people, particularly, in capital city electorates, who then turn around and unceremoniously bag them at every opportunity. I get a little bit frustrated by those members from capital cities who come in here and rubbish those people and those industries which have helped make this country great.</para>
<para>I appreciate that some on my side of politics don't like the transition to renewables. Yes, it's on its way and, yes, many of those so-called fossil fuel companies—let's call them 'mining companies'—are leading the way. They are leading the charge. They don't need to be told by the teals. They don't need to be told by Labor and certainly not by those flaming Greens that they need to transition. They're already doing it, and they're people should not be demonised. They should not be criticised for the job that they are doing, the job they did to help bring the Labor budget into surplus. That surplus is on the back of coal. That surplus is on the back of iron ore. That surplus is on the back of gas. And those industries of the mining sector in particular have been demonised for way too long by people who are educated and, quite frankly, should know better.</para>
<para>The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 is important, and it's important to delve into a little bit of the history of the ministers for northern Australia. A quick read sees that Kep Enderby was the first such minister, as Minister for the Northern Territory. He was appointed by the Whitlam government back in 1972. He was followed by Rex Patterson and then none other than Paul Keating, who was later Treasurer and later Prime Minister. The National Country Party then had Ian Sinclair, a former leader of our party, fill this role. The role disappeared after 1993, until 2015, when one member for Kooyong—a very good member for Kooyong, and one I hope will be back as the member for Kooyong very, very soon—Josh Frydenberg, was the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. I remember people said, 'Why would you put in Josh Frydenberg, the member for Kooyong, in urban Melbourne, as northern Australia minister?' I have to say that the Prime Minister of the day was onto something, because he knew that Mr Frydenberg was going to play a big part in this nation's future, and he still will, rest assured. Mark my words, he will be back sooner rather than later.</para>
<para>You need someone who is on the way up to fill this role because it is important. I like to think that the member for Brand is on the way up too. It's important that we have a good minister for northern Australia. I don't care what side of politics it is; we need somebody who is going to be prepared to speak her or his mind in this role. I commend the member for Brand for doing just that in her time thus far. But in Mr Frydenberg we had a minister who came to the role with fresh eyes. He came to the role knowing that it was going to be an important position for him—and that's why Tony Abbott put him there—for what followed later on. And, certainly, Mr Abbott was right in that appointment.</para>
<para>You only have to look at what northern Australia has to offer to see the unlimited potential. I heard the member for Kooyong talking about the Beetaloo basin. I went and spoke to those people who were front and centre of that proposal. Of course it needs the cultural tick-off. Of course it needs the Indigenous provisions met. Those projects always do, always have and always will, and that's important. But the Beetaloo basin and the associated roadworks that we were putting in place when I was the infrastructure minister were so important, because they were going to open up gas exploration and gas reserves that were going to really help develop the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>The Northern Territory is one of our best kept secrets because it has unlimited potential. That's why I worked so hard to make sure that the seat of Lingiari was preserved. The Australian Electoral Commission was going to abolish the seat of Lingiari until I stepped in and said: 'Hang on a minute. You can't have somebody in Alice Springs, somebody in Katherine or somebody in Tennant Creek having to traipse all the way up to Darwin to get representation. No, no, no, no, no. That's not fair.' Regional members deserve the very best representation. Even though Labor won the seat—and good on you, to the new member for Lingiari—I'm glad that it is its own seat, apart from the member for Solomon. When I talk about the seat of Solomon and talk about northern Australia, I will give a little shout-out to Natasha Griggs, the administrator for Australian Indian Ocean Territories, who has done a very, very good job. She was formerly the member for Solomon, and she's done a very good job in that regard.</para>
<para>When we talk about northern Australia, the unlimited potential there is not just in our mining endeavours but also very much in our tourism. It has huge potential. But, to that end, we also need to look after those people who have lived in those hot climes for, let's say, tens of thousands of years. I digress a little from the legislation to something no less important—Mornington Island. Kyle Yanner is the mayor there. It is in the seat of Kennedy. It does not have a swimming pool. It does not have an aquatic centre. I went there as Acting Prime Minister just before I was deposed as the Deputy Prime Minister—more's the pity. The golden age of Australian democracy, I call it. But I went there—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take those interjections. I'm sure they're applauding that line I just used. But, importantly, Kyle Yanner is a very good mayor. He's one of those grounded, earthy mayors that we know and love in our local government sphere. He has fought to get a swimming pool in Mornington Island. I've been to see the minister for infrastructure. It's unfinished business of mine. For God's sake, why shouldn't a community of 1,200 in the Gulf of Carpentaria have a swimming pool they could call their own? Why shouldn't they? It just beggars belief.</para>
<para>I know that regional funding was severely cut back last night. I appreciate that the Building Better Regions Fund is continuing. I appreciate that the member for Parkes has been asked to be on a board that oversees future projects. I urge, encourage, implore and beg—I'll get down on my hands and knees if I have to. We need to see a swimming pool for the Mornington shire. It's a long, long way from my electorate, Riverina, but it doesn't matter. It's the right thing to do. It's in northern Australia, so, Member for Brand—Minister—if you have anything to do with it, if ever you can use your persuasion and your ministerial skills, please help me help that community get a swimming pool. They deserve it, they need it, they want it. It's a no-brainer, quite frankly.</para>
<para>This legislation is important. We know how important the NAIF has been. When changes were made to the NAIF to make sure that more money got out the door because the original conditions around it were probably a little restrictive, I think you saw it at its best self. This Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 makes a number of amendments to give effect to previous coalition government announcements, and it clarifies definitions and existing powers relating to Indigenous persons. Indigenous people should have a say in this. It expands NAIF's appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion.</para>
<para>It expands the geographical remit to include the Indian Ocean Territories, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I mentioned Ms Griggs before. This was announced by the coalition before the last election because the coalition cared about northern Australia. I see the minister nodding. I'm sure she does too. She knows, being from Western Australia, how important the Northern Territory, northern Queensland and northern Western Australia are. To expand the remit for this is important. It also makes a technical clarification under constitutional powers to specifically refer to the benefit of Indigenous persons, a power originally added under the coalition's 2021 reforms.</para>
<para>It's a government bill, but it adds to what we did in government. While those opposite might come in often and decry what we did as a government, we were a good government. We certainly were a government that looked at northern Australia with a lens to the future. We looked to the areas, the cities, the regional communities in northern Australia, knowing that there was so much potential there.</para>
<para>I look forward to Lia Finocchiaro being the future Country Liberal Party Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I look forward to next year's Queensland elections. I think they will put an important marker in the ground as far as the future for northern Australia particularly. I commend the work that is being done and I commend the previous work that was done by such ministers as Senator Canavan and Mr Pitt in their ministries for northern Australia. It's too important to get wrong. Whilst I come from a long, long way from northern Australia, I appreciate why we have a Minister for Northern Australia. I appreciate why it is important.</para>
<para>That's why we as a coalition government introduced the NAIF in 2016. It was in order to provide grants in such a way that states and territories were also able to tip into this important bucket to get things done. When I talk about getting things done and I talk about northern Australia, I am very disappointed that water infrastructure seems to have been pushed to the side in last night's budget. I just finished speaking in the House on the jobs and skills bill. If you can get things done in a nation-building way, it is through water infrastructure. It floodproofs areas, it builds agriculture, and it has been completely ignored in the budget. I am so disappointed about that. Rest assured, northern Australia is important. Forget what you just heard from the member for Kooyong. Mining is also important, and I'm sure the minister, the good member for Brand, in her summing up, will back me up almost all of the way in everything I have just said.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start by thanking all members of this House for their contributions to this debate, and I acknowledge the support across the Chamber for the proposed changes to the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility. I acknowledge the concerns that many members have raised. I also acknowledge the great support I've received today from the member for Riverina. He referred to the golden age of democracy when he was Deputy Prime Minister. I'm not sure if that's the case, but nonetheless I acknowledge his service in that role.</para>
<para>Before I go on to speak about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 directly, I just want to clarify something the member for Riverina mentioned about being the resources minister for a Labor government. I would point out that obviously a lot of our Labor membership is made up of workers throughout that industry right across this country. Many tens of thousands of people work in the industry and support Labor and are members of the AWU, the ETU or the AMWU. They work very hard for their families and communities across the resources sector. Also, of course, members of the Labor caucus who have worked in the industry include the member for Swan, as a mining engineer. The member for Hasluck also worked for the resources industry, and of course the member for Hunter was an underground coalminer and the member for Paterson has very close associations with coalmining in Kurri Kurri and Paterson. Of course, the former member for Brand Mr Gary Gray AO, the current ambassador to Ireland, also worked in that industry and is also a former parliamentary secretary for northern Australia. So I wouldn't want the member for Riverina or his colleagues to be confused about the Labor Party's commitment to the resources sector and the support that I enjoy within the caucus for the work we are doing with the resources sector and, of course, also for northern Australia, which is the principal matter that we're speaking on today.</para>
<para>The Australian government is committed to driving economic development in northern Australia. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility amendment bill will amend the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 in order to extend the capability of the facility to provide financial assistance to the states and territories and other entities for the development of northern Australia's economic infrastructure. The amendments to the act will increase the facility's appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion; add Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, collectively known as the Indian Ocean Territories, to the definition of northern Australia in the act; and clarify that the facility may provide financial assistance for the development of northern Australian economic infrastructure for the benefit of Indigenous persons and that this is an additional objective of the act.</para>
<para>By providing the facility with an additional $2 billion to provide financial assistance to businesses and communities in Australia's north, this government is demonstrating its commitment to developing the north. By extending the definition of northern Australia to the Indian Ocean Territories, this government is empowering the facility to provide financial assistance for the development of economic infrastructure that provides a basis for economic growth or stimulates population growth in the Indian Ocean territories. This government is fully committed to advancing Indigenous outcomes, and accordingly the bill clarifies this government's expectation that the facility is empowered to provide financial assistance to develop economic infrastructure for the benefit of First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>This government is also fully committed to transitioning Australia's energy sector to net zero by 2050 and to the reduction of Australia's emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. The facility has a key role in contributing to this objective. In December 2022, I provided the government's statement of expectations to the facility, which communicated the government's expectation that the facility would provide full support in ensuring that the goal of achieving net zero is prioritised in delivering financial assistance.</para>
<para>I thank all members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>143</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), after item 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6A At the end of Part 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8A Prohibition on assistance for fossil fuel-based infrastructure</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Financial assistance must not be provided under this Act for the development of fossil fuel-based infrastructure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) It must be a condition of any grant of financial assistance under this Act that the financial assistance not be used (whether directly or indirectly) for the development of fossil fuel-based infrastructure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting subsection (1), neither the Facility nor a subsidiary of the Facility may invest (whether directly or indirectly, including as a participant in a partnership, trust, joint venture or similar arrangement, through subsidiaries or other investment vehicles, or by any combination of these means) in fossil fuel-based infrastructure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">fossil fuel-based infrastructure:</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) includes fossil fuel-based electricity generation capacity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) does not include electricity transmission infrastructure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">fossil fuels</inline> includes any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) coal;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) oil and other petroleum-based products;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) natural gas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) products, by-products and wastes from extracting or processing fossils fuels to which paragraphs (a) to (c) apply.</para></quote>
<para>The amendment that I move is to ensure that the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which now has its allocation of funds increased from $5 billion to $7 billion, is not used to assist, pay for or fund infrastructure relating to fossil fuel projects. Fossil based infrastructure, we know, over the long term is highly likely to become stranded assets. These are mature technologies. They have developed business cases. They have been in operation for many years. More often than not, we are talking multinational companies that, ultimately, are making record profits over the export of the resources they are obtaining. That investment into the infrastructure should not be coming from public funds. It's really a simple proposition. The public money, through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, should not be used to prop up the fossil fuel industry.</para>
<para>Investment in resource extraction by government, particularly fossil fuel, remains a concern for many Indigenous people and people across the country, so these amendments prevent investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. We're not talking about small amounts of taxpayer money, we're talking about billions of dollars—huge sums—that will be spent, and we can't allow it to become a government controlled slush fund. We must ensure that taxpayer money is not used to support and pay for such infrastructure.</para>
<para>We know from emissions reduction targets and our obligations under the Paris Agreement that we should not be further developing oil, gas and coal projects. We know this is a problem. Projects such as Beetaloo and other things that have been considered and have received funding under the NAIF from the previous coalition government are incredibly problematic. We know projects like the one in the Beetaloo basin risk absolutely blowing our commitment to the Paris Agreement. Conservative reports project the basin may release some 117 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum, equivalent to one-fifth of Australia's annual emissions. We must reject such projects.</para>
<para>We know gas is as polluting as coal and methane. It is up to 80 times more potent at warming over 20 years than carbon dioxide. It's also incredibly poor economics. Right now, gas companies are making record profits and they ought to be able to invest in their own development. Over the longer term, we know that the revenue of the gas industry is being eroded by the continual price deflation of the cost of renewables. The result is fossil fuel majors are destroying their shareholders' wealth and writing down billions in assets. Santos, for example, since 2014 has written down over $8 billion of its assets' value. Many gas projects have been abandoned and R&D spending has been downsizing.</para>
<para>Oil and gas are in a precarious position, caught between a confluence of forces. It's a structural decline. The industry knows this. The market knows this. Lending knows this. That's why they've got their hands out for subsidies from sympathetic governments. The answer for the minister should be an unequivocal no. The act for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility already includes that it may consider the impact of climate change or of proposals put before it. But in circumstances where there are so many beneficial projects that are nation building, wealth building, generally improving the circumstances for those living in the Northern Territory under this act, this amendment should be passed to make clear what the purpose of this fund should be.</para>
<para>Instead of redirecting funding to fossil fuel projects, the NAIF should be promoting a clean technology vision for northern Australia. It has so much potential to supply the world with energy harnessed from remarkable wind and solar resources. We're seeing projects already in development but we need to really encourage that there be more.</para>
<para>These amendments would make it sure and send that clear message of where the focus should be, in relation to the spending of such large sums of public money.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Warringah for her contribution to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. The Australian government does not intend to direct NAIF to prioritise or exclude any particular sector. The NAIF has an independent board, which is responsible for making all investment decisions in accordance with the act and the investment mandate.</para>
<para>As I said in December 2022, I provided the government's statement of expectations to the facility, which communicated the government's expectation that it would provide its full support in ensuring the goal of achieving net zero is prioritised in delivering all financial assistance. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has already supported multiple renewable energy projects, including critical minerals and resources projects, which provide material components for renewable technologies.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Warringah has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Law Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>144</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7011" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Family Law Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>144</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great oddity of Australian family law that although the Australian Constitution section 51(xxi) says the Commonwealth has the power to make law with respect to marriage and subsection (xxii) says the Commonwealth has the power to make law in relation to divorce, matrimonial causes, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants, Commonwealth governments of both persuasions, conservative and Labor, vacated the field until 1959, when the Matrimonial Causes Act came into being. It commenced operation in February 1961, and that act has provisions which we would find utterly reprehensible. The concept of fault divorce still remained there, as did five-year separation. There were other grounds for divorce: adultery, desertion or refusal to consummate. It had a provision in the law for the restitution of conjugal rights, which is just an astonishing thing in today's understanding. Habitual cruelty, rape, sodomy, bestiality, drunkenness, intoxication by drugs, frequent conviction or imprisonment were a whole range of grounds for divorce.</para>
<para>The brainchild of Lionel Murphy and Gough Whitlam in the mid-1970s saw no-fault divorce brought into this country, with the Family Law Act commencing operation in 1976, and for the first time we saw men and women being treated with equity and equality. Previously, women were very much disadvantaged, and we saw it in the states and territories. For example, in Queensland it was very hard, before the Matrimonial Causes Act, to get divorced. It was very difficult. Western Australia and Victoria were more liberal. New South Wales had a provision that one act of adultery by a man was a ground on which, provided there was aggravation, a woman could divorce the husband. But one act by woman would actually constitute the ground for a man divorcing his wife. It's extraordinary in today's environment.</para>
<para>The Family Law Act, which had one ground for divorce—irretrievable breakdown of marriage, evidenced by people living separately and apart for a duration of 12 months—was revolutionary. But also it was revolutionary in the sense that women for the first time had a fairer deal with respect to property provisions, because we had provisions that we know very well under the Family Law Act, such as section 79(4) and section 75(2), which took into consideration the contribution of women as homemakers and parents, or indeed both parties as homemakers and parents, but contributions generally and other factors, which were justified changes. We now have cooperative arrangements through the states and territories, eventually to the point where the Family Law Act's area of jurisdiction covers the field, though the Commonwealth government, in this country.</para>
<para>The legislation before the chamber today I think is a good piece of reform that changes a bad mistake made by the Howard government in this space back in 2006, and the changes have an enormous amount of support. The Law Council supports it. There have been dozens of reports in relation to family law in the last few years. But I think the changes here are focused on the best interests of children. They get rid of the hierarchical situation of primary and additional considerations and the misunderstanding that was so obvious if you practised in this jurisdiction, as I did for nearly a quarter of a century. You end up realising how often litigants were under the misunderstanding that equal shared parental responsibility meant equal time and how often people were misled by legislation which I didn't think was in the best interests of children. The Family Law Act needed change and needs change here today.</para>
<para>The government released an exposure draft in January this year, with an explanatory consultation paper. There have been hundreds of submissions and over 50 ministerial briefs, and the Attorney-General's office has received 950 pieces of correspondence in the form of campaign letters. Most of the stakeholders overwhelmingly support the changes that we're making here, and they respond to very persistent calls by women's and children's safety advocates to focus more on the safety of children and to think about the best interests of children. We are repealing the presumption of equal, shared parental responsibility and providing a more concise and understandable piece of legislation in part VII of the Family Law Act. I think this will be safer, simpler, easier and more accessible, and I think it will be more just and fair for all litigants, in person as well as those represented by lawyers.</para>
<para>It's important for people who might be listening to understand what part VII of the Family Law Act says currently and how it needs to change. There are some good provisions in part VII of the Family Law Act, but section 60CC talks about the primary considerations and then focuses on additional considerations. There are, all up, about 14 considerations that people need to look at, which is a lot. That's because 95 per cent of cases where people institute proceedings get settled. A lot of people look at a case, and they never even go into court. They do it by parenting agreements, their own arrangements and consent orders. Even when people institute proceedings, it's usually with conciliation conferences, mediation and counselling, and, if they're represented by good lawyers, they take every step to try and negotiate an outcome that's in the best interests of children. But I don't think the provisions in the current law are focused on the best interests of children, because, while there are some statements there that are important, they are complex and difficult to understand.</para>
<para>One of the biggest problems is in section 61DA. That is the presumption that, in the best interests of children, there be equal, shared parental responsibility. That doesn't mean equal time, but people have assumed it means equal time, and the previous Howard government actually sold it a bit that way. When the court looks at it for decision-making, whether in an interim hearing or a final hearing, it has a look at whether, if there is an equal, shared parental responsibility, there should be equal time. If there's not equal time, should there be substantive time enjoyed by both parties in relation to the children? That might sound not that hard, but if you are in the course of that sort of proceeding, it almost gets to a point where judges and magistrates are quite often influenced in the way they determine cases. Most of them don't actually determine at a final hearing or even at an interim hearing. Most cases are resolved. That hierarchy of considerations, I think, makes it difficult particularly for women and children in an interim hearing. You see that in interim hearings all the time, where there is opportunity for influence to be put and for someone in an unequal power situation to influence the outcome.</para>
<para>I think a situation where the legislation is complex, repetitive and results in increased costs for clients is not in the best interests of children. I think there is very significant community confusion in relation to decision-making. There are many important schedules in this particular legislation—for a start, the idea of harmful proceedings and an order in that regard which is not quite vexatious, which concentrates, I might add, on the litigator, who initiates the order in the proceedings. The harmful proceedings orders concentrate on the effect on the respondent, and I think this is a good initiative. You can find that in schedule 5 of the amendments. The idea of bringing forward the review is something I spoke about in parliament under the last government, when they were merging the courts and getting rid of what I would describe as a specialist, standalone Family Court. I thought that having a Federal Circuit Court and a Family Court was not the way to go initially; that there should have been a standalone Family Court, in accordance with the Lionel Murphy vision. But having a Federal Circuit Court to deal with minor matters and interim hearings, with more complex and difficult cases being dealt with by the Family Court, was still infinitely better than getting rid of the specialist Family Court. We're going to bring that review forward by two years, and that's to be found in schedule 8 of the legislation before the chamber.</para>
<para>I think it's important that we focus on getting rid of the two primary considerations and the 14 additional considerations under section 60CC. The legislation before us lists six matters, which I think is a good focus. They are six matters which are focused on the best interests of children. They are:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the child—</para></quote>
<para>which I think is very child focused—and:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) each person who has care of the child …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any views expressed by the child;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;</para></quote>
<para>There's a big focus on safety in the provisions, which I think is important. There is also a catch-all phrase:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.</para></quote>
<para>Good initiatives here are the additional considerations that First Nations children have a right to enjoy Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture and that the notion of kinship and who is a family member, as put in the schedules, is broader than we would see in the non-First-Nations community. I think it is a very good thing to have a broader definition of 'relative of a child' than we have in other areas of the community. The considerations I have outlined, which are in proposed new subsection 60CC(2), and proposed new subsection 60CC(3), which talks about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, are important improvements and much, much better in relation to the circumstances.</para>
<para>I think there's an understanding also—and you can see it in the legislation here—of the need to get rid of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. If parents are separated and there's a child in the care of one parent there's joint parental responsibility. Decisions in relation to what the child wears, what the child eats and the day-to-day parental control type orders—'Go and make your bed. Go and sit up at the table'—are decisions that you make as a parent each and every day in the best interests of the children. Those decisions continue and you don't have to consult the other parent in relation to them. It's the big, long-term decisions—whether the child needs a blood transfusion, what religion the child should adhere to, where the child should go to school—that parents make on a joint basis if there's a court order that says they're to be done jointly.</para>
<para>This is important reform that we're initiating here. It's focused very heavily on the best interests of children. There is some codification of the common law in relation to the ruling in the 1979 case Rice v Asplund, which specified that if there's a final parenting order in place the applicant must show there's been a significant change of circumstance since the making of the order for the order to be reconsidered. That's very child focused. I like the fact that there's a provision in the legislation that deals with that. That rule is founded on the notion, as in the harmful proceedings orders I referred to earlier, that it's not in the best interests of children for there to be continuing litigation over a child or children. It cannot possibly be. My observation, having been an accredited specialist in family law, is that once people get through their initial separation and get focused on the best interests of children they tend to work together in partnership.</para>
<para>There are occasions where there is intractable conflict, and that's sad—it's a tragedy. I know that it's tough on people. I come from a broken home myself. I come from a situation that was hard. I spent nearly 25 years practising in family law and child protection. I know how difficult this can be, particularly in the most difficult child abuse cases that you deal with—in the Magellan List and others.</para>
<para>This is complex, and there are no easy answers in this area, but I think the Attorney-General has got it right. I think the preponderance of the evidence and submissions to various inquiries, including those of the Law Reform Commission and parliamentary committees, supports this legislation. I support the legislation today and I'm pleased to speak on it. I commend the member for Isaacs for bringing this legislation to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the amendments to the Family Law Act, which I believe will make the system more accessible to those who need it and will make sure that the safety and security of children is put first. Family law is a highly adversarial, emotive area of law, and no area is more so than part VII of the act, which deals with children. The families who look to the Family Law Act for guidance or end up in the family law courts are often angry, grieving or both. It's a time in a family's life when they need clarity and compassion. But over time Australia's family law system has become more complex, convoluted and confusing for any family that has the need to use this area of law.</para>
<para>The purpose of the Family Law Act 1975 is to assist families in dispute resolution and to look after children involved in family breakdown. The law is there to ensure children are protected from harm, they're supported after a family separation and that decisions are made in their best interests. However, the complex, costly and time-consuming system does not always provide a supportive and welcome place for children. According to the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, children often remain voiceless and lack autonomy over decisions made in their best interests.</para>
<para>While only three per cent of separating families get to a point where they need to have parenting arrangements determined by the court, so many other separating families and lawyers rely on family law to mediate their own arrangements. If we want a law that can be used by anyone who needs it, we need clear and concise legislation. Shortcomings of the current family law system have been in 12 reports since 2009, most recently the 2018 Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System and the 2019 inquiry by the Australian government Law Reform Commission into the family law system. With this background I'm pleased to support any reforms to the family law system that make it a better, easier, fit-for-purpose system that works in the best interests of the child.</para>
<para>The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 does some really good things. This bill intends to place children's rights in the centre of the family law system and give them an increased voice in decision-making. It simplifies the factors considered in the best-interest test. It expands the notion of family. It gives increased weight to connection to culture for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Importantly, it amends clause 60B, which has led to confusion about a presumption of equal time.</para>
<para>I welcome the amendments aimed at ensuring that the best interests of children are placed at the centre of the system and its operation. While this has been the intent of previous iterations of the act, these amendments make it clearer. According to the National Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds, the simplification of the objects clause in part VII, children, more comprehensively gives effect to Australia's obligation to protect the rights of children. This is a good thing.</para>
<para>The amendments to section 60CC, which outlines how a court determines what is in a child's best interests, are also positive. Previously the Family Law Act drew a distinction between primary considerations and additional considerations. I note that several stakeholders have raised concerns about removing the previous hierarchy of interests, because it could give judicial officers too much freedom in interpreting and determining the best interests of the child. However, I believe that removing a hierarchy of considerations gives judicial officers the appropriate flexibility and the ability to weigh up the safety, needs and anything else that's relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.</para>
<para>I particularly support the addition of a directive for a court to consider the rights of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child to have the opportunity to maintain their connection with community, culture, country and language. As the WA Aboriginal Family Legal Services said in its public submission, this clause is a key mechanism to ensure that a child's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, cultural rights and other cultural issues are brought to the attention of judicial officers. I will be supporting any amendments that also require cultural and linguistically diverse children to be afforded similar considerations.</para>
<para>The WA Aboriginal Family Legal Service also welcomes the introduction of an extended meaning of 'member of family' to recognise Aboriginal notions of family and kinship. I do note, however, that the proposed definition of family and this amendment differs from the definition of family in the Children and Community Services Act 2004, which may cause future complexity.</para>
<para>Finally, I support the clarification in the amendment that makes it clear that there is no presumption of equal time under section 61DA of the Family Law Act. While equal shared parental responsibility was not intended to be a presumption of equal time, it has been interpreted like this, potentially detracting from a focus on the child's best interests. The way this was drafted was confusing. Youth Law Australia at UNSW said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In our experience, the confusion surrounding the presumption … has led to many families agreeing to unsafe care arrangements in cases resolved by consent</para></quote>
<para>Whilst I appreciate it is in the child's best interests to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, it should not be assumed that this means equal time between both parents. It's imperative to raise community awareness about this change, including specific training for legal practitioners, family dispute resolution practitioners, family counsellors and family consultants.</para>
<para>I also support the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. The ALRC review found that improvements are required to judicial gaps within the family law system, which in part is because family law is segregated across state and federal legislation. The family law system remains confusing and traumatic for many who go through it in an already vulnerable time. We need to keep improving the system to make it simpler, fairer and focused on supporting children and their parents in a difficult time. These amendments are necessary and important, and I commend the government for actioning the recommendations of the ALRC review.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 is of central importance to Australians. It seeks to address problems in an area of everyday life that touches all of us—family and personal life. Families are not safe for many. Just this year the Australian Bureau of Statistics told us that more than one in four women in Australia have experienced violence at the hands of a current or former intimate partner since the age of 15 years. One in four. This is utterly shameful. And it's not just women; one in 14 men told the ABS that they had experienced violence from an intimate partner too.</para>
<para>The problem is far worse for our First Peoples. The past 65,000 years have seen a flourishing intergenerational First Nations family life. We have also seen the terrible impact that colonisation has brought upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families across our nation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 31 times more likely to be hospitalised for family violence related assaults than non-Indigenous women and 7.6 times more likely to be killed than non-Indigenous women.</para>
<para>Long gone are the days when victims needed to prove mistreatment by showing evidence of physical violence. We now understand that abuse can take the form of subtle coercive control and may involve emotional or financial manipulation, and that these are just as harmful. Separation is often the riskiest time for domestic and family violence. For many, separation does not mean an end to the violence but more harm and more control, especially at contact changeover times for children.</para>
<para>Domestic and family violence is the norm, not the exception, in family law. Recent data from the Lighthouse Project provides undeniable evidence that most parenting disputes before the court involve allegations of family violence. Sixty-four per cent involve allegations of family violence against one parent, and 57 per cent involve allegations of family violence against children. Victims-survivors face a common belief from family law professionals that children need a relationship with their father, no matter the abuse they have suffered or the domestic violence they have witnessed.</para>
<para>Victims-survivors also report that their allegations of family violence are not believed and that their experiences are minimised or trivialised in the family law system. Several women in my electorate of Goldstein have shared with me their distressing stories and concerns about the family law process. One of them said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The father of my daughter was described by author on gendered violence Jess Hill as 'one of the most terrifying coercive controllers and users of physical and sexual violence that I have practically ever heard of'. Though he's been found guilty of multiple breaches of the Family Violence Intervention Order, and indictable criminal offences following a violent attack on my daughter, keeping her safe from him has been, at times, a seemingly impossible task, despite spending more money than the value of our home in Goldstein on legal advice in order to protect her.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a victim/survivor of severe family violence, I understand the dire need for family law reform to prioritise the safety of children. I see it as the most poorly understood danger facing Australian children currently.</para></quote>
<para>Our kids are threatened. We now know that exposure to violence at home is as harmful for children as being abused themselves. In short, to describe children as being 'exposed' to family violence is incorrect. They're experiencing it. I have heard mothers tearfully acknowledge that they could not protect their children from witnessing violence after separation.</para>
<para>Across Australia an estimated 2.6 million to 2.7 million people have witnessed violence towards a parent by a partner or experienced abuse before the age of 15. These are distressing numbers. As a nation, we cannot accept this. We must make laws that are carefully designed to support these families, to identify and address the problem of domestic and family violence as early as effectively as possible. This bill is overdue. It responds to longstanding calls for change.</para>
<para>In recent years we've learned a great deal from inquiries such as the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report <inline font-style="italic">Family law for the futu</inline><inline font-style="italic">re</inline> and the Joint Select Committee on Family Law System 2021-22. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children calls for improvements to the family law system, including the need for justice systems to be equipped to provide trauma-informed, culturally safe responses that prioritise the safety of individuals and families. We must listen. Last year, the Wiyi Yani U Thangani First Nations Women's Safety Policy Forum called on the Australian government to 'ensure that First Nations women and children are front and centre of the design and delivery of the proposed separate First Nations national plan to end family violence and violence against women'.</para>
<para>I commend the government on the strengths in this bill. It directly responds to many pressing problems in our family law system and does a great deal for adult and child victims-survivors of domestic and family violence. It removes the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and this is key. The current law has created a well-entrenched misunderstanding in the community that both parents are entitled to equal time with their children, regardless of domestic and family violence or abuse. However, in families with a history of abuse this may not be appropriate or safe.</para>
<para>One in five Australians believe that violence is a normal reaction to day-to-day stress, and almost one in three Australians think that women are partly responsible for perpetuating abusive relationships—wow! The removal of this presumption is strongly supported by Women's Legal Services Australia, who have long advocated for its removal. As they explain:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While we recognise that it is often in the best interests of children to spend time with both parents, this must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the safety of children and adult victims-survivors of domestic, family and sexual violence and abuse must be prioritised.</para></quote>
<para>The removal of this presumption is therefore an enormous step forward in terms of our ability to identify and respond to domestic and family violence.</para>
<para>In response to the evidence received during the public consultation stage, the emphasis on family violence has been strengthened even further. The bill now emphasises the importance of ensuring children's safety when judges or parents are deciding which parenting arrangements would be in the best interests of children and expands the scope of whose safety should be considered to anyone caring for children, rather than just children themselves or those with parental responsibilities. I welcome these efforts to identify the safety of adult and child victims-survivors of family violence as a priority.</para>
<para>However, this bill is not perfect, and I say that in the spirit of collaboration with the Attorney-General's office to support improving it. Drawing on evidence produced by Dr Jessica Mant and Associate Professor Becky Batagol from Monash University, I believe there are currently some gaps in the bill that need to be addressed for it to be truly effective. There is still not a strong enough focus on the problem of domestic and family violence.</para>
<para>Under this bill, there will be six principles to assist judges, lawyers and parents to come to decisions about what arrangements would be in children's best interests. While simplification is to be commended, this should not come at the expense of the safety of those arrangements. Safety is just one of those six principles. If the bill is enacted, there will be nothing in it to suggest that protection from domestic and family violence is any more important than any of the other five principles. The bill must prioritise safety if we're going to address the problem of domestic and family violence in our family law system. In 2011 this parliament passed laws that prioritised the safety of children in parenting matters. These laws were enacted after multiple reports showed that the Family Law Act failed to adequately protect children and other family members from family violence and child abuse. Removing these laws is a step backwards. It is a terrible price we cannot ask more women and children to pay.</para>
<para>The bill relies heavily on the term 'safety' when it talks about domestic and family violence. As Zoe Rathus from Griffith University explains, the word 'safety' conjures images of physical abuse rather than emotional and psychological harm. It does not invite thinking about a range of non-physical abuses common in family law cases. This is a critical gap. The overly simplistic focus on 'safety' here is a subtle shift in language which rolls back on the rich understanding of domestic and family violence we have gained recently. This framing fails to recognise the important realities of past domestic and family violence in the context of future parenting arrangements.</para>
<para>The bill also does not go far enough to address the problem of legal systems abuse. It is only recently that legal systems abuse has come to our attention as a form of domestic and family violence. Research studies undertaken across Australia, New Zealand and the UK all demonstrate how family law proceedings are deliberately used by perpetrators to assert continued control and intimidation over their children, their children's other parent and anyone else who cares for those children. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children requires us to address systems abuse.</para>
<para>A major achievement of this bill is that it will introduce a new power for judges to make orders that stop people from bringing court proceedings where it would cause harm to the other family members involved. However, there is nothing in this bill that directly encourages judges to use this new power in cases where they see family violence. These orders can and should be used to secure the safety of children in those situations, and the bill can do even more to address legal systems abuse. Systems abuse should be explicitly listed as a form of family violence in the Family Law Act. A Monash study of legal systems abuse in family law recommended inserting legal systems abuse in the legislative definition of family violence as an example of behaviour that may coerce or control a family member</para>
<para>It's also important that we continue to evaluate the effectiveness of our laws for responding to systems abuse and domestic and family violence more broadly. The bill must allow for research into these issues to make sure that our laws are the best they can possibly be at protecting those affected by family violence. These changes must be addressed if the bill is to be truly effective. I want to commend this government on finally bringing this bill to this place. The government has responded to insistent calls for change on matters that profoundly affect too many Australians each year. It is our job to care about getting our laws right on domestic and family violence, including our family laws, but there is more we can do here today. It is not good enough that, across Australia, about 50 per cent of women who have children in their care, when they experience violence by a current partner, report that their children have seen, heard and experienced that violence. We can do more and we must.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. The family law system is often criticised in Australia. This is understandable. Relationships are complex, and it's not so surprising that the law governing them is as well. But the pain around relationship breakdown and family separation should not be made more traumatic by the legislation that is put in place to regulate this very difficult time in people's lives. In particular, the government brings forward this legislation recognising that the family law system must be safer, more accessible and simpler to use and deliver justice and fairness for all Australian families. It must promote and facilitate arrangements that align with the fundamental principle that the best interests of children must come first.</para>
<para>There have been numerous reviews of the family law system in the past decade. These inform the way forward, and I am proud that this bill takes the necessary steps to ameliorate the deficiencies that have developed in the family law system. It does so by creating a more child focused framework for making parenting orders, addressing complex and confusing drafting resulting from decades of incremental changes to the Family Law Act, ensuring children's voices are better heard in matters affecting them, responding more appropriately to systems abuse and laying the framework for a scheme to regulate family report writers.</para>
<para>In this contribution I would like to focus on the role the family law system has in preventing domestic and family violence. I will also turn my attention to the rights of the child and the principle of acting in the child's best interest, starting with preventing domestic and family violence. Some relationships break down amicably and others do not. It is devastating when relationship breakdown is accompanied by violence. It is unacceptable when it is accompanied by violence. It is a sad reality concerning family violence that it often presents in family law cases. Yet the current law directs the courts to particular outcomes that marginalise concerns such as child safety and creates requirements that have led to escalated conflict and coercive control. The family law system must play a role in preventing domestic and family violence.</para>
<para>Organisations such as Domestic Violence New South Wales have told us that the safety of women and children needs to be paramount in family law matters. As the peak body in that state, its members represent the diversity of specialist services working to support women, families and communities impacted by domestic and family violence. Their member organisations include crisis and refuge services, specialist women's legal services, transitional accommodation and community housing providers, Aboriginal controlled organisations and specialist culturally and linguistically diverse organisations, men's behaviour change programs and networks, women's and children's support services, women's health centres and safe-at-home programs. When organisations such as this, who hear every day from those at the front line of the responses to domestic and family violence in the community, tell us the law needs to change, we need to listen, and we have.</para>
<para>For example, we know the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility has long been misunderstood, allowing it to be exploited by violent fathers to exert ongoing power, control and abuse. There will no longer be a presumption of equal, shared parental responsibility in Australian family law, as a result of this legislation. This legislation removes the requirement for a court to consider certain time arrangements for children to spend with each parent. Whilst ideally children should feel safe and have meaningful relationships with both parents, we know that this cannot always be the case. Instead, through this bill, there is a recognition and an acknowledgement of the importance of the safety of each person who has responsibility for the child. As those with direct experience tell us, for the best interests of the child to be upheld, the safety of the other parent is paramount, and violence perpetrated against a mother not only is relevant to a child's safety but, we know, increases the risk of violence against a child.</para>
<para>As another organisation that is a national leader in the prevention of violence against women and children Australia, Our Watch, has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the changes increase the focus on prioritising the interests, safety and wellbeing of the child and each person who has parental responsibility for the child, often women. This acknowledges that the safety of a child's carer is an important factor in ensuring the safety of a child.</para></quote>
<para>I further note the reflection that, collectively, many of the changes contained in this legislation have the potential to challenge the condoning of violence against women and cultural norms around such violence. I'm grateful to Domestic Violence New South Wales, Our Watch, Safe and Equal, No to Violence and the hundreds of organisations they work with for their commitment to providing safety to victims and survivors of domestic and family violence.</para>
<para>This bill makes substantial amendments to that aspect of the Family Law Act, part VII, which concerns children. At the moment, part VII contains a confusing combination of principles, objects and factors that substantially complicate the pathway to resolution of parenting matters. Most concerningly, they obscure the capacity of the law to protect the best interests of children in a relationship breakdown. This legislation aims to make it easier to understand the issues to be considered when determining parenting arrangements in the best interests of the child. It does this through clearer objects that elevate the need to consider the best interests of children as the most important factor when determining parenting arrangements. Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are also reflected in the new objects clause. Under this bill, six best-interest factors will guide judicial decision-making, including safety, the benefit of having relationships with both parents, any views expressed by the child and the child's development and psychological, emotional and cultural needs. They also recognise the importance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to maintain connections with family, community, culture, country and language.</para>
<para>These changes are designed to simplify the complicated existing framework whilst elevating the rights of children. In providing emphasis on the best interests of the child and a child's right to express views, it accords with longstanding advocacy for children to be treated as victims in their own right. It is not right that those most significantly affected by legal decisions have been marginalised in the process, and I am grateful that this legislation seeks to address that. I am grateful for the way in which the Attorney-General, my colleague Mark Dreyfus, has prioritised action to address the deficiencies in the Australian family law system, even in our first year in office. It recognises the decade of reviews and solutions that have been presented but not acted upon. It also recognises that decisions made in family law have deep and long-lasting effects on the lives of parents and children. It is essential that these decisions are made under a legal framework that has principles such as safety, preventing domestic and family violence and the best interests of children at its core. This is a profound and important reform, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. These bills address recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission final report, made some time ago now, and implement elements and recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. The bills aim to simplify the framework for determining parenting arrangements and moves to ensure promotion of the best interests of the child.</para>
<para>I should say at the outset that this is an incredibly difficult area of law in Australia. This is actually an area of law that, over a significant number of years, has had the most reviews and reports that successive governments have failed to implement. I commend the government and the Attorney-General for bringing forward these changes. It's a difficult area to get right. This is highly emotional and highly personal for those that it impacts.</para>
<para>In November 2021 I commended to the House the third interim report and the final report tabled by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, of which I was a member. During the course of that inquiry we heard so many distressing stories, accounts from men and women who had gone through the system and it had let them down, and children who had been impacted by the system. So it does fall on the government and this parliament to ensure the system works better. I called on the government to act on these reports because two previous reports from the committee and the ALRC recommendations have just been sitting on the shelf like so many others from previous inquiries. I am really pleased to see these recommendations come forward.</para>
<para>The breakdown of family relationships is often one of the very first interactions with the court system that individuals will have. It's incredibly confronting. It's very difficult and emotional. So many in the community are turning to the inquiries and these changes and looking for the implementation of recommendations, and they feel that there can be progress in such a distressing area. Even in circumstances where it may well be too late for their circumstances, they want to ensure that it is a better process for others.</para>
<para>Before coming to this place I was a family law barrister for some time. I had the experience of acting for women, men and children in those proceedings. I know how distressing this area of law can be. It goes to the core of people's lives. There's a really important element in that, which is time—time that you cannot get back and the time that it takes for these proceedings to be resolved. Of course family law involves property and parenting, and whilst one is your financial circumstances the other is incredibly personal because it is your family relationship and your opportunity with your children. We know children are only small for a very short period of time, and that's why our system working in a timely way is so incredibly important. I would hope that there is a time we approach family law, separation and breakdown of relationships in a bipartisan way, because when politics get involved in these issues you see a real weaponisation of people's emotions, fears and distress, and I don't think that ends up in good outcomes. We know that with a bipartisan approach to this we can create a system that will be fairer and that will implement recommendations from experts, and hopefully we can progress this area.</para>
<para>Sadly, in modern society over 40 per cent of relationships end in separation. While many of those separations are conducted fairly and amicably, there are still many Australians who rely on the family law system to settle their divorce or separation and resolve disputes around property and children. Some three per cent end up in court for resolution. That three per cent of separations is the most acrimonious and where there is that breakdown of communication and an inability to resolve. Most of us know someone or personally have been through separation and the Family Court process. To varying degrees, this process is adversarial, confrontational, emotionally unsettling, financially crippling and life changing.</para>
<para>If there's one thing we can't get back, it's time, and reviews and reports have repeatedly said that's one of the major problems with the system. It's imperative that our family law system be functional, but it needs to be fair and it needs to be well funded. It all goes to that question of time. The time it takes for disputes to be resolved and determined allows disputes to fester. It allows problems or cracks to get wider. You can't make up time if you haven't had that opportunity to spend time with a child.</para>
<para>One of the key issues identified in past reviews was the cost associated with the family law system. I know in that respect many people who have provided evidence have often looked at family law practitioners and barristers as being a part of that problem. The difficulty is actually with the time, because the more a dispute goes on, the more expensive it gets. It's also about the make-up of how we approach family breakdown. It's about the adversarial nature of the family law courts and whether we should move to a more inquisitorial model. I know that is a very difficult thing to achieve, but there have been incredibly promising trials of less adversarial processes, where we're looking at bringing people together to find the common ground rather than accentuating the dissent and the areas they disagree on.</para>
<para>Another issue is the distressing delays in the current court system. The role of family consultants is incredibly important. Again, this is an area of law where a judicial officer has to break it down and come to a view on what will be in the best interests of the child according to the versions of various parents. Parents often know their child best, but it comes down to one person's word against another, and that can be really difficult. That is where experts that have a slightly less vested approach come in. They can have a bit more perspective. They understand the research and data around the best interests of the child. Expert witnesses and independent children's lawyers play a huge role in the family law system. From my experience, in practice the independent children's lawyer has a huge sway over the ultimate outcome. It's important that they be well funded and well qualified for the role, but it's also important that they properly represent that independent view of the child, as well as the best interests.</para>
<para>Enforcement of contraventions and family law orders is a vexed and wicked problem with the family law system, because judicial officers, as much as they will come to a view and determine final orders, do not step out of the courtroom and go into people's lives. They do not go and see and make sure that people are actually complying with what the court has ordered them to do. And the whole structural soundness of the system relies on people actually complying with orders, and you can't just call police and everyone out every time there is a contravention. So enforcement and contravention of family orders is a very difficult and frustrating area when you balance it with the other factors of cost to get to orders in the first place.</para>
<para>And then, of course, there is the issue of family violence. In family law proceedings, how the family law system and family violence jurisdiction interact is incredibly important, and it has been quite vexed. We have real dysfunction at the local court level when it comes to ADVOs and protection orders and how that interacts with and impacts family law proceedings, especially around parenting. There's a lot of poor advice. There's often a lot of misunderstanding of the process, and this adds to the vexation and the frustration with the system. I would have to say there are a lot of misunderstandings around the system as well. I think sometimes there are a lot of glib statements that are made for political reasons that don't actually reflect the law. So it's really important to try to take the emotion away and actually look factually at what the law provides.</para>
<para>I do support what the bill is addressing, but I have got a couple of areas where I raise concern that there isn't sufficient clarity. I will propose amendments to that effect, but I also note from discussions with the Attorney-General that these will hopefully be considered during an inquiry process.</para>
<para>There is a misunderstanding of the presumption clause to reinforce that the best interests of the child are paramount. I do welcome that the legislation is repealing certain provisions and sections, making it clear that it is placing the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in parenting orders. And it moves away from the often misinterpreted shared parental responsibility provision, because people misunderstand that to equating to a presumption of equal parental time. To be fair, the wording is not clear. The wording leads to that misunderstanding. But it's really important and hard to explain to parents that this is not about their right as a parent. This is actually around the child's right and what is going to be in the best interests of the child—to form a relationship with both parents, to have a more stable life, to be a child and to not have to be shuffled around. Often, it's really hard to explain that, but it's really important to make clear that that is the centrepiece of the law.</para>
<para>So I do agree with these proposed amendments, which simplify the list of best-interest factors that a court must consider in making parenting orders and take away the initial presumption, because that presumption around shared parental responsibility carried with it the presumption of consideration of shared and equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent. Essentially, that was superseding the consideration of best interest of the child.</para>
<para>I agree with introducing a standalone test for the best-interest factor for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children which will require the court to consider their right to enjoy their culture and expand the definition of 'family' to align with their culture. This is incredibly important. I had a number of cases where we had to address this issue, and it is challenging with the way the legislation was to truly bring into the courtroom give due weight to consideration of those factors.</para>
<para>I should say, though, that it is not just Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children for whom these factors should be considered. I believe there may will be an amendment in the consideration stage and an inquiry, but this is really important for children from migrant backgrounds, where cultural factors are incredibly different. We are a very multicultural society, and there are different expectations and cultural traditions that really need to be considered for a child for their best interest, because the best interest of the child is for that particular child before the court. Their cultural identity, their background, is incredibly important.</para>
<para>I welcome the codification of Rice and Asplund. For those non-practising, Rice and Asplund was the test established in a court decision: once final orders have been achieved in the parenting dispute, what are the circumstances when a court can be asked to re-look at those orders? Keep in mind that when a court makes final orders in parenting disputes it is taking into account factors right up until that child turns 18. The child ageing and growing up is not in itself a change of circumstances. We have to be really clear about how this works, because parents—parties—go to great expense and to great emotional distress and anxiety to get to final orders. It is often the result of years of disputes and litigation. So to be dragged back to court within two years by a dissatisfied party is incredibly counterproductive and distressing and, I would say, against the best interest of the child. So I welcome this amendment that codifies the factors of Rice and Asplund, but I will move an amendment to make very clear when these factors should be considered. It should be as an interim hearing. It should be a threshold test where you consider whether or not there has been substantial change in circumstances before taking the parties down the road of a significant additional final hearing.</para>
<para>I welcome family consultants having additional powers in relation to implementing standards for family report writers to improve their quality and the requirement for independent children's lawyers to speak and meet with children. Really important is the parental responsibility provision, which is in relation to long-term decision-making and how that should be done. There should be a requirement not just to consult but to make reasonable efforts to consult.</para>
<para>In relation to family violence, there is still much work to be done, but enhanced information-sharing, which will support the family court's responsiveness to instances of risk and family violence, child abuse and neglect, is important. Enforcement is a massive area of frustration, so I do welcome the amendments that make clear the process, a special list for consideration and the orders that are open.</para>
<para>There is still some room for improvement, and that I will address with amendments. I welcome that there is going to be a review of the merger of the courts and that that will be brought forward by two years to ensure the new structure is providing families with a safe and accessible, efficient resolution of family law disputes. I understand that the Attorney-General has more recommendations to be implemented in this area, but I really call on my colleagues here in this place to try and approach this issue in a bipartisan way for the welfare of parties involved.</para>
<para>Proceedings suspended from 12:59 to 16:00</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. The first concern of our family courts should be what is in the best interests of the child. In my opinion, it should also be the second concern, the third concern and so on. This focus should be non-negotiable. Why would we want a system which doesn't prioritise the interests of the child when it comes to making potentially life-changing decisions? The Howard government was hoodwinked back in the early noughties, and too many Australian children have been paying the price ever since. The first sentence in Leo Tolstoy's novel <inline font-style="italic">Anna Karenina </inline>is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.</para></quote>
<para>Any family law barrister, or any lawyer who has ever worked in family law, knows that it is one of the most difficult areas of our justice system. All too often love turns to hate and logic turns to passionate beliefs that are often wrong.</para>
<para>I should stress that most disintegrating couples work it out themselves, and they do so with the help of the courts and with the best interests of their children at the forefront of their minds. However, there are some occasions when the state must step in to offer guidance, sometimes with a carrot, sometimes with a stick, sometimes with a stick-shaped carrot and even sometimes with a carrot-shaped stick. But, whatever it takes, that's when we need to step in to look after this nation's children, and I'm proud to be a part of the Labor Party, which has long committed to improving our family law system. I particularly note the endeavours of the Attorney-General in this area for a long time. We need improvements to make it safer, simpler to use and more accessible and a justice system that delivers just and fair outcomes for families.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the family law system was used as a political tool by the Howard-Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments for the past two decades. It has been subject to more than two dozen inquiries in that time—for example, the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report <inline font-style="italic">Family Law for the Future—An Inquiry into the Family Law System</inline><inline font-style="italic"> (report 135)</inline>. I also mention the 2021 Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. I was a member of that committee. Consistent among all of these reports is the fact that our family law justice system contains way too much overly complex and at times confusing legislation. This confusion makes it a nightmare for already stressed parents to navigate, especially if they are families who cannot afford access to legal representation.</para>
<para>From my many years working as the shadow assistant minister to the former shadow Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, I know that there is way too much confusion within the community when it comes to family law. All too often confusion and misunderstandings mix with that horrible swirl of love and hate and history. Throw in a dose of vulnerable little people and intermeddling in-laws, grandparents and all sorts of people, and you too often have a recipe for protracted and harmful litigation. It's a recipe for a meal that nobody likes the taste of and nobody wants to waste their money on. This has to stop for everyone's sake, especially for the sake of our children.</para>
<para>Now is the time to address the backlog of recommendations for legislative reform, and that is what the Albanese government is doing. We'll begin with those that elevate children's best interests to where they should be: the central concern of this legislation. This bill will achieve this by clarifying the needlessly confusing framework in the Family Law Act for making decisions about parenting arrangements. It will now make it clear that the best interests of children are the priority. I repeat that: it will now make it clear that the best interests of children are the priority. This involves simplifying the list of best-interest factors that a court must consider to provide a contemporary framework for decision-making. It also involves repealing the misleading presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and associated requirements for courts to consider specific care-time arrangements.</para>
<para>No child is a fraction. No family is neatly cut in half. Life is messy in the real world. Families are all smudged edges and grey, not the black-and-white creations of mathematicians or even lawmakers. I know this fact will upset one particular One Nation senator from Queensland, but it is the truth. Life is always messy, and when love goes bad it is particularly so.</para>
<para>The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was inserted into the Family Law Act by the Howard government, by the then Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock. I am hopeful that Mr Ruddock did so with the best of intentions, but sadly, things didn't turn out that way. One of the reasons for this failure is that the presumption has been misunderstood since day one. Too often it leads to parents believing they have a right to equal time with their children after separation—fifty-fifty; seven days on, seven days off; and all of that. This has never actually been the law. Often the results have been disfraction manifest, but it was never intended to be so. The ramifications for this misunderstanding have led to devastating consequences—mothers agreeing to shared access with abusive fathers, decisions which put both them and their children in danger. And the opposite occurs when mothers do take it to court and the court makes the decision not to grant access to the abusive father, with the father mistakenly thinking the court has got it wrong and supping on that poisoned chalice of injustice, mistakenly, again and again and unable to move on with our lives, dwelling on the past when they should be moving on with their lives. Sadly, this can feed into their anger and lead them to make terrible decisions which can lead to tragedy. This common misconception also leads to lengthier and in many cases spiteful court cases.</para>
<para>All recent inquiries have recognised that these provisions are widely misunderstood as creating rights to equal time. Removal of these provisions will ensure that everyone understands that the child's needs, rather than the parents' needs, are the focus, the laserlike focus, of the court. The amendments mean that parents who are making post-separation parenting arrangements will be focused on what arrangements will be in the best interests of their child. Simplifying the process for parents will do away with false hopes based on misconceptions of the law. Equipping parents with greater certainty will allow them to make quicker decisions, armed with the right knowledge and the right information. This can then mean avoiding lengthy disputes, as courts won't be clogged with cases where a parent is under the misapprehension of a right to automatic shared custody.</para>
<para>Anyone who has been involved in family law understands that emotions are always high. I particularly note my former adviser Michelle Howe, who informed my understanding of family law, and I thank her for her great contributions to my understanding in this area of law. Making clearer to all parties their rights and that the child's needs are the most important will allow decisions to be made as early as possible, and that's a win for everyone.</para>
<para>The bill also clarifies the orders that a court can make in relation to decision-making on major long-term issues and, in the absence of court orders, encourages parents to consult on these issues where it is safe to do so. I note that point 'where it is safe to do so'. The bill also recognises the important role culture plays for Australia's First Nations children. Culture is an essential part of who we are for all of us. It is the case for everyone, but it is particularly significant when it comes to the oldest culture on earth. Cultural connection is an important part of a First Nations child's life, and it's important that this is taken into account when considering what is in that child's best interest. Staying connected is so important for these children, as it helps to shape their identity and their place in the world, keeping them connected to culture and family, which is something we've learned from past royal commissions into moving children away from their First Nations communities. Theirs is a culture that is more than 65,000 years old and is maintained through the passing of lore and knowledge to children so they can continue that story. The bill also expands the definition of 'member of the family' to include persons to whom Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are related according to their culture.</para>
<para>The Queensland government has already recognised with the Torres Strait community with the passing of the Meriba Omasker Kaziw Kazipa (Torres Strait Islander Traditional Child Rearing Practice) Act. That Queensland act recognises Torres Strait Islander lore in Australian law, and establishes a process for legal recognition of Torres Strait Islander traditional child-rearing practices. This was such a monumental step for the important role culture plays in the rearing of Torres Strait Islander children. Again, this all goes back to the parties turning their minds to what is in the best interests of the child that comes before the court.</para>
<para>That is what the changes contained in this bill have at their heart. Part of this reform includes strengthening children's voices in family law matters. The bill introduces a requirement for independent children's lawyers, ICLs, to meet directly with children. ICLs not only are able to gather important information directly from the child but also have the ability to speak to the child's counsellors, schoolteachers and principal. They can also examine documents and evidence from child welfare, police and the parents where and when required. This is an important step in ensuring that what's best for the child is front and centre of the decision-making.</para>
<para>This will hopefully, coupled with extra powers to the court, protect parties and children from the harmful effects of protracted and adversarial integration. Anyone who has been involved in a long drawn out Family Court case knows that it is not a great process for anyone—win, lose or draw. There are no winners in the end. So these changes will help facilitate better outcomes not just for the child but for everyone involved—the parents et cetera.</para>
<para>The bill will also increase the judicial discretion to appoint ICLs in matters under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This change will greatly assist when one or both parents have connections through citizenship or other connections to a foreign country, as half of Australians do. These are even more delicate matters, and this small but important change is overdue.</para>
<para>When we're looking at the best interests of the child, we recognise the importance for a child to maintain a relationship with both parents and other family members, and this bill will require the court to take this important notion into consideration when making parenting orders. An important caveat to this is, of course, the safety of the child. I hope we all agree in this House that the safety of the child trumps the maintenance of connection to parents. The state is a bad parent, but the safety of the child should be paramount.</para>
<para>I have heard politicians and witnesses argue differently, but this can never be the case. We don't want a violent father or a violent mother to be given access to a child, thus putting the child in danger of harm and abuse which will stay with them for a lifetime—or even worse. This goes back to where I started. Everything in these changes before the chamber comes back to that core principle. The court must always have an effect, when a decision is made, by considering what is best for the child.</para>
<para>Another issue that has caused concern both in legal circles and with the general public is what restrictions there are around the publication of family law proceedings, the first notion being privacy. This bill will make it clearer and easier to understand what exactly can and cannot be published around matters. We are all aware of the monumental change that was made with the merger of the Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court. It's important to understand what impact this change is making on the ground, so the Albanese government is bringing forward by two years the review into the structural reforms randomly made by the Morrison government. We can't sit around and wait that long to see whether this change—that, incidentally, no professional body was calling for—has made. What difference is it making? Did the Morrison government make a bad situation even worse—hence, bringing on that review? This new structure must provide a safe, accessible and efficient resolution of family law disputes for the sake of everyone involved.</para>
<para>We are also moving to clarify the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act so that dual appointments to division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and family courts of a state are permitted. A provision, to this effect, was previously contained in the Family Law Act 1975 and was omitted in the enabling legislation that brought into effect the FCFCOA. This amendment will restore the previous legislative arrangements that should have remained in place since the act's commencement in September 2021.</para>
<para>These changes came about by the department listening, by the government listening. The department received 436 submissions over 50 ministerials and the Attorney-General's office received 950 pieces of correspondence in the form of campaign letters. It's backed by National Legal Aid and Women's Legal Services Australia. They will not be a surprise to anyone. Specifically, the removal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and having the best interests of the child at the centre of decisions is something that I have brought forward with a private member's bill in the previous parliament, supported by the Labor caucus.</para>
<para>I know that there will be nonsense peddled by certain people saying that women are liars and can't be trusted, that it's all the woman's fault and they're just punishing us because they hate us et cetera. All of that is bunkum. I will always call out such nonsense and lies propagated through the loud but misguided foghorns. When you look at the cold, hard facts, nothing they say is backed up by evidence. You can go to the comments made by researcher Jess Hill, who slapped down all their comments. I put this legislation to the chamber and hope that it will be supported by both sides of the parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset I want to say there is much of what the member for Moreton has said in his contribution that I agree with. The child's interests must come first. Children are so important. He also made remarks to the effect that these cases are individual and unique and it's never easy. Family law is one of the toughest things that we as parliamentarians deal with, but truly it's one of the toughest things that families have to deal with, particularly at that awful break-up stage—child custodial arrangements and the like. There was much in the member for Moreton's comments that I certainly agree with.</para>
<para>This particular bill, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, proposes significant and important changes to the Family Law Act 1975, responding to the inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, which tabled its final report on 22 November 2021. I acknowledge the member for Moreton's passion in this. I know he's been a long-time advocate for better outcomes in family law. I want to acknowledge too the efforts by former members of parliament, such as the late Alby Schultz, who was the member for Hume before the present member for Hume, Angus Taylor. I acknowledge the work that Mr Schultz did in this regard. His files were significant, and I know that he passed many, if not all, of those files onto the former member for Dawson George Christensen. They were advocates for better outcomes for dads. Sometimes, fathers were the forgotten people when it came to getting justice in family law, and Alby Schultz and George Christensen certainly fought the good fight on behalf of fathers. There are no rights or wrongs when it comes to family law.</para>
<para>I know that my predecessor, Kay Hull, was a champion in this place for better outcomes in family law, for mums, dads and children. She headed an inquiry which reported in December 2003, 20 years ago. It seems a long, long time ago. The report was <inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">very picture tells a story</inline><inline font-style="italic">: report on</inline><inline font-style="italic"> the </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">nquiry </inline><inline font-style="italic">in</inline><inline font-style="italic">to child custody arrange</inline><inline font-style="italic">ments</inline><inline font-style="italic"> in the event of family separation</inline>. It was produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. She led that inquiry.</para>
<para>I spoke to Mrs Kay Hull AO yesterday about this bill and about the provisions that her inquiry brought about, which were fairer and better arrangements in the event of families separating and parents going their separate ways, and the outcomes of that for children. She commented to me that, prior to the recommendations in that report being adopted, 60 per cent of her work was on child custodial arrangements and family separation. That's a lot of the work of an MP. As we all know in this place, there are long hours in being a member of the House of Representatives, and when you consider that 60 per cent—Kay wasn't exaggerating—was going into these arrangements—and it wasn't just her. It was other members as well, right across the board, right across every seat in Australia. I know the work that Kay went to in trying to achieve better outcomes, and I'll mention that in a short while.</para>
<para>As I said, this bill makes extensive changes to the Family Law Act over nine different schedules. What we, as members of the coalition, would contend is that the bill should be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry, for further investigation. We want to see the best outcomes, for children in particular.</para>
<para>The most contentious parts of the bill relate to changes to the basis on which courts make parenting orders. In particular, this bill would remove the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It was introduced under the Howard government. It was introduced after the tabling of the report <inline font-style="italic">Every </inline><inline font-style="italic">picture tells </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic"> story</inline>. Views on this issue are divided. You'll get people who are very hostile in their opposition one way or the other. Labor advocates the complete removal of the presumption; others acknowledge that the presumption needs clarification but believe that its effects should be retained.</para>
<para>It is interesting to note—and Mrs Hull made reference to it in the report—that the member for Dickson, the current Leader of the Opposition, was on that inquiry into child custody arrangements. He would know, being a former policeman, just how difficult it is when it comes to families breaking up and when it comes to custodial arrangements. Sometimes the police have an impossible task when they're called to households to sort out disputes that have not otherwise been sorted out by lawyers, at last resort, or, dare I say, by the parents themselves. Indeed, in the report <inline font-style="italic">Every </inline><inline font-style="italic">picture tells a story</inline>—I'm reading from the foreword—it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">One of the highlights of committee work for parliamentarians is the people we meet. During this inquiry our greatest delight was hearing from the nine children and five young adults at our final meeting of the inquiry. These children and young adults were a microcosm of what this inquiry was all about.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These 14 young people talked about the important issues of the inquiry—what it was like for them when their parents were separating and how their living arrangements were decided.</para></quote>
<para>Indeed, when we consider what the divorce rate was back then and what is now, we know that it's probably significantly higher now. I'm lucky; I live in a loving relationship with my wife of nearly 37 years, Catherine, and our three children. I'm very, very privileged and lucky to have had such a supportive wife and family. Not everybody has that luck and that privilege.</para>
<para>Kay wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These children and young adults were articulate, open, funny, serious and sometimes sad.</para></quote>
<para>You can imagine that would be the case. She went on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">They told us their stories and as a result the real meaning of this inquiry was clearly understood.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Another young boy, Jack, who we were unable to meet with, told us his story through his four drawings. We are so grateful to Jack for the pictures which we have used on the cover and inside cover of our report. Jack's story is a simple and complex one at the same time. It is a story we can all identify with in some way. Every picture tells a story.</para></quote>
<para>She went on to talk about Jack, and then wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over the past six months of the inquiry many people have assisted the committee with its work. Over 2000 people have contributed to this inquiry through tasks such as making submissions, appearing at a hearing, making a community statement, facilitating the committee's visits to the courts and mediation centres and providing exhibits.</para></quote>
<para>She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As the chairman of the House Family and Community Affairs Committee I always think that every inquiry is the hardest that we have undertaken. However, I can say that this definitely was, and will be the most difficult inquiry any member will ever have to undertake. The committee devoted all of their individual electorate time outside of the parliamentary sittings, to travel to the hearings right across Australia.</para></quote>
<para>It is difficult. There are no right or wrong, black or white, answers, because every case is unique. I know that this inquiry took a terrible personal toll on Kay, because those of us who know Kay Hull know that she puts her heart and soul into everything she does. She was deeply concerned, when we spoke yesterday for a good 25 minutes, about this bill—about what it meant, about whether the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Every picture tells a story</inline> report would be watered down in any way, shape or form. I know that we've moved on, that conditions have changed and that laws can't stay the same forever. And I know that it's been 20 years since this report was handed down. But when you look at the recommendations that <inline font-style="italic">Every picture tells a story</inline> made, and you know that, of the members on that committee, the only member still in the parliament is the opposition leader, and you look at the various terms of reference for <inline font-style="italic">Every picture tells a story</inline>, you get a good idea and a good insight into how valuable it was and about how bipartisanship worked not for the sake of bipartisanship but for the sake of children. Surely we are in this place to better the lives of the constituents, the people who elect us, and, most importantly, of their children because, at the end of the day, that's who it should be all about.</para>
<para>As I say, in this bill there is the controversial removal of the presumption of equal shared parenting responsibility. You get many calls as members of parliament—many, many calls—and some of the most devastating calls are from dads who have been denied the right, for various allegations that have been raised or AVOs that were taken out against them—and at the end of the day, it does become a 'he said, she said'. What we don't want to see is the awful toll it takes on them; dads having an even worse time. I note the presumption does not apply when there is abuse or family violence—and nor there should be; that's a given—but many fathers, and some mothers too, are really prejudiced against when it comes to seeing and meeting their children and having fair and equitable access to their kids.</para>
<para>There must be nothing more heart-wrenching or heartbreaking for a parent not to be able to see their offspring, not to be able to see their kids. So many times these particular cases of hardship that are brought to members of parliament are raised at those important times—Christmas and holidays. There are many, many good parents who are denied access to their children for no other reason than that they've had various allegations made against them that, quite frankly, do not stack up. What we don't want to see is parents missing out for the sake of some legislation that overrides a very good report that the former member for Riverina introduced.</para>
<para>The bill also deals with sensitive issues around the enforcement of parenting orders and who is considered a relative in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.</para>
<para>We know that the handling of this bill is delicate. We understand that. We know that we don't want to see extreme and divisive approaches in this particular legislation or in the debating of this particular bill. That's why we want the bill referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for an inquiry. It would be good to take evidence—perhaps even from people who gave evidence to the <inline font-style="italic">Every picture tells a story</inline> inquiry 20 years ago. I'm sure Mrs Hull would be available. She is very much a public advocate for the greater good. It would be good to get people with that lived experience, such as her and others, at this point in time, at this juncture, to tell their story, to tell their lived experience, to give the benefit of their wisdom of having seen how that report made such a difference in the lives of families over the past two decades.</para>
<para>This is, as I say, a very difficult piece of legislation; family law always is. We want the very best outcomes for parents—of course, parents come in many different ways and forms these days—and, as I said at the outset and as the member for Moreton also contended, for the children. At the end of the day, they are the ones who are most important, and they deserve the very best outcomes for this particular legislation. I certainly commend that this bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further investigation and inquiry.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I start by thanking the member for Riverina for such a meaningful contribution. I share his sentiment of recognising the contribution made by the former member for Riverina Kay Hull AO in this area of law. It is, of course, an area in which once upon a time MPs spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with casework from constituents in relation to family law. Thankfully—at least this is my experience—we don't tend to get as many complaints as was the experience 20 years ago, and I think that's an important improvement because we're able to focus on other areas. But it is, of course, an area of law that does require reform, and I'll touch on aspects of that this afternoon.</para>
<para>The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 offers significant changes to the Family Law Act 1975. The measures and amendments introduced by this bill form the government's response to the 2021 inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. We've heard from the previous speaker about how family law has been the subject of many committee hearings over the life of Australia's House of Representatives and the broader parliament, but this is, of course, the latest edition of reform that the government's now responding to.</para>
<para>There is much in this bill that few, including the opposition, would have any serious issue with, but the big issue—the big contentious matter—within this bill is the removal of the prior presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The removal of that one assumption of equal shared parental responsibility goes further than what was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, it was knocked back by the joint select committee that investigated this matter in the life of the last parliament, and it doesn't even come close to being universally accepted or even, it appears, being a majority opinion within the legal profession or stakeholder groups. The bill also deals with other quite sensitive matters, particularly regarding the enforcement of parenting orders and the definition of a relative in relation to Indigenous families. I'll touch on those a bit later.</para>
<para>The coalition, of course, acknowledges that the Family Law Act is flawed. It's a piece of legislation that, like most pieces of legislation that we have on the books, requires some tinkering from time to time. I certainly hear it from different perspectives within my community. I do a lot of doorknocking in my electorate of Bowman, and I hear concerns regarding Australia's family law structures. I hear it from parents; from grandparents in particular; from carers, including foster carers; from lawyers within my electorate; and, of course, from children who've come to the door with their parents and grandparents and talked to me about the issues that they've been facing within their own family circumstances.</para>
<para>The joint select committee that existed in the life of the last parliament examined the need for reform extensively. We should note that their inquiry had 1,700 submitters, with many providing evidence to the committee during 13 different in camera hearings—not quite as many as the 2,000 submitters to the inquiry 20 years ago, which the member for Riverina referred to, but still that's a very extensive consultation. Among the consultations we undertake in this parliament, that one is certainly on the higher end of engagement and participation, as well it should be, because it is one of the core areas of law that this parliament has legislative power over.</para>
<para>One of the issues raised during the course of that investigation was section 61DA of the Family Law Act, which deals with shared parental responsibility. Let me dive into the detail of that a little bit, if you can indulge me. Section 61DA provides:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.</para></quote>
<para>The act explains this does not provide for a presumption about the amount of time the child spends with each parent. That's a common misconception. It actually means both parents should be involved in important decision-making about significant events in the life of the child, whether it be where the child is going to go to school or medical decisions made in relation to the child—things of that nature. It's not a presumption around fifty-fifty custody.</para>
<para>The presumption of equal shared responsibility, as opposed to equal time, does not apply in certain circumstances, and the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, touched on that. Those circumstances are: where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child, or a person who lives with a parent of the child, has engaged in abuse of that child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent's family or that other person's family; or, secondly, in instances of family violence. That's an important point, and a lot of that has been lost in the commentary around this bill—that there is the presumption of shared responsibility, but where there are instances of family violence or where there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse, that is out the door. That's the first hurdle they have to get over.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, there is a widespread misunderstanding, and the joint select committee's investigation into this uncovered the widespread nature of the misunderstanding, that this means that it's equal share of custody, as opposed to equal responsibility over major decisions. The evidence suggested it was leading many unrepresented parties, and there are a lot of unrepresented parties or people who are misguided as to how the system works, to believe they have no choice but to agree to equal time and enter into informal agreements based on a misapprehension or misunderstanding of how the law works. It's important to note it's not law that's wrong, but it's people's perceptions of what that law means. It's a misunderstanding of how the law actually works, as opposed to the law actually being misguided or wrong in effect.</para>
<para>Where the committee landed on this, in recommendation 17 of their investigation, was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently draft and release an exposure draft of legislation which would amend section 61DA of the <inline font-style="italic">Family Law Act 1975</inline> to address the current misunderstanding of the provision that equal shared parental responsibility equates to equal time with the children.</para></quote>
<para>The committee landed on the fact that they wanted it to be amended to provide greater clarity and remove the misunderstanding, as opposed to removing the presumption altogether. The new government's response to this recommendation, which was released in January this year, largely agreed with this recommendation. The response noted that the government will consult with the community on any such changes.</para>
<para>The coalition was expecting that the government's approach to this reform would be in line with the recommendations of the joint select committee's investigations. Rather than steering a sensible and balanced middle course of meaningful reform informed by the extensive consideration of the opinion of experts and those working within the system with the previous parliament's inquiry, this bill instead pushes a potentially divisive approach to family law. The coalition is deeply concerned by this approach. When it comes to family law reform the principles of stability and security need to be absolutely at the centre of everything we do. We understand that extensive stakeholder consultation makes better policy. With that in mind, the coalition is recommending that this bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry, and the findings of that inquiry will inform the final position of the coalition on this bill.</para>
<para>These reforms have been through a process of rigorous consultation and expert analysis. The outcome of that process was considerably different to what is now being proposed through this bill. I'm calling on the Attorney-General to not rush the passage of this bill or seek to circumvent the formal process of consultation, because too many Australian families and far too many children will be impacted by that decision. It's something that should be taken very carefully, with great consideration and consultation.</para>
<para>It is clear that some women's groups and some other groups support the removal of equal shared responsibility. They argue that the current doctrine can procure parenting agreements that are unfair or unsafe, and it leads to widespread misunderstanding and increased custody litigation. While this is perhaps fair from a certain perspective, there is a lack of clear evidence that repealing the assumption will be effective in addressing the concerns that they have. This doubt is shared by many parts of the legal profession—for instance, the Law Council acknowledges there is diversity of views on the effectiveness of repealing the matter entirely. Similarly, the ALRC and the family law practitioners associations of Queensland and Western Australia are concerned that these proposals have gone too far and it could result in potential unforeseen consequences. Father's groups have also been concerned about the severity of these changes, suggesting that the amendments would significantly undermine or permanently change the currently accepted rights of the family in separation, including both children and parents.</para>
<para>I noticed Professor Patrick Parkinson, a professor of law at the University of Queensland—a great university—noted in his submission to the exposure draft that schedule 1:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… goes very far beyond what is necessary and justified in order to remedy perceived deficiencies in the current law.</para></quote>
<para>There is a significant risk of increased lawfare. A new precedent takes years, of course, to form through case law. This certainly risks destroying the stability and efficiency that the former coalition government brought to the Family Court. The Family Court and family law in Australia is certainly something that has been a work in progress, and I'd hate to see it undermined or undone through intentions that are obviously well meaning. But I'm concerned that we have many experts raising concerns about that, and I think it warrants further investigation.</para>
<para>There are currently two factors that courts consider in determining the best interests of the child: firstly, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents and, secondly, the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm. This bill would amend that to have five areas of focus, most notably including the removal of any reference to a meaningful relationship with the child's parents, shifting safety considerations from a primary to a secondary concern, and a new requirement to consider the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child. Again, these changes do little to improve the operation of the act. Removing the meaningful standard to relationships between parents and children only opens greater opportunities for needless litigation. Reducing the importance of safety considerations could potentially be physically or psychologically damaging to the child. Considering cultural and psychological needs requires the qualified opinion of experts, further slowing down the legal process and making resolution more distant, stressful and expensive. Labor's proposed amendments effectively sacrifice standards, safety and efficiency in key areas.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill creates a new regime for the enforcement of parenting orders, attempting to resolve a longstanding lack of clarity in the legislation. Unfortunately, in this bill the government has failed to achieve this as well. According to the ACT Bar Association, the proposed changes would not make the division easier to understand; they instead create a complex mess.</para>
<para>There are also practical concerns regarding the amendments' impacts on Indigenous Australians. Expanding the definition of 'relative' could cause privacy breaches and expand issues about family violence across kinships. Kinship groups can of course be incredibly large. There is no guarantee that anyone within a broad kinship group could step into the responsibilities of a relative under the act. There's no clear evidence that we've seen that Indigenous groups have been consulted in the development of this amendment. This is something that needs further consideration and expert analysis.</para>
<para>Again I urge the Attorney-General to refer this bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and then wait and heed that advice on amendments that will produce the meaningful, practical reform of family law that this country needs. Steadiness and stability need to be core to the whole process. We were on a really good path of reform in this space, and at the end of the last parliament there was bipartisanship around this approach and broad support from experts and stakeholders. These amendments represent a significant departure from the course that we were on. I urge the government to get this bill back on that course, where it can achieve support across the parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 because of the crucial changes it makes to the Family Law Act and the focus on the best interests and wellbeing of children. Divorce is an incredibly challenging time for all parties involved, but the safety and wellbeing of children caught in the middle are the utmost priority.</para>
<para>However, I want to flag a concern: that we keep a close eye on the impact of these changes to make sure that they are working towards the end goal of achieving not only safe but also stable parenting arrangements. It is important that we remove the harmful presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which has been a source of confusion and misinterpretation since its introduction in 2006. It is not okay that victims of family violence, often mothers, are reporting that this presumption has led them to agree to unsafe arrangements for them and for their children. Centring the conversation around the rights of parents conflicts with the primary purpose of the act, which is to protect children.</para>
<para>Still, we shouldn't lose sight of the intent of this presumption, which was to promote the role of both parents in the life of a child. I have heard from parents, particularly fathers, who are concerned that these changes will make it less likely that shared-care arrangements will be granted. Whilst it is essential that no parenting arrangement that would jeopardise the safety of a child could be made, it is also important that we continue to advocate for shared care when it is safe to do so. A 2014 study into shared-care parenting in Australia affirmed that, when family violence is not an issue, shared-time arrangements are better for children. Out of these shared-care arrangements, a fifty-fifty split is often the most durable and stable for a child. Often this comes from the 97 per cent of parents who reach an agreement outside the court system.</para>
<para>However, unfortunately, the three per cent of families that negotiate parenting arrangements through the courts are frequently the ones dealing with family violence. Shared-care arrangement are failing in these families, not because of shared care itself being harmful but because the high-conflict families in court are often the least equipped to manage the intense emotional and logistical requirements of managing shared care. That's why these changes are necessary. They're also a reminder of the systemic issues presenting barriers to stable parenting arrangements.</para>
<para>Whilst I am supportive of these changes today, I also encourage the government to closely watch the research over the next few years to make sure that we are on track to seeing an increase in safe shared-care arrangements. We want to make sure that this option is available to as many families as possible, not because the parents are entitled to it but because of the benefits that come when children have a meaningful relationship with each parent. In 2006, the culture around our perception of parenting roles was completely different. Since then, we have seen a welcome rise in the participation of women in the workforce as well as an increased understanding of the important role that fathers play in the lives of their children. It is my hope that these cultural shifts continue to be reflected in the trends towards more shared-care arrangements made without coercion after this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While I'm not a lawyer, I would suggest any discussion in the area of family law tends to elicit a variety of opinions, heated responses and heightened emotional reactions. There are those that see changes as positive and those that are offended by them. So it is with respect and a commitment to being circumspect that I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023.</para>
<para>As a mother of three children, and as someone who herself has gone through a divorce, I acknowledge that oftentimes the families who end up at the pointiest end of the process in family courts are those where there has been a fundamental breakdown in a couple's capacity to communicate. Emotions are heightened. No-one chooses or plans to end up in this environment, yet many do. It is with that reality in front of our minds that I think each of us in this place must weigh up the amendments that we see present in this bill.</para>
<para>Having done just that, and having spoken with many across my community, as the member for North Sydney I believe the amendments to family law being proposed through this bill do seek to make the system safer and simpler for separating families to navigate and, importantly, seek to ensure the best interests of the child are placed at its centre. Establishing an enhanced, court-led information-sharing framework relating to family violence, child abuse and neglect, risks and parenting procedures should, if executed well, simplify what can be an overwhelming, toxic and repetitive cycle. Extensive inquiries into the Australian family law system have taken place over recent years, and it is the recommendations of those inquiries that have led to these proposed reforms. For many involved in this process, they have been too long in coming.</para>
<para>Both the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report into the state of Australia's family law system and the 2021 joint select committee inquiry into Australia's family law system highlighted a number of challenges, including extensive court delays, complex and confusing legislation and inadequate protection for people at risk of family violence. While this legislation is focused more broadly on the recommendations relating to the arrangements of separating families and the best interests of the child, I note the inclusion of recommendations specifically focused on improving protections for those who are at risk of family violence through separation, the majority of whom are women and children.</para>
<para>Court data shows family violence was alleged in 80 per cent of matters filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court during the last financial year. From a broader perspective, with National Domestic Violence Remembrance Day being marked last Wednesday, as a nation we must grapple with the reality that it's estimated that up to 15 women have lost their lives to domestic violence this year alone. The shocking truth is that intimate partner violence is the main cause of illness and death in women aged 18 to 44 in Australia, and women and children in this country have actually never been more vulnerable. Historically, those in this place have let them down.</para>
<para>Recently my team received a call from a woman in North Sydney fleeing family violence with her three young children. Through tears, she shared her story of losing everything because of her partner's coercive control, and she pleaded for help to find affordable housing in North Sydney. She said someone had told her to ring her federal member to see what could be done because surely—and I quote her—'I'm not the only one going through this.' As leaders in this place we have a responsibility to ensure judicial processes work for the most vulnerable of families because ultimately, I believe, many traumatic experiences should be preventable. While there are many areas of urgent unmet need, ultimately the family law system needs to be equipped to better protect women and children who are fleeing dangerous relationships.</para>
<para>To this end, I support the proposed amendments to the family law framework because I believe the changes, including those which cover the factors to be considered when making parenting arrangements in the best interests of the child, will lead to the creation of better parenting orders. Bringing the best interests of the child to the centre of the decision-making is crucial to protecting children and is consistent with Australia's international obligations under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.</para>
<para>Nearly half of all divorces in Australia are couples with children under 18 years. This doesn't include the breakdown of relationships where couples have been cohabitating but not married. The Australian Institute of Family Studies research into child wellbeing after parental separation found children desire the following in the process of family separation: to have their views listened to by their parents when deciding parenting arrangements; to be given an opportunity to participate in decisions about their care and living arrangements; to have their concerns about safety and abuse heard and acted on accordingly; and to be given more information about the family law process, including having access to counsellors, psychologists and support groups.</para>
<para>Ensuring the views of children are appropriately heard and considered in family law proceedings, especially in relation to safety and abuse, will improve the outcomes for children navigating the family law system. Enabling proactive court initiated information sharing and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of information sharing between family law and family violence and child protection systems should strengthen the process as it will enable the family court system and family law decision-makers to have timely access to information to support informed decisions which consider abuse, neglect and family violence risk in a more holistic manner.</para>
<para>The inclusion of standalone best interest factors for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is also welcome, as is the repeal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the mandatory consideration of certain time arrangements. By previously emphasising shared parental responsibility and presumption of equal shared parenting, ultimately the rights of the parent were being placed above the rights of the child. In a circumstance where children may be placed in a situation where they are at high risk of violence or abuse, that is simply unacceptable.</para>
<para>These proposed reforms, while overdue, give me hope that societal attitudes are changing and, as a nation, we can start to see better protections for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence. I believe, though, we still have a long way to go to protect vulnerable women and children in Australia, and while the government's response to date has been generally positive, I cannot speak to these amendments without acknowledging the notable shortfalls. To make the family law system safer and simpler, placing the best interests of the child at the centre of family law requires further measures—namely, there remains no definition of coercive control in family law, and this is an issue. Controlling access to finances, monitoring movements and driving isolation from friends and families all are, sadly, common occurrences in those matters that tend to end up in front of the family law court.</para>
<para>In my own electorate of North Sydney the prevalence of coercive control in current family violence cases navigating the judicial system is truly devastating. Proceedings are often intentionally delayed and bogged down in attempts to obstruct the partner's ability to move on, particularly a woman's ability to move on. In this context, this legislation could be vastly improved through the inclusion of an expanded definition of coercive control, one which considers patterns of behaviour over time and provides guidance about responding to competing allegations of violence, with a focus on the person most in need of protection.</para>
<para>In addition to this, on the latter end of court proceedings, physical pathways to facilitate safer movement away from a violent perpetrator are still too difficult. Housing affordability and availability, financial support and ongoing protection mean vulnerable women and children are often having to choose between staying in an unsafe home environment and homelessness. The government's <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children</inline> encourages women to leave violent relationships, but the truth is that current government policies see that as many as half who do leave live in poverty.</para>
<para>The government's commitment to women's safety in the budget is welcome, including measures to address service gaps to support frontline service delivery, a review of emergency accommodation services and their suitability for children and the extension of the escaping violence payment trial. But I urge the government to listen closely to those already working in this space to better understand the complexities and challenges faced by vulnerable people and the relevant services. Crisis and family support services are doing everything in their power to help vulnerable families, but the surge in demand for such services mean crisis centres are overflowing. A centre in my own electorate of North Sydney had to turn away no fewer than eight women in one day, recently. This is exacerbated by the housing and cost-of-living crises.</para>
<para>I support stakeholder calls to develop urgent and practical ways for victims of family violence to physically move away from the perpetrator, particularly in circumstances of highly dangerous and potentially lethal relationships. I believe a large part of this is stronger and more immediate action on the supply of affordable housing, in addition to the measures announced in the budget. But I'd also like to advocate for the specific recognition of family violence in property settlements, to relieve the economic burden on victims of violence and their children. Being driven into poverty for leaving an abusive relationship should be avoidable. Access to any co-owned property assets should be prioritised for vulnerable partners and their children.</para>
<para>I must further highlight the lack of adequate mental health and psychological support for children navigating family separation, exacerbated in the case of family violence. More work needs to be done to publicise mental health services which are available for children in post-separation contexts and to ensure they can access services. Additionally, the mental health workforce needs to be appropriately equipped to provide this support to children and adolescents. I support sector calls that adequate funding be allocated to specialist child and adolescent psychiatrists, including more supervisor positions, and to ensure there are enough specialist psychiatrists to meet the needs of children involved in family law proceedings.</para>
<para>Ultimately, while there have been improvements to the 'best interests of the child' definition, more needs to be done. Developing a standalone safety best-interest principle for children in cases involving family violence would better highlight the risk and safety issues for children and adult victims and would ensure greater protection for children. Inserting recovery in such a best-interest factor would assist the family law system in prioritising the recovery needs of children and non-offending parents, which is consistent with the <inline font-style="italic">National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.</inline></para>
<para>Sadly, all in all the family law system remains chronically under-resourced. Underfunding of the family law system by successive governments over many years has left vulnerable families in crisis. With the rise in the rates of family separation and domestic violence in Australia—and extensive court delays, backlogs and inaccessibility to the court system becoming the norm for many—funding in this area must be increased to match demand. Families in violent situations cannot afford to wait.</para>
<para>In conclusion, while there remains great need to further protect vulnerable families navigating the family law system, particularly women and children facing family violence and abuse, we must start somewhere, and these proposed reforms are just that—a start. Progress in the area of family law has been a long time coming, and I look forward to continuing to work towards a system that delivers justice for families, particularly single mothers and children in vulnerable situations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, which represents an important set of reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021.</para>
<para>Family law is an important and emotive issue. There are few of us in this chamber who have not been touched by the stresses of family breakdown, either directly through the experiences of those close to us or through hearing the stories of constituents in the electorates which we proudly serve. The Albanese government has committed to ensuring that the family law system is safer, more accessible and simpler to use and delivers justice and fairness for all Australian families. This is a significant task, but successive reviews of the family law system over the last decade have provided us with valuable guidance about where our priorities should lie. In particular, this bill addresses child focused recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report <inline font-style="italic">Family law </inline><inline font-style="italic">for the future: an inquiry into the family law system </inline>and reflects the government response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. The bill is also informed by the views of a wide range of stakeholders, and I thank those who provided submissions to the consultation process earlier this year.</para>
<para>The bill sends a strong message that the best interests of children should be the central concern of the family law system. It provides an opportunity to start addressing the unintended consequences of changes to the Family Law Act made in the mid-2000s. It provides an opportunity to break down barriers to understanding the law which can lead people to agreeing to unsafe outcomes because they think they have no choice, and it enables us to give effect to our commitment to value and listen to children's views in matters affecting them.</para>
<para>Specifically, the bill introduces a safer and simpler framework for making parenting orders by repealing the commonly misunderstood presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and associated requirements for the court to consider specific time arrangements, simplifying the list of factors that are considered in determining the best interests of children in parenting arrangements, and ensuring the court considers the right of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children to maintain their connection to their family, community, culture, country and language. The bill also simplifies provisions for the enforcement of parenting orders to make the consequences of noncompliance clear.</para>
<para>Another key element of this bill is the promotion of children's views in family law matters. This is achieved by requiring independent children's lawyers to meet with children and seek their views and removing the restriction on appointments of independent children's lawyers in matters under the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.</para>
<para>Other important elements of the bill include ensuring definitions of 'family' and 'relative' reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family and kinship; addressing systems abuse by restraining a party's ability to file harmful applications without first obtaining court approval; clarifying the law which prohibits the public communication of family law proceedings, so critical information can be shared and privacy protected; and creating regulation-making powers to enable government to set standards and requirements for family report writers.</para>
<para>The bill also brings forward the review of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 to assess the merged court structure and ensure it is working to provide families with a safe, accessible and efficient resolution of their family law disputes. The review will now take place in 2024.</para>
<para>These reforms complement the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, which will increase access to vital information from state and territory family violence and child protection systems during family law proceedings.</para>
<para>Throughout this debate we have heard from honourable members a broad consensus that family law issues are amongst the most troubling that their constituents experience. We've also heard some differing views on aspects of the legislation. That is unsurprising. Family law is emotive. There will always be differing views on what should be prioritised for reform. Fortunately, the government has had the benefit of the many inquiries and reports over the past decade that have recommended reform; in particular, the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report <inline font-style="italic">Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system</inline>. Recommendations from that report have informed many of the reforms in this bill.</para>
<para>The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System in 2021 and the 2017 parliamentary inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence also made recommendations to improve the family law system. The 2017 parliamentary inquiry was chaired by then Liberal member for Corangamite and now Liberal senator Sarah Henderson. Importantly, one of the recommendations of that parliamentary inquiry was to consider removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.</para>
<para>An exposure draft of this bill was released in January. There were 273 published responses on the Attorney-General's Department website. The Family Law Council response includes some of their insights from the work the council has been undertaking under their terms of reference, including:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For instance, in roundtable discussions with family dispute resolution service providers in Canberra on 29 November 2022, it was the common view of the representatives in attendance that the presumption of the ESPR is misunderstood, even by parties with legal representation. Council was advised that the presumption can cause difficulties in negotiations "including that parties can be fixated on the presumption as an entitlement, even after receiving legal advice". It was further noted "that the best interests of the child are often overshadowed by perceived entitlements as a misunderstanding of the presumption."</para></quote>
<para>Of course, this would not come as a surprise to many professionals who frequent the court, including judges. As the Family Law Council also say in their response:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Problems associated with the application of sections 61DA and 65DAA were identified by judges at an early stage following the implementation of the SP reforms. In a 2007 judgement, Carmody J cautioned about the legislature "trying to entice courts into the dangerous realm of finding a stock standard or 'off the shelf' response to unique and multi-faceted parenting problems".</para></quote>
<para>The Law Council of Australia says about the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Law Council supports reform to Australia's family law system, including the <inline font-style="italic">Family Law Act 1975</inline> (Cth) (Family Law Act), that may facilitate the resolution of parenting disputes and places the best interests, safety and wellbeing of any child to a family law proceeding at the centre of the decision-making process. It makes the observation that many of the proposed changes are intended not only to improve the substantive law but to make it easier to understand for both self-represented litigants and for separating couples who are negotiating their own parenting arrangements without litigation, and likely without the assistance of any family law professional.</para></quote>
<para>Yesterday, Women's Legal Services Australia, representing 13 women's legal services, including two First Nations services, and National Legal Aid, representing the eight state and territory legal aid commissions, released a joint statement in support of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. The chair of National Legal Aid, Louise Glanville, says in that statement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From our work, we see how important it is to consider the best interests of children and the safety of victim-survivors. The changes proposed in the Family Law Amendment Bill appropriately put the best interests of children at the heart of care arrangements for families post separation.</para></quote>
<para>The chair of Women's Legal Services Australia, Elena Rosenman, says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These changes are long overdue and will significantly improve the family law system's ability to ensure the safety of victim-survivors and children.</para></quote>
<para>The government agrees that these reforms are long overdue.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the needs of every child are unique, and every family's circumstances are unique. We must find a path which meets their needs as effectively and safely as possible. Making the law clearer and more accessible is a critical component of that process. I encourage this House to support this bill and to contribute to securing better outcomes for children through these important legislative reforms. I look forward to these reforms becoming law so that the best interests of children are again the essential focus of the family law system.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. The question is that the bill now be read a second time.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>165</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7009" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>165</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sadly, about four in five cases initiated in the Federal Circuit and Family Court are in relation to children involved in domestic and family violence, with about two-thirds of them involving some very egregious child abuse situations where kids are at terrible risk. These are very contentious forms of litigation. They put children and families under tremendous pressure. Often an independent children's lawyer is appointed, and it's usually the case in circumstances where this occurs that subpoenas are issued to find out what has happened—whether the children have been physically or sexually abused. Those subpoenas are directed to what I'll call the departments of child safety in the various states and territories. We've got about 22 co-located state and territory child protection and policing officials embedded in selected family law jurisdictions and registries around the country.</para>
<para>There are two ways in which it's done, but it's usually done by a subpoena. It's really a party or litigant initiated process. Orders are made under section 69ZW of the Family Law Act. That section of the act shows the extent to which it is focused on notifications and investigations of child abuse and family violence. I'll read the section:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The court may make an order in child-related proceedings requiring a prescribed State or Territory agency to provide the court with the documents or information specified in the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The documents or information specified … must be documents recording, or information about, one or more of these:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any notifications to the agency of suspected abuse of a child to whom the proceedings relate or of suspected family violence affecting the child;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any assessments by the agency of investigations into a notification of that kind or the findings or outcomes of those investigations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any reports commissioned by the agency in the course of investigating a notification.</para></quote>
<para>That is probably what we used to call a care and control order, an order dealing with the care and safety of a child. Usually, these are quite young children or pre-teenage children, and it usually involves a case where their wishes, and what's happened to them, are only detected in the post-separation circumstance. It often comes to light during the course of those proceedings. My observation has been that subpoenas are issued on multiple occasions in the course of proceedings that are included in what is colloquially called, in Queensland and elsewhere, the Magellan List. As a result of that, it's really a litigant initiated process. The absence of the sharing of information restricts knowledge of the presiding officer in the court about what's going on and prevents the disclosure of information that would be beneficial to an independent children's lawyer and to the parties in the litigation as well as their respective lawyers.</para>
<para>This bill would repeal section 69ZW of the act and insert a new subdivision DA of division 8 of part VII of the act, which establishes a more comprehensive court initiated—less litigant initiated—process for sharing information that's crucial. It involves two kinds of information-sharing orders and would increase the court's capacity to effectively and efficiently target requests for information at any stage of the proceedings. This is very important, because courts need to be aware of what's going on in the course of any proceedings in relation to children. Often, proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court or Family Court cease if the child is the subject of state based litigation, with care and protection or care and control type orders made.</para>
<para>The range of orders are varied under the new division, and they deal with actual as well as potential family violence, child abuse and neglect. This is a very important initiative to undertake. It comes about because of the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing Between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems, known colloquially as the national framework, which was endorsed by Attorneys-General back in November 2021.</para>
<para>This is an important piece of legislation. As someone who practised in this jurisdiction for well over 20 years, I wish this legislation had been done when I was in private practice. I can assure you, it would be beneficial to the courts, the presiding officers and the litigants as well as the lawyers. I think anything that's focused on the care, welfare and protection of children—the current law is being amended, by the way, by the previous bill to focus on child safety—is absolutely crucial. Even though it is the case that children have a right to know and be cared for by both parents, regardless of their parents' marital status or situation, in terms of separation or cohabitation, it's absolutely critical that children be protected from abuse, neglect and family violence.</para>
<para>This legislation might sound esoteric and legalistic but it will have a very discernible, practical impact to help the welfare and best interests of children. That's what we should be doing in this parliament. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this legislation to the chamber. It is small. It is not a big piece of legislation that's going through. But it will appreciably improve our family law system and give a full range of risk-averse information held by state and territory child protection agencies of the court in the federal sphere. I think it's really good legislation and I'm pleased to support it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government thanks all parliamentary members for their contributions to the debate on the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. This bill is a significant step towards ensuring that children and families do not fall between the gaps of the federal family law system and the state and territory policing and child protection systems. The bill improves the family law system's ability to protect children and victim-survivors by ensuring all information is available to identify, assess and respond to family violence, child abuse and neglect risk. In doing so, the bill progresses the government's commitment to end gender based violence in one generation and complements the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 by putting the best interests of children at the centre of a simpler and safer family law system.</para>
<para>This bill will enhance the framework for information sharing from state and territory child protection, police and firearms agencies to the family law courts, giving effect to key aspects of the <inline font-style="italic">Operationalising the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing Between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems</inline>, the national framework. In doing so, this bill will enshrine a new information-sharing regime within the Family Law Act 1975 for the comprehensive sharing of family safety information with appropriate protections and safeguards.</para>
<para>Attorneys-general from all states and territories have endorsed the national framework and its objective of providing a streamlined process for information sharing across systems. This commitment recognises the reality that families and children involved in family law processes are often engaged across multiple systems—federal, state and territory. It is therefore critical the decision-makers across these systems, especially within the family law system, have information available to holistically understand family violence, child abuse and neglect risk affecting children, families and individuals.</para>
<para>In broadening the scope of information able to be shared between these systems, this bill is alive to the need of ensuring that sensitive and personal information is protected. This bill includes a series of exemptions to the sharing of certain information and will be further supported by safeguards to be prescribed in amendments to the Family Law Regulations 1984. Together these measures with ensure that critical family safety information is used, accessed, shared and stored in a responsible, safe and secure manner.</para>
<para>The government further acknowledges that any framework for family safety information sharing must be fit for purpose. A statutory review provision has therefore been included in this bill to provide for an evaluation of the design, implementation and operation of these amendments 12 months after their commencement. There will also be a six-month delay in commencement of the provisions proposed in this bill. This will allow the family law courts and states and territories to implement the new framework, including rolling out training and guidance material, to ensure consistency in delivery across Australia. The government also looks forward to working with Western Australia to mirror amendments to their Family Court Act 1997, delivering a truly national information-sharing framework.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the measures in this bill will ensure that no child, family or individual experiencing family violence, abuse or neglect falls between the gaps of the federal family law system and the state and territory child protection and family violence systems and ensure the family law courts can make decisions in the best interests of children, informed by a comprehensive understanding of family safety risk. Keeping children and families safe is at the heart of the family law system. This bill ensures the government and the family law system are delivering on this crucial responsibility.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>167</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7007" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>167</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my colleagues for their contributions on the debate on this bill. The bill will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions to support the proper administration of government, law enforcement, regulatory, oversight and judicial processes. This will improve outcomes for non-Commonwealth-government stakeholders, such as members of the public who come into contact with the judicial system; international partners; and state and territory governments. The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 will support the proper administration of regulatory, law enforcement, oversight, and judicial processes. By making small and clarifying amendments, the bill will streamline and enhance the everyday work of government agencies, improving their ability to deliver outcomes for the Australian community.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>167</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6995" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>167</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. One of the crucial things that we all get as federal MPs is requests for more infrastructure, whether it's roads or rail in our electorate. It's absolutely crucial to make sure that in a country the size of ours, which fills a continent—I see the member for Dawson laughing over there, because he knows exactly what I'm talking about—it's absolutely vital that we make sure that decision-making on infrastructure is done in a merits based process that is empirical and evidence based. It's absolutely crucial.</para>
<para>One of the things that we saw in the previous government was that too often, as the minister for infrastructure has said, press releases were ordered and announced and nothing was done when it came to the road infrastructure. There were too many delays. Consumers, including commuters, get frustrated. State governments get frustrated. Local councils get frustrated. If you've ever had a conversation with a mayor or a local council on local road or infrastructure projects, you know how frustrating it is.</para>
<para>We established Infrastructure Australia when we were last in government. Anthony Albanese, now Prime Minister, was the infrastructure minister, and I might add that, through large parts of his tenure, the current infrastructure minister was his deputy. Under the previous government, I think, the integrity of that infrastructure process was compromised. I think the appointments to Infrastructure Australia, in terms of quality, were nothing like the people that we appointed to that body.</para>
<para>What we saw was a growth in Infrastructure Australia's reporting in terms of the projects that had to be looked at. That's what we saw—a blowout. You often had projects that were shovel-ready, that deserved funding, that deserved to be looked at and funded by state, territory or federal governments, that had councils involved, that were not funded. At times, to get on the Infrastructure Australia priority initiative list was the key to open the door for you to actually get your project looked at by a state or territory, so councils around the country did this. This is not necessarily the right way to go about it, in the sense that, once you opened the door, they felt their project deserved to be looked at and examined in detail. So when we came to office, having seen a situation where Infrastructure Australia established that merit based and evidence based and empirical decision-making, an independent body largely compromised in part by the former government, we saw the need for reform and review, as this legislation does. We saw the need for it, and that's why this legislation is before the chamber.</para>
<para>We also saw the need for change in terms of personnel and in terms of review. We've got a situation now where the government is undertaking review of various projects because many of them have just been announced and not progressed. Review of Infrastructure Australia and its operations in terms of that book is absolutely crucial. I can recall when that book was much smaller. Now it starts to look like <inline font-style="italic">War </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic">nd Peace</inline>. Now it looks like the moment you get on the priority initiative list, all of a sudden the pressure from media, from community, from councils, is there for you as an MP. Sometimes these projects really should be funded and should progress their way up the process, from the business case and the options analysis to the shovel-ready project. But other times it's just opening the door.</para>
<para>So this process of review, which looks at everything, which looks at the way this operates, is totally the right way to go. Without it, I think the integrity of decision-making at federal and state government levels in infrastructure is compromised. I think what's happened to infrastructure in this country since we lost government in 2013 was really a case of ministers in the former government getting up and saying, 'We've got a pipeline of $110 million dollars, whether it's the heavy vehicle safety and productivity legislation, black spot funding, roads to recovery'—that stuff goes on all the time because it's worked on at various levels in a bipartisan way.</para>
<para>But the big projects we're talking about here, the big projects that Infrastructure Australia's talking about, the ones that are hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars—like, for example, the Ipswich Motorway between Ipswich and Brisbane. That's a huge project that was designed, built and completed from Dinmore to Darra under the last Labor government. Now, with a bipartisan approach, it's progressed from the Oxley roundabout to Suscatand Street, the last stage of that motorway. This has been on Infrastructure Australia's list all the time. That's not the kind of project I'm talking about here. That's a project supported at every level of government and by every peak organisation from RACQ to others. But there are other projects that seem to get through the door, and you really wonder why they're there.</para>
<para>So this whole review that we need to undertake in relation to Infrastructure Australia, I think, is something that is really vital. I think we need Infrastructure Australia and infrastructure projects and spending and funding in every state and territory in this country back on track. I think it lost its way due to the decision-making of the previous government on the appointments they undertook, the expectation that was raised, and a whole range of things that were done. So I'm pleased to speak on Infrastructure Australia reform and independent review, because I think this is the sort of thing that we really need to examine, that we absolutely need to look at. All of us 151 members of the House of Representatives and the people who live in the other place—I don't always know how they operate over there—in the Senate get it all the time. We have to deal with mayors, with state governments, with local councils and with community organisations. We've all been to progress associations who say: 'This is an Infrastructure Australia priority initiative. This is something we should be funding.' Initiative on how this is done is absolutely vital. As a federal MP who has been here for a fair while now, I reckon this is one of the things that absolutely need to be done.</para>
<para>I commend the bill. I thank the minister for initiating it. Infrastructure is absolutely vital in the place where I live, a big regional and rural seat where road is king. I'm resisting the temptation to talk about a few projects in my electorate right now. I would love to do that, but I know it's not within the confines of the bill that we are dealing with today. But I'm telling you, these projects on the Warrego Highway and the Cunningham Highway need to be done, and I've just walked out of a meeting where I was talking about it.</para>
<para>I look forward to this review and this legislation passing. I hope it's done with a bipartisan approach, because if we get right the integrity and efficiency of Infrastructure Australia and the whole process, then all of us as MPs and senators will benefit and so will our communities, and they will know that their criticism of us as MPs and of the process will be negated in large part. I'm pleased to support this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, which is currently before the House. I'm strongly in favour of increasing transparency, accountability and integrity in infrastructure delivery.</para>
<para>Australia needs more forward-thinking planning and more-targeted infrastructure to address the challenges of our future, and the Australian people deserve to know where public money is being spent on infrastructure; that it stacks up on merit, not on political gain and ambition; and that it is value for money. There is a clear issue. For too long budget announcements have been made with a fanfare of hi-vis vests on infrastructure and roads and various projects in particular seats without a real focus on need and merit, which is where public funding should be attributed. The challenges facing Australia over the next two decades will grow in complexity as investment capital becomes more constrained. Australia's infrastructure sector must lift their performance in national planning and project selection to meet the increased demands and build the country up so that it is prepared for the future.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia's role is to provide cross-sectoral, independent and quality advice to the Australian government on infrastructure projects which are nationally significant. This must be frank and fearless advice. Infrastructure Australia's purpose is to help the government prioritise so that Australia's economic future is safeguarded and we can be prepared for the future through building appropriate and future-orientated infrastructure.</para>
<para>Sadly, in the past, despite being the government's national adviser on planning and prioritisation, Infrastructure Australia has been poorly directed by the government. It has been undervalued and underutilised, leading to ineffective development of infrastructure. A key feature of being an independent advisory body is maintaining the highest standards of transparency and accountability an area in which Infrastructure Australia will benefit from improvement. If Infrastructure Australia continues to be undervalued, new infrastructure will fail to meet the needs of a growing population grappling with the effects of climate change in the future. We know these are very real issues we face. The restructuring of Infrastructure Australia's governance and increased transparency will stop the enabling of pork-barrelling and politically motivated infrastructure projects going up in electorates in place of projects which will actually meet Australia's needs and stack up on merit.</para>
<para>I note a number of members in this place are moving amendments which I support. The member for North Sydney's amendment I strongly support. It is requiring the introduction of annual statements on performance and budget process, which will help increase transparency and hold projects accountable to delivering quality outcomes. Making annual statements publicly available on Infrastructure Australia's website will help the Australian people trust that infrastructure developments are on track to improve their lives. Increased public accountability will bring forth better project outcomes and more frequent evaluations of the progress of nationally significant projects. It will incentivise the government to invest in areas that are important to communities and important to Australia's future.</para>
<para>I note the member for Wentworth has also flagged amendments that I support. These are around cost-benefit analysis in which the benefits must be found to outweigh the costs for any project over $100 million in spending. This is an obvious way to make sure Infrastructure Australia can help the government direct funds to the most necessary and impactful areas. Directed, careful and forward-thinking planning is of utmost importance in this area.</para>
<para>As well, I'm extremely supportive of a reference pricing model, which will better inform and estimate the cost of projects. The benefits and costs of time overruns being better accounted for and planned for cannot be underestimated or understated. In the past, overruns have led to inefficient use of funds and higher-than-expected spending. Better planning so this happens less will allow infrastructure development priority areas to be better addressed, and I note, to that effect, the Albanese government, in terms of the budget, having a real look at the infrastructure spend. We absolutely must make sure there is that efficiency lens put over infrastructure announcements and projects.</para>
<para>Climate in infrastructure is a major aspect. Amendments made to the Infrastructure Australia Act by the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Act 2022, which was passed in this place last year, mandated that Infrastructure Australia must consider Australia's greenhouse gas emissions targets when conducting audits of important infrastructure, providing advice to the government and planning new projects. It's clear, for example, that infrastructure very often focuses on transport. Transport is our fastest growing sector of emissions because with a growing population comes a growing reliance on, too often, individual vehicles, so infrastructure needs to focus on provision of public transport and increasing higher capacity transport options. The requirement that Infrastructure Australia must consider impacts on climate of these projects is incredibly important.</para>
<para>It's a real opportunity here for Infrastructure Australia to take the lead on climate action and prioritise projects which will help Australia adhere to and comply with our targets and be more ambitious in emissions reduction. Let's prioritise greener homes and efficient buildings, try to shift the dogged focus from roads onto projects which will make Australia greener and more efficient, will move more people and will be more effective in supporting industries—transport of goods, supply chains, food. All those things can be done more efficiently and sustainably.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia can also decide and advise on what Australia's asset portfolio and future infrastructure should look like to get to net zero, the essential target Australia must pursue to safeguard our climate and environment. I urge Infrastructure Australia, with its new governance structure, to advise that all new projects invested in by the government do not endanger Australia's emissions targets. We must ensure we reduce emissions as fast as possible, and we should earnestly work towards an improvement in sustainability of Australia's built environment, something that often is not focused on. Some 75 per cent of emissions emit, essentially, from our urban zones, so infrastructure decisions around urban zones become incredibly important, from access to energy to transport to the built environment. We know there is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to resilience-building, transition and adaptation in so much of our built environment, and sadly that is an area yet to receive much focus or funding from the government to ensure that happens.</para>
<para>The Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 is nevertheless a good start for investing in a more sustainable future and making sure that investment is directed at our highest priority areas for infrastructure. These amendments will lead to increased transparency and a re-evaluation of Infrastructure Australia, which will help restore the independent advisory functions that Infrastructure Australia needs to perform to ensure Australia's needs are met.</para>
<para>Australia needs to do away with pork-barrelling and move towards building a sustainable future. We need to have some vision of where we see Australia in 10, 20, 30 years time. We have some visionary people in our society, like Damon Gameau with his <inline font-style="italic">2040</inline> vision or his <inline font-style="italic">Regenerating Australia</inline>film, where he looks at current infrastructure and where it may well go as technologies evolve and habits change. It's really important that we have that forward focused lens, because as much as appreciate the past, and the past has contributed to where we are, you cannot stand still. It is only by facing the future that we will in fact build the kind of society and country and infrastructure that we need, and we owe it to our younger generations to ensure it's capable. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROB MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate>McEwen</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I proudly rise to support the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, because this Labor government committed to upholding and improving the independent advisory body, Infrastructure Australia. We are doing this to make sure that investments in Australia's future infrastructure will always be what needs to be done to continue building and moving our great nation. This will keep us powering ahead and establishing projects that will outlive us and serve generations of Australians to come.</para>
<para>Billions of dollars are invested in major national projects that improve transport, communication, energy and water infrastructure across the nation. These projects are created not only to improve Australians' access to essential resources but to keep our economy moving and growing. Investment in infrastructure is the cornerstone of growing this country. These projects keep our country moving, and they are the reason we've built the reputation of being the lucky country. It is a reputation that we must work hard to uphold and deliver that promise to all Australians. It is why we need to make sure we are investing wisely, and it's why it's crucial to have expert advice and guidance in the planning and overseeing of these projects.</para>
<para>To do this, we are strengthening our independent and expert advice body, focusing it on infrastructure priorities for our nation. It will provide advice on major projects to ensure the government of the day is making the right decisions for the Australian people. It's about making sure that infrastructure investments are put where they are most needed, rather than being guided by political imperatives. We all know what it feels like to see projects being subject to potential rorting because we saw enough of that under the previous coalition government. This government, a Labor government, went to the last election promising the Australian people greater accountability. We delivered the National Anti-Corruption Commission within six months. We delivered the promise of conducting a review of Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia was established under the last Labor government, but it was quickly neglected and weakened by successive coalition governments.</para>
<para>The review was important in refocusing the body to become the government's independent advisor on nationally significant infrastructure projects and privatisation. The bill implements the recommendations of that review by creating a strong and efficient body. These changes will ensure that governments will make the best investment decisions to benefit the Australian people and will decrease the bureaucracy of duplication between the federal, state and territory governments. The body will be headed by three appointed members based on their skills, expertise, knowledge, diversity and geographical representation. They will then nominate the CEO. So this will be based on skills rather than political mateship. This is to guarantee that the body has a wide breadth of experience and knowledge to draw on when it looks at important national investments. It's an approach that means a more holistic oversight and consideration of projects, which will only improve the quality of the projects and provide Australians with peace of mind that the government is making a decision in the nation's best interest.</para>
<para>The bill will improve the quality of the investments we make and ensure the construction of a better and more connected Australia. It's because Labor governments understand the need to invest wisely in infrastructure. Ultimately, this bill is creating a more targeted focus for Infrastructure Australia. With clear outlines and goals, this advisory body will actually be able to assess and provide independent advice to better inform government decisions on major investments. It's re-energising the body by changing the candidate selection process and criteria, which will only serve to bring more expertise into infrastructure investment in the nation. Infrastructure Australia will be incredibly important to the budget process and strategic planning and investment of Australia's future.</para>
<para>The bill ensures the necessity of consulting and working with the body instead of ignoring it and pushing it aside to approve personal agendas and passion projects. This means, no matter who the government of the day is, the body will be there to work with the current government objective. It will make sure fair and thought-out decisions are made for the Australian people by determining and publishing its own recommendations. This will give transparency that projects are approved for the public's good and not for the coalition's mates, like we've seen in the past.</para>
<para>Labor has always been the party that has understood the importance of infrastructure, from the post wartime great build under Prime Minister Ben Chifley to Whitlam's sewerage to the suburbs programs, and the original implementation of Infrastructure Australia when Labor was last in government by none other than the now Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia was created to take the politics out of major projects. Major national infrastructure projects are too vital to the Australian economy and to the safety and wellbeing of our people. When it was created, Labor listened to the expert advice of where to put taxpayers' money, and now we are strengthening it and rebuilding it, and we will continue to listen to it. We understand the importance of experts in the field being able to provide recommendations and to work with the government to ensure the continuation of quality in Australia's future infrastructure projects, something the now opposition showed time and time again that they did not understand.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia in the hands of the coalition became victim to their legacy of rorting, and trust me: the electorate of McEwen remembers that legacy of rorting and broken promises. The people of McEwen know the importance of having infrastructure project approval independent to political agendas. We know it deeply and personally after years of neglect from those opposite, who only allocated seven per cent of the national infrastructure spend to Victoria. We had no choice but to be patient because, despite promises and assurances, the community's pleas for investment in our community were ignored. It wasn't because the project wasn't important. It wasn't because the project wouldn't help with the economic productivity of the regions and the safety of our road users. No, we waited on these broken promises because they didn't score enough political points from the then government on their colour-coded spreadsheet. We waited for the long-promised diamond interchange at Watson Street and the Hume Highway.</para>
<para>It was only under the Albanese Labor government that our electorate finally saw investment in infrastructure. We are one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country, and for too long we were getting left behind. Not only will Watson Street ramps be built at Wallan; we have also put funds in place for the essential interchange at Camerons Lane at Beveridge. Our very first budget recognised the importance these projects had to ease some of the traffic and improve safety for locals in our region. When these projects are finished, people and businesses will have easier and safer access to economic opportunities both in our electorate and in the surrounding regions.</para>
<para>One of the previous ministers for infrastructure, the member for New England, really took the opportunity to look after his mates, and stacked the board of Infrastructure Australia, because god forbid the coalition listen to the experts and invest in projects that we need most when, instead, they could have a 'fairly solid Barnaby supporter' and a bunch of Liberal and National party cronies there. These actions destroyed the purpose and reputation of Infrastructure Australia. And look what that got the Australian people: imaginary car parks, projects for mates getting approved and $1 trillion of Liberal and National debt.</para>
<para>Labor is committed to reinvesting in the foundations of our nation's future economic growth. That's why we're making sure Infrastructure Australia is as strong as it can be. The amendments outlined in this bill will ensure we can operate under the strategic direction of the appointed experts. Labor is putting Australia's economic future first, not party politics. We are respecting and promoting the integrity of the body, and we recognise the importance of Infrastructure Australia's independence through this bill. This bill ultimately upholds the very principles of what we are supposed to do in this place. It puts the needs of the Australian people first, making sure we are making expert decisions to strengthen the foundations of our economy and build a brighter Australia for future generations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Doing infrastructure right is something the community of North Sydney is passionate about. Rising road congestion, crowding on public transport and growing demands on social infrastructure, including health, education and green space, are all key challenges for Australia's governments. It is the role of all of us in this place to listen, consult, develop and deliver solutions to meet these challenges.</para>
<para>At home in my electorate of North Sydney we are being squeezed by major infrastructure projects, like the planned Western Harbour Tunnel and the Warringah Freeway upgrade, which have failed to provide a balanced response to these challenges. In many cases, solutions are presented without regard to the social and community impacts of the project.</para>
<para>I welcome this bill as one step in equipping us to meet these challenges. The bill confirms that Infrastructure Australia's focus will continue to be on transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure—nationally significant infrastructure that connects our cities and regions and is an enabler of our economy. However, I am disappointed that the government has not taken this opportunity to truly reform and improve Infrastructure Australia in more substantial ways. It is a missed opportunity.</para>
<para>The review found that the definition of 'nationally significant infrastructure' was ineffective and conceded that Infrastructure Australia had been sidelined by successive governments and its influence had waned. We have seen this with other organisations across the government environment, most notably and most recently the Climate Change Authority.</para>
<para>The bill before us implements some of the recommendations from the independent review released in December 2022 to address the criticisms. Disappointingly, the government has only supported seven of the 16 recommendations made by that review, and this bill legislates some of those recommendations. It will redefine Infrastructure Australia's principal purpose by inserting a new object, making Infrastructure Australia an independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. The bill will also redefine Infrastructure Australia's functions by allowing audits and assessments to be conducted as well as changing the way projects are prioritised. It will also establish a new governance structure, replacing the Infrastructure Australia board.</para>
<para>I will be moving two amendments to the bill, one relating to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice, and one relating to the inclusion of community, like my community in North Sydney, in Infrastructure Australia's consultation and remit.</para>
<para>Firstly, let's talk about improving transparency. Infrastructure Australia will retain its statutory independence and will continue to provide impartial advice to the Australian government, particularly on infrastructure project selection and on prioritisation. Recommendation 4 of the 2020 review calls for two new annual statements generated by Infrastructure Australia to be tabled in parliament 'in the interests of transparency and accountability'.</para>
<para>It beggars belief that the government has not accepted this recommendation, and this bill further entrenches a lack of transparency over Infrastructure Australia's advice. The government's response to this recommendation has been to hide behind the shield of cabinet deliberations, but I find this argument uncompelling. All members of this place, the media and the voters should be able to receive the two annual statements that will report on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds.</para>
<para>I call on the minister to reconsider the refusal to improve transparency and accountability when it comes to the infrastructure portfolio. There is nothing to lose in allowing others to see what informed conversations are taking place and what advice the government is heeding or choosing to move away from. It will still remain the cabinet's decision which direction the cabinet goes.</para>
<para>My second set of amendments elevates the role of community with Infrastructure Australia's work. This bill does nothing to rectify their heavily weighted focus on economic productivity gains of infrastructure and does not fully account for the social and community needs. Given this, I will be moving an amendment to increase the role of community, like mine of North Sydney, and the development and decision-making around infrastructure projects. The amendments will strengthen the community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, auditing existing infrastructure and compiling lists of infrastructure priorities and developing infrastructure plans. The amendments will also require Infrastructure Australia to consult with the community when developing corporate plans and consider the future needs of users when providing advice to the minister; the Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments; investors in infrastructure and owners of infrastructure.</para>
<para>In my discussions with the government about this amendment, I was asked why community deserves to be included in the bill, and for this reason I will explain here and now. My committee of North Sydney, as I said, is under immense pressure from major and minor infrastructure projects, and the communities are the ones who bear the brunt of the pressure. Ultimately, it's the community that is squeezed from all directions. There are three major infrastructure projects for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade of the Warringah Freeway, the Western Harbour Tunnel and the planning around the Beaches Link. There are a multitude of smaller infrastructure projects like sport and recreation facilities and bike ramps that lead to a cavernous amount of tree loss.</para>
<para>We must not just take these projects individually but rather look at them in their entirety and understand their cumulative impacts. Who better to assist with that understanding than those whose daily lives they impact—the community. The route they walk their dog on every morning, the noise they hear from their houses as work is undertaken, the pollution their kids breathe while they are playing in the playground—these are all changed by the projects that these people are asked to live with.</para>
<para>From the outset, the major transport projects have been yet another example of short-term thinking and using infrastructure approaches from the 1960s to plan for the problems we are facing not only today but tomorrow and in future years. Frustratingly, the North Sydney environment will pay the price, with more traffic congestion on our streets, more air pollution around our schools, the loss of more than 3½ thousand trees, mangroves and seagrasses; and the loss of 15,000 square metres of green space from our parks and reserves, including spaces like Cammeray Park and Flat Rock Gully. As one constituent said to me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The pictures of the mother duck and her ducklings standing behind the workers who did nothing to help them when there dam was removed, then seeing the pictures of the dead ducklings over the next few days, the Powerful Owl killed by a bus, minor birds (although not the native ones) building nests in traffic lights are some of the horror stories that the cause and effect by the government removing a once beautiful park.</para></quote>
<para>Residents are frustrated by the seemingly endless clearing of mature trees, which regularly seems to happen ahead of schedule, and yet the replanting and replacement of trees never seems to be delivered quite so smoothly.</para>
<para>Ultimately, the North Sydney community feels largely ignored in a rushed consultation process, and our residents are going to lose out. This is typified by the fact that community speaks about community consultation not being well advertised. It's hard to find information and it's difficult to decipher processes to provide feedback. Increasingly, correspondence to my office refers to 'consultation' in air quotes to signify the lack thereof. People across North Sydney in fact routinely referred to community consultation as being DEAD, where D stands for decide, E stands for educate, A stands for advocate, and D stands for do. At no point in that process is there a letter L for listen or a C for consult.</para>
<para>By the time the community reads about the details of the project, the design is set in stone. There has been no shifting of state departments once they have set their minds on something, even when the committee present expertly researched alternative options. In my view, plans should be infinitely adaptable when political and community will align. Another constituent wrote to me, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I feel powerless. It seems all the pleas from locals and residents have been ignored and the NSW government is continuing to destroy native habitat, cut down trees, and destroy the local environment.</para></quote>
<para>As it stands, the legislation recognises the role and importance of giving consumers a voice in the process when it comes to ideating infrastructure projects, but the reality is that not all consumers will always be of the community most impacted. Consumers use the roads, consumers use the bridges, consumers use the sporting facilities, but it is communities who live with the consequences of them, and they deserve to be heard. It is therefore for good reason that I believe this legislation will be strengthened by specifically acknowledging and recognising the important role community consultation plays in delivering best-in-class infrastructure projects. It is time we started approaching major infrastructure projects like these differently—with transparency, true community consultation, sustainability and integrity at the heart of them. I look forward to presenting my amendments during the consideration in detail debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Good investment in infrastructure is good for Australia. The government makes significant investments in infrastructure, communication, energy, water, transport and social areas that need regular upgrades and resources to be kept up to date and available when demanded. Infrastructure Australia was established by the Prime Minister, who was then infrastructure minister in the former Labor government. Infrastructure Australia was and should be an independent body that provides expert and independent advice to government on infrastructure investments that Australia requires. But today, sadly, Infrastructure Australia is a shadow of its former self. It is an example of how destructive government can be in the wrong hands. Infrastructure Australia has been stretched and pulled by the previous government and lacks the intent it was designed for in the first place. One of our significant election commitments was to have an independent review of Infrastructure Australia, and this legislation is part of that review's response.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has introduced an amendment to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to restore Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth's main adviser on major infrastructure investments. It will make changes to the Infrastructure Australia Act that provide a framework to implement the government's response to results of the review. It will reverse the damage done over the past nine years and bring Infrastructure Australia back to achieving what it was set up to do in the first place: provide expert, independent advice to the Australian government on major infrastructure needs that help build the nation, now and into the future.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to return Infrastructure Australia to being the premier advisory body to the Commonwealth on nationally significant infrastructure. It will keep its independence from government, ensuring impartial advice on infrastructure selection and their priorities. The bill will align the outcomes of Infrastructure Australia with what the government needs to make informed infrastructure investment decisions. It will receive a new governance model, with three commissioner roles being given on merit to experienced members of the infrastructure sector, supported by an advisory council in place of the existing board. It will be a truly independent body of reliable resource to this government. The board's functions will be more focused, prioritising nationally significant infrastructure proposals for consideration by the government.</para>
<para>We can compare this to how it was treated by the former coalition government. Over the past nine years, the Liberals and Nationals watered down the effectiveness of the body, putting its advice in the pending tray, where it was left. Lamentably, they stacked the board with mates, and not enough direction was given for the board to be effective. The member for New England, who was then infrastructure minister, had a fun old time destroying Infrastructure Australia, devaluing it and giving jobs to his mates. Even the chair at the time described himself as a 'solid Barnaby supporter'. Other members put in place were the vice-president of the Queensland LNP, Queensland LNP candidates from 2011 and 2015, and a Liberal branch president.</para>
<para>The coalition was simply not interested in quality expert advice from Infrastructure Australia. They didn't look to seek assistance from people more skilled than them. To them, infrastructure was a big lolly bag to be drawn from, not something to help build the nation. Those opposite had the audacity to believe they had enough skill in infrastructure to do the job themselves, with the words 'independent' and 'expert' thrown out the window. They had more money invested in imaginary car parks than they did in funding future economic growth. The shadow minister has previously had the audacity to criticise the need for an independent review of Infrastructure Australia.</para>
<para>We've seen this attitude from the former government play out in my own electorate of Lyons and in Tasmania more broadly. Dare I mention the Bridgewater Bridge, a site where many a politician, over many years, has taken many photos of the long-promised but still not built new Bridgewater Bridge? The replacement of the Bridgewater Bridge was first talked about back in 2001, if not before, more than 20 years ago. Both the former coalition federal government and the current Tasmanian Liberal government have spent years wasting time, bungling consultations and not delivering on what is a major infrastructure project which holds high importance as the gateway to Hobart and the southern region of Tasmania. I'm pleased to say it's now well underway, and I'm looking forward to seeing that progress. There's a bet on in Tasmania between me and the former Tasmanian Liberal premier. He reckons that cars will be running over it by the end of 2024, but my Akubra is up for grabs. I've said I'll eat my hat if I see cars over that new bridge by 2024. I must say it's a bet I'm happy to lose. If we get cars on the bridge sooner then I'll happily tuck into the Akubra. But I'm confident it's a bet I won't lose.</para>
<para>But the Bridgewater Bridge is not the only major infrastructure project the Liberals have failed to deliver in my state. In 2008, the then opposition leader, later the Liberal Premier, Will Hodgman, pledged to make the Midland Highway—which is the main spine highway running from Hobart to Launceston and runs right through the guts of my electorate—a four-lane highway from start to finish, and he put up the big signs on the highway: 'Four-lane highway'. That promise was later backed up with a commitment from the then Liberal Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in 2013. All these years later, the Midland Highway remains a hodgepodge of single lanes and maybe two lanes here and there. It's a mess of half-done roadworks. In fact, some roadworks have been done under state government management, and they've had to be torn up again because the surfacing has been so poor that they've had to redo roadworks that were completed just a few years ago. So it's still a mess, and people running along the highway at the moment are sick and tired of the 40-kay and 60-kay zones that seem to be taking forever to finish. It's a very, very drawn-out process under the management of the state Liberal government. The often spruiked plan to ensure the highway is fully upgraded to four lanes seems to be long forgotten by the Liberals, who are always big on their premises but small on their delivery.</para>
<para>Another poorly maintained highway in Tasmania is the A3 or Tasman Highway—or, as the state Liberal government calls it, the Great Eastern Drive. It's a lovely marketing name. It conjures up wonderful images: the Great Eastern Drive. I guess it is mirrored on the Victorian experience, the oceanic drive. I must say the views from the Tasman Highway are beautiful off the east coast, but the highway itself is a goat track. It's an absolute goat track It's single lane pretty much all the way, each way, and the shoulders are ripped up by caravans and trucks. It's a state government highway. Frankly, it's an absolute disgrace. Signs on either side of the so-called Great Eastern Drive allude to a calming trip along Tasmania's east coast, a beautiful part of the state, allowing you to take in the views and the sights of beautiful Tasmania. If the road were properly invested in, that would be the case. It would indeed be a Great Eastern Drive. But travellers along the A3 currently endure pothole-filled, narrow and winding roads, with little time to appreciate the scenery unless they want to risk their safety. It's another example of a major piece of infrastructure in Tasmania being neglected by the state Liberal government, which simply doesn't deliver—and, when it does deliver, it delivers late.</para>
<para>Fortunately, the Albanese government, I'm pleased to say, has reaffirmed a commitment to investing $100 million into the Tasman Highway along the Great Eastern Drive, which will ensure the condition of the highway matches the status that the marketing portrays. Finally, under our government, with our government's support, people will be able to safely enjoy the sights of the east coast of Tasmania from the safety of a solid roadway. It'll further boost tourism and the regional and local economies along the highway. It's happening now because this Labor government understands and appreciates the need for investment in infrastructure, not to win votes or buy votes and not as a lolly bag but because it's important for the development of the state and it's important for safety. We will continue to fund infrastructure and grow our regions for the benefit of residents and tourists alike.</para>
<para>While we're talking about Infrastructure Australia, I note that the Albanese government is committed to Vision Zero: zero deaths and serious injuries due to road crashes by 2050. I have the great privilege of being the chair of the Tasmanian black spot committee, and I note that Infrastructure Australia says: 'We want all road users in Australia to get home safely from every journey, no matter the distance travelled. Improving regional and remote road safety are two priorities identified in the National Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030.'</para>
<para>The budget we've just brought down will provide funding allocated to maintain the $110 million per year Black Spot Program to work with state, territory and local governments to improve road safety across the nation. There is an allocation of $43.6 million for the new National Road Safety Action Grants Program over four years from 2022-23. It will provide non-infrastructure grants to help implement the action plan, with a focus on First Nations road safety, vulnerable road users, community education and awareness, technology, innovation, research and data. There is $16.5 million for the Car Safety Ratings Program to improve testing protocols for new light vehicles and provide safety evaluations for these vehicles. There is continual delivery of road safety improvements through the Road Safety Program, with $976.7 million available across 2023-24 and 2024-25, building on the more than 1,400 projects delivered to date.</para>
<para>I note—this is not strictly to do with Infrastructure Australia, but I will try sneak it in—the Growing Regions Program, opening in July, drives regional economic prosperity by providing access to funding for community focused infrastructure projects throughout regional and rural areas. Grants of between $500,000 and $15 million to cover 50 per cent or more of eligible expenditure are on offer to local councils and non-profit organisations for their projects. Indeed, commencing in 2024-25, the Australian government has committed $200 million over two years to establish the new Thriving Suburbs Program to deliver investment in locally driven urban and suburban infrastructure and community projects. That funding will be especially welcome in the peri-urban areas of my electorate, which aren't eligible for the regional program, as well as growing suburban areas.</para>
<para>I must say, a shout-out to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister King. Since the election—is it Rosie, the woman on the poster with the red scarf and her sleeves rolled up?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Rosie the Riveter. Thank you, member for Kooyong. That's Catherine King over the past year, her sleeves rolled up, fixing the giant mess she's been handed by the former government in terms of cleaning up the mess and the rorts. Infrastructure is so critical to our economic prosperity growth not just across the regions but across the entire country. Minister King has been doing a gargantuan job of cleaning it up and making sure that infrastructure in the country is delivered for the right reasons, economic reasons and expert reasons based on expert advice, and not as a political pork-barrelling exercise. That's what our government is focused on: economic growth.</para>
<para>I come back to the point I made originally: Infrastructure Australia is the brainchild of the Prime Minister, the then infrastructure minister. He set it up to be an independent, expert advisory body. It had a fantastic reputation, but then over nine years of Liberal-National government it was whittled away until it became a shell of its former self. Full marks to Minister King. She is breathing new life into it. She is bringing it back to what it should be: independent and expert. That's how we're going to make our decisions on infrastructure in this country, for the right reasons: to deliver growth, to deliver jobs and to deliver prosperity to our regions, cities and suburbs. The whole reason the Prime Minister, when he was a minister in the former government, delivered Infrastructure Australia was to take the politics out of infrastructure projects, taking sound advice from experts in the field on projects of national significance. That's what this bill will do. It will give Infrastructure Australia its purpose back. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Considering the chequered history of this body, those two words in the title—'independent review'—have a lot of work to do. I'm therefore very pleased to see that, as a first step, this bill establishes a new governance structure by replacing the Infrastructure Australia—IA—board with three commissioners who will become responsible for ensuring the performance of IA's functions. As we know, IA's impartiality was called into question during the last parliament, the 46th Parliament, when the Tamworth mayor, Mr Col Murray, was appointed chairman while former branch presidents and candidates from the Liberal and National parties were appointed to its board.</para>
<para>In 2022, the federal electorate of Kooyong voted in an Independent for the first time in its 122-year history because our community wanted transparency in government. Kooyong voted in an Independent because it recognised that the legacy of the Morrison government was going to be a toxic miasma of disingenuousness, disappointment and debt. The people of Kooyong wanted transparency in government, they wanted transparency in procurement, they wanted transparency in expenditure, they wanted our grant structures to be transparent, they wanted transparency in appointments to important government roles, and they wanted transparency in their allocations.</para>
<para>We need an independent advisory body which will advise the government on where and when infrastructure investments should happen, and we need a government that listens to those recommendations so that better decisions about essential infrastructure projects can be made. To that end, I welcome the change in the objects clause that establishes Infrastructure Australia as the government's 'independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation'. We need an independent body that can implement and guide rigorous assessment of projects, so I'm pleased that the bill redefines IA's functions and products to be as follows:</para>
<list>conducting audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure to determine adequacy and needs;</list>
<list>conducting or endorsing evaluations of infrastructure projects;</list>
<list>developing targeted infrastructure lists and plans; and</list>
<list>providing advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.</list>
<para>We need to ensure that Australia has an infrastructure priority list which ensures that public funds are invested in a methodical and considered way. I welcome the push to make IA's priority list smaller and more targeted. It's appropriate that IA will have a more positive focus on nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals rather than smaller projects more appropriately managed and planned at a local government or state level.</para>
<para>I look forward to enhanced cooperation between IA and the government so that the government actually listens when this independent body tells us that cost and time blowouts are under extra pressure from supply chain challenges—a government that listens when it's told about the rising costs of materials or about problematic shortfalls between available labour and demand. We know that we need greater coordination across project sequencing so that major and proximate projects are not conducted concurrently. We know that we have to develop a smarter approach to training and to growing our workforce. We know that we need to change the culture in and around our workplaces.</para>
<para>It's essential that we attract a diverse workforce and grow opportunities for women to participate fully and at scale in the construction industries. We know that women face barriers to entering, accessing and remaining in the construction industry. At a recent gender equity roundtable in this place, we heard from many engaged, knowledgeable and highly skilled women from the construction industry—women like Jo Farrell, the founder of Build Like a Girl, and Christina Yiakkoupis, the chair of the National Association of Women in Construction—who enthusiastically told us about the large numbers of women who could and should be employed in this industry and how we as a parliament can help to make that happen.</para>
<para>I also welcome recent comments from the minister for infrastructure that there will be a net-zero focus for the government's infrastructure investment decisions and that they will be guided by the goal of decarbonising the nation's essential industries 'from road to rail to water and in the air'. As the minister concluded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Investing in greener technologies and getting to net zero isn't something we can pick and choose. It's an obligation on all of us.</para></quote>
<para>She had earlier said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The future is clean. The future is coming and we need to ensure that it comes with jobs and investment here in Australia. This is an attitude that is now spread across my department and … across Government.</para></quote>
<para>I fully support those sentiments. As a crossbencher, I see my role as helping to make sure that this actually happens and that the government is held to account on how and where new infrastructure programs are supported around the country.</para>
<para>Improvements could be made to this bill. It would be better if improvements were made to incorporate a charter of investment objectives which could set out the government's national infrastructure investment objectives and intended performance standards, and I understand that amendments to that effect are in place. It would be better if we had better long-term certainty and guidance regarding the outcomes to be expected from Infrastructure Australia. I would also support a provision regulating annual statements from Infrastructure Australia to the government to inform the annual budget process and to report on performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing projects.</para>
<para>Overall, though, this bill is an exciting and important step in the right direction, and so I conclude by endorsing the words of Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia: 'Australians need the right infrastructure, in the right places and delivered at the right time, and that means government needs to have access to the best independent advice.' I commend this bill to the Chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Infrastructure Australia was established, under the previous Labor government, by the now Prime Minister to provide independent expert advice to government on infrastructure priorities. The premise was simple: government spending on infrastructure should create jobs; build up our communities, whether they be in regional, rural or metropolitan areas; and boost economic growth. Infrastructure Australia was meant to help the government make important decisions to deliver on those principles.</para>
<para>Under the former Labor government, we listened and invested in every one of Infrastructure Australia's priority projects; however, over the last nine years under the former government we saw rorts and waste in every portfolio, and that was the case for infrastructure. There was an extensive list of scandals, one of which, the Leppington Triangle, was in my community of south-west Sydney. A report of the ANAO found that the infrastructure department had spent almost 10 times more than it should have on a 12.26-hectare piece of land. That is almost $30 million of taxpayers' money spent on a piece of land which was valued at $3 million. I can only imagine what could be done better with that money. In 2021, the ANAO released a report on the car park rorts scandal, finding that none of the 47 car park projects selected by the infrastructure department were merit based. These examples speak of a culture, cultivated by a previous government, of spending taxpayer money without proper scrutiny or process. It was that culture which found its way into Infrastructure Australia, undermining its independence. On multiple occasions the body was subject to the partisan stacking of its board.</para>
<para>The Albanese government committed to an independent review of Infrastructure Australia, and that's what we delivered. On 22 July 2022 our government appointed Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak AO to commence that review, and on 8 December 2022 it was released, along with the government's response. The bill before the Chamber tonight will implement part of that response. This bill changes the governance structure of Infrastructure Australia to be more streamlined, replacing the board with three expert commissioners who will be supported by an advisory council. The three commissioner positions will be hired through a merit based selection process that is publicly advertised, ensuring Infrastructure Australia is led by the best possible people.</para>
<para>The body will also be required to develop a nationally consistent framework for evaluating infrastructure proposals that will reduce duplication with the states and territories, to ensure that it can work with all levels of government efficiently. In addition, this bill will require that Infrastructure Australia's priority list be smaller and more targeted so it can focus on nationally significant infrastructure.</para>
<para>Importantly, a new object will be added to the act that identifies Infrastructure Australia's mandate as the Commonwealth government's independent adviser on infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. This new object will ensure both the independence of the body and the quality of its advice. Infrastructure Australia's functions and project suite will be more focused and include developing a smaller, more targeted infrastructure priority list that prioritises nationally significant infrastructure proposals for consideration by the Australian government. The bill will help reduce duplications between the Commonwealth and the states and territories by requiring Infrastructure Australia to develop a nationally consistent framework for evaluating projects and proposals and endorse project proposals by state and territory governments.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia will be governed by three commissioners, including a chair commissioner, and a chief executive officer. The commissioners will be the accountable authority and will be appointed by the responsible minister based on expertise, skills, experience and knowledge, with gender and geographical representation considered. The CEO will be appointed by the commissioners. The new governance model will ensure that Infrastructure Australia has eminence, authority and standing as the national leader and coordinator among infrastructure advisory bodies.</para>
<para>Alongside this bill, an updated statement of expectations will be issued to implement the recommendations of the review. The government's amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act will ensure that Infrastructure Australia can operate under the strategic direction of its commissioners to provide impartial advice to the government on the prioritisation of need for projects around the country. While Infrastructure Australia must have regard to the government's policies and objectives, it is the commissioners who will be responsible for determining the content of Infrastructure Australia's projects and advice.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia was established by a Labor government, and clearly it's a Labor government that will strengthen it further. This bill goes towards ensuring that Australia's infrastructure projects are built based on need, where they will have the best economic benefits for the economy and where they will have jobs for our future. I thank the minister for infrastructure for her work in ensuring that Infrastructure Australia can continue to inform the government on the nation-building infrastructure we need, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SPENDER () (): I would like to begin my contribution by welcoming the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, which would enhance the integrity of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. The principle behind Infrastructure Australia is a sound one. Commonwealth governments should have an independent expert body advising them on major infrastructure projects. It's a sound principle because Australia has a huge number of projects which the government could potentially fund but we don't have the finances or the resources to deliver all of them. We have to decide what's most important and what the best use of public money is.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister recently articulated these principles when he told the House:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The legislation that is before parliament, moved by the infrastructure minister, will make sure that there's transparency and will make sure that there's proper analysis. That's because there's a finite level of resources, and that is why we should make sure that productivity drives that agenda going forward. That is what my government is committed to, and that's what we will get on with …</para></quote>
<para>That's what the people of Wentworth want and expect from their governments. They want their money, public money, to be used wisely to deliver real outcomes that make our country a better place. But the truth is that past governments of both political persuasions have made investment decisions that fall short of this ideal. They have repeatedly prioritised their private political interest over the public interest, which means that many worthwhile investments have been overlooked as scarce resources were used elsewhere. People in Wentworth are worried that this could continue under this or future governments. Maybe we won't see a repeat of the sports rorts or the car park rorts, and I sincerely hope we won't, but allocating public money to projects with questionable benefits, like the Inland Rail or Hells Gates Dam, is not the best use of scarce resources.</para>
<para>The mission of Infrastructure Australia is to ensure that public investments are made in the public interest—that is, in the projects that deliver the biggest bang for buck. The mission is to ensure that no worthy economic project misses out simply because another project was funded for political reasons. This is a hugely important mission, and I acknowledge we are still a long way from getting there. But we are closer than we used to be, and I credit the Prime Minister for that. He was the minister when Infrastructure Australia was established and is the reason project selection is so much better than it once was.</para>
<para>We have the opportunity now to bridge the gap between our reality and our aspirations for Infrastructure Australia. This bill would certainly help that. It implements some of the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, providing it with a clear mandate and improved processes, which I support. But the bill could go further. It could also require that a positive economic evaluation is required from Infrastructure Australia before the government could commit any public funding for major projects. This would prevent cherrypicking, it would prevent pork-barrelling and it would prevent waste. It is an amendment that should have the Prime Minister's support, because it is an amendment that he moved in 2014 to a previous Infrastructure Australia bill. At the time, he said, 'This government, if it is fair dinkum, should support these amendments.' I couldn't agree with him more. This amendment is entirely consistent with the principles the Prime Minister identified: transparency, proper analysis, finite resources and productivity. I hope that, when we move into the consideration stage, the Prime Minister will support this amendment, support his amendment and bring Infrastructure Australia closer to what it needs to be.</para>
<para>The second part of my amendment deals with the problem of cost blowouts. Inland Rail was the poster child for this. It was originally meant to cost $8 billion, then $16 billion. Now it is more than $30 billion. Similarly, the CopperString project originated as a $1.5 billion electricity transmission project. That is now, four years later, a $5 billion project. Remarkably, the Queensland government has never released a business case demonstrating whether it provides value for money. There are many more examples.</para>
<para>It is high time we accept our inability to accurately forecast project costs. It's time to correct for past mistakes. We could do this by collecting cost data on completed projects. This data could inform future estimates, basing them on real-world experience rather than hopeful future projections. This would help us include the unknown unknowns in project development that inevitably crop up. Better estimates will help us make better decisions about how we use public money and about which projects we back and which projects don't make the cut. This approach is called reference class forecasting, and has been described by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman as the single most important piece of advice regarding how to increase accuracy in forecasting through improved methods. This is a sensible approach to infrastructure decision-making—one with more integrity and one in which Australians can have more confidence. Importantly, it's one that will help drive the productivity gains that infrastructure investments are intended to deliver.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might start where the previous member finished off. The problem with the costing of the Inland Rail is that the Labor government has never actually told us how they came up with this number. It's this fantastic number that's been plucked out of thin air. There's no tabulation of how they arrived at that number. But what we can say when people are cynical about Inland Rail is that, if you believe in decentralisation and in not having people all live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, you have to create the economic infrastructure for them to live elsewhere, and the Inland Rail does precisely that. It has done that in other parts of the globe where rail networks have been the conduit to the decentralisation process and to the economic advancement of those who are not doing as well as those in the capital cities. It would be an incredible blight on our nation and a reflection not only on inland areas but on Indigenous Australians if this major project were to be kicked into the long grass, like they've done with so many other major projects.</para>
<para>I'd also like to reflect on other infrastructure projects such as the Outback Way, which creates a direct road from Townsville, through Boulia, down through Laverton and into Perth. Seventy-five per cent of that workforce is Indigenous. If that project is to be put aside, then how can you say you're looking after Indigenous—in that area they call themselves Aboriginal—people if you're going to cut the projects that actually gave them employment and brought about economic development. We know that economic development is such a vital mechanism of social advancement.</para>
<para>In the coalition, the Nationals made sure that there were regional mayors on Infrastructure Australia, that there were regional people there. We also had people of economic experience and academic qualifications that go a mile long. They were on the board, but we also made sure that there were people there from everyday life, because we think Australia has to be represented in all its facets by people who have experience of all parts of Australia. That's why Infrastructure Australia's board had people from regional areas. Of course, the first thing the Labor Party did was get rid of them. It said, 'If you don't resign, we'll sack you.' That was belligerent and a forerunner of what they were going to do next, which was the cutting of so much of the money that had been put aside for original Australia. Some people say it was pork-barrelling, but the big investments were actually in Labor seats. Lingiari, Solomon, dealing with people in the Pilbara, the Hunter Valley—these were Labor seats we were putting the money into. We believed that if we inspired the economic growth of those areas we took the whole in Australia forward. That's why the Nationals drove the agenda to have those billions of dollars put into those vital pieces of infrastructure.</para>
<para>Where we find ourselves now is that, to be quite frank, the current government—and it would have been any government; it would have been us—has been slapped in the backside with an economic rainbow. There are record coal prices, record gas prices, record low unemployment, strong agricultural exports. These are the things that put the money in the bank that delivered a surplus. No matter how wise we think we are here, no matter how flashy your suit is or how colourful your tie is, Mr Bowen, that is not the thing that delivers a surplus. What delivers a surplus is mums and dads paying their taxes and the fortuitous position that Australia found itself in where, in a world where we say we're not using fossil fuels anymore, we found we had the highest demand on record. We were selling as much as we could at the highest possible price we ever did. So the money flowed into the Treasury because, with a corporate tax rate of about 28½c in the dollar, a corporate tax which meant that, basically, for all the companies making a profit we were a little less than a one-third shareholder of it by reason of the corporate tax rate, and that money came back to the Commonwealth. So the reason we can do the health issues, education issues, the NDIS issues and all the other things that people want to do is you've got to be an adult and understand the economic reality of Australia is we don't make Hewlett Packard, we don't have Boeing, we don't have the London stock market, we don't have Krupp or Siemens, we don't have Volvo. We have coal; iron ore; gas; cotton; beef; grain; education, but that goes in two ways; banking, yes, but it goes in two ways; but the big net winners come from regional Australia, and this is where the infrastructure has to be. As a cost accountant—I spent years as a cost accountant—I can assure you that if you want to make money, invest where you make money. If you want to lose money, invest where you're already losing money. There's the difference of how your business will go. We wanted to make sure that we invested in the capital assets that drove the economy to be stronger in the areas where strength was so well pronounced and so easily seen.</para>
<para>I also want to go to the oxymoronic economics I have seen in this budget paper. Apparently, in the next year the inflation rate is somehow going to nearly halve but real wages growth will go up to four per cent. We are putting about $180 billion into the economy, but it won't be inflationary. This is like saying I am going to freeze the ice-cream and cook the chook in the same kitchen appliance at the same time. It's just not going to work. It doesn't work like that. We are seeing a bearish sentiment on world economic markets, which would suggest the world is more likely seeing a decline in global economic activity. You don't want that, but I presume that sentiment is out there from the people who are much wiser than me and make a lot of money by going onto futures markets and taking positions. That would mean that it is likely that in the future the prices for coal, iron ore and gas are not going to be pushed up and there's going to some downward pressure on that. So the presumption in the budget is that they sort of shun these projects, but we're still selling an awful lot of them. If those economic circumstances arise, what are people going do with our coal? Stick it under the bed or wrap it up in cellophane and give it to their family for Christmas? It is a sign. It is absolutely linked to economic activity. Strong economic activity means strong iron ore and coal sales. Low economic activity means low coal, gas and iron sales. In Australia—boy, oh, boy!—we are linked to them.</para>
<para>For instance, the government say they want to have a manufacturing policy. That's great. Don't we all? It's as if the nation, regardless of its party colour, never wanted a manufacturing policy. We always did. But you have to have your seed stock right for that, and the seed stock for that is your input costs. You have a range of input costs. You have your commodities. They're on a global market, so there's no real advantage to that. The price you get them for is the price for which they could sell them either to you or to somebody else, unless you want to go completely socialist, like Cuba. We're doing a little bit of that and saying, 'You can only sell to Australians.' I can assure you that economically that does not work. It does not work in the short term and it most certainly is devastating in the long term. Then you have labour costs. I don't think anybody in Australia is punting for cheaper wages. We don't want that. We want people to have a good standard of living.</para>
<para>Then you have energy costs. That's where our strategic advantage always was. But we have lost that. You see, we have gone on this mad, mythical trip—well-meaning but mad and mythical—with the idea that we could replace baseload power with intermittent power. No matter how many times they tell us that it's all worked out well, your power bill tells you something completely different. Power bills have gone through the roof, not just for mums and dads but for businesses, including businesses that buy gas. The more caveats, imposts and impediments we put on that, the higher those bills will go. The more we get fascinated with the idea that wind factories festooned over our countryside, littering the landscape, connected with a cobweb of intermittent transmission lines over our land, are the solution, the more we are fooling ourselves. That's the recipe of the cake we've been cooking, which has given us the power prices we've got.</para>
<para>If we don't have that, what sort of manufacturing are we going to get? What person, when money can go anywhere on the globe, is going to say, 'I'm going to invest in Australia even though I could make a bucketload more money if I did it in Mexico, Bangladesh or another country that can give me a modicum of social stability and has a vastly greater cost advantage in how I do it'? In the past, one of our strengths that people would overlook was that investors would say, 'They're very reliable and stable and don't make erratic changes in policy,' but we've lost that one now too. We've become erratic. There was a premium that we were able to charge when we didn't have quite the best price but we were the most stable, but we are losing that with some of our excessive environmental policies, which are an impediment to people investing here.</para>
<para>I want to touch on a couple of things that it is so disappointing that we're losing. One is the Stronger Communities Program, which provided grants of up to $20,000. We had RSL clubs, men's sheds, women's groups and sporting groups that wanted just a small amount of money that could help them put in a footpath or a disabled ramp or fix up a toilet. With this Stronger Communities Program, we didn't have oversight; we had a local committee of people that would sit at a table and work out what was best for our areas. They made the decisions. But that's been scrapped, and that's a terrible shame, because, if you just saw the difference that $5,000 or $10,000 made for some of these groups, you would see that you would sometimes get, to be honest, more bang for your buck and happiness out of being able to fix a disabled toilet at the local showground than out of spending $100 million on a road. It's a thing that people really connected to, and it's been lost, and it's nasty and mean that they did that. It didn't need to happen. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is another one. That's gone. The Building Better Regions Fund? That's gone.</para>
<para>In closing, I want to talk about something that's very close to me, and that's Dungowan Dam. We now have 737s landing in Tamworth. Tamworth is growing—flat out. You can fly direct from Tamworth to the Sunshine Coast, to Brisbane to Sydney to Melbourne. It's growing because people are moving out of Sydney and into the country areas. But our water supply isn't. We almost ran out of water. It's only with the extension of Chaffey Dam that we managed to get through the last drought without running out of water.</para>
<para>If we hadn't extended Chaffey Dam—so many people argued about it; the booroolong frog, this frog, that frog, this skink—Tamworth, the major city in regional Australia, would have run out of water. They would have had to have brought in almost the equivalent of 1½ coal trains—about 80 carriages—a day, full of water, just to keep the city going. Dungowan Dam was imperative, as the city grew, to take it to the next step, to secure those jobs, to secure that standard of living. But it was kicked into the long grass. Now they've gone out into the long grass and jumped all over its head. It's gone.</para>
<para>When people come to Australia—and they're coming in at 7,000 a week—where do they live? Where are you going to put these people? If you can't get the infrastructure right in the city of Tamworth, I'll tell you where they're going to live: Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Here they come! The people they're going to bring in—I think it's 750,000 in 18 months; it might be a bit more now. Just so people understand, that is the city of Canberra, basically, almost two and a bit times, coming in, in 18 months. Think of all the houses in Canberra. We're going to need them across the nation—with the football fields, with the hospitals, with the schools and with all the accoutrements that are part and parcel of that immigration.</para>
<para>If you don't look after Tamworth and you don't look after Rockhampton and you don't look after Gladstone and you don't look after Longreach and you don't inspire people to go to Wagga or Geraldton or Alice Springs, then they're going to make a logical decision, as human beings do—and we're all the same—they're moving to Sydney! If you thought your road was packed before, wait till they turn up, because they'll all want a car and they'll all want a house and they'll all want to put their kids in school and if they get sick they're all going to want to go to hospital, as is their right, as they should be allowed to. This is short-sighted. What this government are doing in infrastructure shows they don't have a real sense—they don't have a statesmanlike vision—of where this nation goes and the infrastructure that needs to be built so that we can arrive there.</para>
<para>I conclude by saying if we have a government that wants to be a government for all, it must, once it obtains the Treasury benches, put aside its parochialism and partisanship and say, 'Actually, we have to govern for all people now, not just the people in our seats; therefore, regional infrastructure is vital for the growth and sustenance of our nation.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're at a pivotal moment in our history where we need to get moving rapidly on building the infrastructure needed to address the major challenges ahead. We have to build the infrastructure that allows us to rapidly decarbonise our economy to convert to 100 per cent renewable energy, to protect our communities from the increasing climate change-driven natural disasters and to build the social infrastructure to overcome the growing alienation and fragmentation of our communities.</para>
<para>We're at a point where we have to invest in visionary infrastructure, not just more road expansions. The fact that the government commissioned an independent review into Infrastructure Australia, and has brought this legislation to try to make it a more functional body, appears to be a decent and timely albeit small step in the right direction. We clearly need a functioning Infrastructure Australia to provide high-quality independent advice on government infrastructure projects. But—and this is a very big 'but'—that means it's got to be independent not just of political partisanship, which the bill seeks to rectify, but also of corporate partisanship, especially that of fossil fuel corporations. And there's a big cause for concern here. Over the last decade, there have been multiple key personnel who have sat on the board of Infrastructure Australia and who have had or currently have senior roles in huge coal, oil and gas corporations.</para>
<para>Let's start with Samantha Hogg. Samantha Hogg was a member of the Infrastructure Australia board between March 2019 and November 2021. She has previously held several director positions with BHP Billiton. Next, let's look at Vanessa Guthrie. Vanessa Guthrie was appointed to the Infrastructure Australia board in 2021 and is still on the board. She has had over 10 former major roles in fossil fuel companies, including but not limited to Woodside Energy, and, at the same time as she is sitting on the board of Infrastructure Australia, she's also currently a director at Santos Ltd. John Ellice-Flint was on the board of Infrastructure Australia from 2014 to 2019. He's had approximately 20 former roles in fossil fuel companies, including Bonaparte Gas & Oil and, again, Santos. He too has held some of these roles while being on the board. He's currently a director and the secretary of Smart Gas Pty Ltd. Julieanne Alroe was on the board of Infrastructure Australia for seven years and was chair of the board from 2017 to 2021. Now get this: while she was chair of the Infrastructure Australia board, she was also a director of Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd. At the same time, Julieanne was also the CEO and managing director of Brisbane Airport Corporation, a privatised airport company, and instrumental in delivering the new parallel runway in Brisbane with practically zero community consultation, and that has led to enormous problems of flight noise over dense Brisbane suburbs.</para>
<para>The point I'm trying to make here is this: these people all bring an enormous bias and, I believe, an enormous conflict of interest when advising on infrastructure projects to the government. The government should not be advised on key infrastructure projects by people who stand to gain from particular infrastructure being built or, indeed, not being built. They do not have the perspective of delivering infrastructure that benefits everyday people or of delivering infrastructure in the interests of the community. They do have the perspective of the government stepping in to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure meant to facilitate bigger profits for massive coal, oil and gas corporations. They also, in their time in these senior industry roles, establish significant relationships and networks with key people in fossil fuel corporations who will then have a direct mouthpiece through them to the government. With the consolidated three-commissioner structure of this revamped Infrastructure Australia, if one of these roles is occupied, for example, by a director of Santos, say, that would be giving Santos an incredible influence over government infrastructure decision-making.</para>
<para>The Greens are simply saying that people who have held senior roles or who currently hold a senior role with a coal, oil or gas corporation should not be allowed to be appointed a commissioner of Infrastructure Australia. The Australian state is already captured in so many ways by big corporate interests—and by coal, oil and gas interests in particular, because there's the $13.7 million that Labor and the Liberals have taken in donations from fossil fuel corporations in the last 10 years. There's the personnel swapping—that revolving door between the major parties and these big corporations. There's the special access granted to lobbyists and industry. All of this tightens those connections between our political class and the corporate class and stacks our democracy in favour of the corporations and fossil fuel giants and against everyday people. There is also the way that public or quasi-public institutions like the Reserve Bank, the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia get stacked up by people with direct ties to giant fossil fuel companies, banks and property developers, making these corporations enormously influential over our government, and I think that's dangerous.</para>
<para>The Greens amendment to this bill gives us a chance to begin to unravel one of those knots, one of those points of corporate control by the coal and gas corporations. So let's take that chance now and get to work building infrastructure that's in the interests of everyday people, not the likes of Santos and Woodside.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I must say, it is an interesting day to be talking about infrastructure. It's a day after the Treasurer didn't mention infrastructure once in his budget speech last night. It's a week after this government delayed significant infrastructure investments across the country, across Victoria and in my electorate of Casey. The residents of Casey know that this government doesn't value infrastructure investments in our community. They know that it is the Albanese Labor government that pulled funding from our local road-sealing program, roads for communities, despite their own department confirming that it would improve safety. They know that it is the Albanese government that pulled funding to upgrade Wellington Road and is now looking to cut Canterbury Road as well, resulting in more time in traffic and less time at home with their families and friends.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to give partial effect to the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia was established by the current Prime Minister in the Rudd government when he was the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. My community knows all too well what else this Prime Minister did during his time as shadow minister for infrastructure. He matched the coalition's promise to seal roads throughout the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges. He put out a media release back in 2019. This was a 10-year project that he committed to, where the then Labor candidate for Casey, with the support of this Prime Minister, admitted that this project would 'reduce dust pollution every day for kids in schools and kindergartens as well as improving access to emergency services'.</para>
<para>The then Labor candidate for La Trobe—because this project also involved the seat of La Trobe—also admitted, 'These improvements to local roads are desperately needed in the area.' They were committed to by this Prime Minister for 10 years. We fast forward to four years later. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to my community and pulled that funding for road sealing. What's changed? In 2019, safer roads were important to Mr Albanese, but in 2023 the needs of my community couldn't be further from his mind. What hypocrisy.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government has abandoned the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges and left us driving on unsafe, unsealed roads, ending the $300 million project funded by the former coalition government. We last week found out via the media that Labor is now considering cuts to the much-needed Canterbury Road upgrade. They're taking a razor to more infrastructure projects across the state, and they're in here lecturing us about infrastructure. The Albanese Labor government is simply not in a position to be lecturing when it comes to infrastructure. There's no positive way to spin it. They've pulled vital funding from my community, prioritising their pet projects.</para>
<para>Interestingly enough, this review that they've commissioned sections off every Labor commitment that they made at the last election. That doesn't need to be reviewed by an independent commission. That's sectioned off; every other project needs to be reviewed. They're putting the priority of their pet projects, like the Suburban Rail Loop, over road safety in the Yarra Ranges, in the Dandenong Ranges and all across the electorate of Casey. Let's look at their track record.</para>
<para>It was the previous Liberal government that fought for upgrades for Wellington Road. Labor scrapped that commitment. It was the previous Liberal government that committed to sealing roads. Labor has scrapped that. Now they're talking about cuts to Canterbury Road and potentially to Killara Road. They're not willing to hold the Andrews Labor government to account, to deliver for that project, despite receiving that funding in 2019. How does this benefit the residents in my community? The answer: it doesn't. The residents in my community couldn't care less about a stadium in Tasmania and a suburban rail loop—two projects this government has failed to put through Infrastructure Australia before committing to funding. What hypocrisy. My community wants real investments that see them getting home safer and sooner. They want to see these projects delivered.</para>
<para>The bill before us today creates a new objective for Infrastructure Australia: to be the government's 'independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation'—great objective. We already know that this government will refuse to follow that objective. And it repeals almost all of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia and proposes new functions: to conduct audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure to determine adequacy and needs; conduct or endorse evaluations of infrastructure projects; and provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.</para>
<para>It will also replace the current 12-member board with just three commissioners—12 to three. Who are these commissioners appointed by? The minister. As it stands, nine board members are appointed by the government and three are appointed by nominations agreed on by the governments of states and territories. By replacing the board with just three commissioners, the government is substantially reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of Infrastructure Australia. Commissioners, as I said, will be appointed by the minister and answerable to the minister. Talk about a guarantee of frank and fearless advice! Labor are taking away the independence of the agency, effectively creating more yes-people for their infrastructure projects, which do not exist in my community. In my community, as I've said, we know all about the infrastructure cuts of this government.</para>
<para>While those opposite claim this bill has given effect to the recommendations of the infrastructure review, it's always about the detail. You only have to look at the government's response to the review released on 7 December 2022 to see that the government have not supported eight key recommendations of their own review. They have not supported recommendations that Infrastructure Australia provide advice on social infrastructure. Alarmingly, they do not support key recommendations on enhanced transparency—not surprising, but very alarming. They do not support the recommendations for annual statements to be publicly tabled to report on the performance outcomes being achieved by the infrastructure program. They talk a big game, but we know they don't like accountability.</para>
<para>They also don't support the recommendation that would require them to formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months. We know that this government is far more focused on shirking the number of projects on the infrastructure priority list than it is on transparency. They are proposing that Infrastructure Australia merely endorse project assessments submitted by state and territory governments. This is the government's way of walking away from providing an independent oversight and assessment of the priorities of state governments. Infrastructure Australia lacks the power to enforce assessment standards on state and territory infrastructure development departments.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth has an important role to play here: making substantial investments to state infrastructure, anywhere from 50 per cent up to 80 per cent in regional areas. Australian taxpayers rightfully expect the Commonwealth parliament to exercise reasonable oversight over state infrastructure projects to ensure they deliver a material benefit and maximum value for that investment.</para>
<para>The biggest one that comes to mind when we're talking about infrastructure investment is the Suburban Rail Loop. All Victorians know about the Suburban Rail Loop. We've already seen the government make some dodgy decisions on infrastructure in their first year. These decisions have been made without any reference or review by Infrastructure Australia to see if the projects stack up. After pulling $100 million from road-sealing projects across my community and axing the Wellington Road upgrade, Labor found $2.2 billion for Daniel Andrews's Suburban Rail Loop. They committed to this despite there being no business case for the project at all and no idea on how much this project will cost the taxpayers of Australia and Victoria before it's even finished. We're talking about the project that will see Victorians pay for record debt for generations and generations to come. We've already heard the Premier of Victoria talk about needing to make tough cuts in this upcoming budget in Victoria, yet he's got the money for this project that hasn't been tested. The business case does not stack up. The Albanese Labor government doesn't even want to make sure that the project checks out. They're happy to give the money to their mate, Daniel Andrews, as part of an election promise from the last Victorian state selection.</para>
<para>We've seen similar decisions by this government with the Brisbane music arena and the Tasmanian stadium. We all know Labor made massive cuts to infrastructure in its October budget. They cut $9.1 billion from infrastructure programs in the previous budget, with over $1 billion of that in Victoria. Surprisingly the Premier of Victoria has been very quiet in the media about those cuts. I wonder why. Maybe it's that fake barbecue with his friend, Prime Minister Albanese, that's keeping him so quiet.</para>
<para>But residents in my community are fed up with living on dirt roads. They are sick of the days of dust, potholes and mud. They were relieved that the Liberal government committed $150 million to seal their roads, only to have Labor come along and destroy their hopes by cutting the funding. This is having a significant impact on my community. I've been inundated with calls and emails. A petition of almost 3,000 signatures has been submitted. But the most impactful conversation I had was at a forum I had at Kallista with a mum who spoke about a dirt road she was on that was wet and it was pouring with rain. She was in a four-wheel-drive and in that mud. She was trying to get up the hill because there are steep hills in Kallista and in the Dandenongs. Every local knows that. That much mud had built up on her tyres that she'd lost grip and she'd started sliding back. She slid back onto the main road with her daughter in the car. About 20 seconds before she'd slipped back onto the main road a semitrailer had come through that intersection. She could still see the lights. So, but for 20 seconds, that mum and her daughter would not be with us today.</para>
<para>That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the safety of residents. We're talking about people's lives. This has been confirmed by the department. It was confirmed by this government when they made this commitment four years ago. They know that sealing these roads saves lives. They've made the choice—the absolute choice—to rip that money out of our community because they don't care about our community. They're willing to take that money away despite knowing it will save lives, and that's an absolute disgrace. Infrastructure investment like our promise to seal roads and to upgrade Canterbury and Wellington roads would have helped strengthen our economy as well as saving lives and helped Australians get to and from work safer and sooner. Instead Labor has taken the razor to infrastructure projects and has redirected those funds to policies that are inflationary and bloat the current budget.</para>
<para>Overall we recognise that there have been significant issues with the operation of Infrastructure Australia and, as a result of the government's leadership, there were five resignations from the board in September 2020. But I'm deeply concerned that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia that is less independent and more authoritative, resulting in infrastructure that will not be value for money for taxpayers and will not deliver the much-needed productivity gains for our economy. When you overlay that with a government that has shown that it's prepared to ignore the advice of Infrastructure Australia, you've got a government that is already going to stack this new board that has to report directly to the minister. How can an advisory board give independent advice if three people are appointed by the minister and can be sacked by the minister? It just does not add up.</para>
<para>We know that these changes are going to hurt and we know that this government will continue, like they have with the Suburban Rail Loop and the Tasmanian stadium, to put their political needs above the safety of the residents of Casey and many other communities across the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Along the same lines as my good friend the member for Casey, on infrastructure funds being sucked into metropolitan Melbourne projects, I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. You can't overemphasise the importance of infrastructure, especially for regional Australia. The built environment isn't just about livability. It's about livelihoods, productivity, population and prosperity, and above all, it's about realising opportunity.</para>
<para>This bill responds to the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia by amending the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to amend the functions and governance structure of the organisation, but this bill is notable more for what it won't do than for what it will do. It should set a course for structured consideration of nationally significant infrastructure projects, but it won't. It should promote a governance structure with specific expertise and representation from regional Australia, but it won't. It should, as recommended by the review, establish Infrastructure Australia as the government's independent adviser on nationally significant social and economic infrastructure, but it won't. It should improve transparency and reinforce the organisation's independence from government, but it won't, and I would argue that it actually diminishes independence in favour of greater government control. These are not trivial matters, especially for regional electorates like Nicholls.</para>
<para>Those opposite have demonstrated in government that they don't really care about regional infrastructure. That's why we need a strong, independent Infrastructure Australia, a body with regional representation and a focus beyond capital cities. That's why we support this legislation with amendments to achieve the best structure.</para>
<para>Let's look at the record of those opposite. The October budget delivered $2.2 billion for Dan Andrews's $35 billion suburban rail loop project in Victoria, a commitment without a business case being put forward. This is a project that is likely to cost the Commonwealth another $9 billion or $10 billion, if not much more, should the Victorian government commence construction. Pouring billions into this over-the-horizon project will come at a great cost to the regions. More than $2.7 billion in Victorian projects were cancelled, cut or delayed in the October budget, including $174 million in the forward estimates for the Shepparton bypass. That vital project is now part of a review ordered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and I'm really concerned that it won't survive the review. Why is the Shepparton bypass a critical project? It's good to have some knowledge about what actually goes on in the regions so you can understand.</para>
<para>While the ink was drying on the October budget, large parts of my electorate were inundated by record floods. That had a tragic impact on my electorate. It caused damage to a lot of livelihoods and put people out of their homes, but we really found out how much we rely on a single piece of infrastructure—what is called the Peter Ross Edwards Causeway, named after the former Victorian Nationals leader who instigated it. There is just that single bridge that crosses the Goulburn River around the Shepparton region. When the causeway and bridge was closed, Shepparton and Mooroopna were split in half. Shepparton and Mooroopna operate as one city, and when they were cut off we saw some really dangerous situations. There were emergency response impacts. We couldn't get ambulances or fire trucks or other emergency service vehicles from one side of the river to the other. Workers were cut off from critical services and industries. We have industries that need to be going 24/7. If the workers can't get there, even for 24 or 48 hours, those industries shut down at enormous cost. Key intrastate and interstate freight routes were cut, and families were separated. What I'm saying is that there should be a second crossing of the Goulburn River.</para>
<para>The western route was selected and designed in 1995, which is a long time ago. I was only 20 years old, which might be difficult for some to believe. I had a lot more hair then. It was going to be a staged approach starting with a second crossing, and it really needed the impetus. The Victorian government had put a small amount of money towards some planning for it, and then nothing happened. Nothing was happening and nothing was happening, and everyone was saying, 'We really need the bypass, because what happens in the future if we get a catastrophic event that cuts out the two cities?' And in 2022, in October, we did.</para>
<para>But back in 2019 the Nationals backed the project with $208 million. The Victorian government has delivered the business case but has since preferred political games to a proper commitment and has not made an official request for funding from the federal government. I'm worried that those opposite might walk away from this project and from the funding commitment that the Nationals gave, because it might not survive this 90-day review. I'm really worried about this critical piece of infrastructure, which is needed not only to get the two sides of the river connected—in my electorate there are two distinct sides of that river, the west and the east, and there are all sorts of fruit, milk and other perishable produce going back and forth—but also for the emergency services and the families that I talked about earlier. We really need that second crossing to happen. So the question is: how much longer will we have to wait?</para>
<para>While the opposition doesn't seek to frustrate passage of the government's legislation, we are concerned that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia that is less independent and less authoritative, a body that is more beholden to government policy—a policy which we know does not support critical investment in the regions, like the Shepparton bypass. There have been a lot of cuts, including $9.6 billion cut from infrastructure programs in last year's budget and $7 billion cut from dams and water infrastructure projects in the forward estimates. More than $2 billion in Vic projects were cancelled, cut or delayed in the October budget. There are many, many cuts and delays.</para>
<para>I just want to single out what happens when you have a government that's committed to regional infrastructure and what that means when we finally get things built. I want to give credit—I'm very happy he's in the Chamber—to the former Deputy Prime Minister the member for Riverina, who made a significant commitment to stage 3 of the Shepparton corridor. He worked with the Victorian state government to deliver that project, and it was just so heartening to see a federal government that worked together with a Victorian Labor government, from the other side of politics. Jacinta Allan, the minister, and the then Deputy Prime Minister delivered that project.</para>
<para>You have to understand how important rail travel to Melbourne is for people in Shepparton. We only had four return train services to Melbourne, and they were lumbering, slow, old locomotives. They were uncomfortable, they were slow, and you really only had four chances to jump on one to get to Melbourne and back. Stage 3 was delivered by the former Deputy Prime Minister, and what that did was to take that to nine services. The works are underway, so we're on buses while the rail, the passing loops and the other infrastructure go into getting us nine services a day. But that will mean that in Shepparton you can go down pretty much on the hour during peak times and jump on a train—a new VLocity train—and get to Melbourne and back. That's changed the lives of many people in Shepparton. It's attracting people to come and live in Shepparton, where we have a huge amount of industries that desperately need workers. That's what good infrastructure projects do. My special thanks go to the former Deputy Prime Minister for working with the Victorian minister to deliver that. It's really having a great impact.</para>
<para>But we need that pipeline of projects to continue. The Shepparton bypass is but one, but there are other infrastructure projects in the mix—not only the Shepparton bypass but just the general road infrastructure. I think sometimes people from metropolitan seats perhaps don't understand how important roads are to us. They're not just for driving to see your friends or driving to work; they are the arterial corridors to get our produce either to the port of Melbourne, to the supermarkets or to many of the other processing facilities that provide the great food that Australia is so lucky to have thanks to those in the regions.</para>
<para>I really reach out across the aisle, and I do that with fruit, as you know. I will continue to do that whatever our differences, but I want all of the people in this place to know of the great produce, the pears, the apples, the peaches, the plums—I dropped a box of plums off at the Labor whip's office. I really want everyone to celebrate this amazing food bowl that we have in the Goulburn Valley, and not only celebrate it and enjoy the fruit but really understand that we need infrastructure to make those industries viable. That could be water infrastructure or road infrastructure or freight rail infrastructure, but we need to continue that pipeline of investment to make it happen.</para>
<para>We need to continue to invest in the port. A lot of that fruit and milk that's produced in my electorate also ends up in South-East Asia, and there's nothing prouder than being in a supermarket in Shanghai, as I was a number of years ago, seeing milk from the Goulburn Valley selling for quite an exorbitant price by Australian standards. That's how much those people value the clean, green, high-quality product that we produce in the Goulburn Valley. We need to invest in that infrastructure to make sure we can get it to the port and get it over to those millions and millions and millions of people that are so keen to consume our great product.</para>
<para>As you know, the wet spring we had last year caused a lot of flooding, and that was very challenging for the people in my region. Not only the flooding but also the excessive rain caused a significant deterioration in the road network around my area, and it really is spot the pothole at the moment, or avoid the pothole if you possibly can. I must say the Victorian government has not kept up with maintenance of roads. It is really important that the federal government understands the importance of this road network and invests in it and in infrastructure. At the moment 40 kilometres per hour speed limits and warning signs of damaged roads are the norm across my electorate. I've got heavy vehicle operators taking this magnificent produce to port and telling me that some key freight routes are a tragedy waiting to happen, and that's an unacceptable situation for a country such as Australia.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia was established by the current Prime Minister in the last Labor government. The minister, in the second reading speech, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Since then, Infrastructure Australia has been sidelined with a lack of genuine influence. It's been stretched too far and too thin and has lacked focus.</para></quote>
<para>I think it will be a less influential body under this Labor government than the Prime Minister envisaged when it was established almost 15 years ago. By proposing to replace the 12-member Infrastructure Australia board with three commissioners, the government is reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of this organisation and reducing the independence of the agency from the government.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia is an important body, and it needs a clear mandate and a future direction. On this side, we recognise that since the election there have been questions over its future and a period of instability. In September 2022 there were five resignations from the Infrastructure Australia board, leading to several months where the board lacked a quorum of members. The government has subsequently appointed interim board members until such time as the proposed reforms can be enacted.</para>
<para>Megaprojects and capital cities, I think, could be the focus, and megacities will be the result of the new arrangements. I have a view that Australia would be much better off if we can grow regional cities, but once again I am worried that is government is showing its true colours and isn't interested in that. The pathway for regional infrastructure would be harder under these reforms, and I don't think that's a good outcome for the nation. Let's think about the way we want Australia to grow, and let's focus on regional infrastructure as being part of that growth. We want to work with you to do it. We've got a lot to offer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill is a slight on the Prime Minister. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 questions the Prime Minister's authority, because what it seeks to do, and what the government's reforms will achieve, is to make Infrastructure Australia less independent of government by replacing a 12-member board with three commissioners appointed by the minister. Who will those three commissioners be? Well, we know from experience that they'll be union representatives. We know that they'll be people placed on IA to do the government's bidding. That is unfortunate. Infrastructure Australia does have a role to play. I know this because I was the infrastructure minister for 3⅓ years. During much of that time, Romilly Madew was the chief executive officer, and a good CEO she was. She left to take up a position with Engineers Australia, and I wish her every success in the future.</para>
<para>Rather than the accepted view by those opposite, perhaps, that having a dozen members of the Infrastructure Australia board was unwieldy because there were so many of them, it actually worked quite well, bringing expertise and experience from different fields and bringing people from different geographic areas to provide knowledge and insight to the priority list. The priority list was important, although it wasn't critical and absolute that the government of the day had to follow the priority list, because governments sometimes have different objectives.</para>
<para>What I worry is that in the very short-term future, as the member for Nicholls quite correctly just pointed out, projects are going to be shelved because of the 90-day review placed on them by the member for Ballarat, who argues that the $120 billion investment pipeline is perhaps not fit for purpose. Many, perhaps most, of those projects are in regional Australia. We just heard the member for Nicholls articulate the importance of the Shepparton bypass. That project, as he succinctly pointed out, may not stack up under the proposed 90-day review. Of course, those opposite will shout: 'It was pork-barrelling. It shouldn't have been put on the list in the first place.' But it was put there because the people of Shepparton, the people of the electorate of Nicholls, deserve it. Moreover, they need it. It is going to provide a vital flood-free structure that is going to be there for the future.</para>
<para>The $120 billion pipeline of investment supports 100,000 workers. Do you know what, member for Nicholls? Many of those workers are union members. We applaud that. We on the coalition side applaud the fact that many of those workers hold a union ticket. Good on them! It also supports businesses, and not just the tier 1 businesses, which often get carriage of these big infrastructure projects, but many of the tier 2 and, perhaps even more importantly, tier 3 businesses which underpin infrastructure in Australia. I look at the Inland Rail project. What a transformational project that is: Melbourne to Brisbane, getting goods, produce—the very best of our farms' labours—to port within 24 hours. We've been talking about it as a nation since the 1890s. There were plans drawn up all those years ago—130 years ago—but it took a coalition government to start the project off. I can remember well signing those intergovernmental agreements with the three state ministers, two of whom were Labor ministers. Mark Bailey in Queensland was the third minister we signed, Jacinta Allen in Victoria was the first, and, of course, we signed the agreement with New South Wales on that historic occasion at Parkes.</para>
<para>Jacinta Allan—I know she was referenced by the member for Nicholls—was somebody who actually believed in building infrastructure with the then coalition government, yet this Labor government want to turn all that on its head. They want to shelve the projects which are going to provide so many jobs and so much relief for regional Australia in particular. Just take the New South Wales example: they won't increase the dam wall at Wyangala by 10 metres. The project has been kicked off into the never-never by the federal Labor government under last night's budget.</para>
<para>What we're seeing is Rose Jackson, the New South Wales Minister for Water, saying: 'We're not interested in building dams. What we're interested in is building escape routes for the people of Forbes.' That is insulting to those townsfolk in the Central West. They're not going to get a dam wall raised to provide flood free security; they're going to get better escape routes so that they can get out of Forbes quicker. <inline font-style="italic">(Extension of time granted)</inline> This inner-city thinking is so representative of so many people on the Labor side. It is such a shame that the infrastructure minister, who hails from Ballarat, unfortunately has the same thinking about infrastructure. It is such a shame that so many of those projects are regionally based. So many of those projects are going to make such a difference for regional people.</para>
<para>I'll digress just a little bit because I remember that one of the proudest moments I had as infrastructure minister was turning the first sod at Badgerys Creek, Western Sydney airport. That airport, not Sydney's second airport but Western Sydney's first airport, the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, is going to be able to take some of the pressure—much of the pressure, perhaps, one could argue—away from Mascot and provide Western Sydney, indeed all those agriculture producing districts, access to overseas markets that they would otherwise not have had. When it comes to airports, we invested heavily in remote airstrips in particular. We knew how important it was, and we saw how important it was particularly when COVID was at its worst. What it enabled those remote centres to do was have access through Rex, other direct flights and, indeed, the Royal Flying Doctor Service—what a great service they provide—to get personal protection equipment, vaccines and, perhaps even more importantly, health professionals to those areas to service those remote towns at a time when the global pandemic was perhaps at its worst and the fear amongst the people was certainly at its highest.</para>
<para>Look at the railway projects that we've put in place, not just Inland Rail but supporting states through other rail links. Don't just take my word for it; get a rail expert, like the member for Parkes, talking up and talking about rail because it is so important, particularly for regional Australia.</para>
<para>Then, of course, we come to roads. During the worst of COVID—and we're not out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination—I put $3 billion of additional funding into road safety measures. Sadly, tragically and unfortunately, I saw that road safety initiatives were cut in last night's budget. This is the Keys2drive project—those sorts of initiatives that save lives. Unfortunately, they were parked, for want of a better word, in last night's budget. There can be no greater investment in the infrastructure space than investment in road safety measures, because all too often we see the result of not putting money into road safety initiatives, and that is tragedies on our highways and our byways, and all too often regional people are overrepresented in the road toll. That is such a shame. We need to do better. It needs to be bipartisan. It certainly was when I was the Deputy Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Then, of course, we have a 90-day review, put in place by the infrastructure minister. What will that mean for many of the projects that are currently on those lists? There are many of them—hundreds of them if not thousands, if you count all the small-time projects and even, indeed, the Stronger Communities program. Which electorates benefited? Yes, some of them were infrastructure. There was sporting infrastructure. There were women's change rooms. I know the sports program was placed under heavy fire, and it cost a minister her job when that initiative was put in place. I know Labor argued about the colour-coded spreadsheets. Unfortunately, with some of these programs and projects going forward, there are colour-coded spreadsheets, but it's all red. It's all Labor.</para>
<para>You only have to look at the latest round of the Black Spot Program put in place by the government. Every one of the 25 or 26 projects in New South Wales were in Labor seats. That is disgraceful. I know the minister came out and gave an update, and said, 'It wasn't on the black-spot priority list.' Well, it was, but the minister argued the fact that they were election commitments. I know there has to be a place for election commitments. You cannot have candidates who hold absolutely no hope of ever getting elected going around spruiking and promising the world and then expecting their promises to get delivered. I get that; I understand that. But fair's fair. When it comes to priority black-spot areas, we should be doing it for those in need and for those most deserving, and many of those are in bushfire-prone areas. That last round was certainly a disgrace, because it was all Labor. It was a hundred per cent Labor in New South Wales, and that is simply not good enough.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia plays an important role. It was established by Labor in 2008 when the now Prime Minister, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, was the infrastructure minister. The reason I say it's a slight on the Prime Minister is that this is his baby. I've heard the member for Grayndler speak eloquently—I'll say—but passionately about the role of Infrastructure Australia, and yet now what we see is the board of 12 being replaced by three commissioners appointed by the minister. This provides less authority for the infrastructure priorities of nation. I would question where those three will come from. Will they all come from a particular state? Will it be one of the larger states—say, New South Wales or perhaps Victoria, so that we can appease the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews? I appreciate too that we're wall-to-wall mainland Australia Labor states. I just don't see the benefit of slashing nine positions and replacing them with three, because you get nine less views. You get nine less opinions on infrastructure projects. You can argue all you like about Infrastructure Australia and maybe say it's unwieldy, but when you get 12 positions—a 12-person board—you have the ability to have people from all over Australia, including all six states and the two territories. When you've only got three, that limits you. Do you get Western Australia, who don't have one of those three, questioning, perhaps quite correctly, why they have missed out? You might get Tasmania or, indeed, they might all be from the ACT. That'd make it easy; they could appear in meetings. There's every state. The Northern Territory may complain that their views are not being heard or listened to.</para>
<para>We've heard a lot from Labor this year about the Voice. When it comes to infrastructure, this is taking the voice away from those states, from those communities and certainly from the regions that need it so much. I would contend that the infrastructure needs and priorities of this nation are not going to be met as well if this bill passes, because we're going to see a watering down of what Infrastructure Australia stood for, something that the Prime Minister put in place back in 2008 when he was infrastructure minister, and that is a great pity.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Member for Riverina. Let it not be said that regional voices don't get a fair hearing in here!</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:40</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>